His Divine Grinch Srila Deviant-pada
In the previous issue, we detailed that there exists a letter signed by HH Lokanath swami (LOK) in which he admits to sexual abuse of a minor. We also detailed that to get around this damning evidence, ISKCON India leader Basu Ghosh dasa claimed (on 28/8/21) that LOK only signed this letter under pressure from the GBC, who had "compelled" him to sign. However, Sanak Sanatana Dasa ("SSD"), who is on the same ISKCON India leadership body as BGD (the ICC), gives a different version. He claims that rather than LOK bowing to GBC pressure and agreeing to sign this letter, LOK completely rejected the letter outright:
"It was put in front of Maharaja and Maharaja clearly objected and said that is not what has happened [...] he strongly objected to that, and that letter was never sent out. [...] I can make a letter about you and I publish it on the internet and [...] I even can somehow or another get hold of your signature [...] say look he typed it and he signed it."
(SSD Interview, 16/10/21)
Thus, in order to defend LOK, the ICC first needs to get its story straight. Did LOK sign the letter under compulsion or just reject it? In addition, in a social media post on 15/10/21, Basu Ghosh Dasa (BGD) adds to his defence of LOK's signing the letter by stating that it was:
"Actually, written by a group that was asked to do so by the GBC authorities during 2010."
However, in the same post, he also states in regard to LOK's alleged sexual abuse, that unless one was "present when the alleged sexual abuse took place", then one has "no first hand knowledge of what transpired", and thus "just making an allegation does not make it a fact or the truth."
However, by BGD's own argument, in order to substantiate his allegations about LOK's letter, it would require that BGD was personally "present" when:
1) This unnamed "group" was asked by the GBC authorities to write this letter.
2) The group wrote this letter.
3) The GBC "compelled" LOK to sign this letter.
But BGD has never offered proof that he was "present" for these 3 events, nor has he even claimed he was present.
Thus, in order to defend LOK, the ICC first needs to get its story straight. Did LOK sign the letter under compulsion or just reject it? In addition, in a social media post on 15/10/21, Basu Ghosh Dasa (BGD) adds to his defence of LOK's signing the letter by stating that it was:
"Actually, written by a group that was asked to do so by the GBC authorities during 2010."
However, in the same post, he also states in regard to LOK's alleged sexual abuse, that unless one was "present when the alleged sexual abuse took place", then one has "no first hand knowledge of what transpired", and thus "just making an allegation does not make it a fact or the truth."
However, by BGD's own argument, in order to substantiate his allegations about LOK's letter, it would require that BGD was personally "present" when:
1) This unnamed "group" was asked by the GBC authorities to write this letter.
2) The group wrote this letter.
3) The GBC "compelled" LOK to sign this letter.
But BGD has never offered proof that he was "present" for these 3 events, nor has he even claimed he was present.
[PADA: Right, Basu Ghosh Dasa says he is working closely with Bhakti Vikas swami, and evidently with Lokanath, but their story keeps changing. It looks very much like another case of GBC "making it up as they go along." Can they actually state what their final position is here? Are pedophiles Lord Krishna's acharyas, yes or no? And why can't they answer clearly since 1978. They evidently, do not know the answer. And why are the GBC leaders saying it is common for acharyas to be fallen and degraded, when this is not what shastra says. ys pd]
PADA: Falling into difficulty? Ya think so?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.