Backing Bhav: Compassion or Complicity?
BY: ROCANA DASA
Aug 10, CANADA (SUN) Today's Counterpoint is in response to two articles, by Praghosa dasa and "Krishna Mike", both of whom write in support of Bhavananda dasa. Thanks to their rebuttals of my article "Bhav Is Black", we have a clear illustration of how it is that Bhavananda was able to come back after all the incredibly offensive activities he engaged in. It is people like Praghosa dasa and Krishna Mike who helped keep Bhavananda in power for as long as he was, until his nefarious activities forced the GBC to remove him. Praghosa and Krishna Mike seem to forget that it wasn't me who took away Bhavananda's sacred service in the first place, it was the GBC. Frankly, it was way overdue.
There are two main aspects of Praghosa prabhu's article that I'd like to address. First of all, I find it quite incredible when Godbrothers such as Praghosa, and many others I've met over the years, justify their positions based on a conception that they know absolutely what Srila Prabhupada would do under certain circumstances. They often base these conclusions on some anecdotal experience they had or something they read in regards to Srila Prabhupada, and use that as their main argument.
Srila Prabhupada is a nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acarya, consequently there is no possible way that we can ever imitate or conceive of what he would actually do in applying his Krsna Consciousness to a given situation after his lila had been wound up. We can learn a great deal from his instructions, but we cannot superimpose our knowledge over a circumstance on Srila Prabhupada's behalf and pretend that this is exactly what he'd say or do. Praghosa states that Bhavananda "is and will always be a very dear servant to Srila Prabhupada." Of course, Praghosa has no way of knowing this, and his making such an assertion on Srila Prabhupada's personal behalf is simply pretentious.
Praghosa goes on to say:
"I know Rocan prabhu and others will argue that his particular offenses bar him from "picking up from where he left off" but that is not correct. In fact he is not really at liberty to think like that. In consultation with Godbrothers who know what he is capable of and also what is most needed - he is now trying to see where his talents and energy can best serve the interests of Srila Prabhupada."
Praghosa prabhu is very mistaken to think that I am not at liberty to challenge the GBC/leaders who have agreed to let Bhavananda return to the Holy Dhama. Some of these are the very men who covered up Bhavananda's serious abuses over the years. They were his staunch supporters even while he continued to victimize devotees. They actually kicked others out of the movement for criticizing this abuser. Now Praghosa thinks we should "take their word for it" that Bhavananda is best suited to serve by being re-instated at Mayapur.
I'm not claiming that Bhavananda can't chant Hare Krsna or worship the Deities, or even go out and preach in whatever capacity he can. Praghosa dasa makes it sound like unless you join today's ISKCON, you're not engaged in devotional service. But as we know, Bhavananda could certainly serve Srila Prabhupada from outside of the institution, too.
Praghosa disagrees with my claim that it was a very foolish thing for ISKCON to re-admit Bhavananda, not only back into ISKCON, but into the highest profile part of ISKCON, namely Sridhama Mayapur. Not only that, but from what we gather by the actual photographs and reports that have been coming out of Mayapur, everyone is treating him like royalty. He's giving lectures from the temple asana, is being interviewed, and is lecturing to groups of congregational members. High profile devotees such as Ambarish dasa are lining up preaching venues and introducing him to the life members. What do they think, that people have short memories, or that Bhavananda's nefarious activities in the past aren't part of common knowledge in ISKCON history?
I'm saying that for the benefit of Srila Prabhupada's movement, Bhavananda should not be included at this level of participation. That doesn't preclude him from otherwise engaging in devotional service. Praghosa dasa brings up the point that during his devotional career, Bhavananda was given Sridhama Mayapura as his prabhu-datta-desha and therefore he's entitled to everything that was recently given to him on the basis of that principle. Praghosa thinks it's our Krsna Conscious duty to facilitate Bhavananda at the same level he enjoyed in the past, regardless of all the elephant offenses he has committed in the interim. I disagree entirely.
As I've made our readers aware, my local GBC, Hari Vilasa dasa, won't allow me to sit on the asana here in my prabhu-datta-desha, Vancouver, where I joined and was Temple President for many years. I'm banned simply on account of the fact that I publicly criticize people like Bhavananda on this website. I, and many other disciples of Srila Prabhupada just like me have been banned from service within ISKCON after dedicating our lives to Srila Prabhupada's movement for decades. We have been ejected simply because we've challenged the leaders and brought to light the truth about their activities. Yet the red carpet is rolled out for Bhavananda just because it used to be, in the old days - never mind that he has repeatedly engaged in deviant sexual behaviour of the worst kind, right under the noses of the Deities. So where is the equality or justice in ISKCON?
Krishna Mike admonishes me for pretending to speak on behalf of other devotees. Well I represent thousands and thousands of devotees who are not invited to return to their Spiritual Master's home, who are not made welcome there by the leadership of ISKCON. They are not able to re-engage in their service, no matter if it is their prabhu-datta-desa or if they poured many years of their life's work into a local temple project. They are callously tossed aside for infractions which, compared to Bhavananda's, are less than nothing. How do I know that I speak for them? They've been telling me so, for many years now.
Krishna Mike foolishly states that if Bhavananda's victims lost their faith, this was simply a sign that their faith was not very strong to begin with. It is not surprising that this is the mentality of a Bhavananda supporter. Krishna Mike goes on to remind us that Srila Prabhupada said 'be surprised by who stays, not by who leaves'. Of course, in the case of Bhavananda, we have good reason to wonder if he has returned because he's looking for a set-up that will give him easy access to new victims. This possibility doesn't occur to either Krishna Mike or Praghosa dasa regardless of the fact that upon his last return, Bhavananda did just that -- he re-offended.
Krishna Mike suggests that Bhavananda has been well respected in New York all these years. Of course, a raving homosexual doesn't raise any eyebrows in NYC, but out here in the rest of the world -- especially in India and the Holy Dhama - it does. New York is Babylon in the eyes of most of the whole planet, so it's not a particularly good reference in Bhavananda's case. And while Krishna Mike suggests that I don't know there's a big difference between homosexuals and pedophiles, I certainly do know that, and I did not blur the distinction in my article. This has little to do with homosexuality, but everything to do with deviancy.
Praghosa stated,
"Most of us have failed Srila Prabhupada in one way or another. But if we allow our failings to serve as an excuse that we might utilize to condone NOT serving the interests of Srila Prabhupada and Lord Chaitanya, then we are simply not sincere or we are completely captured by Maya."
Of course, Praghosa doesn't mention the dynamic wherein it is the GBC who use a devotee's supposed failings to keep them from serving. What kind of Maya is that, exactly?
I'm sure that the authorities in ISKCON don't think that my creating and maintaining HareKrsna.com is a service to Srila Prabhupada and Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. According to them, unless you actually re-join the institution or have something direct to do with ISKCON, then you're not serving Srila Prabhupada. Never did Srila Prabhupada himself say such a thing. While this might have applied during his lila period, after his departure, when his instructions are no longer properly followed, there's just no way this principle applies.
Both Praghosa dasa and Krishna Mike rely on Bhavananda's past history in regards to what took place in Navadwipa. They promote the story to good effect, reminding us that Bhavananda was 'dragged through the streets'. This story may or may not be true, I can't personally attest to it. If it is true, then I'm sure Srila Prabhupada was concerned and pleased that Bhavananda stood up for ISKCON. But at the same time, let's not forget that while Srila Prabhupada was still here, Bhavananda got caught sexually abusing an underage boy in the goshalla. If he had been caught by the boy's father, he might have found himself being dragged down the street in chains under entirely different circumstances. Would Srila Prabhupada have been pleased about that?
For those who don't know the story, at the 1976 festival in Mayapur, Bhavananda was caught anally penetrating the goshalla boy in the barn, in front of Krishna's cows. The devotee who caught him was severely threatened by the leaders that if he told anything about this, there would be heavy consequences. Still it was brought to Srila Prabhupada's attention, and he did deal with it a little differently than the subsequent situation with Hankara in Vrndaban, which Payonidhi dasa recently wrote about. The Hankara incident was revealed in Allhabad after this incident in Mayapur with Bhavananda.
When Srila Prabhupada was told about Bhavananda being caught, he was told that the barn boy was a young man. In fact, he was a child of 14 or 15. Srila Prabhupada was told that the sex was consensual, but the boy swore had been forced into it. Srila Prabhupada was told that he was not a devotee, but just a hired laborer. It's true that he was being paid, but he had also attended programs and chanted, so we can assume that Srila Prabhupada would likely have considered him a devotee.
Bhavananda's actions against the children had either not started yet or were not yet brought to light. Srila Prabhupada initially wanted Bhavananda to take off the sannyas dress, but Bhavananda begged for mercy to not be humiliated. Srila Prabhupada encouraged him to marry, but we can understand how an avowed homosexual would respond to that suggestion. Srila Prabhupada, having been told that this was a consensual act between two men, treated it as he would a falldown between a sannyasi and a woman. He agreed to let Bhavananda remain in sannyas dress if he performed some atonement, which is how the chaturmas tapasya began. That is when he performed severe austerities to atone for his acts. Srila Prabhupada warned him that a subsequent fall would be the end of his sannyas.
As we see, Srila Prabhupada warned Bhavananda and gave him a second chance, telling him that the next time, he was going to be out. Was there a next time? Of course. There were many 'next times' after that. Bhavananda threw away the benefit of Srila Prabhupada's having given him a second chance, by re-offending, in short order. How many times did Srila Prabhupada say that you can't be like the elephant who bathes himself, than immediately rolls in the dirt. We know that Bhavananda just kept on doing these activities, and for all we know is still doing them. Did the GBC get a sworn affidavit that he wasn't going to engage in these abominable activities anymore? Was his public pledge a prerequisite for him being allowed to return? I doubt it. Not that I think it would make any difference.
The scope of Bhavananda's offenses range beyond sexually abusing minors in the cow barn. For example, there is a lecture on tape of Srila Sridhar Maharaja talking about how he is forgiving Bhavananda for sending someone to murder him. The attempted murderer cried to Srila Shridhar Maharaja to forgive him for even considering to murder him. The man admitted that he had been paid by Bhavananda to murder Srila Shridhar Maharaja.
I was personally at the Mayapur festival in the early 1980's when Bhavananda sat on the Zonal Acarya asana and went absolutely ballistic on HH Sridhar Maharaja. It was totally over the top. I can imagine that his mood at that time could easily have led him to hire someone to murder Sridhar Maharaja. There were complaints even amongst the senior GBC at the time, who also thought that Bhavananda was out of line. Of course, he thought he was wonderful, 'giving Sridhar the sauce'.
As I've said many times, if there had been a free press during the early days of ISKCON, Bhavananda wouldn't be around now because there would have been a great public outcry at the mention of his re-admittance. But because ISKCON history has been totally white-washed, we're now having to suffer the anxiety of seeing Bhavananda re-instated at the Holy Dhama.
Our philosophy is based on the principle of personalism. Great devotees such as Srila Prabhupada are capable of having personal relationships with all of us. Srila Prabhupada undoubtedly had a great deal of compassion and patience for those who joined in the early days, but that's his relationship with these individuals, not our relationship. While Srila Prabhupada showed mercy to Bhavananda, it's not our business as disciples to try and imitate or imagine what Srila Prabhupada's relationship was. Of course, this is what Praghosa dasa tries to do throughout his entire article.
Praghosa always likes to insert in his articles anecdotal pastimes he had with Srila Prabhupada, just to let everyone know his status. In this case, it has absolutely no relevance to the circumstance under discussion. The story from 1974 in Hawaii has no significance to the arguments at hand, other than to make Praghosa dasa look like an important person.
As for bringing up the pastimes of Narada Muni taking the dust from the gopis' feet, I don't see how that is very applicable to the situation either. Who among us is anywhere near the level of the damsels of Braja? This hardly applies to someone as gross as Bhavananda. Praghosa even brings up the example of Arjuna, which is based on the same principle. If he likes to think that way that's his concern, but it certainly has no relevance to the matter at hand.
Praghosa writes,
"Like any father, he [Srila Prabhupada] was quick to overlook our defects and failings and even more quickly disposed to exaggerate our positive efforts in his service. This quality of Srila Prabhupada is well known to everyone and there are literally hundreds of examples of his offering his disciples chance upon chance upon chance to move forward in their devotional service - no matter what kind of accidental or even deliberate interupption or deviation would raise its head."
While Praghosa dasa tells us lots of nice stories, we can also look directly to Srila Prabhupada to see just how unsentimental he was when faced with certain of his devotee's offenses. In the transcript from a Morning Walk on July 13, 1974 in Los Angeles, Srila Prabhupada is discussing the 'rascal', Syamasundara:
Prabhupada: Theft charges. He's, he stolen money, and he has stolen something in Bombay also.
Jayatirtha: Prabhupada, they still have so many debts from last year.
Prabhupada: Eh?
Jayatirtha: They still owe money for last year's festival, so many thousands.
Prabhupada: Yes. It is... And even somehow or other, he goes out, then he should not be allowed strictly either in our, this temple or that temple.
Brahmananda: Yes.
Prabhupada: Let him go to hell.
So Srila Prabhupada said Syamasundara could go to hell for stealing money, and should not come back to any of our temples, yet Praghosa would have us believe that Bhavananda should be permitted back in the limelight at the Holy Dhama simply because Srila Prabhupada once gave him a break. Never mind that Srila Prabhupada was lied to regarding the details of Bhavananda's actual offense, and that he has sexually abused children and led many others astray down the path of sexually deviancy. No matter. Praghosa and Krishna Mike say he should be welcomed back.
Praghosa prabhu goes on to say that I've misrepresented Srila Prabhupada in the sense that according to him, Srila Prabhupada would definitely wish Bhavananda to revive his "famously intense mood of service". This is all just a matter of conjecture on Praghosa's part. While it's true that Bhavananda did have an intense mood for sense gratification, we can't be sure that he had such an intense mood for service to Srila Prabhupada.
What Praghosa dasa is really saying is that as long as you have a lot of friends in high places, you're welcome to come back, no matter how dark your past. As long as you tow the party line and don't disagree with anything the GBC comes up with in terms of siddhanta, that qualifies you. While Praghosa dasa may find it convenient to tow the party line, it's a price I'm certainly not willing to pay.
My faith in Srila Prabhupada and our philosophy wasn't shattered, but I'm certainly disgusted by this demon who's claiming to be a Vaisnava. Our philosophy is that we're supposed to expose people like that. We can use Srila Prabhupada as our example. He criticized his own Godbrothers, who were lily white in comparison to someone like Bhavananda.
Anyone who now supports Bhavananda's return will be fully complicit when and if he re-offends. Personally, I believe that Bhavananda has a sickness that is inconceivable to the average person. In my mind, trusting Bhavananda not to offend is like being the camel who trusted the scorpion not to bite him if he gave him a ride across the river. It's just his nature. Not to recognize that is folly. All those who supported him in the past are certain to get a reaction. I'm making a big issue out of it now as a duty to Srila Prabhupada, and to protect my own devotional creeper. To not speak out against this is to accept it, which none of us should do.
