Aug 05, 2013 — CANADA (SUN) — As confirmed by GBC/ISKCON's official announcement of August 3rd, Mahanidhi is now acknowledged as having fallen from his sannyasa vows, and has announced his departure from ISKCON. Upon reading the GBC Executive Committee's letter, we had the distinct impression that we were reading a form letter, and listening to a lite church sermon, both. We are probably not alone in that experience.
This is true not only because the Mahanidhi letter follows so closely on the heels of the Prabhavisnu letter, but also due to the impersonal quality of the letter. Yes, in a prayerful mood they prayed for Mahanidhi, and us all, but there was nothing said to indicate the essence of the person who had experienced this great difficulty. There was more pasted-out content from the GBC's latest official paper than there was substantive explanation of what happened to the individual, Mahanidhi Swami, who has served as a spiritual authority to his disciples and to thousands of devotees who have read and accepted his books on transcendental subjects.
In fact, there are many problems with the GBC/ISKCON announcement letter, and we will mention them, just for the record:
Mahanidhi's resignation letter is not provided. It is apparent that all those who will truly be detrimentally affected by this situation have not earned the right to read the letter for themselves. Only the GBC/ISKCON leaders, who are the least affected, are privy to that information, along with perhaps the disciples. But the rest of us… we cannot judge for ourselves the mood and message of the resignation letter of a leader who has served Srila Prabhupada's society for 38 years. Did he decide to resign solely to avoid further investigation? Or where there other issues that caused him to leave the shelter of ISKCON, rather than stay and remediate his vows?
The GBC letter contained all the usual omissions, which are by now so familiar that they essentially represent a 'brand' for the ultimate governing body. They write:
"Prior to receiving that letter, reports were brought to our attention alleging inappropriate behavior on the part of Mahanidhi Swami on both a personal and philosophical level."
Reports were brought by whom? What was alleged, exactly? Given that Mahanidhi has apparently admitted his guilt and departed, why can we not be told what the allegations were -- particularly allegations related to philosophy? Should everyone stay in the dark, and just continue to accept whatever philosophical misconceptions Mahanidhi has been preaching, that are now understood by the GBC to be wrong? Or is that Mahanidhi hasn't actually admitted guilt in all this? Has he left ISKCON because he no longer accepts the philosophy as presented by Srila Prabhupada?
Why, if the GBC has investigated and found some allegations to be true, are they still unwilling to disclose the details? They tell us that after their investigation, the extent of the problems is still not clear. This would seem to indicate that either Mahanidhi refused to be honest with the investigators, or the investigation itself failed to be conclusive. Under what circumstances, then, did Mahanidhi choose to leave? Before being pressed to remediate by a GBC who had not yet come to informed conclusions? Or something else?
As usual, the GBC implores us to be "concerned about the well being of our fellow Vaishnavas", meaning particularly Mahanidhi, who we presume is now in a great deal of anxiety over all this. That's very regrettable. But also as usual, our greater sympathy goes out to all the disciples who are suffering, having accepted spiritual leadership from one who could not, or would not maintain the renunciation demanded of his asrama. They are the ones, yet again, who the GBC has failed to protect. The disciples suffer, Mahanidhi's trusting readership suffers, the preaching suffers, Srila Prabhupada's good name suffers. And yes, sadly, Mahanidhi suffers. And his suffering will no doubt be the greatest of all, because of the karmic burden attached to his actions.
The GBC have kindly reached out and met with Mahanidhi's followers and disciples to offer them support. It would be interesting to know what that level of support actually was. Did the GBC/ISKCON leadership promise to remediate themselves in their role as ultimate managing authorities, what to speak of "ecclesiastical authorities"? Has Prahladananda Swami, perennial head of the Ministry of Sannyasa Services, promised to begin remediating situations with swamis who are visibly, publicly spiralling down into behaviours and situations that conflict with their vows of renunciation? Or is it all just the usual.... the GBC/ISKCON leaders after the fact, with limpid smiles and canned speeches, promising to give all support to the broken-hearted disciples, offering 'whatever they need in the way of siksa or friendship'...? But what good is that, when they have not fulfilled their own vows and duties to prevent such disasters from happening in the first place? Of course, they are not the controllers, they cannot stop gurus or swamis from getting into difficulty and falling down, but there is so much that they can and should do, but do not. And that is the real point we wish to make here.
In a recent article about ISKCON As It Is, we explained that in future, we hope to slant Sun editorial commentary in a slightly new direction:
"We'll now begin to offer something new to the readership: more forward-looking articles that focus on how to fix what's broken, not simply reports on what's broke and who broke it. … The whole purpose of the Constitution is to embody in a written document the philosophical principles established by Srila Prabhupada that enable things to work properly in the Society... if the principles are actually followed."
So let us take the unfortunate opportunity of Mahanidhi's difficulties to do just that.
Of course, the Constitution is only in draft form and at the starting point. It will undoubtedly change and improve as the workgroup members share their thoughts on how our Society's philosophical principles should be enshrined in such a document. But as it stands at this writing, here are just some of the ways the proposed Constitution for ISKCON As It Is would have protected the members of the Society -- including the fallen guru/swami himself, his disciples, his readers, the general members of ISKCON and the broad society we are all trying to preach to:
First and foremost, there will be disclosure and transparency. News that the GBC has received complaints about the behavior of a guru or sannyasi, and that those complaints have been confirmed (even in part) as accurate, will not be kept a secret. This is information that everyone has a right of access to. We will not be some kind of secret society whose privileged leaders can trade on insider information, covering their own backsides as they arrange to sweep dirt under the rug. No. If there are allegations that prove to be factual and well-founded, they will become public knowledge. Everyone in the society -- every stakeholder in the chain of relationships -- will be as fully informed as possible so they can all take appropriate measures. Not be made to wait months, if not years, for the news to finally creep out, long after the damage is done.
Second, there will be brahminical oversight of the governing body members, ensuring that the latter body does not become unwittingly entangled in their own managerial situations, or comprised in such a way that they cannot act to remediate problems with other leaders of the society, who may likely be their friends and peers.
Third, all members of the society -- from the broadest strata (general congregation) to the highest levels of leadership -- will have an equal freedom and duty to scrutinize the performance of our leaders. A process will be in place to ensure that their concerns are not ignored or dismissed, but are acted upon immediately and in proper measure.
In the case of Mahanidhi, there are so many early warning signs that should have caught the attention of the GBC/ISKCON leaders, if they had been paying attention, or even cared to pay attention to such things. One of the comments being made often about this situation is that Mahanidhi was comfortably ensconced in his asrama at Radhakund, where he should not have been. Where was the oversight to ensure that a sannyasi was not residing long term in his own residence instead of constantly traveling and preaching? That oversight is there, in the draft Constitution.
There are unconfirmed reports that from among Mahanidhi's 60 disciples, 12 families from around the world sold their own homes, land or other assets to help build the Swami's asrama. Whatever the facts about the assets involved, where was the GBC oversight of a sannyasi's attachment to such facility? This is, of course, a problem inherent in the lives of those renounced to the sannyasa asrama, but who are also diksa gurus, and recipients of dakshina and opulent facility? With no oversight from the GBC -- or from a Sannyasa Ministry that has any teeth to take action on problems like this one (which Prahladananda Swami & company admittedly do not have) -- how can anyone in the society be protected?
It has been reported that as early as 2003, Mahanidhi was seen closely associating with the female disciple he fell down with. She was once married, and her divorce was apparently arranged, in part, by her guru. Absent from the situation was the all-important oversight from the GBC and Sannyasa Ministry, who should have scrutinized a situation in which a Swami was working closely, for years, with a female on his various books. This level of oversight is provided, and ensured at various levels in the draft Constitution. Such a situation would simply not be permitted to go on without remediation.
We are told that Mahanidhi had taken Babaji initiation from Ram Krsnadas Babaji, and had his picture on the altar next to Srila Prabhupada's. Where was the concern about his known association with the babajis of Radhakund -- something Srila Prabhupada warned his disciples away from? And what of the warnings about bathing in Radhakunda, and living in its confines? Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati himself said that he would not live at Radhakunda, but would only live at Govardhan and serve the maha-bhagavats living at Radhakunda.
But where was the GBC/Sannyasa Ministry oversight of Mahanidhi in this regard? This is an element provided for in the Constitution. Not that all gurus and swamis are left to their own devices, to spend the money disciples give so they can live in Radhakunda, take initiation from Babajis, and preach in the mood of the infamous Gopi Bhava Club. In fact, the tendency towards sahajiyaism that can effect devotees who engage in such practices is clearly evident in Mahanidhi's preaching, as evidenced by the video below (see 4:25 mark). The Constitution provides for a level of oversight that does not allow the GBC to sit idly by while this goes on. But where was the GBC/ISKCON oversight that should have immediately gotten a handle on such preaching? It was not there. And in fact, there are numerous other gurus and sannyasis in GBC/ISKCON preaching in this very same mood today. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before the Executive Committee must again fill-in their form letter, and publish it "with regrets".
We suggest that it's high time for a change. www.IskconAsItIs.com.
