Physician, Heal Thyself
BY: ROCANA DASA
Oct 19, 2011 — CANADA (SUN) — This is my second response to Pusta Krishna das. In today's article, "The Farm in 1976 and More ", Pusta Krishna first lets us all know that he didn't do any horrible things in ISKCON, and therefore he has nothing to repent. From a relative point of view, compared to others on the GBC and in a position similar to his, he was far more 'austere and equipoised'. He was a sweetie-pie swami. At least, that's his perspective.
He goes on to say that repentance is not in our philosophy; it's not in our conception of spirituality. He gives an off-the-cuff reference to Srimad Bhagavatam, without citing a specific verse, but the reference is actually about breaking Vedic injunctions, whereas in Pusta Krishna's case, we are talking about offending the Spiritual Master, who is directly engaged in the mission to spread Krsna consciousness around the world. So there's a huge difference between the prayaschitta circumstance he refers to and the sorts of offenses we're talking about in reference to himself. The references below are far more appropriate than the ones he quotes.
While Pusta Krishna accuses me of promoting 'Catholic ideas' about repentance, his notion that all you need to do is chant Hare Krishna (Bg 18.66) and all your offenses are resolved is what really sounds 'Catholic' – not my references to repentance, as Srila Prabhupada himself has described it. Pusta Krishna suggested to me that "A reversion to Catholic ways may make one think that you were affected by the mixed preaching style of one Kirtanananda." But consider that comment in light of Srila Prabhupada's comments on repentance; this serves as an indicator of Pusta Krishna's confused thinking.
Here, for the record and for Pusta Krishna's enlightenment are some real quotes from Srila Prabhupada and Srimad Bhagavatam, which refute his misconceptions about repentance:
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.19.1:
TRANSLATION
"Sri Suta Gosvami said: While returning home, the King [Maharaja Pariksit] felt that the act he had committed against the faultless and powerful brahmana was heinous and uncivilized. Consequently he was distressed.
PURPORT
The pious King regretted his accidental improper treatment of the powerful brahmana, who was faultless. Such repentance is natural for a good man like the King, and such repentance delivers a devotee from all kinds of sins accidentally committed. The devotees are naturally faultless. Accidental sins committed by a devotee are sincerely regretted, and by the grace of the Lord all sins unwillingly committed by a devotee are burnt in the fire of repentance."
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.18.31:
TRANSLATION
"Upon returning, he began to contemplate and argue within himself whether the sage had actually been in meditation, with senses concentrated and eyes closed, or whether he had just been feigning trance just to avoid receiving a lower ksatriya.
PURPORT
The King, being a devotee of the Lord, did not approve of his own action, and thus he began to wonder whether the sage was really in a trance or was just pretending in order to avoid receiving the King, who was a ksatriya and therefore lower in rank. Repentance comes in the mind of a good soul as soon as he commits something wrong."
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.26.18:
TRANSLATION
"The great sage Narada continued: My dear King Pracinabarhi, as soon as King Purasjana saw his Queen lying on the ground, appearing like a mendicant, he immediately became bewildered.
PURPORT
In this verse the word avadhutam is especially significant, for it refers to a mendicant who does not take care of his body. Since the Queen was lying on the ground without bedding and proper dress, King Purasjana became very much aggrieved. In other words, he repented that he had neglected his intelligence and had engaged himself in the forest in killing animals. In other words, when one's good intelligence is separated or neglected, he fully engages in sinful activities. Due to neglecting one's good intelligence, or Krsna consciousness, one becomes bewildered and engages in sinful activities. Upon realizing this, a man becomes repentant. Such repentance is described by Narottama dasa Thakura:
hari hari viphale janama gonainu
manusya-janama paiya,
radha-krsna na bhajiya,
janiya suniya visa khainu
Narottama dasa Thakura herein says that he repents for having spoiled his human life and knowingly drunk poison. By not being Krsna conscious, one willingly drinks the poison of material life. The purport is that one certainly becomes addicted to sinful activities when he becomes devoid of his good chaste wife, or when he has lost his good sense and does not take to Krsna consciousness.
Second Chance, Chapter 15 - Atonement:
Offenses Against the Holy Name
"Even a devotee may sometimes commit some sinful activity, either unknowingly or due to past sinful behavior. But if he sincerely repents, thinking, "I should not have done this, but I am so sinful that I have again committed this sin," the Supreme Lord will excuse him on the basis of his genuine repentance. However, if he intentionally commits sinful activities, expecting that the Lord will forgive him because he is chanting Hare Krsna, that is inexcusable."
Evening Darsana with Srila Prabhupada, August 11, 1976:
"Who is going to see, your spiritual master." "Yes." That is possible. But if he comes to his sense again, "Oh, what I have done?" If he repents, "I promised it before my spiritual master, before God, before fire. Now I'm doing this?" that repentance will help him. And if he thinks that "I'm doing it. My spiritual master is not here, let me fall to it," then he is finished. Then he is finished. If he repents for the wrong he has done, then he's excused. Otherwise finished."
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
After the recent exchange of articles with Pusta Krishna das, it's now obvious to us all that he left Srila Prabhupada's personal service and the sannyasa asrama; that he wanted to stay in the United States because his mother had cancer, and because he was hankering to return to medical school. While he admits his attachment to family and professional life, he continues to deny that he has done anything 'wrong'. In front of the fire, in front of the Spiritual Master, in front of all the devotees, he swore that he would uphold the sannyasa asrama; as a disciple, he accepted a permanent post to serve as Srila Prabhupada's secretary; and he accepted the post of GBC. He did not maintain these duties, but instead left to pursue family and business life. Now he is back, talking in absolutist terms with a great air of authority. 'Where is the problem?', he asks. He suggests that as a sannyasi, his attachment for his mother was simply human: "…Maya, perhaps, but I am human and I have a heart." This is the equivalent of saying that the sastric injunctions and the Spiritual Master's instructions for sannyasis are somehow inhuman, and he is above that, which I find offensive.
We have appreciated hearing Pusta Krishna's personal story, about Srila Prabhupada's instruction to go to South Africa, and later instructions regarding his service as personal secretary. Srila Prabhupada apparently understood that Pusta Krishna wanted to remain in the place of his birth and very kindly gave him the service to become a GBC on the West Coast. Although he chides me for 'being at a loss' about how he came to be a GBC in this part of the world, that should be no surprise, given that it's not public knowledge and it's not stated in the GBC Resolutions. But now that he has shared the information, we can see that the fact that he was a GBC for the West Coast actually reinforces the points made in my previous article.
I was a Temple President on the West Coast at that particular time. I was the Temple President of the Bridesville project we have been discussing. Bridesville was completely separate from Vancouver or Seattle. I personally went to Srila Prabhupada and requested that the GBC look into the circumstances at Bridesville, and it is for that reason that Pusta Krishna was deputed to deal with it. But rather than coming to Bridesville to talk to me about the situation, he instead went to Vancouver and talked to Bahudak das, who had created the problems at Bridesville. Of course, it was in Bahudak's personal interest by this point to have the farm dissolved, because then he could get back some of the manpower that he originally took from Vancouver and sent to Bridesville when he started that project.
There's a whole history surrounding Bahudak and the Bridesville project, which I have written about in the past. He purchased the farm, he manned it with devotees from Vancouver, and he moved the Deities from Vancouver up to the farm. Things didn't go well, and I was sent in to unravel the problems. I encouraged him to return to Vancouver where I had previously been the Temple President, so that I could take over Bridesville and help sort out the mess.
Yet Pusta Krishna, simply because he had known Bahudak in the past, went to Vancouver and took his advice on things. He then came to Bridesville and never talked to me, or to anyone else there, even though I was the one who had initiated the request for GBC support. After cloistering himself for a few days in his cabin, Pusta Krishna announced that he'd made the decision to close it down (based on Bahudak's obviously motivated desire), and he left Bridesville. In today's article, he writes: "I did not close down the farm the next day as you have said. That is untrue." But that's not what I said. I wrote: "You came to Bridesville for a few days in September 1976, and the project was closed down immediately after your departure." 'Immediately after' is not the same thing as 'the next day', and it's inarguable that right after his visit, the farm was closed, and he promptly left the movement, left sannyasa, left his post as a GBC, left Srila Prabhupada. And this he doesn't deny.
In today's article, Pusta Krishna includes a brief letter from Srila Prabhupada. We do not find that letter in our version of the Folio, nor does it specifically refer to the Bridesville farm. Furthermore, it was written well before his visit to the Bridesville farm, and he did not share that letter with me, the Temple President of the farm project he was shutting down, or with any of the devotees at Bridesville who were about to be displaced. Why is that?
He also referred to a letter from Srila Prabhupada to him dated November 5, 1977, but does not share the contents with us. That letter is also not found in our version of the Folio. Perhaps he would be good enough to share a copy with us.
My original point about Pusta Krishna das and Bridesville was that he didn't execute his duties as GBC. And in fact, this was true not only at Bridesville, but as he tells us in today's article, it was also true in San Francisco. Pusta Krishna got all the warning signs about the women's party that had originated in New Vrindaban and was transferred over to San Francisco, where Caru das (now of Spanish Fork fame) and Jiva das were actively exploiting all these women. Pusta Krishna admits that for many women, their whole lives were ruined, including their spiritual life, but says he only learned later on how the women were being horribly abused in that party. I find this hard to believe, given how widespread the knowledge was at that time amongst the leaders about what was going on with the women's party. It was particularly common knowledge on the West Coast. So it was going on right under the nose of the GBC for the West Coast, and he didn't know a thing about it? How often have we heard that excuse in ISKCON over the years?
All indications are that he ignored the problem, because his mind wasn't on it. He didn't want to do this kind of work, just as he didn't want to deal with the situation at Bridesville. He tries to rationalize his abdication of duty by suggesting that it was not a GBC mandate or duty, which is ridiculous. This is exactly what Srila Prabhupada wanted the GBC to do – see the warning signs of problems the devotees were struggling with, go in, and do the hard work of fixing problems, by applying the philosophy and preaching to the devotees.
Whether or not Pusta Krishna now wants to consider this a problem or mistake, or an offense that requires some degree of humility and admission, that's up to him. I'm sharing my own personal experience with him, and how myself and many other devotees were impacted due to his lack of focus and dedication to his service as one of Srila Prabhupada's GBC. Under the watch of he and his GBC associates at the time, many problems were created, and many were not solved. And he admits that in his case, it was because he was thinking about leaving sannyasa, getting back to his mother, and getting back to pursuing his medical career. And that's basically all I've said, from the very beginning.
My initial comments were directed at the degree of arrogance and undeserved assumed authority that permeate Pusta Krishna's writings, including his article today. In fact, because I didn't immediately publish his article of today, but held it for an extra day so I'd have an opportunity to respond, he wrote me another personal letter in which he further insulted me and misconstrued my real motives. His letter ranks right up there with the topmost arrogant, puffed-up letters I've ever received from vainglorious personalities such as himself in my years at the Sun.
Dr. Paul H. Dossick, MD (Pusta Krishna das)
In his effort to extol his own virtues as one who has nothing to repent, Pusta Krishna has exposed himself on so many fronts – not just past, but present. For example, he lets us known that he supports Hari Vilasa, who we read about just yesterday in the Seattle Durga puja report. On one hand, Pusta Krishna says that the GBC should be putting a stop to worshipping demigods, but at the same time he's supporting a GBC who personally engages in it. As a GBC, Hari Vilasa dasa has free reign to do anything he wants, and the other GBC's will never step in to deal with him. Hari Vilasa is now in cahoots with Radhanath Swami, and the two are working together in various ways. At ISKCON Seattle, Hari Vilasa is the GBC and Radhanath is the diksa guru who's getting top billing. Most if not all the new initiates in Seattle these days are becoming Radhanath disciples, and in return, Radhanath instructs his disciples to unquestioningly obey and follow Hari Vilas as the GBC. It's a very nice arrangement. Radhanath takes advantage of his trips to Seattle to get his face out into public view, and even has a local public relations firm now engaged as his advance team.
So the very thing Pusta Krishna mentions in this article as being something he's personally against, is the same thing he's also supporting. This is but one of several hypocritical positions we seen him take in recent weeks here at the Sun, and this is one of the reasons we're addressing him. In return, he's called me a Catholic, an aparadhi, and suggested that I'm anti-Hindu, which is a ridiculous claim. I've published many positive articles about many temples that are primarily Indian, and following strictly. What Pusta Krishna refers to as me being 'anti-Indian' is actually me, repeating the message of Srila Prabhupada. He says this message is no longer relevant, because the Western Indians now have Prabhupada's books, and they've all become Krishna bhaktas. But we only have to look at the Seattle Durga-puja to see that some are not reading Prabhupada's books and following them.
The very essence of my beliefs and the Sampradaya Sun's objective is to point out deviations that I feel are taking place -- deviations from Srila Prabhupada's teachings and from sastra, and I speak out about those things and point them out where I see them going on, Indian or non-Indian. So it is actually Pusta Krishna who appears to be the bigot here.
Pusta Krishna has simply exposed himself as an arrogant, unrepentant personality who wants his readership, the rest of the Vaisnava community, to look up to him as a great authority on account of the fact that he had some personal association with Srila Prabhupada. He wants us to overlook the fact that he abandoned Srila Prabhupada and his service. Granted, he does not carry the same stigma as some of the other leaders, because he left early – he did not become a Zonal Acarya, for example. He didn't go to the Gaudiya Math, although he is fond of praising Srila Sridhar and various Gaudiya Math personalities, and he has some opinions that I disagree with in regards to his perception of Srila Prabhupada… but that's a discussion for another day.
Pusta Krishna das takes every opportunity to give the impression that he was a special, confidential servant of Srila Prabhupada during his lila. He likes to believe that he doesn't have to feel guilty or have any remorse about his past actions, nor does he need to have a repentant attitude towards the fact that he left Srila Prabhupada. I think this is a false belief, and I'm pointing out to him that I don't share that opinion of him. As Srila Prabhupada said: repent – otherwise, finished.
I'm suggesting that if Pusta Krishna das would take a far more humble mood, then it would not only serve him, it would better serve the rest of us. Instead of calling me an aparadhi and arrogantly offering to fix what's broken about me, prabhu should take to heart the old saying, "Physician, heal thyself".
