Vaishnava Aparadha or Bona fide Criticism?
BY: ROCANA DASA
Nov 02, CANADA (SUN) — Dear Kripamoya das, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. It's always a pleasure and an honor to hear from you, and I appreciate your article today entitled "Vaisnava Aparadha". I'm hoping that as a result of our past close association, going back to the late 1970's and early 80's, the bond of friendship has been part of the catalyst for you writing to me. Hopefully you understand that like you, I'm also a sincere devotee. I was going to use the word "Vaisnava" – and that's the philosophical issue we're discussing in this article. Who qualifies to be recognized and treated as a Vaisnava?
You and I went through a very traumatic event in ISKCON together, at close range, and that is the demise and falldown of Jayatirtha. Both of us were in senior positions of authority at the Manor at that point in time. You were heading up the Bhakta Program, and I was heading up the Sankirtana. We associated closely at the Manor: you were taking the raw recruits and training them up to become disciples of Jayatirtha, and after they 'graduated', becoming initiated by him, I had the duty of trying to involve them in what was called the Sankirtana. At that time, 'Sankirtana' was primarily the department saddled with the responsibility of bringing in enough money to meet the Manor's overhead.
Without going into a long history of that period, the fact is that the circumstances we both went through under Jayatirtha serve as a perfect example of the concepts I'd like to address in answer to your various questions.
We both know, for instance, that at one point during that period, I would have gladly recognized -- and did recognize -- that Jayatirtha was a Vaisnava -- that he was sincere, that he loved Srila Prabhupada and was motivated to serve Krsna. Of all the Zonal Acaryas, Jayatirtha was considered by most devotees throughout the world to be the most humble of the lot. But somewhere along the line, he got off the track. One can speculate as to exactly when and why he decided to engage in unVaisnava-like activities, namely taking illicit intoxication, meaning drugs, and engaging in illicit sex. That was his decision. It was his free will to participate in the Zonal Acarya system, and that may have been the slippery slope, but regardless, the question is, at what point did he become a non-Vaisnava? So at one point Jayatirtha was a Vaisnava, as well as a Guru, and later even a Sannyasi, although by the time he became a Sannyasi he was already fallen. He was only given sannyasa as a way for the GBC to cover-up his falldown.
You were in the room with me, Kripamoya prabhu, along with all the other senior devotees, when Rameswar and Jayapataka told us the story that was so far-fetched, so untrue, so bogus in terms of why Jayatirtha fell down. Jayatirtha fell off the vyasasana while feigning ecstatic symptoms, when he was really just under the influence of drugs. The GBC whisked him off tO Los Angeles, where they put him under the light and decided they were going to cover it up – they would give him sannyasa as a purification. Then they sent him back to England. Of course, his wife and children were not taken into consideration in any way. So was that Vaisnava Aparadha? Was it Vaisnava Aparadha when the GBC lied to everyone, and shocked his wife, who in hindsight, was a better Vaisnava than he was? She didn't take drugs and engage in illicit sex, and neither did his children.
You asked me if I believe that Vaisnava Aparadha can be committed by any member of ISKCON if it appears to serve a higher purpose? My answer is no, I do not believe that. But that is exactly the mentality our ISKCON leaders engaged in with respect to Jayatirtha, and on so many other occasions.
Throughout the history of ISKCON, which individuals and groups committed the greatest number of aparadhas towards Vaisnavas: the rank and file devotees, or the authorities? Who justified all the cover-ups? That's part of what we're talking about here, I presume. You're writing in response to the fact that Hridayananda and Radhanath Swamis have been in the news here at the Sun, and in both situations, these Swamis have engaged in serious deviations which the leadership has covered-up. So do you admit the GBC have engaged in Vaisnava Aparadha in this regard?
This sort of thing has been standard practice since Srila Prabhupada departed, and perhaps even before. The authorities have gotten away, literally, with murder, what to speak of illicit sex, taking drugs, having a huge arsenal of guns and shooting them off indiscriminately, holding onto large sums of money, etc. Rameswar got into body building and going out to the gym every day, then became attracted to teenage girls. Bhagavan abandoned his family to take sannyasa so he could get more power. The number of offenses that these persons have committed is inconceivable. They were in a much greater position to directly effect the devotees than anyone who has criticized these fallen leaders. According to our philosophy, we should consider the devotees who were offended or put into great distress, and these were the rank and file -- devotees who were really sincere, who were strictly following, who were performing great austerities – much greater than the authorities did. You know, for instance, what those Sankirtana devotees in England were going through. The Zonal Acaryas wouldn't have lasted a day in one of those vans, constantly going out on the streets. But the rank and file devotees did… these so-called small-timers were essentially more advanced than the leaders.
Clearly, the reason these big leaders fell down is because of the offenses they committed, whether it was offenses to Srila Prabhupada, or offenses to the Holy Name, or the Deities, or the other devotees. Regardless, they committed huge offenses, and that's why they fell down. At the time each one of these leaders was falling down, any devotee who saw what was going on and criticized them was threatened with the Aparadhi Weapon. So tell me – how is it any different today?
So the question has been there since time immemorial – how do you know who is advanced and who is not advanced? You will recall the pastime in the Srimad Bhagavatam wherein the sages were trying to determine who is God, and who are the demigods, when they tested Lord Visnu, Shiva, and Brahma. Even those great sages had to test, because they didn't have the knowledge to identify who were the truly advanced personalities. And the fact is that we're all vulnerable. In this material world, as soon as one becomes weak in any aspect of their existence, they become vulnerable, whether it's physically weak, financially weak, or weak in all sorts of areas. But what makes you most vulnerable is that you're weak in knowledge – pure knowledge, Absolute Truth. And the great Sampradaya Acaryas and the sincere devotees of the Lord go to a great effort to offer knowledge, pure knowledge to the conditioned souls, especially those who are disciples and followers. We're given this knowledge to make us strong, so we will not become victims, and we will not suffer as a result of a poor fund of knowledge.
As I've been trying to say all along in my articles, we have to apply this knowledge. We have to use the knowledge and our own common sense, which is given to us by Krsna, and which is synonymous with being in touch with Chaitya Guru. So what do we do when the knowledge that we're given, combined with our common sense, tells us that a person is not acting according to Sastra, and according to Guru -- in our case, Srila Prabhupada. What do we do when we know Srila Prabhupada would not be happy or approve of someone's behaviours? When the qualities of a Vaisnava as described in sastra are not being exhibiting by someone, and instead their practical actions are observed to include offending the devotees, being heartless, showing no compassion, displaying lust, anger and greed… what do you do? What do you conclude about such behaviors?
Kripamoya prabhu, you ask if with the Sampradaya Sun, we want to contribute an organ of free speech that our Society never had before. First of all, ISKCON, as Srila Prabhupada wanted it, was to be a society, but now it's an institution. That's a far cry from what Srila Prabhupada wanted, and from what the definition of a society is. The type of society that Srila Prabhupada wanted was a varnasrama type of society. In other words, it included everybody. There were several layers of authority: the Sastra, the brahmans, and the king. Those who were authorities were actually judging the others: the brahmans were judging the king, and the vaisyas, and even the kshatriyas. The kshatriyas would criticize brahmans who were not living up to the brahminical standards, because sastra defined what those standards were. And the Kshatriyas had to give protection when they saw any of the citizens being abused in any way, even a cow, they would immediately take action to protect them. That was their duty.
So we know that within the higher echelons of our society, many sannyasis have been totally breaking with tradition. They have become rich and powerful – and where there's power and gold, they've become contaminated by it. So if one can't come to those conclusions, if one can't speak out against it, then you're not a Vaisnava, you're not a brahman. Because it's your duty to speak out and say what you sincerely believe to be true. Vaisnava Aparadha takes place when you have some other motive, other than speaking the truth – you have an ulterior motive. The person who's committing the aparadha is doing so out of lust, anger or greed, not out of compassion and a duty to tell the truth.
Kripamoya das, as you know from ISKCON history, going back to our own personal experiences, if the entire society had access to the Internet at the time Jayatirtha was falling down, and if you or I, or any of the other senior devotees had described what was going on in England, then the GBC wouldn’t have been able to cover it up. What if we had been able to broadcast the fact that Jayatirtha was getting stoned regularly, and having illicit sex as a sannyasi for a long period of time? How would that have affected the GBC's actions?
I was sent to England from Seattle for the sole purpose of keeping me from speaking to others about what Hansadutta was up to. As a result, he remained in power for years, and committed a tremendous number of offenses. And look where he ended up, and where Jayatirtha ended up. You and I both have close friends, including devotees you trained up in your Bhakta Program, who fared far worse than we did. They went off with Jayatirtha, having gotten entangled in his little cult, and their spiritual life was ruined. All this, because we didn't do our duty -- because we didn't have the facility, the opportunity to speak up. Yes, we could whisper in the back rooms to each other, but we couldn't go out and say, even to his own disciples: 'Your guru's in maya. He doesn't have Srila Prabhupada's blessings, he doesn't have the potency of the Sampradaya behind him. He is totally lost.' No, we couldn't say that. We had to stand there and watch the situation degenerate, because there was no such freedom to speak up. So in the end, who is suffering? So many devotees left, broken-hearted. Jayatirtha had his head cut off, and Hansadutta has become a madman. Bhagavan and Rameswar are Jewish businessmen.
So this whole question of Aparadha is very objective. Even the term "Vaisnava" -- how we define a "Vaisnava", how conditioned souls look at someone as a "Vaisnava", how they judge that the qualities someone is exhibiting are those of a "Vaisnava", or not. All these issues must be very carefully considered when engaging in the Vaisnava Aparadha debate, particularly in a society where so many fallen conditioned souls are holding positions of spiritual leadership in an institution in which the Acarya is no longer physically present.
One of the biggest downsides of the institutional paradigm, and one of the dangers that the GBC should be guarding against, is that people with institutional power should continually be subjected to the scrutiny of Sastra, Guru, and their own peers. That's what their duty is, and the GBC has completely let us down in this regard. That in itself is a sort of blanket aparadha, and it's a far greater offense than a rank and file devotee, in a sincere mood, making truthful critical comments about one of these leaders.
Personally, I don't have the power to do anything within the institution. I don't have a vote on the GBC, I don't have the ability to strip these contaminated leaders of their status, whether they be sannyasis, gurus, or GBC's, or whoever is propping them up. They have the opportunity to serve or to commit offenses, and as we know, the more power one has, the more opportunity they have to commit aparadhas. And their decisions, their attitudes have far-reaching impact, compared to someone like myself, just speaking through the Internet.
If you look honestly at ISKCON history when considering the question of who is trafficking in Vaisnava Aparadha, you'll find that it's people in power – those who are pretending to be advanced, who have accepted positions such as Sannyasi, Guru, and GBC. Many of them are pretending to be advanced, and they're not. They're hiding the fact that they're fallen. So when dealing with such persons, are you committing a Vaisnava Aparadha by not telling the truth about what you're seeing? My answer to that question is obvious.
Have we suffered as a result of being muted by what I call the Aparadhi Weapon, which is nothing more than a threat? Yes, I say that the devotees in ISKCON have suffered from such threats. Personally, there's no one I know who's advanced enough in our society today to tell me who among us is a truly advanced devotee, and who isn't, and to be absolutely sure about what they're telling me. I've come to the point in my life where I'm no longer intimidated by this Aparadhi threat. There's a risk, of course, and I pray to Krsna that if my motivation becomes impure, that He'll let me understand that what I'm doing is ill-motivated. Beyond that, I am responsible for my own actions.
As for others who are writing on the Sun, I've made the choice to facilitate publishing their opinions, and helping them to be heard on the Net through my website. We try to apply the principle of not facilitating anyone who is just ranting and raving, or is unqualified and unwittingly committing an offense, and we do reject quite a few articles that fall into that category. And it's a tough circumstance that I find myself in, being the judge. But I strongly support the concept of free speech, and I understand that in Vedic society, it's those who are acting as brahmans that are listened to, while those who are madmen and sudras, and less than sudras, no one listens to them. In fact, they are chastised.
But most importantly, the authorities have to be open to hearing. Even Lord Ramacandra heard some criticism on account of His wife, Sita Devi's being kidnapped, and he took action. In the Srimad Bhagavatam there's the incident where the king was challenged because the son of one of his citizens died at an unnaturally young age. The parents complained, and the king was held responsible. So we are trying to establish a culture, a Krsna Conscious society wherein these principles apply. Brahmans are beyond the law, and they can criticize anyone -- and it's their duty to do so whenever they see irreligion manifest, whether it be in the king or anyone else. Just because one has a big position doesn't mean they can't be criticized, or that it's automatically "Vaisnava Aparadha" if they're criticized. And the king can't do anything to the brahmans… he can't lock them up, ostracize them, or kick them out of the society. He's obliged, due to the culture, to listen and respond. Our ISKCON kings, on the other hand, just threaten us with the Aparadha Weapon.
As you well know, Kripamoya prabhu, listening is something that our ISKCON authorities have a very difficult time doing with anyone but their elite friends -- and even they cannot penetrate. All the GBC, for instance, got together and tried to convince Harikesa to give up his nonsense, but he wouldn't do it. Do you think that you or I could have convinced him? No, he wouldn't listen. And in the end, he didn't listen to anybody… because they left it too long. Harikesa likely could have been saved, just as Jayatirtha could have been saved. Bhagavan and Rameswar could have been saved. A lot of these devotees who were a great loss to our society could have been saved, if they would only have listened. But we created a culture wherein they didn't listen, in part because no one said anything to them. They suffered, we also suffered, the Sankirtana movement suffered, Srila Prabhupada's dreams were not fulfilled, in large part because some people were not free to speak, and others were not humble enough to listen.
So to review your questions to me, you asked: "Does the Sampradaya Sun 'traffic' in vaishnava aparadha?" No, we do not. We don't solicit articles containing aparadhi comments, and in our opinion, we don't publish them. We do publish sincerely intentioned, and well placed criticism of our ISKCON leaders. We do not consider that to be Vaisnava Aparadha, as explained above.
You asked if, "with the Sun you want to contribute an organ of free speech that our Society never had before. Is that correct? Yes, that's true, we want to facilitate free speech – but we do not accept that free speech, or our desire to promote it, is synonymous with 'trafficking in Vaisnava Aparadha'.
You asked: "Are you saying that free speech, as a principle, is actually higher than the discipline of refraining from vaishnava aparadha? And that vaishnava aparadha can therefore be committed by any member of ISKCON if it appears to serve a higher purpose?" The answer to both questions is no. We are not comparing the principle of free speech to the principle of refraining from aparadha, nor have we said that Vaisnava Aparadha can be committed by ISKCON members if it appears to be done for a higher purporse – although we have clearly said that many ISKCON leaders have done that very thing, over and over again.
You asked: "Are you saying that vaishnava aparadha cannot factually be committed against anyone unless that devotee is a completely pure vaishnava?" No, we have not said that, but this is an interesting discussion we might explore further in another article. Basically, there are two main problems: 1) what sort of qualities does a devotee have to exhibit before they can be considered a "Vaisnava", and 2) what is an actual "aparadha"? If someone is pointing out that another party, who is claiming to be a Vaisnava, or a Sannyasi, or a Guru, or a highly advanced devotee but they're not exhibiting the requisite qualities, is it Vaisnava Aparadha? Or does it depend on what is the mood, or what is the motivation for pointing that out? Is it out of envy and malice, or out of sincere desire to help the individual, as well as to protect Srila Prabhupada's movement and the followers? In all cases, it comes down to the individual's perception of who is a Vaisnava, and what is an aparadha.
And your last question was, "Are you suggesting that the current situation within the community of Srila Prabhupada's followers is so urgent that normal rules of vaishnava behaviour be set aside for the time being?" No, we are not making a particular distinction as to the timeframe or past vs. current urgency, although there is obviously a difference insofar as Srila Prabhupada is no longer physically here to intervene in these matters. We are not suggesting that "normal rules of Vaisnava behaviour" be set aside, nor do we accept that setting aside such standards would be synonymous with criticizing leaders (which you suggest is aparadha). In order for me to provide a more complete answer, you will have to be more specific regarding what you refer to as "normal rules of Vaisnava behaviour".
So prabhu, I hope that I've answered your questions, and I look forward to your studied response. I think you're a sincere devotee, and I certainly believe that the term "Vaisnava" applies to you a lot more than it applies to the authorities I've been criticizing.
