Our Business is to Point Out Who is Not a Saint
BY: ROCANA DASA
Nov 21, CANADA (SUN) — "Our business is to point out who is not a saint." (Srila Prabhupada)
This is in reply to the article published today, "Exaggerated Preponderance: Part Two, by Krishna das. Every aspect of this article indicates that it was written by Hridayananda das personally, perhaps with a little input from his close associates. We could speculate as to the reasons why Hridayananda might not reply under his own name, but whether or not he is the writer, we address him directly in this response.
Krishna das begins his latest article by saying:
"On the 10th of November last, I stated the following:
"I would submit that the subjective importance that the editors of the Sun and its various contributors assign to HDG and his purported "influence", beneficial or not, is at best, an exaggerated preponderance, and at worst, an egregious reversal of the Sun's stated purpose".
Today I would like to add to this by saying the following:
This entire effort at the least to my self appears to be sorely misdirected energy, impotent in the extreme, impudent beyond belief, and thus essentially futile."
IMPOTENT
Under the heading of "Impotent", Krishna das goes on to educate us on the matter of interpreting hearsay evidence. He writes:
"Hearsay" taken as absolute fact remains just that: hearsay. Interpretation of exactly what such hearsay actually establishes remains always just that: subjective interpretation. One man's simple adjustment to time and place in his own application of fixed principles may be interpreted by some to be deviation but such interpretations" are themselves likewise always subject to the discrimination of others and such are never assigned absolute consideration save but by them who share a particular bias.
While we generally agree with his comments about subjective interpretation, we would remind Hridayananda das that of the various critical remarks recently made about him here in the Sun, the most damaging statements were not hearsay at all they were instances of first-person testimony, given by individuals who personally witnessed his falldown episodes.
We would also remind the reader that although the published comments made about Hridayananda's recent trip to Mexico were made by devotees 'once removed' from the events, photographs are essentially the equivalent of first person testimony. Regardless of who snapped the photos, our interpretation of the scenes they've captured would be the same. We're commenting on the content, not the person who took the pictures. So Krishna das's argument is not very strong in this regard.
Let us also consider "hearsay" as a legal device, since that's the angle Krishna das has attempted to take. He states that interpretation of hearsay evidence is never assigned absolute consideration, except by those who share a particular bias. But that's not actually true. "Hearsay" is an evidentiary device, and the courts handle it according to circumstance.
Both the U.S. and Canadian systems of civil law are founded on English common law, with some variation. Under that system, hearsay is generally admissible in civil proceedings. So while it may not be taken as absolute fact, it is assigned absolute consideration not just by those sharing a bias, but by the judge himself, who is understood to be neutral. Even in criminal proceedings they will admit hearsay within certain statutory bounds, one of which is, if the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice.
Aside from these technical aspects, there is one more essential way in which the courts consider hearsay. That is, through the filter of the Moral Certainty principle. This principle establishes the idea that based on intuitive probability, a moral determination may be made that there is a very high degree of chance that the hearsay is true. In such cases, even in the absence of absolute or mathematical certainty, the court's own moral intuition is all that is required in order for hearsay to be taken absolutely.
So let us consider this angle of reality in the case of Hridayananda das and the hearsay evidence against him, all of which just happens to fall in the realm of Vaisnava morality, which is far more absolute than any mundane court. At the end of the day, what is "impotent" is Krishna das's attempt to discredit those giving testimony against him, not the evidence itself.
We should also keep in mind that Hridayananda has not challenged or denied any of the specific evidence, which in itself can be taken as an admission that the statements are true. Even today's article, "Exaggerated Preponderance: Part Two, written under a pseudonym, can be taken as an act of obfuscation. We can add it to a long list of fables, such as the excuses found on his website for why he doesn't adorn himself with Vaisnava neckbeads, tilak, brahmin thread and beadbag, let alone the traditional garb of a bona fide Vaisnava sannyasi.
So in addition to the first person (not hearsay) evidence we've heard about Hridayananda's falldown with a woman some years ago and the inventive excuses he currently offers for his consistent disregard of Vaisnava tradition and the standards of the sannyasa order, we also have the statements recently made about his recent visits to the cinema in female company. True, the latter is hearsay, but we believe the devotee who reports having heard it directly from a woman herself. And our moral intuition certainly tells us that given all the evidence, all the history, all our personal knowledge of Hridayananda, this hearsay report should be taken as true. That conclusion is confirmed by the fact that "Acaryadeva" has not denied the specific allegations. So we can clearly see that his past problems with human frailty are still very much present.
In defense of the complaint that Hridayananda has been "maintaining an occasional inappropriate relationship with a disciple or godsister; at the least on a subtle level", Krishna das offers this apologia:
"Surprise! He is human. He took sannyasa at a very very early age. An age when even Mahaprabhu's taking of sannyas was challenged by Saravabhuma for its dangerous prematurity. He has learned how to handle such affairs over time. We should all hope to have such friends who rather than condemn and publicly vilify us for being human help us to transcend our personal "Achilles heels" and consistently move towards our perfection of seva. There are many wonderful women who have taken to KC and they are charming and helpful. Why is it so surprising that someone sannyasi or otherwise might find themselves grown fond of and in some way dependent upon their company, input, encouragement and even example? Is this permitted a sannyasi? No. But it arrives sometimes and we can all "fall under the spell of Cupid" rather instantly. It is in the dealing with this that our metal is tempered. This is again really HIS business an those who voluntarily seek his inspiration, guidance and example."
Hridayananda prabhu took sannyasa at the very same age that all his godbrothers took their vows, in whatever asrama we surrendered to. It was very difficult for everyone, but many other young sannyasis did not follow Hridayananda's example, consistently transgressing their vows. Many remained staunch, many carried out their duties very strictly. So youth is not an excuse for weakness. And the comparison made to Mahaprabhu, simply in terms of there being a comparison, borders on offensiveness.
As for the notion that Hridayananda "has learned how to handle such affairs over time" well, clearly that is not the case. If it were true, we would not be here today, having this conversation.
This wonderful transcendental science has been established by the true Sampradaya Acaryas and as such, it cannot be whimsically adjusted or tampered with by a modern day liberal sannyasi who 'falls under the influence of Cupid' due to being cursed with the Achilles' heel of sex attraction to women. Obviously, Hridayananda's followers have been trained up to believe that wrong is right in this regard. As Krishna das describes them:
"They will and should simply ignore all of this and all of you and you will be left with no real end to this affair. As you claim that you are independently reporting all of this - they will all show you the actual reality of their "independence" and simply ignore all of this and go on with their business."
Hridayananda's followers are also characterized in this way:
"they are not beholding to any of you in any way whatsoever all this noise will have absolutely no effect whatsoever upon their moving forward with whatever they do in fact do to both increase their own Krsna Consciousness and share that wonderful science with any who might find their association inspiring in this regard."
For Hridayananda's followers to simply ignore the undeniably damning historical facts concerning their "eternal" spiritual guide shows just how they are being cheated, ultimately by being denied a true connection to the actual parampara. In the parampara system, the instructions taken from the bona fide spiritual master must also be based on revealed Vedic scriptures. One who is in the line of disciplic succession cannot manufacture his own way of behavior. There are many so-called followers of the Vaishnava cult in the line of Caitanya Mahaprabhu who do not scrupulously follow the conclusions of the sastras, and therefore they are considered to be apa-sampradaya, which means OUTSIDE OF THE SAMPRADAYA". (Caitanya-caritamrita, Adi 7.48 Purport)
What Krishna das is really telling us is that the disciples of Hridayananda are already so far outside of the Sampradaya Acarya's family that they are impervious to the counsel or opinion of the rest of Srila Prabhupada's disciples. They owe us nothing not even an effort at the proper continuance of Srila Prabhupada's movement. They will do as they please, and spread whatever version of Krsna Consciousness they like out into the world. This is how Hridayananda has trained them.
Aside from the very serious sexual/subtle sex falldowns Hridayananda has engaged in, he is known to have consistently engaged in other activities that are the antithesis of Vedic tradition for one in the sannyasa order. Hridayananda lived for years as a "sannyasi" in his mother's home in Beverly Hills, California along with a non-devotee brother. He attended university, and we can be sure that vast amounts of Krsna/Srila Prabhupada's money went for his support, instead of funding the distribution of Srila Prabhupada's books, preaching, etc. Hridayananda has accumulated a great deal of money and private material assets. All this illustrates what a poor example "Acaryadeva" sets for his followers, and for all members of ISKCON, what to speak of the future Vaisnavas.
IMPUDENT
Under the heading of "Impudent", Krishna das writes:
"The word impudent, a descriptive adjective, is derived from the Latin root impudens - which literally means shameless.
I employ this word because this entire HDG issue being injected into the public domain by Rocan prabhu - appears at the least to myself to be conducted with a shameless lack of regard for a simple fact. That fact is that at least in two ways Rocan prabhu the individual who is amassing and publishing all this business shares at least two of the very defects that he is calling attention to in the conduct and character of HDG.
Rocan prabhu has years and years ago separated himself from any allegiance to the oversight of a local temple president or a local representative of the Governing Body Commission for ISKCON. He affirms that since 1986 like HDG he is "independently" publishing whatever HE decides to publish and that his efforts are according to him the efforts of an "independent brahmana". YET Rocan das calls for the "GBC" the body that he himself would never allow to dictate to him whether or not he should continue with his activities on the Sun site to monitor and/or censure or indeed strip HDG from any position within ISKCON based upon all the hearsay thus published and Rocan's interpretation of that! What is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander and in this particular case Rocan prabhu appears to desire for HDG what he himself would never accept; the scrutiny of the GBC and submission to their dictation as to what he should or should not do in the matter of deciding what constitutes legitimate representation of Srila Prabhupada."
Krishna das suggests that I am shameless, or impudent, in publishing the discussion about Hridayananda because I share two of the defects found in Hridayananda's conduct and character. The two, apparently, are that 1) I do not submit to the scrutiny of the GBC, and 2) I do not submit to their authority.
It's true that I left my institutional positions as Temple President and Regional Secretary in 1986, when the Reform Movement failed to remediate the asiddhantic Zonal Acarya scheme. I never left Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON -- only the corrupt institution that had waylaid it. From that point on I spoke freely, and as truly as possible, in the mood of an independent brahmana. What I did NOT do, and what Hridayananda has done, is remain in the institution, shamelessly continuing to accept all the benefits, while simultaneously refusing to accept the GBC's authority. Interestingly enough, Hridayananda is one of the few Zonal Acaryas who still remains as a member of the shadow ISKCON that caused me to leave.
I objected, and I stepped outside. Hridayananda also rejected the GBC, but stayed inside, pretending to accept, pretending to surrender, pretending to acquiesce all so that he can continue to enjoy the fame and fortune, the adoration and distinction that comes with the titles of ISKCON Sannyasi and ISKCON Diksa Guru. Clearly, the same rules do not apply to us both and in fact, Hridayananda is actually the impudent one in this regard. So as most readers will clearly see, Krishna das has done a very poor job of drawing comparisons in this regard.
I should also point out that even though I've left my positions in the institution, in some regards I continue to be under the scrutiny and authority of the GBC, and I have no real choice but to surrender to their authority. Over the last decade I have tried, on a few occasions, to join a local ISKCON temple, and to preach and offer service there. In Portland and in Vancouver, my sincere efforts were rejected by the GBC in charge, who refused to accept my service and would not let me preach, even though I had not said a word in the temple or from the asana about anything controversial. They took exception to what I said on my personal website, and thus would not let me preach or participate. So in this regard, I have no choice but to accept the scrutiny and the authority of the GBC.
Curious readers will find some of the articles I've written about these painful experiences here. The same GBC who banned me for speaking out have, for many years now, chosen to overlook all of Hridayananda's copious mistakes and offenses, from his participation in the Zonal Acarya debacle to his dalliances with women. But if anyone makes public the truth concerning these leaders, they are quickly ostracized.
Krishna das would undoubtedly like the reader to believe that until such time as I am completely spiritually pure, I have no "authorization" to write, or to publish in the Sun articles sent in by Srila Prabhupada's followers. He forgets that by my own free will, for my own reasons, I chose not to accept the order of sannyasa, even though the GBC pressured me to take it. Nor did I take on the responsibility of giving diksa initiation, nor am I a member of the GBC. As such, I am not an ISKCON celebrity, as Srila Acaryadeva is.
Although my personal history and private activities are far from being newsworthy, and I am not an official member of the modern day institution presenting itself to the world as Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON, I am an eternal disciple of His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and as such, I am a member of the transcendental ISKCON. The siddhanta of the Krsna Consciousness society I belong to affords it's members the freedom of individual expression. The Free Press cannot be controlled or persecuted, nor censored by governmental agencies so long as such opinions are within the boundaries of Guru, Sastra and Sadhu. I can substantiate my editorial actions in regard to the Hridayananda issue by supplying ample evidence from these three sources. There are even members of the present GBC and ISKCON sannyasis who agree with me on the matter of Hridayananda.
Even in the so-called free world countries, investigative reporters live a very dangerous and lonely existence. Being the editor and publisher of the Sampradaya Sun is not so different. Of course, my departure from the institution wasn't as dramatic as Hridayananda's excommunication of Srila Prabhupada's favored disciple, pandit-ji Pradyumna dasa, who Hridayananda publicly branded as "a demon" because he challenged the Zonal Acarya system. This is but another of the offensive acts committed by Hridayananda, under the guise of being a compassionate Vaisnava sannyasi. Srila Prabhupada has emphatically described the importance of not behaving like such a "Ravana Sannyasi", as we hear in this audio clip.
Krishna das points out that I have called for the GBC 'to monitor and/or censure or indeed strip Hridayananda from any position within ISKCON', and he is correct. That is what many of the godbrothers are calling for. Why? Because Hridayananda has behaved like a Ravana Sannyasi for many years now, not just in his association with women, but in so many other materially contaminated activities.
Krishna das offers a list of the activities we are finding fault, in four basic areas, along with a brief justification or means of remediating each:
1. interpolating his less than realized conclusions into Srila Prabhupada's teachings,
This could be resolved more than likely with healthy philosophical exchange
2. failure to consistently wear "devotional attire" and a brahmans thread
Our clothes are functional and form follows that. Where they are a boon to our KC and or preaching we accept them. Where they are not - Srila Prabhupada gave them no importance.
3. failure to chant his rounds on beads,
That is his business and them who voluntarily accept his inspiration. Not yours or mine
and finally but not the least,
4. maintaining an occasional inappropriate relationship with a disciple or godsister; at the least on a subtle level.
Surprise! He is human.
On the first point, we agree that Hridayananda should be soundly challenged in his preaching, as he has been in the past. Most recently, he was challenged on the issue of supporting and promoting homosexuality. He wrote a rare letter of apology, and the issue has since abated. We now await his rebuttal to Ameyatma's lengthy challenge to some of Hridayananda's preaching. We have personally called for Hridayananda to give us a scholarly paper explaining and justifying the many liberties he is taking within the strict order of sannyasa. We await his response. In the meantime, let's be clear we are not calling for his removal from status as an ISKCON sannyasi because of his lectures and writing, but rather because of his dalliances with women and his refusal to comport himself as a sannyasi according to Srila Prabhupada's standards. Given the current chapter of complaints, we are now more intent on carefully studying Hridayananda's writings and lectures, and will do so as time permits, so there may be more to say in the future on his presentation of the philosophy.
We have already commented in past articles on points 2 and 3, but here is a word from Srila Prabhupada on the matter:
"One thing, if we are not very careful to always stick to the point of
regulative principles and purest standards of high living, then EVERYTHING WILL SPOIL VERY QUICKLY AND THE WHOLE SHOW WILL BE A FARCE".
(Srila Prabhupada's Letter to Revatinandana, Sydney, 2 April, 1972)
As for the fourth point on Hridayananda's associating with women and the defense "Surprise! He is human" we have already addressed it above.
Next, Krishna das responds to my previous statement, in which I said that we're not attacking Hridayananda personally, we're attacking the institution that allows him to continue harming Srila Prabhupada's good name. His reply:
"This implies that you have exhausted all efforts to reach out to HDG as a personal friend and brother in every imaginable way to assist him in finally becoming the devotee that in your estimation, HDG can one day become with a little help from Lord Krsna as it flows to HDG from you. However you have never actually offered any evidence of such a painstaking effort, making your comments a cliche only.
I submit that the above statement is the very height of impudence prabhu.
First of all in order for you to take this position you must be able to show that you have in fact done just that; labored arduously to help your godbrother to mend the ways you are so sure need mending."
First of all, no such implication is inherent to my statement. While it may be incumbent upon the GBC members to personally exhaust all efforts to remediate Hridayananda before they strip him of office, that is not my role. Readers who are familiar with today's ISKCON are fully aware of the ludicrousness of expecting a leader like Hridayananda to actually listen to any good advice from the likes of me. If he were at all interested in responding to the many articles that have appeared in the Sun over the years offering criticism of his pastimes, surely he would have been in touch. He has been silent, just as all the GBC and top leaders have been. I have, on many occasions, extended public invitations and challenges to the GBC body to communicate with us, on a host of issues. Hridayananda das is a member of that body. We have not heard from him, or from any of them not one of them, not once.
We do know that over the years, several of Hridayananda's fellow GBC and sannyasis have tried talking to him, offering spiritual counseling, friendly advice even assertively preaching to him. But as we are now witnessing, it was to no avail. I'm sure these godbrothers got the same response from him that we're reading in this article from "Krishna das".
It's a ridiculous notion that a "small-timer" like me should fly across the continent and knock on Hridayananda's front door, expecting to be welcomed and permitted to launch into a Vidura-like preaching session. Judging from the results, it seems that even a GBC committee hasn't been able to successfully accomplish such an undertaking. By now they must all know the drill, and still they can't motivate him to change or admit the error of his ways.
It is also a stretch for Krishna das to characterize Hridayananda as my "personal friend and brother". Of course, I've known Hridayananda for many years, and we have been in the same place at the same time on many occasions, in Mayapur, for example. Hridayananda was my GBC for a year when I was the Temple President of Seattle, although I saw little of him during that time. But Hridayananda and I have never been what I'd consider "close". If we were such good personal friends, why didn't Hridayananda contact me as a supportive brother, offering me moral support or preaching to me when I left the movement after so many years of dedicated service to Srila Prabhupada? Why didn't he preach to me or console me when I left, broken-hearted and disgusted with the failure of the Reform Movement? Why didn't I hear from my good friend Hridayananda when I very publicly shared the news that I had been unceremoniously ejected by his co-GBC member, Bir Krishna das Goswami, from the Portland temple? Or more recently, when I was ejected by another of his co-GBC members, Hari Vilas das, from the Vancouver temple? Surely he heard that one of his 'personal friends and godbrothers' was suffering these problems.
So please, Krishna das, let's not pretend that I am duty-bound to do anything more than I have already done in making my repeated public statements of concern, asking Hridayananda to respond and remediate.
I would also remind the author, and all readers, that this Sampradaya Sun project is essentially a family endeavour, which has not been financially subsidized over the years by institutional grants or family inheritances. Save for a few devotee donations, it has been entirely a personal out-of-pocket expense. It is our service, and we're grateful for the opportunity to do it. We are also "only human". HareKrsna.com and the Sampradaya Sun are my individual personal service to Srila Prabhupada, humble as it may be in comparison the gargantuan impressive results accomplished by my exalted sannyasi initiating Godbrothers.
As Krishna das puts it:
"You yourself have established yourself as judge, jury and public executioner for a host of individuals and groups over the years."
The fifth estate, my family, and the contributors to the Sampradaya Sun are but a mere mini-judicial system compared to the real power center -- the GBC. Hridayananda is a long standing member of the oligarchy. In ISKCON, this group is the ultimate judge, jury and executioner. Over the years, collectively and systematically they have purged Srila Prabhupada's society of thousands of their non-compliant godbrothers/sisters, denying them the opportunity of residing in their rightful home. They have legislated the banning of entire groups of Vaisnavas, such as the Prabhupadanugas and followers of the Gaudiya Matha gurus, what to speak of all the outspoken journalists/protestors. Unfortunately, while they are quick to judge, sentence, and execute thousands of sincere followers, they are unwilling and/or incapable of policing their own ranks. They have not judged, they have not sentenced, and they have not taken action against their own offending members, with very few exceptions, since the day of Srila Prabhupada's departure.
Personally, I am not judge or jury. I am an individual with an opinion and a right to broadcast it publicly, and I am facilitating others to have a public voice. We pay a high price for this freedom. We would much prefer to be living in a Krsna Conscious temple or farm community, but we're unwelcome. Who among the Sun readers would welcome my wife and I to join them? Have computers, will travel. What ISKCON community is willing to be home to the Sampradaya Sun? (I won't start packing my books.)
ISKCON's liberals and reformers are advocating that the Vaisnava community adopt their wish list of freedoms, such as women's equal rights, application of newage concepts and retreats, pursuance of degrees in western academia, westernizing the curriculum in gurukulas, interfaith dialogue, inclusion of "Hindu practices", and in Hridayananda's case, he is both advocating and demonstrating his freedom from the strict rules and regulations of the sannyasis order. But for all this, isn't it strange that freedom for the average devotee to express his/her personal opinion publicly is viewed as being borderline demoniac by Hridayananda and his liberal friends?
In Braja Bihari's article in the ISKCON Journal, "Pizza or Pakoras", he states that authority is also weakened by the advent of desktop publishing and the Internet. 'Websites, with their anyone-can-say-anything aspect, are even easier to establish. The Internet has connected us in ways never before possible. It has also extended the influence of both subjective realism and Kali-yuga beyond all boundaries. E-mail will continue to fuel ISKCON's conflicts, despite its usually negative effects
and another technological hazard in ISKCON is the Vedabase, a searchable compilation of all of Prabhupada's writings, letters, and transcribed conversations'.
So we can see that the freedoms which negatively impact the power of the leadership are condemned, because when the rank and file don't solely depend on the elite for their access to information, the truth has a tendency to get out. As Mao states in his Little Red Book, power is control of information. It took years of pressure from the devotees to finally get the GBC to release Srila Prabhupada's correspondence, and much of Srila Prabhupada's audio content is still not released by the Archives, under Jayadvaita's control. Since time immemorial the rich, powerful and famous have not been fond of the Free Press, unless it is used to glorifying them. So we are not surprised that Krishna das should rail against this public venue, but we take his lamentation for what it really is: self-serving.
Krishna das not only says that I must not criticize Hridayananda unless I have personally done everything possible to remediate him, but also that I may not criticize unless my own character is spotless:
"And MOST importantly your own personal history must necessarily be completely devoid of any of the offenses you so boldly and I dare say shamelessly confront your brother with this (all protests above aside) very personal attack. You yourself can have no record of inappropriate relationships with women: neither subtle nor certainly not gross fall down."
He says that my criticism of Hridayananda "begs for disclosure" on my part"
"I am not a betting man and I do not really know you very well and/or your history in and out of ISKCON but I have a pretty good hunch that all is not as "appropriate" in that history as you might wish it to be.. I do not say this to actually delve into that history at all. I am not calling for you to reveal any of that. I am simply saying that you have made this whole affair very personal in my estimation. You have publicly peddled a whole heck of a lot of hearsay by others. Hearsay I might add that says as much about them who offer it as all the principles involved. You have called upon HDG to come forward and answer to YOU and your readers for his "transgressions" BUT unless your own history is completely devoid of subtle much less gross fall down - you are beyond impudent to demand this of anyone; much less an individual who is viewed by many as their much loved link to Srila Prabhupada and our Parampara. If your record in this area - is not just clean BUT spotlessly clean - then this demand of yours is essentially impudence en extremis."
As stated above, Krishna das makes a poor comparison in this regard. I am an individual grihasta living not only outside the temple, but outside the institution. I hold no position of power, and receive no rewards, adoration or distinction for my service. This idea that I must be "spotlessly clean" in order to have the right to call on the GBC to take action against Hridayananda is absolute nonsense. Where is this written in sastra? Where does Srila Prabhupada state this rule? What Srila Prabhupada actually says is:
"If a man is a thief and if people are warned that he is a thief that is truth. Although sometimes the truth is unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it. Truthfulness demands that the facts be presented as they are for the benefit of others. That is the definition of truth."
(Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. Ch 10:4)
Srila Prabhupada does not say that only one with a spotless character can call a thief a thief. This is simply Krishna das's argument of convenience. He suggests that my history should be "completely devoid of subtle much less gross fall down", and intimates that it is not. This is certainly not the first time I have been on the receiving end of this line of defense. I have been accused of having a "spotty past" by several godbrothers and sisters over the years, primarily as they came to the defense of Hansadutta and Satsvarupa, or in relationship to the gurukula lawsuit.
My response to these challenges has been the following: I have, on several occasions, offered a detailed public statement about my personal circumstances in answer to my critics. I have fully disclosed the details, pointed out where I made errors and owned up to them, specifically rebutted allegations that were false, provided my realizations about what was going on at the time and how I've grown to understand things philosophically, clearly stated that I am a conditioned soul, prone to mistakes, and asked forgiveness for anyone harmed by my actions. Anyone interested in confirming this for themselves can start here, with my 2007 article entitled, "History of the Seattle Gurukula". Perhaps Hridayananda das will read these personal statements and take a lesson in the practice and value of honesty and disclosure. If he were to engage in just such a process, he would no doubt experience a greater degree of compassion, understanding and tolerance from his godbrothers. But Hridayananda's personal response has been almost non-existent. Instead, we are treated to this lecture from "Krishna das", who is almost certainly Hridayananda himself, offering just the sort of arrogant rebuttal we have come to expect from Hridayananda over the years.
FUTILE
Next, under the heading of "Futile", Krishna das complains that we are futilely calling Hridayananda out to answer for himself, and to debate his position, 'without establishing what it is that merits or even could be debated!' I don't know how this could be made any clearer, but we'll say it again: we challenge Hridayananda to a philosophical debate in which he responds to those of us who assert that he is behaving in a way that is the antithesis of standards in the sannyasa order, against Srila Prabhupada's express instructions, and against Vaisnava tradition. Granted, there are many details to be discussed in laying the groundwork for such a debate: a more clear statement of the opening assertion and rebuttal positions, the format for exchange, process of moderation, etc. But rather than hearing Krishna das complain, let us hear from Hridayananda directly, offering his agreement, in principle, to such a debate, and expressing his willingness to work with us in hammering out the details. Let him engage in that process with us one-to-one, and not through the agency of his secretaries, associates, or pseudonyms. Then we can get down to a serious discussion.
Krishna das writes:
"You solicit ever mounting sums of salacious history and commentary from various individuals who imagine themselves to be actually and personally affected by this one devotee, from far flung corners of the globe. (Even men in that bastion of "more pressing matters" Kabul Afghanistan have taken time off from their war making and surviving to offer their comments on HDG and his brahmanas thread!) This is futile".
As we've stated before, we solicit nothing. We do not harvest the devotee community, looking for dirt, or even opinions. As the old saying goes, we don't make the news, we just print it. That, of course, and our own personal opinions. If the commentary on Hridayananda's salacious history continues to mount, it is simply an expression of the volume of pent-up frustration over his behaviour, not that we're out trolling for it.
Under the heading, "Misdirected Energy", Krishna das writes:
"Srila Prabhupada provided all of us the model conduct to be embraced in our preaching Krsna Consciousness while "less than stellar" examples of "guru" abound in all quarters of the world. When a reporter said that their seemed to be a great deal of "fake gurus" Srila Prabhupada said "Practically all". Then the reporter asked "Shouldn't you do something about them? Make some effort to expose them?" Srila Prabhupada said "That is not our program. I am simply providing the real thing. That's all" (paraphrased)
As we all know, it's easy to cherry-pick the Vedabase for quotes in support of one's opinion. Yes, in a discussion with a reporter, Srila Prabhupada may have said that challenging the world's fake gurus is not our program. But he also says, 'we are providing the real thing'. So one cannot logically construe from this quote that Srila Prabhupada would chose to ignore those he put in positions of spiritual leadership (sannyasis or gurus) when they prove to be bogus, and not the real thing. That's not the same as him saying we're not going after all the fake gurus in the world. This is faulty logic on Krishna das's part. We could paste out so many quotes supporting the notion that Srila Prabhupada would not accept bogus sannyasis, but we will save that effort for an actual debate with Hridayananda. The great majority of readers here are already convinced. In the meantime, we'll offer just two quotes:
"Our business is to point out who is not a saint."
(Srila Prabhupada, Morning Walk, April 10th, 1974)
And from Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 12.9:
"Some of the disciples strictly accepted the orders of the acarya, and others deviated, independently concocting their own opinions under the spell of daivi-maya.
PURPORT
This verse describes the beginning of a schism. When disciples do not stick to the principle of accepting the order of their spiritual master, immediately there are two opinions. ANY OPINION DIFFERENT FROM THE OPINION OF THE SPIRITUAL MASTER IS USELESS. One cannot infiltrate materially concocted ideas into spiritual advancement. That is deviation. There is no scope for adjusting spiritual advancement to material ideas."
Krishna das goes on to say:
"So at least to me it appears futile to misdirect our energy to what anyone, anywhere is or is not doing UNLESS it actually prevents me or mine from doing the positive things Srila Prabhupada asked of us.
Since HDG like you Rocan prabhu has since 1986 been followed by only them that do so voluntarily he can never really be yours or mine or anyone's problem in anyway save but them who actually invite his influence into their lives."
This statement demonstrates Krishna das's total disregard for the historical facts surrounding himself/Hridayananda. You can't have it both ways
On one hand you want to be viewed as a "Big devotee", adorning yourself with every available title... sannyasi, guru, GBC, scholar, PhD, author and lecturer. But when challenged, you beg us to recognize you as a single, simple, normal, 'only human' prabhu. If Your Divine Grace Acaryadeva would resign from the GBC, give up sannyasa and marry, and inform your disciples that they are free to become re-initiated, as many of your past associates have done, then the editors and contributors of the Sampradaya Sun wouldn't be so interested in writing about your pastimes. To illustrate this, consider how little we hear these days about Bhagavan, Ramesvara, Harikesa, Jagadisa, or Kirtanananda. Even Bhavananda has kept his head down in Mayapur.
Hridayananda, on the other hand, has become a poster-boy for the liberal/reform movement within ISKCON. Candrabhanu das has informed us of the importance of Hridayananda as an avant-garde member of this contingent, which is 'moving beyond Varnasrama'. Hridayananda is truly a pioneer of liberalism. And the facts reveal that he is not just 'doing his own thing' in isolation along with a few disciples. As Krishna das informs us, "Only an 11th of a second's association with a pure devotee is sufficient to yield a perfect attachment" to the Lord, and "There are many who find HH Hrdayananda Maharaja to be just that kind of association".
It's clear that Hridayananda is larger than life. He has placed himself right in the center of the Alachua Community. Kalakantha das, the past Temple President of Houston and current Temple President of Gainesville's Krishna House, is one of Hridayananda's main supporters and cheerleaders. Candrabhanu, Braja Bihari, and the other advocates of liberalization within ISKCON step forward to protect the teflon Swami of ISKCON, who for years has been getting away with living the sort of non-traditional lifestyle they're promoting. Hridayananda is their living proof positive that their "philosophy" works. Even at the GBC level, in the ISKCON horserace, Hridayananda is one of the front-runners. Unfortunately, due to the influence of Kali, the modes and Maya, the rest of us can see that he has galloped far off the track.
Krishna das offers us a glowing report on the intelligent, capable, and enthusiastic disciples and followers of Hridayananda, and we don't question their personal credentials. But clearly, Acaryadeva Maharaja has "trained up" his disciples in his own unique perspective on Krsna Consciousness, which is a perverted reflection of Srila Prabhupada's vision. And we can be sure that these "healthy wholesome adults" wouldn't be invited or permitted to seriously or aggressively challenge Srila Acaryadeva's methodology or philosophy. Why would they, anyway -- everyone is having so much fun! But we have seen, in just the recent past, what happens when a very intelligence disciple of Hridayananda's challenged his guru maharaja. Krishna-kirti das is a perfect example. One of Hridayananda's best and brightest, Krishna-kirti questioned his guru's position on homosexuality, which goes against Srila Prabhupada's position. Hridayananda basically just froze him out refused to engage in a discussion with him, to the point that Krishna-kirti publicly renounced him.
We should also note that the current percentage of Hridayananda's disciples who work day in and out with "eager enthusiasm" is relatively small, considering that as a Zonal Acarya for nearly ten years in South and Central America, he accumulated thousands of disciples. But how many of them still look to him for guidance and inspiration? How many have gone AWOL, only to join the camps of Alantha Swami, Narayana Maharaja, or the Rtviks, unfortunately concluding that this serves their spiritual life better than remaining faithful to their original diksa guru? How many have been overcome by Mayadevi due to the neglect of their Guru Maharaja?
Those of us who joined Srila Prabhupada during his ISKCON lila period were obliged to "surrender" to the entire Hare Krsna lifestyle. Hridayananda, like all the other ISKCON leaders during that time, insisted that in order to become Srila Prabhupada's disciple and be part of the temple community, the aspirant had to give up everything
education, family, karmi clothes and habits. If Hridayananda's present program had been offered back then, I'm sure many newcomers would have flocked to his jurisdiction. As we learn in Krsna Consciousness, all conditioned souls are trying to avoid surrendering to Lord Sri Krsna and his bona fide representative. So, it comes as no surprise that Hridayananda's followers feel themselves fortunate that they are "special" exceptions. All the gain, without the pain.
In the YouTube videos we recently published, we see the young women dancing and singing mundane songs for Acaryadeva's entertainment. Kalakantha dasa, in cowboy hat and strumming his guitar, introduces them to their Guru as university students, not as aspiring Vaisnavas. Throughout the show, the chorus line is greeted with cheers and laughter. Is this type of behavior now considered bona fide Vaisnava activity in Alachua, ISKCON's largest American community? Given the level of entertainment that goes on there, it shouldn't come as any surprise that Hridayananda is now the diksa guru of choice in that community.
I can certainly say that my personal spiritual journey in this lifetime would have been much different if Hridayananda's philosophy had been approved by Srila Prabhupada in the early '70's. I might have had a lot more laughs, and Hridayananda could have gotten his PhD 20 years earlier.
