BY: ROCANA DASA
Sep 4, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
Today's Obeisances looks at an article entitled "Dhanurdhara Swami & the Gurukula's Faustadian Bargain" by Mayesvara dasa. While we didn't see this article on the Dandavats front page or scrolling on their 'briefs' bar, it was found somewhat buried under the "Ongoing Debates" section. The complete article, in Word doc format, was linked from the Dandavats preview. Considering the fact that it obviously took Mayesvara dasa a long time to write this article, we would have expected to see it on the front pages. It appears that this is content Dandavats prefers not to broadcast front and center.
After studying Mayesvara prabhu's paper I can say with a degree of certainty that what he's expressing is basically the backroom opinion of most of the senior members of ISKCON. Even though they may have voted to send Dhanurdhara into what Mayesvara considers exile for the sake of 'sacrificing the village to save the country', they basically hold a similar position as Mayesvara. There have been a few other defenses of Dhanurdhara published, by Satyaraja dasa and a disciple of Dhanurdhara's. Mayesvara dasa not only talks about the Dhanurdhara issues, but goes out on a limb and talks about the whole gurukula class action suit. He basically goes shotgunning all the people who decided to be part of that lawsuit. This is a case of 'fools rush in'. While he speaks for ISKCON in one sense, he's not in a prominent position in the institution, which seems to have encouraged the candid and, I think, quite naïve way he presents this issue.
Like all things in this material world that we're trying to make sense of using the pure philosophy that's been handed to us by the Sampradaya Acaryas, there's obviously going to be very different ways of looking at this issue. Mayesvara dasa represents what I consider to be the far end of the spectrum in terms of taking ISKCON's and Dhanurdhara's position 100%, and not offering what I consider to be a balanced journalistic approach.
Mayesvara's choice of words when describing Dhanurdhara or ISKCON, compared to the way he describes the second generation response to Dhanurdhara and the institution, is far from balanced or subtle. We just have to look at his opening section entitled "Proceed With Caution" to see that he shows no caution in the way he describes the situation. He calls it an emotionally volatile subject, then immediately characterizes it as potentially becoming a sordid version of the Salem Witch trials. On the other hand, he describes Dhanurdhara's actions as being 'youthful decisions tainted with idealism and sophomoric stupidity'. In fact, Dhanurdhara's activities could easily have landed him in criminal court and prison rather than in ISKCON's justice system.
Mayesvara then takes the liberty of comparing Dhanurdhara's activities to all the activities that were going on during the Srila Prabhupada lila period, writing the whole phenomenon off as being the actions of the young, stupid, unconventional and eccentric. It's true that all sorts of activities we performed in the early days were outside the realm of being authorized and bonafide and would not have been pleasing to Srila Prabhupada, such as the way we did Sankirtana or the women's parties, etc. We got the predictable reaction for those behaviours, too. In the case of Dhanurdhara, he has become the most visible fall guy for the whole gurukula system, and seems to have been chosen by the leaders to deflect criticism and outrage headed in their direction. Some of these are the very same leaders who were running the show at the time the gurukula abuses occurred. Dhanurdhara was, at best, a lieutenant in a regime that was essentially asiddhantic, to be kind and use the Vaisnava terminology. In other words, the Zonal Acaryas, big gurus, big sannyasis, and GBCs, are really the ones that should be held to blame, even above Dhanurdhara. Of course, their main representative, Jagadisa, is already out, so you can't do much more than point the finger at him. Dhanurdhara, on the other hand, chose to stay in ISKCON in hopes that he wouldn't be singled out. But he was.
Mayesvara depicts those who participated in the class action suit and who raised the biggest hue and cry about Dhanurdhara as being basically non-devotees who have no consciousness or consideration for Srila Prabhupada or the movement. But let’s keep in mind that it was Dhanurdhara's specific duty to train these individuals at a time when they were the most receptive and pliable, to make them into devotees. If Mayesvara is now accusing them of not being devotees, then whose fault is it? These children were, in essence, Dhanurdhara's original disciples. He is now suffering the results of his own failure at being a guru, yet he continues taking disciples and acting as guru.
You can say Dhanurdhara's physical abuse and his military-like management is at fault, but really it's his lack of fulfilling his major responsibility, which was to train devotees. In our philosophy, devotees are made by arranging association with those who are very personal, kind and loving. In fact, Dhanurdhara is now understood to be the antithesis of Srila Prabhupada's methodology to engage us all in Krsna Consciousness and train us. Dhanurdhara chose to use methods that were directly opposed to Srila Prabhupada's program, and he got the opposite results.
At one level, we can say that Dhanurdhara's biggest crime was that he did not make these individuals Krsna Conscious. He chose to be a headmaster, swami, and later to be a guru, then even re-applied to be a headmaster again. He's a professional in this regard, both as headmaster and guru. But for him to get the benefits of that position, he also has to take responsibility for the results of his work, which in this case were disastrous.
Throughout the extended period of his work in the gurukula, you can't tell me that Dhanurdhara couldn't detect the results of his methods, projecting far into the future the consequences of the children's great unhappiness with him. How many children weren't happily engaged in devotional service, and therefore weren't spontaneously attracted to Krsna, the Deities, or devotional service? How many children missed out on getting all the qualities and results that were expected of them by the school, by their parents, and by the society in general. In some cases the opposite actually took place, and non-devotees were made instead of devotees, what to speak of the many children who have had to struggle to develop their own Krsna Consciousness without the assistance that was their due -- and many of our youth have done just that, becoming excellent devotees despite the 'training' that was doled out to them.
The main question here is why Mayesvara dasa is so willing to simply blame the individual ex-students of the schools, while speaking of this teacher in such endearing terms? Neither does Mayesvara get tough with any of those above Dhanurdhara in the leadership chain. He casts no blame on them. He prefers to broaden the spectrum and focus on the success of the entire society rather than be narrowly critical of the gurukulas. But in reality he doesn't do that either, because he neglects to point out the results on that level. For example, how many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still engaged in ISKCON, a membership he depicts as being the only practical way of spreading Krsna Consciousness today? He suggests that banning Dhanurdhara is like sending him back to associate with mellechas, but Dhanurdhara is supposedly a fixed-up swami with disciples. Why can't he simply take his disciples and go somewhere to preach? No one's stopping him from chanting or preaching, and no one is forcing him to give up his disciples. For that matter, no one can stop him from representing Srila Prabhupada.
In essence, ISKCON's banishment of Dhanurdhara has simply relegated him to the same position as 95% of Srila Prabhupada's disciples. And who relegated them to that position? The very same people that Dhanurdhara is now protecting by not speaking out about the influences that came down from above and helped to create the atmosphere that was directly responsible for the gurukula abuses. So these are Dhanurdhara's personal choices.
Why isn't anyone speaking up for not only the gurukula students that Mayesvara takes aim at, but for all Srila Prabhupada's disciples who were essentially forced out of the movement. Their dreams and hopes were dashed by the same authorities that were overseeing the Vrindavan gurukula that Dhanurdhara was in charge of.
It's with great interest that I've observed that neither Bhurijana dasa, Rupa Vilasa dasa, nor any of the GBCs who were in charge of Vrindavan at the time have come forward themselves to stand up for Dhanurdhara. They have also not given us an explanation from their viewpoint of what was going on in the gurukulas under their watch. Nor has Dhanurdhara explained in philosophical terms, or even in personally introspective terms, what realizations he has obtained from his whole experience.
Mayesvara dasa points to a guidebook for gurukula teachers and headmasters that was put together by Jagadisa, Rupa Vilasa and Bhurijana, and was circulating throughout the gurukula system. Mayesvara wants us to believe that Dhanurdhara was following this guideline to the "T". But if he were, then why would Rupa Vilasa and Bhurijana not be stepping up to protect Dhanurdhara from what Mayesvara is now depicting as a great injustice?
I find it quite interesting that Mayesvara himself revels to us that he was sent to a military college, and that Dhanurdhara ran the gurukula as if it was a military establishment. Both apparently felt that this type of mood was conducive to running a gurukula set-up by Srila Prabhupada.
In one statement Mayesvara says that some "vindictive Vaishnava Youth seem determined to exile Dhanurdhara Swami from the only association that is really the best people for him to hang out with".
But apparently the people Dhanurdhara was hanging out with during all the years he engaged in the abuse of children were not only looking the other way, but in some sense contributed to his mood. Now Mayesvara says these are the same people Dhanurdhara should hang out with again. The people we're referring to here are leaders in ISKCON.
At the same time, Mayesvara is asking the youth to somehow appreciate the many years of selfless service Dhanurdhara and the many Srila Prabhupada disciples put into the movement, and to forgive Dhanurdhara and ISKCON in general on that basis. He suggests that the ex-kulis should have the spiritual wherewithal to appreciate all these contributions. Mayesvara does not, however, acknowledge the fact that the majority of devotees who contributed all the selfless service to ISKCON are now no longer a part of ISKCON. Many for them are banned from ISKCON for ridiculous reasons, so why doesn't Mayesvara ask us to appreciate that? Instead he tries to pluck our heartstrings with mention of Jayananda and Visnujnana, and he includes Dhanurdhara, all of whom sacrificed their youth so as to execute Srila Prabhupada's dream. But that dream was put into the hands of the authorities to fulfill, and they're the ones that destroyed Srila Prabhupada's dream -- not a lawsuit filed 30 years later by the abused children.
The fact is that whatever wealth ISKCON has is tied up in real estate assets, and the temples are a far cry from what they were when Srila Prabhupada was here. In North America, especially, it's been a downhill slide since Srila Prabhupada left, and for the most part, the only thing that remains is the material assets.
Mayesvara dasa asks the Vaisnava youth to compare themselves to children of sex traffickers and suicide bombers and underground rival gang members, which is really an insult to them. We are promoting ourselves as Vaisnavas and we're trying to execute the orders of the Sampradaya Acarya. We should be comparing our situation to what Srila Prabhupada expected, not to the dregs of material society. Mayesvara's idea that everyone's supposed to compare themselves strictly with the demoniac karmis is really over the top. In fact, he says that by making these statements he's risking being considered an over-the-top fanatical devotee, and that's exactly what he appears to be. In his article, he preempted our appraisal of him.
Mayesvara is saying that the activities of the kulis is an assault on Srila Prabhupada, but he doesn't consider that Dhanurdhara's activities or the sexual abuse perpetrated by Zonal Acaryas such as Bhavananda and Kirtanananda to be a greater assault on Srila Prabhupada than what the youth have done in terms of launching a lawsuit. From the karmic or Vedic point of view there's simply no comparison, yet even today, Bhavananda goes unpunished by ISKCON.
A Faustian Pact with the Devil
Mayesvara prabhu's main theme is that he sees those who were involved in the civil lawsuit as having made a pact with the devil (the lawyers). But he doesn't acknowledge that many of us, myself included, see that many of our Godbrothers have themselves made a pact with the devil, the devil being those leaders in the movement who not only created the atmosphere that allowed the gurukula abuse situation to fester, but also ignored the cries for help coming from the children for years and years and years. The pleas of children were ignored, and Dhanurdhara's position in ISKCON represents their inability to deal with the issue, or their outright denial that the problem existed. So in a sense, they are the devil, the devil that created the situation, and they're the ones in the background having their devilish representatives, now including Mayesvara dasa, serve as apologists for them. So who really has this Faustian pact with the devil?
It was only out of final desperation that the kulis went to the lawyers, because they weren't getting any justice from ISKCON. There's all sorts or relativity on both sides of this issue. Granted, among the 400 plaintiffs there were some who only signed up for the money. But on the other side of the equation, amongst the leaders and authorities of ISKCON there's also a gradation of those who can be considered devilish. In addition to Bhavananda and Kirtanananda, there are others implicated to various degrees who are being protected by Mayesvara, and whose names are never mentioned. Yet in stark reality and documentable history, they have some direct responsibility here, and had a lot more power at the time the abuses were taking place than even Dhanurdhara himself.
Mayesvara goes on to say how little power he had personally, even though he was a direct observer of what was going on. In other words, the samadhi that he was constructing was adjacent to the gurukula, and he had daily association with the teachers and students. His intuition told him that something was wrong, but he didn't act because he didn’t have any power. But who had the power? The big Zonal Acaryas had the power. People like Bhavananda, who was the GBC in Vrindavan, and who Mayesvara was working under - who Dhanurdhara was working under. Bhavananda, who was sending abused students to the gurukula from Mayapura -- students he personally abused. He and Kirtanananda had tremendous power, and both were sending abused students from their schools, who were then abusing the Vrindavan children. What to speak of the other Zonal Acaryas at that time. Personalities such as Jayapataka Swami, Rameswara, Bhagavan and Hridayananda, they had all the power. But Mayesvara acknowledges none of them.
As I've said before, I feel that Dhanurdhara is getting what he deserves because he won't speak up. If he'd tell the truth to the devotee community, and to the gurukula students, he'd probably get more leniency all around. Instead, he's falling on his sword. That's been his choice all along, because he knew that if he told the truth, ISKCON would kick him out. Instead, it's been pressure coming from below that's pushed him out.
Mayesvara gives us many examples of how he wants the "vindictive youth" to forgive ISKCON. Very exalted personalities like King Yudhister forgave, but let's keep in mind that our youth are not big sannyasis, nor did they take big positions as guru or GBC, like Dhanurdhara did. So their position is distinctly different in relationship to Srila Prabhupada's movement. Therefore you'd expect that Dhanurdhara is the one that should be setting the highest example, and that he should be looking at this whole situation as his destiny, and taking a very humble attitude. If he's protesting and feeling unfairly treated, or blaming vindictive kids, then he's not humble. Krsna is acting in all sorts of ways, and Dhanurdhara is the one that should be coming up to the standard of seeing with transcendental vision, not the abused youth who have not been properly trained, and many of whom are not fully engaged in Krsna Consciousness.
We expect that Mayesvara will counteract by saying that all the youth should also consider their circumstances, and the fact that they were put into these gurukulas was their destiny. Perhaps that's true, but my point is that we expect sannyasis to have realization on this level, and they should be acting accordingly. Mayesvara can accuse the ex-gurukula students of not being on that level, but they're not presenting themselves as great saintly persons. That is the big difference. Dhanurdhara, on the other hand, took a high position, and continues to do so today. Consequently the reaction he is getting must be associated with his destiny in that role. In his discussion of the philosophy of Auguste Comte, Srila Prabhupada said:
"So far we are concerned, that any living being is destined to a certain position of happiness and distress. By dint of his past activities he gets a particular type of body destined to suffer or enjoy. That cannot be changed. Either you call this fatalism or destiny--every man is destined--that cannot be changed. His intelligence can change only his position with reference to God."
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Mayesvara dasa.
