BY: ROCANA DASA

Jan 14, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.

In a recent segment of "Obeisances", we offered commentary on Satsvarupa's latest Letter of Apology. We published the document on December 21, 2007, and four days later it appeared on Dandavats.

Since that time we have received a follow-up letter written by Brahmatirtha dasa. It is prefaced by a short note from Satsvarupa, under cover of which he apparently distributed Brahmatirtha's letter to his followers. We assume that Brahmatirtha's letter will also appear on Dandavats but regardless, we offer our further commentary as part of this Obeisances series on the Satsvarupa matter.

Cover note from Satsvarupa:

"Dear Friends and Disciples, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

This is a cover letter prepared by Brahmatirtha Prabhu to help give context under which my recent letter was written.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada,

Satsvarupa dasa Goswami

Following is the letter from Brahmatirtha dasa:

January 12, 2008

Dear Vaishnavas,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

From September to December 2007 I served with several other devotees on a GBC-mandated committee deputed to investigate and make recommendations concerning allegations of improprieties on the part of Satsvarupa dasa Goswami.

Since Satsvarupa dasa Goswami wrote his letter of apology several weeks ago, I have received several inquiries from devotees with questions about the process and the mission of our committee and the GBC Executive Committee (EC). I will share my understanding of the context of our Committee with the caveat that I am speaking for myself rather than the entire Committee or the GBC EC.

Some devotees had questioned whether the 2002 illicit liaison had been properly investigated. In August 2007 Pranada wrote a letter of elucidation to her local GBC and ISKCON Resolve. The Alachua GBC and ISKCON Resolve referred this matter to the GBC EC, which formed our Investigation Committee to investigate the situation and make recommendations. I served on this committee.

We interviewed witnesses knowledgeable about what had happened and corroborated the facts with Satsvarupa Goswami and Pranada Dasi. Vaishnava precedents were reviewed, and after much consideration our committee agreed that seeking transparency from a person in a position of authority in our Society is a service to Srila Prabhupada and his movement and must be done if we are to maintain ISKCON’s integrity, honesty, and the high moral standards Srila Prabhupada set for us. We also thought that transparency was important to SDG’s followers due to the weighty nature of the guru-disciple relationship.

One difficult part of developing the recommendations for the EC was in regards to Satsvarupa Goswami’s ashrama. Some felt that his deviation from the sannyasa code of behavior warranted a change of ashram. SDG, however, felt strongly that he wanted to maintain the order given to him by Srila Prabhupada, and he indicated that he had returned to the sannyasa mindset for some time now. There was much back and forth, with ultimately the feeling being that with the various restrictions in place that SDG had volunteered to follow, Srila Prabhupada would give him another chance.

The other difficult part in developing the recommendations relates to Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s position as diksa-guru. After much discussion and consideration it was decided that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami will assume the position “retired diksa guru” and will not present himself as an ISKCON initiating guru.

To ensure transparency, as a crucial condition of Satsvarupa dasa Goswami remaining in his sannyasa position, our committee asked Satsvarupa dasa Goswami to write a letter of apology and explanation to the Society.

The committee concluded by making recommendations to the GBC EC, and both Satsvarupa Goswami and Pranada dasi agreed with the recommendations. The full list of recommendations and Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s letter is available at: . According to the GBC-EC the case on this issue is closed as long as the monitor committee reports compliance with the recommendations.

In her letter to the GBC, Pranada Dasi apologized sincerely to all of Satsvarupa Maharaja’s disciples and to the entire Vaishnava community for her misbehavior. Though she has given me permission to share this apology, she chooses not to speak publicly on this topic out of respect for Satsvarupa Goswami’s followers. From her letter of August 2007:

“I pray the Vaisnavas, especially Satsvarupa dasa Goswami’s disciples, will forgive me for my serious offenses and transgressions. I am deeply sorry for my behavior. I daily live with deep feelings of repentance.”

As Satsvarupa Goswami has explained, a Monitor Committee has been formed to liaison with the Vaishnava community and to work with Satsvarupa Maharaja during his one-year probationary period. They can be reached at monitor@pamho.net.

Please note that an incomplete rough draft of the recommendations and Satsvarupa Goswami’s letter was sent out from Satsvarupa Goswami’s office to his followers, and without his intent was published on the Sampradaya Sun website. The final and approved document was published on both Dandavats and Chakra.

I hope this note assists the Vaishnava community in understanding why Satsvarupa dasa Goswami issued his letter at this time.

Your servant,
Brahmatirtha dasa

It should be noted that at the end of his letter, Brahmatirtha dasa gives his readers the impression that the Sun had published "an incomplete rough draft of the recommendations and Satsvarupa Goswami’s letter", and that "a final and approved" version was later published on Dandavats and Chakra. We find this statement to be somewhat misleading. Having done a side-by-side comparison of the text of Satsvarupa's letter as it appeared in the Sun and the version later published on Dandavats, we find there are extremely few differences between the two. Upon review of a copy of the side-by-side comparison (in Word) of Satsvarupa's two letters, you will see that the only changes in the entire letter were that a few spaces were adjusted here and there, and two dashes were changed to hyphens ( -- changed to - ). In other words there were no text changes made at all, what to speak of substantive changes. (And for what it's worth, the draft version was correct in its use of dashes, and the final version incorrect in its use of hyphens.) Of course, splitting hairs is not the point. The point is that Brahmatirtha dasa should have been more exacting when he inferred that the Sun published an unapproved draft version.

There were numerous changes between the GBC draft preamble initially sent out by Satsvarupa and the copy later published on Dandavats. A side-by-side comparison (in Word) can be seen here. It's quite interesting to note the changes made, although we can only speculate as to the intent and personalities behind the original draft and the later revised edition.

Those who are frequent visitors to the Sampradaya Sun or who have been in ISKCON for an extended period of time will recognize that the letter from Brahmatirtha prabhu is typical of the sorts of carefully managed GBC committee responses we have seen in scandals past. One of the main principles of the Sun, and a characteristic that sets it apart from 'sanitized' peer sites like Dandavats and Chakra, is that we believe in the principle of freedom of the press. This ethic is based on the idea that the members of society have an inherent right to be given all the available news and important information pertaining to those who are governing them.

Government secrets are looked upon as suspect because in a democracy or a free society, people are obliged to make serious decisions regarding their leaders - leaders whom they ultimately take responsibility for, either by virtue of having voted them in or by having surrendering to their governance. In the case of ISKCON, it's obviously the latter. And although the GBC has been working on a Constitution for many years now, we hear only infrequent reports from that committee. It seems they're bewildered as to just what principles they're willing to assert and follow. Consequently, freedom of the press is just that much more important in an ISKCON society that offers no equitable constitutional protections to its membership.

In Brahmatirtha dasa's letter we find examples of some interesting institutional wordcraft. For example, in the beginning of the first paragraph he refers to the incident of Satsvarupa's falldown as being "allegations of impropriety". Of course, the term "allegation" is generally defined as an assertion made with little or no proof, or an assertion made by a party in a legal proceeding, which the party then undertakes to prove. Brahmatirtha writes as though Satsvarupa were still being presumed innocent… only charged with this "impropriety", but not yet found guilty. Never mind that he's already admitted to it and written two apology letters. Still, Brahmatirtha gives us the spin-job.

Nor does his use of the word "impropriety" honestly address the scope of the violations Satsvarupa engaged in. While there are different levels of Satsvarupa's falldown, in Brahmatirtha's letter he refers to only two: the level of a sannyasi having illicit sex with a woman, and the level of a guru having illicit sex with a woman. Of course in Vedic society, for a man to have an illicit connection with a married woman is a great offense. I've haven't looked at the Laws of Manu to investigate what the reactions are for such nefarious behaviour, but I'm sure it's severe, to say the least.

In the second paragraph, Brahmatirtha uses the slogan they've now coined for Satsvarupa's falldown, known as the "2002 illicit liaison". As we see in the mainstream media today, reducing an unpleasant truth down to a slogan is a good way to numb everyone down… make us comfortable with the meme so we won't have to think too much about what it means.

Brahmatirtha tells us about his status in ISKCON, how he participated on the investigative committees, how they interviewed witnesses, etc. He is authenticating the process for us so we can rest easy, knowing that it was properly investigated. Let's keep in mind, however, that we don’t know who the witnesses were, what they said, or even when they came forward. We don't know how long they may have kept the incident to themselves, or how long ago they shared it with the GBC, who finally made the investigation public many years later.

As a member of the public, questions naturally come to mind about the details of how this whole circumstance transpired, far beyond what Satsvarupa and the GBC are willing to elaborate on. In Brahmatirtha's letter he explains that Pranada devi gave her report to the GBC, yet the only part of that report the GBC have made mention of is her own humble apologies, which in comparison to Satsvarupa's I find have more sincerity.

According to our culture and philosophy, Pranada devi is only partly to blame in this whole situation because she was obviously exploited by a very powerful individual. Satsvarupa used his power over her to manipulate her into engaging in illicit behaviour with him. It's true that all individuals have free will, but our philosophy also takes into consideration the differentiation in genders, what to speak of someone who's an ISKCON authority, a guru and sannyasi, in comparison to a woman who doesn't hold those roles and doesn't have anywhere near the same power. And while I know it's politically incorrect to say it these days, the sastra states that women are like children and they don't emotionally mature beyond 12 years old. Now I know that this doesn't sit well with many of our women's liberation advocates, but at the same time this sastric truth should be taken into consideration by the monitoring committee.

Another interesting admission made by the monitoring committee is that they will only be doing their job for one year. In other words, Satsvarupa is only on probation for one year. So what does that mean, exactly? Does he have the option to come 'out of retirement' after the one year's probation? Will the monitoring committee's report be reviewed by the GBC, and if Satsvarupa is found not to be in compliance, will a new committee be named to oversee an extended period of probation?

It's obvious in Brahmatirtha's letter, if you read between the lines, that there was disagreement between the European committee and this monitoring committee, which is mostly composed of Americans… who by the way, are mostly old friends of Satsvarupa's. Brahmatirtha dasa is one of those old friends, as is Sesa, who's the Justice Minister. So we can only imagine what kind of "monitoring" is going on.

It seems obvious that the GBC from Europe wanted to be much harder on Satsvarupa than this monitoring committee has "negotiated" to be, per their present agreement. Negotiation obviously means that Satsvarupa didn't want to have to write the apology letter, didn't want to again admit his falldown in public, what to speak of changing anything about his life. It seems that he was essentially forced by the GBC EC to do what he did, reluctantly. So all the verbiage about sincerity and so on and so forth you can assume is actually a thin veneer.

If you're forced into do something, pressured into it, then how can you say it's sincere? After five years, Satsvarupa knew in his heart what had happened. His friends and followers, who are the witnesses interviewed, they also knew what had happened. It appears that they all colluded together to keep it quiet. For whatever reason, it seems that the woman in question wanted to free herself, perhaps from the stigma and rumours.

In previous articles, it was suggested that Pranada devi held the role of an ISKCON Deputy and we speculated as to what deals she may have cut with the GBC. We were later informed that this information was incorrect, and she is not a GBC Deputy. We posted a correction notice to that effect and revised the article. Since then we have learned that while Pranada devi isn't a Deputy, she does hold an important position on the BBTI, where she, Gopal Bhatta das and Naresvara dasa are the three highest ranking BBTI officials in the world, above the BBT Trustees. We invite our readers to provide more details on this situation, and particularly, when Pranada devi was awarded this important position. What was the timing, in comparison to Satsvarupa's disclosure of their falldown. Our cause for concern on the matter is obvious.

To this day we're not sure what actually transpired behind closed doors that resulted in Satsvarupa being forced to write his cryptic, insincere "apology letter". Keep in mind that Satsvarupa writes many volumes of books and considers himself to be a big writer. Yet all the community of devotees gets on this matter is a few paragraphs in a very questionable letter. Why doesn't Satsvarupa write a book about it, and give us his deep philosophical insights? Obviously, because he just wants to get over this so he can go on with his life, enjoying the benefits of being a guru and a sannyasa, albeit "retired". Can you imagine what it would be like if Satsvarupa had to go out into the world and apply for a job so he can maintain himself? What would he put on his application? Or if he had to sell his books in the public marketplace, or his art for that matter, in order to pay rent and overhead. Do you think he could maintain himself that way? Not very likely. So let's be truthful here. Satsvarupa is simply trying to make sure that he's comfortably situated materially, and that is his only real consideration… just as it's always been.

Obeisances to Dandavats, and to Sriman Brahmatirtha dasa.

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |