|
|
|
|
BY: ROCANA DASA, SUN EDITOR
Sep 15, USA (SUN) — Dvijapriya dasi has been moved to share her unique perspective as the remaining wife of Dharmatma dasa, ex-leader of the notorious New Vrindaban women’s party. It is my good fortune to have elicited such a spirited rebuttal from someone inside the secret circle. By virtue of being Dharmatma’s wife, Dvijapriya dasi doesn’t give the reader an unbiased viewpoint. I would have preferred to hear directly from Dharmatma dasa, but he is apparently willing to let his wife be out front in the public domain on this subject. Let me begin by revealing my longtime relationship with Dharmatma dasa, which began in approximately 1973. We were both born Canadian and joined Srila Prabhupada's movement in Vancouver BC. Around 1974, the Vancouver temple entrusted Dharmatma dasa with a nicely fitted-out sankirtan bus, along with a crew of their best brahmacaris. To make another long story, short, he mutinied in New Vrindaban, along with all his men and the bus. Kirtanananda presumably convinced him that giving up his duties and responsibilities to Vancouver yatra was Srila Prabhupada approved, and was proper Vaisnava behavior. Bahudak dasa, the Temple President of Vancouver, met with total non-cooperation when he unsuccessfully tried to get the safe return of his men and bus from Dharmatma and the others. Dharmatma began the New Vrindaban part of his life on that inauspicious note. From my perspective, Dharmatma dasa ended up suffering greatly as a result of succumbing to Kirtanananda’s spell. Like the other notorieties mentioned in my previous articles (Bhakti Tirtha Swami and Radhanath Swami), it appears that Dharmatma is also still under the curse of Bhaktipada. This is indicated by the statements his wife offered in her rebuttal article. Contrary to what Dvijapriya dasi chooses to believe, I don't accept that Dharmatma worked off the reactions to Vaisnava aparadha of Himalayan proportions by going to karmi jail under a lenient sentence. .
A public apology from Dharmatma dasa is long overdue. He can start with all the Canadian devotees he offended. I’m not referring to the bus incident, but to the years of guerrilla tactics he orchestrated and clandestinely executed by his ruthless raiders, who he aimed at our prime Canadian sankirtan spots. He consistently and methodically caused havoc and ill will throughout our designated areas, breaking all the agreed-upon rules. As a previous Canadian sankirtan leader, he had in-depth knowledge of all our best events and juicy spots, and he regularly exploited them to the great detriment of the Canadian yatra. True to form, he unhesitatingly broke Canadian immigration law, regularly bringing all his American troops across the border. All the North American temple leaders knew there was no way to deal with him in a cooperative manner. Dharmatma dasa embraced the persona of a military-style General, completely adopting Kirtanananda’s fascist, cultish, fanatical outlook. Their MO wasn’t remotely close to Srila Prabhupada's mood or desire. Dishonest claims that he was simply motivated to please Srila Prabhupada are nonsense. It was Kirtanananda he was trying to please, cent per cent, and this meant “show me the money”. The absolute truth that the Holy Name, devotional service, and Srila Prabhupada are all powerful, and as such can mercifully purify and forgive any and all, can’t be denied. Understandably, Dvijapriya dasi hopes that her husband’s many “mistakes” have been absolved. Time will tell. Dvijapriya dasi provides us with the names and descriptions of some of Dharmatma’s women and her own son as proof-positive that New Vrindaban's women’s program, policies and practices were not nearly as horrific as described in my recent essays. We assume that these women were among his "wives", given that they were traveling in his parties. This designation was generally understood, society-wide. Vedic philosophy, for the most part, clearly differentiates between the sinful acts of “innocents” such as women and children in comparison to men who are relegated with the dutiful responsibility to protect the most vulnerable members of society. In my writings, I also try to distinguish this difference. Every legal system considers mitigating circumstances. The Nuremberg trails after WWII were only for the highest-ranking Nazis. Please note that in past articles, I have only directed my critical comments to the main players in this tragic New Vrindaban drama. Dharmatma dasa was more than fair game, as he enjoyed an equal status to Radhanatha Swami within the New Vrindaban community. Dharmatma dasa is very wisely not playing a high profile role in ISKCON today, as is Radhanatha Swami. No one has informed me that he is attempting to re-cooperate/associate with Bhaktipada, like Radhanath Swami is. That is good news. As I have requested of Radhanatha Swami, I also appeal to Dharmatma dasa: please write a comprehensive, philosophically based personal declaration which provides all the devotee community with a clear understanding of your present opinion of Kirtanananda, the Sanctuary, and the Interfaith Society. I feel this declaration should include admissions, apologies and realizations concerning his past involvement in New Vrindaban. By doing so, he would be able to carry on his post-New Vrindaban life free of suspicion and rumor. By not doing so, he leaves all of us, and future historians, to wonder. Whether or not Dharmatma qualifies as criminally culpable for more than just copyright infringement is a matter of perspective. By Dvijapriya's own admission, he should also have been charged with bigamy, in the same way that Kirtanananda should have been convicted of having homosexual relationships with minors, and conspiracy to commit murder. Frankly, I think Dharmatma and Kirtanananda both got off easy. They escaped proper punishment for the same reasons -- because “whammy” persons such as Dvijapriya dasi refused to testify against them. It is worth mentioning that only one of the female devotees mentioned in Dvijapriya dasi's article, including herself, currently reside at New Vrindaban, despite the fact that they all selflessly contributed many years of blood, sweat and tears so as to build the place and palace. Truth be told, there were far more women “on the party” than those few listed by Dvijapriya. Should we assume that all but Dvijapriya had to re-marry? She neglected to mention the ladies who were already married, with children. Those poor souls were cajoled into going out on the pick while their children went into a nursery for weeks on end. Dvijapriya dasi paints a rosy picture of what was, in reality, a very abusive scene. In her article, Dvijapriya devi attempts to distance her husband’s New Vrindaban's women’s party from that of Jiva in Berkeley and Yujamanu, in Los Angeles. For the record, it wasn’t Hansadutta who arranged for Dharmatma to take Jiva under his wing and teach him all the techniques, along with a pre-packaged philosophical justification. It was either or both the local GBC’s, Ramesvara and Jayatirtha. Ramesvara was the local GBC in LA. Immediately after the two California parties were established, Jayatirtha encouraged me to start one in Seattle, and Bahudak to establish one in Vancouver. Hansadutta’s unfortunate arrival on the Pacific Coast in 1978 marked the end of the women’s party run by Jiva in San Francisco. Hansadutta personally took over Jiva's women’s party after ousting Jiva and giving him sannyasa. To his credit, Ramesvara did finally shut down Yujamanu. In fact, Yujamanu joined Hansadutta, and when I was thrown out of Seattle, he was appointed as the Temple President. Dharmatma, on the other hand, ignored the orders of Srila Prabhupada and the GBC to stop this practice. He kept right on going, full blast, long after 1978. We must take Dvijapriya devi on her word when she says she was unaware of drug consumption by the members of Dharmatma’s family of women. Of course, that isn’t proof positive that the individual women weren’t popping pills. I was privy, via Jiva, to the “secret” philosophy behind the women's party, which he attributed directly to Dharmatma. There is no question that Jiva personally met Dharmatma on a number of occasions and was in phone contact with him. I personally overhead some of those conversations. The two were buddy-buddy, and working cooperatively together. One of the fundamental tenants of the philosophy being propagated by Dharmatma was for the husband cum leader to have intimate, personal relationships with each lady. Whatever transpired between husband and wife was to be kept secret. This secrecy was, for the most part, surrounding their sex life. But in Jiva’s case, it also included supplying drugs. Jiva informed me that Dharmatma was also into the practice of drug supply to his women. The bottom line was that the “leader” would resort to most any means necessary in order to maximize the money intake. That meant pushing/exploiting each individual woman in whatever way worked on them. If Dharmatma admittedly resorted to deviant methods such as bigamy, which Dvijapriya devi acknowledges he did, then why is it hard for her to believe that he took the next logical step, employing drugs? I didn’t accuse Dharmatma of personally being involved in Bhaktipada’s drug smuggling operation. As far as I recall, that clandestine venture was only known by a few individuals who worked directly with Bhaktipada and his senior men. The drug was hashish, being brought in from Pakistan. I never heard that this product was consumed in New Vrindaban, and not surprisingly, since the effects of that particular type of intoxication would be counter-productive to New Vrindaban's work ethic. Dvijapriya devi was admittedly a willing, long term participant in the women's party operations, which were forbidden by Srila Prabhupada and the civil law. I appreciate that the mad man Kirtanananda was the instigator and sanctioner of these manipulative techniques, and he deserves the greatest blame. My viewpoint is, “if it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck”. In the case of Dharmatma, he certainly appears pimp-like in these circumstances, albeit the bewildered devotee version. I don’t consider the women involved in these parties to be, as Dvijapriya puts it, “common prostitutes”. Rather, I consider them to be victims. One definition for "victim" found in the Webster’s dictionary fits most appropriately: “a living being offered as a sacrifice in a religious rite”. I appreciate from Dvijapriya devi's article that there are individual stories with unique perspectives, such as her own. I'm sure this is true of all the women she mentioned. All these stories need to be heard and understood. I believe that we should all be free to tell and defend our side of any historical event. I encourage others to follow Dvijapriya's example. I’m simply exercising my right to speak my mind and share my personal experiences and realizations. While I support Dvijapriya's right to rebuttal, it is clear to me that she and Dharmatma das haven’t got a clue how much their “party” negatively impacted so many devotee's lives, not to mention Srila Prabhupada’s preaching mission. Dvijapriya sounds so shocked that I spoke out and described a past traumatic event that seriously affected me. I’m still trying to make sense of it. By telling my reader’s digest version of this small story in my life as a Hare Krsna devotee, I’m applying a commonly used therapeutic practice. I think it’s working. I suggest that Dharmatma dasa try it, too. While Dvijapriya devi says with conviction about Dharmatma that “He's come to terms with the mistakes he's made”, I for one would like to hear just how he has crossed this psychological barrier. Has he crossed the threshold just by apologizing, whenever possible, to those he has offended? I haven’t met anyone in the last twenty years who has been apologized to by Dharmatma, but I know hundreds who have been offended by his pastimes, and many who have been seriously, negatively impacted by them. Falling back on the excuse, “Guru's, the GBC, and temple authorities all over the world, have done things in their devotional life that they aren't proud of” is a classic denial technique. Using biblical quotes like "judge not, lest ye be judged" is so Bhaktipada-like, and is very revealing. My understanding of our siddhanta is that we should be applying the truth to all circumstances found within the material world. I’m sure Srila Prabhupada's Godbrothers would have liked to use that same Biblical. quote when they read the critical remarks in his purports to verses in the Caitanya-caritamrita. Dharmatma das may like to cling to the hope that all the activities he is “not proud of” are forgiven and forgotten, but here I am, awaking you to the reality that this is not the case. Dvijapriya devi may have counted upon ISKCON’s historical mythmakers omitting these embarrassing details, along with so many other “not so proud” events. Dvijapriya and Dharmatma are assuming that Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu is less judgmental than I am. Maybe they should re-read the pastimes of Junior Haridasa. After all, they are diksa disciples of a true Sampradaya Acarya, not the great pretender, Bhaktipada. Dvijapriya devi quotes Bhagavad-gita 2:40:
In his purport to this verse, Srila Prabhupada refers to the Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.5.17), wherein he points to the examples of Ajamila, Chitraketu, and Bharata. Shall we assume that Dvijapriya and Dharmatma envision themselves to be on that level? Even if they do, let's not forget that all these personalities had to undergo a great deal of severe austerities before the Lord finally saved them. Dvijapriya devi's defensive article seems devoid of prerequisite humility, which qualifies someone for such divine forgiveness. Your servant in Srila Prabhupada's service, Rocana dasa
| |
