The Circumstances of Aindra's Departure
BY: ROCANA DASA
Aug 18, 2010 — CANADA (SUN) — As the devotees have all heard by now, Aindra dasa recently left his body in a very traumatic way in Vrindavan Dhama. Those who've been following the reports coming from various sources have been putting their own thoughts and opinions together based on the input that's being provided, in the Sun and other news venues.
I may have personally met Aindra in the past at some point, but I never served with him, and I've not had the opportunity to appreciate his 24 hour kirtan program in person. I knew little about his situation in Vrindavan, except that like other brahmans, he was at odds with the leadership. He had not yet been forced to leave the shelter of the temple, like so many others. Kurma Rupa dasa is a good example of a brahman who was unappreciated by the administration, and eventually had to go outside the temple to do his own program. Fortunately, he has achieved great success with his Care For Cows. Aindra's success had still been taking placing within the confines of the temple.
Over the last few weeks we've read the various official statements coming out of ISKCON, including the letter in memoriam by the GBC Executive Committee and the video memorial by Jayapataka Swami. We found both these messages to be very unsatisfactory in the sense that they weren't honest in characterizing the problems that existed between themselves and Aindra, and there obviously was a big problem indeed, not just a little bit of disagreement.
In this letter of respects for Aindra, the members of the GBC Executive Committee made statements such as, "He is such an inspiration for us all", yet at the same time, they were apparently making a concerted effort to threaten him with ejection from his home and his service if he went ahead with publishing his book, and if he didn't stop preaching against certain GBC practices and philosophies. Given the volatility of their relationship the GBC's remarks, although socially amenable, seem rather disingenuous. The GBC's basic message was contained in this statement:
"Those who knew Aindra Prabhu well know that he had a fiery side to him as well. While there might have been differences from time to time regarding some philosophical or organizational points of view between what Aindra Prabhu and what others viewed as Srila Prabhupada's presentation over the years, all of those concerns and exchanges fade far into the distance as we remember the overwhelming ecstatic waves of kirtan that filled the Krsna-Balarama Mandir and our hearts - the manifestation of which was certainly the fulfillment of a primary desire of His Divine Grace."
The GBC are less than honest in suggesting that Aindra's views differed from "what others viewed as Srila Prabhupada's presentation". In fact, his differences were primarily with the GBC themselves, not with "others". Yes, Aindra's problems no doubt trickled down to those ISKCON leaders who are implementing the GBC edicts that were the source of Aindra's contentions, but the GBC should simply have been honest about the fact that Aindra had difficulty with them, specifically. As it is, they come across as devious and self-serving.
The GBC would have done well to eliminate another gratuitous statement from their letter – that "all of those concerns and exchanges fade far into the distance" as they fondly remember Aindra. Well as we can see, that is simply wishful thinking on the GBC's part. The difficulties are not just fading away. Aindra had many compatriots who agreed with him on certain philosophical points, and these devotees will continue to stand on their principles… not let them fade out of view, as the GBC hopes. And if Aindra's book makes it out of the publishing house and onto the streets, the difficulties may even increase for the GBC, as the author's views and complaints get an even wider audience in the community of devotees.
Next was the video memorial from Jayapataka Swami. His video presentation bears the subtitle, "Traveling Preaching Ministry". Jayapataka's message was delivered not from Mayapur Dhama but from Los Angeles, California, where he has been for some time now, absorbed in getting relief from his health problems.
The Swami talks about "hearing there was some difficulty" with Aindra in 2001, which makes it sound as though Maharaja didn't have direct information and wasn't personally involved. But when there is a campaign of pressure being exerted by the GBC members on an individual devotee like Aindra, it's very difficult to believe that Jayapataka didn't know the details, chapter and verse, and wasn't a key decision maker in the strategy against Aindra.
It's interesting that Jayapataka goes into great detail about some personal friction between he and Aindra, the details of which make it sound rather superficial, yet he says nothing of the serious problems that resulted in the campaign against him, including threats of ousting him from his abode and service at the temple.
About the circumstances of Aindra's death, Jayapataka Swami says, "for some reason he couldn't get out of his room", and when he couldn't get out, he just offered his obeisances to the deities. He says this twice, and states that this happened in Vrindavan, during the sacred time of Lord Jagannath being in the Gundicha temple (in Puri), which makes it a great and auspicious moment to leave one's body.
Now with all respects to Aindra prabhu, this explanation from Jayapataka Swami is rather a stretch. Just as in the case of the story of Tamal Krishna Goswami's violent death, circumstances were essentially fabricated by the officials who related the events, making it out to be a very auspicious departure, although the facts indicated otherwise. While there is no doubt that Lord Jagannatha's visit to Gundicha Temple in Puri Dhama is auspicious, it would seem to have no connection whatsoever to what Aindra dasa experienced in his room at Vrindavan.
Jayapataka Swami clearly informs his listeners that Aindra prabhu "obviously went back to Godhead, he went to the spiritual world, he went to Krishna loka". Of course, as much as we all hope that is the case, unless Maharaja is an extremely advanced Vaisnava, he has no way of knowing this for sure, especially given the circumstances. It is not our philosophy to say that every devotee who departs goes to Krishna loka, like Christians who say everyone goes back to the arms of Jesus.
Jayapataka closes his message by saying that he hopes Aindra's kirtan CD's are freely distributed, but he doesn't mention the book, which the GBC are reportedly very worried about seeing distributed.
Gopal das, a local authority from ISKCON Vrindavan provided a detailed forensic report of what took place before and after Aindra's departure, and what appeared to have caused his death. It seems clear from the report that the temple officials want to quell any rumors or misconceptions that they had anything to do with his death.
While we appreciate how carefully the report was detailed, in it the temple officials do not own up to the fact that there was a big disagreement between them and Aindra. The local authorities' description of the conditions that Aindra was living in, which undoubtedly contributed to his death, is in itself indicative of their attitude towards him. Srila Prabhupada said that if you want to get rid of disease or an unwanted guest, then just don't feed them. In this case, the temple authorities obviously didn't want Aindra there, and they consequently gave him the facility they did, which was not suitable for someone of his stature. Even at that, they had tried in the past to oust him from his home, as detailed in Krsnacandra's report, "Aindra – The Fight for his Home.
On one hand, the temple authorities tell us how wonderful, saintly, brahminical and senior Aindra was, and at the same time, they allowed him to fight for the right to live in those conditions. Read Gopal das's detailed description of the room, then image some visiting ISKCON sannyasi or GBC coming to Vrindavan, and being offered that facility. Most would be highly insulted and fuming; they would refuse to stay in such quarters.
If the accident that took Aindra's life had happened in the United States, you would immediately have some official coming in to inspect, levy fines, and provide their report to the lawyers, for the lawsuit that would surely follow. As described in the temple report, Aindra's room clearly didn't have the safety features that any reasonable living establishment should have, and which the law provides for in most developed countries.
We know that in Vrindavan and throughout Indian, living spaces are typically designed to give cross-ventilation, both from the outside balconies and via swing doors inside the space, so one has a breeze to comfortably offset the heat. This space Aindra lived in was once a studio for making recordings, which Aindra also did there, and for that reason it was quite airtight. Unfortunately, in the case of a propane accident, there was no place for the gas to go. In normal circumstance some of the gas could have escaped – and given proper fire alarms, gas detectors and exits, the occupant might also have escaped.
So the fact is that Aindra was living in this facility, even while doing the important service that he was with the 24 hour kirtans, which seems a clear indication that they just didn't want him there. Regardless of the fact that he fought hard not to be evicted from his space, it is difficult to believe that if the temple had offered him nicer accommodations, he wouldn't have gladly accepted. And if they had truly appreciated him in the way their official statements indicate, then why would they not have given him much better facility to exist in?
You can point to leaking gas lines, or low Indian standards and so on, but it's essentially like saying that the accident was Aindra's fault, because he didn't properly maintain his equipment. Of course, good management and supervision could and should have helped prevent this accident. The officials should have already been vigilant about this sort of problem, given the other similar accidents that had already happened. You'd think they would have already instituted a program of inspecting each and every room that had these pieces of equipment, providing the residents with smoke and gas detectors and alarms, or requiring the residents to provide their own, and making sure there's enough ventilation so that if a leak does occur, it won't result in what happened to Aindra – what to speak of the risk of burning the entire structure down and risking the Deities and lives of the other devotees.
Aside from the practical aspects of the situation, we can only wonder as to the spiritual cause, wondering why someone so saintly and devoted to his service would, ultimately by Krsna's arrangement, die in such a seemingly traumatic way. ISKCON eulogized Tamal Krishna Goswami when he died in a violent accident which many construed to be inauspicious. Today, many are speculating in the same way about Aindra's departure, but we really cannot say it's auspicious or inauspicious. It happened in Vrindavan, that's auspicious. It took place in Srila Prabhupada's temple facility, that's also auspicious. Aindra apparently didn't have to suffer for very long, and he's eligible for a better body, and that's also auspicious. The fact that he ended in this way seems very violent, but so was the Battle of Kurukshetra violent. Violence and sudden circumstances are not unknown in our sastra.
Rather than guessing at what happened, we should be trying to find out how to prevent such things from happening in future in ways that are inauspicious. Srila Prabhupada spoke at great length, and often, about management and how ultimately, management is to blame when situations take place that aren't natural. Management is expected to step forward and say yes, it's my fault. When the son dies and the father's still alive, then the father goes to the king and complains, "This is unnatural, this is your fault. This is inauspicious, and it's something to do with your management."
In a case like this, which took place on the temple premises, from my point of view it's definitely got to do with management. It's neglect. It shouldn't have happened, and probably wouldn't have happened like this if the facility had been more suitable for human habitation. Yet they allowed Aindra to live there, and now we have the result. It's a good thing this happened in India, because in America, they would have been sued, without question, and in short order.
As we see in Gopal das's report, damage control is the first priority of the temple management. They not only wanted a concise record of events, they wanted to waylay rumors, and they also wanted to reflect the blame away from themselves. No apologies or explanation have been forthcoming for their part in it. No one is taking responsibility or saying they should have done this, could have done that, we're going to improve, we're going to make sure this never happens again, this is going to lead to big changes, and so on. I've not heard any such statements coming from ISKCON with this kind of attitude. If we were hearing such things, that would be a demonstration of real management. That someone who's a sincere authority steps forward and takes responsibility for something like this having happened.
Let's face it, accidents like this one are often preventable. Even in the case of motor accidents like the one which took the life of Tamal Krishna Goswami, the accident could have been prevented. There's a room conversation wherein the devotees are describing to Srila Prabhupada how they drove very, very quickly to meet him at the airport. They were driving over the speed limit and the police stopped them. They sweet talked their way out of getting a ticket, but when Srila Prabhupada heard this, his comment was, 'Well you shouldn't be speeding. It's dangerous. You can get in an accident.' You've got to be careful. Many, many devotees have died on the road, and or had near-death or serious injuries because they weren't careful, and didn't take into account what a dangerous place the material world is.
What Aindra's book will say, we shall all have to wait and see. He apparently didn't want to put it out in digital form, so we'll have to wait until printed copies are available. I do commend Aindra for being bold enough to say how he feels about the policies and philosophy that ISKCON is following, which he believed go against Guru, Sadhu and Sastra. I'm doing the same thing, as are many others who've been ousted from Srila Prabhupada's movement. Because of the trend towards religiosity and the church-like management style of the GBC, they have degraded themselves. Anyone who's not following the party line is simply ejected. But in the case of Aindra prabhu, it appears that he will have the last word, after all.
