You can submit your article, report, announcement, ad etc. by mailing to

Comments Posted By BhaktaMikael

Displaying 1 To 11 Of 11 Comments


Dear Krishna Dharma prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP.
I was very impressed with this your paper, which I see is dated 2000. In it, you suggest to lift the ban of initiating in the presence of one´s diksha-guru. Today it seems that this ban has been lifted. But I am curious to know, why? Isn´t that against Shrila Prabhupada´s instructions? Why should we change and invents things, instead of leaving things as they were when he was here with us? Judging from Prabhupada´s final instructions, there was no need to change anything.
Apart from this, I agree with most of the contents of your strategy. There is a great need to change the overall mentality in ISKCON pertaining to levels of “advancement” in different categories of devotees. Unfortunately it is still a fact that certain devotees are put on exclusive pedestals, at the expense of others. And it is still quite common to hear senior devotees (even disciples of Shrila Prabhupada´s) express a cynical attitude towards so called “uninitiated” devotees, even if they (the one´s who have not yet accepted formal initiation, i.e. a fire sacrifice and a new name) have been in the movement for 20 years or more. We need to rid ourselves of this material attitude if we want to impress the audience of new potential devotees whom we are preaching to.
your, servant, Bhakta Mikael

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 30, 2006 @ 9:41 pm

GBC Statement Concerning Dhanurdhara Swami

Dear Jahnudvipa, PAMHO. AGTSP.
Thank you for your comments. I don´ t think it´s a good idea for me to give a lenghty response here in this public forum. I don´t wish to waste any more webspace on off-topic responses related to accusations against my person. Who I am is really not important. The topic of discussion is. But it is obvious that certain devotees are obsessed with personal qualifications pertaining to one´s hierarchical position in ISKCON, rather than being interested in give and take. To me this sounds like bodily consciousness rather than Krishna consciousness. I have more interesting things to do than to meditate upon the amount of years I have been in ISKCON, how many books I have read, how grand my institutional merits are etc etc.
I have certainly not attempted to teach you anything. Your whole message is full of personal attacks and jumping to false conclusions. I don´t know you, and you don´t know me. If we want to get to know one another, this forum is not the place. If you want to say something to me in private you are most welcome to do so.

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jul 3, 2006 @ 1:01 am

Dear Simon Kitty, PAMHO. AGTSP!
Thanks for responding. Yes, obviously there is a lot in this movement that requires our tolerance and patience. Nice to see that you have dynamic viewpoints and the ability to express them in a civilized manner. If devotees can´t even speak to each other without yelling and being abusive in language, then where can there be any hope?
ys, Bhakta Mikael

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 28, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

Braja Sevaki, thanks again for your kind tone! Since you are expert in the three topics mentioned, why don´t you educate me (and others), instead of cutting me off with that attitude of disgust? If you´re more advanced (than me), shouldn´t you be more humble and willing to help also?
Bhakta Mikael

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 27, 2006 @ 8:48 pm

Dear Braja Sevaki prabhu, Dandavats!
Thank you for your humble comments! Your solution seems to be to keep one’s mouth shut and let the glorious abusers come and go. Sorry, but this is a forum meant for speaking, not for silence. I never said it was an ISKCON specific problem. But as long as we are in ISKCON, we should clean up our own act first, before saving the world. I perfectly understand the powers of the material energy, and I am not surprised (as you seem to suggest) that there are bound to be members in ISKCON who will turn out to be something opposite to what was expected of them. This is natural since we are all individuals from different backgrounds. My reaction, however, is against the ISKCON system of authority, when it seems to sanction all kinds of misbehaviour and let these so called gurus and leaders stay in their positions even after they have been exposed as cheaters. The standard required in ISKCON for becoming guru and treated as topmost devotee (as good as God) seems relatively low in comparison to the criteria of a pure devotee as described in shastra. That is my only objection.

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 27, 2006 @ 4:09 pm

Dear Simon Kitty, PAMHO. AGTSP.
You say you don´t want to ever see the words Swami and Abuse in the same sentence again. Does this mean that you are longing for a cleansed ISKCON, where such things are not even possible? Or do you mean that you just want these things to be kept in the closet?
ys, Bhakta Mikael

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 21, 2006 @ 9:59 pm

May I ask, how is it possible that a sannyasi and GBC authorized initiating spiritual master can be a child abuser? Hos is it possible? On another page of, Romapada Swami explains about the Degree of advancement of spiritual master, saying among other things that such a spiritual master should be on the topmost platform of devotional service, i.e. an uttama adhikari. How is it possible for an uttama adhikari to be a child abuser, having to resign from being guru?
Even though there is a quite recent GBC resolution declaring that an ISKCON guru doesn´t exactly have to be on the topmost platform, still we see that ISKCON gurus are treated as above everyone else in terms of advancement. Until they fall down. Then they are rejected, leaving place for the next “authorized” guru. Who authorizes? Do we follow Shrila Prabhupada´s instructions or not? When will this habit of downfalling “topmost devotees” end?

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 21, 2006 @ 9:55 pm

Dear Visitors

Hare Krishna. I am sorry, but it feels somewhat impersonal to address someone who refers to himself as \\\\\\\”worm in stool\\\\\\\”. What can be more disgusting than that? It must be a heavy self-image to carry around. No wonder you are disgusted by other people, including devotees who happen to possess a material body.

Maybe it´s very convenient to be a worm; one doesn´t have to worry one´s mind with spiritual qualities like equal vision and respect towards every living entity (Bhagavad-gita 5.18).

Thank you Praghosha prabhu, for lauching this website. It looks promising!

Editorial Note: We inadvertently posted the original comment that this post is replying to. Dandavats policy is not to post anything signed with an alias.

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 17, 2006 @ 11:16 pm

Maharaja Clarifies His Position on Gay Marriages

To Ajita Krishna Dasa, PAMHO.
“Therefore homosexual desires are a further perversion. One that can’t be engaged in devotional service.”

Disagree. In what way do you mean that homophobia can be engaged in devotional service? Because we are not even speaking about gross sexuality here (according to your definition) but merely the fact that a certain percentage (up to 10% according to studies) of the world´s population is (for some reason, which we may discuss later) has homo- or bisexual preferences. The same percentage obviously applies to the stock of ISKCON members. The only message you have produced so far is that all these devotees are suffering from a disease and they should be cured by our bhakti-yoga process. So what is your practical suggestion? Are they not already in sadhana, for years or decades? Do you know the sexual identity of all your devotee friends? How many times have you witnessed homosexual behaviour among your godbrothers and sisters? What do you do to cure them from their disease? You are apparantly dismissing a lot of devotees, saying that they are not engaged in devotional service, without even knowing who they are! You claim this very thing in your next statement:

“the whole mentality of a person suffering the disease of being homosexual influences that persons environment in a negative way, a way that brings no one closer to Krishna.”

This statement means nothing if you cannot back it up with some examples or evidence. You seem to be very well-informed about the whole mentality of a devotee whose body happens to possess a homosexual preference. Where does this knowledge of yours come from? I agree with Amara prabhu and his analogy of being left/right-handed. Does the whole mentality of a left-handed devotee also influence his/her environment in a particular way?

8) May I ask, what is your theory about the cause of homosexuality? How and when does a person develop sexual orientation? It sounds to me that you believe it is something chosen, something which a person volontarily “creates”. Everyone knows this to be nonsense, just as no one chooses to be right- or left-handed.

10) I know it hasn´t happened as soon as there is a child being produced in our movement! No man or woman can produce a child without being sexually active. No man can produce an erection without being sexually aroused. So you are speaking against child production also?

“even if you are not conditioned by sex desires you can choose to produce children.”

How is this done?

“But it might be that they are no longer conditioned by sex desire. And again, it’s not their sexuality but the body’s sexuality.”

Yes, and why do you assume that homosexuals have a different setup? Maybe it´s even easier for a homosexual to be no longer conditioned by sex desire? And yes: even for homosexuals, it´s not their sexuality but the body´s sexuality, right?
So if a devotee with a homosexual body has overcome the body´s sex desire – then it is ok, meaning he or she doesn´t any longer influence the environment in a negative way, but on the contrary brings others closer to Krishna? Why do you assume this is not already happening?

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Aug 9, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

To Ajita Krishna Dasa, PAMHO. AGTSP!

I beg your pardon prabhu, but some of your statements make no sense. You say that homosexuality is first of all a perversion of the soul´s original love for Krishna. OK. So that means that heterosexuality is also a perversion of the soul´s original love for Krishna – right?

I would be interesting to hear your definition of “gross” and “subtle” forms of sexuality. What I have learned from the teachings of Shrila Prabhupada (which is also confirmed by modern psychology) is that “subtle sexuality” refers to things like aggression, passion (the urge to build scyscrapers, for instance) etc. Is this your definition also? In that case, where is the difference between hetero- and homosexuality? It is simply sexuality in subtle forms.
“Gross sexuality” may be analyzed as 1) the basic sexual identity of a person (a material body, to be precise); 2) sexual acts based on that (material) identity. Judging from your conclusions, it means that heterosexuality is also a perversion, both in gross and subtle forms. Correct?

The only actual difference between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts is the fact that sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy requires a male body and a female body. If we accept the statement that sexual intercourse is only meant for producing children, then naturally homosexual activities fill no purpose in that regard. Homosexuals are therefore left with one option: celibacy, whereas heterosexuals are left with two options: celibacy, or sexual intercourse meant for producing a child. What is the problem with this? Why do I get the feeling that you only refer to homosexuality when you say that “we can avoid sexuality by transcending the modes of material nature”? Or do you suggest, that in order to transcend the modes of material nature, we must stop producing children also?

You say that homosexuality is a disease and can be cured by sadhana-bhakti. So what is it you mean can be cured – the homosexual identity of a devotee, or the sexual desires and impulses (resulting in acts)?
As we have now concluded that there is no difference between the two forms of sexuality other than the aspect of potential child-production, doesn´t this mean that heterosexual devotees are also diseased by their heterosexuality and should be cured by sadhana-bhakti? Why hasn´t this happened yet? Why are there still children being produced by devotees? It certainly cannot be because their sexuality has been exterminated by sadhana, or am I missing something? Please explain, thank you.

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Aug 8, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

PAMHO. AGTSP! In regards to Hridayananda Goswamis statement, I beg to ask for some clarification. In his statement (as well as in almost all statements about homosexuality) it appears as if homosexuality means the same as sexual actions. This is of course not true. So I think it looks quite strange to read things like “cannot completely avoid homosexuality”. How can anyone avoid their sexuality – heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual? What we can avoid is acting out our sexuality, wether we possess this or that sexual preference. It always sounds to me as if heterosexual people are capable of renouncing their sexual actions more or less, but homosexuals are not. This is ridiculous.
ys, Bhakta Mikael

» Posted By BhaktaMikael On Jun 15, 2006 @ 12:17 pm

«« Back To Stats Page