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

Comments Posted By Jagainitai

Displaying 1 To 4 Of 4 Comments

Further reflection

Good idea for a great site. Thank you very much for your hard work. Your site helps me feel connected.

Your servant,

Jagai-Nitai dasa

» Posted By Jagainitai On Aug 3, 2006 @ 5:16 pm

Impartial We Stand Biased We Fall

Thank you. I really appreciate this level of reasoning. I hope the GBC takes your words to heart.

Jagai-Nitai dasa

» Posted By Jagainitai On Jul 26, 2006 @ 4:04 pm

For Whom Does Hinduism Speak?

I give you a standing ovation!

Your servant

Jagai-Nitai dasa

» Posted By Jagainitai On Jul 19, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

The Essence of Dharma is Truth – a response to “Time to be Dharmic”

“Satyaraja Prabhu states that Dhanurdhara Maharaja ‘has paid his dues.’ Actually, the original CPO decision of 1999 states that while Dhanurdhara Maharaja would immediately be restricted from initiating in ISKCON for five years, his future, permanent status as an initiating guru in ISKCON should be decided by the GBC. That is the question the GBC is taking up now. There is no double jeopardy here (being tried for the same crime twice).”

Umm.. I don’t get it. Should Dhanurdhara Maharaja follow the CPO or the GBC? If he followed the mandates of the CPO and 7 years latter the GBC makes its own judgments, that is not technically double jeopardy, but he is being tried by two different courts for the same crime. Isn’t that really the same as double jeopardy? Isn’t he also being asked by the GBC to give 50% of his time to healing the victims and now there is even a question of his sanyasa? That is an ex post facto law (adding on new penalty to an already tried case). How would you like to be tried in this way? Honestly does this sound like due process?

“His compliance with the CPO decision was lukewarm and at times crossed the line, as confirmed by Tamohara Prabhu, the director of the Child Protection Office. Dhanurdhara Maharaja’s response to the CPO decision was not the surrendered embrace of both the spirit as well as the letter of the law that Satyaraja Prabhu presents.”

Isn’t this an issue of compliance? If he didn’t follow the decision of the CPO the way the decision was intended, then the current responsibility would be on the CPO to state the consequences of following the verdict lukewarm-ly. If the lukewarm-ness is the reason for adding penalty to the CPO decision then the GBC should say “Because Dhanurdhara Maharaja did not follow the CPO verdict properly then ___ will be added to his punishment”. No?

I guess I am confused about the position of the CPO. Why follow them at all? It would have been better for Maharaja to have ignored the mandate of the CPO and wait till the whole thing is summed up by the GBC and then follow that decision. This is not a question of the severity of the crimes he has committed, it is a question of due process or the lack thereof.

Your servant,

Jagai-Nitai dasa

» Posted By Jagainitai On Jul 13, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

«« Back To Stats Page