By Praghosa dasa
We are concerned that all the comment regarding the Dhanurdhara Swami issue is creating more heat than light. It is far from certain as to whether these postings are helping to solve the issue at hand and arguably they are making it worse.
The issues are fairly clear:
On the one hand some feel that Dhanurdhara Swami is the victim of unproven allegations and double jeopardy and as a result offences are being committed against him.
On the other hand many feel it is offensive that due to his past he still has the blessings of the GBC body to initiate.
Dandavats is in the process of evaluating whether to continue with this discussion, in the meantime many devotees are working hard to try to find a solution to this issue, that is in accordance with our vaisnava culture and thus acceptable to the overwhelming body of devotees.
Finally, some devotees are a little unhappy that some comments or articles are a little slow in being posted on the site. We have a fairly small team of editors and we have to carefully go through all contributions. As much as there maybe some disappointment if we are a little slow, there is far greater upset if we post something that is unsuitable or offensive to the readers.
Hare Krsna.
Praghosa dasa
Regarding continuing the discussion: There are, as you say, some good reasons for possibly discontinuing it. At the same time, many devotees have long felt that they did not have a voice. Therefore, providing a forum where devotees can have a voice about such a pivotal issue as this one is extremely healthy and beneficial for the Society.
Sometimes it is difficult to listen to unpleasant thoughts, and ideas, but the advantage Dandavats has offered is to allow many devotees the chance to clear up many bottled up feelings and doubts about this issue in a very unique, positive, and unbiased way. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to listen, and to allow all sides on the issue to speak their minds.
Well spoken, but why stop with this issue, after reading some articles posted on this site, I am left to wonder if several of the contributors have ever interacted with the rank and file of Iskcon.
If I were to say “time to leave your ivory towers” would that be considered offensive?
ys mvd
A discussion wherein Danudhara Swami’s peers are making comments, conclusions, discussing details, and suggesting the course of action to take — all in the presence of juniors, who in turn are given facility to comment in public on Maharaja’s consciousness, past activities, motives, and even on his future within the Society — is in every way opposed to those teachings, and is never going to create a harmonious environment, what to speak of a solution. How can it? Such a discussion is without spiritual precept. It lacks those qualities that our acaryas teach us are the essence of maintaining relationships, order, respect, and most of all, proper Vaisnava conduct.
While Srila Prabhupada encouraged the GBC to be accountable in their dealings, he emphasized more times than I can count that we are not a democracy; everyone is not equal, and therefore not everyone has the right to the same level of discussions, the same information, the same “openness” as the management and leadership have.
Regardless of how much it burns us to hear it, it’s got to be said: some things are none of our business, and should remain that way. And if that bothers some people, then I can only emphasize that we follow in the footsteps of Srila Rupa Goswami, and it might help if one familiarized themselves with his teachings on this subject.
Braja Sevaki’s condescending letter (“it might help if one familiarized themselves with the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami”) is a particularly frightening example of the dangerous phenomenon I described in my response to His Holiness Giriraja Swami’s letter: misapplying principles of Vaisnava etiquette and culture toward a truly dysfuntional end. Everyone is not equal??? These things are “none of our business”??? Mataji, this is our Movement and this is all of our business. And, frankly, I would suggest that it’s this Dark Ages of ISKCON mentality that has created almost all of the problems our Movement faces today. I think the return to the Dark Ages that you advocate would be going backward, not forward, and would not benefit anyone.
Lalita Madhava, the fact that you are so alarmed at the concept of not being equal and of being excluded from the discussions about a senior devotee’s future further confirms for me that this discussion does not belong in a public place where everyone’s “opinions” are deemed to be valid. The “dark ages” of this “ISKCON mentality” as you so casually refer to it were established by Rupa Goswami and upheld by Srila Prabhupada. Your condescension towards Prabhupada and the teachings of the acaryas is what is truly alarming. It is this kind of rejection of our philosophy and etiquette that has caused ISKCON’s problems.
It is our business to learn how to apply every aspect of the philosophy: not the cold, heartless application that has been seen in the past in some areas, nor the emotional, sentimental application that seems to be prevalent these days. Our business is to find the balance. Our business is to respect our previous acarya’s teachings, not try to “adapt” them to fit our conditioned and rejecting minds. Our business is to understand what our contribution is in ISKCON within any given situation.
I would humbly suggest that if one is “frightened” by the suggestion of familiarizing themselves with the meaning of Srila Rupa Goswami’s texts, then there’s not much hope that their contribution to a solution would be valid.
And since I advocate that the discussion of this case in public is diametrically opposed to the spiritual values that ISKCON seeks to uphold, then I am withdrawing with the hope that at least in some, good sense will prevail and we will see and end to this topic in the market place of internet sites.
“Sometimes Maya may come and try to interfere but we must not falter, we must
always follow the chalked out path laid down by the great acaryas, and in
the end you will see.”
BTW, Lalita Madhava: in brief, to address your points above, there is a very nice posting on the front page of this website by Hari sauri prabhu.
Lalita Madhava dd: You seem particularly offended by being told you’re not equal, and that some things are none of your business. You have answered emotionally, but with no sastric support for your own beliefs that you have the right to be involved with everything that is discussed. Kindly provide the sastric references to your demands and let’s see where it goes from there….
Ok so there were over500 registerd claiments in that minor cout case,is it any of their bisiness?then there are the mums and dads,is it any of thier bisiness?
then we have the people who silently supported the system that kept DDS and others in place ,is it any of their bisiness?how about DDS ‘s approx 5000 god brothers and sisters ,is it any of their bisiness?how about all those kids who went through the system and didn’t claim ,is it their bisiness?
who will decide whose bisiness it is,Braja sevaki prabhu.
Please also could you quote the relevent sastra in english if thats ok for our benifit
mvdas
mahavidya das wrote:
“who will decide whose business it is, Braja sevaki prabhu.”
Answer: Not you.
Braja Sevaki: You twisted everything I said around, taking my words out of context, manipulating them and then randomly reassembling them for your own purposes. I have no doubt this is clear to any rational person who reads these postings, and I will not be baited into a philosophical debate by someone who does something like that. Furthermore, the tone and wording of your letters is insulting and condescending and I choose not to dignify them by responding to them point for point.
Mataji: If you want the right to voice your opinion, you must also be mature enough to accept the responses and reactions which come as a result of that. When challenged, you have simply thrown tantrums. It again re-emphasizes for me why these discussions in public are of absolutely no value to anyone. The fact remains that there is an etiquette surrounding the discussion of these things. While Srila Prabhupada says that a sadhu has “no private life,” it doesn’t mean that it’s open day on his life and future when he does something wrong. It is for the authorities in ISKCON to decide, and his equals and peers. Not that everyone who thinks they have a democratic right to speak does so.
Dear Braja sevaki prabhu,
Thank you for your informative response, I for one am making it my business, like many others and just why is that – because there are those of us who do care about what happens to HDG’s society.
If we did not care it would be a great offence to HDG.
Do you not understand that this issue goes a lot further and deeper than DDS?
He is only one of many. It also reflects on the whole system and mentality that was and in some places still exists, that allowed this nonesense to go on in HDG’s society.
This ongoing nonsense has made many of us ashamed to be associated with Iskcon.
How is it that it took a $400 million lawsuit to convince segments of our society that in fact we have a problem? It wasn’t one or two complaints but 500+. Just see to what extremes these prabhus had to go to, to be heard. Now you may want to brush it all off with a quote or two, sorry but that’s not going to happen. My own daughters had a legitimate right to part of that case as did others but they choose not too. You can if you want quite rightly quote sastra but will you be also contributing like many innocent others to the court costs and fines?
So will you Braja sevaki prabhu be making it your business to decide who or who is not to be making this their business?
mvdas
It’s pretty obvious that devotees on the various sides of this issue (and others) care deeply about what happens in ISKCON. We all want ISKCON to remain the transcendental society that Srila Prabhupada created for our good and for Krishna’s pleasure. Given this common goal, I hope we can have patience with each other in spite of our differences. It seems tragically ironic that the problem was essentially that devotees were mistreating devotees, and now in promoting our various solutions, we’re mistreating each other in other ways.
This issue of child abuse in ISKCON is an incredible challenge to many devotees’ faith. It defies my understanding as if a blue Sun arose one morning. It just doesn’t fit in my idea of reality, but it is a situation that has forced its way into our lives. It is very stressful. I hope we can avoid faulting each other for dealing with it in different ways.
Personally I’ve reacted by leaving, coming back, trying to ignore it, leaving again, and then coming back again. That was largely an emotional response of an immature devotee. I criticized many devotees, and I have felt sorry for that. I’ve rarely felt wrong, but I did feel my faith in the whole process radically diminish; and therefore I can understand that I did do something wrong. I don’t know if it was because of the original problem that deflated my faith, or my response to it, but I believe it was both. Fortunately my faith is growing again; I believe it’s because I’ve learned, due to necessity, to love the good in devotees and to not support – rather than criticize – the parts of them that seem wrong or do not inspire me.
I got so upset with devotees because I cared so much about ISKCON, so even though I left, I had to come back. I experienced serious conflicts with other devotees, but I am compelled to make amends because Srila Prabhupada requested us to cooperate with each other, and ultimately I know that my fate in Krishna consciousness depends on pleasing him. Whether I am an individual who leaves, feeling disappointed with ISKCON, or one who drove someone else to leave, in either case my inspiration for devotional service has to suffer for that. Srila Prabhupada did not create ISKCON so we could wreck it by being the ‘best’ devotee and driving others away. Something I would like all of us to bear in mind is that our future together will likely be much easier if we are not overly critical of each other’s various ways of trying to handle difficult issues. I’m confident that Srila Prabhupada is proud of our individual dedication to advancing his movement according to the ideals that we feel he promoted. Yet I’m sure he would be more pleased if we could find a way to patiently work with each other so that we can not only survive the problems but grow in faith, maturity, and Krishna consciousness. I pray that I have finally stopped offending devotees. Hare Krsna.
Regarding Etiquette
Braja Sevaki, you told everbody 5 letters ago that you were withdrawing from this conversation. Yet on and on and on you go, simply resorting to blatant argumentum ad hominem when you can not prove your point by any other means. But, for someone who obviously considers herself more conversant with the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami than everyone else on the internet, I humbly suggest that you yourself appear to be missing the very essence of his teachings when it comes to basic Vaisnava etiquette. The tone and manner in which you speak to people is simply astounding. How can you possibly expect to advise devotees on the teachings of the acaryas when you yourself can not even manage to speak to people politely?
Regarding Etiquette:
Lalita Madhava, I said I was withdrawing from the discussion about Danudhara Swami; since you have taken it into another realm, why need I withdraw?
I’m disturbed by the contiuing emotional angle this conversation is taking. Mataji, you you make statements like I “consider myself more conversant with the teachings of Rupa Goswami than anyone on the internet.” Can you not understand the inflammatory (and insulting) tone this carries? Where did I claim this? Is it by considering that discussing some issues in public is not in line with the teachings of Rupa Goswami that I am deemed to be “insulting,” “condescending,” and that I know better “than everyone else on the internet?” Can you honestly show me how you arrive at these conclusions? It again underlines my point, that when these discussions go into the emotional realm, then so many wrong conclusions are drawn, so many offenses are committed. You have turned this whole discussion into a litany of bad qualities I possess solely (seemingly) for the purpose of disturbing you. I find this a little hard to keep up with, but still….
There is no point to this present discussion. My tone and manner have not been impolite, but obviously you have taken offense. For that I am sorry. However, I would ask you to consider my points with a rational and cool head, and not respond emotionally. I understand this is an emotional issue, but that won’t resolve it. Still there has been no discussion on your part of my original points, which I tried to draw you back to several times, but which you consistently respond to with even greater attacks on my tone and manner. I believe this is called a strawman tactic. Regardless, it doesn’t really do much. More proof that this is not the forum for this kind of discussion.
It seems that it’s not a discussion you desire, but just a place where everyone will listen to you and not have a different opinion. All the bets finding that, anywhere in all the universes. And if you do find it, be sure to drop a line to dandavats.com and let us know….!
Dear Praghosa Prabhu,
Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. As the author of Reflecting on Progress So Far, I address this letter to you. I wonder if you have noticed the manner in which Braja Sevaki’s postings to me are deteriorating into not-so-thinly-veiled personal insults. I am hereby appealing to you to address this issue.
While it is true that I vehemently disagreed with a point she was making, and that I also said I thought it was condescending of her to advise a worldwide audience of Vaisnavas to “familiarize themselves with the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami,” I have never at any time attacked her personally. Yet over the course of her 5 or 6 postings she has endeavored to discredit me personally by saying that I am “condescending toward Srila Prabhupada and the acaryas,” that I am “rejecting the philosophy,” and that I am “frightened by the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami” and therefore “can not have any valid contribution to make.” (What I said was that I found her application of a Vaisnava principle to be frightening, not, obviously, the teachings of Srila Rupa Goswami. But she twisted what I said completely around in a very bizarre way.) She has also, in her attempt to discredit me with the argumentum ad hominem approach and thus invalidate my point, called me “emotional” and “immature” and has called my discomfort with her rudeness and my subsequent unwillingness to engage in a dialogue with her “throwing tantrums.” While I have openly expressed, in response to these insults, that I thought she was being insulting, I have never at any time made the sort of personal attack on her character or personality that she has repeatedly made on mine.
Certainly devotees can have widely disparate viewpoints and should be allowed to express them. But Braja Sevaki is dragging the tone of this website down with her argumentum ad hominem personal attacks. I do not feel that it reflects well on dandavats and I do not like it personally. Therefore I once again appeal to you, as the moderator, to protect all contributors to dandavats, including me, from this type of personal attack.
Your servant,
Lalita Madhava d.d.
Dear Mother Lalita Madhava,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
As you have addressed me directly I will respond accordingly. I share your disappointment with the tone of the exchange between yourself and Mother Braja Sevaki and as I also don’t anticipate that it will likely change soon, I will not post anymore comments on this subject after this one unless the tone changes. If you read my original posting – reflecting on the progress so far – the very point I was making about more heat being generated than light, has been proven with regards to the exchange between yourself and Mother Braja Sevaki.
As editor of the site I am not inclined to apportion blame but I would like to highlight the current discussion that is taking place on the subject of guru approval/guru deregulation. While the participants of that discussion have more or less polar opposite views, the exchanges have been characterised by civility and vaisnava etiquette. And the upside of this is that the reader is afforded a deep probing of all the issues involved and both the contributors and onlookers are all benefitted.
This of course is not the case regarding your exchange with Braja Sevaki. Braja Sevaki claims that you are reacting emotionally and not addressing her points, you say she is being insulting and offensive toward you with her remarks. As I said at the beginning I am not inclined to pass judgement and as the saying goes – there is always three sides to a story one side, the other side and the truth. Fully accepting Braja Sevaki’s desire for you to address her points, I would simply suggest that in any future discussion where there is disagreement, it might be more productive to achieve that end if the points were presented in a slightly less provocative way.
Finally as vaisnavas we should always be open to learning from other vaisnavas. If our default position is that we are right and the other devotee is wrong it is highly unlikely that there will be an auspicious outcome. To be open and willing to change our viewpoint on any given issue, as a result of hearing from others, requires humility and as we know humility is the basis of all knowledge.
Your servant, Praghosa dasa.
Mother Braja Sevaki: It appears that you resort to below-the-belt personal insults to accomplish what you are unable to do by playing fair with logical reasoning and rational discussion. Not only that, you demand sastric support where none is needed. I completely support the points made by my mother, Lalita Madhava, and by Mahavidya Prabhu. As a gurukuli (and a mother myself), this is our business, to be discussed by us, and for us as a movement to be involved in the final decision. DDS’s activities were not just a private matter that involved no one but himself and which did not inflict harm on anyone else. Had that been the case, I can understand someone saying that it was not the business of anyone and everyone to openly discuss and become involved in. However, his actions were extremely harmful and painful to many, many people (children, no less) and therefore it is our business. We gurukulis are the ones who are going to be carrying on this movement, making new devotees, maintaining existing temples, opening new temples, and spreading Krsna Consciousness farther and farther with every generation. We have a right to be a part of the process. Not only have the child abusers already caused immeasurable pain and suffering to the first generation of gurukulis, you now add insult to injury by trying to shut us (and everyone else) out of the discussion by saying that “it is not our business” and that “we are not all equal.” The kind of attitude you express has the potential to put Srila Prabhupada’s movement in jeopardy by further alienating those who are to carry it on. Speaking for myself, I would be ashamed to introduce new people to devotees with that kind of attitude.
Krishna Darshan d.d.
Alachua
“Juniors and seniors”. What is the criterion? Age? Chronology of entering the movement? Academic achievement? Who your guru is? Who your friends are? Emotional or physical maturity? Or is it realization, something not so objectively categorized? While this is a valid concept in spiritual learning, the danger with making such a strong differentiation in managerial affairs is the creation of an intellectually inbred elitism.
I certainly agree that some issues should not be discussed publicly. For instance, to mention a victim’s name who preferred to remain anonymous, the victim can be forced to relive their experience every time they met someone who knows of their story. However, in this case, Dhanurdhara Maharaja’s friends have had 10 years of keeping this quiet, and I think that is an adequate amount of time. That they have clearly not yet resolved this issue to the satisfaction of many gurukulis indicates that that time is over, and new voices are needed in this discussion.
Dear Praghosa Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced reply. You are correct in pointing out that “there are three sides to any story,” and therefore I wish to apologize for any ways in which I may have unintentionally contributed to what became a distasteful public exchange.
Your servant,
Lalita Madhava d.d.