12/27/97 - 1435

Open Letter To HH Jayadvaita Swami

USA (VNN) - Letter from Halayudha dasa:

Dear Maharaja:

Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada, the Yugacarya, Founder-Acarya of the Golden Age!

I recently had the opportunity to read your very insightful essay entitled, "Where the Rttvik People are Right" on the VADA website. Since it is now in the public domain, I thought it might be OK to send you an open letter. No offense is intended by this writing and it is my sincere hope that you will overlook any that you may perceive herein. Hare Krsna.

Your essay is a rather interesting piece of writing. With one concise stroke of the pen you have delineated much of what has gone wrong with our Society since Srila Prabhupada's Maha-samadhi. You have expertly catalogued our many woes in a way that none of your peers has ever done, or has ever been willing to do. Of course, the "facts" that you have stated have nothing at all to do with those who might fall into the rttvik camp. These problems are a unique set of challenges that have arisen in our society and which affect all of us, no matter what side we choose to support. That they (the rttviks) have brought these things to our attention, insisting that we look at them, is to their credit. In a way, they have rubbed our societal nose in the mess we made on Srila Prabhupada's new carpet and have given us a strong wacking with that fear-inspiring (at least to a young puppy) rolled up newspaper. Does that method work, or what? I've never seen it fail. Unless we admit that the house is messy why would we undertake to clean it? Therefore, for the sake of all of us, including the rttviks, it is extremely important that these issues be addressed calmly, positively, cooperatively and in a vaisnava-like manner so that the next 20 years (or the next 9,500 or so) will be different from the last 20.

There are a couple of comments in your essay that I found somewhat disturbing and which need addressing. You state, "From my point of view, it's easy to see where the rttvik people are wrong. Their theories are supported by matchsticks and held together with Scotch tape. They tell us what Srila Prabhupada "must have" intended, not what he clearly and repeatedly said. In short, they are speculating, and their speculations are defective." If this is simply your point of view, why are you so vehement about the rttviks being wrong? After all, are you not subject to the same four defects as the rest of us? What if your point of view is wrong? Are you the only one who knows what Prabhupada "clearly and repeatedly said"? Is not this debate about understanding what Prabhupada said? Obviously, you and the other GBC thought you knew what Prabhupada "clearly and repeatedly said" when the Zonal Acarya System was inaugurated. Can we trust now that you and your peers understand what he "clearly and repeatedly said" in this matter of initiating disciples? I don't know, Maharaja. You have shown in your essay that we cannot trust the GBC?

Then you say, "Some are just 'sour grapes.' They have rendered themselves unfit to serve as gurus, and now that they can't be gurus, no one can." Here's my perplexity: Sure, some of our godbrothers have disqualified themselves from being 2/3 voted in as guru in ISKCON, but how many of their voted-in godbrother gurus have subsequently "rendered themselves unfit to serve as gurus"? Some in good standing have fallen you have said, others have had near misses, have been suspended, or are on very shaky ground. Are not these "sour grapes" rttvik godbrothers saying (because of their knowledge of themselves, of their inner frailties and outward shortcomings) that they are unfit, and warning us that others in positions of power may be similarly afflicted but may be unwilling to admit their true position? Has not the truth of this been demonstrated time and time again? In the light of the "facts" enumerated in your essay, do you think that all those who say that their godbrothers are unfit to be gurus are "sour grapes"? What has our unfortunate history shown? Maharaja, this next statement I found particularly objectionable: "Others, clearly, have simply been warped by the material energy. Their brains are in their feet and their tongues in their armpits, at best." May I ask you who specifically it is that you are referring to? For my own edification, I would like to be able to clearly identify someone with their brains in their feet and their tongue in their armpit. Are you speaking about your godbrothers who may have been chanting Hare Krsna and following the principles for as long as, or longer than you have? Is this your example of the way we should treat those who hold a different opinion from ours? Is this the Vaisnava trnad api sunicena model of conduct? If you publish such opinions, meant to demean and belittle, it should be no surprise to you if some of the rttvik people describe you in the same terms. 'Tit for tat' has never been a gentleman's game. But then, why are you so harsh in your judgment when you have long represented, supported and associated with persons who have committed the hellish litany of evils your essay exposes? Do you only see these rttviks as being warped by the material energy? What about those your peers who have been grossly twisted by the material energy? Have any of your peers been subtly seduced by a desire for profit, fame, adoration and distinction--(the same Maya that attacked Srila Haridas Thakura)?

So, regarding the "facts" you have presented, there are some questions, answers to which this writer humbly solicits from your good self.

1. "ISKCON gurus in good standing have fallen." Who are these gurus that have fallen. Please list. And is this not a contradiction? Prabhupada has taught that guru cannot fall, nor does he ever deviate from the instructions of Krsna. Were they ever gurus in the first place? If they were, what kind of guru were they and are there more like them around? According to your essay, there are. What is ISKCON doing about it?

2. "ISKCON GBC has supported even fallen gurus and tried to paper over their falldowns." Who are the GBC members that supported fallen gurus? How was this done? What sanctions have been taken against such fallen-guru supporters and what system is in place to prevent this from ever happening again in our society? What is the consciousness of the GBC that they would do such a thing?

3. "ISKCON gurus have opposed, oppressed and driven out many sincere godbrothers and godsisters". Why? What are the details? Who performed these un-vaisnava acts. Have there been murders as well? To what extent did the other GBC give overt approval to these activities by their speaking or writing? To what extent did they give tacit approval to these activities by looking the other way or adopting a code of silence? How has the situation been rectified? What rehabilitation has been undertaken by the offending parties? What is the position of the ultimate managing authority on this issue? Is this method of dealing with sincere godbrothers and godsisters still utilized today and to what extent? What letters of apology have been sent to the victims? What restitution has been made? To what extent have they been raped of their faith and thrown back into the ocean of suffering bereft of the association of vaisnavas? How has this hideous offense been removed? How can such men be called gurus if they have done these things?

4. "ISKCON gurus have usurped and misused money, and diverted other ISKCON resources for their own personal prestige and sense gratification." Who has done this? (Give names). Where is the accounting of such grand larceny, fraud and theft? How has the GBC dealt with this matter? How many lawsuits have been filed in this matter and what is the status of recovery of such misused funds today? To what extent is this still going on and what guidelines are in place to prevent this type of malfeasance from happening again, starting today? How can they be called "gurus" if they have done these things?

5. "ISKCON gurus have had illicit sexual intercourse with both women and men, and possibly children as well." Maharaja, what kind of gurus are you talking about here? How can they be called "guru's" if they have done these things? Who are these persons to whom you are referring? What sanctions were leveled against them? What is their current status in ISKCON and what safeguards are in place to prevent such hellish activity from taking place in our society, perpetrated by our highest, "most trusted" and "worshippable" leaders? If we continue to accept these men as guru, or think that guru can sometimes do such things, will we not end up thinking that the Maha-bhagavata is also like that? Is this a faith-building exercise?

6. " Some ISKCON gurus still in good standing have had such serious personal difficulties that the GBC has been obliged to suspend them from initiating." Who are you talking about? What kinds of personal difficulties are involved here? Were their disciples and the society at large told the truth about the condition of those in difficulty, or was the modus operandi to follow the protocol of #2 above and "paper over" their difficulties? How were these difficulties resolved and what is the current status of those particular gurus to whom your are referring?

7. "Other ISKCON gurus have snapped back into line only after "narrow misses." What constitutes a narrow miss, and who in particular are you referring to? Was the society made aware of this information? Obviously, you knew of these "narrow misses" and the rest of the GBC must have know also. Why did you not disclose these problems to the worldwide society? Was/is it your direct policy to deceive us into thinking that our gurus and GBC were actually purer than they truly were? What else have you also hid from us? Might a "narrow miss" be a "papered over" fall down? What kind of guru has "narrow misses" of the kind you describe?

8. "ISKCON gurus recently led a movement advocating a premature and inappropriate emphasis on rasika-bhakti." What are the details of this movement? Who were its participants and leaders? Whose instructions were followed in this matter. Were Prabhupada's books used as the basis for this? Did this movement take place with the sanction and /or participation of the GBC members? If so, what sanctions have been taken against these deviant elements and what is their current status is our society? What kind of guru behaves like this?

9. "Some ISKCON devotees have felt obliged to accept a new guru twice or even three times over." If Srila Prabhupada had set up a system of installing unfit persons, such as your essay describes, as guru, then he would also have foreseen the need to twice and/or thrice initiate disciples. Please tell me where this subject of reinitiation is discussed in Srila Prabhupada's works, lectures or conversations. Is not this "serial initiation" process faith- raping? What is ISKCON's plan to end it? Is the guru who is inheriting these now-abandoned disciples seen as better than the fallen one, and does everyone hold his breath hoping this new guru does not fall too?

10. "Is it any wonder that some devotees feel that only Srila Prabhupada can give them shelter and that no one else deserves the same surrender and trust?" Is this merely a rhetorical question? Or do you plan to answer it by saying that there are others who deserve the same surrender and trust? Who might that be? Does not your essay show that no one does? Do you believe that it is wrong to think that only Srila Prabhupada can give us all shelter? Is he the Acarya for the next 10,000 years? Will his books continue to be the basis? Will his guru-puja continue? Will all who come to this movement in the year 8045, or so, still be chanting "sri guru carana padma" and "ebe yasha ghusuk tribhuvana", or will he be long-since forgotten? What is the truth of the matter?

It has been over a year since your pithy, but insightful essay was written. By now you should have found answers to those questions you raised at the end of your essay. Kindly share them with us. This is by no means a challenge, but a serious and honest truth-gathering attempt. I also need to know why the Society is divided over the issue of the poisoning of Srila Prabhupada when he clearly says he was being poisoned and his listeners took his statements to indicate that a deliberate attempt at poison-giving had been made. Is not the guru-vakya enough for an honest disciple? I am very anxious to receive your timely response. Hare Krsna.

Your humble servant,

Halayudha dasa