10/17/97 - 1123

ISKCON's Jayapataka Swami Opens Dialog With PADA

USA (VNN) - For many years PADA (Prabhupada Anti Defamation Association) has been publicly the most outspoken and also the most controversial voice of some Srila Prabhupada disciples that have left ISKCON or, as some claimed, were forced to leave ISKCON. PADA has become known worldwide for it's sharp criticism of ISKCON policies in the past and present with it's postings on the Internet newsgroups.

PADA has recently received an extensive letter from Jayapataka Swami of ISKCON. VNN was not able to obtain a copy of this letter for this article. However the VNN has received a letter written in response by Puranjana das (PADA) to Jayapataka Swami (ISKCON) challenging him to respond to the allegation he has made for many years. In the center of controversy is the manner in which initiating gurus were appointed in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada's departure and today. (see also VNN story #1091)

Could this be the beginning of an ongoing open dialog between ISKCON officials and it's dissenting former members?

Following is the letter from PADA to Jayapataka Swami:
(letter start)
Dear Jayapataka swami, pammho agtSP! 10/16/97

I'd like to personally thank you, Jayapataka swami, for writing us a very long letter about some of the conflicts among devotees at this time. I was going to write you a long reply to each of your points. However, in an attempt to show him an act of good faith, and attempting to reconcile our disagreements, we want to keep things very simple and hopefully non-offensive to you. If we speak "out of line" in this letter, I'd like all of you to point out how we have done so, and how we can correct that. We'd like to start with a statement from you, Jayapataka Swami, that seems to be at the root of all of the peripheral problems:
----------------- JPS: According to the GBC stated understanding all ISKCON devotees have the mandate from Srila Prabhupada to eventually become guru's and continue the disciplic succession. He named some to start it off, but that was an order to carry out the service of being a guru.
----------------- PADA: This is at the core of our disagreements with the official GBC, that Srila Prabhupada had "named" [appointed] some devotees to act as gurus, or to have the "service" of being a guru. Of course being guru is not "a service" like being "temple commander." Rather it is a "post" of being self-realized. "Service" may be done by anyone in the temple, but "diksha guru" cannot be "carried out" by anyone unless they are self-realized. This seems to be indicating that Srila Prabhupada was not really self realized, that he was just "doing a service" like a temple treasurer or etc. So, this is the first problem we have with your interpretation of self-realized diksha guru. Anyway.....

Q: Which document from Srila Prabhupada are you quoting from? The most frequently forwarded document from the GBC on this topic is the May 28th so-called "appointment tape," which has been the GBC's "evidence" that Srila Prabhupada had selected, named or appointed some gurus since 1978.
There are a number of problems with this "tape" however:
a) It was illegally and fraudulently "edited," according to a professional forensics lab. And the GBC failed to analyse it when it was under question even many years ago, by us.
b) It was not circulated to the devotees by the GBC. Naranarayan dasa, for example, asked Ramesvara to give him a copy of the tape and Ramesvara strictly refused saying, "I keep it locked up in my safe." Why would you keep your best piece of evidence "under lock and key" and not allow access to those who asked? Was there tampering on the tape that someone wanted to keep hidden? Now, it seems that there--was--intentional editing?
c) Certain sections of the tape were "edited out" of early transcripts. And the contextual conversations, all of the letters, the will, and other important documents, and important eye-witness testimony, were also hidden from the devotees.
d) The tape itself does not name--anyone--to be future or successive guru. Names are only given on July 9th, but only to act as ritviks.
e) The only conclusive statement on the tape is that initiations "in the future when you are no longer with us," is by a ritvik system.
f) The GBC has forwarded different transcipts, and many different interpretations of the tape. GBC's themselves do not agree uniformly on how the tape is to be interpreted.
g) The tape sounded like it had clicks on it, in 1985, when Sulochana first gave it to me. However, when he said that he was going to have it analysed, he was assassinated. Why didn't the GBC ever analyse it themselves?
h) Srila Prabhupada had said that "appointed gurus" are nonsense, and that this was the Gaudiya Matha's deviation. Why would he make the same deviation for his movement, after preaching against it--for forty years?
i) The GBC said that the May 28th tape had to be understood with a "purport" from Sridhara Maharaja in 1978. Later they said he was a deviant, but they kept his "appointed guru" ideas intact? They later started the 2/3's guru vote, according to Sridhara Maharaja's idea? Prabhupada had said that "voting for the guru" was another fraud?
j) On May 27th, Srila Prabhupada warned against folks posing as guru in his absence, "vigilant management" was requested to keep this out. When did he nullify this order to keep out: persons posing as "gurus"?
k) A number of the "11 appointees" already admit that the idea that "gurus were appointed or named" on the May 28th tape was, and is, a hoax.
l) Srila Prabhupada said that imitation of guru is a severe offense and it leads one to the lowest regions in the universe (Isopanisad), he never encouraged any neophytes to "take of the service" of imitating the acharya? When did he say that? He said the opposite; NOT to imitate the guru?
m) If Bhavananda had unresolved homosexual proclivities, as evidenced from a 1976 homosexual incident in Mayapura, then why did the GBC still think he was "as pure as God" one year later? Did not the GBC know that their members were falling away, left, right and center, up to 1977, and so why would they magically "not fail" just because their guru departed?
n) Srila Prabhupada said that he was being poisoned. So, why would he have trust in the same party that was present during this complaint, that they could be his guru successors? It would seem that this would be the party he trusted--the very least?
o) Since Bhavananda had unresolved homosexual tendencies, then to say that Srila Prabhupada named him as an "acharya" means you are saying that Srila Prabhupada had not any clue what an acharya was or is?
p) Vipramukhya swami wrote to me that no one accepts that any gurus were appointed (named) in ISKCON, but now you are saying: exactly that?
q) Hridayananda swami told me that the gurus were appointed by the GBC, because Srila Prabhupada had said that the GBC could do so "in his will." There is no mention of the GBC having a mandate to vote in gurus in the will?
r) Now the GBC says that gurus become demons, are suspended, are censured, have to have certificates that they are chanting, and so on and so forth. Where is any of this mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's sastra? Rather, he says that those who consider the guru as a conditioned soul are residents of hell (gurusuh narah matih narakah sah).
s) Even the GBC's disagree whether or not the tape appoints or names any gurus. Why doesn't the GBC make a conclusive report on the appointed guru concepts that especially pervade their early documents? And when did the GBC decide that gurus can be 2/3 voted in by them? Is this not another means of appointing the guru, which Srila Prabhupada says is bogus rubber stamp idea from the Gaudiya Matha?
t) You helped kick me out of ISKCON in 1980, because I was protesting your "sex, drugs and rock and roll" guru, Jayatirtha. Even if Srila Prabhupada had appointed these folks to act in some capacity, once they deviated, they should have been removed, not those of us who protested? Yet you never went back and said that we were members in good standing of ISKCON and we should have been commended for sticking to the truth?
u) Yasodananda dasa says you made up rumors about him to get him removed from ISKCON, and you emplaced Bhavanada in his school, and this resulted in numbers of molestations. Yet you never even apologized to him or invited him back to ISKCON and declared him a member in good standing, but, we understand, that you have invited only Bhavananda back to Mayapura, not those of us who disagreed with your homosexual guru programs, that evolved from your emplacing him in the post of aharya? Why do you discriminate against those of us who objected to the pedophile gurus like Bhavananda? In sum you tend to eliminate those who do not agree with your "appointed guru" theory with very non-vaishnava tactics? That is not my report, it is directly from some of your victims.
v) As for Bad Publicty, your "appointed guru" Kirtananda was viewed by 23 million folks being massaged by 50 boys on TV, and most folks knew he was a pedophile just from that. Your "appointed guru" Jayatirtha was blasted in headlines all over Britain "Guru's Head Hacked Off." Bhavananda's escapades were blasted in newspapers in Australia, a "Rolling Stone" article said "Dial Om For Murder" about your "appointed gurus," and now, your Talavan devotees are under investigation by Federal Grand Jury, which will make juicy headlines. Tamal is not looking good in regards to who covered up the poisoning issue, and so on and so forth.

You are creating all of the news and we are just trying to explain it. Aren't you blaming the messenger?

So, the above should give us a good start to open up some lines of talks. I'd love to discuss with you and other GBC's how to resolve this nicely and avoid publicity and etc. Right now the GBC is pushing hard to get us all into the newspapers, courts and public eye, by their launching two lawsuits against some Prabhupadanugas. So, we are going to counter with a lawsuit for fraud. We have no other choce but to counter. We have filed our fraud complaint with their lawyer already. And some of us are looking into making a fraud case out of the (fraud) appointment tape, and another devotee is looking into making a connected case among federal agencies, etc. So, we'd like to avoid all of this, but unless you are willing to open up talks with us, and instead we get banning, threats, lawsuits, harassment, and so on, we'll have to pursue this by ourselves without your cooperation. So let us know as soon as possible how we can start to bridge these gaps amongst the devotees. I am sorry that you feel that you are being now threatened with potential violence due to our program [?] but we have had death threats from your party for nearly 20 years now, and the Berkeley Police said that the FBI notified them I was "next" on your GBC hit list in 1986. This is obviously not pleasing, to have the devotees appearing to be trying to kill each other, and so we'd like to see it stopped as soon as possible too. That means we both need to have trust in each other's integrity and feel that each other is working in good faith towards the desired goal of cooperation, love and trust, etc. I'm willing to try, so let us get some type of meaningful and serious reply to some of the points as above mentioned, and we'll try then to go the next level of talks. By the way, even if I die today these points will go on being questioned. They are not "my personal issues" rather everyone is talking aabout these things. I'm willing if you are. The devotees will all be pleased if we can work this out and we'll have a nice kirtana together in the end, and forget the whole mess. We are all ready for this.

Thanks, your eternal servant, Puranjana dasa /PADA
(letter end)

Some Vaishnavas have suggested that a commission, formed by representatives of all parties involved, could be the beginning of a solution to this problem that has haunted the Vaishnava world now for decades. The commission could consist of representatives from ISKCON, Ritvik proponents, PADA and any other Srila Prabhupada disciples that want to participate. Parties that would support or want to participate in the forming of such a committee can email to staff@vnn.org.