There is a second thread running through this complex forum topic: "People have accused you of many things and silence means consent. If these things are true, then you were not acting properly. If these things are not true then you should reply to them as they hurt not only you, but others."
This is a very difficult and challenging dilemma to me. I have already written generically about the problem of dealing with the past. First, the past is presently a product of our memory and the feelings connected to our memories. This makes it substantially subjective and difficult to speak about. Second, each person has a different understanding on what happened, even if they participated in the same event. Third, most were not present when specific events occurred and their understanding of events is a product of other’s representations of them. Fourth, there is so much emotion surrounding the time, the people, and the pain that all felt, that clarity of mind or of the rational thought process is almost impossible. Seeing all this, how does one create a suitable response? And worse, who would benefit from it?
But the most difficult problem of all is the incredible complexity of the issues involved. There was so much illusion surrounding the points presented in the anonymous text posted on VNN that presents me as a heartless tyrant that I do not even know where to begin. Sure, I could start to reply to each and every point, but I would have to write a book, not a paper. Those who lived in those awful times after Prabhupada died know well that basically nothing was as it seemed. They also know, if they were to be somewhat honest about the situation, that they participated in whatever took place on some level or another.
Are you familiar with the story of Ramachandra Puri in the CC? He would cleverly force sannyasis to eat more than they should and then criticize them for it. The author of that anonymous article engaged in an analogous situation when the initial difficulty with guru worship started. Yet, it was not his fault. We all inherited a bad situation. We were all young then. I was 27 when I became a sannyasi, a gbc and so on, and 28 when I became a guru after 7 years in ISKCON. This is far too young. There were no standards, no rules, and no instructions on what to do. We tried some things that failed and other things that succeeded. We attempted a variety of things but in every case some people thought most of it was wonderful while more and more people felt it was terrible. Making sense out of all this was so difficult that it drove hundreds of devotees away, even great leaders who cracked under the intolerable pressure of trying to make a sick structure healthy. The harder it seemed to create massive change and transformation, the more necessary it became for our survival. Courage was lacking. Therefore God intervened and turned the apple cart upside down.
One cannot look back into the events of the past and then create a set of rules or laws to govern these past actions. In the legal sense this is called ipso facto, or retroactive lawmaking. It is illegal. If you expect someone to follow a law, you have to create it before any act takes place and then prosecute someone accordingly. As we had no conception of the difficulties we were to face, we could not conceive of resolutions to prepare ourselves for what was to come. Therefore most of the activity at the time were reactions to what happened rather than attempts to avoid future troubles.
Many of the specific events quoted by the anonymous author did not happen at all. Some were spin-offs or part of the amazing illusions created by a former friend of mine who decided that he would rather be a follower of Sridhar Swami. He expertly convinced a radical element in ISKCON at the time (which would nowadays not seem at all radical but all events have to be seen in the context of the times in which they occurred) that I was a terrible person and that I had done terrible things to him (which were not true.) I tried to stop his taking his followers to the camp of the Gaudiya Math as soon as I caught on he was doing this, but little did I know that I was dealing with a very clever person. I still marvel to this day at his incredible intelligent arrangement. Well, he very successfully managed to make me the guilty party in the arena of public opinion and that frustrated me enormously. I am sure that very few people in the world have a clear idea of what really happened. I know that my vision is one-sided and astigmatic. I am only aware of the events which fate let me see. Let me conclude that the GBC exhaustively investigated this situation and only after many months concluded that the situation as indeed as I stated it to be but they said we acted too heavily towards this person. They may or may not have been right, neither was this the real problem. The real problem was that these events occurred within the context of the intense frustration of all the godbrothers over the uncomfortable positions they were placed in. And they were right to feel that way.
Here is a funny anecdote to help you understand the humor manifested by the divine. During a meeting in New Vrindavan there was a vote on whether to allow everyone to initiate. The GBC had created some restrictions on the selection of candidates to become gurus that I felt were whimsical and demeaning to the candidates. There were observers in the meeting as it was a very inimical situation. I abstained from the vote because being against it was too scary for me. I abstained because I did not like making restrictions dependent on temple presidents and temporary committees. The author of that now famous post on VNN (HPGU) watched me abstain (and I watched him watch me!) and concluded (naturally since he sees things from his own point of view and not mine) that I was AGAINST the resolution, which was completely opposite to my intention. Thus further misunderstanding was created. There were many such situations. Going through them one after another would simply seem like a defense and again, I have no interest in defending myself since I also do not agree with most of what happened at that time. If it weren’t for Tamal Krsna Maharaj I would have left ISKCON at that time. I told him I wanted nothing to do with this very insane movement that had no idea how to deal with the people within it. He begged me to stay. I suppose in 1998 he regretted that
Blahdeblahblah!. I can go on forever, as can anyone who was there at the time. We can write book after book about the situation and attempt to prove how each of us did the right thing according to what we understood at the time. Some can repent and apologize and others can defend themselves or criticize, but yes, I agree with all of them. Everyone did the right thing according to what they understood at the time including that very clever Eastern European Swami because it was perfect within the atmosphere and situation of the time.
If it serves anyone’s purpose to think of me as a bad man, then they will continue to think like that. After all, if you want to remain within ISKCON and wish to continue believing in such a value structure and system, then perhaps this thought will assist you to not see anything to contradict this ideal. [As an aside to niab, you speak badly about gurus, yet you quote your teacher. Sounds like you are following him as a guru, for after all a guru should be nothing more than a teacher. Maybe you should reconsider the way you are phrasing your comments? I like to speak from my own experience, but you are free to do what you think is best.]
For those who do not find it useful to think of me as bad, or perhaps you find the whole thing boring and irrelevant, then you will not consider important my or other person’s statements made at the time of my departure when I was speaking in ways which challenged the very core of the belief system that is required to remain in ISKCON? Naturally, if you wish to remain in something you will not be happy by someone who speaks in a manner that challenges what you believe. You certainly would not want anyone else to leave with him or follow what he thinks for this would leave you with nothing.
Nowadays I do not engage myself in such talks for I find them not only boring, but also irrelevant to me and others. I am acting pro-actively by presenting topics that can bring one to a good place personally and spiritually. I find no joy in trashing others or other organizations neither do I have a place in my heart for negative feelings (outside of being insulted sometimes when I remember certain things done to me in 1998, but that is another topic completely.) Neither do I want or encourage anyone else to represent me or defend me against those who wish me harm or wish to trash me for I see no value in this neither do I see it as a battle worth fighting.
So, Kaliya-krt das, I hope this addressed your point somewhat? I also respect your revealing your identity because it gives me a greater sense of the persons with whom I am communicating.
I used Wrong password!Great?