Praghosa's Masquerade
BY: SUN STAFF
Mar 13, CANADA (SUN) — In October 2009, Harinamananda dasa wrote a report about Hridayananda das Goswami's activities in Mexico, entitled "An Open Letter to Hridayananda". That article sparked an active discussion of the Swami's activities as an ISKCON sannyasi, GBC and diksa guru. In mid-November we began to receive articles from Krishna das, who was defending Hridayananda and rebutting his critics. At first many readers assumed that "Krishna das" was a close supporter of Hridayananda's. But as Krishna das's articles progressed, some concluded it might be Hridayananda himself doing the writing. We now know that was not the case, and "Krishna das" was a personality completely unrelated to Hridayananda's camp.
On one hand, it's unfortunate for Hridayananda that so much added attention was focused on him because of Krishna das's articles. Between the increased attention and the very unconvincing arguments put forward on his behalf, in the final analysis, Krishna das didn't do Hridayananda any favors at all.
On the other hand, the great majority of readers who responded felt that the Krishna das responses were right in line with what they would expect to hear from Hridayananda, so that was a valuable feedback loop. It's a phenomenon Hridayananda should carefully consider. And now that we know who the anonymous Krishna das actually was -- Praghosa dasa of New York -- it's rather an embarrassment that Hridayananda's voice could be so easily co-opted in the eyes of so many by someone like Praghosa.
The majority of readers who responded, our Sun editor included, strongly disagreed with Krishna das's position, and they dutifully took up the task of rebutting him. In fact, if we track back over submissions in the Editorials Index", we can see that many devotees spent considerable time and effort replying to him. And in this effort, they were actually cheated by Praghosa.
Yes, the medium of the Internet is conducive to such cheating. It's an anonymous world out there. We can expect to be cheated, lied to, manipulated, tricked, and led down the garden path but we don't expect to be treated that way by the devotees.
Of course, Praghosa dasa has a big excuse for his behavior he has been banned from publishing in the Sun. But he had an opinion on the Hridayananda issue and felt he had an absolute right to weigh in and be heard, regardless of the fact that he knew he was not welcome here; we'd discussed the situation with him on various occasions. At one point, Praghosa had another devotee appeal to us on his behalf to get the ban lifted, but the appeal letter contained the very sort of nastiness that he was banned for, so that effort was unsuccessful.
In fact, Praghosa dasa has been cheating for a long time now. For example, how many Rtviks out there have assumed that Praghosa dasa is one of them that he is a proponent of what is known today as classic Rtvik-vada? We know that he shows up at Rtvik temples and home programs, where he associates with the Rtviks in such a way that many believe he is a supporter of Rtvik-ism. Some of his writings over the years have also sounded very pro-Rtvik, although when pressed, Praghosa dasa has often refused to clearly state his position of guru-tattva. In fact, our pressing him to do so on a few occasions resulted in the sort of gross behaviour on his part that caused us to ban him.
Praghosa dasa's fundamental position comes from his absolute acceptance of the July 9th Letter. Unlike most Rtviks, his conception of the post-samadhi diksa program appears to be that it should be taking place within the current ISKCON institution, with Temple Presidents making the recommendations, and the remaining deputed Rtviks (now three in number) performing as the 'officiating acaryas'. We have failed in our attempts to get Praghosa to address the many issues called into question by this position. For example, he has not explained how it is that Hansadutta, who is truly an unreformed madman, qualifies to serve as "officiating rtvik acarya" within the ISKCON society. Praghosa is a friend and supporter of Hansadutta's, and publishes on his website.
It's fair to say that the great majority of Rtviks today patently reject the GBC-run ISKCON and all of the 11 original Rtviks named in the July 9th Letter, who are seen as having defamed themselves individually, and as a group by virtue of having instituted the Zonal Acarya system. Praghosa dasa is apparently one of a rare breed of Rtviks who has not rejected the original 11 Praghosa concludes that Hansadutta maintains his status as one of the 11 rtviks authorized to actively function, as deputed in the July 9th Letter. He obviously believes Hridayananda is another bona fide Rtvik, and we assume he accepts Jayapataka Swami in that role as well. All the others are now unquestionably fallen or deceased.
Although Praghosa dasa has, on many occasions, railed against the GBC and ISKCON authorities sometimes calling them every name in the book at other times he sounds like their greatest supporter. It was in the latter mood that he put on the persona of Krishna das, dressed up for the masquerade ball, and entered the debate on the Sun about Hridayananda's unsannyasa-like pastimes.
Praghosa's loyalties are mixed, so it's difficult to understand his position, straddling the ISKCON fence as he does. The GBC-run ISKCON clearly don't accept or support Hansadutta, but Praghosa does. Most Rtviks don't accept Hansadutta as a bona fide Rtvik representative, but Praghosa does. The Rtviks, including Hansadutta, don't accept the GBC-run ISKCON, but Praghosa does. Of course, Praghosa dasa's wife and some of his children reportedly live in Mayapur, and we assume it's convenient for him to make the way easy for them by coming across publicly as a GBC supporter even though at other times he offers scathingly negative commentary on the GBC body.
So while we don't know Praghosa dasa's real position on so many things, in our experience, the measure of the man has come clear in simply trying to deal with him personally. Over a several year period, the Sun editors have sincerely tried to work with Praghosa. When he first began to post, although we disagreed with his positions, we encouraged and invited his continued participation. On several occasions, Rocana dasa and other Sun contributors have engaged in lengthy debates with him, but always to no avail. In fact, a clear pattern emerged with Praghosa dasa. It looks something like this:
- A dialogue begins, points of dispute arise, and a debate emerges
- Praghosa dasa is directly challenged on certain points
- Praghosa writes long, fervent replies that sidestep the main issue
- His replies open one or several new doors, and he attempts to guide the conversation there, but does not address the direct challenges made to him
- In the next round, Praghosa is again challenged to address the initial points put to him
- He responds, this time with a heavier tone still not addressing the initial challenges, but upping the amperage in emphasizing his other points
- In yet another rally, his opponent zeroes in on the unmet challenge and, refusing to be drawn further down the side corridors, challenges Praghosa dasa to 'talk or walk'
- Praghosa dasa at this stage nearly always comes back with a nasty, gutter-talk reply that is replete with foul names for his challenger, lofty speeches about the 'absolutes' at play and how his opponent is going to suffer in hell, and a host of other combative tactics. He does everything except answer the pointed challenges put to him.
- At this stage the Sun staff have intervened, refusing to publish his last off-topic and abusive submission, and advising Praghosa that he must reply to the challenges made, and we won't print anything else from him until he does.
- We then receive another foul letter from Praghosa dasa that is personal, and abusive. We file it, ignore any further incoming from Praghosa dasa, and move on.
We have been through this loop on several occasions with Praghosa dasa. After one particularly ugly session with him in late 2007 we banned him from the Sun, and deleted a number of his postings from the archives.
To our knowledge, Praghosa dasa has not tried to participate in the Sun since then, until the recent advent of the Hridayananda discussion. Of course, he could have posted under an alias and we wouldn't know it, but we haven't detected his presence in any other extended or important threads.
Frankly, we were very surprised to learn that it was Praghosa dasa masquerading as Krishna das in support of Hridayananda. We had not heard from Praghosa dasa in a few years, and it never occurred to us that it would be him. Given the two years lapse since our last go-round, we had apparently forgotten (time heals all wounds) the frustrating loop Praghosa engages in, what to speak of the finer points of his precarious guru-tattva position. But in retrospect, the signs were there all along.
In his various responses to Krishna das, Rocana dasa regularly acknowledged the fact that we did not know who the person is behind the Krishna das pseudonym obviously it's either someone writing on Hridayananda's behalf, or it's Hridayananda himself. Like most Sun readers, we'd always guessed that if not Hridayananda himself, Krishna das was a close supporter, most likely his right-hand man.
As we now look back, it's fascinating for us to see that we had identified the 'footprint' of Praghosa dasa, both his debate tactics and his content, without knowing it was him. In a December 2009 article by Rocana dasa entitled, "The Philosophical Root of the Problem", he advised the readers that a boundary had been set with Krishna das, and his last article had been rejected. Rocana prabhu wrote:
"We have recently received another salvo from Krishna das, who has either been writing on Hridayananda's behalf, or is Hridayananda himself, writing under a pseudonym. Unfortunately, Krishna das's message and methods have slid beyond the point of our willingness to publish them.
A good portion of Krishna das's article was focused on chastising yours truly and the Sun readers for speculating as to his identity, suggesting that everything we've written in response is tainted because of that speculation, etc. We find this argument both childish and pointless. While we have been willing to accommodate the writer's anonymity, he/they have now abused and lost the privilege. In the future, we will only accept submissions from Hridayananda and his supporters that are published under their true names. We are not interested in wasting any further time engaging in the sort of 'churn' that Krishna das generated in his last submission, which goes unpublished. That churn is no doubt created in the hope of distracting us all from the real issues at hand complaints about Hridayananda's fallen status as a sannyasa, diksa guru, and GBC member.
Much of the rest of Krishna das's last submission was his effort to further cast aspersions on the character of the Sampradaya Sun, HareKrsna.com, the value of our site content, our right to use the domain name, our poor service to Srila Prabhupada, etc., etc. All this, instead of any substantive response to what I've written, or to the concerns other devotees have put forward to Hridayananda, directly and through "Krishna das."
There it is. Classic Praghosa.
As Krishna das, he had been directly challenged by many contributors, including Rocana dasa. He avoided making a direct response, trying instead to direct the conversation down new avenues. He increased the velocity of his personal attacks against his detractors, devolving into a literary charade in which he tried to use the fact that he was writing anonymously and everyone else was having to try and deal with that as a means to discredit all his challengers because they were speculating. What a cheap trick. It's circus material, really.
We at least find some solace in seeing that we are consistent in applying our editorial intuition. We had no idea that Krishna das was Praghosa dasa, but we responded to his cheating tactics in exactly the same way we had responded many times before to Praghosa.
By this time, the reader is no doubt asking, how did we come to discover that Krishna das was really Praghosa dasa?
Well, for some strange reason, it seems that Praghosa dasa had chosen to send his Krishna das postings through an intermediate party. We won't name this devotee and embarrass him he's probably already embarrassed about having been duped by Praghosa into the charade in the first place. Praghosa was sending him the Krishna das articles, and he was forwarding them to us via one of his own anonymous email addresses. Why Praghosa didn't just get his own anonymous Hotmail or Gmail account, we can't imagine. Perhaps his confidence was bolstered by having a friend to engage in his cheating pastimes with.
Shortly after Rocana dasa had written "The Philosophical Root of the Problem", we had an email from this prabhu (someone we knew by name from previous exchanges), writing to tell us that he had been acting as the messenger for Praghosa, passing along the Krishna das articles. But given the turn the debate had taken, he was no longer feeling comfortable in that role. He felt the discussion had become too personal, too heated, and it was time for Praghosa dasa to step up and deal with us directly. Of course, we thanked him for calling an end to the game and letting us know, and we asked for proof that his story was true: we asked that he re-submit the last Krishna das article from his regular email address. (The article had gone unpublished, so he'd have to have access to the original). And, that he have Praghosa dasa himself send us the same copy, from his own email address. We immediately heard from both parties, and got the needed confirmation. Praghosa dasa admitted he had been writing as Krishna das, and of course, he belligerently defended his right to do so. Although banned, he had a strong opinion on the Hridayananda matter and wanted to be heard.
We responded to Praghosa by reminding him that he was banned, and why. We reiterated that we are not willing to publish his material, and asked him to cease and desist the cheating game. We asked him to respect our boundaries in this regard. We heard little more from Praghosa dasa on the matter, and considered the chapter closed.
Unfortunately, the masquerade ball was not yet over. The band struck up another tune, and Praghosa dasa came out to dance again this time in his fancy dress in the person of Margaret Connors. Clever, no? Praghosa, famed New York City book distributor, pretending to be a sweet Catholic girl with a good Irish name, from the east coast?
Of course, we were quite certain from the very first posting that Margaret Connors was not who she purported to be. In our relatively small ISKCON family, seldom do we have a female personality come forward who sounds as knowledgeable and authoritative on philosophical issues as Margaret did. Such a voice is generally not kept hidden and we had never heard of Margaret before, nor had Google.
We emailed Margaret to ask who she was her background, location, etc. She replied with a few details, and dropped a few bits more into her postings to create a persona and explain her background within ISKCON. It was unconvincing, and her voice continued to sound suspiciously "ISKCON-male". In fact, we speculated at one point that it might be the one-degree-removed voice of Ravindra Svarupa, given the pro-ISKCON/liberalistic mood of some of Margaret's statements.
The Sun readers were treated to a series of articles from Margaret that many devotees found troubling. Her position on the gurukula abuse issue focusing blame on the children for their bad karma and on the parents for their irresponsibility, while supporting the ISKCON institution for having 'done all the right things' and now being 'in compliance' many of us found to be disgusting.
Even so, some devotees were won over on sentiment, being lured by the notion that it was a woman speaking so intelligently
she had to be sincere, and correct in her philosophical conclusions. Fortunately, Margaret was taken to task on various issues, most notably by Gadadhar dasa, Mahavidya das, and George Smith. In typical Praghosa fashion, Margaret tried to avoid responding to George Smith, who had written a blast of epic proportions in defense of the abused youth. As we wrote to inform Margaret that we would not publish her new material until she had responded to George and the others, the light bulb went off and we began to suspect that this was Praghosa, back again.
In the meantime, Gadadhar dasa employed a technology resource, and zeroed in on Margaret's IP address, which not surprisingly was in Praghosa's neighborhood. Next came a final submission from Praghosa that we did not publish, but which embodied his unique personal angle on guru-tattva and was therefore easily identifiable. In short order, we let Margaret/Praghosa know that the gig was up. He immediately admitted to it and of course, made light of the whole thing. He also threatened us with trouble if we exposed him.
So once again, Praghosa has shown us his true character. He is a liar, a cheater, a nonsense rascal. He has no respect for us as Sun editors, or our right to not publish persons we find objectionable. Further, he's more than happy to cheat the readers and waste their time in responding, thinking perhaps they're helping to correct a godsister's faulty thinking, when in fact they're spending their lifeforce washing coal arguing with the incorrigible, dishonest personality of Praghosa das.
For our part, we are annoyed at having to waste our time on this lengthy narrative for the record, when we would much rather be focused on Lord Caitanya's tirtha-yatra, or any number of other pressing philosophical issues. To our Sun contributors -- particularly Gadadhar, who has spent time on several responses to Margaret that were sidetracked in the queue -- we are sorry you've been deceived by this cheater, but your time and effort were not entirely wasted, because the points you made were all solid and important.
To those contributors in the future who feel the need to write anonymously, but who are met by a level of suspicion that is uncharacteristic of the Sun editors you will have Praghosa to thank for the hyper-vigilance and distrust. He has lowered the bar for us all with his cheating tactics.
To Praghosa: please stop dishonoring yourself. It's truly painful to watch a once illustrious godbrother lower himself to this cheap playing field. We regret that you've joined the very, very short list of persons we've had to ban from the Sun. Most of the others are mentally ill, or blasphemers of Srila Prabhupada and the great Acaryas. In your case, what can be said? It is simply a matter of the cheater and the cheated.
