|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
BY: ROCANA DASA, SUN EDITOR
Sep 30, USA (SUN) — In last week's series of Sun Polls, we surveyed reader opinions on issues related to the re-emergence of the convicted felon, Kirtanananda (see chart below). As with previous polls, we again observe what can be characterized as a “party-line” trend in results, meaning a clear delineation between two groups of relatively like-minded devotees. There is approximately a four-to-one trend of agreement among the larger of these groups, and we see this phenomenon on all but one question (Poll #3), where the 'yes-no' opinion splits are closer to even. The most clearly delineated opinion was on the Poll #1 question, "Do you think it's a good idea for ISKCON to engage with Bhaktipada in cooperative preaching activities?" 80% of our readers would prefer that ISKCON not be involved with Kirtanananda, and a relatively low number are 'not sure' on this question. Poll #2 asked whether or not Kirtanananda ever was a bonafide diksa guru. We have exactly the same percentage of 'yes' respondents to this question as in Poll #1, but 11% of the large party block vote sifted from 'no' to 'not sure'. This indicates that a percentage of respondents generally critical of Kirtanananda are willing to accept that his fall down may have been progressive, and did not necessarily begin early on in his guru-ship. While 69% feel that Kirtanananda was never a bonafide diksa guru, 17% feel that he was. This questions serves as a reminder that we are obliged to ask if any one of the multitude of other ISKCON gurus who fell down were actually ever bonafide, and if so, at what point in time did they become un-bonafide? It certainly wasn't at the time they left ISKCON, or were recognized as being 'officially fallen'. And if someone is an un-bonafide diksa guru, then what kind of a-siddhantic concepts can we expect their disciples to have? We know there's no method in ISKCON for vetting the disciples of fallen gurus to see if they're carrying forth any kind of siddhantic misconceptions after their guru falls. As for the 17% who feel Kirtanananda was a bonafide guru, it would be interesting to know at exactly what point they think he become un-bonafide. Some may feel that he is still bonafide! Poll #3 asked whether or not the Golden Palace at New Vrindaban was worth the cost Srila Prabhupada's movement paid in bad press, lost morale, etc. 33% said yes, it was worth the cost, 20% were not sure, and 47% felt it was not worth the cost. We can guess that some of the 'yes' respondents may be currently serving at New Vrindaban, or have served there in the past and have warm feelings for that temple community. We can also assume that a percentage of the 'not sure' vote would, after greater discussion, concur with the 'yes' vote on this question. In my mind, this 'yes' conclusion is akin to asking whether or not it was worth it when Emperor Shah Jahan dismantled many Vaisnava temples, including the Goswami’s in Vrindabin, so he could build the Taj Mahal. It's now the biggest tourist attraction in India, but at what cost? In my articles of late, I have tried to give those having little ISKCON historical memory a small personal taste of what if was like for other temples throughout North America when Kirtanananda reigned supreme. Of course, the degree of comprehension is reduced due to present day ISKCON’s policy of burying or re-writing its failures. I have observed that even ISKCON media in its video format is glorifying the early days of New Vrindabin, starring none other than Kirtanananda and his long-time lover, Hayagriva. Right up until the GBC finally detached ISKCON from Kirtanananda’s New Vrindabin in 1988, we are given the rosy picture that Srila Bhaktipada was an honorable GBC, a bona fide diksa guru, and a sincere disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. I can only hope that with time and persistent effort, the truth can be told, and will be understood, about the very high price Srila Prabhupada's movement actually paid for the Golden Palace. In Poll #4, we asked readers if they anticipate ISKCON getting future bad press as a result of their new alliance with Kirtanananda. The 18.5% voting 'no' seem not to be concerned with the wealth of bad press that has already come from Kirtanananda's public downfall. These news bites are memorialized in the public domain, which means that anytime Kirtanananda makes the news, reporters will be sure to 'google' him and hit pay dirt in the archives of bad press. Yet 18.5% of readers apparently believe this won't happen, or they think Kirtanananda will never again rise from obscurity into the public domain. We think that's highly unlikely given the recent New York Post article, which already generated more bad press for Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON thanks to Kirtanananda's return to public life at the Sanctuary. As a testament to his political brilliance, Kirtanananda chose to re-create his image right in the middle of New York City. Of course, he had the entire country to chose from when setting up his new “headquarters”. Nowhere in the country could be less like the New Vrindabin mood. During ISKCON’s peak period, Kirtanananda was the personification of 'country community' and preached far and wide about the great benefits of this ideal lifestyle. We are left to wonder what his motives are for reappearing in the heart of Manhattan. Yet another mystery in this material world. This Sun Poll series concluded with question #5, asking whether or not the GBC is responsible for protecting the devotees from Kirtanananda. Interestingly, the typical small party block vote grew by approximately 10% on this question. It's also interesting that this question garnered the second lowest 'not sure' vote. Among other things, this could indicate a healthy degree of personal responsibility, with devotees feeling that they must protect themselves from danger. That's a wise position, given the degree of responsibility the GBC has shown on other important issues in the past. We can wonder if the 27% of 'no' voters feel their answer extends to the local GBC, HH Romapada Swami, and what, if any, responsibility they feel he has to the local yatra under his governance? We can also wonder what this 27% thinks about the GBC's mandate that ISKCON devotees stay away from Kirtanananda. Was that a pointless mandate that should be ignored? Or should we follow the mandate, and simply believe that the GBC are there to rule, but not to rule responsibility? It would also be interesting to know how many of the 27% would sustain their opinion that the GBC are not responsible to protect devotees, if the issue at hand is that of the Godbrothers criticizing ISKCON GBC, sanyasis and diksa gurus. After all, ISKCON prohibits public criticism of these notorieties because they feel they must "protect the neophyte devotees". Are the GBC responsible to protect us from some things, but not others? Where are the lines drawn? Clearly, the GBC so far has shown no public sense of responsibility for the brahmacari asrama that has moved in to the Sanctuary to reside with Bhaktipada. These ISKCON devotees will undoubtedly influence others, who will now also come under Kirtanananda's personal influence as a result of the alliance. It seems that yet another dangerous precedent is being set, and we can only hope that the GBC will, eventually, take responsibility for something.
| ||||||||||||||||||||