Say What?
BY: JANMASTAMI DAS
Oct 04, WEST VIRGINIA, USA (SUN) — Having read the recent offering by Matsya das, we were compelled by multiple obligations, almost simultaneously. The immediate desire to respond to the antiquated arguments (did anyone seriously believe them the first time they went around?) that have failed so miserably in the past was only surpassed by the more immediate regurgitation reflex.
Like the ghost of past transgressions rearing it's unsightly head even one more time, the lame and invalid "it was their karma!", "they had it coming!", "the problems created...have been solved...it's time to move on!" arguments are given. These arguments are meant to abuse the plaintiffs rather than address the real issues. They have been used and defeated in open court and to try to pass them off to the rank and file of ISKCON watchers and members is to beat the dead horse of ignorance.
Some of the more vile and inaccurate postulates that purport to form the basis of Matsya das's argument are these:
1. The fact is actually, now that after many years of trouble, it appears that finally the problems created in the Gurukula in Vrindavan by Dhanurdhara and others have been solved. The abuses and molestations have stopped. The Turley case is settled. It is time to move on.
2. Gauri das has been removed as the Temple President in the Bhaktivedanta Manor because of his past crimes. Who can say justice has not been served?
3. They did not get enough money from the Turley case, and want to try to sue ISKCON again.
4. Get over the past and become Krsna conscious. This would please Srila Prabhupada and solve your problems, too.
5. Leave the rest to Krsna's sweet will.
6. And some food for thought: when you sue ISKCON, you are suing Srila Prabhupada, too.
7. Stop being greedy to try to ruin ISKCON and destroy the temples by lawsuits. It is a demoniac mentality.
8. Anyone who got money from the Turley case, did they use it to spread Krsna conscious, or for their own illicit desires? That is my question.
With these many invalid premises, it is no wonder that those who hold such beliefs cannot come to a valid conclusion. Rather than address each premise on the basis of inaccuracies, it might be easier to bundle them and to discuss the underlying invalid logic that they purport to use as an explanation for their position.
Since prabhu claims that the twelfth chapter of Bhagavad-gita addresses these points, we read further than the translations he included. We read in the purport to BG 12:1, that "the personalist devotee engages himself with all energy in the service of The Supreme Lord." Another key omission from the knowledge of chapter 12 would be verse 10, wherein the strength and nature of devotional service is revealed as superior to the "practice of the regulations of Bhakti-Yoga".
In the purport to verse 13-14 we are told:
"The Lord is describing the transcendental qualifications of a pure devotee in these two verses. A pure devotee is never disturbed in any circumstances. Nor is he envious of anyone. Nor does a devotee become his enemy's enemy; he thinks, "This person is acting as my enemy due to my own past misdeeds. So it is better to suffer than to protest." In the Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.14.8) it is stated: tat te 'nukampam susamikshamano bhunjana evatma-kritam vipakam. Whenever a devotee is in distress or has fallen into difficulty, he thinks that it is the Lord's mercy upon him. He thinks, "Thanks to my past misdeeds I should suffer far, far greater than I am suffering now. So it is by the mercy of the Supreme Lord that I am not getting all the punishment I am due. I am just getting a little, by the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Therefore he is always calm, quiet and patient, despite many distressful conditions. A devotee is also always kind to everyone, even to his enemy. Nirmama means that a devotee does not attach much importance to the pains and trouble pertaining to the body because he knows perfectly well that he is not the material body. He does not identify with the body; therefore he is freed from the conception of false ego and is equipoised in happiness and distress. He is tolerant, and he is satisfied with whatever comes by the grace of the Supreme Lord."
This is the crux of the argument presented by Matsya prabhu, who apparently is greatly fearful of additional legal complaints from those who were molested or abused by certain individuals who acted as agents for ISKCON, and therefore for Srila Prabhupada. The logical error of thought put forth most often here is one of equivocation, and the words most principally equivocated are "ISKCON" and "devotee".
The purport to BG 12:1 makes the point that the "personalist devotee" engages himself in service "with all energy", which means nothing left over for sexy time with the children you were supposed to be teaching, and those who have made such transgressions have revealed themselves as both "impersonalists" and as being "less than a pure devotee".
While "pure devotee" was never a requirement for any of the gurukula teachers, many parents held that hope, equally as much for their children's teachers as they held it for their children themselves.
In the purport to BG 12:15 we find that a "devotee's qualifications are further being described. No one is put into difficulty, anxiety, fearfulness or dissatisfaction by such a devotee. Since a devotee is kind to everyone, he does not act in such a way as to put others into anxiety. At the same time, if others try to put a devotee into anxiety, he is not disturbed. It is by the grace of the Lord that he is so practiced that he is not disturbed by any outward disturbance."
And we must agree that this gives no one the right to violate those children who were entrusted to the parents AND THE TEACHERS of Srila Prabhupada's Gurukula. Like the paradox of finding fault with the faultfinders, in this instance the dispute is over which behavior is "improper".
We must take exception with Matsya prabhu's entire thesis. We further take exception with his lamentation over the resultant reaction brought upon the organization ISKCON, which he claims to be equal to and non-different from Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. This equivocation over "ISKCON", and who it really represents, as well as the claim that "devotees" would molest their charges in "Srila Prabhupada's Gurukula" is inane.
Why would Matsya prabhu, were he following the "tolerant as a tree" philosophy he encourages those abused to follow, why would he write a letter protesting those other devotees opinions? Why write his letter of protest if he sees with the same "pure devotee vision" he asks those devotees abused as minor children to accept? And if he's being hypocritical in his use of scripture for his own purposes, who would listen?
