BY: ROCANA DASA
Sep 24, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
The big news event last week in the Sun was the GBC's Working Committee Report on Balabhadra dasa, formerly Bhakti Balabh Puri Goswami. Vamsi Vadana dasa wrote a follow-up report entitled, "I am Scottish", in which he provided some of the historical context for the Scottish Yatra.
Like Vamisi Vadana, I too know Balabhadra dasa personally. I served in England in the early 1980's as the Sankirtana leader, under Jayatirtha. Sivarama Swami took over my service after I decided to remove myself from the insanity surrounding Jayatirtha's deviations. In fact, the deviations we're reading in the Balabhadra report appear to be very similar to Jayatirtha's infamous deviations. There are so many similarities that it's uncanny. You'd think the Jayatirtha situation right there in England would have served as some sort of example of what not to do in terms of how the GBC handled the situation. I'm completely awestruck by the fact that we see history repeating itself in this way, with no apparent lessons learned.
As I remember him from my time at the Manor, Balabhadra dasa was a somewhat nondescript householder, whereas I was a brahmacari. One of the most prominent members of this GBC Working Committee is Sivarama Swami. As I mentioned, he came to the Manor in the early 1980's, and was also a Canadian devotee. In fact, he took over the Temple President-ship of the temple that I started in Winnipeg, Canada. I've known him since he was a new devotee, when he joined in Montreal.
I can remember vividly picking Sivarama Swami up at the airport on the very day that Jayatirtha was falling off the vyasasana, in what the devotees were led to believe was spiritual ecstasy. In fact, it was drug-induced hallucinations. Of course I knew, Sivarama knew, and the authorities at the time knew what the truth was about Jayatirtha's pastimes. Reading between the lines of this Balabhadra report, Sivarama Swami appears to be admitting to having the same mentality in handling Balabhadra dasa that the leaders had back then in dealing with Jayatirtha. In other words, they knew the extent of Balabhadra's deviations and they covered it up, just as they did with Jayatirtha for a number of years.
Over the course of several years, Jayatirtha didn't change his deviant habits or drug taking. Still, the GBC awarded him with membership in the sannyasa asrama, knowing all the while exactly what he was up to. In fact, they forced him to take sannyasa as that was their idea of a solution the problem. Then they allowed him to continue going around in sannyasa grab, taking drugs and deceiving all the members of the Yatra. Needless to say, this caused even greater damage in the long run than might otherwise have been visited upon the devotees and Srila Prabhupada's movement.
For someone like myself who's been privy to all sorts of high-level falldowns and has some insight into the backroom goings-on of the so-called GBC, it's just astounding to see that it's all taking place yet again. And with classic GBC dishonesty, they're essentially trying to hide their own irresponsibility in dealing with the issue, although dealing with such issues is their primary mandate as GBC. Obviously it's only the GBC who can deal with a circumstance like this. Instead, they busy themselves with all sorts of other activities, then neglect protecting the devotees, Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON in situations like this one. This is precisely what they did with Jayatirtha, Kirtanananda, Harikesa, and Jagadisa, to name just a few of the more high profile cases. While Balabhadra dasa is not quite as high profile as these other notorieties, his decline is eerily similar to the others.
The introduction of the GBC Report leaves us to just scratch our heads and wonder. It's abundantly clear that this so-called Report was not meant to be a real report, because they've purposefully and admittedly left out most of the important facts, which any sensible person would like to be informed of. For example, they say they're not presenting the exact chronology of events, and this is just a 'cursory indication of Balabhadra's decline over time.' They begin the introduction by admitting that as early as the early 1980's they knew there was a problem. At that point in time I knew Balabhadra for being what they choose to call "eccentric" - in other words, he was considered a very materialistic householder. Yet over time, this materialistic householder was given sanction to be a sannyasis and a guru even though his behaviour had obviously not came up to standards.
The Report says that he simply kept these "indulgences" at a tolerable level. One wonders what that means, exactly. For those who aren't privy to all the history, the fact is that Balabhadra dasa's ability to keep himself in power over all those years was directly related to the fact that he generated a great deal of money -- just as Harikesa did, just as Jayatirtha did. This monetary shakti made him immune. In fact, the awarding of sannyasa and guru can undoubtedly be attributed to the fact that with all his money, he was able to contribute to the pet projects of those who make decisions on such matters. In other words, the GBC members were essentially bought off in order in a money-for-power exchange.
Another aspect of Balabhadra's eccentric nature, which Vamsi Vadana prabhu touched on but which goes unmentioned in the GBC Report, is the fact that he was the main personality who introduced the worship of Salagram silas in ISKCON, in fanatical excess. The devotees attributed his financial success to the fact that he "worshipped" all these silas and the practice took off like crazy, as many other leaders and senior devotees began to worship silas. Today, we find that the practice has spread throughout the movement. The GBC don't bother to mention this phenomenon in their report, however. Nor do they consider that the offenses he was committing are directly connected or attributed to the fact that he was unqualified and was committing all sorts of offenses to the Salagram silas. Of course, this Salagram sila worship is not something Srila Prabhupada recommended he do, and the sastra states that you have to be a very pure brahman in order to engage in this type of worship.
It's also interesting to note Vipramukhya Swami's connection to this aspect of Balabhadra's pastimes. Vipramukhya served in England in the early 1980's at the same time I did, along with Danavir Swami. Neither Vipramukhya or Danavir were Swamis at the time. As Vamsi Vadana mentioned, Danavir went to Scotland and as I understand it, Balabhadra dasa took over from him. Vipramukhya, after flaking out in Vancouver, went back to England and obviously got infected by Balabhadra dasa's association. He began getting into excessive Salagram sila worship, and shortly afterward he fell down. To me, this is a very important aspect of the Balabhadra story.
It's also interesting to note that like Balabhadra, Jayatirtha got infected with the same 'bug'. Prior to his decline and being pushed over the edge into insanity, he was also infatuated with Deity worship far beyond what the GBC Committee likes to call "sadhana", and his particular infatuation was with Salagram sila worship. They devotees spent a good portion of their day "worshipping silas", and in hindsight one can only say they were essentially playing with the Deities -- playing with activities that were far beyond their degree of purity.
In my mind, the excessive and unbonafide worship of Salagram silas is one the most serious deviations to have seeped into the fabric of ISKCON over the years, yet the GBC don't even mention this important siddhantic aspect of Balabhadra's deviation in their report. Instead, they attribute his problems to circumstances like his wife dying, or that he's not engaging in sadhana practices. Meanwhile the siddhantic aspects, which are always where the real problem lies, go unnoticed. Somehow over the years, the GBC never seems to comprehend that if one deviates from the siddhanta, the reactions are far greater than if one deviates from sadhana. Balabhadra was obviously preaching bogus philosophy, and in this way he gained so much control over devotees, especially the women. Keep in mind that Jayatirtha started preaching the glories of taking drugs, and gave all sorts of bogus siddhantic reasons why devotees can engage in illicit sex. And here, Balabhadra dasa was obviously doing much the same thing. Why it is that we can't get this kind of an explanation from our learned, advanced GBC scholars? Will we get any philosophical explanation from the senior devotees who are mentioned in this Report -- Hari-sauri Prabhu, Indradyumna Swami or Dhananjaya Prabhu? They're all visiting the Scotland devotees now and preaching to them… what do they have to say about how Balabhadra dasa was deviating from our siddhanta?
Included among the members of the GBC Working Committee are the previous Scotland GBC, Sivarama Swami, and the current GBC there, Praghosa dasa. These GBC men were responsible for Scotland, and for overseeing Balabhadra dasa/Bhakti Balabh Puri's activities. In the "Findings" section of the Report they admit that all sorts of abuse was taking place on their watch, and they didn't know or didn't do anything. I can't believe they didn't know, because the temple devotees were obviously informing them of what was taking place. At least some of these local devotees were senior people and besides that, the news was out on the Net, so many of us heard about Balabhadra's activities years ago. You can't tell me the Scotland GBC themselves didn't know. But obviously, they didn't do anything about it. In the Report they make it sound like when they finally got around to doing something, which was years later (apparently more than three years ago), they opened up a Pandora's Box of serious deviations… whatever that's supposed to mean. They don’t choose to share the details with us in this Report. In other words, Balabhadra had become a total madman engaged in all sorts of sexual deviation, what to speak of violence. Again, this is reminiscent of the activities Jayatirtha was engaged in.
I didn't find the Report to be very clear with respect to when the Working Committee actually removed Balabhadra from all positions of authority. If we follow the storyline and try to make sense of the chronology, it appears that it was just a few weeks ago that they finally removed him. In fact, it seems it wasn't actually the GBC who finally removed him from ISKCON, but rather he removed himself from ISKCON - just like Jayatirtha.
We read that there was "three years of discussion and consultation". In other words, for three years they knew this was going on and they were just discussing with him, but not removing him from power, not protecting the devotees, not making any decisive moves based on their knowledge. Instead, they sent him to professional psychiatrists in the same way that Harikesa was sent to a psychiatrist, who he eventually ran off with. This therapeutic path obviously didn't do the trick for either one.
In the introduction to the Report, the Committee admits that we're getting only a sneak preview of the whole situation. But if we're only getting a little glimpse, a 'cursory indication', and they're willing to admit that he was violently hitting and kicking devotees, that he was engaged in sexual voyeuristic acts with women disciples, and that he was squandering huge amounts of money, what, pray tell, are the real details? What actually happened, and over what period of time? How much money, and how many women, and how violent? Because if he was violently hitting, someone that's a criminal offense and he should have been reported to the police, not to a psychiatrist. And if he was squandering a registered charity's money, that's also a criminal offense. If he was exploiting female disciples, that too should have been reported to the police. And yet the GBC were apparently complicit -- basically being an accessory to his crimes.
After we're given some very scanty details in the Report, we come to the "Preliminary Recommendations". Here, the Committee says that "our society does not tolerate such abuse" - a statement that is directly contrary to the information they've just provided in the Report above. They did tolerate this abuse for over three years, a period during which they admit to having known about it. So to say 'we don't tolerate such abuse' is nothing but a lie that's transparent to anyone who simply reads the Report.
They even admit in the Report that they put Balabhadra in this position of trust. He obviously wouldn't have been able to criminally deviate to the extent that the did had he not been given authority by the GBC to be a sannyasi and a guru and, of course, the absolute authority in that temple. Why it is that there's no explanation given here as to why the GBC was so negligent in this regard? Why did they chose to go down the same road that they always do? To cover-up deviations of this magnitude means that they become complicit in the crimes. Then they use the same modus operandi that has caused ISKCON so much pain in the past - rather than blow the whistle, stabbing the boil, they try to negotiate a deal. To use their words, they tried to "work out an agreement" wherein a person who is essentially a criminal in the eyes of society in general, what to speak of sastra, is given a retirement package and sent off to the Holy Dhama. Never mind that according to sastra, one goes to the Holy Dhama when one has spent a lifetime preparing themselves to do so - it's not a place you send criminals to for their so-called purification. And then, to their great surprise, just a few weeks ago Balabhadra shows up back at the Yatra (just as Jayatirtha did), and convinces a few extremely gullible people who have obviously had no training in our philosophy, to support him. This is exactly what Jayatirtha did.
So now we have yet another person going around with the help of some crazy fanatic disciples representing - misrepresenting -- Srila Prabhupada and our philosophy. In fact, he's been doing this for years while flying the ISKCON flag. The only difference is, now he's taken the flag down. Whether he ends up having his head cut off by Krsna, we're left to wait and see. Now Krsna has to deal with him, because the GBC didn't do their duty and deal with him as they should have, years ago. Of course, the GBC is only too willing to come down like a ton of bricks on persons who don’t have a high profile in the institution. Non-sannyasis and non-gurus who make even a slight deviation are regularly given the boot. But someone like Balabhadra dasa, he gets this all sorts of sympathy and consideration, supposedly because of how much service he's done and how expert he is at preaching. This is absurd when you consider how many people have been banned from ISKCON for what are, in comparison, very minor faults. It's obviously that the biggest fault you can commit is to criticize the GBC, as I'm doing here in this article. But this is the truth. The truth is that the GBC neglected their duties for so many years and allowed this situation to come to the point it did. And as a result, so many direct disciples and inhabitants of the Scotland temple been abused. Now they're the ones who need psychiatrists, but I doubt they'll get and counseling help at the expense of ISKCON.
Reading this Report brings to many questions to mind. We now have to start pushing the GBC to answer these questions. Obviously their intention is to just give us this so-called Report and hope they can put a lid on the problem, letting it die away without any further explanation. And because they're not honest and straightforward, and there's no freedom of the press in ISKCON, we're all left to see history again repeat itself. Balabhadra dasa is just one of a whole succession of high-profile falldowns, but no one is providing a detailed explanation that will help others to avoid the same pitfalls. How can we learn unless we're given some siddhantic explanation?
If no information is given, how can we institute and maintain good leadership in the movement? How can it be monitored and ensured? Praghosa dasa is busy with Dandavats and running restaurants - but where is the oversight that ensures he's doing his duty, protecting the devotees? As so often in the past, the GBC just seem to be protecting the high-profile people. They're so merciful to their own sannyasis and gurus, but so merciless to the rank and file devotees who suffer at their hands.
I think we should start demanding to hear the real truth, and demand that the GBC give us some real spiritual insight into what's going on and why this happens, again and again. We should demand an explicit Report from the Scotland GBC members, explaining how and why this situation unfolded as it did.
In a recent article by Ragurama dasa, "What is the Problem?", he refers to the legal problems going on from coast to coast throughout ISKCON. Unfortunately, this is a trend that has only just begun in ISKCON. When leadership is negligent or corrupt, when there is no accountability and no disclosure, when there's a systemic failure of justice for the rank and file, litigation becomes the means of last resort. It should come as no surprise to anyone if those who were abused in Scotland took their case to the courts, suing Balabhadra dasa and the GBC men who failed them. It would be so much better for all concerned if the GBC filled the void by providing the strength of spiritual leadership - of siddhantic leadership - they were put in office to provide in the first place.
Obeisances to Dandavats and to the GBC Executive Committee.
