Myths about Hari, so-called facts, and the skinny on it all!

[Hari]

Comments by me to so-called "Facts" appearing in the internet and elsewhere...

Me= Robert Campagnola, also known as Hari nowadays, previously known as Harikesa Swami or Harikesha, or Vishnupada although I request everyone to simply call me Hari. I do not respond to the previous names.

I have found that after all these years there is a continous undercurrent of negative reverberation about me. Although I do not think about it most of the time, it seems that whenever I try to present a more balanced image of my life or ideas, someone feels they have to comment to ruin anything I say. It seems that they think that I should suffer forever for the wrongs I did either to them, although there are few who were personally involved, or the wrongs they heard from some other source. It seems that they thrive on this negative confrontation and fighting somehow inspires their existence and justifies whatever they are. It is interesting how some individuals escape personal responsibility by pointing at another and saying, "He did this and that and he is the source of all our problems and my problems. Whatever I am today is because of the bad things he did to me or to ISKCON." Many victims out there, it seems...

I found Wikipedia to be an amusing study in this phenomena. To justify something in Wikipedia when it comes to a person who is not documented in research or substantial literatures, all you need is a statement somewhere on the web. I was considering to create a fictional person and making many web sites to describe and document this person's existence with references to external quotes and studies and then create a Wiki page. Basically this is what has been done to me. Myths and rumours and very selective information is verified by the wonderful internet rumour mill and considered as a fact. I tried to correct this impression by adding in other things, but this was considered to be unacceptable because it was not published anywhere. Autobiographical information is not considered neutral. However, myths are... As long as the information is not favorable, it is neutral... Strange...

So here are some "facts" people state. Here are some preliminary comments on these "facts." If you have more of these statements, comment on this text and I can respond.

* You stole money, you took money

Not true. How can I prove I did not do something? Did any responsible leader at the time accuse me of this? No. Was there any police report? No. Why? Because it did not happen. Then why do you say it over and over again? Is it only because it makes a good story or it amplifies scandal and you like scandals? Or is it because you have already decided I am a bad guy and you then create the proof you need to believe it? Why not just dislike me without requiring false information to confirm your dislike? After all, you do not know me. What is the difference?

* The GBC did not report you because you blackmailed them with secret information they could not tolerate you revealing.

Interesting. I have no idea what that information could have been. I already revealed about child abuse, women abuse, family abuse, everyone abuse and exploitation. I already spoke about the errors in the initial presentations, the value structure, the philosophy and in the Founder. I have spoken about the irrelevance of the GBC as a body. I cannot even imagine what more I could have said or what dark secrets were more serious than this. There are not even any financial secrets that could have been revealed since the GBC body did not deal with finances in a manner that would have been relevant to some scandalous situation other than perhaps wasting money on something useless, but that is normal for organizations.

* Why didn't the GBC tell the truth about your NOT stealing from ISKCON?

Good question. Jayadvaita Swami once told me that when someone had said I stole from the BBT or whatever, Brahma Muhurta said they should speak with him and he would deny that fact. But I consider the real facts to be far more interesting than the lies. [There had been a reference here where I quoted someone who told me that Prthu had misappropriated funds from the hospice in Vrindavan. Because the poor fellow feels insulted by me that I falsely accused him, he requires that I remove this. So I removed it. Interesting though, he can falsely accuse me, but I cannot falsely accuse him. Will he stop? Not sure, and don't actually care as I have no need to, but I still removed this reference because it was the right thing to do.]

Here is another intersting fact: A meeting was organized in Nice, France, to try to work out the problems that were occuring in Russia amongst devotees after I left. Before I agreed to go to the meeting, I asked Sesa, who was the GBC rep sent there to work things out, if he was fully authorized to make agreements on behalf of the GBC without needing further approval. This was required as there were only three days to work it all out once and for all and there was to be no second chance. He declared definitively that he was authorized and in touch with the EC and that we should do whatever required to settle affairs. In this spirit I engaged in the meeting. One of the resolutions, and I have the paper signed by all the delegates, was one where the GBC was to publish a document stating unequivocably that I did not steal from ISKCON or the BBT or anyone. For me, having people say these ridiculous things was intolerable as I wanted to somehow be remembered as a generous and charitable person (ha, fat chance!) and I wanted it to be cleared so the truth would be known. Yet, when the GBC yearly meeting came and the paper was to be issued, they denied it as they felt they "owed" me nothing and since I was a "traitor" I should not be given this even if it was true. In other words, they felt it was in their best interests to keep the myth going as it further demonstrated that no one should be connected to me.

* All you really want now is to take people from ISKCON to yourself

Funny, although I have no problem with people leaving ISKCON, and do not mind if they restore their own personal integrity by taking responsibility for their own lives, I also do not want anyone to be a "follower" of me or anyone else. Since I have no organization, I have no economic interest in anyone being associated with me and since I offer everything freely, it would be totally contradictory for me to want people to "follow" me as I tell them is to follow their hearts and make their own decisions about all aspects of their lives. So this idea is false.

* You are crazy. This was confirmed!

Strange how myths and rumours become certified in circular processes. Someone states a lie, another quotes it, another quotes them. Each time the lie is amplified somewhat and distorted according to whatever it is that someone wishes to prove to themselves by trampling others. Soon the lie in its various forms is everywhere and linked together in a mesh of statements. Everyone looks at this body of knowledge and says, "It is confirmed on the internet. After all, is this not how Wikipedia does it? If it is confirmed somewhere on the internet and published it means it is true and therefore worthy of being quoted in Wikipedia. Nothing else is truth, and if Hari says otherwise he is simply protecting his guilty ass." Gee. Sorry state for humanity says I.

There was a Dr. Dags, some psychologist who saw a video of me giving a class. He diagnosed from that video that I had serious psychological problems. Hmmm. One of the heads of the German government's psychiatry ministry came to see me. Her son was a former devotee. The EC asked her to go to see me and make a diagnosis. After a discussion she revealed how she was so grateful to me that I exposed the various forms of what she labeled as abusive and exploitative elements in ISKCON and gave her a way to free her son. The EC came to see her to confirm that I was crazy. She looked at them and explained that they were like a group of crazed chickens clucking all around me. She advised them to cool off as I was fine and they were the problem. By the way, she asked me to make an official complaint to the government against Dr Dags as he had made a public diagnosis without any proper data, from a video, and without knowing me at all. She said he should have his license taken away for such malpractice. I said I was not into retribution or revenge and so I did not do it. I told her I thought whatever the ISKCON people said or did was in character and any sane and thoughtul person would see through it. Looking back on it, it seems that I was overly optimistic.

This was not enough for the EC. They demanded that I go to Trier to a clinical psychiatrist and get evaluated "for the sake of a trial against Hansadutta for the BBT." Transparently silly, but I had nothing to lose so I went. After discussing with the psychiatrist for a short while, he looked at me and said, "If I had to go through what you went through for all those years without any day off and under such pressure and stress I would have broken long ago. As far as I can see you are doing amazingly well considering your situation and there is absolutely nothing wrong with you. On the contrary, you are doing quite well!" And the next day he went on vacation. In the two weeks before he finished his letter certifying I was fine, there were multiple rumours in the mill that I had just been declared crazy by a psychiatrist. And when they got the letter, they were silent, as their purpose was not the truth, it was to discredit me.

* You do not care about anyone but yourself

Well, go to harimedia.net. Listen to some of my lectures. Read my texts. Do they sound like a self-absorbed person only interested in themselves? Why do I not charge thousands of dollars like all the other teachers out there? Why do I broadcast for free? How about asking someone who does know me? Go to the forums and check in the Good Old Days Discussions. There are discussions there related to me that are heavy duty and no holds barred. Read 'em. Ah, but you are not interested! Sure, if your point is to find fault with me, then go ahead. You can find plenty of information on the internet. You do not need to hear what I have to say. After all, you confirm what you already think as you already made up your mind! There is only black and white in this world, no? It is either Krsna or maya. There is no in between. There is only guru and sastra. Fundamentalism is NOT a bad word, no? (The last four sentences are sarcastic.) Well, I do not follow this, therefore I am in maya and bad. Is this not so according to you?

* You did bad things to people in ISKCON. You exploited them...

Maybe to some extent yes. I sent them out to sell books because that is what Prabhupada told me to do when he was using me (was this exploitation?) to accomplish his mission. He wanted things done in a certain way and I tried to do that. Yes, it was hard for everyone. Yes, we all felt pain. Yes, sometimes I had to make incredibly hard decisions in the continual battle to preserve the balance between group and individual. As I grew older and more experienced, it became easier to know what to do, but harder to actually do it. I was not perfect. I am not perfect. I tried my best, always. Sometimes I succeeded and sometimes I failed. I did good things, I did bad things. I always did what I thought was right at the time I did it. I could have done many things better. However, I did many good things too, but you will not know of them. And if I try to tell someone they just say this is a coverup. They say it is false propaganda. Actually, I did tons of cool things. Someday if someone is interested it would make a fantastic book. But there were problems for many people and try as I could to balance the needs of the group and individuals, I could not succeed to my own expectations and finally it caused me to leave. I believe that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. I tried my best to create a solution, I could not succeed, I refused to continue to be part of the problem, I left the problem as I felt there was no solution to it.

I am not sure what people mean when they say I did so many bad things. I know that I am lumped in with all guru problems because this is one of the many things I did. Guilt by association. Exactly what I did and when might be discussed and I might comment on it if motivated to do so. I have a hard time being motivated as I do not see much use to defend myself. The hardest thing to do is to present something to someone who is convinced of what they think.

[Hari]

The linked website in this original post no longer exists: More information on a particular historical subject just published in an interview. Check out the comments. They are interesting. I hope they expand this discussion more...
http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2 ... with-hari/

Here is the original text where I answered some questions from Vraja Bhumi dasi in March 2011 (her questions are in italics):

1. When you left ISKCON it seemed that the leaders were trying to portray you as having a chemical imbalance, that you had "gone off your meds," saying you were literally mentally incompetent, and they actually tried to have you committed to a psychiatric hospital. When I read your side of the story, which you wrote at that time, it became obvious that there was in fact nothing wrong with you at all, that you had simply lost faith in Prabhupada's ideology, and had set out to change what you saw as damaging to so many -- especially women and children. It appeared that the ISKCON leadership was afraid of your influence, especially since you had the most disciples, the most money, and therefore the most influence. They decided to try to discredit your change of faith by portraying you as having lost your mind.

Now, with hindsight, would you have done anything differently with how you revealed your loss of faith to your followers and your desire to change ISKCON?

To properly answer this question, I first have to understand what it is that I wanted at that time and to see it in the context of what I want now. When I look back in time, I do so from the perspective of the present. Therefore, how I presently feel or think; more importantly, what I value and how I see myself in relation to others, is the most important part of this exercise. Thus the events and people of the past are far less important in my analysis of that time than is my present state of consciousness. This is both obvious and not at all obvious at the same time. If I take your question from the obvious, then the answer should also be obvious. Naturally, I have thought about what happened and should have ideas about how I could have improved my responses to the chaos around me. Yet, considering the not obvious aspect of hindsight, why should I?

If I at present have no desire to worry about followers nor any desire to change ISKCON, why would I wish to change my actions? As this is my present state of mind, I find it impossible to answer your question. Others have asked me if there was anything I would have done differently from that time in 1998 and I have considered it. There is only one event I would have avoided if do-overs were allowed in life and that is a conversation I had with Brahma Muhurta in August of that year. It was a product of my intense frustration at having been dealt with like I was. As everything else has worked out as it has, I can live with all the other events.

Before it is seen that I do not care about people or that I am unconcerned about the inequities in the socio-political aspects of ISKCON that have far greater impact on people than its spirituality ever did, let me explain.

I do not think ISKCON can change in the fundamental manner required to "satisfy" my requirements for a sane and effective spiritual institution. I do not think that one form of stating my personal philosophical transformation is superior to another and therefore I do not think that any communication I would have had with former disciples at that time would have been superior (in some abstract or even realistic sense) than another. My conclusions were directly opposed to everything that was held as sacred by all within the institution. Here are some examples:

* I do not think it is possible to combine a socio-political organization and pure spirituality. It is quite possible, although not certain, that the term "spiritual organization" is an oxymoron in the sense that the elements required for a proper organization are more or less opposed to personal spiritual development in a relevant, meaningful and considerate manner. Unless the organization has the historical culture and capacity to work within the varna-ashrama context, it cannot succeed. And since this WAS only possible in India, in the distant past, how will this occur at all today?
* Considering the above point, I concluded there is no way to change ISKCON to something that interests me. I was attempting to gradually implement social reform in ISKCON and specifically to create a more or less ideal community model in Mayapur, but that was short circuited by my inability to handle the reality of the movement.
* I only care about people. I see whenever there is organization, there is inequity and conflict. I also see the only hope to resolve this on a truly meaningful level is to have people live in a village context and to have their own spiritual beliefs that they demonstrate in whatever manner they desire. To this end, I attempt to offer them the tools to do this.
* I do not believe in "guru" and find the concept to be at the root of the problems facing those who remain in ISKCON. Although the concept is touted as the grand solution to all problems, I see it as the root cause of the problems. How could I think of myself as a guru with followers with this vision? I could not. Considering this, the best thing I could do to initiate the process of freeing "followers" from the curse of following is to let them go. Those who have "come back," do so because they like what I say and find that it assists them in their own lives. I make no demands on them and have no expectations from them. I offer what I offer to them freely. If they like it, they take it, if they do not, they do something else. I am happy with this.

So to now answer your question in a context that is relevant to the present:

I would do nothing differently. I would not consider changing anything. I would not attempt to "break the news" in any other manner than the extremely limited manner I had at my disposal at the time. Considering that I was removed from ISKCON forcibly and that all my possibility to communicate with those I knew through the COM system (the only communication available at the time) was blocked, what could I have said anyway? And since the world was awash with strange statements about me that had little or nothing to do with me, why would I waste my valuable time trying to prove that I was not a thief, I was not a crook, I was not dependent on drugs, I was not a lusty madman or whatever? How would it have mattered? I mean, for anyone who actually knew me, these ideas were exceedingly questionable. Those who cared should have asked me about my own reality. For those who did not, they were ready to believe anything they heard if it fit their existing conceptions of gurus or gbc.

And yes, it is possible that someone can go suddenly nuts, especially in ISKCON due to the fundamentalist system and the repressive atmosphere. I mean, anyone with a heart who looked at what happened to the children, how husbands and wives saw loving relationships as stepping stones to degradation, how children were blank slates to be programmed by child abusers, and how individuals were merely means to an end without much regard for their personal needs, all within the context of a sophisticated corporate environment, would have also lost their mind. One found the mind after leaving the organization. Therefore, the news that someone left the movement because they lost their mind is old news as this is the reason everyone left. Drugs, sex, madness -- these make good headlines in a repressed organization. So be it.

I can do nothing to change it. So I do not try. I simply am what I am and do what I can do and what I want to do. I enjoy doing what I do. I cannot tolerate stress so I avoid stressing others. I am not in anyone's employ as I am not controlled by other's money. I do not have to be nice to my donors, yet, I am nice as I am a nice person . I can be nice and care about people because that is how I feel. I am not saying that no one in ISKCON now shares this ideal because I do not know if they do or not and frankly I do not care.

2. We know somewhat the history of ISKCON after the departure of Prabhupada, but there is a big blank space for most people when it comes to how the original gurus came to gain their positions. Could you shed some light on what happened? Who and how the decisions were made in creating the new succession of gurus from Prabhupada's cadre of leaders?

I can share with you my personal story as I do not know all that much about the story of others. I promise you this is a correct version of my personal history. Obviously it is from my own point of view. I do not present this as objective reality. All history is simply a compilation of events from the point of view of the dominant voices at the time. History is not neutral, neither objective.

Sometime in the spring or so of 1977, Bhaktibhusana Swami (who at that time was still Sucandra das) received a letter from Prabhupada that said something like, "... and Harikesa Swami can initiate the more sincere of those as he likes.." or something like that. The letter should be in Folio, if Folio still exists and if it was not edited out. He came into my office and showed me the letter. We were totally bewildered as we could not understand what it meant. It was inconceivable at the time that Prabhupada would die (as I would not allow that) and therefore there was no relevance to anyone other than him initiating anyone. So I said we should not worry about this and perhaps it was some kind of mistake or there was more to it, but we should wait to see if there was a further communication. As the letter was not to me, I did not consider it further. I knew that if Prabhupada wanted me to do something he would tell me directly.

Approximately one month later, I received an official letter from Tamal Krsna Goswami, counter-signed by Prabhupada, that said that in the near future he would be picking some disciples to initiate on his behalf as he wished to do that less. This letter is also certainly part of the public record. Some time later I received another official letter with a list of names on it of those who were supposed to initiate disciples as they wished without having to get approval for it. My name was on it.

I received no further information than that. There was no training for what was to come, no instructions. It was thrown at me. Despite this letter, I refused to believe that Prabhupada would die and leave us alone. Then he did.

I went to Bombay in January of 1979. I met with Pradyumna as he and I were very close friends. I asked him what he thought about this situation. He said that in the Gaudiya Math they had a small mat on the floor on a very short platform (maybe 1") and there was little distinction between godbrothers who all received equal respect. Initiation was something relevant to arcana, deity worship, and the disciple would have a very small photo that was placed on the altar during puja and removed afterwards. I thought that this was a great principle and it would be the very best thing for us to do as it would avoid envy and interpersonal rivalry that must appear when there is a large difference between godbrothers. I felt confident that we could deal with the situation using this information.

I arrived for the GBC meeting a month later. The mood was solemn and the tension palpable. I was very uncomfortable. Unfortunately, at that time I had not yet learned the art of patience in dealing with groups like the GBC. In my youthful idealism, I truly felt they would embrace truth and practicality. It took me a few years to figure out that truth was not easily found in this group and effective practicality was rarely considered. Like all political organizations, there were multiple currents overt and covert that manipulated decision making. I could not tolerate politics, neither could I associate myself with any particular grouping as I have always been an individualist who wished to be his own person. The only time in my life I allowed this to change was in my respect for and devotion to Prabhupada and to a large extent he accommodated and facilitated my individuality.

Back to my impatience. The initial comments in the room indicated to me there was a serious potential for conflict. It scared me, yet I felt confident that Pradyumna's advice would save the day and give everyone room to breathe. So I presented this scenario of the limited guru to the GBC. For reasons far too complex to explain here, it was received with confusion and disregard. Perhaps some thought they did indeed want to be larger than life while others thought they should also be able to be a guru even though they were not on the list? Perhaps they disputed the list itself? I cannot say since I could not conceive of these hidden issues at that time. I was 29 years old.

Can you imagine this? I took Sannyas when I was 28. Later that year, just after my 29th birthday, I became a GBC and BBT trustee. A few months later a full fledged initiating guru in a global society that was (certainly! without a doubt!) the true and only true representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead on this Earth! My God! Think about it. 29.

I am now 63. I cannot imagine it happening to me now, what to speak of then. But youth has a way to overlook the consequences of actions and to dream of a pleasant future. Ah, youth!

Well, as usual, my comments acted as a catalyst after they were tossed aside as irrelevant. Very intense discussions followed and I attempted to say that any solution other than the one I presented had too many pitfalls to be viable. Guru Krpa Swami spoke and emotionally said that we did not know what to do as we were too young. Prabhupada had said to him that we should go to HH Sridhar Maharaj, Prabhupada's Godbrother, to get advice on what to do. There was some discussion with most agreeing. I was vehemently against this as I knew what Prabhupada felt about him and knew that he had a strong inclination to disrupt Maths. Guru Krpa said, "Is this not true Tamal?" To this, Tamal looked down to the floor and nodded affirmatively. I freaked out. Jayatirtha, the chairman at the time, called the vote. All hands went up. He proclaimed, "It is unanimous!" I shouted out, "Take the no votes." He said why should he as everyone was in favor. I said, "Take the no votes because I want to go down in history as the only one against this insane resolution!" Jayatirtha said, "No's?" After my hand went strongly in the air, he derided, "Now you can go down in history."

So a delegation went off on a ferry to the venerable Swami. And he said that there are two kinds of people, the guru and the non-guru. Non-guru can never tell guru what to do because they are in a totally different category. Guru is above all managerial principles; connected directly to the Supreme. Guru needs his own house as guru is like a father in a family. Guru needs a high vyasasan to display his superior position, and so on. And in Vrindavan, where there is a common interest, there should be a group photo on the altar of all gurus. Godbrothers must support guru. He called all gurus as acaryas and implied directly that the "Acarya Board" will be superior to GBC.

And since it was the resolution, this was accepted in its essence although it was slightly modified in its description to the outside world.

I do not wish to start telling you how I felt during this meeting, neither how I saw the implications or ramifications of this implementation. I was worried enough of being in the position of either remaining against the entire GBC or going along with it. Very troublesome. It is important to me to maintain a balanced outlook on things so I can relate to the largest number of people. So I took the position of being the loyal opposition and remained so for many years until I just accepted that this was the way it was in 1984. I regret surrendering to this because right after I stopped fighting it great conflict started and I was dragged into it.

Back to history. Now the GBC was divided and within it was the Acarya Board that met to discuss what to do about this situation and how to avoid civil war. For reasons I cannot understand, Satsvarupa Maharaj, who at the time was looked upon as being learned, wrote the paper that was presented to the society. Again, I was the only one against the paper. I said it was simplistic and did not address the needs of Godbrothers and GBC. I was not heard. He presented the paper and was hammered with questions, none of which he could answer to the satisfaction of those who were angered by the paper.

So the root of the entire problem with dealing with Prabhupada's untimely demise was this idiotic idea to go to a person who was famous within Gaudiya Math for being a breaker of form and a destroyer of the Maths. And in one short meeting he set the scene for the ruination of peace in ISKCON by dividing the house against itself, placing young men in an elitist position far beyond the control of any other organization, and destroying the organization's capacity to correct the situation later on. He set everyone into camps and as we all know, camps tend to fight for supremacy. Well, the rest is more or less known.

3. Are you still in contact with old ISKCON leaders either in or out of their positions? e.g. ex-gurus like Bhagavan -- who has recently been speaking out in ways which immediately reminded me of the ideas and mood of what you have written in the past and present.

I am not in contact with Bhagavan as we were not friends before. I have met a few others with whom I had a friendship previously. I enjoy being with friends.

As my lectures and some writings are available on harimedia.net, anyone can read it. But that others might come to a similar conclusion is not unusual as most of it is quite obvious and mainly common sense.

4. What have you been doing since leaving ISKCON? I know you've been involved with a lot of music, that you're a talented guitarist and sing with a band. I also know that you have an online sangha, and an online radio show, and that you visit ex-followers in Eastern Europe. Can you shed some light on your current spiritual thoughts, and also your experiences with sharing your post-ISKCON music, ideas and philosophy?

I feel that we are spiritual energy that pervades our body and consciousness. We are not simply a dot of spirit encased by matter and absorbed in maya. I think that we can contact our own spiritual essence and energy by simply accepting our own energy. As our energy and the energy of the divine are one, we can easily connect to the divine by feeling our own spiritual frequency and tuning to that same frequency in the divine through our intention in focused concentration. I feel that the main thing blocking our direct connection to the divine, to Radha and Krsna, is our acceptance of the blinding principle that we are not good enough and therefore we cannot do so. I reject the idea that the most important principle is to understand the difference between ourselves and the Supreme. I embrace the idea wholeheartedly that we are one in energy with the divine and true communion with the divine takes place when the interests of the lover and the beloved become one so that the distinction between them no longer matters. Purified oneness. There is indeed only One of Us as by this communion we create an Us. When we experience the spiritual being we are, experience the essence we are, and tune ourselves to the spiritual energy of the divine, we embrace the divine with full love. In this sharing of love we become a third entity, so to speak, an Us where the lover and beloved become one in essence.

ISKCON people find this idea bewildering as they are trained to concentrate on the difference. I say the difference does not bring bliss, only the oneness. We are one and different. The different does not mean we are worse or not good enough. If means that we are individuals who can find the one by accepting it. When we find the oneness between ourselves and the divine we find connection and the loving relationship we long for.

[Hari]

I present here a few links to topics in this forum where I was asked to address issues related to those good old days we love to hash over continuously in our attempt to find inner peace. These are interesting points. Some of the discussion is quite hot. More hot discussion is found elsewhere, but I limited these links to where I wrote something about how I see things...

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15 Who am I to former disciples?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=81 = About Gurus

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=175 = Discussion about vibhuti ashes

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=106 = About Prabhupada and the Gaudiya Sampradaya

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=112 = The Purport of Guru

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=73 What about vaisnavas Like Gaura Govinda Swami or others?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=83 About the Soul of ISKCON

[Hari]

What's in it for me?

After putting in the initial text to this topic, I went to take care of the Deities. I found myself absorbed in the mind. This is interesting as I am usually not. My energy was wandering around the mental fields and seemed to find itself linking to various energy loops. I felt confused and wondered what was going on and if I would ever recover from this. Had I ruined myself irrevocably?

Then it hit me! I was captured in the huge mind that characterizes ISKCON! I was lost in the incessant discussion about history, the continuous judgment, the arguing and fighting about the errors of the past and the wrongs done to everyone! It made me think. What I managed to do when I left ISKCON was to let that mind go. I found that by letting go the past and immersing myself in the present through experiencing my essence as it is without considering if I was good enough to do it, I entered into a state that was clear, free, without burden and without obstacles to understanding what I knew was right. This morning I re-experienced the horror of being captured in the polemic that was ISKCON at that time and that seems to continue in some people. Gee. I think they should let it go. Why bother proving anything anyway?

Everyone believes what they want to. Seems that most of the people one runs into who are into the past and embrace that all encompassing mind that does not let go have already made up their minds, have a set opinion, and have lost the capacity to listen to others. Any attempt I make to convince them otherwise is a waste of time. So why should I try?

Well, there are good reasons why. I personally care about the truth of history. I am well aware that history is whatever one makes it. More importantly in this information age, it is whatever you care to believe. I am not foolish enough to declare that my version of it is absolute and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. I would not bother to accept such an untenable position. However, I know what I know because I was there. And I feel that I have just as much right to express it as anyone else. Since this is my forum I can do so. I do not have to worry here that others will think it their God Sworn Duty to negate what I say. I know what I say is true according to my perception, my memory, and my motivations and intentions. I have nothing to lose by being dishonest. After all, I left ISKCON in a fit of gritty honesty. Why should I backtrack now?

I am also aware that there are multiple negative things in my past. I look back on some situations and shudder. I remember some people and get chills up my spine. I wonder again and again why I stayed in an organization like that? But I did, so I have to deal with it. I did good, I did bad. Naturally I do not like to air all the bad things I did in this public forum because I am basically a private person. However, the things that most people say about what I supposedly did are not factually correct in many instances and are so twisted or distorted that it renders a disservice to a larger body of people. Therefore, I like to state what facts are, if I might be so bold as to call them that, according to me.

I have a hard time with a lot of history. Some of it is 30-40 years old. I know my memory cannot grasp detail so far back as I could then. I know that I do not like to reveal some things that relate to individuals as I do not want to smear the memory of departed souls and do not wish to cause trouble to those still living. Sometimes I have to do it to express the reality of the times. I know that how I said something or did something was considered by an individual or a group as terrible. I might have thought it was fine and proper, they might have thought it was awful. Perhaps they misunderstood me? Perhaps they did not have an understanding of the larger picture that was my reality, or perhaps they had received wrong information? So I write here to express my truth as I remember it now for better or for worse. It might have fault, but it is an honest expression.

I find it interesting that when someone defends something I said because they feel like doing so because it either resonates with them or they also experienced something similar, that the crowd has to rush to condemn them as followers who are championing my cause and who are blind to the truth and who therefore need to be crushed. Kind of like having seen the 9/11 attacks in any other way than was presented at the time and thus being against going into Iraq. You were instantly condemned as the worst possible sort of non-citizen! I find this consistently in discussions where I am mentioned. No one is allowed to see my side of the story for it is obvious that I am guilty of whatever they say I am guilty of, that the jury has already rendered a verdict and that it is so obvious that any discussion otherwise is simply motivated by personal interest and nothing more. How can a discussion take place in this paradigm?

Some argue that my expressions of historical events are meant to show that I am a victim and not the perpetrator of various evil deeds. Wow. Gee. I am not a victim. I was an active participant in all the aspects of my life and thus not a victim. I am a victim of false propaganda, lies, rumors, myths and downright silly things and therefore I am now trying in some small way to demonstrate the mechanisms that keep this misinformation alive. I am not sure what I was a perpetrator of, but I certainly am not that now.

If someone wishes to hate me, hate me for the right reasons, not the wrong ones. If you state a fact to be true that includes me and I object to your facts, your history, and your interpretations of my motives and my integrity, I shall state that. I am well aware that you will not believe it because you simply do not want to. In the minds of those who thrive on negativity, any defense against what is said about me is simply an attempt to cloud the truth and sugar coat the horrible reality they believe. Yet, I disagree with this and present what I present simply because it ought to be presented.

I am not trying to change ISKCON. I have no motivation to present facts that support or deny any political position in ISKCON. I do not want to be captured by the all pervasive mind that is ready to devour me were I to attempt to enter into the locked domain that is ISKCON. All I am concerned with is a clear presentation of what I was aware of at that time. And even that does not interest me. I dislike lies being presented as truth.

I am not in ISKCON. I am not presenting myself as some spiritual leader. I have no followers. I am not trying to say that I am the real vaisnava and all the rest are not. I do not consider myself a devotee in the traditional sense (see links above). I do not want anyone to see me in the context of traditional culturally based religion as I do not believe in it. If something I say or some information I give assists someone to understand the past better and thus let it go in peace, I feel I have done some service of value and I like to be of service.

[Nanda-grama]

Dear Hari!

It is fine that you wrote about it here . Recently I rered the topic about you on Russian site хари-катха which was closed by admins at the last September because it was too popular and there were too many views . It is interestingly, although the topic is stoped it continues to be most popular and readable- there are 70600 views !
I remember that when I wrote there it was very hardly to stand against this negative and false information, but then I stoped to deny,conversely, I collected all this nasty and absurd information in one place and offered: ok, let look on the portrait of this monster what you created- and conscientiously reapeted all their accusations- and all that seemed verisimilar when it was here and there by small parts, when it was placed in one text it became to look so grotesquely, ludicrously and non-really that even most rampant prosecutors lost their ardency and began to appologize and to excuse themselves. And admins who blocked me in most beginning then began to block this people and it is interestingly -now all this people are blocked whole year and some of them are even deleted forever. This image of monster ravens on pain which it causes and on rebellion, but if to look on him calmly he kills self himself. ISKCON's people disagreeably overcarried with negative qualities and it is too fabulously.
If somebody has intellect а little he understands that if people glorify somebody boundlessly but then once without some transition began to hobnail the person - it shows some their big problems! Anyway, it has not any relation to reality.
You are what you are -and this is a challenge for people who lost himself in pursuit for authority and power or in tryings to become perfect. But it very inspires us who knows you a little and loves you, and it helps us to find ourselves.

[harsi]

* Why didn't the GBC tell the truth about your NOT stealing from ISKCON?

Good question. Jayadvaita Swami once told me that when someone had said I stole from the BBT or whatever, Brahma Muhurta said they should speak with him and he would deny that fact. But I consider the real facts to be far more interesting than the lies. For example, I gave Prthu around $50,000 to make a hospice for old devotees in Vrindavan. ...

If I remember well what was written in 1998 on COM, it was so that there appeared indeed a small message by the so-called GBC in one conference, I guess it was the Varnashrama Dharma development and the German Forum, that you did not took any money with you from ISKCON when you left your management position there.

Its also interesting what you wrote about Prthu. I remember in this regard a letter exchange I had with him on COM. It was so that after you were forced by the leaders of that society to resign your positions there, someone wrote and published a letter on COM addressed to all this people. Shortly after that was published I wrote myself to all this guys appologizing for the how I found somehow harsh tone of the man who wrote to them. The first one who wrote me back was Prthu, appreciating my stepping forward in this regard, at the same time expressing his view on how everything will play out fine at the end of all this. Now by reading what you wrote about him I can somehow understand better what he may have meant by all this...

[Hari]

I find it interesting how the main concern of people is money. This is often a big question in their spiritual lives. It has a lot to do with the values and behavioral modifications that formed our lives while in ISKCON. After all, there were large projects and temples to maintain and things to do and growth to be attained to fulfill the mission. This requires lots of money and that money is usually collected by using people to go out and get it. Since the process of collection involves much labor, sometimes at great cost, naturally people are concerned that the funds are used properly and misuse is dealt with appropriately. I understand this concern and have always understood it.

As idealistic as this sounds, the reality is quite different for even when funds are seemingly being used correctly there is potential for misuse. For example, is it more important to use funds to construct buildings that further add to the burden of labor to maintain them or is it better to devote funds for the benefit of individuals who are suffering due to the value structure of the organization? I dealt with this question when I left and concluded it was better to use money for the benefit of children, women, families, and members of the organization who were damaged in one form or another. I therefore wanted to use whatever funds were left when I left ISKCON to do this and this was a source of conflict with those who wished to maintain the status quo. Therefore they kept it all. Of course, they did this under the charter of the foundation I created to protect it. Naturally I am simplifying this issue and it is hard to fairly represent it in this brief reply.

When I officially was removed from ISKCON, the BBT, the Mayapur Project, the Ministry of Education and all connection with disciples, I was penniless. I was very upset with those who I supported, trained, facilitated and eventually handed all responsibility for money (a big mistake or not, remains to be seen) to others who, it seemed to me at the time, refused to support me in any way (no money for food even, can you imagine that?) and who, it seemed to me at that time, were intent on usurping everything under their own control and for purposes that were different from what I now saw as essential, namely, therapy, small loans, education and training for those who were exploited. This made me quite upset. I admit that perhaps I misjudged them or misunderstood their intentions, but they were not dealing properly with me and did not give me credit as a human being. Worse, they judged me as crazy and refused to understand me. This hurt me a lot.

After this time, a few devotees from Russia came to see me and their attitude was quite different. They basically said, "We know you. We know what you can do and what you are trying to do now and we agree with it. We are here to support you." And they did. And for this I am ever-grateful. My situation was so tenuous at that time that these people seemed like angels to me. Indeed, here were friends who had faith in me as a PERSON, not as a POSITION. Most only had faith in me as a position, not a person. Even when some critics had never met me or knew me intimately, did not know me as a person, they found it easy to judge me as a position. Part of judging as a position is to link my fortunes to the fortunes of the movement. Although that was true and relevant and valid while I was in ISKCON, and I proved it by using all my daksina and funds for the benefit of others (and when I left I sold the last asset, the Vario RV, and gave all the money back to the person who bought it), this concept was considered by me to be null and void when I left. I left ISKCON and its values and since my position was dissolved and anyway I wished to let it go when I saw that it was part of the problem and not relevant to the solution, why should I be bound to the values and ideals of ISKCON? Indeed, all that I said and did after that point was related to transforming the philosophy and values that created an exploitative situation. I was happy to start all over again for it granted me freedom. I was happy living on the road and getting myself free from all connections and trying to heal my incredible wounds.

So I drove off to France. Why? The primary reason was to escape from connections to devotees that were filled with expectations. I did not want to start speaking to them about how everything they did was based in illusion. Remember, I did not know what they knew as I had no contact with anyone due to no email or conversations. I simply wanted to get away and think about everything in another context and figure out how to become peaceful, free from the stress that was literally killing me and to find my own way back to myself and my future. So I left. Once there, I realized that this was a nice place due to its isolation, its relative proximity to an airport, its extremely reasonable cost of living (the US, for example, is FAR more expensive to live in) and its incredible peace. So I stayed. At that time, the only people who were near to me were people who knew me as a person and who accepted me in that way. Again, of all of them only some former devotees from Russia stood by me and supported me. This included them arranging for me a living facility. This facility had nothing whatsoever to do with ISKCON funds and was from private people (householders) who were economically independent who had, out of their enormous grace and love, given a lot of charity to ISKCON projects. They assisted me with loans and help that allowed me to get a nice place extremely cheaply. Indeed, the cost of the place was less than what one has to pay where I live now for a medium, lower middle class house, but from the images that look so nice from the outside (and after all, it is in France!) one assumes, wrongly, that it was SO costly and that it was all gotten from stolen money. Gee. When I got the place it was a shell. And with the help of these same friends, it became a nice place. By the way, both my wife and myself come from large, well off, supportive families. We are independent in that way. After all, they love us as we are, wherever we are, whatever we do! Isn't that nice?

I will remain grateful to these former devotees who helped us at that time, some of whom are no longer with us, for believing in me when the rest of the world did not. I am grateful to those in Russia who thought that I could not be what rumor and proclamations said I was. After all, they came from the USSR where pravda was not what it seemed. They looked beyond the obvious misinformation being fed to them and asked questions. I am not sure what happened in Russia at that time or how it happened as all I knew were those few who took their valuable time and energy to come to where I was and assist me. I will always love them despite any changes in their mood or attitude to me, if any. This entire experience caused me to understand friendship differently. No longer was it related to position, requirement, scripture, or what one had to do. It was now free to be there or not according to interpersonal love. I very much appreciated it. I was shocked when I saw how ISKCON devotees, including my former disciples, so easily threw me away as garbage to be ignored or neglected. I thought they knew me. I thought they knew my motives and desires; more importantly, my integrity and values! I was shocked to find out they did not. They assumed I was invulnerable. They thought I could not crack to pieces under a stress they could not even imagine. After all, I should handle anything that came to me and never change how I think as this was the "contract" between us, wasn't it? Sadly, it was not, as my personal reality changed. Their friendship was not friendship, it was something else and I am sorry for that because I was reciprocating with them as friends, not as disciples. I saw them as associates and partners who together did something wonderful. Sure, I was in charge, but I was quite sensitive to them mainly, although sometimes I was not. My seeming lack of sensitivity to them was not due to greed, it was due to ignorance as they did not express their needs. But that is another story.

I also find it interesting how people do not know that I worked hard to fix up the French place and increase its value. I am thankful that my wife and me are quite lucky economically and have gained when we moved. Our economy has always been transparent where it must be so. I see no reason to be transparent to anyone else now. I am not a public figure in the sense that I run a corporation, a charity, or something where I am using other people's money. I do take donations and all of them go towards financing the facilities that we all use under the Harimedia banner. Other than that I am independent. Our temple in Russia is a registered, authorized religious entity that does what it is supposed to. I am its spiritual head.

If and when our cooperative enterprise gets much larger, I will certainly adjust to that reality and create a structure that will accommodate all of those who contributed to it in a proper and transparent manner. As of now, Harimedia is more or less a one or sometimes two man show and we are supported by user donations.

[harsi]

Dear Hari, I gratefully acknowledge your full account in this regard. Your clarification with regard to this sensitive issue give the lie to the myth propagated by some people, on the Internet and elsewhere, that you have in the olden days stolen, misappropriated or lost some funds from ISKCON and used afterwards for your own purposes. Furthermore, what you've been through in the aftermath of the events from 1998, shows that declarations of affection if not complied also with helping each other in times of need, could probably be dismissed as meaningless, empty words. Neverthless I would say that we all deserve a second chance.


"Statement by the ISKCON Governing Body Commission
Place: San Diego, California,
USA X-TE: July 14, 1998 (published on COM)
Issued by: B. D. A.., Acting Chair of the GBC Executive Committee.

The Executive Committee of the ISKCON Governing Body Commission (GBC) regrets to inform ISKCON and its supporters that H. S., aged 49, has recently suffered a serious physical and mental collapse.
It is not unusual that ISKCON leaders, when vigorously preaching Krishna consciousness even up to old age, follow the footsteps of great acaryas and tend to become aloof from bodily concerns. Consequently, leading preachers are sometimes afflicted suddenly with ailments that severely limit their ability to continue at their accustomed pace. In such cases, "slowing down" is not a sign of "giving up." Rather, it shows that a "long-term" vision can give a spiritual leader many extra years to preach Krishna consciousness.

H. M. crisis resulted from an enormous overburden of work, the flare-up of many long-standing physical maladies and a fully committed attitude toward preaching. This attitude caused him to accept many more responsibilities than he could reasonably take on, especially in his weakened condition. We dearly love him and devotees should all intensely pray for his swift recovery. However, it will be some time before he can resume his preaching work. He is regularly meeting with godbrothers and disciples and is in excellent medical care."

[harsi]

You wrote ones in a letter to the GBC on 8 Dec 1998: "While meditating deeply about the situation of the children and seeing parallels in my own life, I came to understand that there were serious mistakes made in the conception of ISKCON by Srila Prabhupada." and "I understand that for ISKCON as an institution to come to terms with such an understanding would be almost impossible and I am in no illusion at present that it will happen soon. However, it might be required."

Prabhupada writes in a comment to a verse in his version of the Bhagavad-gita (see Vedabase) something which shows also the liberal side of his personality:

"The special qualification of the pure devotee is that he is always thinking of Krishna without deviation and without considering the time or place. There should be no impediments. He should be able to carry out his service anywhere and at any time. Some say that the devotee should remain in holy places like Vrindavana or some holy town where the Lord lived, but a pure devotee can live anywhere and create the atmosphere of Vrindavana... It was Sri Advaita who told Lord Caitanya, "Wherever You are, O Lord -- there is Vrindavana."

It seems Prabhupada, at times, had also a much broader vision related to spiritual matters, being aware of the deficiencies, conventional boundaries and traditions of the society he founded.

[Hari]

Harsi: I am not sure why you have posted the two comments you did, but if I were to guess your motivation, I would say that you felt that there was a possibility of reconciliation as the EC were really only interested in what was best for me and that Prabhupada was open to change and transformation.

Addressing this, my comment is that I can imagine that the EC had some measure of care and concern for me. I can also imagine that this care and concern was mixed with a majority concern for the continued management and well being of ISKCON and that this was far more important to them than me. I get this. It is natural. Anyone in such a position would write letters that appeased the sentiments of confused disciples. However, in their dealings with me their care and concern ignored me as a person, ignored what I was saying and the changes I felt had to take place, and took to role of instructing me to do what they wanted without considering what I wanted. Even if there could have been a reconciliation, I lost any desire I might have had to create one due to my rejecting the value structure of ISKCON. There was no need for me to forgive them (as a means to create the reconciliation) as there was nothing to forgive. They did what they thought they had to. I did what I knew I had to.

That Prabhupada could change according to circumstances is certainly true. After all, he was extremely intelligent. Indeed, to this day I have not met anyone as intelligent as he. However, I am not sure how this would be relevant to 1998 as he was not there to do anything about the situation. The movement was cemented into the values he left in 1977 and there was no possibility of it moving out of this structure. His words were absolute and people were and still are convinced that everything he said is right regardless of any other consideration. OK, not everyone thinks that way now, but in 1998 most did. There is no possibility to create fundamental change when the principles and ideals needing to be changed were instilled in us by the Founder. Being blocked like this, I had no choice but to remove myself from the situation. This was the hardest, most painful thing I have ever done and probably will do in this lifetime. Coming to this conclusion was the result of a long, hard process of analysis and meditation. If Prabhupada was still alive, naturally the situation would have been vastly different. Naturally he would have seen the results of what he created and would have changed it or perhaps it would have mutated to something quite different during his extended lifetime. But since he was not there to do this and since our reasoning process was limited by the frozen in time "values and ideals should never change," and since I had been hitting against the wall of "Prabhupada saids" and other blocks, and since I could extrapolate that there was no hope for me to change things and trying to do so had cost me my life, I left.

[harsi]

Indeed, Hari, in my nature I am somehow more of a pragmatic or how the dictionary explains this word someone who is "advocating behaviour that is dictated more by practical consequences than by theory or dogma." I just wanna say that you must use, I mean not necessarily you personally, also your own God-given intelligence to make up your own mind about things. You write for example: "That Prabhupada could change according to circumstances is certainly true. After all, he was extremely intelligent. Indeed, to this day I have not met anyone as intelligent as he." Now, intelligence means also that one can foresee things as they may appear and develop also in the future, which Prabhupada seems to not have been fully able to do, or not in a way that one may have expected of him in consequence of what he thought and probagated to his followers. Otherwise why would have there been evolved many such situations in the way they did. You seem to have evolved personally also to another level of spiritual realization than Prabhupada or are experiencing and viewing spirituality, God and self-realization or awareness, from another angle of vision than Prabhupada.

On a Russian website which publicized your programs in Russia appeared a quote by you, I hope the Google translater translates it well, which says: "I created a method that allows participants to get in touch (interact) directly with their own energy. To connect with ones energy means to be in contact with yourself. And since we all have a spiritual nature, by touching ourselves, we are coming in contact with the spirit. Having experience of such contact, a person learns to understand and feel the spiritual energy of others, in a wide range of its manifestations and qualities. And then perceives and feels the divine source of this spiritual energy." Now of course to explain this more in detail would require a whole lecture but could you please give a brief description what you really mean by writing this and what constitutes the difference, if any, from the way Prabhupada advocated and explained spiritual issues and the method of self and god realization, apart from you using some seemingly more appropriate terms in describing certain spiritual concepts and realities, like evolution, personal energy field or something alike used also in the modern times esoteric scene?

[Hari]

Now, intelligence means also that one can foresee things as they may appear and develop also in the future, which Prabhupada seems to not have been fully able to do, or not in a way that one may have expected of him in consequence of what he thought and probagated to his followers. Otherwise why would have there been evolved many such situations in the way they did.

Although this is true, it is unreasonable to think that people, even highly evolved ones, could fully manifest this capacity. Considering the tradition, the social culture, and the unique situation that Prabhupada was in when he did what he did, I feel it is unfair to demand that he should of or could of had the capacity to foresee how his choices would create situations he would not have been happy with. I understand that those who are in ISKCON or who consider themselves his followers might object to me seemingly belittling his capacity, but I see their objections as a product of their illusion as to his limits. Indeed, to consider one as possessing far greater power than one has is a technique to impersonalize and ultimately ruin a person. My conclusion is that he could not have seen the long term consequences of his choices as he did not have that capability. Although it is not pleasant to say it, it does restore a sense of sanity to history.

You seem to have evolved personally also to another level of spiritual realization than Prabhupada or are experiencing and viewing spirituality, God and self-realization or awareness, from another angle of vision than Prabhupada.

It is so. Therefore I speak from my own experience without requiring my experience to refer to anyone else's. I do appreciate or acknowledge the past and accept my part within it. I may not have been happy with my role all the time but I accept what is and deal with it as best I can. I know my experiences and they are my strength. I do not need my experiences confirmed by others. I do not need approval to be what I am.

Now of course to explain this more in detail would require a whole lecture but could you please give a brief description what you really mean by writing this and what constitutes the difference, if any, from the way Prabhupada advocated and explained spiritual issues and the method of self and god realization, apart from you using some seemingly more appropriate terms in describing certain spiritual concepts and realities, like evolution, personal energy field or something alike used also in the modern times esoteric scene?

Those who remain loyal followers of Prabhupada are not interested in my analysis or vision. Any description I would give here, however detailed or clear, would be met with resistance as their perspective is bound to Prabhupada's. As mine is not, they will not see what I say as relevant to them. Therefore, there is no use in me listing these differences for this group.

Those who have a more open mind in the sense that they can think for themselves and are not afraid to come to conclusions that are not in line with Prabhupada's presentation, also do not need a list. For them, I have posted recordings of my lectures and have written something they might find interesting. In other words, they will find relevance in the concepts I speak about. If and when a discussion of the concept requires a comparison to any other concept, I do it.

If former ISKCON people who formerly followed everything nicely are now listening to me, this means that they have already understood the key differences between what I say and what they heard in the past and find it relevant to how they feel and think. Those who cannot think for themselves would never listen to me unless they had a sentimental attachment or an idea that if they simply stuck around long enough I would eventually see the light and return to the proper path of knowledge. To the former I have nothing to say as I have no desire to challenge their belief system. To the latter my only comment is "get real." To those who have already embraced their personal responsibility for their lives and who find me supportive of their endeavors, I will continue to speak as I have as a service.

I do not like to create needless confrontations. I only engage in argument when there is a need to do so. At this moment in time, I do not see that ISKCON members have the required intelligence to hear something contrary to their belief system and accept it, even if in their heart they know it to be true. There are simply too many reasons for them not to. I do not see a reason to openly declare "I think this and he thinks that," in this discussion thread. I am mainly concerned in this thread to state my point of view about history as a counter to the disinformation network that seems to surround ISKCON.

I am not happy with having a different point of view. I do not take pleasure in demonstrating how the belief system we all formerly accepted does not serve us as spiritual beings. I do it because it ought to be done, because I believe it to be so, and because I have seen and continue to see how I assist people to find the spiritual connection they seek.

In essence, I declare our capacity to find spirit within on our own through our conscious awareness, to connect to the divine as a natural right without impediments, and to express our loving service and healing energy as we wish. I declare our personal responsibility for our choices without requiring these choices to be in line with another person's opinion, some book, or a belief system. If and when we find information from external sources to be relevant to us, we take it. Where these sources have no relevance to our personal experience or where they attempt to restrict or limit our capacity to experience, I reject them. I am not interested in the idea that we require to have someone bring us to God, neither will I embrace not being good enough as the reason why I must deny my personal energy and capacity. But all of this is to be found in all of my lectures.

[Prisni]

I see things differently than probably most others.
I see things in a more kind of unity and global way.

Many expect Prabhupada to be a kind of superman, a super-god, that could put everything in place. I rather see it like - what is his service to Krishna?
And when that is figured out, the question is - did he do his service good?
And yes, the answer is yes. He did his service, his task very good.

Same thing about you Hari. From reading the interview, you got a paper from Prabhupada, and he listed a service for you. I guess he felt that you would understand and needed no elaboration.
So did you do your service well?
That is the question to ask, not to ask what you did not do.
How the service is done always depends on the person, time and circumstances.
So what I really miss from the story, and also the wikipedia article, is just that.
Time, place, circumstances and service. All that is missing. Instead it focuses on other side issues, details which not at all describe the whole picture. Details that hardly relate to you and what you did.

I think you did a great service. Maybe some say you were not qualified, but that was certainly included in the service description. Did you perform the service good? I think that is for yourself to answer, if you think you did what you could. And it appears that you think you did it good. Then that is good enough for me.

For a while I blamed Krishna - why did you give me a guru that fell down, I trusted you!
But I always get an immediate answer in my dialog with Krishna.
Kirhsna would say - what is wrong, you advanced, and you got realisation of me, and I fill in with the things that you guru could not. So what is your complain? I taught you what you missed, is that not good enough for you?
And I guess I should blush there and feel shameful a little bit.
Krishna/God fills in the missing pieces, if we only do our own part of it. That is the deal.

So you definitively did your task, your service, good, at least as far as I am concerned. You brought me to Krishna. So, what is the problem?
Everything worked out very smoothly, and you had your part of it.

So from the higher viewpoint we all have our small services, and what counts is how good we do our task. Not if someone else fails with theirs. The problem always comes when we expect someone to do something which is not their job.

The problem with the world is always - how can God let bad things happen?
A similar thing of that - how could Prabupada let the bad things happen?
The answer to that, as I see it, is always that we don't see the whole picture. We don't see the different small services, tasks we have, and we want to blame others for one person in the chain failing.
We don't see the good some persons do, and only the bad some others do. And then we want to blame the good persons for the failures of others. That is not fair, and it is not spiritual consciousness.

That is how I see it. We just have to figure out our individual task, both spiritually and materially. That is also what "Varnasrama dharma" is all about. Figure out our task, and then do it good. Not try to do another person's task. That is when all havoc breaks out, when we stop listen to God, and when we start to have other contrary ideas. That is allright and allowed in this world, but if we don't want to listen to God, we won't.

The guru's task is to relay the message of God to the disciple who is not able to hear her/himself. Until the time when the disciple can hear God directly. Then the teacher's task is done, and it is perfect.
Maybe some are not ready to hear God directly, but rather want to do so many other things. That is not a fault of the teacher. He does his service with detachment, leading the student to the water. Then it is up to the student to drink.

[Nanda-grama]

For a while I blamed Krishna - why did you give me a guru that fell down, I trusted you!

Generally, I always protest when I hear " Vishnupad fell dawn". This word scratchs me.Does he stop to be a devotee? No. Does he stop to be connected with Radha-Krishna? No. Does he stop to be great teacher? No. He changed his asram. But why is it downfall? Sanyasa is unfavourable in the present time, isn't it? And ashram is " material" thing, isn't it? but when we speak about a devotee and about a guru, we look on his spiritual qualities, generally, to appraise a devotee to look on his body, his status and so on is offence, isn't it ? Then why are all doing it? Only because somebody said that it is so!

[harsi]

.



In todays democratic constitutional states, ruled like Germany by the rule of law, the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting 'criminal' laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law, is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

Wikipedia explains further: "The principle of in dubio pro reo (Latin for "when in doubt, for the accused") means that a defendant may not be convicted by the court when doubts about his or her guilt remain. It is often used specifically to refer to the rule of interpretation that dictates that when a 'criminal' statute allows more than one interpretation, the one that favours the defendant should be chosen. In German law this principle has constitutional status. The main principle in the sentence was part of Aristotle's interpretation of the law and shaped the Roman law.

Now you may ask what has all this to do with the controversial issue under discussion here among Prisni and Nanda-grama. The 'accusation' made that "Vishnupada" has "fallen down" (A '...' statute which in my opinion obviously "allows more than one interpretation" ). Can one establish beyond all doubt that this is the case here and what should or could that mean at all for those who may feel involved.

Hari wrote earlier in this thread, I quote: "In essence, I declare our capacity to find spirit within on our own through our conscious awareness, to connect to the divine as a natural right without impediments, and to express our loving service and healing energy as we wish. I declare our personal responsibility for our choices without requiring these choices to be in line with another person's opinion, some book, or a belief system. If and when we find information from external sources to be relevant to us, we take it. Where these sources have no relevance to our personal experience or where they attempt to restrict or limit our capacity to experience, I reject them. I am not interested in the idea that we require to have someone bring us to God, neither will I embrace not being good enough as the reason why I must deny my personal energy and capacity."

Obviously many things Hari declared here could be seen as controversial to those who follow or are cemented in their thoughts and concepts in the "olden days" but are they to be considered that he may have "fallen down" from the path of spiritual knowledge which may uplift us to the Divine and the divine understanding of things? That is a matter of "interpretation" in my opinion. I would "judge" this statements more as a mean by Hari to "distance oneself" from the way spiritual knowledge is aplied and understood by Prabhupada and those who try to follow his statements. Thus Hari in my opinion could be considered more as a person who "moved away" from the concepts and spiritual understanding of his guru (or preceptor). Fallen off is in this connection a much better term one may use in this regard than fallen down.