The real teachings of His Holiness Narayana Maharaja

To many people both inside and outside the Movement, ISKCON’s current Guru system is a complete farce. Perhaps predictably, all the scandal, falldowns and endless self-contradiction amongst Srila Prabhupada’s wannabe successors (the 80 competing ISKCON ‘Gurus’) has opened the way for yet another personality, this time from outside ISKCON, with designs on Srila Prabhupada’s legacy.

The GBC have preached for many years that everyone must have a “living, physically present Guru” (or anyone but Srila Prabhupada), and now they are reaping their reward. His Holiness Narayana Maharaja a disciple of Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrother, His Holiness Kesava Maharaja has had considerable success in attracting both ex and current members of ISKCON to his camp, by promoting his qualification as a “living, physically present Guru”, who is bona fide and won’t fall down, unlike the ISKCON Gurus.

Narayana Maharaja likes to portray himself as a mere humble servant of Srila Prabhupada, who simply wants to bring everyone to Srila Prabhupada through a deeper appreciation of his mission and teachings:

“You should know who your Prabhupada is. You should know. Then you can glorify him, otherwise you cannot.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Los Angeles, May 31st, 2000)

In this article we shall use Narayana Maharaja’s own words to see if he is bringing us closer to Srila Prabhupada.

Narayana Maharaja Claims To Be Srila Prabhupada’s Successor

Narayana Maharaja makes it clear that he is here not to bring people TO Srila Prabhupada, but to actually REPLACE Srila Prabhupada as his SUCCESSOR:

“I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Murwillumbah, Australia, February 18th, 2002)

Above, Narayana Maharaja boldly stakes out his pitch in direct competition with all the ISKCON Gurus who also want to succeed and replace, not complement, supplement or assist Srila Prabhupada.

Narayana Maharaja Competes Directly With Srila Prabhupada

In pursuance of the above stated aim to replace Srila Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja has urged his followers to distribute HIS books in preference to those of Srila Prabhupada:

“Now Srila Gurudeva (Narayana Maharaja) has requested that we start what he calls ‘a second revolution’ in preaching and book distribution. He wants his books distributed in the same volume, ‘not less than Swamiji (Srila Prabhupada).’”
(Gaudiya Courier, Issue 15, July 1st, 2004)

Clearly the above goal of trying to match Srila Prabhupada can only be achieved if Narayana Maharaja’s books alone are being distributed by his followers, and that is generally what is happening.

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Only Gave The “Basement”

To create the demand for his services, Narayana Maharaja claims that there is much spiritual knowledge that Srila Prabhupada failed to give, so that he can claim he has come to fill this gap:

“So Swamiji has at first cleared the atmosphere. Prepared the ground…by preaching name and the sandesh of Gita… he prepared. So very important work … so he has done this task and it was so necessary for that world…for all world…he has done but he has not done everything by doing that. It was only basement.[…] But…we are deprived of that… he could not complete his work.”
(Lecture given by Narayana Maharaja on September 19th, 1994)

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Gave Everything

That the above statement is not actually true, can again be proven by the words of Narayana Maharaja himself, who said the following 17 years earlier to Srila Prabhupada himself:

“All of your duties are completed. You have fulfilled everything in your lifetime. There is no need to worry for anything.[…] Yes, you have done everything. Nothing is left unfinished.”
(Translation of Bengali conversation between Narayana Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada from October 1977, provided by Narayana Maharaja’s own camp)

That Narayana Maharaja would go onto say the complete opposite of what he himself claimed 17 years earlier, demonstrates opportunism of the highest order.

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Is Not The Founder-Acarya Of Iskcon

This opportunism is further displayed in Narayana Maharaja’s stating that Srila Prabhupada was not the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. It is surely a redundant point that Lord Krishna (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) is the origin of all Krishna consciousness, so one wonders why Narayana Maharaja feels it so important to belittle Srila Prabhupada’s position and promote his own position by stating such an obvious point:

“Also you should know that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the founder of ISKCON. Swamiji, AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja is one of the prominent acaryas in this line only. He is not founder…”
(Narayana Maharaja 28th April 1999, morning speech, Caracas, Venezuela)

“Your Prabhupada, Srila Swami Maharaja, only changed the name into English. He is not the founder acarya of that eternal ISKCON… I am ISKCON. I’m not different from ISKCON. I am ‘Bhaktivedanta’ [Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Gosvami Maharaja]. Like father, like son.

I am the real successor of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, and there is no other. You should know this very openly. I am Bhaktivedanta and he is Bhaktivedanta, but he received this name after I did. I’m senior to him in this regard… I’m Bhaktivedanta, and I’m also ISKCON. Don’t think that I’m out of ISKCON.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Murwillumbah, Australia, February 18th, 2002)

But according to Srila Prabhupada:

“I am the founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.”
(Srila Prabhupada letter to Dr. Bigelow, Allahabad, January 20th, 1971)

Narayana Maharaja Deviates From Srila Prabhupada 1)

Although he claims to be a successor to Srila Prabhupada, and that Srila Prabhupada is somehow speaking through him, it should be noted that Narayana Maharaja’s teachings often seriously differ from Srila Prabhupada’s. This is what Narayana Maharaja has to say about Prahlada Maharaja, who is worshipped on every altar throughout ISKCON as a completely pure devotee of Krishna:

“Prahlada Maharaja was a very bona fide bhakta, and he never wanted anything worldly, but he could not serve Krsna. His bhakti was mixed with jnana, knowledge of the Lord’s opulence. If you have some worldly desire, or any desire, then your bhakti may be sanga-siddha bhakti or aropa-siddha bhakti, but not pure transcendental bhakti”
(Narayana Maharaja, Hawaii, February 17th, 2001)

Yet Srila Prabhupada’s verdict is very different:

“Prahlada Maharaja is the topmost example of a Vaisnava”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.21.47, purport)

“So we see practically how Prahlada Maharaja immediately attained the state of prema… he first of all followed the instruction of Brahma, then immediately he got the favor of Lord Nrsimhadeva, and after getting that he got the prema state.”
(Srila Prabhupada lecture, Mayapur, February 14th, 1976)

“Consequently, instead of accepting the results of karma and jnana, Prahlada Maharaja simply begged the Lord for engagement in the service of His servant.”
(Srimad Bhagavatam 5.24.25)

Above we see Prahlada Maharaja described as a pure devotee who actually shunned the results of jnana (knowledge).

Narayana Mahara Deviates From Srila Prabhupada 2)

Narayana Maharaja claims that Advaita Acarya (one of the associates of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) was incapable of giving people Vraja-Bhakti (pure devotion to Krishna):

“Sri Advaita Acarya…He is a part of the part of the part of the part of Krishna. Being so far away, He can preach with kirtana, but He cannot give Vraja-bhakti. Never. He is not qualified for this. Only Krishna can do this.”
(Narayana Maharaja, Los Angeles, California May 31, 2000)

Contrast the above with the following verse from the Sri Caitanya caritamrta as presented by Srila Prabhupada:

“He (Advaita Acharya) delivered all living beings by offering the gift of Krishna-bhakti (pure devotion to Krishna). He explained Bhagavadgita and Srimad-Bhagavatam in the light of devotional service.”
(Srila Prabhupada, Caitanya caritamrita, Adi-lila 6.28)

Thus Narayana Maharaja again disagrees with the siksa (instruction) given by Srila Prabhupada, even though he also rather immodestly claims to be his “dearmost siksa disciple”. (There are more examples of such contradictions on the back page of this magazine).

Narayana Maharaja Claims Srila Prabhupada Asked Him To Guide His Disciples

Narayana Maharaja has claimed that Srila Prabhupada ordered him to instruct Srila Prabhupada’s disciples:

“He ordered me, ‘Help my disciples’ [...] You can get that cassette.[...] If anyone does not have belief in my statements, he can acquire and hear the cassette. At the time he spoke in Bengali so that others would not understand.”
(Salt Spring Island, Canada, April 2001, pm)

This claim is based on Srila Prabhupada stating “you kindly instruct them on this matter” to Narayana Maharaja, during a Bengali conversation spoken between the two sometime in October-November 1977.

However, as will be seen from the full translation of this conversation provided by the Narayana Maharaja camp themselves, Srila Prabhupada does not say anything of the sort. Whilst reading the relevant portion of the conversation below, please pay special attention to whom the word “them” in the above sentence refers to; what was the “matter” on which Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to give instruction; and “when” this instruction was meant to be given:

Srila Prabhupada: Are any of my god-brothers in Vrindavana now?
Narayana Maharaja: Yes.
Srila Prabhupada: Who?
Narayana Maharaja: Van Maharaja might be there, as well as Indupati Prabhu from Caitanya Gaudiya Matha.
Srila Prabhupada: Any more?
Narayana Maharaja: Only these two at the moment.
Srila Prabhupada: Who is Indupati?
Narayana Maharaja: He comes here often.
Bhakticaru Swami: From Madhava Maharaja’s matha?
Narayana Maharaja: Yes. No one else is here.
Srila Prabhupada: Please call both of them. Van Maharaja and him.
Narayana Maharaja: This is very good proposal by you.
Srila Prabhupada: Please sit down. They will call them.
Narayana Maharaja: All right.
Srila Prabhupada: This cutting of arguments happens sometimes…
Narayana Maharaja: These are insignificant matters in such a substantial worldwide mission. A little something here and there is of no consequence. You have done this wonderful preaching work for the benefit of the whole world. There was no self-interest. You did everything only in devotional service to Krsna for benefiting all people at large.
Srila Prabhupada: It is all by your blessings.
Narayana Maharaja: You have done a wonderful thing. It is necessary to care for and preserve this mission, and see that it is managed skilfully.
Srila Prabhupada: You kindly instruct them on this matter. I’m unable to speak.

When we see the sentence in context, those three aspects become clarified:

1) The word “them” refers to Srila Prabhupada’s Godbrothers who were to arrive shortly, not to Srila Prabhupada’s disciples. The word “them” comes twice before the final sentence,and both times it refers to his Godbrothers, Indupati Prabhu and Van Maharaja.

2) The “matter” on which Srila Prabhupada wanted Narayana Maharaja to instruct his Godbrothers was that they forgive him for any “cutting of arguments” he may have done in the course of his preaching.

3) And “when” was this instruction to be given? There and then. Immediately after Srila Prabhupada asks Narayana Maharaja to give in struction he states: “I’m unable to speak”. This is the reason he is asking Narayana Maharaja to make these points to his Godbrothers on his behalf when they arrive.

So here we clearly see a false claim made by Narayana Maharaja to promote his agenda as being the “real successor” to Srila Prabhupada.

In conclusion, on the basis of all the above, it is clear from Narayana Maharaja’s OWN WORDS that he is not simply a “dearmost siksa disciple” of Srila Prabhupada whose aim is to help to bring us closer to Srila Prabhupada.

Rather he is no different to the 80 wannabe “successor Gurus” of ISKCON, doing and saying whatever is necessary to jockey for Srila Prabhupada’s position.

Narayana Maharaja Claims He is Srila Prabhupada's Successor

In a recent interview, Narayana Maharaja, one of the members of the Gaudiya Matha who has been visiting ISKCON communities to capitalise on the current joker-Guru program that ISKCON offers, openly stated the following:

"I am not his uttama adhikari (successor). Actually I am. Those who are falling down are his successors outwardly, but spiritually and transcendentally I am his successor."
(Narayana Maharaja, Interview quoted on the Gaudiya Matha website, VNN)

For those of you who thought that Narayana Maharaja was only visiting ISKCON to 'help', we have clear proof here that he intends to do a lot more than just 'help' - rather he wishes to help himself. He is revealing here his ambition to try and take the fruits of Srila Prabhupada's work, and be another competitor to the current pack of jokers who are also claiming that they are Srila Prabhupada's successors, and who as Maharaja has correctly pointed out, are usually 'falling down'. However we have news for him and the other 'pretenders to the throne' currently acting as 'successors' within ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada is not going anywhere soon - infact at least not for the next 10,000 years. He never left. So before announcing to us that you are a 'successor', please note the 'NO VACANCY' sign in the window.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. That we are creating. We are creating these devotees who will handle.
Hanuman: One thing he's saying, this gentlemen, and I would like to know, is your successor named or your successor will...
Srila Prabhupada: My success is always there.
(SP Room conversation, 12/2/75 Mexico)

Reporter: Are you training a successor?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, my Guru Maharaja is there.
(SP Press conference, 16/7/75, San Francisco)

Narayana Maharaja also states the following:

"Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura had so many very qualified disciples. Among them our Guru Maharaja was very prominent; and others were also, like Pujapada Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Bhaktivilasa Tirtha, Srila Sauti Maharaja, Srila Giri Maharaja, Srila Bon Maharaja, Srila Vikaras Bharti Maharaja, Srila Madhava Maharaja, Srila Siddhanti Maharaja." 
(Narayana Maharaja)

Yet Srila Prabhupada had to the following to say about 'Srila Bon Maharaja':

"Still he is so envious, black snake."
(Room Conversation, 16/10/75)

For many more difference between the teachings of Srila Prabhupada and Narayana Maharaja. Thus these differences alone prove that whatever elevated qualities Maharaja may possess, one thing he definitely is NOT, is the 'successor' to Srila Prabhupada, for what sort of a 'successor' is it that teaches the complete OPPOSITE to Srila Prabhupada?

Narayana Maharaja Confused About Ritvik

Narayana Maharaja (NM) has given a lecture which is supposed to be "A Response To The Ritvik System". Unfortunately rather than being a RESPONSE to the Ritvik System, it is actually nothing but a FABRICATION about the Ritvik system, wherein Narayana Maharaja has only presented his imagination regarding the IRM's presentation of Srila Prabhupada's instructions on the Ritvik system.

We will quote portions of his lecture below enclosed in speech marks thus " ", with our comments following underneath enclosed in parentheses,  thus [  ]. The lecture was delivered by Narayana Maharaja on July 19th, 2001, in Polansk, Russia. The transcript of the lecture was typed and edited by Sripad Krishna Bhajana dasa Brahmacari, and proofread by Srimati Premavati devi dasi.

"Those who think, "There is no need to accept a guru as a mediator because we can chant the holy name, we can read books, and we can do arcana and sadhana simply by the rtvik system," are not within the guru-parampara. They deceive others. They are actually cheaters; not bhaktas."

Of course no one except NM has ever even proposed this. The Ritvik system is DEFINED as accepting Srila Prabhupada as the Guru who mediates. Thus the only person doing the 'deceiving and 'cheating' here is NM.

"Nowhere in the sastra is it written that a rtvik can ever give bhakti. This can never be the case. "

Nowhere has it ever been claimed by anyone that the 'Ritvik gives Bhakti'. Those who accept the Ritvik system receive Bhakti from the self-realised Guru, Srila Prabhupada.

"They say that in this world there are no pure devotees, and therefore there are no pure devotees to initiate anyone. This idea is very, very wrong and it is against the principles of bhakti."

No we do not say this. In "The Final Order" we actually state the opposite. There maybe many pure devotees. But this does not change the fact that Srila Prabhupada established the Ritvik system for ISKCON. Thus NM's idea is 'very, very wrong' and it goes against the principles of actual Ritvik system as given by Srila Prabhupada.

"Beware of this rtvik system. Without a self-realized guru you cannot achieve bhakti in thousands of births. This is an established truth. This is siddhanta. You should therefore accept a sad-guru, serve him, and try to follow his instructions. Then you can develop your Krishna consciousness and all of your anarthas will disappear. Otherwise, it will never be possible for pure bhakti to come and touch your heart and senses."

Since the Ritvik system actually ENABLES one to 'accept, serve and follow the instructions of the self-realised sad guru', it is clear that one must 'beware of NM', for he is teaching the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. Otherwise 'it will never be possible for pure understanding to come and touch your heart and senses'.

"I would like to clarify one thing. I am not saying that all rtviks mislead others. Only those who say that there is no need of a guru do so. Real rtviks know all sastras, and all of them have gurus. A rtvik cannot be a rtvik without accepting a real guru."

Since a Ritvik is DEFINED as someone who accepts Srila Prabhupada, it is NM who is again misleading us by positing the existence of a non-existent entity.

"Nowadays, therefore, those who call themselves rtviks are all cheaters, and we should beware of them."

Here NM contradicts himself. He had JUST said that he is: "NOT saying that ALL rtviks mislead others."  Here he says that: "Ritviks are ALL cheaters".

"There are so many gurus: caitya-guru, diksa-guru, siksa-guru, bhajana-guru, and others. Why go to a bogus-rtvik guru? If our siksa-gurus are Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Nityananda prabhu, and Radhika, why do we need to go to these rtviks?"

Since Ritviks accept all these same 'Gurus, and do NOT accept a 'ritvik-guru' (this term is never used by either Srila Prabhupada or "The Final Order"), since all the Ritvik does is perform a ceremony on behalf of the Real Guru - Srila Prabhupada - the actual conclusion is why do we 'need to go to NM', since he states nothing EXCEPT the actual OPPOSITE of the facts.

"This word 'rt' has come from the word 'Rg-Veda.' Those who know all Vedas, including the Rg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva Veda, all the Upanishads, and all the Puranas, are actually rtvik. [...] (There are nineteen places in Prabhupada's books where the word 'rtvik' is used, and in all cases the word only refers to a priest officiating or performing a fire sacrifice). [...] After deliberation upon the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Puranas, it becomes obvious that rtviks have nothing to do with the supreme transcendental goal...'Rtau yajtiti rtviki.' One who conducts sacrifices according to Vedic mantras is called a rtvik. There is an arrangement of 16 types of rtviks to perform the sacrifices."

This is massive contradiction by NM. Earlier in an interview that he had given to the ISKCON Journal in 1990, NM had claimed that: I have not seen the word "ritvik" in our Vaisnava dictionary. (…) We have seen no such word as "ritvik".
(Narayana Maharaja Interview, ISKCON Journal, Page 23)

Now NM wants to enlighten us how the word Ritvik not only exists, but how he has seen it in many places from the Vedas to Srila Prabhupada's books!

"I think, however, that these modern rtviks don't even know the ABC's of the Vedas. [...] There are nineteen places in Prabhupada's books where the word 'rtvik' is used, and in all cases the word only refers to a priest officiating or performing a fire sacrifice. Even when the word used is 'rtvik acarya,' it is still defined as a priest performing a fire sacrifice for a secular gain."

The word 'ritvik-acarya' is NEVER used in Srila Prabhupada's books. It seems it is NM who does not know the ABC's of Srila Prabhupada's books.

"Those who advocate the rtvik system are misleaders, and their followers are misled. Do not go towards the rtvik system. In none of the sastras has it been said that this rtvik system will give bhakti. Be careful regarding the bogus rtvik system. [...] You should give up the idea that the rtviks can help. They can never help you. They have never even helped themselves, so how can they help others?"

As we have conclusively shown above via NM's numerous false statements and contradictions, it is NM who is the misleader, who is misleading all his followers regarding the IRM's advocation of the Ritvik system. Thus one must 'be careful regarding the bogus understanding of the Ritvik system' given by NM, and give up the idea that NM can help us regarding understanding the true facts about Srila Prabhupada's instructions regarding the ritvik system.

Any hope that this was simply a one-off aberration on the part of Maharaja is dashed by the fact that he has also repeated similar nonsensical statements in a magazine containing 6 of his essays called: “The True Conception of Sri Guru Tattva". Below we analyse some of these statements. Statements made by NM in the aforementioned magazine shall be enclosed in a blue tinted panel, with our comments following underneath in bold text.

“So in the tradition of our sampradaya there is a provision for Diksa- guru, siksa-guru, bhajana-guru, patha-pradarsaka-guru, caitya-guru and so on. But we will not find any statement in the scriptures which recommends accepting a ‘rtvik-guru’ or the rtvik tradition in order to perform one’s sadhana of paramartha (the highest transcendental goal).”

Nor will we find any statement from the IRM or “The Final Order” (TFO – the IRM’s position paper) proposing the same. No one has ever proposed that one accept a 'ritvik-guru' (this term is never used by either Srila Prabhupada or "The Final Order") as an alternative to accepting a Diksa Guru in order to perform one’s sadhana. Rather a ritvik priest is simply someone who officiates on behalf of the Diksa Guru when the initiation is being performed. Thus NM is presenting here a classic ‘straw-man argument’ – this is an argumentative device in which one attacks a position not held by one’s adversary and defeats this false position as an alternative to addressing the adversary’s real position, which one is unable to defeat.

 

“Thus, at the current time, some people put forward the idea that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj was the last sad-guru, and after his disappearance there is no longer a sad-guru present in the world, nor will there be one in the future.”

This is again another ‘straw-man argument’. “The Final Order” offers no opinion on the state of the world. It merely states what was the system of initiation established by Srila Prabhupada for ISKCON. And this, as established by his July 9^th 1977 directive, was to have him as the initiating Guru for ISKCON.

“Therefore, after his disappearance there is not need for anyone to accept any living guru because rtviks will carry forward this sisya-parampara (disciplic succession) and they will give Diksa only by utilizing the cassette recordings of his own voice chanting the gayatri-mantras. This conception is completely speculative and is against the injunctions of the scriptures.”

It is the above statement which is completely speculative. Firstly no one, except NM’s fertile imagination it seems, has ever proposed that the ‘ritviks will carry forward this sisya-parampara (disciplic succession)’. Rather it is Srila Prabhupada who will carry forward the parampara as its current link. For parampara is NOT defined as the existence of a ‘physically present body’, but as the following:

“Parampara means to hear the truth from the spiritual master”.

(Room Conversation, 20/12/76)

“Parampara means they do not change the word of Krishna. That is parampara”.

(SB lecture, 11/8/74)

 

Srila Prabhupada is still giving us this truth and is not changing the word of Krishna. In this way HE is continuing the parampara, not ‘ritviks’.

Secondly in the July 9^th directive Srila Prabhupada authorises representatives to give first and second initiation just as it was being done when Srila Prabhupada himself was physically accepting disciples, and this involved extensive use of ‘cassette recordings’ of Srila Prabhupada chanting the gayatri mantra.

“To say, ‘There is no sad-guru living in the world at present and neither will there be any in the future", is an atheistic opinion.”

Of course no one, except NM’s imagination has proposed such a thing. The position of TFO relates only to what Srila Prabhupada ordained for ISKCON, not what may or may not happen in every nook or cranny of the planet from now till the end of time.

“Some people talk about accepting Diksa through the medium of the audio cassettes of great personalities after they have disappeared. There are various flaws in this ideology. Before giving Diksa, a guru examines the characteristics, thoughts, intentions, and so on of the aspiring candidate. Similarly, for some period of time, the aspirant will also observe the gurutva (greatness), conduct, bhajana and attitude of his guru. When both of them are satisfied, then only is there an arrangement to give and to accept Diksa. This process is not possible through cassettes once the guru is no longer physically present.”

This process was also not possible through cassettes when Srila Prabhupada was physically present, since Srila Prabhupada second initiated the vast majority of his disciples via the medium of his audio recordings, having never met most of them. Thus NM is here directly attacking both the system by which Srila Prabhupada gave initiation when he was on the planet, and the system Srila Prabhupada set up for initiations to continue in ISKCON. NM’s contention that there is a ‘flaw in the ideology’ of using audio cassettes to give Diksa after the disappearance of the Guru thus applies equally to the use of audio cassettes even whilst Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, since even in the latter case mutual examination between Guru and disciple did not take place in the majority of cases. For as already stated Srila Prabhupada used this ‘cassette’ system to give second initiation to the vast majority of his disciples without having ever met them. Thus NM is saying therefore that there is a flaw in Srila Prabhupada’s ideology, since it is a proven fact that this is the system he used.

“It is not possible for the cassette to examine the aspirant before giving Diksa, and neither is it possible for the aspirant to observe the greatness, conduct and mode of bhajana of the guru though the medium of cassettes alone.”

NM again re-affirms that his criticism applies equally to the use of cassette recordings by Srila Prabhupada even whilst he was on the planet, since the above process of mutual examination between Guru and disciple was not undertaken in the majority of cases where Srila Prabhupada gave initiation. This is a new departure for NM in that he is attacking Srila Prabhupada’s conduct directly, implying that all those disciples of Srila Prabhupada who received second initiation by hearing the gayatri mantra on the cassette tape without having met Srila Prabhupada, which was the vast majority of them, were not correctly initiated. It may only be a matter of time therefore, before NM takes the further bold step of ‘re-initiating’ all the second initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada who were incorrectly initiated via the ‘cassette tape’. This is the logical implication of his criticism of the method via which Srila Prabhupada gave second initiation.

“From the history of our sampradaya, it is well known that Krsna Dvaipayana Vedavyasa was a perfected saint or guru of Dvarpara-yuga. But yet his sat-sisya, Srila Madhvacarya, had direct darsana of Srila Vedavyasa who had appeared about 5000 years prior to him. Despite being so qualified, Srila Madhvacarya never thought he could become the disciple of Srila Vedavyasa without the latter’s physical presence.”

Yet the vast majority of Srila Prabhpada’s disciples became his disciples without ever receiving his ‘direct darsana’ or experiencing his ‘physical presence’. Thus Srila Prabhupada himself proved by his direct example that there is no link between becoming a disciple and associating physically with the Guru. Why is NM trying so hard to prove the opposite and thus try to prove that there was a ‘flaw’ in the way Srila Prabhupada initiated his disciples?

“For the common people, the process of accepting Diksa is to directly receive krsna-mantra from a sad-guru who knows krsna-tattva. But in the case of uttama-adhikaris, the example of bhagvata parampara is visible everywhere. Hence, it is not a proven fact that the cassette is a bona fide and effective medium to give Diksa.”

Yet Srila Prabhupada established through his world institution ISKCON that the COMMON method for the common people to receive Diksa was without his physical presence and via the cassette recording. Thus again NM is attacking Srila Prabhupada’s method of conducting initiations by stating that Srila Prabhupada did not give his initiations via a ‘bona fide and effective medium’.

“If, in modern times, in special circumstances a guru has given Diksa through his representative or through cassette, this still cannot be accepted as the ultimate principle for everyone at all times and in all places. A guru may give Diksa through the medium of his representative or cassette to a faithful person who is living in a remote place, and cannot personally come before his guru due to circumstances. But this is a temporary situation arising out of extreme circumstances only. Whenever it is possible, the guru will himself personally give Diksa.”

Here NM contradicts himself. Previously he had stated that giving initiation via a cassette was an ideology which had ‘flaws’ because the Guru and disciple could not examine each other, and was NOT a ‘bona fide and effective medium to give Diksa’. Now he claims it is acceptable when the disciple is not able to come before the Guru due to circumstances. Then the Guru’s representative or cassette CAN give initiation. Which is exactly what the Ritvik position states. This principle that NM has enunciated here is applicable whether the Guru is on the planet or not. Whenever the Guru is not present, either by being somewhere else on the planet or in the universe, the disciple is unable to come before him and he can receive initiation via a representative or cassette. The key point according to NM is only that the Disciple is faithful and he is unable to come before the Guru due to his circumstances. So in another flip-flop contradiction, NM is endorsing the ritvik system he is supposed to be attacking.

“Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami has neither accepted nor mentioned the tradition of rtviks as gurus anywhere in his bona fide books. Nor did he support the tradition of rtviks in his personal letters. Whatever Srila Swami Maharaj arranged, it was definitely not ‘rtvik-guru’, which is a contradiction of terms. To call it this is the cause of embarrassment for him among those who know the Vedic sastras. If any of his disciples have anywhere, on the pretext of his name, made such a declaration, then after the word ‘rtvik’, must be added the statement, ‘the representative of guru’.”

Neither has anyone else accepted the tradition of ‘ritviks as Gurus’. The Ritvik position IS that Ritvik means ‘representative of Guru’ as defined in the July 9^th directive. Why NM is wasting his time defeating one ‘straw-man’ argument after another is baffling. He should at least make some attempt to learn about what he supposed to be talking about. Otherwise he should simply stay quiet, lest he ends up revealing his great ignorance on the subject, just as he has continually done here.

“And it must be understood that such representatives can only act on a timely or provisional basis.”

Understood according to whom, that such representatives can only act on a timely or provisional basis? NM has not presented one word from Guru, sadhu or sastra to back up this speculation of his.

“Therefore the sadhaka of suddha-bhakti, after thoroughly deliberating on these facts, must not neglect the principles of guru-parampara. If there is any doubt, then it is necessary to remove it by accepting the correct understanding of guru-parampara. One must accept the innermost thoughts or intentions of the guru, otherwise one will be deceived and misled from suddha-bhakti.”

Yes one MUST accept the correct understanding of Guru-parampara and accept the intentions of the Guru. These intentions of Srila Prabhupada are given by him in the July 9^th directive, and his many teachings that parampara simply means transmitting the knowledge of Krishna without change, which Srila Prabhupada continues to do even today. Any assertions to the contrary as given herein by NM, will indeed lead us to “be deceived and misled from suddha-bhakti.”

“In consideration of this principle, can it be conjectured that a guru, being ignorant of the Diksa mantras and their conceptions, will appoint a rtvik more qualified than himself, who in turn will give Diksa to others, thus acting as the representative of the guru? Some people say that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja appointed rtviks who were to give Diksa to his disciples.”

No one except NM is conjecturing this. No one has ever proposed that the Diksa Guru appoints a Ritvik who is more qualified than him to give Diksa to others. For the umpteenth time - how much simpler can one make it – the Diksa Guru gives Diksa – the ritvik simply assists in conducting the initiation formalities. Thus NM presents yet another ludicrous ‘straw-man’ argument further revealing his gross ignorance of the subject.

“If this statement is accepted as true, then it means they are accusing Srila Swami Maharaj of being an unqualified guru, and ignorant yajman who, for the sake of fulfilling his material desires or perfection in spiritual life, would have appointed rtviks more qualified than himself. No, it cannot be true, for this is completely impossible. Therefore on the path toward attaining the supreme absolute reality, Bhagavan, this concocted rtvik conception is impractical and against the scriptural conclusions.”

No one is accusing Srila Prabhupada of this. Only NM’s fertile imagination is able to conjure up such useless notions, due to his poor fund of knowledge regarding the subject at hand. Therefore on the path toward attaining the supreme absolute reality, Bhagavan, this concocted rtvik conception as given by NM is impractical and against the scriptural conclusions, and also a gross mis-representation of the actual position advocated by the IRM.

Conclusion

As well as seeing yet again NM’s gross ignorance of the subject he is supposed to be enlightening us on, he has also revealed some more of his traits. He is very keen to undermine Srila Prabhupada by attacking the initiation methodology he employed. This merely reveals his lack of understanding of Guru tattva, since he incorrectly thinks that Diksa is not bona fide if given by an audio recording. The reality however, as demonstrated by Srila Prabhupada, is that Diksa is always bona fide as long as the Guru has authorised the system via which Diksa is given. And finally we have also seen that NM has infected himself with the GBC disease of contradicting himself. Self-contradiction is a common ailment when one does not have a consistent and coherent philosophy, but instead speaks due to a mixture of speculation and ignorance.

In conclusion, we see yet again how the ideology of NM regarding Guru tattva is at complete odds with that presented by Srila Prabhupada, and those who claim to be loyal and faithful to Srila Prabhupada should not continue to be in ignorance of this fact. Thank You.

Narayana Maharaja blashemes Srila Prabhupada 

 

Read More

Christchurch Quake Destroys Deities and Temple Beyond Repair

 ISKCON Devotees in Christchurch, New Zealand are still in shock after a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck on February 22nd, destroying their temple building and shattering the Deities of Nitai-Gaurachandra beyond repair. Incredibly, no one was seriously injured.

The disaster comes on the heels of a 7.1 magnitude quake in the same city on September 4th last year, which caused flooding and structural damage to the temple, but left the Deities safe. Three thousand continual aftershocks since then, including a powerful one the day after Christmas, weakened structures further and left Christchurch residents tense.

Tuesday’s earthquake, although smaller in magnitude, caused far more damage than September’s one, as it hit significantly closer to the main population center of Christchurch, and was at a more shallow depth. Seventy-five people are now dead and 300 missing, with officials saying that the death toll will almost surely climb further. The spire of the city’s stone cathedral toppled into a central square, multistory buildings collapsed, sidewalks and roads cracked, and people were buried in rubble, some crushed to death.

Debris from the earthquake rests on a crushed car outside the Christchurch Catholic Cathedral.AP

“At first, it seemed just like any other day,” says Sevananda Dasa, a priest at the Christchurch ISKCON temple. “I was up on the altar, offering the chamara whisk to the Deities. There were four other devotees in the temple room, singing kirtan. One devotee was upstairs, and another was in the kitchen cleaning the pots, as they had just cooked the noon offering.”

Then, at about 12:53pm, there was a slight tremor. This wasn’t cause for major concern in itself, since devotees had been used to aftershocks since September.

But two seconds later, the tremors became extremely intense, shaking the three-foot marble Deities back and forth violently.

Without thinking, Sevananda dropped his bell and chamara, ran forward, and seized Lord Nityananda and Lord Chaitanya around the waist, one in each arm, trying to keep them steady. But the tremors were so strong that all three were shaken forward nearly a foot.

Then, suddenly, Sri Sri Nitai-Gaurachandra were hurled right off the altar, taking Sevananda, who was still holding them protectively, with them.

The wooden altar, which crashed to the floor, just missing Sevananda Dasa.

“I fell onto the marble floor with Lord Chaitanya and Lord Nityananda,” he says. “A moment later, the wooden altar was flying over my head, and crashing onto the floor. Everything was still shaking. Then it stopped.”

There is strong emotion in Sevananda’s voice. “Still lying there, dazed, I looked around, and to my right was just the torso and head of Lord Chaitanya, and to my left the torso and head of Lord Nityananda. It’s so distressing it’s hard to even say it, but they had completely shattered, and there was an arm lying here, a foot there, a hand there. In the background, I could hear a devotee wailing, just crying out, ‘No!’ She had been chanting right next to the altar, and had seen it all happen. It was the most devastating experience ever.”

Sevananda sustained a big gash on his arm, bruising on his shoulders, and scrapes on his legs and arms from sharp pieces of marble or metal. With a hospital two-minutes walk from the temple, he has received treatment, and although he’s still feeling sore, he’s doing well.

The Christchurch temple room destroyed after the earthquake

Incredibly, no other devotees have received any injuries. “One devotee who had been working in town was rushing down the street to get back home, and saw dead bodies just lying on the street,” Sevananda says. “So it’s amazing that no devotees were hurt at all, considering the many deaths and serious injuries to others.”

The two-storey temple, located in the city, however, is beyond repair. Already weakened from last September’s earthquake, whole walls have collapsed, windows and glass doors have blown out, staircases have been destroyed, and large cracks have appeared throughout the structure. There are piles of rubble everywhere, the conservatory is flattened in a mess of shattered glass, and a chimney on the side of the temple was dislodged and crashed into the house next door, embedding itself in its roof.

The temple's glass conservatory smashed to pieces.

According to Auckland temple president Kalasamvara Dasa, both the Christchurch "temple house" -- used for accommodation -- and another house next door have been rattled "off their foundations" and are likely to have to be razed to the ground due to unsafety.

Devotees’ houses nearby have also sustained severe structural damage, chimneys have fallen through roofs, and possessions—bookcases, cooking utensils and appliances, computers—are scattered everywhere.

Sevananda says that devotees whose houses have not been damaged have extended a hand to those who were affected, inviting them to sleep in their lounges or on their living room floors.

Landlines are overloaded and don’t work properly, and power has been cut off in parts of the city, leaving cell phones the only means to contact devotees in Christchurch.

Meanwhile, the government is providing help in every way they can.

“It’s unbelievable,” Sevananada told ISKCON News the day after the quake. “It’s like something out of a movie. There’s airforce planes flying overhead, army trucks rolling down the road, bulldozers and diggers everywhere. The army is distributing water, and organizing shelter and food in an very organized way.”

While devotees were in complete shock on the day of the earthquake, the mood is more one of practicality now.

“You just do what you gotta do,” says Sevananda. “We’ve got to get practical now. We’ve got to find water, food, some gas for cooking. Devotees are wondering when the electricity is going to come on, what they’ll do at night time, things like that.”

A chimney dislodged from the temple and crashed into a neighboring building.

At this point, no one is looking to the future yet—there are more immediate concerns. And although the temple is covered with insurance, with so many earthquakes in recent times insurance companies are reluctant to pay up, and it could be years before the temple is rebuilt. “It’s not something we’re thinking about right now—there are still tremors going on,” Sevananda says. “All of last night and this morning, there were aftershocks. I didn’t sleep at all. Because during every aftershock, the heartbeat rises, and you just tense up. You don’t know if this is going to be another big one. We’ve had three so far—we don’t know if it’s finished now, or if there are more coming.”

Destruction inside the temple.

Devotees in other parts of the country are extending their invitations to provide shelter for the Christchurch devotees, and are doing their best to arrange flights for them out of the stricken city, but it isn’t easy.

“I’m trying to look for a flight out of this place, but they’re all sold out for the next few days,” Sevananda says. “Prices even to other cities in New Zealand are astronomical. Everyone who doesn’t have a major reason to stay here is just getting out of this city anyway they can. Anywhere is better than being in Christchurch right now.”

The best thing devotees around the world can do now for their Christchurch brothers and sisters, Sevananda feels, is offer their well-wishes, thoughts and prayers for their safety and well-being.

“The earthquake made me realize how truly insignificant we are,” he says. “Just a little shake for a few seconds, and look how much damage it causes. We’re at the whims of greater powers than us. And it’s at times like these that we must remember, mare Krishna rakhe ke, rakhe Krishna mare ke: if Krishna wants to kill us, no one can save us, but if Krishna wants to save us, no one can kill us.”

Sri-Sri Nitai-Gaurachandra, who protected their devotees but were themselves shattered in the earthquake.

Sri Krishna Chaitanya temple of Auckland, with support of Indian Association in Christchurch will serve free, freshly cooked vegetarian meals to the earthquake victims in Christchurch. The team aims to provide around 250 – 500 meals every day for 5 days starting Monday 28th February. Those who wish to donate goods including non-perishable food items and are able to provide transport and manpower for collection, please URGENTLY contact Yogesh Punja on 021 786 520. 

The Hindu Organisations, Temples and Associations (HOTA) Forum, in coordination with Sewa International, have launched an appeal to contribute to the ongoing aid and relief work in Christchurch, and to residents who have been displaced to various New Zealand cities. To assist with Sewa International relief work, contact nz_hota@yahoo.com or Kishor Mistry on 09 537 2766. You can make monetary donations to Sewa International through the ASB account number: 12-3055-0216216-00.

Read More

ISKCON Child Abusers Secrets

None of us escaped being abused...
and no one helped us...
and no one protected us....
and no one believed us...
and no one listened! 
                                          - Children's Voice

Iskcon child abusers named

------------------------------------

1. Ananta Rupa

2. Bhavananda

3. Bhurijan

4. Dhanurdar Swami

5. Chandrika

6. Gyanagamya and Krishna-Kumari

7. Doyal Govinda

8. Hare Krsna das

9. Hiranyagarbha

10. Lalita Madhava

11. Mandaleshwar

12. Manihar

13. Niragadeva

14. Padasevana

15. Raghunatha Swami

16. Rupa Vilas

17. Venkata

Perpetrators:-

Ananta Rupa

1 Ananta Rupa

Ananta Rupa, along with his group of monitors, were known to be sexually abusing children in the Vrindavan gurukula. Ananta Rupa was American. He was extremely domineering toward the boys and did not hesitate to yell, punch, slap, throw things, or pull our ears.

Ananta Rupa was teacher at the Mayapur Gurukula (from 19?? to 1981) and was openly known to be having sex with some Bengali children there. The circumstances surrounding is discharge from Mayapur are unclear, but it was common knowledge amongst the gurukula children, that he left Mayapur because of his pedophile activities. He was transferred to the Vrindavan gurukula, where he stayed from 1981 to 1984

Ananta Rupa came to Vrindavan, while Dhanurdar was the principal, and was assigned immediately to be a gurukula teacher. There is little doubt that Dhanurdar was well aware of the allegations. The impression was that Dhanurdar fully cooperated and endorsed decisions and punishments made by Ananta Rupa while he was a teacher in Vrindavana gurukula.

Ananta Rupa was extremely domineering and mean toward us - he did not hesitate to punch, slap, throw things, or pull our ears. He constantly yelled and used very intimidating gestures and words when he interacted with us.

Ananta Rupa arrived at the Vrindavan gurukula with several of the adolescent - adult boys with whom he was having sex with in Mayapura.

These adolescents, who came to Vrindavan with Ananta Rupa, where from my estimation between the ages of sixteen and twenty two. It was difficult to determine their age since none of them knew their birthday or age. During the four years they were around, they didn't grow any taller nor change in physical appearance, so I suspect they were adults. The rumour was that these were the Bengali boys, Ananta Rupa was having sexual relations with in Mayapur.

As for his ashram, Ananta Rupa was very friendly with the monitors, while he was extremely mean to us. Each of these monitors had an ashram of between five and fifteen younger boys. They would pick out the boys in their ashram who they thought were vulnerable or non threatening and sexually molest them. If the situation was appropriate they would bring the boy to Ananta Rupa. Ananta Rupa had an ashram with those people that came with him as monitors, for around two or three years.

All of these monitors were brahman initiated mainly by Bhavananda and possibly another guru. They frequently led kirtans, performed aratis, and were treated by all the devotees including visitors, with a high degree of respect.

These were some of the sexually molesting monitors in Ananta Rupa's ashram: Doyal Govinda, Padasevana, and Hare Krsna Das. They were also all Bhavananda's disciples. There are others in that group who slip my memory right now who were also involved in sexual as well as physical abuse.

I saw that there were a number of young boys who were passed around between the monitors in Ananta Rupa's ashram and Ananta Rupa, and other teachers and monitors. I was lucky in that, although I was in both Ananta Rupa and Niragadev's ashrams, I wasn't sexually molested by them or the monitors. This was only because of my father's position.

This doesn't mean they didn't make passes at me. I found it confusing and pretended not to notice it because I didn't want to get involved in that. I was attracted to girls and a particular girl back in the US. To some people, it may minimize the truth or validity of what I am saying because I didn't have any physically sexual contact with these people. However, I don't feel that the only way for people to believe that the boys that were victimized and molested in Vrindavan and elsewhere, is for them personally to come out and disclose exactly what happened to them. -- nch

Bombay, India -- Temple Vice-President and Head of Orphanage 1986 - ?

Dhanurdar mentioned at an Isthagosti (community meeting) in 1993, that in 1987 he became aware of Ananta Rupa's pedophile activities and removed him. Ananta Rupa was moved to the Bombay temple, where he soon became the vice president of the temple and was again ina position where he wa molesting children. Dhanurdar stated that he had again, with considerable effort convincing people of this man's past, had him removed from that position. He concluded by saying that now thge man was thought to have started an orphanage where he is undoubtly continuing his activities. As usual, nothing was ever reported to the law, and the only reason for his action seems to be reputation, after all he continues to molest innocent children.

Bhavananda

2 Bhavananda


Bhavananda was a member of the GBC, Governing Body Commission, and was one of the original eleven zonal gurus assigned a region after Prabhupada left in 1977. Bhavananda's region included the India gurukulas of Vrindavan and Mayapur - two of the worst gurukulas for child abuse. 

When he took power as a guru, he had people address him as Vishnupada, or at whose feet Vishnu serves, a title of dietification and reverence.

Prior to joining the ISKCON movement, he was known to be bi-sexual. There is ample evidence that he carried on homosexual activity throughout his time in the movement and that the GBC knew of his sexual activities.

As a guru and sanyasa, he was known to engage in sexual acts with children.

Bhavananda was in charge of the zone which included both Vrindavan and Mayapur. Most of the Bengali boys were his disciples and so was Ananta Rupa. When Bhavananda would come to Vrindavan, his disciples and others who were in the gurukula would be sent to his quarters. Sometimes they would go over to Bhavananda's suite in the guest house and spend days there with him, serving him, and I presume in sexual ways as well.

Many of these boys who were Bhavananda's disciples were known to be having sex with each other and molesting other younger children.

Since these boys were Brahmana initiated, they performed aratis, they led kirtans and they were looked on by Dhanurdar and the teachers, as our superiors, and role models.

Bhavananda and Dhanurdar would insist on inspections of us children during his visits. We were to line up with only a loin-cloth, and then he would go through the showers while we were naked in the shower. He then, with a corn scrubber in hand, would look at our bodies and arbitrarily scrub some 'dirt' off.

I was standing in the line up, naked and scared. When he came to my turn for inspection, Bhavananda told me to go to the initiates bathroom because I didn't have to be inspected. He was trying to act as though he was being benevolent to me, but this was their way of getting you to feel special so you would become initiated and join the clique. Of course I felt really relieved that I wasn't inspected. At the same time, I felt horrible for my friends that were forced to stay and go through this abuse and humiliation. He was also just trying to protect his hide by not torturing me.

Bhavananda did not excuse me out of compassion, but rather because my father was a member of the GBC. He did not want to compromise his position by risking having me tell my father.

At times some of us were singled out and treated in what may seem to be preferencial treatment. This was actually another form of control and torture. I think that this tactic was to break our solidarity, and to get us to become like them. To ensure that we were totally alone. When these type of situations happened, I would just look at the boys who were having to undergo the mistreatment, and feel for them. To me it was the same as if they had done it to me. -- nch

3 Bhurijan


Bhurijan and his wife Jaggatarini arrived to 'teach' at the new gurukula in mid PA, later to be called the Gita Nagari farm, around 1976. Bhurijan had a seemingly endless list of "crimes and punishments". Most of the punishments seemed to involve going behind the haystack for a caning in one way or another. -- from this gurukula 1975-1976 (10 Dec/96)

Bhurijan

Bhurijan was a teacher in Vrindavan gurukula starting from around 1982 until some time in the not-too-distant past.

Bhurijan was an intense emotionally abusive teacher, and seemed to delight in controlling and feeding the fear environment. He fully endorsed all the abusive policies.

He was not known to sexually molest the boys, but he certainly ignored that molestation that was taking place and hardly did anything when it was "discovered".

When sexual molestation of children became publically known in the society, the only action that he took was to remove these teachers and monitors from the school. He, along with Dhanudar, used the principle 'not in our backyard'. The pedophiles were just relocated to another temple where they could continue molesting children. There was no attempt at justice or retribution or apologies to the children or parents.

4 Dhanurdar Swami

Dhanurdar joined the Dallas temple as a neophyte (Bhakta Dennis Wiener) around 1972. Around 1975 he became an ashram teacher at the Vrindavan Gurukula and by 1981 he was the Principal of this gurukula. He was made a guru sometime in the late 1980's.

As the Principal of the Vrindavan Gurukula he made the decisions to engage teachers knowing their history and encouraged severity in all of our treatment. The atmosphere that Dhanurdar created for the Gurukula was one of cold hard "discipline," based on his philosophical attitude that there was no such thing as "love" in this "material world". We existed in a very cold uncaring environment, where there was no love or sympathy toward any of us. No attempt was made to act with compassion, empathy and fairness. We were under a nonstop onslaught of spiteful and abusive tactics intended to destroy and control our will.

Dhanurdar defended this Gurukula from anything that could threaten it's existence. This included preventing us from saying anything about the conditions and treatment at the Gurukula. The method he and the teachers used was surveillance and tyranny; all of our correspondence was censored, inspections of our belongings, and monitoring of conversations were constant. If we even insinuated that we were being mistreated, the result would be severe and public (amongst your peers) punishment.

We were forced, through fear, to keep up the appearances and be on our best behaviour when our parents or any other guests visited. Dhanurdar and the rest of the teachers would also be very friendly with visitors and parents and made arrangements to give them all kinds of nice treatment. This was all done in such a way as to give the impression that this was the normal condition.

A memory of his stupidity, was he would want to punish one of us, he would order you to "go wait outside my room!" then you would go there and wait. You would wait there anticipating that he was going to come back and hit you or yell at you or tell you what your punishment was. Then he would come back ten minutes later, or a couple hours later and he would say, "what are you doing here?!" You would be like, "you told me to wait here." And he was like, "no I didn't, don't lie." Then he would get really pissed off at you and tell you to get out of there. It was just stupid. He was just really stupid.

There may be some question as to wether Dhanurdar knew about all of the sexual abuse perpetrated by his 'employees' on the children. It appeared to us that Dhanurdar either didn't know about it, or chose to 'act' ignorant.

Regardless, he is responsible for creating and maintaining the environment that allowed, and even encouraged sexual molestation of young boys by the teachers and supervisors. Throughout his years as principal, he took to active steps to change or improve the conditions for the children under his protection.

Indeed, he totally advocated and participated in the use of violent discipline and mistreatment to make us submit. He never allowed us to speak in our defense against accusations. He was in favor of hitting us and other forms of humiliating punishments. All of his actions engendered a great deal of anger and distrust toward him, our teachers, and even our parents because of their having put us there. A side of me is very reluctant to believe that he was totally unaware. This is because they had regular meetings where they discussed their strategies and policies.

One perception of many of the boys', was that Dhanurdar was really stupid and naive. It was common knowledge among us that the teachers like Ananta Rupa and Niragadev were abusing children and having sex with each other. Dhanurdar seemingly acted as though he knew nothing of these abusers' pedophile history and their on going abuse at his school. An aspect about this that doesn't make sense to me is that Dhanurdar must have known about the allegations of child abuse on Ananta Rupa and those older boys before they came from Mayapur. The only explanations I can assume, are that Danurdar either knew but didn't care or choose to acknowledge the information, or he was just really naive or stupid.

We referred to him as stupid because for him to be unaware, we felt, would have required a certain amount of stupidity or naivete. If, in reality, he wasn't aware, even though it was going on all around, these teachers must have been glad to use this to their advantage.

Dhanurdar reserved preferential treatment toward the few students whom he thought could effect his status in the Indian community. There was one child, for example, who was the son of a mayor or some other district official, who Dhanurdar was extra attentive. He was also preferential to initiates and to some of the children from poorer Indian families. To the children from the west, it was clearly interpreted that Dhanurdar and the teachers paid extra attention and care for the Indian children.

Isthaghosti 1990 at Gita Nagari, Pennsylvania

In 1990 there was a community meeting, an Isthaghosti, at the Gita Nagari farm attended by Dhanurdar, Ravindra, Satsvarupa, and around thirty five devotees.

The subject of child abuse came up. Dhanurdar mentioned an incident about a couple of teachers namely Ananta Rupa and Manihar. After 1986, ISKCON finally started to slightly admit that there was a problem with abuse in the gurukulas. By that time the molestation had become soo blatant. It was also around this time when the guru Bhavananda's pedophile behavior could no longer be covered up. Dhanurdar, then principal of Vrindavan gurukula, recalled that he had made those teachers leave the Vrindavan temple. He sent Ananta Rupa to Bombay. Not surprisingly, Ananta Rupa was later appointed vice president of the Bombay temple and allowed to open an orphanage, where he undoubtedly continued his molestation of young boys.

Some time later, Dhanurdar recounted that with some effort he had gone to the Bombay temple and had Ananta Rupa removed. Subsequently this man was forwarded to another temple where he continued to sexual abuse boys until Dhanurdar told the temple authorities the man's past and again with considerable effort had him removed.

In Dhanurdar's narration of this story, he did not appear agasted or appalled with the cyclic nature of these events. He did not seem to recognize that he was responsible for informing the new authorities of Ananta Rupa's past history of molestation, and that he, Dhanurdar, should have made sure that his previous 'employee' was not around children. It was as if the crime of child molestation did not merit punishment or even an effort to prevent it from happening again. Dhanurdar even seemed pleased that the 'problem' was solved 'in-house' and didn't warrant contact of outside authorities. Dhanurdar's main point in his narration was to emphasize how he prevented further bad publicity.

I will grant Dhanurdar one concession, his behavior did present a marked difference from the absolute complacency of the past, although his motivation was to me distorted.

I raised my hand and said that during ancient Vedic times such a crime would probably be punished with death. I continued that we are not in that time, so we should use the legal means and go to the police and let the law take appropriate measures. The response from the panel and the audience was one of horror and repulsion. Everybody there looked at me like I was some lunatic radical person. As if to say, "how dare you even mention that?" I seemed to be immediately written off as some angry, dramatic kid. -- nch

5 Chandrika

Teacher at Dallas Gurukul. No further information available as of April 13, 1997.




6 Gyanagamya and Krishna-Kumari


Gyanagamya and his wife Krishna-Kumari were ashram teachers in Dallas. Here are some memories of the abuse and anguish they inflicted on small children.

I was Locked in a Trash Can

I remember spending a long time (I think it was the whole day) in a trash can. It was one of those plastic barrel size things with plastic lid. I was 3 or 4 years old at the time. (I always remembered Gyanagamya as the teacher involved.) I was put in the thing at first with no lid. I remember crying and screaming until I didn't have the energy any more. Then someone showed up. I thought rescue was at hand. I was wrong. That's when the lid went on with a small air gap "so I could breathe". I screamed some more, but no one came. I managed to curl up in the bottom of the thing and sleep for a while. When I woke up I was still in the thing and it wasn't all a bad dream like I'd hoped. That's when I decided that the only way I'd get out was on my own. I tried climbing the inside by pushing my back against one side and walking up the other side. When I got to the top I pushed the lid aside and started to climb over the edge when the teacher came back. I got a beating for good measure, was put back in the thing and the lid was nearly closed so that it could support some heavy object that would keep me from opening it again.


After expending most of my energy climbing the inside again and trying to move the lid I collapsed in the bottom, totally demoralized. After a while, boredom took over and I started trying to get out again. I alternated screaming for help and trying on my own. Somehow I discovered that I could rock the barrel back and forth by throwing my body against the walls. Before I had a chance to get scared about falling over, the thing had tipped and I was free. I knew that there was nowhere that I could go. I was in my underwear, sweating from head to toe, and exhausted. My only hope was to find somewhere to hide. Looking around, the only thing that I saw was the dirty laundry hamper. It was like a giant trough that 50 or 60 kids had thrown their dirty underwear into. I climbed in. I buried myself in urine soaked underwear and waited in abject terror for the teacher to return. As time passed, I fell asleep again from exhaustion. I was awakened by the teacher lifting me bodily from the hamper and throwing me on the floor. I kept wondering how he'd found me. I thought my hiding place was perfect. Back into the barrel I went. This time, however, I wasn't getting out on my own again. The bottom of the barrel was filled with about 6 inches of water. The lid was put back on all the way with the weight on it and a hole was made in the lid so I could breathe. I have no idea how long I was in there. It seemed like forever. I thought I was living a whole lifetime of hellish existence in that thing. I could no longer curl up and sleep because of the water. I sat there freezing, scared, and exhausted until my body turned white from immersion. When I was let out of the barrel it was dark outside. I think the punishment lasted all day.-- from Dallas gurukula 1972-1976


Other examples can be found under 1.3




7 Doyal Govinda


Monitor in Ananta Rupa's Ashram, Vrindavan 1981-1985 (initiated by Bhavananda). No further information available as of April 13, 1997.




8 Hare Krsna das


Monitor in Ananta Rupa's Ashram, Vrindavan 1981-1985 (initiated by Bhavananda). No further information available as of April 13, 1997.




9 Hiranyagarbha (aka. Jagadananda das, aka. Jan Brzezinski)


The following is a letter we received from Jan Brzezinski on 5 Janunary, 1997. He was a gurukula teacher in Dallas (Texas, USA), New Vrindavan (West Virginia, USA) and the head master of the Mayapura (India) gurukula. His letter provides verification for many of our memories, albeit from the perspective of one of the abusive teachers, while also providing evidence of other participants who abuses us as children. By publishing Jan's letter in its entirety, we are by no means agreeing with his analysis and conclusions. In fact, we strongly disagree with his attempts to justify and/or explain the behaviour of teachers and others (bramacharis and sannyasis) who physically, sexually and spiritually abused young boys. We will recognize that he has showed courage by publically acknowledging his role in abusing children under his care.


"Dear anonymous writers and organizers of VOICE,

"My ISKCON name was Hiranyagarbha Das and I was formerly a Gurukula teacher (on and off from 1972-75) at Dallas and later the headmaster of the short-lived New Vrindavan Varnashram College in 1974 and the Mayapur Gurukula from 1975- 1979. I think I had a rather unique position in that I was involved in the early stages of these Gurukulas. I left in disgust when I realized that I was not spiritually or materially qualified to run such a school and when I realized that the ISKCON institution itself did not seek to improve the situation.

"Reading your articles brings back many memories about painful experiences that I had. Painful from bad conscience because I myself perpetrated acts for which I am eternally sorry. I wish to take this opportunity to beg forgiveness for all those acts of violence towards innocent children in which I was involved.

"First of all, I would like to confirm both the stories about Smaranam and the institutionalized use of physical punishment in the Indian gurukulas. Smaranam the paddle was the invention of a certain Dvarakanath Das. It seems to have gotten used to circumvent bursts of sudden violence by frustrated teachers against misbehaving or recalcitrant students. There were very few qualified or experienced teachers in the early Gurukula at Dallas, the only exceptions being Rupa Vilas and Chandrika. At that time in ISKCON in general there was a hubris about individual qualifications. It was thought that a devotee who was chanting his rounds was empowered to do anything and that he did not need any special training. The task of dealing with a hundred children or so from morning to night on a tough schedule through mangal arati to bedtime was too much for most of them. I can remember in 1975 sneaking out of my classes after lunch to go and take a nap in the rooms above the stage in the main prasadam hall where Sunday feasts were held. The schedule was far too demanding for the teachers and far too demanding for the children. There was little or no playtime. There was insufficient time for sleeping. There was little real concern for education in that the primary goal of the school was to get the children to do things like chant sixteen rounds and follow the morning program.

"All these things were doubly true at the Varnashram College and again at the Mayapur Gurukula. I personally always placed a lot of importance on academic education, but ISKCON in general alway downplayed it, saying that all we needed to know was in Prabhupada's books so why bother with too much education? Even Sanskrit, which I started teaching with only a smattering of knowledge, was considered rather unimportant if not a bother. It was only a superficial understanding which was sought. Too much knowledge of Sanskrit and Bengali was indeed blamed as the major cause of my blooping in 1979 as well as in that of other Sanskrit scholars such as Nitai Das, etc.

"There is little that I can say to exonerate myself from personal acts of violence against some of the children in my care, especially at New Vrindavan. I was there in 1974 when, as all you readers of Monkey on a Stick will know, there was a very strong militant spirit being instituted by Kirtanananda. My own discriminatory powers were still weak and I participated in giving Kirtanananda an exaggerated amount of respect. I also thought that a strong discipline was needed to help bring the children up, to produce in them the necessary qualities to become a little foot soldier for Krishna and Prabhupad. I enlisted the help of a certain Madhupati Das who was an ex-marine and he turned our Varnashram College into a boot camp. We used to march on the main road from our site (known as Prabhupad's House, I believe) to Madhuban, keeping time with the maha-mantra instead of 'left-right'. Once again, though, the basic lack of understanding of child psychology and inexperience, coupled with fatigue and overwork were the principal causesof sudden fits of temper on my part which on occasion led to spankings of a particularly unpleasant nature. For this I wish to especially beg forgiveness of Tausteya and Jagadananda Pandit as well as Ekendra and Dwarkadish. You may have a hard time believing this, but I really did love you all. In my ignorance, I thought that I was doing the best that I could for you. It took me far too long to realize that I was wrong.

"At Mayapur, the situation became in many ways worse. As some people may already have pointed out on these pages, Bhavananda Maharaja, Nitai Chand, Tapomaya and other members of the Mayapura leadership were actively involved in sexual abuse of some of the children. Nitai Das and Subhadaloy were particular targets of their affections. I was a true ignorant and it took me a long time to become aware of these activities. Some of the children started to accuse the teachers in 1978 and a number of them were reprimanded for sexually molesting the children. We had a worse problem with brahmacharies living in the temple who had fairly easy access to the children. Some of them were true predators and took advantage of them. For the Western kids, the worst case was that of Bhakti Caitanya Maharaj, a Punjabi who later became a sannyasi and president of Chandigarh temple. In 1975 he attempted to sexually abuse several of the American children in the Gurukula. Naturally, these boys were vulnerable and starved for affection as well as material comforts and goodies and were easy prey. The same was true of the Bengali boys who were easily bribed with small gifts of a Western nature, watches, etc., which they, mostly being poor, could never hope to otherwise get. When some of my most trusted teachers started to get involved in such activity, I became so frustrated that I did not know what to do. In a way, I could understand the problem. Living so closely to the children, brahmacaris who had no outlet for sexual activity found themselves tempted by children who were often genuinely affectionate and with whom a certain form of loving relationship was formed. There is, of course, no excuse for such a breach of confidence. But people like Venkat were not pedophiles by nature. The situation in which they found themselves in good faith was compromised by the emotional and sexual fulfilment of which they were themselves deprived when combined with the innocence and affection of the young children with whom they were in contact from early morning to late at night. I find it easier to forgive someone like Venkat than those who like Nitai Chand or Bhavananda were more directly exploiters and pedophiles by nature and predilection.

"Although I was the head of the Mayapur Gurukula, I had little real control over policy. Indeed I kept my distance from the Mayapura leadership, feeling more affinity with the less-empowered Western and Bengali devotees. Bhavananda ran things by bullying and his minions, of whom I was one, all adopted his style to some extent. Education had little place in the Mayapura scheme of things. Bhavananda, Tapomay and Nitai Chand saw the Gurukula children as useful free labour. The Bengali children were considered insufficiently intelligent for academic work, as sudras, and better off doing field work or cleaning toilets. Though this assessment was not entirely without foundation, even those children who had intellectual potential were given little or no time to study on their own, to pursue their intellectual curiosity or to take any academic initiative. Even had they wished to, the facilities were nil and besides there were perks for doing other tasks. According to Prabhupada's instructions, the most important thing was that the children follow the morning programme. This led to the ridiculous situation of teachers monitoring young children of five or six years old in lines in the temple room at mangal arati, forcing them to dance! Walking up and down lines of dozing children chanting japa. I don't think I ever became more frustrated at a useless waste of time. How much better off these children would have been getting a decent night's sleep and then coming to evening arati with genuine enthusiasm!

"Before I left, I had come to the point of thinking that our entire Gurukula policy in Mayapura needed to be changed. First of all, I felt that we needed to hire professional teachers from Nabadwip and elsewhere to offer a complete course of education. (This incidentally is the policy at the Bhaktivinode Institute at the Caitanya Janma Sthan in Mayapur, run by the Caitanya Math.) I felt that if ISKCON wanted to get the most mileage out of its educational system in India, it should make it attractive to life members, etc., who would send their children in order to get a real, professional quality education. This would mean minimizing devotional activities to a few classes in religious instruction and perhaps a few formal ritual activities. The school would be segregated from the non-teaching devotional staff and teachers would be divided into ashram teachers and class teachers whose competences would be carefully monitored. These policies were based greatly on the success that the Ramkrishna Mission has had in using their schools to train people for public life who later support the society. This in turn was based on the example of Christian schools in India which continue to furnish the best education there. I believe that some of these proposals were accepted after I left the movement in 1979, and hopefully the entire movement has become more mature in its approach to education. I can only apologize to those who suffered through those first years, and all those who have continued to suffer abuse at the hands of incompetent educators who though that chanting Hare Krishna was a substitute for real training as a teacher.

"Speaking in accordance with certain psychological profiles that were done in the 1980's by scholars studying the Krishna consciousness movement ('The Hare Krishna Character Type), a dominant personality type found amongst Krishna conscious devotees is based on a fear of sensuality, of losing control of one's self. Many of the early devotees, like myself, were ex-hippies who were attracted by the structure of temple life, who were excited by the prospect of becoming self- disciplined and purified of material desire. In our vision of school life we thought to instill the spirit of discipline which we ourselves had not attained but were only aiming at. Thus we found ourselves in the silly and tragic situation of expecting things from the children which we ourselves were unable to achieve for the most part. Our frustration with our own failures found its natural outlet on the innocents who surrounded us.

"I learned my lesson in 1977 when the Mayapur Muslims attacked the temple after Nitai Chand beat up on one of theirs. I was badly beaten up in the affair, receiving a broken arm which was improperly set and to this day is crooked. I took it as a sign that Krishna was giving me back something of what I had given to the kids and from that day on stopped hitting the children. There was only one exception: when I tried to slap a boy who refused to immediately obey a command, I broke one of my knuckles on a concrete pillar. It remains a cavity on my right hand which like my crooked left arm, bears permanent testimony to my past sins.

"To conclude, I would like to say one last thing. I am happy to say that in some cases, children who were brought up in Krishna consciousness do look back on their experience in a positive light. I am pleased to say that my own daughter, with whose upbringing, I as a sannyasi had absolutely nothing to do, grew up to be well- educated and good-mannered due to the constant intervention of her mother, who did not allow her to suffer abuse in closed environments, who let her go to public schools when she desired it and who despite personal difficulties managed to provide love and a personal example of dedication to principle. For this I would like to publicly thank her in this space.

"By abandoning my own child, I fit the ISKCON model of an uncaring parent about which I would like to say aword or two, which fits in with what I said above about character type. I notice similar regrets in recent statements which I have seen on the internet about Jagadish Das's abandonment of sannyas and guruship in order to live with a female disciple, citing emotional needs as his reason. In his letters of demission, Jagadish laments his failures as a husband and a father. These are no doubt common sentiments amongst those who like Jagadish and myself, were involved in arranged marriages in the early 70's under pressure from Prabhupada, who seemed to think (and probably with some justification) that any mature male and mature female in Krishna consciousness should be able to live together and raise a family if they had this common objective. Of course, we have seen how many mature individuals there were in Krishna consciousness. Misogyny is a fact in ISKCON and many intelligent ISKCON bloopers have cited it. In particularly, I advise you to get a hold of a statement made by Subhananda when he left ISKCON, in which he details how misogyny has been institutionalized in the movement. This attitude is particularly destructive in the marital situation where it leads to abuse of both physical and sexual kinds. These attitudes have been amply documented in feminist writings and there is no need for me to go into it here. Of interest might be Manisha Ray's 'Bengali Women' in which she details masculine sexual attitudes in Bengal which has some similarities to the ISKCON situation. The ISKCON male personality type, seeking perfect control over his senses, is perpetually frustrated. Sannyas is the only real ideal. Whatever praises of the grihastha ashram might be found in Prabhupad's books, everyone knows that sannyas is really where it's at. This attitude, funnily enough, was started only after Prabhupada returned to India in the early 70's and started making sannyasis. When these sannyasis (and I mention Bali Mardan in particular, but Subala, Gurukripa, Yasodanandana and others also) returned to America, they made it obvious that they were the real devotees and that everyone else had to strive for the same goals. As St. Paul says about householder life in his epistles, 'It is better to marry than to burn [in the fire of hell]' but that is about it. Prabhupada contributed to this with his famous 'licking a leaking vagina' remark which he made to Acyutananda, Bhavananda, Sudama and other homosexual misogynists in Mayapur in 1976. His comments about women's smaller brain size did not help.

"ISKCON reformers who criticize the guru institution should also seriously consider eliminating sannyas as undesirable and even prohibited in the age of Kali. There is a statement to that effect in the Puranas which is quoted in the Caitanya Caritamrita. Hinduism in general never worships a god without his Sakti. This must be telling us something. There are many who will tell you that sannyas is something that only really came into Hinduism as a result of the Buddhist influence. Even in Gaudiya Vaisnavism, though Caitanya took sannyas, the movement was really a householder movement. The six goswamis did not marry, or left their wives, but they were never formally initiated as sannyasis. The real leaders of Caitanya's movement were householders such as Nityananda, Advaita, Srinivas Acharya, etc. Even Narottama, who never married, made householder disciples who carried on the tradition. As an essentially protestant movement, ISKCON reformers should think about Luther and his criticisms of the abuses in which celibate priests and monks were engaged during the high middle ages. This is what the sannyas institution is accomplishing in ISKCON. Sannyas should be a natural development of an individual who has gone through the grihastha life and learned how to live with people of the opposite sex and appreciate their qualities. Celibacy is not a prerequisite for spiritual realization. The body is (acintya-bhedabheda) simultaneously one and different from the supreme truth, so why do we only see the different? It is evident that the truth has been entirely misunderstood. Sannyas is an innovation in Gaudiya Vaisnavism created by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati who was looking for committed monks like those in the Ramkrishna Mission. Vairagya in babaji circles has taken on the character of a formal initiation also, so it too has lost to some extent the true spontaneous spirit of renunciation that was characteristic of Rupa and Raghunath. The Advaita line in Bengal is the only one that truly maintains this tradition, and those interested may consult with Advaita Das in Holland.

"In summary, then, I would like to say that ISKCON has promoted a negative attitude towards women and children and family life in general. There is absolutely no reason why this should be the case. The Absolute Truth for Gaudiya Vaisnavas is Radha Krishna, the divine syzygy. Look at Radha and Krishna and don't deny what they symbolize. ISKCON people are so eager to say Radha and Krishna are not symbols of mundane sex. This is serious denial, folks. They represent the ideal love and we should think of that when we love, just as we should think of Yasoda and Krishna when we see our child. Your wife and child are Krishna for you. Krishna is everywhere, he is even in the temple, but his presence is most important in the objects of love around us. You want to learn to love Krishna? Love the people who are around you. Love those whom you are supposed to love. Remember Jesus who said, 'As you do to even the least of these, you do to me.' That, my friends, is Krishna consciousness.

"These are a few of the realizations that have come out of my experiences. To my daughter and students whom I failed I sincerely pray daily that they will be able to overcome the sadness and anger that these failings have caused them, that they may find their own path in spiritual life and all satisfactions, material and spiritual."

Your humble servant,

Jan Brzezinski.

aka. Jagadananda Das, Hiranyagarbha Das.

10 Lalita Madhava
Teacher at Vrindavan Gurukula, 1982-1985 (initiated by Kirtanananda). No further information available as of April 13, 1997.




11 Mandaleshwar
Teacher at Dallas Gurukula. No further information available as of April 13, 1997.


12 Manihar
Teacher at Vrindavan. No further information available as of April 13, 1997.


13 Niragadeva

Niragadev was an ashram "teacher" in Dallas. I know this because I was in his ashram. I hated him even then. He was an expert torturer. I remember Niragadev making me go to the programs and to the park to play while wearing dirty underwear on my head. At the time I didn't know which was worse: being seen by the deities or by all the other name-calling kids at the playground. There was other stuff too. When I got to India, he remembered me. He told me that the fun would now begin. He really loved to hurt small weak children and readily admitted it, even bragged about it. I'd just love to see him again. -- from dallas gurukula 1972-1975 (2 Mar/97).

Niragedeva came into ISKCON around the age of sixteen and was put into the Dallas gurukula system as a student then ashram teacher, around 1974. This was strange for him to be a student, because the Dallas gurukula was for predominantly very young children. I was in Dallas at this time and was five years old. Niragedeva was originally from England. His parents, to my knowledge, did not join the movement.

Niragadeva was known to be sexually abusing boys at the Vrindavan gurukula.

In appearance and actions, Niragadeva was a very effeminate man. He would wear long frilly, transparent kurtas, and his mannerisms were feminine. Everyone knew he was gay and wanted to be a woman - he actually appreciated being referred to in that way. He might not openingly admit to being gay, but that was only because being a homosexual was not accepted by the religion.

Niragedeva was a teacher in Vrindavan during the early 1980's, and was in his early twenties. He was not an aggressively abusive teacher, however he did sexually molest many of the young boys in his ashram.

He did associate a lot with Ananta Rupa and his troupe of initiated monitors, all sexual molestors. Niragedeva was having sexual relations with these Bengali monitors, as well as molesting the young boys in his ashram.

Niragedeva was married and some boys told me they were having sex with his wife, and that he knew but didn't care.

14 Padasevana
Monitor in Ananta Rupa's Ashram, Vrindavan 1981-1985 (initiated by Bhavananda). No further information available as of April 13, 1997.


15 Ragunath Swami

Ragunath Swami was another person who was a teacher between 1980 and 1986. He didn't have the reputation of being sexually involved with any of the children. He was a very strict intimidating person. He would hit boys and yell at us with a very loud and commanding voice. He had a very short temper and you never knew what could happen if you said or did the wrong thing. Toward the end of my stay in the school he began to change. He seemed thoughtful of the things he had done. He started to act a little more nicely toward us.

At one time though, he was very scary. He had a personal servant, as did all of the teachers, that would wash his clothes by hand. The boy who was his servant was a boy from Australia who was kind of timid or shy. He didn't say much, and he was a really nice kid. One time, he had dirtied his clothes, he had a bowel accident or urine, just a little bit in his clothes, and he was going to wash them. He had put his clothes and Ragunath Swami's clothes in the same bucket. Ragunath Swami came in and found out what he was doing and right on the verandah, he was just kicking and punching the guy. I was there with a bunch of other boys watching and I thought he was going to die. I don't remember his exact age, be he was around ten or twelve years old.

16 Rupa Vilas
Teacher at Dallas Gurukula. No further information available as of April 13, 1997.


17 Venkata

One of the teachers that you don't mention from Vrindavan that I remember vividly is Venkata. He taught Sanskrit and Karate. He also knew bengali very well. Do you remember him? As far as I know he never molested anybody which is about the only good thing I can say about him.

On the other hand he had a certain fondness for exotic canes and sticks. I remember that he had at least 8 different sticks. He used to joke that he had one for every day of the week and an extra one for holidays. During class he always had a stick handy. He'd bring at least one in with him to handle the "troublemakers" and sleepers. (In a certain other person's class you'd wake up after being beaned by a wooden eraser, in Venkata's you'd get hit in the head with a stick.)

One time during one of his classes I snickered about something. He came on over to me and asked if anything was funny. I said no. He told me to get up so I did. He then started to hit me with this dried lotus stem cane that he had (I mentioned exotic). This stick was about an inch thick and he beat me over and over again on the legs and back with it. I curled up into a ball to try to protect myself. He stood over me like a lumber-jack and beat down on me with all his might. Each hit hurt so much it took my breath away. I could barely cry. I felt numb and dissembodied. I thought I was about to die. I think I passed out because I never knew how I got out of the classroom.

When I checked the places that hurt the most later I found huge welts some of which were cracked and bleeding. Some of them got infected and turned into sores that festered for weeks. -- from Vrindavan Gurukula 1978-1983 (15 Dec/96)

 

Read More