Reply to Attack on the IRM

Damaghosa Das (DD), a member of the Hare Krishna society (HKS) has launched another attack on the IRM and Krishnakant (KK) (please see previous item from him on the IRM website under his name). As we shall prove, his attacks are based on a purely fantastical version of what occurred at certain historical events over the last 15 years. Since between us we were present,  at all these events, we will now proceed to set the record straight once and for all. DD’s attack was in the form of a letter dated 20/9/2008, sent to prominent IRM supporter in China, Guruseva Das, following Guruseva Prabhu’s article in BTP issue 19. This letter was fuelled by a letter DD had himself received from one Devakinandana Das (DK) of Hong Kong, part of which DD quotes in his letter to Guruseva Prabhu. It is tragic that some people who profess to be true followers of Srila Prabhupada have nothing better to do with their time than attack someone who has been singularly instrumental in making devotees worldwide aware of Srila Prabhupada’s true position; but we simply cannot allow such baseless lies and gratuitously envious attacks go unanswered. Excerpts from DD’s letter shall be presented enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with our response following underneath.

DD starts by admitting that KK wrote “The Final Order” (TFO). This is ironic considering that his letter, as mentioned, was originally inspired by a letter he received from DK in Hong Kong, whose own complaint against the IRM is that KK did not write TFO himself, but was at best only one of its many authors! DD accepts KK wrote various other articles along with TFO, and since none of these other articles are even alleged to have been co-written with others, he is tacitly admitting that KK was indeed the sole author of TFO. 

DD is here blindly accepting as fact what he has been told by DK without even bothering to check with any of the devotees in China.  The above allegation from DK can easily be shown to be a lie by noting that “as soon as Krishnakant entered China” (in August 2001 along with Yaduraja), DK responded by requesting them to go TWO MORE TIMES, with the last visit being a full 2 years after the first visit. He would hardly do this if KK’s initial visit had immediately led to politics and discord. 

As the great bard once said of jealousy or envy, “it is the green eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on”. DD has made a fool of himself above by stating the very opposite of the truth, as we shall prove. Pradyumna did not make any attempt whatsoever to bring anyone ‘Back To Prabhupada’. Rather he supported the idea that Srila Prabhupada had selected 11 persons who could initiate their own disciples, thus REPLACING Srila Prabhupada. He just objected to them having positions as ‘acaryas’. Here is the evidence from Pradyumna’s own words: 

“The matter concerns the Godbrothers who were selected by Srila Prabhupada to accept disciples. […]

In addition to the GBC management, Srila Prabhupada also selected 11 somewhat advanced disciples to grant initiation to newcomers. However if was never mentioned at any time by His Divine Grace that these 11 were to be known as acaryas. He simply instructed that they may now accept disciples.  Now at present, I understand that the 11 gurus are all 1)adopting the title of acarya, [ …]

First of all, the word ACARYA may be taken in 3 senses. […]

Secondly. The word means "one who grants initiation to a disciples." This is specifically indicating one who is a guru. Anyone who grants initiation or is a guru may be called as "acaryadeva," etc.-by his disciples only! Whoever has accepted him as guru must give all respects to him in every way, but this does not apply to those who are not his disciples. […]

Nor did Srila Prabhupada make 11 such acaryas. This was never mentioned by Him. They were only given permission to make disciples and the GBC was to jointly manage, materially and spiritually. […]

The 11 gurus may be known as acaryas only in the second sense of the word-to their disciples as mantra-giving gurus, not in the third sense, as "the" spiritual successors of Srila Prabhupada. “

(Letter to Satsvarupa from Pradyumna das Adhikari, 7/8/78)

Pradyumna here is merely putting forward the current ISKCON guru system, whereby any ISKCON member can become a diksa guru. Indeed, Ravindra Svarupa, the founder of the current ISKCON guru system, uses Pradyumna’s letter above as a basis for putting forward the current expanded ISKCON guru system. It’s clear that DD has absolutely no idea about what happened historically, and is just parroting whatever someone else may have told him, in a desperately envious attempt to find fault in the IRM and KK. 

DD admits above that these persons at most only tried to start a discussion on the subject in general, and then when that did not happen they just left the movement and did nothing more. So DD undermines his own claim that KK was not historically the first person to start a Back to Prabhupada Movement, unless we define such a movement as a group of people who tried to start a discussion, and then did nothing more.

This is hardly putting forward a case for anyone having actually started the ‘Back To Prabhupada’ movement in ISKCON in 1977. 

DD really has no idea what he talking about above as we shall now demonstrate:

a)  The meeting mentioned at Hamsadutta’s place took place in the summer of 1995. Dhrstyadyumna was not even present at this meeting. He was present at a different meeting, at which KK was not even present, since KK has never ever met Dhrstyudumna in his life,

b)  The meeting in Alachua took place over 3 years later in October, 1998, even though DD claims it happened BEFORE the meeting at Hamsaduta’s place!

Given this, it would be very hard to accept anything else he says, since he clearly has no proper memory of these events which occurred over 10 years ago. The facts are that: 

Everyone jointly agreed to accept KK’s proposal that they stop whatever they were writing and instead support a magazine which he was going to found called ‘Back To Prabhupada’. Everyone agreed to that proposal at the meeting, and indeed DD admits that KK was the editor and publisher of this magazine. The sole publisher and first editor of a magazine would logically be its founder.

(This was the first version of the magazine and only 2 issues were printed, since subsequently the GBC had requested that a position paper, which was to be called TFO, be presented to them instead. As the whole world knows, the magazine was later revived with great success by the same founder, publisher and editor in 2003).

DD admits above that KK was the one who gave all the arguments, that he was given center stage, that the meeting was a great success, and that all the devotees were behind what KK had presented. Yet as we saw, DD had just claimed that over 2 years earlier, after the first 2 issues of Back To Prabhupada were published (Oct 1995 and May 1996), KK had cut off all communication with the ‘Prabhupadanugas’.

• So how did they all magically show up, 100 of them, to come and spend 2 solid days listening to KK convince them further about the issue, a meeting for which he was the main mover, if he had already cut off all communication with them?

Again we can see that either DD does not remember anything, or he is just deliberately fabricating out of envy. Either way, he has severely damaged his credibility with such blatantly sloppy inaccuracy. 

More lies. In Malaysia it was never claimed that those who did not join the IRM was “just plain in maya”.

DD was not even at this meeting!

He presents no evidence for our “just plain in maya” statement, because it was never made! 

More lies. It is claimed that in October 1999 no one had ever heard of or seen KK before. Yet DD also admits that over 4 YEARS EARLIER, in the summer of 1995, all the ‘Prabhupadanugas’ were happy to work under and co-operate with the Back To Prabhupada magazine he had founded and for which he was the sole editor and publisher! Neither was the oath of allegiance to KK personally. It was to the IRM organization, and at the time Adridharana (a “senior Prabhupada disciple”) was its President. 

Well specifically excluded from that meeting were the IRM!

Yet at the Alachua meeting, over 100 devotees were present, including DD and all the other ‘Prabhupadanugas’, who had all been invited. And they all voted unanimously on accepting “The Final Order” as the definitive document for the ritvik movement. Yet DD admits, that he and others reneged on what they had all voted on, and instead decided to have another meeting specifically excluding the IRM and many others who attended the Alachua meeting, so they could put together another publication, rather than just accept TFO, as they had voted on earlier. 

It is DD who has gone out of his way to criticize KK in this long, lie-filled treatise, simply because he did not like an article the Chinese IRM devotee Guruseva Prabhu wrote in BTP. Just as he attacked the IRM earlier, forcing us to respond.  It is our rebuttal of his previous nonsensical attack which is on the website. Each time it’s Damaghosa who has picked a fight with and criticized the IRM, rather than concentrating on attacking the GBC, like the IRM do. 

A distasteful medley of lies and sheer petty-mindedness. Firstly, KK has never traveled with Jitarati. And the mind blowing, “smoking gun” evidence of KK’s alleged non-devotional conduct is the fact that he is supposedly not permanently wearing a dhoti!

• Who is?

Neither Kamsahanta nor Jitarati constantly wear a dhoti but DD does not attack them. We have also seen DD himself not wearing a dhoti on occasion, yet he does not attack himself.

Absolutely pathetic!

And as for the incident in question, KK did attend the meeting in proper devotional dress, something which he was able to do specifically because he had especially brought these clothes with him from the UK.

• Are we to believe that he knew that he had to bring these devotional clothes, but did not know that he was supposed to wear them?!

Yes it’s a fact that outside the meeting he was not dressed in devotional clothes (just as the others were not either). But it is ludicrous to propose that he did not know that the clothes he had especially brought with him for such an occasion, should be worn at the occasion! 

So DD’s sole argument as to why KK is non-devotional is because he allegedly did not know that he had to wear a dhoti and apply tilak. Note he is not even claiming that he did not do this, only that he had to be told to do this for a meeting in 1996. And this alone has ‘killed’ himself and the reform movement he is leading! Yet DD was more than happy to submit to this same non-devotional person during this same period of ‘non-devotion’ and ‘killing’, first in 1995 for Back To Prabhupada magazine, and then again in 1998 at the Alachua meeting, which he specifically filmed, so taken was he with KK’s presentation!

So this reveals that his tirade is nothing more than some pathetic fabrication after the fact to find fault. Just as with DK’s lies about KK starting political infighting in China, these lies can easily be exposed by the behaviour of those making the lies during the period KK was supposedly behaving badly. In both cases, they were very happy to support this ‘non-devotional’ and ‘political’ person. 

DD here takes a lesson from the GBC – both united in their opposition to the IRM, and both unable to offer any evidence as to why the IRM is deviant and therefore must simply take shelter in the “you are offensive to the senior disciples of Srila Prabhupada” line. 

Yes that is EXACTLY what is stated in The Final Order! We say the FORMAL initiation requires the organizational structure that Srila Prabhupada set up for delivering this formal initiation, but that the REAL initiation takes place due to the determination and impression of preaching. So the “utter nonsense” is being spouted by Damaghosa, who claims that the IRM is wrong about initiation by citing the very same argument they use!

Yes, this is exactly what is stated in TFO!

DD has obviously forgotten that he is simply repeating quotes and arguments that were originally forwarded and made in TFO, a book written by the very same “bad” non-dhoti wearing person he is now happily slandering.  

Yes this quote is also given in TFO! 

Yes, this is exactly what has been preached by TFO for over a decade! 

But it has never been proposed by the IRM that we need the sanctioning of some defunct ecclesiastical body, which does not follow Srila Prabhupada’s orders anymore.

So a straw-man argument. 

DD first starts by saying that a system was set up utilizing Temple Presidents and GBCs, with recommendations of the local TP/sannaysi/GBC, and then says that these orders should be carried on “in the same exact way”.

This the IRM’s position.

But the same exact way means there has to be some TP/GBC etc., and the system is the ‘exact same’ as it was before. We would need to have people being observed in a temple for 6 months, and we would need to have these same TPs who did the observing sending these recommendations to a Ritvik. Ritviks who in turn would be supervised by a GBC. This would be the ‘same exact way’, which is all the IRM is calling for, which DD claims he agrees with, but hypocritically does not himself practice, as we will see later. 

Yes, this is exactly what the IRM say, especially since the same quotes are given in TFO to reach the same conclusion.

YOU CAN KNOW THAT SOMEONE IS SUPER DESPERATE TO FIND FAULT WHEN THEY ARE REDUCED TO CONTINUALLY STATING THEIR AGREEMENT WITH SOMEONE’S POSITION AS BEING THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE WRONG!!! 

But having just said that we must carry out the system for initiation in the ‘exact same way’ as set up by Srila Prabhupada, which would require temples, temple presidents, 6 months of observation, ritviks and GBCs etc., DD is now contradicting himself by inventing a brand new system whereby anyone can just consider themselves a ‘disciple who is in good standing’ and then initiate any candidate he is nearest to. 

Guruseva Prabhu never wrote to DD and said he had any doubts. Rather DD took it upon himself unsolicited, to write to Guruseva and just attack KK, by just making a whole bunch of stuff up, just as we have seen above! 

Some of which are in TFO, and the rest of which support the points made in TFO!

As we said earlier – a person really must be desperate to find fault if they can only offer agreement as evidence of fault!

Conclusion:

So above we see that once again DD has launched a petty-minded, dishonest, hypocritical, factually inaccurate in almost every detail, needless, baseless attack on a person who has arguably done more than anyone else to try to re-establish Srila Prabhupada as the permanent sole diksa guru for the Movement he founded. Perhaps DD should look into his heart and try to weed out the deep rooted envy that clearly lies within since it is making a mockery of him, and all those associated with him. This envy is the very disease which has brought havoc within ISKCON. This envy is the very thing that Guruseva Prabhu detected in many of the senior so-called Prabhupadanugas he has had the misfortune to be misinformed by, and which led him to write the BTP article which so clearly hit a raw nerve in both DD and DK in Hong Kong. It is such envy which ensures that we will we remain in the material world for many lives to come.