This counterpoint is in rebuttal to the brief remarks made by my friend and Godbrother, Gokulananda dasa, in his article of this date entitled "Let Not the Crows Drown Out the Kirtans". One might wonder how such a short article could result in such a long Counterpoint. In fact, Gokulananda's article exemplifies the mood contained in numerous messages we've received, albeit in Prabhu's case the language is undoubtedly more theatrical.

One of the most interesting phenomenon that I’ve been exposed to since venturing down the journalistic road is that the conception of free speech really is a bona fide principle. It fits completely into what the Sampradaya Acaryas envisioned, and is what Sri Krsna gave us in the Varnasrama system.

In this age of Kali, of course, where there is no clear distinction between who’s a Brahman and who's not, it's difficult to determine who’s qualified or sanctioned to speak their mind. The rules that define who is a Brahman essentially protect such brahminical individuals from being controlled in how they interpret or present the sastra, and whatever disciplic succession they represent. In ISKCON, we find that no one can make challenges from such a brahminical viewpoint without being chastised or muzzled by persons wielding power within the culture, unless the speaker himself is situated within that power structure.

Nowadays within our modern Vaisnava community it’s near impossible to qualify someone as being a brahman, or not brahman. This categorization has to be at the discretion of the reader or the listener. We don't have the benefit of a system where everyone in the society is qualified in well-defined varnas and ashrams. At the same time, we’re being introduced to Vedic culture via the Yuga Acarya, Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who is clearly stating that above brahman is Vaisnava, the servant of God, the Krsna consciousness personality. So for a neophyte or non-perfect person to judge who is Krsna conscious or not, and therefore who qualifies to be heard in public, is very difficult. In this age, without the direct living presence of a maha-bhagavat Acarya to lead us, the only way to determine this is to give everyone a chance to be heard, and let the public decide whether they want to hear from that person, or they want to click somewhere else, as it were.

I realize that my adversaries like to depict me as a person who has a hidden agenda, or a ‘blueprint’ for perfection that I want to promote as my underlying cause. Some think that the only reason we created and maintain this website is to give me a platform to speak on. Of course, our regular readers will know that I’ve given all sorts of ideologies an opportunity to be heard, including many that I don't agree with, and many that challenge and even personally insult me. The only thing I ask is that I have an opportunity to respond. And if the other person wants to respond to me, that's fine -- a dialogue will take place. It’s their choice. That's why I write in response to articles I read on Dandavats, or the writings of my godbrothers, like Satsvarupa’s Lilamrta. Of course, very seldom do I get any response, and certainly never from the leaders.

Over the last twelve years, I've consistently been amazed by how my godbrothers, many of whom I've known for decades, respond to the HareKrsna.com site (and now the Sun) and the things that I’m saying or publishing. In the minds of many a foolish reader, there’s an assumption that I personally agree with everything I publish. Some think that I’m like ISKCON or the Rtviks, and I screen out anyone that I don’t agree with. Consequently, everything I print must be filtered. As I said above, the regular (and honest) reader will know that this is simply not true.

The only cause that I’m promoting is the cause of Srila Prabhupada being a Sampradaya Acarya, a position I’ve written on extensively. I'm open to input and criticism. This, and the principle of free speech that I’m trying to maintain on this website, are my only personal agendas. While thousands of devotees around the world appreciate and have come to rely upon this venue for free speech, the ISKCON leadership continues to make it clear that they loathe such a venue. Until the advent of the Internet, ISKCON very strategically controlled the media feed consumed by its members. While they couldn’t screen the public media, it was considered demoniac and devotees were discouraged from reading, even though many leaders regularly read Newsweek or Time Magazine. The BTG has always been used primarily as a vehicle to promote the society, and anyone who ever tried to publish in the BTG knows that its editors very carefully screened every article and rejected a great deal of literary input. Of course, the BTG has consistently been a quality publication, but overall it suffers from the absence of content that seriously challenges the institution, or paints its leaders in an unfavourable light. Nowadays, almost every article is subtly or overtly tied to some big leader, giving only the rosy side of that personality.

So when Vaisnavas find themselves forced into a circumstance where they actually have to make a decision that involves some very important and contentious issue such as the guru issue, or the book changes, the gurukula abuses - there are so many issues - they're consistently told by the leaders that all outside opinion on the matter is political and aparadha. Whatever the topic, the leaders emphasize that reading about it is far less valuable than reading about the pastimes of Krsna or the Bhagavad-Gita, or someone’s biography or memoir. So you should read anything other than the current events topics that directly affect your personal spiritual life.

The leaders have been successful in seeding their propaganda to the members, who willingly give up their personal responsibility to be well educated on so many important topics. Even among my godbrothers, senior disciples of His Divine Grace, I know so many who have not bothered to avail themselves of the information that is readily available on many of the day's important subjects. While on one hand they complain heartily about the ISKCON leadership, on the other hand they're willing to be hand-fed their opinions on so many matters. Take for example the current discussion going on about Radhanatha Swami, which was the catalyst for Gokulananda's comments about 'crows and kirtans'. Of course, the New Vrindaban murder story involves a lot of people other than Radhanatha, but because he’s now gained Zonal Acarya status, these dynamics particularly come into play in his regard. Locally, Hari Vilasa dasa, the GBC, has banned me from preaching at the Vancouver temple because I've dared to question and criticize my godbrother Radhanath. By so doing, Hari Vilasa has let all the godbrothers know that if they “disturb the minds of the innocent disciples”, the same heavy-handed reactions will befall them. Consequently, devotees like Gokulananda prabhu don’t want to be put on the spot. Having compromised his right to speak brahminically and independently by taking shelter in a temple environment run by a leader like Hari Vilasa, he is unwilling to risk his comfortable circumstance in order to challenge the leaders of make a point on a very contentious issue. He finds it much easier to simply not avail himself of the wealth of information on the subject, and instead to cherry pick the popular opinion on the matter that just happens to be aligned with the mood of the temple leaders. In this way, he gets to have a "strong opinion", as articulated in Let Not the Crows, without really having to know much. This not only creates the impression that he is a bold and informed speaker, it also keeps him in good stead with the leaders that hold his material circumstances in the palm of their hand. So this is not an example of brahminical independence.

This is a typical scenario at play amongst those wanting to take advantage of some facility that ISKCON has to offer, either serving directly at the temple or plugging their own program into ISKCON in order to earn their livelihood. Or perhaps their child attends gurukula or is initiated by an ISKCON guru. Either way, their ability to be a free-thinking Brahman has been seriously compromised due to the contaminated atmosphere that has evolved in the institution. And the way such persons avoid having to discuss a situation like the Radhanatha issue is that they simply fall back on the tried and true slogans:

“It’s political, prabhu."
"I’d rather be reading Krsna Book."
"I need to chant my rounds."
"Don't let the crows drown out the kirtan."

Little do they seem to recall that this whole attitude is precisely how the Zonal Acaryas were able to take over so easily. It wasn’t even a bloodless coup, it was just like herding lemmings to the sea. Everyone totally cooperated with these people, with the exception of a handful of brahmans, who were immediately ejected from the society. The rest of us just shrugged our shoulders when we heard they were kicked out by the great Zonal Acaryas. Yet amazingly, today we have the situation with Radhanatha in the forefront, and the same attitude prevails. Refusing to carefully study and consider the evidence, some devotees just chant the ISKCON party line. They voice their "strong opinions" by criticizing those who dare to publicly discuss, calling them offenders and aparadhis. But they don't avail themselves of the detailed information, nor will they lower themselves to actually discuss with those taking the challenging positions. Instead, they chant the canned slogans, "Oh, that person is just an offender!" never taking responsibility to approach the problem brahminically, even though Srila Prabhupada asked us to deal with such problems on the philosophical platform. In my opinion, this is a gross dereliction of duties on their part. While they may be generating all sorts of nectar in their personal service, producing spiritual events or products that enliven the devotees, this does not relieve them of the brahminical burden to discuss and understand contentious "political" issues philosophically.

Fortunately, many have now become a little analytical in their old age, which I think is a sign of maturity. They're at least willing to be a little skeptical, and not just accept all the hype that a particular person in the institution (or compromised by the institution) has been feeding them without any real genuine spiritual substance behind it. Unfortunately, I find that my friend Gokulananda dasa doesn't fall into this category, at least not if we measure based on his recent article. When Gokulananda submitted his article, I advised him that we would publish it, but I'd follow it with a Counterpoint. In response, he informed me that any rebuttal I made would simply be a further waste of his precious time. So this is the real underlying attitude.

How many times do people have to experience the same thing over and over before they learn the lesson? So many individuals who have taken on big leadership positions are really unqualified to do so, whether they be diksa gurus, sannyasis or members of the GBC. Yet the rank and file blindly accept their authority, ignoring all the signs that these persons may be just like others who have taken huge falls in our society. Today we're focused on the New Vrindaban situation, which spawned many of the big leaders in ISKCON today. But around the world, the movement is run by leaders who took their power from Zonal Acaryas who are now fallen and defamed. Yet no one questions the likelihood that if the source is contaminated, the end products may also have been affected.

What does it mean to have taken sannyasa from Kirtanananda? This is an important philosophical question. Yet in the minds of many, we should simply erase that question from our minds, because it's political and offensive to consider it. Of course, we were asked to do the same thing on Kirtanananda's behalf, and many ignored the innumerable signs that he wasn’t what he and ISKCON were presenting him to be. He was simply a Teflon man, and if you started criticizing him, then you might start criticizing other ISKCON gurus, so great pressure was exerted upon you to fool your mind into believing that there was really nothing wrong. Ignore the obvious indications, and just go for the nectar, prabhu.

In the case of Kirtanananda, nowhere was this dynamic more painfully obvious than in Eastern Canada, where Kirtanananda and his agents were decimating the temples. Kirtanananda was the one and only initiating guru for Eastern Canada, and he could have cared less about that part of his Zone. All he cared about was his obsession with New Vrindaban. But if anyone dared to criticize him, they were immediately ostracized by the GBC. My friend Gokulananda dasa was right there in Montreal, suffering some of the worst impact that Kirtanananda was causing, and he knows full well how painful it was for us not to be allowed to say what was obviously right before our eyes. Yet astoundingly, here he is today, aiming the sad old slogan of 'political-aparadhi-offender-crows' at those who challenge Radhanatha. Never mind that Radhanatha came directly out of the very same highly contaminated environment that Kirtanananda produced. Somehow or other, Gokulananda thinks it best to ignore all the facts, and damn the messengers who would speak against the latest, greatest Teflon man in ISKCON.

What he's really saying is that he doesn't want to talk to about these topics, they’re political, and he considers that I’m “offensive” for even printing them. Like certain of my other godbrothers, he can't even be bothered to actually talk to me about anything specific, or discuss the details of any of the information.

So many devotees find it easy to consider the current exploration of Radhanatha's history and complicity at New Vrindaban to be nothing but a campaign of defamation. They're so attached to their vision of him that they can't conceive of it being possible that some of the ugly truths currently hitting the news could be true. It must be that the messengers are all just offensive gossip-mongers, or worse. In fact, there's been a significant amount of corroborating evidence against Radhanath, from numerous individuals who aren't all murderers and rogues themselves. In my mind, these messengers are like the proverbial 'canaries in a coal mine'. While every word they say may not be absolutely true, they are certainly acting as a critically important early warning system. Like canaries in a coal mine, the poisons that they are detecting actually exist, and if no one pays attention there may be hell to pay.

For all those like Gokulananda prabhu who "hate the messengers", I challenge you to pick out the specific statements made by those who suggest that Radhanatha Swami appears to be implicated in the murder(s) at New Vrindaban, and prove them wrong. Instead of calling the messengers offenders, why not take a brahminical approach, and consider the facts from a philosophical viewpoint. If you can defend Radhanatha with facts - which in this case means rebutting the facts and assertions others are putting forth - then please do so, for the benefit of all. We welcome such discourse.

Many intelligent writers have been in on this discussion. A tremendous amount of data has been parsed in a short time. Never before heard personal confessions have been made, and a wide range of historical data has quickly been sifted and re-filtered in response by many sober devotees. Some extremely astute analysis has been made, and very philosophically sound and Vaisnava-like commentaries written as a result. So how is it that my godbrothers justify being armchair philosophers who simply call the dialogue and the messengers "offensive"? Considering the fact that as of December/January, this website is now getting close to 2 million hits per month, there are obviously a lot of people who want to hear what’s being said. Now you may think that the 'pure devotees' only go Dandavats and Chakra for the sanitized viewpoint, but I doubt it.

As for the aparadha and intimidation scare tactics, been there, done that, as the old saying goes. The common charge by persons like Gokulananda that the messengers are offenders is completely hollow, because if you’re going to offend somebody, first they have to be someone who has some power or potency. We’re offending people constantly by preaching Krsna consciousness, which of course we're told to do very boldly. But it's who you’re offending that’s the main consideration. For those who are living very comfortably in their worlds of guru/disciple and admiring followers, we are understandably annoying to them, just like the movie stars find the paparazzi to be very intrusive. It's a stiff price to pay for fame and fortune. Similarly, ISKCON notorieties don’t want to have people commenting on or bringing up aspects of their past which they’d just as soon keep hidden and buried. In retaliation, they employ a tactic even the movie stars can't use - they cry foul from the spiritual realm, calling their detractors aparadhis and elephant offenders. But that doesn't make it so.

I understand that some of you can't easily speak your minds, or honestly confront the apparent truths unfolding before us, because you're brahminically compromised due to your relationships with the institution. This in itself I don’t find so frustrating, in the sense that all of us are having to compromise and make adjustments to varying degrees in order to navigate through this lifetime. We do the best we can according to our own propensities and tendencies to engage in devotional service, at the level of our own realization. For some, that means working within ISKCON as it exists today. But when you won’t even admit that you're compromised, I find it to be a sign of dishonesty and a lack of humility. As I've said many times before, regardless of all the downsides I’ve experienced, the upside of personal, brahminical freedom is so liberating. Having the freedom to speak my own mind and, dare I say realizations, is one of the most spiritually enlivening dynamics in my life as a devotee.

To be able to communicate on that level with like-minded godbrothers is more fulfilling than even a good kirtan, or a plate of well-prepared prasadam. But that’s just me. What I’m hearing from some of my godbrothers/sisters, however, is that in the society they envision, there’s no room for people like me. I should be excluded. They don’t want to have a truth-teller, which in my mind basically means they don’t want to live in a brahminical culture. They prefer to live and work in an ecclesiastical church environment, where the cult-like dynamics of the Supreme Guru overriding everything prevail. Or, they simply bury themselves in a bureaucratic position which, granted, is a lot more comfortable and cushy than working in the outside world. Such individuals may feel it’s very beneficial for their spiritual life, their Krsna consciousness and family, but is that really what Srila Prabhupada wanted? Are you really achieving the spiritual advancement that you're hoping to, and using as a reason to doing what you’re doing, and for tolerating what you’re tolerating?

Interestingly, today we find that a new pattern has emerged, wherein many ISKCON leaders over-emphasize the idea that the only way you're going to make any spiritual advancement is to get very strict about your sadhana. This has become a new mantra, oft heard from the asanas. The leaders tell us that you'll never improve your spiritual life by trying to deal with things from a management perspective, but if you’re just a strict sadhana person, then you’re going to be completely insulated from any other kind of potential problem or harm due to committing offenses. Personally, I find this to be very bad advice. I believe that what Srila Prabhupada taught us was that we need to prioritize siddhanta. Advocating pure siddhanta is far more beneficial for your spiritual life than simply taking up a strict sadhana program. If you have both, ideally that’s even better. But if you're the strictest sadhana man on the planet, and not pleasing the Sampradaya Acaryas by promoting pure siddhanta, then what good is all this practice?

Of course, the 'strict sadhana' approach is hard to argue with…. until you actually fall down, or show the telltale symptoms of not making advancement or being strong in your Krsna consciousness. We don’t have to look far here in British Columbia to find a great example of this. Jagadisa was renowned for having an emphasis on strict sadhana, yet he decimated the Vaisnava community here by giving up his Krsna consciousness and criticizing Srila Prabhupada. And considering the fact that Kirtanananda is the big topic du jour, I’d like to remind everyone that a big part of Kirtanananda’s power was that he preached about and promoted sadhana as the be-all and end-all of Krsna consciousness. He got everyone up for the morning program, made sure they were chanting their rounds, and appeared to be chanting his own very strictly, giving all the impression that he was a very strict practitioner of Krsna consciousness. In hindsight, we know that wasn’t true at all. But he knew that if he just stuck to that approach, it insulated him enough so that he could do what he really wanted to do - exploit devotees and little children for sense gratification and ego enhancement.

We must also note that Radhanatha Swami traces his lineage directly back to Kirtanananda, and today he does an even better job at projecting this profile. If one studies what Radhanatha says and does and how he manages his Zone, it becomes undeniable that he is following in the footsteps of Kirtanananda, albeit with a much sweeter, gentler approach while at the same time adopting many of the tricks of the trade.

To all my godbrothers and friends, I’d just like to say that I’m not trying to pass judgment on you individually, but I think we should all start to be more honest. As I've always said, I don't consider my opinion to be absolute. I’m open to correction and challenge. Please spend your time and apply your intelligence to challenging me on these issues rather than simply advancing all these foolish, blanket denials and charges of "aparadhi offender" in response to things I’ve said or published. I can’t stop people from doing that, but I don’t have to respect it.

Strangely enough, over all these years, rarely has anybody challenged me on the facts of what I’m saying, categorically rebutting my points. Instead, they just take broad swipes at me. To all my godbrothers and ISKCON leaders, please know that I operate on the belief that if I've said anything about you personally that you know to be wrong or factually incorrect, I assume you will immediately try to defend yourself. The fact that over all these years none of you have ever done so simply confirms that what I'm saying and publishing is true. But if I'm wrong and you just haven't bothered to speak up, please consider the fact that 2 millions hits/month worth of readers are potentially being led astray. It's your duty to correct wrong statements. The very fact that there is no response confirms that what's being said is true. Whether the truth hurts or not, that’s another issue.