In reply to Rocana's caustic response to my recent viewpoints about "the patient revolutionary", I need to make my final installment in this protracted polemic surrounding Radhanatha Maharaj. I never really expected this whole strained dialogue to be so emotionally surcharged and personal. Since I know that Rocana really thrives on controversy and confrontation, if I'm willing to enter this arena, I should know better and not complain about some well-aimed bruises received along the way (and a few really hit hard too). I guess it's a proportionate reaction to my imperfect (or misinformed?) analysis of Rocana's perhaps muddled intentions.

As the Vedic aphorism wisely says: "atmavan manyate jagat" as our mind is, so goes the world. And this on-going tug-of-war is a case in point. Honestly, I'm still bewildered by this whole crusade against Maharaj. His accusers insist that he face up to a lot of the fallout from the darker hidden story of the New Vrindavan cult. Thus they bring forth a whole slough of morbid "facts" and further choose to declare that their's is also the right to stand on the high ground of "philosophical points" to assert their validity. Yet, for the love of God I still can't discern where is all this philosophical substance to be scrutinized and debated. And why even bother with the minutiae of their voluminous "proof", which is no more than vindictive hearsay.

So Rocana also pointedly avoids addressing the actual substance of my own statements, i.e. my strong objections to the strident mood of over-kill surrounding this whole campaign. Neglecting my message, he prefers to berate me for not joining this whole crusade of the "New Vrindavan Inquisition". He accuses me of lack of integrity for not wanting to also avenge the many abuses suffered by our own Canadian temples at the hands of Kirtanananda and his "henchmen". But I still can't see the point of dredging up this whole 20+ year-old sordid history.

Those who aided and abated the warped cult leader will surely pay up in the greater karmic justice. From where I'm standing, I have to again assert the fact that Radhanatha Maharaj is not the guilty collaborator of those crimes and abuses. Whatever mistakes Maharaj has done in the past under the tyranny of Kirtanananda have been absolved by his lifetime of service to the Sankirtan mission. The truth is that Maharaj is a proven successful spiritual leader. "Phalena paricityate": the results of his service speak for themselves. He must have done something right to inspire thousands of sincere souls to dedicate themselves to living and spreading Krishna consciousness. That this success is discounted by his detractors as the well-crafted show of an ambitious power-junkie is just so much vacuous obstinacy in their own malicious brand of "the truth". And history (Time=Krishna) will eventually show who is left standing at the end.

I also need to address some of the specific points raised by Rocana. First of all, please, don't bring in the sacred name of one of our transcendentally perfect guardians, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, into the fray; that's totally petty and out-of-place. I'm not imitating anyone nor pretending to be anything other than what I am, a deluded aspirant for their merciful shelter. My own writing style may be tainted by some literary pride; but it's just my meager attempt at communicating my subjective viewpoints in my own personal words. If Rocana takes it as pretentious, so be it. Secondly, he has totally misunderstood the true intent of my response: the "patient revolutionary" was never referring to me at all (which is Rocana's rather puzzling spin). I had hoped that my honest attempt to enliven him with a valid analysis of our Vaisnava revolutionary heritage would convince him of my otherwise good wishes for his own higher service to Srila Prabhupada. The real revolutionaries are Srila Prabhupada's actual empowered followers, all those great souls who have imbibed the great revolutionary spirit of self-less dedication to Mahaprabhu's mission (of which I'm really lacking). So why savage the messenger if he's utterly misunderstood the essential message I hoped to convey?

Concerning my "impersonalism", rather than have a private one-on-one with Rocana, I chose to follow his lead and use the same public venue of discussion as he chose, i.e. Sampradaya Sun, to voice my strong disapproval of this barely veiled vendetta. But I was foolishly setting myself up for a real dose of Rocana's public chastisement. Under the banner of "tolerance for free speech", he can only show such severe intolerance for all those who stand in strong opposition to his mistaken campaigns.

Then Rocana finally decides to throw his knockout punch with more of his disjointed logic, by equating my support for Maharaj as the sure sign of an institutional sycophant. Whatever imperfect allegiance I have for Srila Prabhupada's legacy constitutes my life's only merit. If I choose to offer him my meager service within ISKCON's ranks, I don't feel I need to justify myself for Rocana's sake. As my duty to my saviour, I'm willing to cooperate as much as possible with Srila Prabhupada's other followers. But I won't do so blindly; all those who've known me for any amount of time know that I'm really not one to smugly tow the party line. When I see any successful servant of Mahaprabhu, whether in ISKCON or not, then he deserves my grateful support. And when I see any incongruities, either within ISKCON's management (such as the recent flawed attempt towards centralization), or in other sanghas, such as Sampradaya Sun's, then I also say so.

I've never hidden my opinions about the need for a lot more accountability and a lot less collective autocracy from our leadership. And my indiscreet venting of any bitter disappointments in these matters has only "added fuel to the fire" (and fuel for Rocana too). In my less satisfying dealings with some ISKCON managers and leaders whose style I find too abrasive, I've taken one of my good friend's advice not to provoke a losing battle of mutual confrontations and ego-clashes, but rather try to work things out whenever possible, in an attempt to follow Srila Prabhupada's final order to us all of cooperation. This has always been our greatest challenge. This type of compromise is suspiciously wimpy in Rocana's credo. But I have to tell him that my only motive in staying out of any large-scale challenges against the "powers that be" is only to keep myself physically and mentally in the daily sangha of the bhakti culture going on here in New Gokula, for my spiritual survival only. It's not heaven but it's still worth trying to keep ourselves on the path. (And it's certainly not for Rocana's ludicrous mention about the skimpy perks I find here.) But I can see why he feels this is such hypocrisy on my part for not publicly facing up to and challenging difficult leaders. So I guess I'll just have to bear his harsh judgment and try to reconcile my bruised integrity with my hopes of trying to do something worthwhile in my imperfect service to Srila Prabhupada's legacy and institution.

In conclusion, I will continue to seek out all opportunities to connect with Srila Prabhupada's many sincere and dedicated followers, whose good lives I hope to emulate, defend and glorify.