So you want to address hypocrisy? Might as well. It is indeed hard to deal with hypocrisy, so perhaps I can share the following.
I remember being involved one night in an intense spontaneous debate (it was somewhat civilized but very intense) somewhere in 1997/98 in someone's apartment in Alachua, just around when the multimillion dollar lawsuit was taking off. The famous and known Minister of Education of ISKCON, Jagadish, was also present.
ABC News had just aired (or was about to air) that famous documentary on the subject, and Jagadish himself was one of the main persons interviewed in the documentary as a supporter of the lawsuit, criticizing ISKCON and putting blame not only on the organization ISKCON, but including direct blame onto Srila Prabhupada.
It was a heated debate with good points brought forward from both sides. There were many present; and it went on for quite sometime. Jagadish was present, was asked to speak, and he spoke. Pretty much the same rhetoric that was presented on the ABC documentary, heavier.
That night Jagadish himself was then trying to make a case against none other than Srila Prabhupada himself: how all the abuse was ultimately Srila Prabhupada's fault for having created such an institution where the abuse occurred, and so on. [I hope he repented some of what he said.]
Myself being so young (20 at the time), it was hard to deal with so many emotions and attention. Most were in favor of the lawsuit and others were quiet. I remember there were quite a few people present. But I do remember managing to land the following argument:
EVEN if Srila Prabhupada was guilty of anything indirectly (or directly - prove it!), most of the abuse actually occurred AFTER Srila Prabhupada departed. Well, since Jagadish was himself the Minister of Education during these after years, by pure logical reasoning he ought to take AT LEAST 50% of the responsibility for the criminal events against the children, therefore making him not eligible to even speak at all on the subject, what to speak of being the chosen one to appear on nation wide Television on prime-time to represent the case against ISKCON.
To my surprise then, when I said that he appeared shocked and he actually agreed with the logic without saying anything else, and remained quiet for the rest of the night with nothing else to say after that. It had been the first time I had actually voiced my opinion on the subject and stopped someone of that stature on his tracks.
Please kindly don't tell me about hypocrisy, Tim Lee. Remember that I am also one of those who suffered at the hands of incompetent Gurukula teachers. All I can say about myself is that I have interest in actual truth, not mixed or hypocritical presentations of the truth, and that my faith and personal protection resides only in my surrender to Lord Hari, who is the actual shelter of everyone.
Krishna Kirtan
PS. And even beyond the Jagadish hypocrisy, the very tactic used by the lawyers was to attack ISKCON as an organization. RICO. That was their platform.
Instead of suing and addressing the perpetrators of the abuse and their leaders, the whole institution was attacked instead, causing harm to the entire institution, and even to all innocent mass of devotees who are part of ISKCON, and who had nothing to do with any of it. In other words, it was a stealthy contrived plan to destroy Srila Prabhupada's legacy, person, and what he built: namely all his property, institution and everything associated with it.
Therefore the Gurukuli lawsuit was actually an attack on the entire of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada DIRECTLY by putting blame on HIM, all craftly designed and aimed primarily at destruction. In the end it offered very little return of financial significance for any of the victims, and worse yet: did not punish any of the actual singled out perpetrators actually responsible, including Jagadish, the hypocritical public voice for the lawsuit at the time.
In sum, the lawsuit should not in any way be used as some kind of platform of victorious deeds.
(2014)
I remember being involved one night in an intense spontaneous debate (it was somewhat civilized but very intense) somewhere in 1997/98 in someone's apartment in Alachua, just around when the multimillion dollar lawsuit was taking off. The famous and known Minister of Education of ISKCON, Jagadish, was also present.
ABC News had just aired (or was about to air) that famous documentary on the subject, and Jagadish himself was one of the main persons interviewed in the documentary as a supporter of the lawsuit, criticizing ISKCON and putting blame not only on the organization ISKCON, but including direct blame onto Srila Prabhupada.
It was a heated debate with good points brought forward from both sides. There were many present; and it went on for quite sometime. Jagadish was present, was asked to speak, and he spoke. Pretty much the same rhetoric that was presented on the ABC documentary, heavier.
That night Jagadish himself was then trying to make a case against none other than Srila Prabhupada himself: how all the abuse was ultimately Srila Prabhupada's fault for having created such an institution where the abuse occurred, and so on. [I hope he repented some of what he said.]
Myself being so young (20 at the time), it was hard to deal with so many emotions and attention. Most were in favor of the lawsuit and others were quiet. I remember there were quite a few people present. But I do remember managing to land the following argument:
EVEN if Srila Prabhupada was guilty of anything indirectly (or directly - prove it!), most of the abuse actually occurred AFTER Srila Prabhupada departed. Well, since Jagadish was himself the Minister of Education during these after years, by pure logical reasoning he ought to take AT LEAST 50% of the responsibility for the criminal events against the children, therefore making him not eligible to even speak at all on the subject, what to speak of being the chosen one to appear on nation wide Television on prime-time to represent the case against ISKCON.
To my surprise then, when I said that he appeared shocked and he actually agreed with the logic without saying anything else, and remained quiet for the rest of the night with nothing else to say after that. It had been the first time I had actually voiced my opinion on the subject and stopped someone of that stature on his tracks.
Please kindly don't tell me about hypocrisy, Tim Lee. Remember that I am also one of those who suffered at the hands of incompetent Gurukula teachers. All I can say about myself is that I have interest in actual truth, not mixed or hypocritical presentations of the truth, and that my faith and personal protection resides only in my surrender to Lord Hari, who is the actual shelter of everyone.
Krishna Kirtan
PS. And even beyond the Jagadish hypocrisy, the very tactic used by the lawyers was to attack ISKCON as an organization. RICO. That was their platform.
Instead of suing and addressing the perpetrators of the abuse and their leaders, the whole institution was attacked instead, causing harm to the entire institution, and even to all innocent mass of devotees who are part of ISKCON, and who had nothing to do with any of it. In other words, it was a stealthy contrived plan to destroy Srila Prabhupada's legacy, person, and what he built: namely all his property, institution and everything associated with it.
Therefore the Gurukuli lawsuit was actually an attack on the entire of ISKCON and Srila Prabhupada DIRECTLY by putting blame on HIM, all craftly designed and aimed primarily at destruction. In the end it offered very little return of financial significance for any of the victims, and worse yet: did not punish any of the actual singled out perpetrators actually responsible, including Jagadish, the hypocritical public voice for the lawsuit at the time.
In sum, the lawsuit should not in any way be used as some kind of platform of victorious deeds.
(2014)
