Cancel Lokanath Swami Movement

Disclaimer:

“This article appeared on my personal Facebook page where I share my thoughts with a certain audience in mind. It isn’t a standalone article either but continues a topic I have been discussing in other posts and comments for quite some time now. I don’t feel I have the energy to re-write it for a general audience. It would need not only editing for the language but a substantial re-arrangement of the arguments as well – some are more important, some are less, some maybe should not matter at all once the big ones have been digested.

If you, the reader, feel that this is not the way the author should be talking to you, or talking about other personalities involved – please remember the fact that this article is more like eavesdropping on a private conversation. I would not have said these things in the same manner if I was talking to you at the time of writing.”

I’ve listened to an interview with the founders of “cancel Lokanatha Swami” movement, read their articles and hundreds of their comments, and I believe I got my fill of this nonsense. I have no questions left and my doubts have been dissipated. I think I’m ready to put this matter to rest and not think about it anymore.

I can’t think of an argument that I haven’t answered in my head already but I can’t possibly say everything in one FB post. Some things stand out to me so I’ll start with them.

None of these people are qualified to raise this subject in the first place. It’s none of their business. They have spotted someone on the internet objecting to a picture of LS and calling him a child molester. This was removed but after this person insisted on posting his/her comment several times they took notice and started their investigation. They are not representing anybody but themselves. They don’t know the victim, they don’t haven’t contacted her, she is a grown woman perfectly capable of standing up for herself, and the best they have is a ten-year-old rant.

In the language of lawyer shows on TV – they have no legal standing to pursue this case.

To the argument that they want to protect the reputation of ISKCON – nobody even knew our reputation as in danger, and those who knew considered this matter adjudicated and closed decades ago. Now they dug it up and made it into a big issue pitching Indian and Western ISKCON authorities against each other, not to mentioned rank and file devotees. It’s unfunny to see how many devotees started with “What’s this all about” and ended with “LS and/or GBS and LS evil”.

They themselves created an image problem and they campaign for a solution.

To make it into a problem they had to prove that the initial GBC investigation was inadequate and so they had to spin whatever documents survived until the present time in a certain way.

Much has been made of “adultization” of the victim, but another, totally reasonable way to see it is that GBC tried to demonstrate that LS was not sexually attracted to a pre-puberty girl – that he wasn’t a pedophile, which is a psychiatric disorder requiring special treatment.

Complimentary to this is the accusation that GBC “infantilized” LS but another, totally legitimate way to see LS as a victim of kama, which Krishna described as “the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world”. Any devotee should be able to recall this immediately but in the non-devotee world calling LS a victim of anything is a big no-no. Have our self-appointed investigators shown any hint of judging this case from a devotional point of view? No. Seeing LS as a victim of kama is unacceptable to them because the word “victim” gets involved.

In a similar way, they do not seem to get an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the case – Mahajara was out of his normal environment as he had a broken leg and had to stay in somebody else’s house for a prolonged period of time. No temple, not temple programs, not constant devotee association, not kirtans, no dancing, no public life. All these things are what make sannyasa into an “ashram” – into a protective environment insulating a person from attacks of kama. Staying in this “ashram” automatically protects one from compromising situations and without a person succumbing to kama, there is no child abuse – simple.

Actually – not so simple. Back in the 80s and 90s, Bhaktividyapurna Swami had a problem with teenage boys sexually molesting each other in Mayapur Gurukula. His solution was to re-arrange the space so that no one would be left alone in total privacy, to change springtime food so that teenage hormones do not take over, and to engage kids in more physical activities than usual. Our ISKCON social activists did not get this method, however, and demanded punishments, expulsions, resignations – all the elements of a cancel culture and, if you think about it – punishment does not resolve anything, it does not protect one from lust. Repression does not accomplish anything.

Then there is a holier than thou attitude on the part of investigators. They feel themselves morally superior to those who are not agitated to an equal level, and that includes the victim who is deprived of her own agency to resolve her own problems at the age of forty. She is not eleven anymore, so who is doing “infantilization” now? They are more outraged than the victim’s parents, too, and they assume it’s their job to protect someone else’s children.

Then at one point, they accused GBC investigative committee of “gaslighting”. I suspect no one even knew what it meant back then and if we ever mention it then it should be applied to people who found an old forgotten issue and inflamed into an all-consuming fire, tearing apart our already fragile unity.

Then there is the casual treatment of “api cet suduracaro” verse where they invent ways to understand it that wouldn’t apply to their witchhunt. They object to the “witch hunt” label, too, but that’s a separate issue. They declared it a “vaishnava aparadha” – a truly bizarre claim demonstrating they don’t know what it means. For it to be vaishnava aparadha person’s devotional aspirations must have been denigrated, which is absolutely not what happened. By their standards, anyone cutting me off in traffic commits vaishnava aparadha, too. Another interpretation I’ve seen is that “api cet” verse is for one’s personal consideration and not a directive to others. This nonsense – here is a well-known explanation of this verse given by Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura: “He is to be respected (mantavyah) as a devotee because of his devotee qualities. It is a command. Not doing so is an offense. My order is the authority.”

They are not the first ones to ignore this instruction and they won’t be the last.

I just remembered their argument against “it’s no big deal”. They, of course argue that molesting a child IS a big deal, but who gets to decide? Big compared to what? Why do they assume the right to judge what is big deal and what is not? But I digress – I talked about it already.

I grant that when they talk about child protection and so on it is all commendable, but we are devotees, our main concern should be assimilating spiritual knowledge and I would argue that they assumed a position that disqualifies them from spiritual inquiries, never mind whether they are right or wrong on other issues. Why? According to concluding instructions of Lord Kapila to His mother Devahuti (SB 3.32.39-42):

“Lord Kapila continued: This instruction is not meant for the envious, for the agnostics or for persons who are unclean in their behavior. Nor is it for hypocrites or for persons who are proud of material possessions.

It is not to be instructed to persons who are too greedy and too attached to family life, nor to persons who are nondevotees and who are envious of the devotees and of the Personality of Godhead.

Instruction should be given to the faithful devotee who is respectful to the spiritual master, non-envious, friendly to all kinds of living entities, and eager to render service with faith and sincerity.

This instruction should be imparted by the spiritual master to persons who have taken the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be dearer than anything, who are not envious of anyone, who are perfectly cleansed, and who have developed detachment for that which is outside the purview of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.”

They might not be guilty of breaching all of the above but consider the last one – detachment for anything outside the purview of Krishna consciousness. Or “attachment to the family”, which is a go-to argument in support of child abuse activism – “Do you have any children? If not, then you don’t understand”. There are also items like friendly, respectful, and so on. Hypocrites are disqualified, too, and I think ascribing behavior like gaslighting to others while engaging in it yourself qualifies as hypocrisy.

Then there is a separate issue with the target of their campaign – over and over again they accuse GBC of lies, deceit, and cover-up, and yet it’s the same GBC with two of the same members who are praised now for suspending Lokanatha Swami, who was made into a scapegoat while the activists celebrate GBC’s victory.

And there is another issue with racism – I mean constant denigrating of Indian devotees and Indian culture, mostly for supporting LS and for protesting against the suspension.

And then… But enough of this already. If I’m forgetting something I can add it in the comments.

As a final word – I do not see this activism and this “victory” as a spiritual effort. It’s rather a demonstration of why sudras are prohibited from interpreting Vedas. In this case, people who have no adhikara took on an issue they feel very emotional about and made a royal mess out of it with their half-baked arguments. Sudra, btw, is one who always laments – it’s a literal meaning of the word.

One who is afflicted by lamentation is disqualified from interpreting scriptures – there, a lot less controversial rewording of the same statement. And that’s all there is to say about it, really.