Comments on the final decision of the CPO panelists dated October 28, 2022:

I would like to start by offering my sincere apologies to all the Vaishnava devotees of the Lord… as I failed to live up to the standard of someone trying to present Srila Prabhupada’s teachings regarding the Vedic version…

I’m not trying to justify myself … I have already agreed to all the punishments imposed on me

…However … now I must clarify a few points … because  in any case, two sides must be heard …

I am writing this letter to those who once trusted me … hoping that my explanations  will help clarify the specifics of my inappropriate behaviour … as well as highlight those points that are presented in the decision incorrectly … taken out of context … or simply exaggerated …


pp. 1 & 2, beginning with the statement “This decision applies to…” and including further detailing of the CPO’s guidelines regarding:

  • This method of presentation does not attempt to distinguish between those articles that may be relevant in the context of this particular case and those that are not relevant to this particular case … leaving it open to interpretation and perception by the reader…
  • The introduction of this general paragraph before my file makes it appear  that I am guilty and convicted of all the crimes listed there, although in reality my fault lies in the fact that I allowed myself to touch xxdd three  times. I am not saying that my touching was right and I regret it, but I did not do the things that are implied in this paragraph … I never interacted on a sensual platform with any minor …

pg. 4, Allegation #10 & Decision #3:

  • When xxdd told MGd about my actions in 2013, it was claimed that I touched her 3 or 4 times … then in the initial xxxdd/xxdd complaint to the CPO it was many times…then xxdd’s comments on my 1st comment on the initial complaint then had increased to 50, 60 or 80 times … now in the final decision it has become an “almost daily”/”nightly ritual” covering the period from 2005/2006 to 2010…in this case I see a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation in which they want to present me as a malicious maniac, despite  the fact that their own testimony  at the very beginning was completely different.
  • Where is the evidence for the ‘nearly daily’ and ‘night ritual’ allegations that escape the commission’s statement – “however, on the basis of the evidence available, the commission concluded…” As “evidence” it is only the testimony  of xxdd, xxxdd and myself … why is the“evidence” presented only by the prosecution, and my testimony  is ignored?
  • Was the xxxdd’s testimony  credible only because of her statement…? To draw up an indictment, there must always be some concrete  evidence, beyond the mere verbal accusation.
  • For my part, when I testified to the CPO, I confessed to touching xxdd inappropriately 3 times when she was over 18 years old. Why is this not taken into account…?  It turns out that the commission accepted the statements of one side, despite the fact that the specified number of touches increased in each subsequent statement of the prosecution, until it turned  into a “daily ritual.”
  • Why is my comment about inappropriately touching xxdd 3 times when she was over 18 being disregarded …?
  • This consideration of a one-sided narrative thus also affects the factual validity of Statements #1–9 concerning other interactions …
  • Statements #1–9 … either never happened, are taken out of context, or are grossly exaggerated …

pg. 5 Decision #4:

“BVPS cooperation in the investigation, his admission of guilt, and his lack of remorse.”

Regarding “Cooperation in the investigation”…

  • Does the CPO and the panelist members consider “my cooperation with them in this investigation” to be inappropriate behavior… do they state  that non-cooperation is preferable and therefore a truly righteous policy…? I cooperated with them because  I deeply regretted my three wrongdoings and did not expect such behavior to be imputed and subsequently interpreted and presented in a dishonest  manner.

As for “Admission of guilt”…

  • I confessed to inappropriate behavior with xxdd 3 times after she turned  18, meaning she was an adult at that time … how does this “confession” now apply to all the allegations made by the prosecution …?
  • After all, not having committed other actions that I am accused of … thus, is it now on the basis of my remorse  for touching her, that the rest of the terrible deeds are now being attributed to me …?
  • Furthermore, I never admitted to any sensual behaviour with any minors … so why is this point being extrapolated …?

I am also accused of “lack of remorse”…

However, here is a quote from my 2nd CPO response regarding my inappropriate association with xxdd:

  • “My touching her three times — only after she turned 18 — was highly inappropriate and should never have happened. She didn’t deserve to be treated this way, or to be left with a subsequent trauma where one can relive the experience of the initial encounters over and over again; developing more and more unpleasant memories  day by day—or becoming so engrossed in these previous memories  that the person may begin to experience any or all of the previous or subsequent interactions in the context of the original inappropriate behavior. “Thus, my actions were completely inappropriate and wrong.
  • “I offer my respectful obeisances  to all the devotees of the Lord; I apologize to anyone who was offended or disappointed in any way by my actions.
  • “I also take this opportunity to humbly pray at the lotus feet of pure Vaisnavas for their causeless mercy.”

Thus, I actually sincerely repented for these wrongdoings of mine and begged for forgiveness. Why does the commission keep silent about this and present me as a heartless monster, far from remorse …?


pp. 8 & 9 Lifetime Restrictions #4 with footnote “(see *below)”: “BVPS will never again be able to reside in or visit ISKCON Mayapur.”

“This makes the history of BVPS abuse the longest in ISKCON CPO history …”

In this statement, my actions are presented as a series of endless abuse of children, lasting decades, from the events of the 1980s to the present period …

My objection concerning the misinformation of use of the cane for punishment:

  • At that time the use of the cane was a legal practice in both India and England.
  • The cane was used to correct children who were guilty of vandalism, theft, and physical harm to other students.
  • It was used from 1982 and was phased out on my own volition by 1988. After that, corporal punishment was no longer used until now … from 1989 – 2022 … in other words … for the last 35 years …

Since there was no continuity after 1989 … how can this be claimed and presented as a permanent and ongoing offensive act …?

  • Furthermore, I am only indirectly responsible as the school manager for the inappropriate behaviour among the students in the 80’s … but the wrong actions of those students are now presented as directly my own personal actions … and that these actions are a wilful ongoing activity continuing up to the present day …?

p. 7 Restrictions #2 / p. 9 Special Considerations 1st “*”:

“…until the 2 above requirements are met to the satisfaction of the ICOCP. “

“The Commission notes that BVPS follows the letter of the law with respect to previous CPO/GBC

rulings, but not the spirit of the law. “

  • Where is this “satisfaction” and “spirit” defined…?
  • Apparently, definitions are left to individual interpretation.

pg. 12 Panel Recommendations # 6 & 7:

  • Why would the commission publicly announce the CPO’s internal recommendation regarding the investigation of SRdd and MGd, all the while citing unconfirmed things…?

The general presentation of this document appears to be fraught with the following anomalies:

  • Post factum… defining and evaluating the past in terms of today’s political correctness…
  • Misleading information… due to over-explanations that may lead to individual assumptions… misrepresentation of situations and wordings out of context… and excessive exaggeration of information.

In conclusion, I want to express that I am not trying to say that my behavior was correct. I sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness for my wrong actions. I wrote this letter only because I don’t want the Vaishnavas to see me as a malevolent maniac who organized a gurukula to satisfy gross desires … this being the perception that is emerging from the presentation of materials that is now being widely distributed in ISKCON.

I really wanted to please Srila Prabhupada with my service and tried to do what I could according to my ability. However, at some point I fell under the influence of illusion and made mistakes, for which I will bear the responsibility all my life.

And yet, since the shastras tell us that we should not mislead people with our silence, I had to cover the events from my side … all the while, accepting all the punishments meted out too me.

In the dust of the lotus feet of Vaishnavas, Your servant,

A.V.dasa [Anirdesya Vapu Dasa, formerly Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami]

Follow us

Share:

No Comments

  1. Hmm..was waiting for reply !
    Surprised !…why does CPO does not cite any objective evidence except for just solely relying on prosecution narrative…(Refer to evidence section of CPO report..)…Did they not find any objective evidence…?

    Looks like CPO cherry picked AV statements when needed to support prosecution narrative…while other time just dismissing it…interesting… !!

    Couldn’t understand why CPO misquote and twist 1991 ruling (related to AV but out of context) and 2015 (unrelated to AV and unconfirmed),,,to build their negative narrative for AV in report and portray him being longest maniac in the history for sexsual and child abuse…!

    Come on CPO…give AV-the poor guy a break…he already accepted all punishment …. at least should not have stripped AV basic human quality of remorse 😉 …that was real funny!!!

    Looks like CPO has some hidden agenda here ….may be settling previous scores with AV 🙂

    1. …after reading AV reply…the hidden agenda looks like CPO taking full advantage of current case to dump the frustration of previous ruling …. to portray him as a cold blooded monster…CPO seems very clever 🙂

    2. …I also agree that CPO report is less of facts and figures (objective evidence)…it’s more of CPO narrative build on prejudice of unconfirmed articles of SR or frustration over previous ruling to persuade the reader ….that AV is a repeated offender who deserves extreme punishment….

      Poor guy AV …CPO ensured AV loose all its reputation!

  2. I hope that this time atleast some good sense prevails for the CPO management. They are heavily biased against AVP since the beginning when the first case was lodged on him. They are always after him for the last two decades and they aren’t satisfied with any amount of punishment and sanctions put on him.
    I saw AVP staying alone and just taking some classes on sastras for small group of devotees who voluntarily went to his place for quite some time. These devotees always and only had a positive impression and nice things to say about him.

    Interestingly the CPO never considers the current status of the persons and don’t have any enquiry even to check whether the claims are right or wrong. All they need is someone to complain after which they’re super enthusiastic to bring down the persons who they don’t like.

    Also I have seen many instances where they are biased against Iskcon having Gurukulas. They want to remove the eye instead of cataract.

    The result of their maniac approach is currently there is no proper training for the devotee children on our philosophy and culture. I personally got many times questioned by even new devotees on why Iskcon don’t have fully autonomous schools like they have temples. We boast that we are educational institution but have no one is interested to educate the children because of fear of the CPO. I don’t know what good CPO has done till now but I can definitely say it is the bigger culprit than any other person for Iskcon devotee children being clueless about their own values.

  3. AV got punishment….Victim got justice…Job done !!. All good !! I am also happy that victim got justice!…But wait ! I see a problem here… and seems to puzzle me since I read CPO report…and now more after reading AV reply….how come CPO decide that victim was a minor…although I heard that MG and AV mentioned to have contradicted it.?? ..moreover while going through CPO report I did’t find any objective evidence for under 18 proof….?? I am puzzled to see how all the conclusion were just based on victim testimony…!…or some other unconfirmed narrative !!

    As AV pointed…why CPO gave selective hearing and weightage to victim narrative and dismissed AV and MG narrative..??

    Some say CPO deliberately wanted to not investigate under 18 issue much…to keep the case under their jurisdiction to settle scores 🙂

    After reading AV reply…I also wonder why did CPO put recommendation public in report….if it was supposed to go private…!!

    ..mystery ??

    1. …I agree that..CPO panel recommendation is less of a recommendation and more of judgement…:-) …. heavily loaded with CPO own subjective narrative…nowhere based on objective evidence…(refer to the CPO report)….CPO cited SR case which was yet to be investigated…misinformed 1991 report to say AV himself did sexsual abuse although it was among boys as per ruling …(refer 1991 report)…and stretched CPO 2015 report unrelated to AV !!!

      Something seems to be fishy here!!!!..only CPO and big guys will know!!!

  4. Akincana.net administrator: You’ve published the name of someone who was allegedly a minor. It seems it should be redacted. If you disagree, what is your reasoning?

    1. Author

      We agree. So, we have masked the names.

  5. I believe AV because of my lifelong experience with the overactive, over sensitized, insidious feminist population that wants all women to marry at 30+.

    Marry the girls young and to trained brahmacaris like Prabhupada said would solve dozens of problems . What is this ridiculous girl’s asrama in Mayapura? Prabhupada was completely against the idea…But it now exists!

  6. This sounds a very different perspective than what people sending around the internet. A more believable though than a clearly onesided, overloaded, demonizing social media “campaign”. I hope there will be a proper investigation where both side will be considered, like it should be!

  7. A long waited opinion!

  8. How can CPO do such basic mistake of not giving any concrete evidence for victim being below 18 yrs and also about it was daily nightly ritual….
    Do they think people have become so dumb I agree its Kali yuga Manda Sumanda….. people will get less intelligent but this is just beginning of Kal yuga CPO seems to go ahead in ages to end of Kal yuga where only least Human IQ people can believe these things of CPO.
    Has CPO replied on this….?Hope CPO do not come out with more foolish presentation than this one….

    1. Do you want to make the victims public and shame them.

    1. Access to the document above is restricted, so it doesn’t testify to anything for now.

    2. …I thought document hunting was only done by a group led by Damodar Das, Sanak Risi Das, and allies, who seem very enthusiastic about Document hunting and doing “fact check,”…but here also some documents seems to be flying…. If one were to believe interpretation of documents by this group , the whole ISKCON leadership should be replaced…..whole GBC should get replaced…whole sanyaas is bogus and what not…..in fact if one were to believe them whole ISKCON should get reformed 🙂 First time read that interpretation…I was like “REALLY” !!!

      Leaving that aside….Please note that one document can have several interpretations if stretched based on motives. Read “hermeneutics”….Just because a document is cited does not mean the point you are driving is automatically correct. You have to show that your claim follows from the document..I would welcome such approach for sure…!!..Just because you cite a lengthy document does not say anything as to how the conclusion you drive follows from it…That’s not how any conclusion is drawn…..quite popular, though, in some groups where the admin and allies feel just hunting some document and littering them on the internet is sufficient to prove a claim….Interestingly, many people are not willing to take the trouble to read such a lengthy document and feel those who have posted must be very intelligent and true” 🙂 I guess this drives the motivation to hunt for documents and litter them without arguing rationally for a claim.

  9. As a sannyasi, one should not be alone with a woman.

    One should not remain in a secluded place with a woman, even one’s mother, sister, or daughter. Nonetheless, although one is strictly prohibited from staying with a woman in a secluded place, Nārada Muni gave shelter to Prahlāda Mahārāja’s young mother, who rendered service to him with great devotion and faith. Does this mean that Nārada Muni transgressed the Vedic injunctions? Certainly he did not. Such injunctions are intended for mundane creatures, but Nārada Muni is transcendental to mundane categories. Nārada Muni is a great saint and is transcendentally situated. Therefore, although he was a young man, he could give shelter to a young woman and accept her service. Haridāsa Ṭhākura also spoke with a young woman, a prostitute, in the dead of night, but the woman could not deviate his mind. Instead, she became a Vaiṣṇavī, a pure devotee, by the benediction of Haridāsa Ṭhākura. Ordinary persons, however, should not imitate such highly elevated devotees. Ordinary persons must strictly observe the rules and regulations by staying aloof from the association of women. No one should imitate Nārada Muni or Haridāsa Ṭhākura. It is said, vaiṣṇavera kriyā-mudrā vijñe nā bujhaya. Even if a man is very advanced in learning, he cannot understand the behavior of a Vaiṣṇava. Anyone can take shelter of a pure Vaiṣṇava, without fear. Therefore in the previous verse it has been distinctly said, devarṣer antike sākuto-bhayā: Kayādhu, the mother of Prahlāda Mahārāja, stayed under the protection of Nārada Muni without fear from any direction. Similarly, Nārada Muni, in his transcendental position, stayed with the young woman without fear of deviation. Nārada Muni, Haridāsa Ṭhākura and similar ācāryas especially empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord cannot be brought down to the material platform. Therefore one is strictly forbidden to think that the ācārya is an ordinary human being (guruṣu nara-matiḥ).
    https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/7/7/14/

  10. “The Commission notes that BVPS follows the letter of the law with respect to previous CPO/GBC rulings, but not the spirit of the law. “

    Where is this “satisfaction” and “spirit” defined…?
    Apparently, definitions are left to individual interpretation.

    IMHO, the spirit, though not mentioned is the spirit in the books of Prabhupada which is the law book for ten thousand years. This spirit was not followed.

    Very clearly the law is stated by Prabhupada in SB7.7.15

    One should not remain in a secluded place with a woman, even one’s mother, sister, or daughter. Nonetheless, although one is strictly prohibited from staying with a woman in a secluded place, Nārada Muni gave shelter to Prahlāda Mahārāja’s young mother, who rendered service to him with great devotion and faith. Does this mean that Nārada Muni transgressed the Vedic injunctions? Certainly he did not. Such injunctions are intended for mundane creatures, but Nārada Muni is transcendental to mundane categories. Nārada Muni is a great saint and is transcendentally situated. Therefore, although he was a young man, he could give shelter to a young woman and accept her service. Haridāsa Ṭhākura also spoke with a young woman, a prostitute, in the dead of night, but the woman could not deviate his mind. Instead, she became a Vaiṣṇavī, a pure devotee, by the benediction of Haridāsa Ṭhākura. Ordinary persons, however, should not imitate such highly elevated devotees. Ordinary persons must strictly observe the rules and regulations by staying aloof from the association of women. No one should imitate Nārada Muni or Haridāsa Ṭhākura. It is said, vaiṣṇavera kriyā-mudrā vijñe nā bujhaya. Even if a man is very advanced in learning, he cannot understand the behavior of a Vaiṣṇava. Anyone can take shelter of a pure Vaiṣṇava, without fear. Therefore in the previous verse it has been distinctly said, devarṣer antike sākuto-bhayā: Kayādhu, the mother of Prahlāda Mahārāja, stayed under the protection of Nārada Muni without fear from any direction. Similarly, Nārada Muni, in his transcendental position, stayed with the young woman without fear of deviation. Nārada Muni, Haridāsa Ṭhākura and similar ācāryas especially empowered to broadcast the glories of the Lord cannot be brought down to the material platform. Therefore one is strictly forbidden to think that the ācārya is an ordinary human being (guruṣu nara-matiḥ).
    SB 7.7.15

    But, AVdasa violated the spirit of this law

  11. What is the proof that AVdasa is telling the truth?

  12. Just as AVdasa is refuting the statements using the logic and reasons, one can also refute all the refutations of AVdasa using higher logic. Simply a waste of time.

    Dry arguments are inconclusive.
    CC, Madhya 17.186

    In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (10.14.8) it is stated: tat te ‘nukampāṁ su-samīkṣamāṇo bhuñjāna evātma-kṛtaṁ vipākam. Whenever a devotee is in distress or has fallen into difficulty, he thinks that it is the Lord’s mercy upon him. He thinks, “Thanks to my past misdeeds I should suffer far, far greater than I am suffering now. So it is by the mercy of the Supreme Lord that I am not getting all the punishment I am due. I am just getting a little, by the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
    He apply this logic in the law of BG 12.13-14

    As for the supporters of AVdasa are concerned, they should study the law books for ten thousand years nicely and not mess around supporting a wrong doer using their reason and logic.

  13. I don’t particularly care exactly what happened, when and how. Anirdesha Vapu prabhu’s behaviour was completely inappropriate already in the 1980’s, which showed that he was not able to control his mind and senses. He should have been stripped of his sannyasa status when his behaviour at the Mayapura Gurukula came out and he should have never been allowed to initiate disciples. This might have helped him to see the need to correct himself. Instead, he got away with it until he was no longer allowed to initiate in 2007. This was all way too little and way too late. By not acting properly at the time the GBC did a great disservice to him (by not forcing him to correct himself), to all those he hurt, to his disciples both before and after 2007, and to ISKCON in general.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave the field below empty!