Category Archives: Iskcon EXPOSED!

About Vaisesika Dasa

This has been my observation as well.  No further information to give, yet.

Advertisements

(Some) Prostitutes in Iskcon Wear Prada

Devotees wear fully covered sarees and dhoti-kurtas. Prostitutes wear Prada! Idiots who have not read one line of Prabhupada’s books think – devotees wear prada.

But this is our GBC which thinks that it is ok to show the body and increase the lust of it’s members. This article was featured on a GBC funded website. That is to says our hard earned book distribution money has gone into promoting half naked clothes and prostitution of young girls in the name of KrishnaBhakti

Why have none of the acharyas organized a vaishnava vedic fashion show?
Jiva Goswami organized a fashion show?? Did he?
Why is this rascaldom going on WITH OUR MONEY?
I mean, i am not against you making your daughter or wife a public prostitute, do it if it makes you happy but please don’t advertise it under iskcon’s name because then it affects me and the rest of us varna ashrama promoters. Also please make your daughter or wife a prostitute with your own money not on a GBC funded website which indirectly draws its funds from OUR DONATIONS!

http://iskconnews.org/the-devotee-wears-prada,5882/

“stepping forward as designers, contributing to the cultural revolution Srila Prabhupada encouraged.”
These clothes for prostitutes is the “cultural revolution SP encouraged” ?

Malati Dasi Encourages & Attends Fashion Show (Illicit Sex Show) in Iskcon

Any Ritvik dogs reading this – goto hell. malati dasi is a deviant but not as bad as you demons. Haribol.

So Bhīṣmadeva also advised that the shyness of woman, lajjā, is the control. If you break that shy, what is called, shyness, then there will be disaster. That is the control valve naturally given. And woman’s shyness is one beauty, beauty. We have got practical experience. And command also. We have practical experience in our life. You have seen that my friend came, Dinanath Mishra. They were our neighbor. So one day we were sitting on the corridor of the house. One sweeper woman, she wanted to come within, but very shyful, with a covering of the head, although with broomstick and bucket, she was waiting because we were sitting both side. So she was feeling little shy not to enter the house. So we decided to move so that she may come. This example is given. She is a sweeper, not very respectable, maidservant or sweeper, but on account of her shyness we had to welcome, “Yes, we are moving. You come in.” Just see. This is psychology. Therefore Bhīṣmadeva, at his dying stage, he advised that woman’s shyness is the valve to control. If that shyness is broken, then it will create disaster. Puṁścalī. This is the psychology. So things are changing nowadays everywhere, not only in India, in other countries also. But this is the psychology. So all these examples are given. Why? Just to control the mind. In Hindi there is a proverb that “Money and wife, you should always keep in control.” There are so many examples. (Lecture SB 05.06.04 – Vrndavana)

Rukmini Walker, Rukmini Dasi is next to Malati Dasi. Rukmini Dasi is the same woman who appeared in the video supporting the heresy of Female Diksha Guru. See here

the original pic where these 4 “leaders” appear has been taken down

Seen in the back ground is Krishna Nandini Dasi and her muslim husband.
https://vaisnavafamilyresources.org/team/krsnanandini-devi-dasi/

more pictures from that

Urmila Dasi’s daughter who’s makes money by dancing in public for men was also a “model” in the fashion show.

Illicit Sex Show Approving & Karmi Song Playing Rascals in New Vrindavan Iskcon

The rascals/prostitutes dancing to karmi songs on SP’s property(New Vrindavana) or the rascals who approved the rascals to dance to karmi songs. Who is the bigger betrayer of SP? Please tell me.

Why have none of the acharyas organized a vaishnava vedic fashion show?

Jiva Goswami organized a fashion show?? Did he?
Why is this rascaldom going on WITH OUR MONEY?
I mean, i am not against you making your daughter or wife a public prostitute, do it if it makes you happy but please don’t advertise it under iskcon’s name because then it affects me and the rest of us varna ashrama promoters. Also please make your daughter or wife a prostitute with your own money not on a GBC funded website which indirectly draws its funds from OUR DONATIONS!

http://iskconnews.org/the-devotee-wears-prada,5882/

 

https://www.facebook.com/events/136598790011221/

 

it was in nv

Gay Marriage Sanctioning Iskcon Guru Hridayananda Goswami Rejected by Honest Disciple Krishna Kirti Pr.

Announcement: Krishna-kirti das now a disciple of Sri Bhakti Vikasa Swami

Dear Devotees, please accept my humble obeisances.

All glories to ISKCON Founder-Acharya Srila Prabhupada.

As many of you who know me, either in person or by reputation, my name is Krishna-kirti das, and I am a former disciple of the ISKCON leader who is known by the title and name of H.H. Hridayananda das Goswami.

As some will recall, the circumstances that occasioned the break in our relationship occurred early in 2009, when it came to the attention of the devotee public that he had caused to take place and participated in a concocted ceremony resembling a wedding between two men.

This action of his was his own attempt to fulfill a recommendation he made five years earlier, that “some serious, formal and public recognition and appreciation of gay monogamy is, in my view, in the best interest of ISKCON and its members.”

And two months after this recommendation, he wrote a lengthy treatise titled “Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality” (2005) to substantiate his recommendation.

The 2005 treatise puts forward a number of specious arguments to support a moral philosophy called consequentialism, in order to justify what he calls “gay monogamy,” a social arrangement Prabhupada rejected. In 2013 he used the same consequentialism to dispute the authority of the pastime of Yudhisthira gambling away Draupadi in Shakuni’s rigged match, a pastime that Prabhupada and other acharyas accept as authentic. Hridayananda Maharaja says, “I do not deny or reject Prabhupada’s teaching on this matter, I simply focus on what I find in the Bhagavatam.”

But then if he can read the Bhagavatam itself and get the true meaning without accepting Srila Prabhupada’s purports, what does it even mean to call Srila Prabhupada’s purports “purports”? In this way, he nullifies Srila Prabhupada’s authority.

As does Lord Caitanya, Srila Prabhupada rejects this very mode of interpretation that Hridayananda Maharaja has been promoting: “The parampara system does not allow one to deviate from the commentaries of the previous acaryas. By depending upon the previous acaryas, one can write beautiful commentaries. However, one cannot defy the previous acaryas. The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous acaryas will make one’s comments faulty.” (CC Antya 7.134, purport)

Hridayananda Maharaja’s 2005 treatise nullifies Srila Prabhupada’s authority in the same way, by concluding that despite Srila Prabhupada’s unequivocal purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 3.20.26, the Bhagavatam itself says nothing about “mutually consensual” homosexuality. With whatever Srila Prabhupada said about the matter nullified, Hridayananda Maharaja proceeds to apply his philosophy of consequentialism to justify his recommendation for gay monogamy.

But despite a 2009 promise by him not to preach gay monogamy any more, he still defends his recommendation.

Because Hridayananda das Goswami defiantly stands by his prior recommendation for gay monogamy and continues to purposefully and outspokenly deviate from the commentary of his own acharya, Srila Prabhupada, whenever it suits his purposes, and hence cause others to deviate with him, he cannot be considered a bona fide spiritual master in any respect. Because Hridayananda das Goswami has long since ceased to be a proper link in the guru-parampara coming through Srila Prabhupada, my leaving him as a disciple in 2009, and declaration of such, was simply a formal recognition of his fallen condition, for which many others and I had tried many times to correct.

That is the background for the following announcement:

Two weeks ago in Dallas, Texas, His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Swami very kindly accepted me as his shiksha-disciple. Sri Bhakti Vikasa Maharaja is aware of the above circumstances, and he is also aware that I did not seek the blessings of Hridayananda Maharaja before approaching him to become his shiksha-disciple. Since Hridayananda Maharaja is no longer a bona fide spiritual master, there would have been no point in asking.

Dirty Politics: Iskcon-Guru Yadunandana Swami EXPOSED by a Simple Honest Devotee Mukunda Datta Prabhu

“[Shastric Advisory Council] member participation requires bending truth to fit the majority opinion–as has now become the SAC policy

http://www.iskconhouston.org/alpha/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Mukunda-datta-Pr.jpg

From: Internet: “Mukunda-datta Dasa”
Date: 18-Jan-14 08:36 (14:06 +0530)
To: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda – IN) [161360] (received: 18-Jan-14 12:25)
To: “Badrinarayan Dasa”
Cc: “Sivarama Swami” (sender: Basu Ghosh (das)
ACBSP (Baroda – IN))
Subject: SAC concerns
————————————————————
Dandavats, Guruprasada Maharaja. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.

Hare Krsna. Having always trusted you because of your sensible, intelligent, and dispassionate Krsna consciousness, I also appreciate your concern regarding the present state of the SAC. I would like to ask a favor. Despite several months of questioning the SAC chair [Yadunandana Swami] and secretary [Madana Mohana Das] about the ways in which its recent FDG paper was mishandled, I have not received clear, relevant, timely, and accurate explanations from them. Neither has anyone from the EC replied to the (below) list of concerns, which I shared with EC beginning on 31/12/13. I had also asked SAC members (on 8/1/14) to share it with the larger GBC body; SAC has not complied.

Thus, I now feel it optimal—and my moral obligation—to inform the GBC myself, since the GBC has to be informed of SAC wrongdoings. Any decisions following from such tainted papers are likewise tainted.

I know you had previously expressed concerns about both the SAC constituence as well as its most recent paper, and as a GBC member, you can post the concerns I’ve listed below to the GBC conference. If you would, kindly do so now. I apologize if this creates any botheration for you; I only hope my input helps you all to make adequately informed decisions regarding both the SAC generally, as well as its last FDG paper too.

Thank you for your attention, concern, and kind cooperation. I am copying this email to Badrinarayana and Basughosh prabhus, whom Yadunandana Swami has identified as being involved. I hope this meets you well. Hare Krsna.

Your humble servant,
Mukunda Datta dasa

————————————————————————–

These concerns should be shared among the entire GBC body:

Over the last year, I (Mukunda Datta dasa) have lost faith in the current SAC led by chairman Yadunandana Swami and secretary Madanamohana prabhu, who fail to answer the substance of my questions about why my input was excluded from our recent paper on female diksa-gurus. This led to my withdrawing from the project (see below). Frankly, I sense the current SAC and its recent paper are both contaminated by partisan interests, partly because of the following:

1. Brijabasi Prabhu and I withdrew from the SAC paper only after we were denied our rightful—and any meaningful—voice within it.

2. Each of us separately identified various problems in the paper, but amidst suddenly imposed and restrictive conditions, a last minute SAC policy change (from consensus to majority rule) left us virtually no time to append any adequate response to the majority paper.

3. SAC leadership had significantly restricted both the scope and the objectivity of its FDG research from the very outset, while refusing to identify its de facto methodology when so requested.

4. Pre-existing SAC demographics were stacked so as to favor only one conclusion; I noticed a goal-oriented methodology operating by default—as if the outcome was considered a foregone conclusion, rendering SAC research but perfunctory.

5. Ultimately, no views questioning (nor research potentially jeopardizing) immediate FDG implementation were accommodated in the SAC paper. Secretary Madanamohana prabhu was supposed to have incorporated all members’ input, but all of his drafts of our paper either ignored or distorted virtually all of my input, which he hasn’t explained in substantial detail when asked to do so.

6. Of the four most senior SAC members, two are FDG candidates. Others ignored this conflict of interest when it was questioned early in our discussions. Among other qualities SAC members should demonstrate, the SAC mandate also explicates: “Apolitical” and “Not unduly ambitious for position or achievement, either socially, politically or academically.”

7. Madanamohana prabhu’s only complete draft of the paper wasn’t available for all SAC members themselves to read or edit as planned—until about 24 hours before its 1/10/13 submission deadline. Then SAC inclusion policy was suddenly changed to majority rule, thereby effectively sidelining any dissenting voices.

8. For what it is worth, since August 2013 I’ve had the impression that I haven’t been included in all consequential SAC discussions; however, this tangential suspicion is significant mainly because it coincides with so many validated concerns.

9. On 16/10/13, Yadunandana Swami explicitly stopped sending me SAC emails (citing my supposed breach of a confidentiality clause in the SAC mandate) after I shared my views in reply to a godbrother. My SAC email resumed weeks later (partially or not). When asked since October 2013 what specific allegations justified his action, he didn’t give all the pertinent details requested. Although he has since indicated his exact allegations, in context, his decision appears to have been ulterior, as it better matches a political motivation than my alleged breach of SAC confidentiality.

10. Especially amidst violation of its mandates against partisanship, to only enforce Yadunandana Swami’s interpretation of the SAC mandate on SAC confidentiality doubles as a virtual gag-order that effectively conceals genuine wrongdoings within SAC. Complying with it thus thrusts an unjust moral dilemma upon its victims, who must decide whether obedience is better than truth.

11. As my questions became increasingly pointed, Yadunandana Swami then announced his resignation from SAC, in a pre-planned decision he said was unrelated to the FDG project.

12. Notably, SAC secretary Madanamohana prabhu lately speaks (on 19/12/13) of disbanding SAC altogether, amidst various opinions from other SAC members in recent emails I’ve received.

13. I have not received substantial answers about my disfranchisement from either Yadunandana Swami or Madanamohana prabhu, despite my suggesting exactly how to clarify my concerns.

14. This (and more) seems to leave the SAC in a fairly doubtful state, with many unanswered yet crucial questions about its modus operandi. This is separate from issues about the specific content of its recent FDG paper—though it definitely impacts that as well.

Not at all confident that the recent SAC paper established a fair, objective, and carefully researched conclusion on all the topical questions we were assigned, I didn’t want my name associated with it–especially since I was tacitly denied a voice in it. SAC diligently suppressed both important questions and dissent in its consequently imbalanced and perhaps politically motivated paper. Given that my research was excluded amidst the above factors, to imply that I declined to sign the paper only because I felt a need for further research is misleading. Under the circumstances, it seems my duty to relate the truth of my firsthand experience within SAC to our authorities, as Yadunandana Swami recently advised me. I wrote the EC with essentially the above list on 31/12/13, but it has not replied, nor has anyone in SAC, since my 8/1/14 request that SAC members inform the GBC of these concerns.

One legitimately wonders how each SAC member can substantially contribute to SAC amidst what amounts to implicit censorship, if SAC protocol remains until it is alleged violated (and even then isn’t explicated in much detail), if it is moreover subject to sudden and drastic changes without notice, and if member participation requires bending truth to fit the majority opinion–as has now become the SAC policy.

I remain happy to participate in SAC, though I sense it could use more oversight or even reformation, in order to prevent future abuses.

Your humble servant

Mukunda Datta Dasa

Chairman – Yadunandana Swami. Secretary Madana-mohana das. Members: Urmila dasi, Drutakarma das, Narayani dasi, Adi-purusa das, Isvarakrsna das, Caitanya-carana das, Sarvajna das, Vinoda-bihari das.