Talk:Kirtanananda Swami/archive

Question about recent contribution

Dear 2215asp,

Thank you for your recent contributions.

Regarding the sentence you added: "While they claim to be running a "quiet and peaceful place in the Vil," undercover journalists have revealed how the enterprise is a front for their prosyletizing and religious agenda."

I do not understand the point. From the beginning the Interfaith Sanctuary was to be a place for prosyletizing and religious agenda. It is no different now. Certainly income is generated from the Bed and Breakfast and restaurant (if it is still open), but to my knowledge, tenants have always been giving a reduced price if they attend the temple services.

Thank you for helping me understand the above sentence by your explanation.

Sincerely,

Hrishikesh Henrydoktorski (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gross Omission

"Controversial" does not even come close to telling half the story of Bhaktipada! There is also no mention of the abuses and several murders committed in the US by members of the church, one of which was engineered by Mr. Bhaktipada himself. One of the reasons why the movement has lost a lot of steam and is almost non-existent these days. Here is a link to the story, I'll work it into the article next week but if someone wants to edit it, please feel free to do so.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDA1530F934A25755C0A961948260

Philosopher2king (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

Howdy, the charges against Kirtanananda are mentioned in the section entitled, Criminal conviction and imprisonment, where it says, "In 1990 the US federal government indicted Kirtanananda on five counts of racketeering, six counts of mail fraud, and conspiracy to murder two of his opponents in the Hare Krishna movement (Chakradhari and Sulochan). The government claimed that he had illegally amassed a profit of more than $10.5 million over four years. It also charged that he ordered the killings because the victims had threatened to reveal his sexual abuse of minors." It also goes on to mention a number of other things in that section. I don't see how the article "grossly omits" such things. However, there are a number of other things that could probably be mentioned in this article too. Sulochan's real name was Steven Bryant, and Chakradhari was Charles St. Denis. The man who is in prison for killing them is called Tirtha, or Thomas Drescher. In the case of the killing of Charles St. Denis, Tirtha was assisted by Daruka, or Dan Reid. Reid is supposedly still in prison too. There are a number of other allegations, but sometimes it's difficult to separate fact from speculation. A man named Randall Gorby, a chief witness in the trial against Tirtha, was found dead in his pickup truck with a gunshot wound to his head. Also, Nimai Bryant (the son of Sulochan) drowned at New Vrindaban months after his father was murdered. Not only that, but Radheya (son of Chakradhari) and Rohini (son of Daruka) were both found suffocated together in an abandoned refrigerator at New Vrindaban. A number of other bodies were dug up at New Vrindaban over the years too. There have been allegations of murder, fraud, deception, theft, drug dealing, prostitution, child abuse, molestation, and nearly everything imaginable. For the record, I'm not (and never was) a Hare Krishna or anything like that, I'm just interested in the truth and seeing that these things are presented in a fair and accurate way with appropriate citations. There's a book entitled Monkey on a Stick. Also, many of these things are discussed in a documentary film entitled Holy Cow Swami (1996), and I definitely recommend this movie for anyone interested in the history of the Hare Krishna movement.[1] Fartbucket (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Monkey on a Stick is ridiculous, don't bother.75.91.84.69 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Not only that, but Radheya (son of Chakradhari) and Rohini (son of Daruka) were both found suffocated together in an abandoned refrigerator at New Vrindaban."

This was just a horrible mistake. Not exactly an accident, as they were incredibly stupid to have a door that didn't have a release inside. I was in that refrigerator the day before they died. I noticed the door, but didn't do anything. It changed my life. You always have to take action. 75.91.84.69 (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And it wasn't abandoned. It was in full use for a big festival75.91.84.69 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. One statement at least is incorrect: "A man named Randall Gorby, a chief witness in the trial against Tirtha, was found dead in his pickup truck with a gunshot wound to his head." Not true. There was a hose from his tailpipe into the cab. He apparently died from carbon monoxide poisoning. The police called it a suicide. I've got the news clippings somewhere. The fellow who died from a gunshot wound to his head was Tapomurti. His charred and dog-eaten body was found in his backyard with the murder weapon. Some say it was a suicide. I've got clippings about that too. Still unsolved, I believe. There was a lot of stuff that we will probably never know about, as the parties involved will most likely take their secrets with them to the grave.

And Monkey on a Stick cannot be trusted. Much is true, but much is fiction. Henrydoktorski (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Henry and 75.91.84.69, and thanks for your responses (also, Henry, I really like your website about New Vrindaban[2], it's very interesting and informative.) Well, I've heard both your opinions on the book Monkey on a Stick, however, I was wondering what you think about the documentary film Holy Cow Swami? As for Randall Gorby, the movie says that he was found dead in his truck. Some say it was suicide, while some speculate other things. It may have been from carbon monoxide, though this website[3] states, "Gorby was found killed in his pickup truck in July of 1990 with a gunshot wound to his head." Also, Gorby's house blew up in a gas explosion not too long before he died (according to this part of the movie[4]). Naturally, some people found that to be a bit suspicious since Gorby was a key witness in the trial against Thomas Drescher. As for the three children mentioned above who were found dead, the movie doesn't talk about that, but I read on this website[5] about sons of Bryant, St. Denis, and Reid all being found dead. The article says that Bryant's son was found drowned, and the article describes the refrigerator that the other two boys were found dead in as an "abandoned refrigerator". All three of those children's deaths could have been accidents, who knows, but one can see how it might all seem a bit suspicious - given that Bryant was shot to death by Thomas Drescher and St. Denis was brutally murdered by both Drescher and Dan Reid, and then a son of Bryant is later found dead, and then a son of St. Denis and a son of Reid are both found dead together. Another character who isn't mentioned in this article is Dharmatma, or Dennis Gorrick, who did time in jail in relation to the 10 to 12 million dollar "sankirtan" fraud scheme the organization was accused of running (according to this part of the movie[6] and this part[7]). Then there were Kirtanananda's two main cronies: Kuladri, or Arthur Villa, and Tapahpunja, or Terry Sheldon. According to this site[8], Kuladri was released from jail and went back to work for New Vrindaban and ISKCON. Sheldon was also in jail, according to that site, and after being released he too went back to work for the group. And this is just the stuff relating to the fraud schemes and murder conspiracies, not including the other accusations of sexual molestation and abuses of minors and other alleged crimes. Fartbucket (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fridge: Was a converted truck box in active use for festival. The deaths happened a day or two after the festival, so it could have been empty at the time. But probably not: the stuff in it was the attraction to go inside. I was in and out of it helping. I had left the day previous so I can't say precisely what was in it at the time, nor do I remember enough detail to speculate relative volumes of items and their rate of use. We can pile on many accusations and speculate as to motives about a whole host of events. Accuracy doesn't matter, as the point was to cause further discredit. Truth doesn't matter, the accusation is good enough as it sticks even ~25 years later.

My take away from that event was that you can't let safety items go without taking action. I should have demanded that this be resolved. I noticed the problem and didn't act. It's just a basic safety item that their has to be an internal release to get out of a walk-in fridge, and I'm sure there is a law. 75.91.98.56 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello 75.91.98.56, you said, "We can pile on many accusations and speculate as to motives about a whole host of events. Accuracy doesn't matter, as the point was to cause further discredit."

For the record, I do not wish to pile on inaccuracies or untruths at all, I am simply stating what I have seen and read and have provided links. To me, accuracy DOES matter, and that is the point of my interest and involvement in discussions like this one. I do not claim to know these answers, I am just presenting the evidence and information that I've seen. The evidence seems to suggest that a number of strange things were going on at New Vrindaban in the 1980s, including murder and mayhem. I'm not trying to put anybody down here, I just would like accurate information. I've visited the Palace of Gold as a tourist on three occasions, and it is a beautiful place. That place has captured my imagination for many years now. It's a shame that people in that community were killed and mistreated in some cases, but it's still a beautiful place to visit despite its tragic history. Fartbucket (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The fridge being abandoned or not doesn't matter (I was there, I do know the facts first hand). LOTS of horrific stuff happened in NV and there's no point playing up this particular tragedy as part of the conspiracy. I hear this fridge killed-kids-as-retaliation crap regularly, followed by a "we'll never know". It was an avoidable tragedy, but no one stuffed the kids in the fridge and locked the door. 75.91.98.56 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Fartbucket. Dear Fartbucket. In my opinion, Gordon Jacob's documentary film Holy Cow Swami is excellent. I could not find any fault with it, except for two points: (1) the director uses a child's voice to portray the voice of a 16 or 17 year old when talking about his molestation from KS (he should have used the voice of an older teenager), and he puts one statement of KS out of context. When KS is speaking about the beauty of Krishna, the all-attractive one, "in the prime of manhood," or something like that, the director makes it appear that KS is speaking about one of his young teenage sex partners, not about God himself.

"New Vrindavan Body Count, For the Record (Unedited) by Navadvipchandra Das Published 01/8/2007" is incorrect. I have many bones to pick with this particular author who has a tendency to speculate and spread nonsense fiction.

Regarding Randall Gorby, on May 28, 1986, a gas explosion rocked his house. This was the day after Tirtha's arrest by police in Kent Ohio. The day following Tirtha’s arrest, a huge explosion at Gorby’s house, allegedly caused by him illegally tapping into a gas line, nearly killed him. Gorby was to be the principal witness for the prosecution. “Authorities have listed no cause for the explosion, but said Tirtha helped lay the natural gas line into Gorby’s home.” (“Bordenkircher Standing By Remarks," Wheeling News-Register (July 21, 1986), 11.)

Although Gorby survived the blast, he was found dead in his pickup truck in July 1990. Police authorities labeled it a suicide; they said that Gorby had killed himself by running a hose from the tailpipe to the cab of his truck. So Gorby did not die until more than four years after the natural gas explosion. I don't know if it was an accident or intentional. Certainly it could have been either.

Regarding the deaths of children at NV: certainly there were some sick adults, teachers and monitors, who abused the children in the school. But I don't believe any wished to cause permanent harm or death. The parents were extremely fond of their chidren, and the children of others. I do not believe these children were murdered. Sulochan's three-year-old son Nimai drowned in a New Vrindaban lake while playing with other youths on November 23, 1986. He was playing with his friends. This was not a murder. It would be simple matter to contact his mother, who still lives at NV, to confirm or disprove this. I know her, and I believe if she had the slightest thought that her child was intentionally drowned, she would have raised hell about it. In any case, Sulochan's other son has grown to manhood, and I assume has a normal life, unless I am mistaken.

There is no need to mention Dharmatma in this article. He was simply head of fundraising. Yes, he spent some time in prison.

Yes, both Kuladri and Tapapunja returned to NV. Kuladri as a paid employee and TP to start an organic garden/farm. I see TP usually when I visit. At least TP has served his time in prison and paid his debt to society, according to the courts. The child molesters who remained at NV were evicted in 1996 or so, after their abuses during the 1980s became revealed. I hope this is helpful. Henrydoktorski (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Then there were Kirtanananda's two main cronies: Kuladri, or Arthur Villa, and Tapahpunja, or Terry Sheldon." Not true. They were not cronies at all. Kuladri was a servant, assistant to KS. Tapapunja, on the other hand, was often the brunt of KS's wrath. TP was constantly getting kicked out of the community, where he dearly wanted to stay in the garden, out on traveling fund raising. Sometimes TP would sneak back into the community, until KS would see him and kick him back out. He was even banished to Cleveland to serve as temple president, a thankless task. He was always constantly hankering, "when can I return to the garden at NV." TP was inciminated in Sulochan's murder because he was trying to protect KS against an agressor. Henrydoktorski (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Henry, and thanks for your replies. I feel that I know a little more about this information now. If I inadvertently quoted information that was not accurate about anyone previously mentioned, then I would like to apologize to everyone for that. I think that accuracy is important, and I definitely have no interest in perpetuating any inaccuracies. Thanks for your input in this article, Henry, and thanks 75.91.98.56 (and any others who have also tried to improve the quality and accuracy of this article.) Fartbucket (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to Fartbucket. Fartbucket wrote above: "As for the three children mentioned above who were found dead, the movie doesn't talk about that, but I read on this website [5] about sons of Bryant, St. Denis, and Reid all being found dead. The article says that Bryant's son was found drowned, . . . All three of those children's deaths could have been accidents, who knows, but one can see how it might all seem a bit suspicious - given that Bryant was shot to death by Thomas Drescher and St. Denis was brutally murdered by both Drescher and Dan Reid, and then a son of Bryant is later found dead, and then a son of St. Denis and a son of Reid are both found dead together."

I wrote to the mother of Sulochan's child about his drowning death in November 1986. On June 24, 2008, she responded: "He was playing with a group of boys on the chatra. They were all young boys around 5 years old and it was definitely an accident. Mudakari was the first adult on the scene and she ran to get me. Why are people wasting their precious energy uselessly speculating about the past? If there is any more misinformation floating around I am willing to speak to these people directly."

Henrydoktorski (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Henry, if she is willing to speak to anyone directly about such conspiracy theories being expressed on the web, then she should look no further than the writer of the article New Vrindavan Body Count, For the Record (Unedited), whose name is listed as Navadvipchandra Das. That is where I found that information, and as I've said previously, if I inadvertently quoted information that was not accurate about anyone previously mentioned, then I would like to apologize to everyone for that. I think that accuracy is important, and I definitely have no interest in perpetuating any inaccuracies. I would not have quoted from that web page had I known that it was based more on speculation rather than good quality evidence. I regret having quoted from that page. My apologies. Fartbucket (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Founder Acharya

Why do we still need to pretend that Kirtanananda was the "founder-acarya"? What's wrong with just co-founder? He got kicked away by Swamiji and went off to start his own dope smoking, made up religious commune/cult. Swamiji pulled him up and made NV possible. No reason to give K more than his due. Founder acarya was yet another delusion of grandeur around the K cult. 75.88.127.106 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

KS was known & worshiped as "acharya" from the early 1980s until 1993-94. During this period, "founder-acharya" is correct. I think we should keep the title. Also: I don't believe he was ever "kicked away by Swamiji." According to Prabhupada's letters of 1967, Swamiji prohibited him from giving lectures in the temple; he never banished him. Prabhupada expressed great regret when his other distraught disciples spat on KS and banned him from entering the NY ISKCON temple during October 1967. And when KS finally apologized and begged forgiveness by letter, Swamiji replied: "I was so glad to receive your letter dated May 13, 1968, and my gladness knew no bounds, exactly like that when one gets back his lost child. You have written to say that you think of me often and now it is confirmed that you cannot do without thinking of me, because I was always thinking of you. Sometimes I silently cried and prayed to Krishna that how I have lost this child, Kirtanananda. But I am sure that you cannot be lost because you chanted very nicely in Vrindaban." Certainly in hindsight we discovered that KS did not fulfill some very basic qualifications of an actual Vaishnava acharya, but he was honored with that title for some 15 years regardless. Henrydoktorski (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't have access to letters right now. Swamiji hit him pretty hard in letter after letter. He's factually a founder or co-founder of NV. He was not the archarya of NV in the sense of being an actual archarya. He was not acharya. However, he was *called* archarya. So if we say that he was *called* archarya, that's fine. But he wasn't actually acharya, so we don't need to perpetuate the delusion. Plus, so many people "founded" so many temples. They can be recognized for their effort, but overstating them as founder isn't reasonable. Does New-Dwarka-Founder Dananjaya make sense? We add it to his name as a title? (Think it was Dananjaya, can't remember the name).75.91.98.56 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question Concerning the title founder-acharya what did Kirtanananda Swami found and how is he an acharya'? Such statements need to be referenced with reliable sources as this is a Biography of a living person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirtanananda Swami co-founded the New Vrindaban community in Marshall County, West Virginia, with his lover Hayagriva (Howard Wheeler) around 1968. This is referenced in this section of the article. A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was the founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), and it states so in the article (in this section.) A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada started ISKCON in 1966, according to the ISKCON article. Acharya means guru (or teacher in a religious sense), and according to the statements of Ravindra Svarupa Dasa of ISKCON in the Holy Cow Swami documentary (at around 3:35 in this part of the movie[9]), he says, "but there's also the position of initiating guru, and Prabhupada indicated twelve of his followers and gave their names as people who could be initiating gurus." The movie goes on to indicate that Kirtanananda was among those chosen for this position by Prabhupada, and how there were eventual disagreements within ISKCON about how those selected for this position should function within the context of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission. Basically, there was a bit of a "succession crisis", and this is documented in the movie and elsewhere too. Fartbucket (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

K "founded" NV along with H. They had something else in mind when then did. K also was also a main driving force behind the community's development and provided sole material and spiritual authority, especially after Prabhupad's departure. Prabhupada (Swamiji) was called the "founder-acharya" of ISKCON, because it would never be here if not for him, and his word is final on this major institution. He's the "founder" and the "acharya". Acharya is bigger than just guru.

So K styling himself (or letting other do it) founder-archarya is a blatant attempt to imitate Prabhupada. His "founding" wasn't auspicious (sex, drugs, deviant philosophy) and his "acharya" wasn't either for about the same reason and even more. He was never the "founder-acharya", but was *called* the founder-acharya. We don't need to call him that anymore, however if we have to, we can say that people called him that.

Gee no kidding, a succession crisis? Phrasing it "appointed themselves" states the position of one political faction. Assumed the position cuts it down the middle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.98.56 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello 75.91.98.56, you said, "K "founded" NV along with H. They had something else in mind when then did." Talk about speculation, but perhaps they did... I don't know, but according to the article and the movie, Kirtanananda met Prabhupada in 1966 and became an early follower of his. Then after 1968, through letters and occasional visits, Prabhupada helped establish the purpose and guided the development of the New Vrindaban community. You also said, "Gee no kidding, a succession crisis? Phrasing it "appointed themselves" states the position of one political faction. Assumed the position cuts it down the middle." I agree, but according to the Holy Cow Swami movie, and other sources, Prabhupada himself chose Kirtanananda for the position of initiating guru (along with 11 others at different locations.) More or less, that seems to indicate that Prabhupada had given Kirtanananda his blessing (though not his blessing to do whatever he wanted, but rather his blessing to do "good" according to the ISKCON teachings and to help run the New Vrindaban community as such.) The actions of Kirtanananda and his associates obviously didn't always live up to many people's expectations, and with the fraud, murder and mayhem it's no wonder why. Also, if some of the things I'm saying seem obvious to you, I'm trying to spell this stuff out for people (like me) who aren't particularly well versed in the talk, history, and lingo of the Krishna people so that they too can attempt to understand this story. Fartbucket (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Founded with something else in mind: "Talk about speculation, but perhaps they did..." It's well known, well documented. No point getting into detail. What is important is that the term "founder-acharya" has a particular meaning that K does not fit into, and acknowledging him as such plays into one of his primary defects. I'm just saying that "co-founder" is good enough. If we want to include FA, we should qualify it with some form of "was refered to as", rather than imply that he really was FA. 75.91.98.56 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

FOUNDER: KS is called "Acarya, Founder of New Vrindaban" on the cover of the 1978 book: "The Most Blessed Event Sri Vyasa-Puja, September 4, 1978, His Divine Grace Kirtanananda Swami Maharaja, Acarya, Founder of New Vrindaban." Fourteen years later, he is called "Founder/Acharya, New Vrindaban Community" on the title page of "Sacred Appearances: New Vrindaban Festival Souvenir Book" (Palace Publishing). He was still acknowledged as such as late as 1993 and 1994.

Yes, it perhaps might be technically more accurate if these publications--and this Wikipedia article--called him "co-founder," but factually the community would never have lasted a minute without KS. Hayagriva was not a leader. For the most part, he did not inspire the devotees' faith in Krishna, he was not a person who commanded respect and obedience from his associates. In fact, after May 1972 Hayagriva was out of the picture completely when he resigned as temple president and later Kuladri took his place. (see Henry Doktorski, "Hayagriva Resigns" from Chapter 5: New Vrindaban: The Earliest Days at http://henrydoktorski.com/nv/5_ISKCONs_First_Farm_Community.doc)

Hayagriva & KS together IMPEDED the growth of the community, because they were constantly fighting. Bhagavatananada explained: “Kirtanananda and Hayagriva were like the Hatfields and the McCoys, always fighting. I couldn’t believe it. They had a feud one time, and Kirtanananda moved down and created Bahulaban.” (Ibid., "Conflict between Kirtanananda and Hayagriva")

Only after Hayagriva left, KS became sole uncontested leader and then he could implement his plans without opposition from Hayagriva. The rapid development of the community and the construction of Prabhupada's Palace of Gold happened only after Hayagriva left his office.

So KS was the "founder" of NV, with assistance from Hayagriva during the first four years.

ACHARYA: Regarding "acharya," if KS was not the sole and uncontested spiritual adviser and authority for NV, then who was? Even before Prabhupada passed away, he many times instructed his NV disciples "Just do whatever Kirtanananda Maharaj asks you to do." Kuladri said, "Srila Prabhupada always used to tell me that whatever Kirtanananda Maharaj does, I should try to assist him. He said, 'Please follow my instructions and go on developing New Vrindaban to your heart’s content. And whatever Kirtanananda Maharaj asks, please help him.'" (Ibid. "Prabhupada showed confidence in Kirtanananda")

Certainly KS served as the "founder-acharya" of NV. The fact that he was fallible, and not infallible, has no bearing on this office as it relates to NV, as some might imagine. We cannot change the past. Only acknowledge it and report it accurately as it happened. Henrydoktorski (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My view of acharya is that one is actual acharya, not a pundraka-acharya faking it for a while even with some outward success. So "was considered ..." or "listed as..., or some kind of qualifier is required. It was galling that he allowed himself to be called founder-acharya in the 1980s and it just as galling that people still call him that.

Not to mix too much in, but the Palace is a heart breaking mess last time I heard. Foolish decisions to save time and money during construction, and general incompetence created a maintenance monster. Not exactly an enduring monument for the ages, but a gaudy, cheaply built bauble that may not be salvageable. Paid for by van after van of devotees out screwing up my sankirtan spots and their own lives with lies about collecting money for orphans or endangered species or whatever crap they could think of. (Not to mention prostitution and drug dealing. Oh, I mentioned it!) Propped up with a twisted philosophy and ethos that accelerated the degradation of the underpinning of the entire society: bogus grandiose guru worship, reliance on criminal enterprise rather than books or preaching for temple finance, a general "we're on a mission from God" (Blues Brothers) mentality that "justified" any damn thing to rediculous extreme. K knew what was going on as he called each van very often. I stood and listened more than once. And saw him lie on Larry King. What a train wreck.

But yeah, acharya. Sole and uncontested authority. He did it all with such great success. Glue that label on him with the same care and skill as was used to create the Palace. 128.227.50.182 (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear 128.227.50.182: I see your point. This is very dear to you; this point. I do not argue with you. You have obviously strong and painful feelings about this. I have absolutely no objection to a "qualifier" preceding the mention of his post as "founder-acharya," a post he attempted to fulfill for some time. But I think "founder-acharya" with a qualifier should be noted, as NV residents and others accept this for 15+ years.

Look at the position of "pope." Most were sincere and spiritual people, some were debauchers. Yet the title remained the same. Simply my opinion. Henrydoktorski (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for belaboring the point. To some degree I'm tilting at windmills: Pope is an elected position. An Acharya isn't. It could be that I have a expanded view of Acharya not actually warranted. I see acharya as a term that should should be reserved for a rare few, like key sampradaya strengthening level personalities. K doesn't cut it. He's pretty much the opposite. And I still think that founder or co-founder is good enough. 128.227.50.182 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So I put in a FA bit down in a place and with phrasing that doesn't imply that he really was FA. I think it reasonably neutral, though it's obvious side stepping does say something.128.227.50.182 (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear 128.227.50.182. Very nice. I made some minor edits to your addition. "Kirtanananda eventually established himself as leader and sole authority over the community. In New Vrindaban publications he was honored as "Founder-Acharya" of New Vrindaban, in imitation of Srila Prabhupada's title of Founder-Acharya of ISKCON." I hope this is acceptable to all. Henrydoktorski (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The word imitation is accurate but might be considered editorializing. More loaded. "Styled after" might be more neutral sounding. It includes the idea of imitation, but blunts that potential negative by being a standard phrasing used when discussing honorifics (Style (manner of address)). We talk of how various royals are "styled" with this or that title. But it's a small point. The issue might be that it would inflame his remaining followers. 75.91.98.56 (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"The issue might be that it would inflame his remaining followers." I don't think this should be an issue for an encyclopedia article entry. From what I've seen, those days of angry disciples threatening physical violence on villains who blaspheme their spiritual master died in 1993. Things are much more mellow now. Nearly all disciples outside of India & Pakistan have defected, and to those who remained KS has been preaching tolerance for years; his latest book is about humility. The mood is very different. Look at this KS Wikipedia article. I have seen no vandalism at all, unlike the articles about R Swami and Satsvarupa. Henrydoktorski (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Assassination

Assassination puffs it up a bit too big. Some crazy guy attacked him. Although the plain definition of assassination involves the death of a leader or prominent personality, still it over sensationalizes the attack. It was a big deal when it happened, but assassination implies more than what it was. 75.88.127.106 (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps another word could be used. The word "assassination" in my mind implies "conspiracy," and none existed, except for the alleged conspiracy between key New Vrindaban leaders to assume Sulochan was an instigator in the Triyogi battery. * (added footnote below) Actually, Triyogi's battery was premeditated, as explained by Tulasi das in a contemporary newspaper article, but apparently it was not planned in detail. The actual battery appears to have been spontaneous. Looking at the article, I see someone has already removed "assassination attempt" and replaced it with "violent attack." Henrydoktorski (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why not use the term, "attempted murder?" Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But was it really attempted murder? Has it been determined whether or not Triyogi meant to kill Kirtanananda, or was the battery just premeditated battery? "Violent attack" seems to be the most accurate description thus far, unless more evidence can show otherwise. Fartbucket (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

According to footnote 15 in the article: Triyogi was visibly upset and confided in another New Vrindaban devotee that "he felt he had to either kill himself, kill Bhaktipada, or leave." Later he told that same devotee that he would not kill anyone; he would simply leave. (Tulsi das quoting Triyogi, cited by Terry Smith in "Krishnas May Investigate New Disciples," The Wheeling Intelligencer (October 31, 1985), 1,6.) Triyogi had thought about, and spoken about his desire to "kill Bhaktipada." I am sure he intended to smash the life out of KS. Henrydoktorski (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• footnote to my text above: "The word 'assassination' in my mind implies 'conspiracy,' and none existed, except for the alleged conspiracy between key New Vrindaban leaders to assume Sulochan was an instigator in the Triyogi battery." In all fairness, it is easy to see why NV leaders thought Sulochan might have instigated the Triyogi battery. Sulochan reportedly said that Triyogi should have killed Bhaktipada. Kuladri claimed that Sulochan called him on the phone or contacted him in writing (it is not clear from the transcript) and said: “The mistake Triyogi made was that he should have used a high-powered rifle with a scope. . . and that he should have laid in the woods and blown his brains out. . . from five hundred yards away. He could have done a better job and gotten away easier.” (Sulochan Das, cited by Kuladri Das, from Trial transcript, by Halasz & Halasz, court reporters, “United States of America, Plaintiff, v. CR 90-87 Keith Gordon Ham, Terry Sheldon, Steven Fitzpatrick, New Vrindaban Community, Inc., Govardhan, Inc., Cathedral of Healing, Inc., Defendants, Before: Honoarble Robert R. Merhige, Jr., United States District Judge and a Jury, Day III (March 13, 1991), Martinsburg, West Virginia, 508.) Henrydoktorski (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT category inclusion

Kirtanananda Swami (Keith Gordon Ham) admitted that he had a homosexual relationship with Howard Morton Wheeler (Hayagriva) for many years, and this is documented in the film Holy Cow Swami, a documentary movie by Jacob Young (WVEBA, 1996). There is court testimony shown in that movie where Kirtanananda admits this in a court of law too. Here's a clip of Kirtanananda with the court transcript where he was asked, "Back in the 1950s and early 60s, were you homosexual?" Kirtanananda replies, "Yes."[10] Geneisner (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch a bit more of that YouTube. The very next questions are about Kirtanananda's sexual practices after the 50's and 60's, where he claims to no longer be a homosexual, and to be celibate. I've removed the category. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But even later in the video (if you watch) you will see that he actually NEVER got over his "gay phase", because he was caught being "intimate" with a boy during the "Winnebago Incident" of 1993. This is documented. Here are the video clips, starting at 7:54 in this clip[11], as well as this clip[12]. Also, there's this part in the article too: "On September 10, 2000, the ISKCON Child Protection Office concluded a 17-month investigation and determined that Kirtanananda had molested two boys. He was prohibited from visiting any ISKCON properties for five years and offered conditions for reinstatement within ISKCON." (Quote from Official Decision on the Case of Kirtanananda Das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection September 10, 2000.) Kirtanananda is a homosexual, and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Or, are you one of those people who believes that a gay person somehow can become "ungay"? And even if he isn't a "practicing homosexual" now, or whatever, he is still a homosexual by his very nature because that is who he is based on his own admission, his own actions, and plenty of evidence. Geneisner (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One may claim anything, especially when telling the truth might be damaging to one's reputation. "He claims to no longer be a homosexual, and to be celibate," but that appears to be contradicted by testimony from:

1) CB, who was a teenager in 1986: "Well, I was in his room, and I was giving him a massage because his head was sore. And so he started to fondle me, slowly reaching over, and he would fondle me."

CB, from trial transcript, cited by Halasz & Halasz, court reporters, “United States of America, Plaintiff, v. CR 90-87 Keith Gordon Ham, Terry Sheldon, Steven Fitzpatrick, New Vrindaban Community, Inc., Govardhan, Inc., Cathedral of Healing, Inc., Defendants, Before: Honorable Robert R. Merhige, Jr., United States District Judge and a Jury, Day I (March 11, 1991), Martinsburg, West Virginia, 89.

2) During the same trial, another person who was a teenager in 1986 claimed:

Q. At what time period were you Mr. Swami's personal servant? A. From winter of 1985 utnil early 1987. Q. In about 1986 did the defendant Swami sexually molest you? A. Yes, he did. Q. Did these molestations include oral sex? A. Yes, they did.

See: CRW, from trial transcript, cited by Halasz & Halasz, court reporters, “United States of America, Plaintiff, v. CR 90-87 Keith Gordon Ham, Terry Sheldon, Steven Fitzpatrick, New Vrindaban Community, Inc., Govardhan, Inc., Cathedral of Healing, Inc., Defendants, Before: Honorable Robert R. Merhige, Jr., United States District Judge and a Jury, Day II (March 12, 1991), Martinsburg, West Virginia, 157.

3) "I got molested by Kirtananadna. I couldn't speak about it to anyone for years until I got counseling. So when I saw the post glorifying this madman, it got nauseated."

Jambavan Das, "Reply to Janmastami das," Sampradaya Sun (August 9, 2008). See http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/08-08/editorials3212.htm.

4) This is only the tip of the iceberg. Reports date back to 1979, and perhaps earlier. There may also be other published references. Not to mention the two cases of documented molestation of boys from the ISKCON CPO which is already mentioned in the article.

Henrydoktorski (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Henry, there's lots of evidence. Geneisner (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read over WP:BLP. If he says he's no longer gay, Wikipedia must respect that and not include him in the category. For other examples of this type, see Jodi Foster and Little Richard. Furthermore, molestation and pedophilia are about power over and have very little to do with the gender of the person being molested. Please do not re-add the categories unless a reliable source where Kirtanananda says he's gay is found. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What credibility does the word of a liar and a fraud like Kirtanananda have when his actions have shown him to be what he truly is: a liar, a fraud, a homosexual, a pedophile, and a misogynist. He admitted to being a homosexual, and later said he was celibate but then later admitted to having homosexual contact with an underage boy. Then it comes out that these homosexual pedophilia activities went on numerous times over the course of many years. By all accounts, it was never with a female that Kirtanananda was found being intimate. His misogyny is also well known, as was his instructions for husbands to beat their wives. So, he is really all the before mentioned classifications based on his actions and the evidence. Fartbucket (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, pedophilia is entirely different from homosexuality, so please be careful in your comments not to equate the two. Pedophilia is about having power over another person, and the gender of that person is rarely relevant.

Secondly, Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons is *very* clear - you cannot include "controversial" information about a person if it is not well documented and sourced. Saying that Kirtananda is a fraud, for instance, requires that you provide a source that labels him as such - like a court record. Saying that he's gay is far less controversial, but still needs reliable sources.

Third, you can't have it both ways. If you take him at his word that he *is* gay, then you have to take him at his word that he *isn't*.

So, unless he labels himself (now) as gay, he doesn't get put in any of the LGBT categories. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is evidence that he is a homosexual. Secondly, I know that not all homosexuals are pedophiles, but this guy is both a homosexual and a pedophile based on the evidence. Talk about "having it both ways", you try and act like a man molesting a boy isn't a homosexual act as well as an act of pedophilia. It is both! Whether a man has sex with a man who is 25 years old or a male who is 17 years old, they are both considered homosexual acts. The difference is age, and one act is considered legal and the other act is not. As far as calling him a FRAUD, I was not in the wrong with calling him that either. He was proven to be a fraud in a court of law, and the article even says so and it is documented. He spent time in jail for "racketeering (mail fraud)". Fartbucket (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that, since his retraction and statement of celibacy, he is homosexual?

And please moderate your tone. A man molesting a boy is taking advantage of a person with lesser (or no) power - it's an act of "power over" that has nothing to do with being homosexual. Being homosexual is a social construct that has more to do with self-expression than it has anything to do with sex. Equating the two is like equating a murderer with a big-game hunter.

I don't dispute the fraud claim at all - I'm just saying that any claim of homosexuality requires a reliably sourced third-party reference to back it up in the same way the fraud claim does. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"What evidence do you have that, since his retraction and statement of celibacy, he is homosexual?" How about the fact that he was caught being intimate with a teenage boy during the previously mentioned "Winnebago Incident" of 1993 (which was two years after the court case in which he claimed to be "celibate", back in 1991), and after being found out after the "Winnebago Incident" in 1993 he admitted his actions to some of the people at New Vrindaban, as quoted by some of the people seen in the previously mentioned video clips from the Holy Cow Swami documentary. As Tirtha das says in this video clip[13], "The community elders confronted the Swami with it, and he admitted it. He said, 'Yes, I've..' He admitted he had been doing homosexual activities. So many different people had seen something, or had noticed something. He was molesting the children in our community. It was a recurring theme... It dogged him for years." There's also the report that ISKCON released in 2000, (Official Decision on the Case of Kirtanananda Das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection September 10, 2000) which determined that Kirtanananda had molested two boys. You can say these sexual acts have more to do with power than homosexuality, but they are still homosexual acts too (a male with a male.) So, based on the evidence, it seems that one could classify this guy as a homosexual pedophile.

On a different (but perhaps not too different) note, based on the past actions of Charles Manson, Manson is listed in the category Category:Bisexual people. Fartbucket (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Manson? Bleh - I'll take a look. Fartbucket, WP:BLP is totally clear: Unless he says "Yes, I'm gay", he is not to be categorized as such. Not what he's done, but rather a self-identification. Larry Craig likewise isn't categorized, no matter what he's caught doing in airport restrooms. As part of that, a man can have sex with a man and still consider themselves straight - see Men who have sex with men. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And then there are guys like Liberace, who was most likely gay but never admitted it. Or, a guy like Ted Haggard who was caught but then repented. But Kirtanananda is different because he admitted it and lived openly gay for a number of years, then later claimed to be celibate, but then was caught being intimate with other males. Which makes me wonder, really, how fluid is a person's sexuality for these classifications? Does someone always have to be a practicing homosexual to be considered homosexual? So if a man has sex with a man on Monday, and then goes to church on Sunday and repents and vows to remain celibate, is he not a homosexual even if he keeps repeating this process? For example, if Boy George, an openly gay man who incidentally was also involved in the Hare Krishna movement (see "Bow Down Mister"[14]), decided he wanted to become totally celibate, would that magically make him no longer gay? Would he still not be of note for the LGBT Studies category, considering all the years he's been openly gay? Then, for the sake of argument here, let's say that after Boy George claims to be celibate he is caught being intimate with George Michael in a public restroom. Is he not gay then? In my opinion, I would think that all of these things would be of note and of interest to anyone interested in LGBT Studies at the intersection of religion and homosexuality. Geneisner (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Other abuses of minors at New Vrindaban

The article doesn't mention the other abuses (and/or alleged abuses) of minors at New Vrindaban, nor the numerous accusations that Kirtanananda acted indifferently when confronted about such abuses. For example, there's Gary Gardner (Sri Galima), former leader of the gurukula school, who was accused of molesting boys. He was arrested, but his case was eventually thrown out. Nevertheless, some maintain that he may have been guilty according to the documentary movie Holy Cow Swami. For example, there's this quote from former New Vrindaban resident Rev. George Exoo, who said, "Sri Galima, whose exploits at the gurukula school where he was said to have regular sexual relationships with the young boy students, was exonerated in court for the behavior, but it was generally assumed to be common knowledge by people who were inside the community that what was reported was not a lie, but was in fact so." (This quote can be seen at 2:21 in this video clip[15].) A teacher's assistant at the school named Frederick DeFrancisco (Lalita Madhava) was also arrested and accused of molesting boys. At the time, DeFrancisco was only sixteen years old himself, and according to the movie he was found guilty. Gary Gardner (Sri Galima), on the other hand, was set free. The mother of a boy who claimed to have been molested appeared on Larry King Live, the popular TV show, and she (Susan Hebel) said that she went to Kirtanananda about the abuses and was told, "You're just a stupid woman... this doesn't go on in my school, and I don't want to hear about it." (Quote from Susan Hebel's appearance on Larry King Live as shown in the documentary movie Holy Cow Swami, which can be seen starting at 7:33 in this video clip[16]. She also says, "My son was molested from the time he was seven until the time he was nine and a half, and it was completely swept under the rug...") Further information can be seen in the subsequent video clip from the documentary.[17] At the beginning of that clip, Ravindra Svarupa Dasa sums up Kirtanananda's attitude and indifference towards the claims of abuse by saying, "So when they were bringing this up to Kirtanananda Bhaktipada about the children being molested in the gurukula, he said to some of the parents, 'you're all having illicit sex, what's the difference? Sex is sex.' I've talked to two different people who were there on that occasion. So, that's his attitude. You can imagine, if it was going on, the people who were doing it must've felt fairly protected." From this quote and the available evidence, it can be deduced that Kirtanananda saw absolutely no distinction between adults having consensual sex and underage children being molested. As Kirtanananda said, "What's the difference? Sex is sex." So, with all of that having taken place, what has happened now to the old molesters of New Vrindaban? Have they all been kicked out? Did ISKCON kick them all out, or are any still in the group? How about Gary Gardner, is he still in the group or did ISKCON ever release a statement on him like the one they eventually released on Kirtanananda (The Official Decision on the Case of Kirtanananda Das, ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection September 10, 2000)? What about the other alleged abusers such as James Prins (Sacinandana das), Ronald Nay (Gopinath das), Manihar das (Matthew Norton), Naragadev das, and any of the other possible alleged abusers? Did ISKCON ever release any statements on them, and are any of them still in the group or have they all been kicked out? Fartbucket (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Fartbucket,

Regarding child abuse at NV by teachers, teacher's aides, and others, does that really belong in this article? If we include that, we've also got to include so many other things; women getting beaten up and given black eyes by their husbands who followed Kirtanananda's recommendation that wife beating was okay; fradulent and illegal fundraising, including, believe it or not: prostitution. Some NV women who didn't make their quotas were dropped off at bars late at night, where "they would wait by the exit and offer to do anything a man wanted in exchange for money." [Nori Muster, "Life as a Woman on Watseka Avenue," The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharistmatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Maria L. Ekstrand (Columbia University Press: 2004), 314-315.] Where do we draw the line?

Most child molesters left NV on their own volition, except for Gary Gardner and Ronald Nay (Gopinath das) who had to be kicked out of NV in 1996, after the adults who were abused as children bitterly complained. James Prins (Sacinandana das) spent some time in jail. Now he is in his coutnry of birth, The Netherlands, and the U.S. government will not allow him to return. A year or two ago his wife was asking people to sign a petition to allow him to return. For more information on others, perhaps you can contact the ISKCON Child Protection Office. They have a website with contact info.

Henrydoktorski (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Nay (Gopinath das), also known as Radha-Vrindaban Chandra Swami, moved to Bhaktipada's Interfaith Sanctuary in Manhattan after leaving NV. He now resides with Kirtanananda in India. The two have been close associates for decades. Henrydoktorski (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Henry. Perhaps there needs to be a "Criticisms" section in this article. You seemed to question whether some of these things belong in the article or not, and I think some of them should be included. I think something should be said about the way Kirtanananda lead the New Vrindaban community, and about how when confronted with allegations of sexual abuse he acted indifferently. He said to Susan Hebel, "You're just a stupid woman... this doesn't go on in my school, and I don't want to hear about it", and when confronted by other parents about the sexual abuse of their children, he said, "You're all having illicit sex, what's the difference? Sex is sex." Things like this only seemed to perpetuate the corrupt systemic abuse in his community. It seems that in many cases the abusers were protected. Also, as you mentioned, the sexist misogyny that took place under Kirtanananda is worth mentioning too. Kirtanananda's actions seem to indicate a general dislike of women. As you indicated, he instructed men to beat their wives. I think these types of things should be mentioned in the article. Fartbucket (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fartbucket wrote, "Perhaps there needs to be a 'Criticisms' section in this article." That might work, if you think it is important, but then you should also create a "Criticisms" section for the article about A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. For instance, look at Bhaktivedanta Swami's views on women: "Eighty percent of all statements that Bhaktivedanta Swami makes about women . . . are negative statements, in the sense that they involve restrictions, list bad qualities, group women in socially inferior classes, or treat them as sex objects that have to be avoided. . . ." The good qualities "are only mentioned in connection with specific women who are prominent figures in Hindu mythology: Kunti, Draupadi, Devahuti, Gandhari, and Sati. 'Women in general' are only mentioned as having bad qualities." Ekkehard Lorenz, "The Guru, Mayavadins, and Women," The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant (Columbia University Press: 2004), 122.

And I imagine many of these views about women were common in ancient Hinduism, where a widow was expected willingly to enter the fire and immolate herself in her husband's funeral pyre. So I think you would have to criticize the beliefs about women in the whole of Hinduism. World society and opinions about women have changed much during the last several thousand years.

Factually, Kirtanananda and the rest of ISKCON got their ideas about women from Bhaktivedanta Swami's writings. Granted, they carried it too far, but this mistreatment of women was hardly unique to Kirtanananda. If you create a "Criticisms" section for Kirtanananda, you should also do the same for Bhaktivedanta Swami and Hinduism.

In any case, I wanted to make clear that many of these abuses were not unique to Kirtanananda Swami's reign, but were common throughout ISKCON.

Henrydoktorski (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that at all, Henry. I think there should be a "Criticisms" section for A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as well as the whole ISKCON group. I also think there should be one for New Vrindaban and for Kirtanananda Swami. Right now though, we are talking about this article (Kirtanananda Swami), and I think there should be a "Criticisms" section for this article. Fartbucket (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Henrydoktorski, why did you remove your previous comment that went as follows: "Bhaktivedanta Swami's views on rape are no less controversial: "Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape." Srimad-Bhagavatam (4.25.41), purport."? And you also added things to your previous statement even though I had already replied to it (for example, you added the paragraph that starts out, "And I imagine many of these views about women were common in ancient Hinduism...") That is not really considered good etiquette or net protocol to edit statements in a conversation that have already been made by you and replied to by others. It changes the conversation after-the-fact, which can come across as a bit intellectually dishonest. There is a way to strike a statement that has already been made by putting a line through it, then people can still see what was originally written and see that it was crossed out due to misstatements. And/or, you could've just replied below my comment with your newest additions. If someone has new additions or statements to make in a conversation, they should add those below the last relevant reply or response in that conversation.

To address your edited response now, there is a page on Wikipedia called Women in Hinduism. This page addresses some of the issues of sexism (there are also pages like Women in India, Homosexuality in India, and LGBT issues and Hinduism.) There's no reason there couldn't be relevant sections or articles regarding these issues and the Hare Krishna movement specifically either. And, as I said before, I definitely think there should be criticism sections in the articles for A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, ISKCON, New Vrindaban, and Kirtanananda Swami. Also, I think there could probably be a whole Wikipedia page about the abuses and scandals in ISKCON over the years. For example, there's a page called Catholic sex abuse cases. I also think there could be a page called ISKCON sex abuse cases too. Or a page called Criminal history of New Vrindaban. Fartbucket (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fartbucket,

I am unfamiliar with the proper etiquette of running a line through text, but will use it in future. I felt I should remove that quotation because some disciples might be offended, and I don't want to make any more enemies until after my NV history book is published, as it could possibly make my life more difficult. Henrydoktorski (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's how to strike text: Text struck here. Look at this in edit mode to see how it's done. As far as the comments made by Prabhupada in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.25.41, here are two pages of discussion on this matter on the internet[18]. From that discussion, it seems that some people don't particularly like Prabhupada's use of wording in this case, and some think he perhaps meant something along the lines of "expert at seduction" rather than what he said in a literal sense ("expert at rape.") Anyhow, that is what he said, and all you did was just honestly state what Prabhupada said. So, you were just being honest and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't see how speaking honestly about such statements should be a problem in this day and age. Not only that, but those statements were already out there on the internet and people have discussed it. There are also old interviews of Prabhupada on the internet, and some of his views on women are quite outdated. For example, I remember an old video clip where a female reporter asks him what he thinks about Women's Liberation, and not too surprisingly he speaks about it disparagingly. He basically says that a woman needs a man, and that she will eventually go out and get pregnant and can't take care of the children alone, and then she will either have an abortion or become a prostitute, etc. (as if those are the only options that a woman has in the world.) I found it almost laughable, but when he was making such statements (1970s) the women where he came from (India) probably didn't have as many options. Then after telling his questionable and speculative narrative, Prabhupada asks something to the effect, "Is this liberation?" Then he says that only Krishna is liberation, and that a woman's place is this and a man's place is that. This is really nothing new, and not really all too different than the way many fundamentalist religious movements here in the West already view women as idealistically subordinate and subservient to men. Fartbucket (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fraud Charges

The article mentions that "In 1996, before Kirtanananda's retrial was completed, he pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering." But it doesn't mention the charges of fraudulent fundraising and insurance fraud that, according to the documentary movie Holy Cow Swami, were also part of his plea bargain. Shouldn't it say, "one count of racketeering, fraudulent fundraising, and insurance fraud"?

Also it doesn't mention that previous to this, the government had offered him a plea bargain. "If he would accept a five to seven year sentence they would stop their efforts to find and seize the assets of New Vrindaban community." (Quote from Holy Cow Swami documentary movie, starting at 2:48 in this clip[19].) Kirtanananda refused that plea bargain, and this refusal outraged Tirtha das (Thomas Drescher), who was serving time in prison for killing Sulochan allegedly for Kirtanananda (because Sulochan had spoken against the Swami and supposedly had threatened to reveal Kirtanananda's sexual abuse of minors.) Well, then after the "Winnebago Incident" in 1993, when Kirtanananda was caught being "intimate" with a boy, Kirtanananda later admitted to some of the people in the community that he had been doing inappropriate sexual activities. (Quotes from people early in this clip[20].) This upset many people in the community, and afterwards Kirtanananda was not held in as high esteem. Then, according to the video, it was Kirtanananda's refusal to accept the plea bargain the government offered him which caused Tirtha das (Thomas Drescher) to turn on him and testify against him in court. Drescher said of Kirtanananda, "The best course of action was for him to admit some guilt and take the plea bargain that was offered. That also would've relieved the community from its legal burden, and he chose not to do that... So, once again, that underscores the fact he didn't care about the community. He was simply interested in his own self-aggrandizement." (Quote from Tirtha das starting at 3:10 in this clip[21].) Then the video goes on to say that, "New Vrindaban pleaded guilty to fraud and paid a $100,000 fine. The community is subject to additional fines of up to 21 million dollars." The video goes on to show Kirtanananda back in court, but this time Tirtha das (Thomas Drescher) testifies against Kirtanananda regarding the conspiracy to murder Sulochan. "Just after Tom Drescher stepped down from the stand, the Swami's lawyers stopped the trial by accepting a plea bargain. The Swami pleaded guilty to 1.) the first count of racketeering, which contained charges of the two murders, 2.) fraudulent fundraising, and 3.) insurance fraud, but still he maintained to the end that he never authorized the killing of a human being." (Quote starting at 5:15 in this clip[22].) Currently, the article only mentions that Kirtanananda "pleaded guilty to one count of racketeering (mail fraud)", but there is no mention of the fraudulent fundraising and the insurance fraud. Were those charges later dropped, or are they just not mentioned in the article? Should the article say that Kirtanananda pleaded guilty to "one count of racketeering, fraudulent fundraising, and insurance fraud"? Fartbucket (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Fartbucket, This will take some time to look into. I have newspaper clippings but they need to be organized and file according to date. Maybe I'll have some answers for you later this week. If you send me an e-mail I'll send you some appropriate sections from my forthcoming book. Henrydoktorski (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ex-Hare Krishna Leader Gets 20-Year Sentence," New York Times, 8/29/96, A23, reported: "Former Hare Krishna leader Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada [born Keith Ham], accused of murdering and beatings to discipline his followers, was sentenced on Aug. 29 to 20 years in prison-the maximum possible sentence- for racketeering. Federal District Court Judge Robert Merhige, Jr., in Martinsburg, WV, also fined Bhaktipada $250,000. . . . Bhaktipada had pled guilty to one count of racketeering, . . . At the sentencing, Bhaktipada told eight followers sitting behind him: "this body in not mine. The body belongs to God, and He can do with it as He pleases."

See: http://culticstudiesreview.org/csissueidx/toc2001.1/grprept2001.1_harekrishna/grprept_hk_newsarticles/news_CO.htm

Henrydoktorski (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion

Which particular sentences need citations? I've got dozens of newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc. which might be useful here. I don't think this article should be deleted. Henry Doktorski (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody was trying to silence or censor what has been said about Kirtanananda Swami in the press over the years. Fortunately, the result of the discussion was to keep the article. I think this article is important for those trying to understand the history of Kirtanananda Swami and the Hare Krishna Movement, as well as the history of New Vrindaban and the Palace of Gold. Geneisner (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Biographical information removed from article

It seems that a while ago the following information from the Biography section of the article was removed:

Kirtanananda was born Keith Gordon Ham on September 6, 1937, in Peekskill, New York. The son of a Southern Baptist minister, Ham imbibed his father's missionary spirit and attempted to convert classmates to his family's faith. Despite an acute case of poliomyelitis which he contracted around his 17th birthday, he graduated with honors from Peekskill, New York, high school in 1955. In high school and college he excelled at debate.

Ham received a Bachelor of Arts in History from Maryville College in Maryville, Tennessee on May 20, 1959 and graduated magna cum laude, first in his class of 117. He then received a Woodrow Wilson fellowship to study American history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he remained for three years. There he met an undergraduate English major from Mobile, Alabama, who became his lifelong friend and lover, Howard Morton Wheeler (1940-1989). The two resigned from the university on February 3, 1961 and left Chapel Hill after being threatened with an investigation regarding an alleged sex scandal.

Keith and Howard moved to New York City where they lived as hippies. Keith also promoted LSD use and became an LSD guru. For some time he worked as a reviewer of unemployment claims. Keith enrolled at Columbia University (1961-64) where he received a Waddell fellowship to study religious history with Whitney Cross, but he quit academic life when he and Howard travelled to India during October 1965 in search of a guru. Unsuccessful in their quest, they returned to New York after six months.

In June 1966, after returning from India, Keith met the Bengali Gaudiya-Vaishnava guru A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada...

Geneisner (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The stuff is not based on reliable sources or sources are not independend of the subject. All of the material, especially contentious, will be removed if not based on WP:RS and not verifiable WP:V. Find a good source and keep close to the source. That applies to Talk page as well. Wikidas (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The source for the biograhical information is Henry Doktorski's New Vrindaban: The Black Sheep of ISKCON and Jacob Young's 1996 documentary Holy Cow Swami. I have seen the documentary, and really haven't seen many (if any) good refutations of the evidence presented in it. It seems quite legitimate to me, and includes excerpts from actual court records. Henry Doktorski was a follower of Kirtanananda from 1978 until 1994, and I don't think he has an axe to grind either. On the contrary, I think he has been one of the few people willing to talk openly and honestly about the history of New Vrindaban. As for the other material that I see you removed from the article today, especially just about ALL of the material relating to Kirtanananda being tried in court on numerous counts. There's material that can be found online by Google searching "Keith Gordon Ham", like this, regarding the U.S. Court of Appeals. There, at that link, it lists the charges against "Keith Gordon Ham, A/k/a Kirtanananda, A/k/a K. Swami, A/k/akirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada, A/k/a Srilabhaktipada, A/k/a Number One, Defendant-appellant at the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 58 F.3d 78, Argued March 6, 1995.Decided June 20, 1995". The accusations listed on that date were as follows:

1) STEPHEN BRYANT MURDER

2) CHARLES ST. DENNIS MURDER

3) DEVON WHEELER KIDNAPPING

4) MAIL FRAUD: FUNDRAISING

5) MAIL FRAUD: ALLSTATE INSURANCE

This link states that "Appellants Keith Gordon Ham, Steven Fitzpatrick and Terry Sheldon were convicted below for RICO and mail fraud violations." The Holy Cow Swami (1996) documentary by Jacob Young goes into detail on this, and the allegations of "homosexuality, child molestation and abuse, and subordination of women within the community" (as also mentioned in those court records). Jacob Young's documentary also goes into detail about the "Winnebago Incident", and the aftermath and fallout from what happened as a result of that incident. The documentary includes interviews of witnesses and devotees, as well as interviews of Tirtha das in jail (for his involvement in the murders of Stephen Bryant and Charles St. Dennis). According to the documentary, which contains interviews as well as court records, Tirtha das testified against Kirtanananda after the sexual allegations of the "Winnebago Incident" came out. It was after that, according to the documentary, that Kirtanananda agreed to a plea bargain and went to jail on lesser charges compared to the ones that were previously leveled against him. The trial was followed in the local newspapers too, and I'm sure Henry Doktorski has plenty of newspaper clippings from that time as well. After serving time in jail, Kirtanananda was released, but he's supposedly never allowed to return to New Vrindaban. I'm sure that many Hare Krishnas would probably like to pretend that these things never happened, but they did happen, and there is evidence backing it up. You can keep trying to deny and/or cover things up with cheap attempts at censorship, but there is evidence out there. And, just because you don't like the evidence, does not mean that it should not be included in the article. A documentary film, complete with court records, interviews and newspaper clippings is (and should be) a legitimate source (especially if there isn't good evidence that refutes this source). Not only that, but the court records are publicly available too, and they only help confirm the material that is cited in the documentary. So, let's try and tell the truth, please. Geneisner (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that the sources do not comply with requirement for a neutral and reliable source. The sources are poor, not published by good publishers and contain misinformation, none of the sources are academic. Maybe there are good sources out there, but theses are not. Thus we have to follow the policy on BLP -- "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." You many be interested in WP:THETRUTH as something that addresses your concerns. For example the changes were dismissed by a higher court, or where they not? I am not even trying to be neutral, it is hard to be neutral about such a criminal as Kirtanananda. But we have to stick with the policy on BLP and use citatioions to actual page/article of the reliable source for this fellow. Wikid^as© 13:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does the documentary film Holy Cow Swami by Jacob Young (1996) released through WNPB-TV (West Virginia Public Broadcasting) and the WVEBA (West Virginia Educational Broadcasting Authority) not qualify as a reliable source in YOUR opinion? The documentary contains court testimony, interviews, TV appearances and newspaper clippings. In my opinion, it definitely qualifies as a source as good as any that I've seen on this topic. I mean, why would your opinions on what should or should not be in the article qualify as "reliable" under similar scrutiny? Whose opinion is this other than your own (or perhaps some other Hare Krishnas who don't want to see this stuff in print)? I mean, after all, you are the one who previously (and unsuccessfully) tried to nominate this article for deletion (according to the records). Fortunately, you were unsuccessful in that endeavor. Now, perhaps, it seems that you want to remove things from the article because you don't like the source (a documentary that was released through an affiliate of PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service). Well, I would say the evidence in that documentary speaks for itself, and is backed up by the court records that can be found online (at the links previously provided, and elsewhere). As far as whether Kirtanananda was found guilty of all the charges against him or not, that was already discussed in the article (before you removed those parts of the article). So, why remove the allegations from the article if they were brought up in a court of law and can be verified by the court documents (at the links previously provided and elsewhere)? That really doesn't make much sense, unless someone may be trying to censor something. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't require that one must remove allegations brought up in a court of law regarding a person if those claims are backed up by sourced statements (of which the court documents and that documentary film should qualify). For example, Paul Reubens, the actor who plays Pee-wee Herman (who, coincidentally, like Kirtanananda is also from Peekskill, New York) was charged with certain crimes. According to his Wikipedia page, "In March 2004, child pornography charges were dropped." Nevertheless, the charges are still mentioned in the article. Kirtanananda was charged with 5 main items during his trial in 1995 (listed previously), and there is also a mention of "homosexuality, child molestation and abuse, and subordination of women" in the court records at the links previously provided too. According to the documentary, which contains interviews as well as court records, Tirtha das testified against Kirtanananda after the sexual allegations of the "Winnebago Incident" came out. Tirtha das confirms this in his own words in an interview on the film. It was after that, according to the documentary, that Kirtanananda agreed to a plea bargain and went to jail on lesser charges compared to the ones that were previously leveled against him. In 1996, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but served about 8 years before being released in 2004. These are things which are documented, and I don't see why they shouldn't be included in the article. Geneisner (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving Article

Suggest to move to Keith Gordon Ham, since this person is not really a practicing Vaisnava, and is really not in a position to use the name. He is not using this name lately, so if you do not object I suggest moving it asap, Keith Ham is the name used in the court records, so could be the right name too. Wikid^as© 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I maintain the article should not be moved. Keith Ham legally changed his name to Kirtanananda Swami sometime in the early 1970s. Whether he is a Vaishnava or not should have no bearing on this. Henry Doktorski (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Henry, if Kirtanananda Swami is his legal name, then we should use his legal name. If that is uncertain at this point and/or can't be determined, well, it doesn't matter to me if the article is named Keith Ham or Keith Gordon Ham or Kirtanananda or Kirtanananda Swami or Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada or Bhaktipada, as long as his other names are also mentioned in the article along with his former status as an ISKCON guru (and the story of his rise and fall, his legal troubles, and his expulsion from the New Vrindaban community that he co-founded). Geneisner (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)