The following discussion recently took place on PAMHO. Ajamila Prabhu (ACBSP) exposes Madhu Pandit Dasa (FOOL) and challenges him.
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books – UK)
To: B.V.Madhava Swami ; mpd@iskconbangalore.org
Cc: Bhanu Swami (Madras – IN) ; Janananda Goswami ; Romapada Swami
; (ISKCON HR) Sastra Dana Cro ; (ISKCON) Youth Forum
Sent: Tue, 23 March, 2010 14:59:00
Subject: My challenge to Madhu Pandit
Hare Krishna!! Lets not forget the history!! Thanks to Madhava Ghosh Prabhu for addressing this issue.
Madhu Pandit stated below that in 1999 he only wanted a “well structured and controlled debate or discussion on initiation within iskcon”, in his own words.
Well, Krishna fulfilled his desire completely when shortly thereafter on Chakra website an unofficial spontaneous debate on ritivikism was conducted for three months, abiding by proper structured debate rules. On the one side I represented the ISKCON traditional parampara system of initiation with support from many scholarly sannyasis and senior ISKCON devotees and on the other side Adri Dharan and the un-initiated Mr Desai, the bank clerk from UK, represented the ritvik idea. The objective was to see which initiation system was fully supported by guru, sadhu, and sastra. The ritviks, headed by Madhu Pandit, were trying for this debate and so by Krishna’s grace they finally got it.
Worldwide around 6,000 devotees observed the 3 month long debate on the Chakra website. When it came to the voting, the ISKCON traditional parampara initiation system received an overwhelming majority of 5,700 votes in support, totally rejecting the ritvik idea. The ritvik idea received 300 votes of which 150 were fake. The conclusion of the debate was that the ritvik people first faked the FINAL ORDER and then they FAKED the VOTES.
After losing that debate terribly, the ritviks were very, very quite in terms of philosophical debate for many, many years; the only noise they made was in taking Srila Prabhupada, in the form of his ISKCON, to court in order to steal ISKCON properties in order to FORCE the ritvik concoction into ISKCON. After attacking ISKCON in this way he then had the gall to claim in the high courts he was being attacked by ISKCON.
If Madhu Pandit’s main concern was that he only wanted a proper debate on the initiation system then why is it that he was nowhere to be seen or heard during and shortly after the debate? He had absolutely nothing to say philosophically, yet it was he who went pleading to the GBC for a structured debate! When Krishna arranged a debate according to his wishes he disappears because he is not a philosopher but a property monger since he only emerged after the debate revealed his whole idea was a complete concoction and all he could do thereafter was to grab ISKCON properties in defiance of the GBC. When the GBC reacted as they ought to have done, to protect ISKCON properties, Madhu Pandit accuses ISKCON of attacking him in the first instance!!!
Madhu Pandits warped logic is like that of a thief who gets caught red handed stealing and when the police arrest comes he accuses them of attacking him!!
Just see Madhu Pandit’s bent mentality: When the GBC stood by the overwhelming majority of ISKCON and protected them as such by banning the ritvik concoction in ISKCON, just as they would and should have to do with any other nonsense concoction, Madhu Pandit accuses the GBC of being the aggressor and taking away the service of him and his many well-paid hench-men.
His definition of the GBC being the aggressor is false and is merely a smoke screen for his grabbing ISKCON properties and money – its nothing but big time stealing from Srila Prabhupada. That the GBC banned a proven concocted system of initiation in ISKCON is not an act of aggression upon Madhu Pandit who simply can’t conjure up any other better looking excuse to disguise his aggressively stealing ISKCON properties. Its as simple as that.
Madhu Pandit complains: ISKCON is taking away his service??? Madhu Pandit saw it as his service to introduce the ritvik concoction into ISKCON, but that is not service, that is disservice. It has been proved over and over again on the basis of guru, sadhu, and sastra that the ritvik idea of posthumous diksha initiation is nothing but a concoction. In fact, in ISKCON philosophical circles the ritviks have become the butt of jokes. There is no history in Vaisnavism where a disciple has taken diksha initiation from a guru posthumously, and this is a major parampara principle (not a time, place, and circumstance principle) that even a founder acarya like Srila Prabhupada cannot change as the ritvik protagonists wrongly argue he can.
Madhu Pandit claims he only went to court to defend himself against the GBC who were attacking him. Hello!! Only the opposite is true. All ISKCON properties belong to ISKCON and the GBC have the final say with all property administration as authorized by Srila Prabhupada. Atmanan manyate jagat: A thief thinks everyone else is a thief. Because Madhu Pandit was actually attacking ISKCON by stealing ISKCON properties and pilfering ISKCON money to build up his own private enterprise he is the actual attacker, not ISKCON whom the GBC were defending. Madhu Pandit then has the gall to turn around and accuse ISKCON of attacking him when in actual fact it is him in the very first instance who attacked ISKCON by first pedaling the ritvik concoction and when that failed miserably he then resorts to stealing ISKCON properties. He is clearly the initial attacker.
Madhu Pandit argues and questions: Who attacked who first? As if he had been attacked first and has been hard-done-by but all the while it was he who FIRST attacked ISKCON first philosophically and then monetarily.
Madhu Pandit rejects his own bona-fide guru H.H. Jayapatak Swami and claims all ISKCON gurus are bogus. When ISKCON rejects such nonsense and blasphemy Madhu Pandit simply resorts to STEALING from ISKCON. And he is an expert professional thief.
Let ALSO not forget that the horrible ORIGIN of the ritvik concoction that MAdhu Pandit holds so close to his heart.
It was born from Nityananda’s (acbsp) self-declared hate and envy for the GBC along with the illicit sex from one brahmana (purohit) Rupa Vilasa with the wife of the other resident Purohit Karnamrita dasa who were threatened by Nityananda that unless they could prove all ISKCON gurus were bogus he would stop paying their salaries. Thus Rupa Vilasa agitated his brain to come up with the ritvik concoction so that he could keep his job. He now regrets having done that, and he is forgiven, but this is the actual ugly history of the birth of the ritvik concoction. Take it at your own peril. Yet Madhu Pandit embraces such stool and wants ALL ISKCON to swallow it.
Madhu Pandit’s defiance of the GBC and stealing ISKCON properties is actually his defiance of Srila Prabhupada while claiming he loves Srila Prabhupada so much. MP’s love for Srila Prabhupada is simply based upon his love for stealing Srila Prabhpada’s property. Srila Prabhupada said your love for me will be tested by how much you cooperate with the GBC. By that criteria MP has proved un-categorically that he has no love for Srila Prabhupada but is rather simply a professional big time thief. And all that money and property he has stolen will eventually burn him in hell, rest assured. Just as Duryodhana was opulent for many, many years, living on stolen money, it eventually burnt him in hell. So it is just a matter of time before all the money MP has stolen from ISKCON will burn him in hell. For the sake of Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON we pray that his stolen money and assets burn him in hell sooner rather than later and that all ISKCON will pray similarly.
I state all the above with total independence and freedom, with rational, sastric support for Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON and GBC on this issue.
AND FINALLY, since Madhu Pandit claims to do all his ISKCON property and money stealing out of love for Srila Prabhupada, because he thinks ISKCON has got the wrong initation system, I present him with the following challenge:
I challenge Madhu Pandit to a public debate as to the validity of his ritvik idea of accepting a non-living diksha guru as opposed to the current ISKCON traditional parampara system of accepting a living bona-fide diksha guru.
Before the debate Madhu Pandit must publicly declare that if he loses the debate he must give back to ISKCON all the properties, assets, and money (many, many tens of millions of USD) he has acquired both directly and indirectly since his association with Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON.
The Venue of the debate can be Malaysia, where I’m located, not far from India, where there are inexpensive high class facilities. Or the debate can be conducted on a website and this may be the most practical as we did previously. There will be a neutral moderator to see that all proper debate rules are followed. The voting of the assembled ISKCON devotees worldwide will be final. The anticipated debate observers and voters could be in the region of plus 50,000 devotees. Each vote has to be VERIFIABLE, with initiated name, gurus name, location in the world, and telephone number.
If Madhu Pandit is so sure that he is on sound philosophical ground to STEAL money and property from Srila Prabhupada then now is the time for him to prove it, publicly, as he so earnestly requested the GBC in 1999. A philosophical debate of this nature needs no approval. Let the truth prevail and the devotees can then make an informed decision as to which system of initiation follows guru, sadhu, and sastra.
If Madhu Pandit declines my challenge then all the Vaishnavas worldwide can only conclude that Madhu Pandit’s only motivation is to steal from Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON for which he has no philosophical basis as per guru, sadhu, and sastra. Madhu Pandit should be subsequently named and shamed and be remembered and cursed in ISKCON’s history for stealing Srila Prabhupada’s personal property.
Awaiting a reply from Madhu Pandit.
In the service of Srila Prabhupada and his faithful disciples and followers.
Ys
ad
> I got it, you are a victim, all your unhappiness is due to others, if only
> they would accept your version. Your consciousness is not your
> responsibility, it is dependent on others. Poor thing.
>
> My point still stands, if they are so bad, walk away and start your own
> thing, give up the legal fights, Long Island et al.
>
> As for Sadhu’s contention I was blaspheming you, that certainly wasn’t my
> intention, though I know there are those expert at ferreting out offense
> even where none is intended and/or so attached to prestige that any
> disagreement is immediately labeled an affront. To that I say, grow a set.
> Believe me, if I decide to blasphemy you it will be unequivocal and no
> need to twist it out of something else.
>
> Also, just FYI, Sadhu, who is ultra sensitive about his name and is
> constantly clarifying, seems to have no issue making attempts at joking
> about my email name and not bothering with my devotee name, my ACBSP
> initiated name is Madhava Gosh. Just in case you want to break a string on
> me or anything.
>
> Hare Krishna
>
>
> Dear Prabhu (Mark),
>
> Who attacked whose devotional service to Srila Prabhupada first in my
> case. It is the GBC. Like a law abiding citizen of ISKCON , I made a
> presentation to the GBC in its meeting in Mayapur in feb 1999 regarding
> the initiation issue by presenting the recorded evidence available to us
> and only asked for a well structured and controlled debate or discussion
> on initiation within iskcon throughout the levels of leadership in
> iskcon. This was our demand. Though the GBC was kind enough to give time
> and hear me for an hour, the following day they, shockingly to us, passed
> a legally worded (advised by lawyers from Mumbai) and enforceable
> resolution to automatically expelling me and few others from the iskcon
> movement by March 31st if we did not retract our belief. In other words
> expelling for seeking a controlled debate and holding a beleif. We never
> even said we will continue to preach the system until the GBC came to
> conclusion after churning the subject by the iskcon leadership of TPs and
> above. GBC, stiffling the freedom of expression of independent thinking
> disciplined devotees, which you say you hate is exactly what happenned to
> us.
> So it is the gbc who went agressive and legal first though I went to
> court only to defend or protect against such court enforcable resolution
> of snatching away the devotional service to Srila Prabhupada of over 60
> devotees who left their hearth and home to dedicate themselves to Srila
> Prabhupada’s movement . I think it is perfectly dharmic to defend yourself
> against such an attack. And last ten years I have only defended. I have
> never attacked Iskcon.
> It is not that one fine day I decided to maneuver things and take over
> the temple. Temple was always managed by the few devotees who were
> managing even before the issue. There was never a change of gaurd or take
> over. The legal protection has allowed us to remain where we are and
> continue our devotional service.
> It is the GBC who is propogating that we the devotees are not iskcon
> members but the property is thiers. Our stand is that we are iskcon
> members and part of Srila Prabhupada’s movement and the property is also
> legally in the name of Iskcon, a society registered Bangalore in 1978
> that have same objective as that of iskcon mumbai. I joined the movement
> only in 1981 and I had no role in registering a separate society in
> Bangalore in 1978. The registration was directed to be done by Srila
> Prabhupada on two accassions to Yasodanandan Prabhu once in Vrindavan and
> another time to Hyderabad.
> Hamsadutta Prabhu, as the GBC remembers directing the then TP Shankhbrit
> Prabhu to register the society. It is this legal position which I had no
> role in creating that is protecting our devotional service. All properties
> is Iskcon men, money and assets belong to Prabhupada and if it is
> engaged in his service , that is properly connected whether X or Y
> controls it on behalf of Srila Prabhupada.
> Coming back to the point, from the above background it is basically
> really not a property issue or taking iskcon and creating another
> institution . It is a result of GBC attacking the particualr devotional
> service of a group of devotees and they defended and continued to do
> their devotional service. Nothing more than that. We did not join Iskcon
> to control monies and properties and people. If I wanted it, there was no
> need for me go through all this decade of extreme torture the GBC men have
> put me thru and are continuing to put me through. HH Jayapataka Swami at
> the dawn of the dispute called me by his side and told me he can make me
> guru as a special case even when he is still alive and so I should not go
> this route. I was shocked. I was raising a issue on a principle and he
> was bribing me. Even today, if I accept the proposal, GBC will be very
> happy and allow me to lead and manage all the people and assets that are
> under me now and probably even more by making me a GBC. Any doubt?
>
> GBC are the agressors here who went legal first by passing legally
> enforceable resolution of expulsion and I went to court in defense of our
> particular devotional service. These are the facts. How many know these
> details.
>
> There are occassions where Prabhupada talked of court action to protect
> our service to Krishna.
> Haribol.
>
> Your servant
> Madhu Pandit Dasa
> Sent from BlackBerryR on Airtel
——————————————————–
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to:
Sastra.Dana.Cro-Owner@pamho.net