Notes from a think tank

Mother Madhusudani Radha dd

Download 1.5 Mb.
Size1.5 Mb.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   24

Mother Madhusudani Radha dd


8.1 Mother Madhusudani Radha dd and gay advocacy?
She tries to separate her public and private beliefs. Many view that as hypocritical and dangerous, that she is secretly pushing a gay agenda.
Text COM:1747291 (209 lines)
From: Internet:
Date: 05-Oct-98 15:36
To: GHQ [209]
Subject: CON/WHO- March 98 JM’s Complaint to Chakra re. Madhusudani
Madhusudani Radha dd wrote on Chakra in Spring of 98:

>A final example of Chakra’s interest in promoting positive change in ISKCON >is Vishaka’s wonderful article on the real meaning of the terms “humility, >chastity and surrender.” If you read this text, you must know that we are >very concerned about the treatment of women in ISKCON during the past >couple of decades. It is my hope that by raising awareness regarding these >important issues, women’s spiritual and material facility will be improved, >and devotees will learn how to clearly distinguish between the concepts of >“protection” and control/exploitation.”

>As stated in the editorial policy, Chakra “will only publish material which, in >the opinion of the editors, does not deviate from the Vaishnava siddhanta >taught by Srila Prabhupada.” Besides that, there is no pressure to conform >to any “party line” on the site. We want to hear from anyone who has views >on current controversies, or constructive suggestions for change. Please just >try to avoid abusive language. You do not even have to be “mainstream” >to >join our efforts. If ISKCON and Chakra can tolerate someone like me, who in
>the past has publicly advocated for gay marriages in ISKCON, who refuses to >believe that “feminism” is a dirty word, who keeps pushing to get all former >child abusers removed from their positions, and who constantly protests >censorship, I’m convinced there is room for everyone in this big house that >Srila Prabhupada built for us all.

I complained to the Chakra Editorial board to which I received these replies from MRdd:

Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 21:02:13 -0700
From: Maria Ekstrand
Subject: from chakra

Dear Jivanmukta Prabhu,

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you for your letter to chakra. Here’s the bottom line.

1. Chakra will not publish any material that advocates for gay marriages.

2. The key word in my article in this regard was *in the past*. You even
copied that. No I’m obviously no longer publicly advocating that .

Hope that sheds light on this issue.


Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 17:49:15 -0700

To: Jivan Mukta Dasa
From: Maria Ekstrand
Subject: Chakra policy

Dear Jivanmukta Prabhu,

Pamho. AgtSP!

The article was about Chakra’s coverage of difficult issues. It was meant

to convey that we will indeed cover issues from many different angles, not
simply giving the “party line”.

Chakra will not publish anything that deviates from siddhanta, including

advocacy of gay marriages. This is our choice. It is a private web site, not affiliated with ISKCON, and registered in my name. The editors don’t get appointed by ISKCON. We got together and decided to do this service ourselves.

My private views, are just that - private.


I then complained again to the Editorial board and Jayapataka Swami:

> Sat, 14 Mar 1998 10:31:14 -0500
> To:
> From: Jivan Mukta Dasa
> Subject:Mother Madhusudani and Chakra’s Editorial Policy
> Cc:,,
>Dear Chakra’s Editorial Board,
>Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
>Almost two weeks ago, I addressed a few concerns and questions to the
>editors of Chakra. Mother Madhusudani, who was the subject of my
>questions, attempted to answer. The essential concern has yet to be
>addressed. For her own reasons, she failed to post my queries to the
>“Letters to the editor” section. I did not expect to see any hesitation from
>herself or the editors, in posting my request for clarification. In addition, I
>thought I would get a simple and straight forward answer ie: “No! I no
>longer even privately feel that way.” I naturally anticipated this from an
>initiated devotee like herself, who is known to loathe censorship and gag
> tactics of any sort. Her statement on gay marriages being a case in point.
>The actual text authored by Mother Madhusudani dd. states that Chakra
>tolerates even someone like herself, “who in the past has publicly advocated
>for gay marriages in ISKCON.” My question to her was whether or not she
>still advocates such immoral behaviour? Her response: “No I’m obviously
>no longer publicly advocating that.” Asked again whether she *privately*
>advocates such ideas, her answer was: “My private views, are just that -
>I am certainly not interested in her personal life. Nevertheless, if she
>privately or publicly advocates adharma, while assuming the responsibility
>of upholding Prabhupada’s teachings, then her views become very much
>everyone’s business. I am requesting a simple confirmation that she no
>longer even *privately* holds and/or advocates such irreligious views.
>Her request to keep her own private opinions private after broaching the
>subject on this public forum is highly irregular. This is akin to a devotee
>saying in Bhagavatam class that he no longer publicly advocates abortion,
>meat eating, illicit sex or gambling. But when asked about his private views
>on these issues: “Hey, mind your own business. Don’t pry into my private
>life!” I would expect such attitudes from low-class politicians, slimy
>sycophants and agents of Kali not an initiated Mataji involved in advising
>our devotee community on many of its social problems.
>In my opinion, her request for privacy is pregnant with guilt. I find her
>silence and refusal to answer a simple question to be, at the very least,
>suspicious. If in fact she does support such deviant behaviour, I would
>request that she receive immediate correction and be removed from your
>editorial board. I also find it quite surprising that no other member of
>Chakra’s editorial board found her shameless and irreverent statement on
>gay marriages to be suspect of someone who is somewhat morally unhinged.
>As stated in the editorial policy, Chakra “will only publish material which,
>in the opinion of the editors, does not deviate from the Vaishnava siddhanta
>taught by Srila Prabhupada.” The question naturally arises then: How can
>Chakra “tolerate” to keep someone like her on the editorial board; someone
>who “advocates” behaviour against “the Vaishnava siddhanta taught by Srila >Prabhupada”?
>Mother Madhusudani has made this a public issue by stating her views on a
>public forum. Her statement on Chakra gave no indication of subsequent
>remorse for and rejection of such degraded notions. The ambiguous nature
>of her statement in itself goes contrary to Chakra’s editorial policy. Her
>beliefs, which are against even mundane morality, what to speak of >Vaisnava tradition and culture, remained unchallenged by the editorial >staff. Such adharma is like an undetected, tasteless and odourless poison >that ultimately causes the loss of our moral bearings.
>Please don’t get me wrong, I fully understand that this sankirtan movement
>is meant for everybody, including “married” gay partners. Lord Caitanya’s
>mercy will cleanse all of us of our contaminations in due course of time. A >devotee gives Krsna consciousness to the most fallen, but a devotee does not
>advocate, recommend or support such sinful behaviour. A devotee may
>even make a gay couple Life Members and Friends of Krsna, but that same
>devotee will never rationalize, justify or *advocate* such immorality. This is >my concern; that privately, Mother Madhusudani has and continues to
>advocate such shameful behaviour.
>If in fact Mother Madhusudani, or for that matter any initiated devotee, is
>advocating such behaviour even privately, they would undoubtedly be an
>embarrassment to ISKCON, to its members, to our beloved spiritual master
>Srila Prabhupada and to our entire Vaisnava tradition. The question that
>begs asking is how do people that hold such odious views get recommended
>for initiation to begin with? Maybe this is something that our society >should seriously examine in order to stem the tide of similarly >embarrassing and insulting situations.
>I was completely unaware of her remarks on gay marriages until a few
>devotees, who were understandably disturbed by the text, brought it to my
>attention. It is extremely regrettable that such statements go unchecked
>by the very body that is supposed to ensure that there are no deviations
>from Vaisnava siddhanta presented on Chakra. Mother Madhusudani’s
>statements were made publicly on Chakra, and as such they warrant a >public explanation.
>Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Mother Madhusudani has fully reformed her >views on this issue and no longer even privately advocates or even >indirectly supports, recommends and rationalizes such behaviour. If so, >great. That’s all I was asking for to start with: a simply answer to a very
>simply question.
>Nevertheless, Chakra should not allow the posting of deviant views,
>especailly from its own editors, without a clear statement representing the
>Hoping to have this unpleasant matter expediently resolved,
>Your servant,
>Jivan Mukta Dasa
(Text COM:1747291) -----------------------------------------

8.2 Mother Madhusudani Radha dd involved with condom-promoting website

Text COM:1747294 (113 lines)

From: Internet:
Date: 05-Oct-98 15:39
To: GHQ [210]
Comment: Text COM:1803375 by Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)
Subject: CON/WHO- Condom-promoting web site Madhusudani is involved with
Excerpts follow from a web page (HOT- Healthy Oakland Teens Project) for which Mother Madhusudani Radha dd Project Director. She had posted the URL on the COM Education conference. When Sita complained to her about it, the following was her disclaimer:
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 11:15:47 -0700

Sdd>SOS! Can someone provide one reason why the HOT sex-ed program >(which advocates safe sex- including anal sex- and condom usage!) should >be considered for our gurukulas?!

MR: OK, I’m only going to repeat this once here:

No one said anyone should use any particular curriculum in gurukulas.

Following requests on this conference, I offered to make available a curriculum that:

1) had been developed for public school

2) is based on federal and state guidelines for sex and AIDS education, and
3) which is one of the very few programs in the world that has been
rigorously evaluated and found to *decrease* sexual activity among junior
high school virgins in a controlled comparison test. (please note that it
increased abstinence in spite of/or because of its peer-led, comprehensive

If anyone can find *any* useful component in this 15 session program, they

are welcome to use it. It has been successfully adapted in places as diverse as Bhutan, New Zealand, Egypt, Bali, the Philippines, Eastern Europe, Kenya, Georgia, and the Bronx. I have no doubt that pieces of it could be useful to AIDS/sex educators in other settings too.

This program is certainly not being pushed for gurukulas in any form or

MR: This was designed for a public school. You can’t make moral judgments
there. However, the peer educators emphasized at every point in the
curriculum that abstinence was preferable to sexual activity from a public
health point of view. Also, they emphasized quite successfully that it’s
unwise to have sex just because you think your partner may want it (or he
may dump you etc). The peers never advocated sex and the section on condom use targeted those 20-25% of the students who were already sexually active.

You can absolutely add your own values to the informational piece and

remove any references to condom use. However, programs that don’t treat
the kids as if they can make their own decisions end up with higher
percentages of sexual activity than did ours.

If you have specific questions about this curriculum, I’d be glad to answer

them. However, I simply don’t have the time to argue the pros and cons of
sex education for devotee kids. Everyone must make up his/her mind. I just provided this info *in case* anyone is interested. If not, I really don’t mind.

Here are some excerpts from course outline (the details can be downloaded

from the site but were too gross and lengthy to post here):

> Healthy Oakland Teens Project

> 1995-1996 Curriculum
> Peer-Led AIDS Prevention Curriculum
> Teen-led Sessions
> 7. Condoms
> Review of Session 6
>Here’s a quick review of what we did last week. In Session 6, we worked on
>improving communication.We talked about using “I” messages to state how >you feel about something and what you would like to change. We also >worked on >different ways of saying “no” to someone who is putting >pressure on you.
> Objectives
> 1.Get comfortable talking about condoms.
> [Activity A: Issues - 10 min.]
> 2.Learn the steps for using condoms correctly.
> [Activity B: Condom Line-Up - 10 min.]
> 3.Explain and demonstrate the steps for using condoms.
> 4.Find out where you can go for counseling, health care, and condoms.
> [Activity C: Condom Demo & Resources - 20 min.]
> Materials:
> Activity A: Issues
> “Discussing Condoms” sheets
> Activity B: Condom Line-up
> “Condom Line-up” cards
> Activity C: Condom Demo
> Condom Display Board
> Condoms
> Plastic models
> Small tubes of Vaseline
> Tissues
> Small garbage bags
> “Resources” sheets
> A. Issues
> Objectives
> 1.Get comfortable talking about condoms.

(Text COM:1747294) -----------------------------------------

8.3 Comments from a simple South Indian.
Text COM:1803375 (4 lines)
From: Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)
Date: 27-Oct-98 15:40
To: GHQ [446]
To: (sent: 27-Oct-98 15:46)
Subject: CON/WHO- Condom-promoting web site Madhusudani is involved with
Govinda Govinda Govinda! What is THIS??? Is this what MRDD is involved
with??? My God!

yhs vgd
(Text COM:1803375) ---------------------------------------

Text COM:1768809 (136 lines)
From: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)
Date: 14-Oct-98 19:41
To: Umapati Swami [5399] (received: 15-Oct-98 09:49)
To: Vipramukhya Swami (TP Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK) [31290]
Bcc: GHQ [333]
Subject: Homo sex marriages & Chakra (?)
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: 14-Oct-98 03:54
Subject: WHO: MR and Homo sex marriages
>Date: Tue, 13 Oct 98 17:11 -0700
>To: “COM: Granddisciples (of Srila Prabhupada)”
>[Text 1766134 from COM]
>Dear Granddisciples,
>Please accept my humble obeisances,
>All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!
>In regards to Mother Madhusudani Radha dd’s comment about sexual orientation I would like to make the following comments, after which I will not bring up the subject again.
>I sense that no one hear believes that Mother Madhusudani’s comments are >worth commenting upon.
>I can hardly believe that this is the case.
>Mother Madhusudani has written on CHAKRA that she thinks that ISKCON >should someday open itself up to homosexual marriages. Then she says here >that she thinks that there should be no discrimination against someone
>based on their sexual orientation.
>It is not “sexual orientation,” it is homosexuality!
>Is this acceptable? Do you really all agree with this?
>You may think that this does not concern the granddisciples confernce, but >when one of the co-organizers of this conference has made such statements,
>it becomes our business.
>Many of you here do not want a debate of women’s rights issues to over
>take this conference.
>I fully agree.
>But I am not discussing women’s rights here, unless someone thinks that “sexual orientation” is an aspect of women’s rights.
>I am talking about the subtle acceptance of homosexuality in this spiritual movement. Stop for a moment and think about that.
>Mother Madhusudani is a respected devotee. She writes on Chakra,
>organizes conferences on COM and is a role model for many devotees. When >she says something, many people listen.
>I will stick my neck out here and say that I do not think that she has any
>sastric support for her comments and should be much more careful about
>what she says.
>She is a senior devotee to me, and I offer her all respects, but how can she
>go around making such remarks?
>Yes, I am subject to the fault of fault finding. Perhaps I debate too much
>with the ritviks, and have caught this mood from them. Perhaps I am just
>guilty of my own accord, and can blame no one but myself.
>I apologize for this great fault of mine, and take this opportunity to offer
>my very humble obeisances to all of the assembled devotees here, and
>everywhere. You are the shining lights of mercy in an otherwise dark world.
>That being honestly said, I must still speak out against what I see as a
>problem. A problem that needs to be reformed.
>Once again, I sincerely apologize for my fault finding, and I hope that you
>all are willing to forgive me while I try to raise my consciousness.
>But I do not apologize for saying that this support for the homosexual
>lifestyle, whether subtle or overt, is a nonsense idea, and that Mother
>Madhusudani should not be promoting such a concept.
>your servant
>Devarsi Muni dasa

Dear Maharajas,

Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

If Bhishma Pitamaha & Dronacharya were guilty by association with

Duryodhana, I beg to inquire as the possible result of your “association” (via the Chakra management team) with a Mataji who is propagating the above mentioned “siddhanta”?

No, none of us are perfect: I am a most fallen, bhogi, householder. Admitted. Despite all my disqualifications...

As your disciple, (old buddy, old pal) Vipramukya Maharaj, wrote above:

>Mother Madhusudani is a respected devotee. She writes on Chakra,

>organizes conferences on COM and is a role model for many devotees. When >she says something, many people listen.

As one sannyasi recently wrote me:

>Weird. Our society gets weirder by the day.

I hope chakra doesn’t become “wierd” too.

Sorry for disturbing you Maharajas, but this IS disturbing news.


Basu Ghosh Das
(Text COM:1768809) -----------------------------------------

Letter COM:1771008 (180 lines)
From: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA)
Date: 15-Oct-98 14:43
To: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) [6674] (received: 15-Oct-98
Cc: Devarsi Muni (das) VMS (Crescent City, CA - USA) [765] (received:
Bcc: GHQ [339] (sender: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN))
Subject: Homo sex marriages & Chakra (?)
Dear Bhasu Ghosh Prabhu,

If you ever want to know what I do and do not advocate for, please ask me

instead of perpetuating rumors. Your behavior is most disappointing.

Dear Devarsi Muni and Sita,

Just to clarify, you are not allowed to leak texts from the grandisciples’
conferences with other non-members. This is one such reason. People who
see only isolated texts easily misunderstand. I had already explained in a
follow up text on the conference that I don not advocate for homosexual
marriages and that I don’t believe in any illicit sex. I had also clarified that no article advocating for such practices was ever published on Chakra, but since Bhasu Ghosh is not a member, how was he supposed to know?

In the case you were not involved in the leak, please just take this letter

as a re-statement of the conference rules and as a reminder to check directly before perpetuating rumors.

This is like the operator game we all played in 3rd grade - I would have

hoped all of us would have moved on since then - unfortunately that does
not seem to be the case.


Letter COM: (28 lines)
From: xyz
Date: 19-Oct-98 10:27
Subject: Homo sex marriages & Chakra (?)
MR wrote:

>Dear Devarsi Muni and Sita,

>Just to clarify, you are not allowed to leak texts from the grandisciples’
>conferences with other non-members. This is one such reason. People who
>see only isolated texts easily misunderstand.

Why doesn’t she practice what she preaches then?

>I had already explained in a follow up text on the conference that I don not >advocate for homosexual marriages and that I don’t believe in any illicit sex.

See, she says “I do not *advocate for* homosexual marriages! If she didn’t

believe in any illicit sex, what are her parameters- she has 2 kids from 2
different men after which she married a devotee (another divorcee) and is
now seeing Advaita! Is that licit? She’ll say she has her guru’s approval
though, which he has confirmed, what to do?!

One more question, did Vipramukhya Swami forward her Basu Ghosh Pr’s

letter* or was MR a direct receiver?

*>> Dear Maharajas,

>> Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
>> If Bhishma Pitamaha & Dronacharya were guilty by association with...
(Text COM:) -----------------------------------------

Text COM:1787396 (74 lines)
From: Shyamasundara ACBSP
Date: 20-Oct-98 20:33
Subject: FYI reform ideas
---------- Forwarded Message ----------

not sure if I sent you this. (btw, I never attacked her character)

Ys, Sdd

>Date: Wed, 14 Oct 98 17:23 +0200

>To: “COM: Granddisciples (of Srila Prabhupada)”
>Subject: Re: reform ideas
>Lines: 35
>[Text 1768057 from COM]
>Bhadra Balaram wrote:
>>First of all if she thinks like this then it’s a plain nonsense. Period.
>No first of all, if someone on this conference says “what another person
>thinks” I think we need to stop the discussion and ask that person what
>s/he *really* thinks - or if they care to clarify.
>We can not take 2nd or 3rd hand descriptions of other people’s thoughts >and beliefs as absolute truths.
>Secondly, as I have stated many, many times before, my persaonal beliefs
>are my personal beliefs. They are no one’s business. What we are >discussing here is advocacy and I’ve already clarified that I am not >advocating for homosexual marriages. Anyone who says I am is lying plain >and simple.

>>Although I don’t think you said something wrong (since you quoted >>CHAKRA)>

>Again, as Ananta Prabhu so correctly pointed out, we can not take >someone’s words that a reference is correct. So please don’t perpetuate this >notion that I wrote an article for Chakra in which I called for ISKCON to
>institutionalize gay marriages. I did not. You should all know that it would
>not have been published on Chakra if I had. As Jahnu correctly pointed out, >scriptures would not allow us to do so and thus it would be against Chakra’s >editorial policy.
>I know this subject matter is closed, but I had to clarify the above
>misunderstandings. Sita and Devarsi Muni’s texts attacked me character and >could not stand unopposed.
>I will not write anything further on this topic on this conference unless
>again attacked.

Text COM:1803292 (16 lines)
From: Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)
Date: 27-Oct-98 15:20
To: GHQ [433]
To: (sent: 27-Oct-98 15:26)
Reference: Text COM:1761760 by Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)
Subject: IWC text- MR gives a classic reply
> > This is not the International Society of Chanakya Consciousness or of
> > Manu consciousness. It’s the International Society of Krsna Consciousness
> > and we follow in the footsteps of our Founder-Acarya Srila Prabhupada.

We not only follow his footsteps but we also DO what he SAID. I am a servant of Prabhupada’s VANI!

What can I do? Prabhupada, my life and soul, quotes Chanakya and insists
EVERYTIME he discusses about dependence of women, he quotes Manu. What can I do????? I follow Prabhupada. Whatever he says, I will do. If he quotes Manu, I will also quote Manu. If he quotes Chanakya, I will also quote Chanakya. I FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF OUR FOUNDER ACHARYA SRILA PRABHUPADA and no one else.

yhs vgd
(Text COM:1803292) -----------------------------------------

8.9 Evasive answer by Mother Madhusudhani Radha dd when asked about homosexual marriage.
>Date: Thu, 10 Dec 98 23:45 -0800
>To:, ,
>Subject: an early x-mas present for Sita
>At 6:55 -0800 12/10/98, Sita prabhu wrote:
>>I’m sorry, Madhusudani, but my husband didn’t say anything about >>initiated homosexuals having illicit sex. Maybe you can clarify whether or >>not you said or didn’t say you felt homosexuals should be allowed to live as
>>married couples within ISKCON and whether or not you still hold this view?
>I’m starting to feel flattered that you care sooooo much about my opinion
>on this matter, dear Sita. So after over a year of ignoring your question,
>I’ve decided to finally break my long silence and let you know how I feel
>about this topic (hope the suspense isn’t killing you).
>The first part of my answer is that I really don’t care how other devotees
>conduct their private lives as long as they are not abusing another living
>being. I have a hard enough time worrying about my own spiritual life to
>even spend a second on what two consenting adults do in private.
>If two devotees (of any gender) care about each other and want to live
>together to support each other emotionally and spiritually (please note
>there is not one single word about sex here), I have no problem with that.
>If they want to refer to themselves as partners, roommates, husbands, >wives or whatever, that is their business. Why should I let it bother me?
>It’s very difficult to remain strong in spiritual life by yourself. If someone is >fortunate enough to find another human being, whom they care about and who wants to help them in that endeavor, I don’t feel like I have the right to protest simply because of what *might* be going on in the privacy of their home. It’s none of my business and if I start meditating on all the possible illicit activities in which other people may be engaging, it’s only going to hurt my own spiritual life. So I don’t.
>That’s it. Now you know. This is how I felt 5 years ago and how I feel
>Madhusudani dasi
>ps. I don’t know what you mean by “in ISKCON”. If you’re referring to
>within temples then the above obviously does not apply. Temples have very
>strict rules for its members, which need to be followed.

8.10 Madhusudhani Radha dd and her current lover Advaita Prabhu Dasa harrass the Boston Temple president.
We have removed the “>” because of a surfeit of them. For the readers information Advaita Prabhu Dasa (Advaita) is MRdd’s current lover. We do not know what better way to describe him considering that she is still currently married to Sriman Maitreya Prabhu. Mother Madhusudani Radha dd and Advaita Prabhu Dasa are of the opinion that it is important for ISKCON to conform to the expectations of modern secular society. Since modern society has embraced atheistic principles of feminism then ISKCON should also. If we don’t then we run the risk of being called sexist, and we will not attract “intelligent” women to the movement. This of course implies that since MRdd was attracted to the movement in its current “sexist” form as given us by the Acaryas that she and the thousands of women like and Mother Kunti, Mother Draupadi, Mother Gandhari, etc, all famous ladies of the Vedic literature are all less intelligent than the modern women of Kali-yuga.

Download 1.5 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   24

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page