New Editorials
August 15, 2010
Srila Prabhupada Disappearance Day AppealBY: AINDRA DASA
Oct 21, VRINDAVAN, INDIA (SUN) — Originally published in the Sun in October 2008.
Repetition of a good thing is a good thing. This is a restatement of my submission on the occasion of Srila Prabhupada’s 112th abhirbhava mahotsava with only slight modification. I pray that those present at that time who are not so inclined to generosity will anyhow find within their hearts a way to forgive my dogged determination.
On this most celebrated day of the disappearance of our beloved Srila Prabhupada I again earnestly offer my obeisances to the esteemed assembly of devotees and humbly entreat all of you to once more kindly and carefully hear a few selected straightforward and truthful words from the heart of a most lowly and insignificant Aindra Dasa.
Repetition of a good thing is a good thing. This is a restatement of my submission on the occasion of Srila Prabhupada’s 112th abhirbhava mahotsava with only slight modification. I pray that those present at that time who are not so inclined to generosity will anyhow find within their hearts a way to forgive my dogged determination.
On this most celebrated day of the disappearance of our beloved Srila Prabhupada I again earnestly offer my obeisances to the esteemed assembly of devotees and humbly entreat all of you to once more kindly and carefully hear a few selected straightforward and truthful words from the heart of a most lowly and insignificant Aindra Dasa.
Today is not only a day to ceremonially offer a few more patrams and puspams and to gorgeously arrange for more fasting and feasting. It is not only a day to nostalgically reminisce and extol the endearing personal character and external accomplishments of our society’s founder-acarya, but also (and perhaps even more importantly) it is a day to look within, to re-evaluate, and to refocus – to precisely identify, realign ourselves with, and sincerely rededicate ourselves to the factual primary thrust of his ongoing mission.
I don’t distrust the much-prayed-for sincerity and spiritual integrity of the major lot of our ISKCON society’s leadership. Much progress has undoubtedly been made on many fronts of the Krishna consciousness movement. Still, I sense a need to seriously address a sanguine point of concern which may help our society’s constituents avert the perils of fall down, degradation, frustration, or deceleration attributable to the consequence of niyamagraha. To this end, I, as a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada, am obliged to again and again remind everyone of the vital need to, in Srila Prabhupada’s own words, “boil the milk.” “Now I want that we shall concentrate on making our devotees Krishna conscious and ourselves becoming Krishna conscious, and not be so much concerned with expanding ourselves widely but without any spiritual content. Just like boiling the milk, it becomes thicker and sweeter. Now do like that, boil the milk.”
Let us please gravely consider what it really means to be Krishna conscious.
Srila Prabhupada has elucidated in a 1975 Bombay lecture:
“There are different stages of knowledge: pratyaksa, paroksa, aparoksa, adhoksaja, aprakrta. So we have to approach the aprakrta, transcendental, above the material nature. Adhoksaja is almost nearer than the lower grade of knowledge, pratyaksa, paroksaparoksa. They are in the kanistha-adhikara.
arcayam eva haraye
pujam yah sraddhayehate
na tad-bhaktesu canyesu
sa bhaktah prakrtah smrtah
[SB 11.2.47]So prakrta stage is pratyaksa knowledge, direct perception, and knowledge received from parampara. Pratyaksa, paroksa, then aparoksa, self-realization, then adhoksaja, aprakrta. So Krishna consciousness is aprakrta knowledge. It is the topmost platform of knowing Krishna, aprakrta knowledge. So, so long we are up to the adhoksajaknowledge, that is regulative principles. We have to follow the regulative principles strictly. And aprakrta knowledge is for the paramahamsa . . . raga-bhakta. In these stages, pratyaksa, paroksa, they are called vidhi-bhakti. But without vidhi-bhakti, you cannot reach to the platform of raga-bhakti, although that is our aim. Raganuga, raga-bhakti is executed following the come to the stage of raga-bhakti. That is calledpara bhakti. That para bhakti is required. Gradually developing up to the stage ofraga-bhakti or para-bhakti. Then life is successful.”
Here, Srila Prabhupada thirty-three years ago declares, “This Krishna consciousness movement;” he’s not talking about any other Krishna consciousness movement. No. This one. Gradually developing. How gradual? Gradual to the point of virtual non-development? Progress in Krishna consciousness is as gradual as we want to make it. It should not, however, be artfully dreamt up that our short human life is successful even without our developing up to the stage of raga-bhakti.
My humble analysis is as follows:
Brahma-bhutah prasannatma – The soul only becomes fully joyful upon the spiritual perfection of experiencing oneness with the madhurya moods of Vraja (purnamrtasvadanam). Na socati – lamenting for nothing but the miserable condition of those devoid of such unalloyed devotional enrichment, na kanksati – desiring nothing other than to be reinstated in an eternal intimate loving relationship with Vrajendra-nandana Krishna, samah sarvesu bhutesu – knowing confidentially all living entities to be eligible for the mood of Vraja and thereby being equally disposed to help everyone progressively realize their highest potential vraja-svarupa, mad-bhaktim labhate param – such an elevated soul becomes fully imbued with para bhakti, raga-maya devotion to the lotus feet of guru and Krishna.
yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
prakasante mahatmanahThe inner meaning of this verse should be ascertained thusly. There are basically two stages of devotion as described in Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s Dasa-mula-tattva – apara bhaktior upaya-bhakti, the stage of sadhana-bhakti, components of which are both vaidhi sadhana-bhakti and raganuga-sadhana-bhakti, the means by which one in material bondage may attain perfection, and para bhakti, the liberated stage of sadhya-bhakti, commencing from the platform of bhava-siddhi.
Without having come to the perfectional stage of para bhakti, raga-mayi-bhava-bhakti, in one’s service to guru and Krishna, none can legitimately claim to have personally gained revelation of the deepest imports of the scriptures. How then would it be possible for one to esoterically guide the progressive student to his or her highest sadhya? It is not enough to on any level externally assume the position of institutional leadership or mentorship. That alone hardly establishes one as an able representative of Divine Grace nor does it under any circumstance grant one the right to humanly intrude upon, misconstrue, or censor the words of the acarya.
In a letter to Tamala Krishna Gosvami, Srila Prabhupada asserts:
“Regarding your second question: what determines whether a devotee goes to a Vaikuntha planet or to Goloka Vrindaban? – Those devotees who are following vidhi-marga are meant for going to Vaikuntha planets and those who are following raga-marga are meant for going to Krishna-loka. It is generally that the followers of Lord Caitanya are going to Goloka Vrindaban.”
This statement of Srila Prabhupada cogently confirms that generally the followers of Lord Caitanya pursue the path of raga-bhakti. The word “generally” in this connection means “as a general rule,” indicating that the alluded to attainment of Vaikuntha by followers of Lord Caitanya who exclusively attach themselves to the vaidhi bhakti formula without transitioning to the raga-marga should be seen as a relatively atypical exception to the rule – not the rule. It is not at all supported by any scriptural evidence that the relatively atypical exception to the rule should be mulishly foisted upon the here-to-fore institutional ambiance as canonical tenet, to become a broadly established general rule, thereby impeding the disciples’ assent to the realm of Goloka. Thus, it is “generally” expected that devotees of the Krishna consciousness movement, in the progress of their devotional careers, should transition from the rudimentary vaidhika devotional engagement to the path of raga. As such, it is hardly sufficing to sophistically dumb down or stultify the devotional community by exclusively and insistently pandering to the society’s lowest common denominator in the course of our in-house preaching.
Thakura Bhaktivinoda’s Dasa-mula-tattva further explicates the issue:
“In both forms of sadhana-bhakti (vaidhi and raga) guru is required. In vaidhi-bhakti-sadhana, according to the aspirant’s level of spiritual taste (ruci), the guru will give necessary instructions on how to vanquish anarthas by following scriptural injunctions. Then again, the guru will guide the raganuga-bhakti-sadhaka on the path of rasa, spiritual relish, according to the disciple’s intrinsic spiritual tendency.
The guru must analyze the disciple’s natural tendency and establish his innate lobha(greed) for one of the four rasas – dasya, sakhya, vatsalya or madhurya. Having determined his innate lobha, the guru schools him with pertinent instructions. Otherwise, left to himself, the disciple will stumble along as an unauthorized intruder into the path of rasa and his lobha and bhava will never reach steadiness. It is not that everyone must be sadhakas of madhurya rasa. The guru who is unable to determine his disciple’s innate lobha, should, without duplicity, express his inability and send his disciple to an eligible bona-fide guru conversant in this science of rasa. For the sadhaka disciple, it is a spiritual catastrophe if he is without the shelter of a bona-fide highly qualified guru.
If good fortune visits a living entity and he meets a pure devotee who is a recipient of Sri Caitanya’s boundless mercy then that fortunate soul will certainly develop attraction and greed for the spiritual sentiments that adorn the eternal residents of Vraja. As long as a living entity does not meet a pure devotee of this stature, he will remain on the level of vaidhi bhakti, regulative devotional service. But, as soon as the practitioner, under superior guidance, takes shelter of Sri Caitanya’s lotus feet, he becomes elevated to the path of raga-bhakti, spontaneous devotional service.”
It is imperative, therefore, that the progressive implementation of high grade devotional illumination be fostered by the beneficent influence of truly elevated rasika-vaisnavas for the forward march of a movement intended to distribute the fruits of love of Godhead (vraja-prema). It is not that Srila Prabhupada’s sankirtana mission precludes the prospects of pursuing the path of raga, nor is it that legitimate institutional leadership is the monopolized prerogative of the religio-corporate power elites and ecclesiastically rubberstamped guru figureheads. We cannot rubberstamp paramahamsas. Indeed, as only the maha-bhagavata truly has the fitness to bestow suddha-nama upon anyone, without receiving which a disciplic candidate could hardly hope to make much tangible spiritual progress in this age of Kali, it is the paramahamsa-maha-bhagavata alone who viably stands as a comprehensive representative of all our Srila Prabhupada and the acarya-parampara have to offer. We must always remember – It is not that authority constitutes truth. Truth constitutes authority. That is guru-parampara. They who prefer to bend, water down, compromise, or obscure the truth to suit various inveigling materially conceived managerial agenda on the plea of propagating the Krishna consciousness movement are not truthful Brahmins, what then of being paramahamsa Vaishnavas. It is disgraceful to remain a fallible neophyte. It is not enough that children pretend to be adults ad nauseum on the plea of perpetuating the sampradaya. Sand-box make-believe-world half-baked mud-pie “Krishna consciousness” will not do. Vaidhi bhakti, though useful to a limit, is like licking the outside of a jar of honey. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada says so. Our ISKCON founder-acarya, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, echoes the same instruction. Therefore, I am compelled to press this most essential point. We have to make progress. Jiva jago! Jiva jago! We have to open the honey jar and actually taste the honey. That is raga-marga-bhajana-kirtana, that is real sadhu-sanga, and that is true para-upakara. Mere lateral expansion of the institution’s workforce, notwithstanding the society’s unspeakable membership turnover, does not in and of itself constitute progress of the Krishna consciousness movement. Movement means to scientifically and consciously move ourselves and those who depend on us for spiritual inspiration toward the very legitimate goal of vraja-prema. To that end, those who are sufficiently endowed with good brain substance (sumedhasaƒ) recognize that there is simply no other recourse, no other recourse, no other recourse in this present time and circumstance than to, from the very seedling beginning of devotional life to the absolute perfectional end (which has no end), take shelter of the process most recommended by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, namely maha-mantra-sankirtana, the loud congregational chanting of the Holy Name.
The thirty-two-syllable maha-mantra – Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare – is affirmed by the sastras to be the approved taraka-brahma kirtana-mantra for this Age of Kali. The taraka-brahma kirtana-mantras prescribed for the previous yugas (Satya, Treta, and Dvapara) areaisvarya- or mixed aisvarya/madhurya-maya mantras bestowing the attainment of the Lord’s majestic realms as their fruit. The Hare Krishna maha-mantra, however, is a kevala-madhurya raga-maya radha-krishna-yugala mantra, which integrates both taraka andparaka potencies, granting to the lobha-maya-sraddhavan jana liberation from material existence and, beyond that, the sweetest fruit of vraja-prema and the attainment of the eternal realm of Vraja. It is not at all fortuitous that the taraka-brahma kirtana-mantracorresponding to the present age, in which the most munificent Lord Gauranga advented to broadcast the sweetest of all the madhurya mellows of Vraja (radha-dasyam), be absolutely in consonance with the very thrust of His mission. Much stress is therefore given to Hare Krishna maha-mantra sankirtana. In this age everyone can best access the course of concentrated vraja-bhakti-bhajana through the medium of Hare Krishna maha-mantra-sankirtana, which easily and very powerfully promotes vibrant, all-round nama, rupa, guna, and lila absorption in Krishna consciousness. Nevertheless, unless we progressively perform maha-mantra-sankirtana with proper depth of internal meditation, recognizing the superlative sense of sambandha-abhideya-prayojana-vicara as our participation in the sankirtana of the Holy Name will not engender the most desirable outcome. As a husband is the life and soul of his wife (vadhu), so hari-nama-sankirtana performed with greed (lobha) to taste the nectar (vraja-bhakti-rasa) for which we are always anxious is, in fact,vidya-vadhu-jivanam, the very life and soul of all transcendental knowledge found in the scriptures. What is the validity of a wife (adhyatma-vidya) without her husband (nama-sankirtana)? Sneha-samyukta-vraja-prema-nama-sankirtana. We read about it. We (armchair) philosophize about it (to the extent we’re able). We distribute millions and billions of books about it. But to what extent are we actually living it? Let us take account; how much of it do we actually do?
In truth, no external action – preaching, book publication, book distribution, nama-sankirtana, nama-japa, sadhu-sanga, vrndavana-vasa, arcana, prasada-seva, pot-washing, or whatever – can be considered an aspect of either ajata-ruci- or jata-ruci-raganuga-sadhana if it is not prompted by a greed to attain the perfection of one’s abhista-vraja-bhava (deeply desired mood of a vraja-gopa or gopi). If one does not recognize within oneself a specific attraction to any one of Krishna’s nitya-parikara vraja-bhava exemplars – if one does not have a desired bhava – then there is no question of one’s external engagements in devotional service being prompted by an innate lobha, owing to lobha’snon-appearance. Hence, one’s devotional activities can never be accepted as nija-abhista-bhava-maya, -sambandhi, -anukula, -aviruddha, or even -viruddha, for that matter, simply because there is no nija-abhista-bhava reference point involved to merit the consideration of such judgments. If one has neither the prerequisite lobha nor the inclination toward relevant internal devotional absorption, the very substance that establishes one’s eligibility to pursue the path of raga, and if one feels no urgency, on the basis of such lobha, to propagate raga-marga-bhakti in the world as per the will of the Lord, then one may preachidy-preach till one is blue in the face or distribute innumerable volumes and volumes of transcendental literatures till the cows come home and still one’s actions will never be deemed any sort of raga-marga-sadhana nor will they engender raga-marga-bhava as their direct outcome. One could hardly expect to gain the outcome of raganuga-sadhana on the strength of one’s external devotional engagements if the inward and outward features of one’s devotional performances do not assume raga-marga characteristics. If a sadhaka’saction is prompted merely by sastra-vidhi and guru’s order, then such action, however enthusiastic, is to be relegated to a status no loftier than vaidha-marga-sadhana, aropa-siddha-bhakti, or perhaps niskama- or even sakama-karma-yoga, depending on the quality of the motivation involved. Reverential vaidhika devotion (maryada bhakti) done with earnest enthusiasm (utsaha) at the stages of ruci, asakti, or even bhava, for that matter, also cannot rightly be deemed the cultivation of raga-bhakti by dint of the performer’s lack of greed for achieving the madhurya sentiments of a Vrajavasi. For the deserving lobha-maya-sadhaka, however, who unpretentiously endeavors to conscionably cultivate the moods of Vraja, differentiating between favorable and unfavorable practices while inwardly musing upon the eternal vraja-lila archetype features of all culturally transfigured varieties of external devotional engagement, practically anything done as well as any apparatus employed to internally or externally advance Lord Gauranga’s mission to flood the world with vraja-bhakti-rasa can be accepted as an influential part and parcel of the raga-margadimension, commensurate with the individual’s measure of unalloyed devotional progress.
So, on this most holy occasion of Srila Prabhupada’s tirobhava mahotsava, I fervently beseech all, from the upper echelons of our society down to the grass roots contingency – If we have yet to come up to the level of para bhakti, the aprakrta stage of Krishna consciousness, in the course of our devotional evolvement, then, whatever our present devotional standing, let us, for the benefit of all concerned, kindly set aside all superfluous engagements and really do the needful to expedite our progress to the platform of raga-maya devotional perfection, seeing that as our foremost responsibility at the feet of our beloved Srila Prabhupada. Harer nama! Harer nama! Harer namaiva kevalam! Param vijayate sri-krishna-sankirtana! Srila Prabhupada ki jaya!
vanca-kalpa-tarubhyas ca
krpa-sindhubhya eva ca
patitanam pavanebhyo
vaisnavebhyo namo namahOm Tat Sat – Thanks a lot!
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
July 14, 2010
FIRST DOM, THEN DVD
June 17, 2010
By Roupamanjari devi dasi
PAMHO AGTSP!
Each and every element of Srila Prabhupada’s Vani combines to form a Perfect System of Society that is essential to the success of His ISKCON Movement. One cannot pick and choose, leave out or change even one element of His Directives without losing the entire purpose, as we have witnessed in stark relief these last 4 decades.
The Direction of Management deals with the infrastructural integrity of Srila Prabhupada’s Institution such that no man or group of men can take Srila Prabhupada’s Place as the Center and Supreme Authority of the ISKCON Movement (as is currently the case with the unelected and therefore illegal “GBC”). At this point in time the overwhelming and all-encompassing issue is the complete lack of accountability of the self-appointed “GBC” and their topdown centralized corporate control of ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada clearly and repeatedly condemned such a system, stating that all ISKCON temples are to be Independent, Self-sufficient, with TPs elected by their congregations, and GBCs in turn elected by the TPs according the terms of the DOM.
We cannot begin to discuss Daiva varnasrama dharma until the ISKCON institution itself is checked and the now 40 year old “Direction of Management” order enacted to elect GBCs, restore all properties to ISKCON, Inc., separate committee for publication of manuscripts, etc. This is the crucial groundwork from which we can build and proliferate the Real Krishna Consciousness Movement – independent farming communities and temples that need not fear for their assets being seized, their lands controlled, or their TPs and congregation members under the thumb of “GBC” overlords. This is the authentic management system by which Sankirtan parties can return to the streets, chanting the Mahamantra and distributing Srila Prabhupada’s Original Books, and bring newcomers to True ISKCON temples that practice what they preach with Srila Prabhupada as Sole Authority. This is the real shelter for women and children under the banner of ISKCON at the Lotus Feet of Srila Prabhupada.
DOM is simply the first step. After that comes a world that we have dreamed of and that Srila Prabhupada is personally handing to us, should we choose to accept it.
Your eternal servant,
Roupamanjari devi dasi
From: Gaura Kesava das
Subject: Re: OATH OF ALLEGIENCE
Date: June 15, 2010 10:19:01 PM PDT
PAMHO AGTSP
As far as Ravindra Svarupa prabhu’s contention that the GBC should be self selecting, it is clear that it rests solely on this phrase by Srila Prabhupada and not on any 1975 resolution or anything else:
Prabhupäda: Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC. May 28th 1977
My ONLY question is how and when was this understanding legally incorporated into ISKCON bylaws?
I have repeatedly asked for a simple citing of the legal ISKCON resolution or bylaw that explains exactly how the GBC will self select themselves.
So far no one has given any.
Therefore I remain convinced this can and will eventually be challenged in courts of law.
Personally I am not interested in challenging it legally.
Whoever serves as GBC or an ISKCON officer they must follow the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. It does not seem that there is any agreement on the actual system of management that Srila Prabhupada left, however most devotees understand his teachings.
Therefore if those devotees do not agree that their leaders are following those teachings it is clear they do not have to go along with any changes made by the leaders whether they are properly elected, selected or not.
Therefore ultimately I think that this issue, though perhaps the future cause of much litigation, is not at the heart of achieving a society based on Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
The more important issues are the discussions of deviations from his spiritual teachings rather than arguing about the exact nature of the tenure and appointment system of the GBC.
Of course we see how easily we can show that the GBC have actually changed the system of management in other ways. So the rest of the members of ISKCON especially the other ISKCON officers (TPs, Secretaries and Treasurers) do need to step up to the plate and call the GBC out on these legal managerial issues.
As for the rest of ISKCON members they need to call for some minimal checks and balances to the power of the GBC and also need to call for justification for any changes they have made or will make.
One thing we know is that Srila Prabhupada did not want blind following. So I would simply call on the GBC to be more transparent and accountable to the members of ISKCON whom they serve. If they do not heed such a call they will increasingly find themselves isolated and out of touch with the rest of us. Cooperation is a two way street. Let’s see a commitment from the GBC to also cooperate with the rest of us.
ys
GKD
On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Nathan Zakheim wrote:
GKD prabhu,
PAMHO, AGTSP!
I actually do not know who wrote that passage. I included it by accident. I was looking for the date of the Oath of Allegiance due to the fact that SP states “elections” during the same Maypur Meeting that the GBC have officially stated that marked the occasion when SP allegedly ended GBC elections “forever”.
This date is significant, as when Bhadri Narayan prabhu put the DOM into the Court Record of Judge Mahon, he clearly stated that the GBC “as the Ultimate Managing Authority” had deleted the voting requirement of the DOM. The only evidence that Bhadri cited was that 1975 GBC Mayapur resolution in which SP agains states that He, Himself will “nomninate” (ie “select”) the GBC men, and for that season, there would be no election, nomination nor selection of new GBC men.
It is astounding that these men who all signed the Oath of Allegiance vowing to elect the GBC or that SP would select the GBC would at the same time declare that SP had ended the Temple Presidents electing GBC for all time. (10k years).
I agree with you that my godbrothers (some of them for the last forty years) are not evil men who set out to do evil things with evil intent. The very Presence of SP was too much for any mortal man to handle with ease, and his totally spontaneous “channeling” of Krisnna’s immediate Intent was certainly difficult for daily managers to see a way to utilize.
The problem is that once management and money gathering through book sales and other means, regimentation of devotees into big big plans such as Radha Damodar took place i was easy for those “running the show” to see SP as an inspiring but bothersome Presence who kept them from doing what they thought best for substantial proportion of time. This mood was very widespread and Tamal declaring SP to be “senile old and attached” in 1974 did not help matters at all, considering the powerful role Tamal was to play in Iskcon up to and including SP’s Final Pastimes.
Iskcon was filled with young, eager managers who had mostly not gone to college, and had zero work experience in the “outside world”. When they got their “act together” and money was rolling in to the tune of millions of dollars, it was easy for them to begin to see SP as “Old and in the way”. I saw this vividly in Berkeley, in 1975 on a morning walk, when SP was surrounded by “leaders” practically screaming against each other for His attention, waving pieces of paper under His nosed demanding “SP can I say you approved this?” “SP do you authorize my idea?….a dozen men harassing SP whose head was pulled down like that of a tortoise into his saffron turtleneck sweater pulled into Himself as the barrage went on.
What a contrast to the earlier days in LA, Seattle, Boston, New York, London, Nairobi, Calcutta, Mahapur, the first Vrindaban Parikrama and other places when SP was KING and His words were GOLDEN.
I fell back from the crowd and watched the scene at a distance from my Virgo Hasta perspective.
I realized that He would not be able to go on.
Your eternal servant,
NNVdas
From: Nimai Pandit das
Subject: Elected by the Board of GBC or elected by (the board).
Date: June 14, 2010 10:14:00 PM PDT
But then in 1977 May 28th Conversation when asked about GBCs if they fall away how to elect new ones, he says a board of GBCs should elect them. This is from the conversations book.(there are 2 places in the conversation he talks about it). I do not know what is the folio version. When I read it in Mother Jahnava’s house for the first time, I felt I had been rammed by a bull. I have been going full steam trying to get the direction of management rolling and now this. I could not figure out why Srila Prabhupada would say this exact opposite thing, practically giving all power to the then GBCs, – whom he already knew are poisoning him, are happy he is going, are planning to be Gurus etc. Some devotees have been saying that Srila Prabhupada voluntarily gave over the whole ISKCON to these evil minds on purpose to enjoy and his real disciples should live at home and practice and preach. I just could not figure out what does Srila Prabhupada desired from me ? He wants me to go ahead with the recitfication and change of management or not. Whole time Mother Jahnava was telling me to do certain things I was doing by rote not paying attention, this topic was too much for me. Obviously it is totally linked to the guru quotes too which apparantely give these same people almost absolute power too.
After some desperate prayers and to tell you frankly, unenthusiasm, thought came to my mind of Hanuman who jumped to Lanka on behalf of Lord Rama and over the sea various illusions were thrown at him but he escaped. I thought whether this statement of Srila Prabhupada could be an illusion. You would not believe what happened next. Mother J. did not know what was happening. Suddenly she handed me a paper. “This is the first version of the May 28th Conversation which was first given to us.” I just out of curiosity and pain looked again at the same statement and lo and behold, here Srila Prabhupada was saying “They can be elected by (the board).” No mention of GBC here.
It dawned on me that first the GBCs have either spliced the tape or put the wrong version in the conversations book to appear that GBCs should be elected by current GBCs. Secondly, Srila Prabhupada left it open and tricked them. He LED THEM TO BELIEVE that he was giving them absolute power, BUT HE DID NOT GIVE THEM ANY LEGAL POWER to permanently solidify their position.
From: Bhakta dasa
To: Ravindra Svarupa (das) ACBSP (Philad. – USA) <Ravindra.Svarupa.ACBSP@pamho.net>
Sent: Sun, June 13, 2010 5:10:23 PM
Subject: Re: DOM Election of GBCs by TPs
Dear Sripad Ravindra Swarup das Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glory to His Divine Grace Srla Prabhupada!
Can you inform this esteemed audience why the GBC did not have His Divine Grace formally cancel and issue a new DOM, or modify the existing one? As all the most senior men were there in person, and they knew very well about the DOM, it sure looks weird to me that they would not have this really big change legally registered.
Thank you very much.
Your servant,
Bhakta dasa (ACBSP)
From: Roupamanjari devi dasi
Subject: Ravindra Swarup’s “Error of Zakheimism” argument against the DOM
Date: June 13, 2010 7:44:49 AM PDT
Dear Ravindra Swarup Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Thank you for electing to join in this critical discussion. I have read your 5-point argument against the Direction of Management and this is my conclusion: You have not managed to procure a formal, signed, civil order or amendment from Srila Prabhupada nullifying the Direction of Management, and therefore, legally, it stands.
No court will uphold the claim that Srila Prabhupada no longer wanted the Direction of Management simply because elections were not held in the 2 three-year periods between 1970 and 1977, nor that exercising His Power to personally appoint during His Lifetime means nullification of the DOM. Srila Prabhupada was quite clear on this point – that when personally Present, He could and would personally appoint, and did. Point #3 of your statement below may appear to suspend elections, but in actuality is referring back to Srila Prabhupada’s Statements that He will appoint GBCs in His Lifetime, and that after He enters Samadhi, GBCs will be elected by the terms of the Direction of Management. Please compare the language of your cited GBC resolution with that of the Direction of Management, page 2, line item 22:
“As we have increased our volume of activities, now I think a Governing Body Commission (hereinafter referred to as the GBC) should be established. I am getting old, 75 years old, therefore at any time I may be out of the scene, therefore I think it is necessary to give instruction to my disciples how they shall manage the whole institution.”
The Direction of Management is an “instruction” for how to “manage the whole institution” once Srila Prabhupada is “out of the scene”, meaning after Srila Prabhupada has entered into Samadhi and is no longer personally available to select GBCs. Therefore there is no conflict between your cited GBC resolution point #3 “no elections”, and the Direction of Management order, and is furthermore supported by your point #6 (actually #5) citing Srila Prabhupada’s Will – “The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.”
Both US civil law and Srila Prabhupada are in agreement that “you must be very careful what you write, but you can say any damned thing,” and legally, the one comment from Srila Prabhupada on 28 May 1977 does not nullify the Direction of Management. If one closely analyzes the conversation the comment can be interpreted in several ways depending on which previous statement Srila Prabhupada is modifying, and what He means when He says “selected to act” versus His earlier word choice of “elected”, as in accordance with the terms of the Direction of Management. Satsvarupa’s interjection of “by the votes of the present GBC” is irrelevant because Srila Prabhupada did not confirm the statement, and Satsvarupa continued speaking. Nevertheless, this conversation still fails to legally nullify the Direction of Management order, first given in 1970, re-stated in 1974, established in 1975 and 1976 in the ISKCON California and Bay Area Articles of Incorporation respectively, and then presented and recorded as evidence by the ISKCON GBC to establish the legitimacy of the ISKCON GBC by Badri Narayan das in the Long Island Court in 2004, an action in complete contradiction with your statement below.
Your eternal servant,
Roupamanjari devi dasi
From: Ravindra Swarup das
ERROR OF ZAKHEIMISM
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Here are the reasons I remain unpersuaded by the Zakheimites:
1. The provision in the Direction of Management for electing a GBC was never implemented in Srila Prabhupada’s time. I hold that had Prabhupada wanted to implement it, he would have done so. There is strong evidence that Prabhupada was perfectly capable of imposing his will on his managers. He had proven himself quite able to deal effectively with one conspiracy to subvert him in 1970-did he do that only to succumb to another? I don’t think so.
2. Prabhupada drew up the Direction of Management; at the same time, there is evidence to show that he had mixed feelings about elections. On the one hand, he wrote to Tamal Krishna on 13 October 1969:
“One thing should be followed, however, as your countrymen are more or less independent spirited and lovers of democracy. So everything should be done very carefully so that their sentiments may not be hurt. According to Sanskrit moral principles, everything has to be acted, taking consideration of the place, audience and time.”
On the other hand, he wrote to Karandhara on 19 July, 1973: “Democracy in spiritual affairs is not at all good but breeds power politics. We should be careful about power politics.”
3. In 1975 Srila Prabhupada guided the GBC in the conduct of its first
formal annual general meeting. He instituted parliamentary procedure, and in the first session he voted along with everyone else (to show how it is to be done). He caused the resolutions passed to be recorded by the secretary in an official minute book. He personally signed off on the resolutions passed. In that meeting, the fifth resolution record in the minute book repeals the provision for GBC election in the Direction of Management:
“5) Resolved: The selection of GBC members is that Srila Prabhupada will nominate, and if there is a discrepancy, His Grace will change him. There will be no elections, and the present GBC member will remain.”
Notice: “There will be no elections.”
5. On 28 May, 1977, an official delegation of the GBC met with Srila
Prabhupada with questions for him about GBC, initiation, and translation in the future, particularly when Prabhupada would be no longer with us.
Concerning the GBC:
“Satsvarupa: . . . . These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office?
Prabhupada: They should remain for good.
Tamala Krsna: They should remain for good.
Prabhupada: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that Vasudeva become one of the GBC.
Tamala Krsna: Vasudeva is Deoji Punja. He’s the founder of our… He’s
building the temple in Fiji.
Prabhupada: How many GBC’s are there already?
Tamala Krsna: Twenty-three.
Prabhupada: So add him. GBC is not to be changed.
Satsvarupa: But then, in the event that some present GBC member leaves,
either leaves . . .
Prabhupada: Another should be elected.
Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC.”
The discussion then turns to the next topic. Some have found the above
exchange inconclusive, because Prabhupada gives no explicit consent to the last statement of Satsvarupa (who expresses the GBC’s understanding of what Prabhupada intended).
However, one should read the rest of the conversation. Characteristically, at the end of the meeting, Srila Prabhupada reiterates the points he has made. So the topic of GBC comes up again:
“Satsvarupa: That’s all the questions.
Prabhupada: So there is no question of changing GBC.
Satsvarupa: No.
Prabhupada: Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC.”
6. Finally, in Srila Prabhupada “Declaration of Will,” dated June, 1977, the second provision contains the statement: “The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.”
Your fallen servant,
Ravindra Svarupa dasa
June 13 2010
PAMHO
AGTSP
The world will never accept ISKCON without the DOM by Srila Prabhupada. It is a legal document that was created and signed by Srila Prabhupada. Those who do not accept it are asat. They want to use ISKCON for their own personal money-making and so on.
(power and money hungry behavior)
Liberty and freedom are what democracy stands for, and it exposes corruption. With a totalitarian system KC will never spread ,and the GBC and all general devotees should know this. The idea to set up a totalitarian system in the name of ISKCON all over the world will never happen, and even if it happens it will fail miserably.
USA and all Democratic countries will never agree to this, and church and state will still have to be kept separate, and until KC becomes everyone’s religion it will never happen. The ideas of Varna asrama are noble, but external, because becoming a pure devotee is more important than Varna asrama. A pure devotee naturally follows varna asrama and more. Pure devotee means at least to chant 16 rounds and follow 4 regs. Srila Prabhupada said all who do so are pure devotees. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada said without chanting 64 rounds and practicing pure devotional service one will not be a pure devotee. To educate devotees and non devotees in chanting is more important than varna asrama.
ISKCON has failed to expand widely like Srila Prabhupada wanted. The reason for this is the neglect of Srila Prabhupada’s instruction to enforce the DOM. The evidence that a totalitarian Acaryas system no longer works is seen after the passing of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada.
Srila Prabhupada never asked 50 Gurus to be acaryas and rule the world.
Sannyasis especially are forbidden to own property and gather large amounts of money they keep in personal bank accounts. Any leader in ISKCON or any devotee cannot use ISKCON for personal wealth; it will never stop, and such persons can never be seen as pure devotees. Nor can those who simply make themselves a comfortable dictator position and do not even spread KC in their zone or area of responsibility. Women are often attracted to “powerful men”. So the 2, money and desire for women, are anarthas. Disguising with a show of sannyasa will not benefit the world. Personally we do not see anyone as a sannyasi up to standard if he fails to daily chant 64 rounds of japa daily. Bhakti is more important than external positions.
Your Servant
Payonidhi das
Not following the DOM has led to killings (in New Vrindavan in 1980s, though at the time they where expelled from ISKCON), sannyasis marrying female disciples, either leaving ISKCON or staying in positions of comfort in ISKCON.
For ISKCON to be run on any level by former Gays is never going to create purity in ISKCON. Personally we have seen gays never reform.
The DOM will keep ISKCON managers honest and doing their duty; the consequences will be removal. The GBC has failed to enforce that grains should not be served on Visnutattva appearance days, that no leaders in ISKCON should use ISKCON for personal profit, and that no former gays become sannyasis and Gurus. I am not saying all GBCs and TPs are gay—that would be crazy—but to investigate they are not is important.
Also the lack of book distribution and Sankirtan and prasadam distribution, in most ISKCON temples will be rectified by the DOM.
=================
NNV DAS
June 10 2010?
THE DOM IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND HAS BEEN IN EFFECT SINCE 1970. SP RESERVED THE RIGHT TO RUN ISKCON AS HE CHOSE DURING HIS LIFE TIME.
AFTER 1977 ISKCON WAS LITERALLY POISED TO FOLLOW THE DOM AS PER THE DOCUMENTS THAT SP HAD PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS HAPPENED.
THE PRESENT GODLESS GBC HAVE REJECTED SP’S DIRECT ORDER, AND THEY (AND WE) HAVE SUFFERED THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES EVER SINCE.
PRACTICALLY ALL THE SCANDALS AND PERVASIVE LAWSUITS HAVE TAKEN PLACE SOLELY DUE TO THE MISHANDLING OF CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE UNACCOUNTABLE GBC.
THE DOM IS A PRACTICAL AND USABLE DOCUMENT.
ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO HOLD ELECTIONS UNDER THE DOM AS IT STANDS TODAY IS FOR THE TEMPLE PRESIDENTS TO HOLD A CONVENTION, NOMINATE CANDIDATES AND THEN ELECT A NEW GBC.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT IS ALL IT WILL TAKE.
NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT OTHER THINGS OTHER THAN THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE FACT.
THE DOM IS IN EFFECT TODAY AND WE COULD HOLD ELECTIONS TODAY.
NNV DAS
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Gaura Kesava das wrote:
PAMHO AGTSP
The Prabhupada disciples PAMHO forum is like that.
Trivikrama Swami wanted Pragosha to put me down but instead I picked a topic (DOM) that Pragosha seems to agree with.
Though he has a strange way of expressing it.
He accepts the DOM but still thinks the present GBC are legitimate.
Double think.
I can’t understand his stand which is not logical what to speak of legal.
GKD
From: Jaya Madhava das
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:02 AM
Subject: MY REPLY– HARE KRSNA Thanks You Prabhu’s—PLEASE REPLY YS,JMD Moscow
Dear Roupa manjari dd Prabhu and Narayanana das /Prabhujee…
Please accept my most humble obeisances
All Glories to HDG Srila Prabhupada !
Thanks for the reply and I know you and your
Husband and his brother -From LA (Thats a fact)
They know me too ! Im Japanease/American from Phila Pa.
Ive been with and associated with Iskcon and its devotees
since 1970,,,when I was a teenager…I joined and shaved up at the Phila .
Temple July of 1975,,,after Prabhupada’s visit there ! Its was Ecstatic !!!
Those days are close to my heart and have saved me ! I care about Iskcon
Ive watched Prabhupads Iskcon do too many questionable things for $
$ After Prabhupads departure,,,being a brahmacari and young out,I
couldnt imagine the GBC Disobeying Prabhupada,,,Years later I found out otherwise and this haunts me and many devotees…The Changes/Deviation
Thats true for many of us…Now its time to Clean up Iskcon and put
Prabhupads Orders Back in Iskcon…You see how its been compromised
Just this May 2010 ,,I showed my Russian wife( a disciple of HH JPS )
The Video feed from LA Iskcon on Lord Nrshima Devs apperrence day
I told my wife–This is whats happened to even Iskcon HQ in LA !!! Sad.
On a major apperence day ,,,,its obvious the lack of western devotees
in the temple room…that is to say Where are the American Devotees ?
Where are the Temple devotees.The Western Prabhupada Disciples ?
Even my wife was shocked to see so many Indians and so few Americans !
The temple room in LA was 95 % Indians…Thats the Iskcon CA. HQ !
So thats whats become of Iskcon in America/UK etc….This is normal ?
This is tragic to say the least and ENOUGH Already !
This D.O.M. is proof ,,,Prabhupads Instructions were Neglected by Iskcons
GBC–zonal gurus,,Money was the honey,,,selling any damn thing spoiled
the bramacari /bramacarini ashrams and hurt devotees,CEO Greed !
This is way way Offensive and shocking and PROVES why Iskcon in ‘America and UK ‘ is in trouble (why it got reactions/lawsuits etc…)
Now they are trying to whitewash the Past and make a feel good Luv us
Iskcon ,for the indians and the general public…Money is more Important.
Thats my opinion and realization on Iskcon…Its Not Prabhupads Fired Up
Movement anymore…Look at–The Bhaktivedanta Manor $$$ and its
Paid employess and Hinduized Programs–copy Cat-ed in the USA.
Vanishing Ashrams,Vanishing Hari Nams,Vanishing Book Distribution
(as Prabhupada wanted it) This is a fact and the GBC are not doing
their jobs as enforcers and protectors of Prabhupada’s Orders !
This is not a GBC …If it Ignores Prabhupada’s Instructions on ALL Issues
FYI _____My History in Iskcon
1970–I first meet devotees in Phila.on Hari Nams (those were happy days)
this gots me to the Temple for many years in the early 70′s
1975–I join the Phila.Pa Temple and stay in Iskcon (the temples for
a long time—from 1975-1987) Then move out in 1987 because of politics
Bhavagat Ashraya Das (from Australia) Had no use for me in Soho St. UK
My services were/ are
1975-1987 Preaching Book Distribution -airports–K-Marts : ) etc….
I was sent to the BI in 1977 and served the B.I. for many years
in Boston (1977)–Bombay—Atlanta Ga. then left the B.I. when
I realized they didnt appreciate my humble services.
I was in Berkley Temple 1978 and later in 1980 but left to preach
in India ,where I served as a gurukul Teacher in Mayapur+Vrindaban
From 1980-1985 ,I left Vrindaban gurukula in 1985 after one year there
to collect for repairing the school and I gave about $ 14,000 dollars in cash
to them collected by myself after a 2 year collection…I was supposed
to return there in 1987 (I was in the UK at the time but There was too much heavy politics in Vrindaban Iskcon Gurukula and All the teachers
were denied Visas (at that time)-kicked out- It was awful.In 1987 was in the UK for one last collection for India,
and I was invited to do one last collection for the Gurukula by our Godbrother—Ranchor Das Prabhu–But the day I arrived in the UK
He stepped down and Bhagavat Ashraya Das came in as Pres. at soho st
Bhagavat Ashraya Das (was a YES man for Bhagavan das) Soon he called
me in his office and asked me–Jaya Madhava–I just want to know
Who’s man are you ? I was stunned,,,who’s man…whats this ????
Then I said Im Prabhupada’s man,,,collecting for Prabhupadas Vrindaban
Gurukula..to this he told me…SORRY ,You have to leave the temple
its so small and we have NO ROOM for you !!!! Thats how I moved outside
Iskcon…It was painfully clear to me No one cared about me Unless I was their YES Man………I sure other Prabhu’s can share with you their
dissapointments with the GBC and Iskcon management.
Anyway,,,Im no Rittivick or Narayana Maharaj follower
Im an Iskcon man BUT whats Iskcon and which– iskcon ????
Is Iskcon- New Vrindaban selling out to the Big Oil Company DEMONS ???
Is Iskcon a Hindu Church for Indians in the USA/UK ???? For $$$$$$$$
Its a MESSS…So its high time the GBC did their Jobs or get sacked.
I care about Iskcon,,,Prabhupadas original Iskcon NOT the shadow Iskcon
I care about Iskcons devotees who got left out…of Iskcon by the thousands…Prabhupada and Lord KRSNA know the Truth and I do not
think KRSNA will allow Iskcon to get Hijacked and Changed and damaged
anymore…as much as I regret to say this –I feel we have to -FIGHT
for the LIFE and FUTURE of Iskcons Integrity-. ! The DOM is the KEY
“The smoking gun”….I cant believe any sincere GBC or Temple president
in their right mind will allow..Iskcon in the West USA/UK to continue
Compromising/changing Prabhupadas BBT Books ,Temples
and allow Iskcon to go down to the lower status of– Hinduizied /Churchs.
What exists today is not Prabhupada’s Iskcon in Most of America/England
They are a Business and Non Profit church ,like the Catholic Church
or a Hindu Temple aimed at paying the bills at the expense of Neglecting
Book Distribution,Hari Nams,Bhakta Programs, The core programs of iskcon and Prabhupada’s ORIGINAL Iskcon–Not the changed iskcon
The GBC who will attempt to FIGHT this-DOM-This shows how OFF they are and how in Maya they are…To deny re-storing Prabhupada’s DOM
ITs Clear and straight forward Prabhupada’s direction of Management
and ANY one who is honest who reads it ,will realize Prabhupada’s Iskcon.
They will see the Iskcon of TODAY in many places is NOT that Version !
Im not bitter ,I just sad at what the GBC has allowed to happen to Iskcon
Im sad at DISHONEST so called Leaders…..Not all but some………………
Im sad at the thousands of devotees,,left out in the cold,who were not
YES men. Im sad to see the Gukulies sue Iskcon and hurt Prabhupada’s Movement,,Im sad Iskcon made a scapegoats and Boogymen
of Godbrothers who pointed out their Grave Mistakes.
On the otherhand Im happy to be a part of even a dysfunctional Iskcon
Im fortunate Prabhupada was merciful to a fallen soul ,like me !
Im attached to my Godbrothers/Godsisters and all Iskcon sincere devotees
I happy Lord KRSNA sent me a nice Russian devotee wife ! I happy to assoiate with the sincere Russian devotees ,who are not spoiled like
Americans (sorry) Who go out on Hari Nams (in the summer) Who
distribute Prabhupada’s books on a regular basis here,Dispite Its Russia
and Not an easy place to live in (even with the absence of communism)
As Russian say Often–Life is hard in Russia !!!! Its true ,Ive been here
10 years as an ex-pat.
One last thing…This Power Trip- SOME- GBC is in…is similar to the Control
freaks in the White House,Military,FBI,CIA,,,Corperations,Big Banks,Wall St
and Cathllic Church and the Elite Rich, its demonic.Its Disease must end.
Or Iskcon will END (It will go on as a fake clone of the original Iskcon)
Iskcon is supposed to SAVE THE WORLD !!! 1st Iskcon must save itself !
The Material world is heading to HELL so fast ,These days its makes
even Karmies Take Notice !!!! For example =See www.prisionplanet.com
or Infowars.com Just go there….Its shocking and TRUE…How can
Iskcon ward off this crap from the powerful demons IF they cant
Follow Prabhupada’s Instructions for Iskcon ??? Its scary times.
We are trying to save Prabhupada’s Iskcon and we are being DEMONIZED
Real Kali Yuga Isnt it Prabhu’s !!!!
Chant Hare KRSNA,Do Preaching and be Happy.
Take Care and Please do Keep in Touch with me, OK ?
Your servant,
Jaya Madhava das (acbsp) Moscow Russia
=======================================
From: mail@setmedic.com
Subject: RE: legal is just an anchor in the event of a storm
Date: June 8, 2010 4:56:06 AM PDT
To: zakheim@earthlink.net
Cc: bhakta@saintly.com
the DOM is a contract between parties…it is already a “legal” document, a civil contract. Civil contracts are ultimately enforceable in a court of law.
The first thing is to have the parties do what the DOM days—-have the TPs begin the election process. Then, if there is resistance, then those actions can be enforceable by civil laws—laws that Srila Prabhupada depended upon when he wrote the document. But when the elections, etc, start as you correctly suggest, then there must be preparation for the other side teaming-up with “the authorities” to stop that process. If the TPs are unprepared for that they well be vanquished by the powers-that-be who are currently in charge and cozy with “the state.”
All I’m suggesting is to be prepared in a legal sense for the resistance, that will be the wall the opposition will “scale the walls of the fortress” from. We don’t believe in “corporate ISKCON”, and that is exactly why we must be prepared for an attack from that vantage point—the GBC DOES believe in a “corporate ISKCON” and will use that method to stay in power. It has worked for them and will be their defense.
TMd
From: Nathan Zakheim
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: legal is just an anchor oin the event of a storm
On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Tapana Misra das wrote:
sounds good…but it still think it must be done “legally” in a broad sense because that is the authority SP relied upon as the anchor for mundane management affairs.
THE DOM IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT DONE LEGALLY. NO COURT IN THE WORLD WILL REJECT A GBC ELECTED BY THE PRESENT TEMPLE PRESIDENTS.
PLEASE STOP THINKING ABOUT “CORPORATE ISKCON” THAT IS A FICTION CREATED BY THE PRESENT GODLESS GBC. THEY CREATED THIS FICTION SO THAT YOU WOULD BELIEVE IN IT.
IT ACTUALLY DOES NOT EXIST.
LEGALLY, THE TEMPLE PRESIDENTS HAVE THE POWER OVER THEIR OWN TEMPLES, AND MEMBERS OF THE TEMPLE HAVE POWER OVER THE TEMPLE PRESIDENTS.
WHAT COULD BE MORE SIMPLE AND EFFECTIVE?
All of the management directives are loosely tethered to a government authority that can be used in the event of a disaster—that is SP’s wisdom. He would use the legal system to enforce his will and legacy, in the event that his disciples would run amuck—which it is beginning to look like they have.
THEY HAVE “RUN AMOK” STARTING IN 1970 AND EVERY YEAR ONWARD. THESE GODLESS GBC MEN WERE DESCRIBED BY SP AS “A SINISTER MOVEMENT WITHIN OUR SOCIETY”. WHAT COULD BE MORE CLEAR?
SP DID THE LEGAL WORK….HE CREATED THE DOM.
THE GODLESS MEN POSING AS GBC HID IT FROM EVERYONE UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY. NOW THAT IT IS OUT IN THE OPEN, AND THE WEBSITE iskcon-dom.com EXISTS, THERE IS NO LEGAL OBSTACLE TO HAVING A GBC ELECTION.
The legal system is not the big stick, but is the “parampara” for management, the anchor. If the “GBC-things-as-they-are” crowd objects, then the “Change-the-GBC-Methods” crowd must have all of the Ts crossed and Is dotted.
THE DOM IS IN PLACE SINCE 1970. ALL WE NOW NEED ARE TEMPLE MEMBERS URGING THEIR TP’S TO VOTE.
NO NEED TO MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
NNV DAS
The appreciation for detail of Naranaryana was what Jayananda admired about you.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT JAYANANDA ADMIRED ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT ME.
HE NEVER LIKED ME VERY MUCH.
But still he put those truck axels upside down and steel wheels on the Rath carts. LOL He was unstoppable! I gotta admit, that’s my fault, too—I supported him to the very bumpy end.
TMd
From: Nathan Zakheim
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: diplomatic
ALEXANDER THE GREAT “UNTIED” THE GORDIAN KNOT BY CUTTING IT IN HALF WITH HIS SWORD.
THERE IS NO NEED FOR LEGAL ACTION. NOR DO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE “INTRICACIES” OF THE CURRENT ISKCON MANAGEMENT.
WE NEED TO INFORM THE TEMPLE MEMBERS….PARTICULARLY THE INDIAN COMMUNITY WHO IS NOW THE MAJORITY FUNDERS OF ISKCON THAT THEY HAVE VOTING RIGHTS TO CREATE A TEMPLE PRESIDENT, AND THAT THIS TEMPLE PRESIDENT CAN UNITE WITH ALL OTHER TEMPLE PRESIDENTS AND CREATE A NEW GBCL
REMEMBER, ISKCON IS MEANT TO BE DE-CENTRALIZED. IF EACH TEMPLE REALIZES THAT THEY ARE ALL THAT THERE IS TO ISKCON, THEN THEY CAN FEARLESSLY NOMINATE AND VOTE A BOARD OF GBC MEMBERS FOR THREE YEAR TERMS.
THE PRESENT PEOPLE CALLING THEMSELVES “GBC” WILL THEN BE LEFT WITHOUT A JOB……OR MONEY.
NNV DAS
On Jun 7, 2010, at 5:59 AM, Tapana Misra das wrote:
Haribol Bhakta das Prabhu,
I agree it sounds fishy. And Srila Prabhupada did things legally because of the protection that the legal system offered in the event of anarchy among ISKCON managers/devotees as well as protection against karmi intrusion. This is a case that the legal system needs to prevail over the current GBC so there is no recourse but to take it to court.
Then, it CAN be settled out of court, but the current crop of managers does not fear the truth because we carry so little influence. They will just wait for Prabhupada disciples to die the same way they just waited for Srila Prabhupada to leave the planet.
Part of the problem is that disciples like me, having been out of the temple structure for over 30 years, do not even know the intricacies of the GBC/Management structure so it is hard to make a cohesive legal argument. And it is unlikely one exists, but is there somewhere that I can find the current management structure that ISKCON GBC uses to manage ISKCON? Articles of incorporation, shareholder documents, something?
Then, the DOM can be asserted in a detailed manner to counteract the claims of the current managers in an intelligent way.
We must have a cohesive strategy, then there will be strength and potency to make a change for the better. Prabhupada always did things in a legal sense, we must follow his example in this sorry chapter in ISKCON history.
Tapana
From: William G. Benedict
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 11:44 PM
To: Tapana Misra das
Subject: Re: diplomatic
| Hari Bol Tapan,
I agree with you, something smells fishy here. The entire basis of the GBC’s existence is the DOM which was signed by SP in 1970 and affirmed in 1974 very strongly. SP is not stupid, SP did not forget what he has done in 1970 or 1974. The current GBC is arguing that SP nullified the earlier legal documents via a conversation in May 1977. It does not make sense to me. Gurukrpa, who was there all the time, insists that Tamal and Satsvarupa were in a conspiracy to take over the movement when they understood that SP was leaving. You may remember what Tamal did to the NA temples in 1974-76 when he encouraged all the leading devotees to leave their temples and come on his buses. Your servant, Bhakta dasa (ACBSP) |
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Jaya Madhava das wrote:
Dear Roupa Manjari dd Prabhu,
Pamho-agtsp HARE KRSNA
Prabhu,This week,I talked to a Godbrother on the telephone
in Kansas USA and he said some GBCs are trying to defend
the GBC not following Srila Prabhupada’a DOM Is it true ?
Why is this not on any website ? Strange…Its a serious Issue
Prabhupada’s -Direction of Management and I want to know
is this true and whats latest the news…………..?
Hypothetically…………..
Can Prabhupads disciples make a legal case with the GBC (take them to court)
TO Do their jobs properly and stop-Compromising / Changes in Iskcon ?
This would seem the only way to get things done and is NOT a good option
as it would further damage an already weak Iskcon in the West
BUT WHAT can be done….Talking to the GBC is like talking to the Wall.
I wish I thought otherwise….and I would not want to see Iskcon
in legal problems again. Ie . Law suits BUT
The GBC listen’s to law suits………Not talk. I see it coming.
Its Unfortunate IF someone would sue the GBC,,,To Follow Prabhupada
I care about Iskcon and Im a member…But whats the use of a wayward
GBC who no longer answers to anybody.(except themselves)
Or an Iskcon thats become Hinduized and like a mundane church.
When Srila Prabhupada left us,the Iskcon we know was on the way out the door……….
Its like when the Cats away the mice will play.
Im in Russia and far away from the USA PLEASE REPLY !
Thank You Hari Bol
Your Servant,
Jaya Madhava Das-(acbsp) Moscow Russia
Subject: HARE KRSNA Thanks You Prabhu’s
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:46:33 +0000
HARE KRSNA,,Roupamanjari Devi dasi Prabhu,
Pamho-agtsp
Prabhu’s Thank you for DOM
Its time to save Iskcon from bad TP.gbc management.
Its become a job….for some……….protect your jobs !
Times are getting scary all over the world and iskcon
Iskcon was supposed to save the world–It cant save itself !
IT has become a weakned Movement..(in the west).Temples
without real ashrams everywhere…Made into Hindu Churches
Ive been unhappy with Prabhupads Changed
Iskcon in the USA/UK ,,,EU for a long time
There has been too much change+compromise in Iskcon
No wonder the Non -devotee Demons have become so BOLD !!!! 911-inside job-false wars,oil spills,loss of freedoms loss of jobs,loss of homes etc…………….It will get only worse………..
Thank You for your efforts
Any help I can give ,I will.
Take Care Hari Bol
Your servant,
Jaya Madhava Das(acbsp) U.S.ex-pat Moscow
On Fri, June 4, 2010 8:34 am, Nathan Zakheim wrote:
HARI BOLE PRABHUS!
PAMHO AGTSP!
There is no use for a legal case. Even if we won we would not win. We
cannot fight for the rights of the Temple Presidents or the Temple Members
if they, themselves do not want to fight in their own behalf.
I sense that there is the lingering misconception that we need to sue
to GBC to get the DOM. The GBC has spent millions of dollars to make
themselves “lawsuit proof”. A lawsuit is what they are expecting.
Our move is to sneak up behind their ranks and GET A VOTE FROM THE
TP’S for the DOM. The so called GBC is “so-called” because they are
not in the least GBC men as stated in the DOM or by SP.
THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO GET THE DOM INTO THE INCORPORATION PAPERS OF
ISKCON and that is when the Temple Presidents PUT it into the
incorporation Papers of Iskcon.
If twenty temples do this, the GBC will not be able to take legal
action against them all at once. If the GBC starts a lawsuit against twenty
temples or thirty temples who have already put the DOM into their
incorporation papers or even if the have NOT put the DOM into their
incorporation papers but have elected a 12 man GBC, they will have to
prove that they are ACTUALLY GBC.
In the courtroom, the Temple presidents will say “We have elected a
GBC according to the DOM” and the court will ask the so-called “GBC”
are you also elected as per the DOM?
If they say “no” then they lose. If they say “yes” it will be perjury.
Bhadrinarayan das has already stated IN COURT RECORD that the GBC has
no other founding document other than the DOM. That court record can be
used to establish that the DOM is accepted by the current “GBC”…….If
they accept it, then why no elections?
PLEASE READ THE MATERIAL RECENTLY POSTED ON : iskcon-dom.com
This should give you some idea as to how the present “GBC” has made
it clear that they DO accept the DOM……but they will be unable to show
even one document to demonstrate that the DOM was amended by SP to
ELIMINATE elections. The “hearsay” of the non-official tape may
fool the average devotee, but it will not fool the legal system.
Clearly, the men currently “in charge” of Iskcon have a HUGE profit
motive to “keep things as they are”. Although some of them are devotees,
their main thrust is “PROFIT ADORATION AND DISTINCTION” for themselves at
the cost of denying access to SP’s Lotus Feet to the whole Human Race!
For this movement to expand exponentially, ISKCON MUST HAVE THE DOM;
Your eternal servant,
NNV das
——-Original Message——-
From: Tapana Misra das
Date: 6/4/2010 7:18:34 PM
To: Bhakta das
Subject: diplomatic
That’s a good idea. I was being a little diplomatic by saying I see their perspective. I see it, but I don’t agree—it doesn’t pass the “smell” test. The fact that you and I and so many others are “outside of ISKCON” is a testament to the inability of the management structure to keep us.
I have an old theory—authority and responsibility go hand-in-hand. One who has authority over something bears the responsibility of its outcome. And someone who is responsible for something is given the authority to make things happen.
The GBC system took all of the authority yet are trying to evade the responsibility for ineffective results.
TMd
PS I was really commenting on the offensive term “Zakheimism” . Naranarayana has always had a fiery personality but insulting him is offensive. Even someone as insignificant as I know you must take him with a grain of salt sometimes, but he was a tireless worker for Srila Prabhupada in the early days. Jayananda told me many stories about Naranaryana and never was critical—that is the basis of my opinion of him.
From: Bhakta dasa
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:27 PM To: Charlie French Subject: Re: From HG Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu
TAPAN,
Why not take a real poll of ALL of SP’s disicples everywhere and get their input?
Most of them left after 1978 due to this issue alone.
Your servant,
Bhakta dasa (ACBSP)
Sent: Fri, June 4, 2010 9:06:14 AM
Subject:
RE: From HG Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu
Jagajivan das Prabhu:
PAMHO, AGTSP Thank you for your email, I can see the perspective with the well-described points. However, the “Zakheimism” terminology is unnecessarily harsh and condescending, and beneath such an exalted scholar and Vaisnava as Ravindra Svarupa. (unless there exists such a sect) If there is, then I stand corrected. If not, the terminology is replete with anger and dripping with personal contempt that borders on Vaisnava aparadah. Hoping this meets you in good health and jolly mood, ys Tapana Misra das
—–Original Message—– From: Jagajivan das ACBSP (Asuncion – Paraguay) [mailto:Jagajivan.das.ACBSP@pamho.net] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 1:31 PM To: Prabhupada Disciples Subject: From HG Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu ERROR OF ZAKHEIMISM Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Here are the reasons I remain unpersuaded by the Zakheimites: 1. The provision in the Direction of Management for electing a GBC was never implemented in Srila Prabhupada’s time. I hold that had Prabhupada wanted to implement it, he would have done so. There is strong evidence that Prabhupada was perfectly capable of imposing his will on his managers. He had proven himself quite able to deal effectively with one conspiracy to subvert him in 1970-did he do that only to succumb to another? I don’t think so. 2. Prabhupada drew up the Direction of Management; at the same time, there is evidence to show that he had mixed feelings about elections. On the one hand, he wrote to Tamal Krishna on 13 October 1969: ”One thing should be followed, however, as your countrymen are more or less independent spirited and lovers of democracy. So everything should be done very carefully so that their sentiments may not be hurt. According to Sanskrit moral principles, everything has to be acted, taking consideration of the place, audience and time.” On the other hand, he wrote to Karandhara on 19 July, 1973: “Democracy in spiritual affairs is not at all good but breeds power politics. We should be careful about power politics.” 3. In 1975 Srila Prabhupada guided the GBC in the conduct of its first formal annual general meeting. He instituted parliamentary procedure, and in the first session he voted along with everyone else (to show how it is to be done). He caused the resolutions passed to be recorded by the secretary in an official minute book. He personally signed off on the resolutions passed. In that meeting, the fifth resolution record in the minute book repeals the provision for GBC election in the Direction of Management: ”5) Resolved: The selection of GBC members is that Srila Prabhupada will nominate, and if there is a discrepancy, His Grace will change him. There will be no elections, and the present GBC member will remain.” Notice: “There will be no elections.” 5. On 28 May, 1977, an official delegation of the GBC met with Srila Prabhupada with questions for him about GBC, initiation, and translation in the future, particularly when Prabhupada would be no longer with us. Concerning the GBC: ”Satsvarupa: . . . . These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office? Prabhupada: They should remain for good. Tamala Krsna: They should remain for good. Prabhupada: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that Vasudeva become one of the GBC. Tamala Krsna: Vasudeva is Deoji Punja. He’s the founder of our… He’s building the temple in Fiji. Prabhupada: How many GBC’s are there already? Tamala Krsna: Twenty-three. Prabhupada: So add him. GBC is not to be changed. Satsvarupa: But then, in the event that some present GBC member leaves, either leaves . . . Prabhupada: Another should be elected. Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC.” The discussion then turns to the next topic. Some have found the above exchange inconclusive, because Prabhupada gives no explicit consent to the last statement of Satsvarupa (who expresses the GBC’s understanding of what Prabhupada intended). However, one should read the rest of the conversation. Characteristically, at the end of the meeting, Srila Prabhupada reiterates the points he has made. So the topic of GBC comes up again: ”Satsvarupa: That’s all the questions. Prabhupada: So there is no question of changing GBC. Satsvarupa: No. Prabhupada: Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC.” 6. Finally, in Srila Prabhupada “Declaration of Will,” dated June, 1977, the second provision contains the statement: “The system of management will continue as it is now and there is no need of any change.” Your fallen servant, Ravindra Svarupa dasa
From: Gadadhara das (Berkeley)
Date: June 5, 2010 1:07:09 AM PDT
To: “hansadutta@hansadutta.com“
Sent from my iPhone
http//www.krsnafood.org
On Jun 5, 2010, at 1:05 AM
Hansadutta Prabhu,
All Glories to Srila Prabhupada
Please accept my humble obeisances
Well I just think that it’s NOT really a matter of fixing ISKCON because the essence ISKCON can not be confined to an institutionally organized government. The essence of ISKCON is in the individual’s servient relationship with SRILA PRABHUPADA and thier conscious relations to others who are also dedicated; mind, body, and soul to Srila Prabupadas wishes. This works, as you point out perfectly, ONLY WITH LOVE & TRUST amungst the Unifide body of Selfless servants.
but the Direction of Management, reguardless of it’s historical place in ISKCONs timeline, is still a directive left by Srila Prabhupada and as dedicated soldiers we should see that it’s implemented. (wether the institution is functioning properly or not) Yes it wasn’t followed, bit that doesn’t mean that it can’t be implemented and taken up from a small groups of selfless servants whose enthusiasm, patience, determination, honesty (and the rest of the six principles to advance in Krishna Consciousness) lead them once again to effectivly move the lost Jivas into a unifide consciousness.
It is the individuals who take Srila Prabhupadas words (wether legal documents, letters, or conversations) as do or die orders who will be empowered to grant His wishes. It is NOT the institution it self. And the Direction of Management seeks to break the very thing that Institutionalized Religion is all about – CENTRAL CONTROL by selfish servants.
It decentralizes institution and opens up the doors for unity amoungst deadication outside of the ever present institution. The institution will always be there. It will always form because religion is where the devil hangs out. I think Srila Prabhupada must have known this and that is the very reason that he drafted the Direction Of Management in the first place. It was his way of checking it.
And in the end. Isn’t it our dharma to just see that Srila Prabhupadas wishes are fulfilled weather we suceed or not. Maybe it’s kind of like it says in the Gita that the devotee is happy serving wether in heaven or hell?
Anyways I don’t mean to be preachey or anything.
I don’t really know anything. But you asked my oppinion so for whatever it’s worth. I applaud NNV Prabhu for pushing it forward. This is his type of thing for sure.
YourServant,
Gadadhara das
Sent from my iPhone
http//www.krsnafood.org
Yes, but what do you think, I need your opinion. Hansadutta dss
okay I finally got this! thanks!
YourServant, Gadadhara das
Subject: Fwd: LOVE AND TRUST …. EVERYTHING MUST HAVE A PRIOR.
Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 6:41 PM
>> Dear Naranarayana Prabhu
>> Please accept my most humble obeisances, all glories to srila Prabhupada.
>> I have been following, from a distance, your thread of letters regarding the Dom.
>> These are my observations and humble conclusion on the matter.
>>
>> The Dom is a legal document, issue from one spiritual leader ( Founder Acharya if ISKCON ) l to his voluntary Spiritual ( disciples ) followers. It is issued on the premise of -LOVE AND TRUST-. As there is a hierarchy of power and influence in the materially focused hierarchies of the world, their binding catalyst being force and fear. Similarly there is hierarchy of spiritual power and influence in the spiritual realm, based on LOVE AND TRUST.
>>
>> when Srila Prabhupada issued this order, or URGENT directive, it apparently was not taken into action, it was not implemented. We can say it was because the disciples who were responsible at the time of it’s issue simply did not LOVE AND TRUST srila prabhupada, and therefore failed to carry out his order. The platform of our obiediance to Prabhupada is LOVE and TRUST. Those who do not LOVE and TRUST prabhupada, do not follow his order, or his discipline. Just as a citizen of a foreign country feels no alligence or love for another country.
>>
>> Therefore it is now too late to fast forward to the year 2010 and expect or demand or legally to try to get the order in place in an institution ( ISKCON ) that did not LOVE AND TRUST Prabhupada more than 35 years ago. Before there was anything legally binding in our awakening to Prabhupada’s love and trust for us, there was and understanding of the siddhantas and saddhanas that lifted us to a platform of progressive spiritual advancement, and which awakened a glimmer of attachment and an inclination to LOVE AND TRUST prabhupada. it is only after this initial awakening takes place that Srila Prabhupada could discipline us and direct us to submit and serve- (Inquiry,submission and service ) him accordingly. The spiritual hierarchy is based on this -inquiry, submission and service – principle.
>>
>> The situation is something like a boy and girl fall in love, there is a declaration of marriage (Engagemnent ) a promise, a vow, “I will marry this girl, I will marry this man “. The couples intention and exclusive dedication in love is declared. They are not yet married, but their promise, their intention is declared publicly. Then after sometime, there is hesitation, there is doubt, there may be adultery or any number of other diversions, one party breaks the engagement (Something like RADHARANI and KUVAS situation) the relationship is broken. So, can you or I, or anyone, now, backtrack and enforce marriage on them? I don’t think so. The LOVE AND TRUST has long ago evaporated. it is dead. The DOM situation is something like that.
>>
>> similarly, the engagement, the LOVE AND TRUST has been broken, so how will you establish a legally binding contract or order upon those who actually do not LOVE AND TRUST srila Prabhupad. Those leaders who stood with their hands in their pockets while legal papers were being filed to prove Srila prabhupada was a ‘WORKS FOR HIRE ” …. we supplied paper, pen and office space, we fed him clothe him, sheltered him. Therefore he had no legal rights to the copyrights of the books he wrote, thus there is no valid BBT and thus Hans Kary is not a trustee. These same leaders, same hands in their pockets, make no protest as -”The Clerk “- Jayadvaita – ADULTERATES Srila Prabhupada’s books. The same leaders who ignored the july 9th letter appointing Rittvik representatives of the Acharya, who were empowered to continue the expansion of ISKCON by initiating new devotees for and on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. These same men are still initiating, not on behalf of Prabhupada, but for their own LOVE – FRIENDSHIP – and SOCIETY. How will you convince their sheep like- lemming like followers to throw off their yoke and embrace Srila Prabhupada ? How will that happen ??
>>
>> There are other issues, but these four main points should do for now.
>>
>> I am not opposed to your enthusiastic effort, but I cannot see beyond the pivotal issue, the pole star, the absolute constant, LOVE AND TRUST. Where is the platform of love and trust?
>> They say it is more economical and practical to build a new house than to renovate an old house.
>>
>> Your humble servant,
>> Hansadutta das
People enter into legal binding contract after they have developed a degree of love and trust (even notorious Gangsters do so) the principles of love and trust are exhibited in varying degrees of purity, but the principle is all pervading, even animals exhibit love and trust. The legal ,formal expression is a shadow , or extension of the substance of the LOVE and TRUST existing between two parties.
No one marries legally and then later tries to love their mate, no, first love and trust. When the love breaks, then usually the Legalities are also severely violated. We see this in ISKCON now. No one accepts anyone on love and trust, everyone wants salary, and contracts, when there are disputes, as there was with me, immediately to rush to the courts. Nothing can be adjudicated under the Authority of SRILA PRABHUPADA, because the leaders do not love or trust prabhupada. They love the court and they LOVE legal wrangling
Bhakta prabhu said
If a central Vatican like power is there, dictating from afar, it would
seem alien to the will of Srila Prabhupada.
<Krsnadharma prabhu said
<I agree, but there does need to be some body which determines what is and is
not ISKCON, which temples and projects can be considered a part of the
organisation and what criteria apply in that determination. ….> >
As late as 1974 His Divine Grace wrote;
My Dear Mukunda das:
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated September
22, 1974 and have noted the contents. Regarding the election of President, a
president can only be changed by vote. If no vote was taken, then the president
cannot be changed. Neither Hamsaduta can change the president whimsically or
can anybody else change the president. According the “Direction of Management”
the GBC cannot change the President but only by vote can it be done. The GBC’s
business is to see that the President and the members are doing nicely,
following the regulative principles, and chanting 16 rounds and that other
things are going on nicely”.
Srila Prabhupada clearly explains what the GBC should & could not, do.
“…GBC cannot change the President but only by vote can it be done…”. It
can be understood that the local ‘temple devotees’ are the ones to cast votes
for a TP, and NOT the GBC. Srila Prabhupada confirms this by his statement in
the DOM;
“Removal of a Temple president by the GBC requires support by the local Temple
members”. This statement implies that the reverse is also true and is further
confirmed by Srila Prabhupada here;
“My Dear Jayananda,
Please accept my blessings. I beg to thank you for your letter undated. I
congratulate you on your being elected as president of ISKCON San Francisco
branch. Your election as president is a recognition by Krishna and therefore I
have got full support for you. MUKUNDA AND OTHER MEMBERS HAVE RIGHTLY SELECTED
YOU AS PRESIDENT”.
and here;
“I am glad to learn that after deliberation between Jayapataka and Raktaka, you
have been asked to become the president of Toronto temple. THE IDEA IS THAT
WHOEVER IS COMPETENT TO MANAGE AFFAIRS WILL ACCEPT THE POST OF PRESIDENT BY
MUTUAL CONSENT. Our main business is to be fixed up in Krsna Consciousness by
keeping steady in the prescribed duties of devotional service. So I have got
all approval for your being elected president; that is nice”.
and here
“My Dear Gurudasa,
Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge reciept of your two letters
dated 20 and 26 February, 1970, respectively, and I am so glad to learn that
you have been elected president for this year. In India, when there was
congress election among the executive members, each year a person was elected
president. I think this system may be followed in our institutions also. Of
course it will depend on the local situation, but in a round if each person is
given the chance of managing the whole affairs, THAT MEANS EVERYONE BECOMES
RESPONSIBLE OFFICER”
As final direction that Srila Prabhupada wanted the TP’s ELECTED by temple
devotees, he says:;
“And who has been appointed treasurer and secretary? The president, secretary
and treasurer ELECTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CENTER cannot be changed at least
for one year; better to continue it for three years”. [That is in line with
Srila Prabhupada;s direction for GBC term limits in the DOM].
and,
“My Dear Hamsaduta das:
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your two letters dated
September 19 and one September 20 with enclosed copy of the money transfer to
Bombay Central account. Regarding the election at Bhaktivedanta Manor, as you
have suggested an election of all members present should be held to make a
final selection. I have already suggested this to Mukunda. Another meeting
should be held, and I have already asked Bhagavan das to be present, so there
will be two GBC’S AND ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. Out of the two candidates whoever is
elected by the majority vote, may be the president”.
Iskcon during Srila Prabhupada’s manifest presence was plainly understood by
everyone within Iskcon. It was a MOVEMENT with Srila Prabhupada & his teachings
as the bases & the authorities. That changed ONLY after his tirobhava, by
contrivance of the GBCs.
Why should that simple understanding have to change after his disappearence?
The answer is given very precisely in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings;
“… just after his passing away, his leading secretaries made plans, without
authority, to occupy the post of äcärya, …. Consequently, both factions were
asära, or useless, because they had no authority, having disobeyed the order of
the spiritual master. Despite the spiritual master’s order to form a governing
body and EXECUTE THE MISSIONARY ACTIVITIES of the Gaudiya Matha, the two
unauthorized factions began litigation that is still going on after forty years
with no decision”.
{CC.Adi 12.8 Pp]
That body has to be the GBC, IMHO, working within the constraints of a
constitution>. ys KDd>>
The teachings & advice including legal documents that were designed by Srila
Prabhupada before his tirobhava are more than sufficient to understand, define
& execute the will (desire) of Srila Prabhupada. It is only when personally
ambitious men try to change those simple teachings, that havoc is created.
Srila Prabhupada had ample time within his last few months to suggest or change
or add new legal documents to his corpus. We find within the Vedabase that his
‘DECLARATION OF WILL’ was the only legal document added in 1977 & which refers
ONLY to Iskcon properties & SP’s accounts, thus rendering the present
definition of the GBC as being the “ultimate managing authority” FOR ALL
MATTERS, incorrect. The duties & role of the GBC in a hands-off fashion had
already been clearly delineated by Srila Prabhupada both in his DOM & within
his many other teachings.
The ‘constitution’ of Iskcon (already extant via Srila Prabhupada’s documents &
teachings) can easily be understood & implemented if we just adhere to Srila
Prabhupada’s simple teachings. I have a difficult time understanding why
suggestions & actions to make things more beaucratic in Iskcon rather than less
- as Srila Prabhupada desired – keep manifesting.
Iys
ganesadasa
Date: May 29, 2010 8:19:42 AM PDT
Dear Ameyatma Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glory to His Divine Grace Srla Prabhupada!
Your analysis is breathtakingly simple and clear. Thank you.
As a TP from 1970 through 1976, I was NEVER aware of this DOM. I am sure Deena Bandhu, Sukadeva, Rshabdeva, Bahudak, Kurusretha and other west USA TP’s also never hear of it. IF they had, we certainly never discussed it.
Clearly, in 1970 when it was drafted, His Divine Grace was planning for the future when he’d not be with us. So, while he was present he was directly controlling, but he wrote this particularly for after his disappearance. It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Definitely a proper independent and totally unbiased investigation should be done so all devotees know why this most important legal documents has been hidden for at least the past 33 years?
Pray you are well.
Your servantBhakta dasa (ACBSP)
From: Internet: “ameyatma das [ACBSP]“
Date: 29-May-10 13:18 (07:18 -0600)
Subject: Re: Fwd: DOM Election of GBCs by TPs
————————————————————
Pamho Agt Srila Prabhupad
Trivikram M said:
<<< If Srila Prabhupada wanted the
GBC to be elected by the TPs he would have made it clear. This part of the
DOM was NEVER implemented. >>>
It IS clear in the DOM – which is the ONLY formally written, signed and
co-signed document signed by Srila Prabhupad with the full intent and
purpose of being a Legal (ISKCON inc, or corporate Law) document that
deals directly with this aspect of how ISKCON must be managed.
When SP wrote the DOM and set up the GBC based on it, the DOM was
referred to as ISKCON’s Constitution (this quote I heard from
NaraNarayan who says that is what Rupa Nuga told him just after the
first GBC meeting). NO COMPANY NO GOVERNMENT will change it’s
very Constitution based on hearsay, or even a verbal statement, what
to speak of by inference that a certain aspect never was implemented,
thus, it can be tossed out. That is ABSURD Totally ABSURD
Maharaj. Totally.
Srila Prabhupad’s modus operendi (the mode in which he operated) is
documented. First of all, he is an Author, he committed his plans
and rules in WRITING. Even when i first joined, there was a hand
written (may have been copy of the original) notice posted in the LA
Kitchen where Prabhupad had wrote the Rules for Radharani’s Kitchen, and
at the bottom was his signature. He wrote down how he wanted things
to be executed, and after writing, he gave his Signature of Approval.
His thousands and thousands of written and signed letters attest to
this. The DOM was written out by him, explicitly stating how HE wanted
HIS mission to be managed. Then, he gave his signature of Approval,
along with the signatures of the original 12 GBC men.
It is a Formal Document, written and Executed in a Formal Manner. This
is the Mode of Operation (Modus Operendi), that our Founder & Acharya
followed.
All ISKCON temples were also Formally Incorporated, and their by-laws
written up, and executed in a Formal manner. The BBT was a Formal TRUST
and, again, Srila Prabhupad established it’s foundation and operation on
a Formally written document, which was executed in a Formal manner.
Again, attesting to how Srila Prabhupad dealt with such far-reaching and
serious matters. Another example which upholds the integrity in which
He executed such matters is his Last Will. It is a formally written
and signed document.
When there were changes or amendments to be made, he made them in
WRITING – following the same principle and etiquette and procedures of
formality. As evidence refer to the 1974 TOPMOST URGENCY document which
was written in a Formal manner, for the Sole Purpose of being an
Amendment to All of ISKCON’s legal incorporation documents. Srila
Prabhupad had this document written on his letter head stationary, it
was written in a Formal manner to become part of ISKCON Inc LAW. It was
then Signed by him, and counter signed by 2 other GBC officers. That
document was written as an AMENDMENT, with that very word given in all
Caps in the Title of the document. This exemplifies the manner and
procedures that Srila Prabhupad himself followed when he wrote important
documents and wanted to have them changed or added to, or amended.
We find NO OTHER document signed by Srila Prabhupad regarding how HE
wanted HIS mission to be managed other then the DOM. IF he wanted
the procedures of management to be Changed he would have either
Re-Written a NEW DOM, or he would have had a formal Amendment written up
and duly signed by him and co-signed by at least 2 other GBC.
Those who proclaim, as Trivikram Maharaj does here, that Srila
Prabhupad wanted the DOM changed, certain aspects not followed, if
they cannot provide verifiable documentation SIGNED by Srila Prabhupad
to this effect, then their statements are nothing but hot worthless
air, because it appears that is all they are based on. Thin air,
not written and Signed formal documents.
— Trivikram states that IF SP wanted the GBC elected by TP he would
have made it clear… have you actually READ the DOM???? IT IS
CLEAR. But, others have argued that IF SP really had wanted the
election process implemented he would have seen that it was implemented
in his presence. That argument is made invalid by a careful analysis
of the DOM itself, as I will do below:
I will now comment on some statements made by Pancha Ratna Prabhu
Dandavat pranams. Srila Prabhupada kijaya.
Several devotees have argued here that Srila Prabhupada’s conversation
with Satsvarupa Maharaj on the topic of GBC only refers to those selected
by him and that the DOM is his direction for all other members of the GBC.
I disagree that this was Srila Prabhupada’s intention, though I personally
find aspects of the DOM attractive for current ISKCON.
What is the basis of you disagreement, other then your own
SPECULATION. In that conversation Satsvarup is the one who makes this
clear to Srila Prabhupad at the very beginning wherein he states:
<<Satsvarupa: Srila Prabhupada, we were all asked by the rest of the GBC
to come to ask some questions. Most…_ _*_These are the members of the
original GBC as you first made it up_. So our first question is about
the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office*?>>
The idea that Srila Prabhupad is, in his response, only referring to
those ORIGINAL members of the GBC, as HE first select them, is not
based on speculation, it is based on the Recorded conversation that
took place. You may disagree all you want, but your disagreements are
only based on your own speculation, and thus, in favor of the actual
recorded conversation, your speculation is herein totally rejected.
The evidence speaks for itself.
In this conversation the GBC men are referred to as those who are
SELECTED and those who are Elected - two distinct means of adding or
replacing – SELECTING & ELECTING:
<<Prabhupada: *Selected *men_ are chosen_, /_so they_/ cannot be
changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added.* I
shall recommend* that Vasudeva become one of the GBC.>>
Here, Srila Prabhupad is referring to the ORIGINAL GBC men as He First
Made It Up, or as HE originally SELECTED them. Srila Prabhupad
SELECTED those Original Men. They are CHOSEN – Yes, They were CHOSEN by
Srila Prabhupad directly, and from 1970 until his disappearance in 1977
Srila Prabhupad continued to SELECT their replacements, or additional
GBC – as He did right here in the above sentence by Selecting Vasudev as
additional GBC member.
<<Satsvarupa: But then, in the event that some present GBC member
leaves, either leaves…
Prabhupada: *Another should be_ elected._*>>
Now, before we get into who shall Elect, let me refer to the actual
DOM in regards to how Srila Prabhupad therein refers to how the GBC men
shall be added to or replaced:
<<[Srila Prabhupad is writing in first-person] My duty was to *first
appoint twelve (12) persons *to my free choice amongst my disciples and
I do it now and their names are as follows:>>
(This statement gives clear evidence that the DOM was, in fact,
personally written by HDG ACBS Prabhupad – and not written by his
disciples, as this sentence is written in First-Person)
<<2.* His Divine Grace will _select_ the initial 12 members of the GBC*.
_In the succeeding years _the GBC will be _*elected*_* by* a vote of*
all Temple presidents *>>
Here were find the same Two Distinct means by which the GBC shall be
created or managed. The INITIAL (12) members of the GBC are SELECTED
by Srila Prabhupad – and in Succeeding years the GBC shall be ELECTED
by the TP’s. Srila Prabhupad uses these Two words Distinctly for Two
Distinct purposes. The INITIAL GBC shall be SELECTED by Prabhupad,
and in succeeding years the GBC shall be managed via ELECTIONS by the TP.
Obviously, under Srila Prabhupad’s direct instructions and orders the
number of GBC was expanded, directly and personally by him to at least
24 before his departure. Yet, expanding the number beyond 12 does not
invalidate the remaining aspects of the DOM because those changes were
enacted directly by HDG ACBSP Himself. Refer to the DOM :
<<1. The GBC oversees all operations and management of ISKCON, _*as it
receives direction from Srila Prabhupada and His Divine Grace has the
final approval in all matters*_.>>
This provision of the DOM states that the GBC will manage according to
the Directions given by Srila Prabhupad. He reserved the right to make
what ever changes as he sees fit. He had Final Approval in ALL
Matters. Thus, any changes made directly by HDG during his presence
were fully authorized and did not violate the DOM or make the remaining
aspects of the DOM invalid.
At the 1975 GBC meetings it was declared that Srila Prabhupad will
select the replacements of any GBC who step down or leave. That
provision is there in the DOM, that does not invalidate the Election
process, as it clearly states in the DOM that HDG shall SELECT the
Initial members of the GBC. In his presence Srila Prabhupad also
SELECTED the replacements for those who fell down or stepped down.
That, again, is not a negation of the ELECTION provisions. Rather,
during his presence Srila Prabhupad’s duty was to APPOINT (SELECT) the
INITIAL members. The initial members were the members who were SELECTED
or APPOINTED by HDG - so as he continued to live, he continued to
SELECT and APPOINT, that was his purgative and as he stated, his duty,
to do so.
Why was the DOM written – what was the purpose? That is stated in the DOM:
<<I am getting old, 75 years old, therefore at any time I may be out of
the scene, therefore I think it is necessary to give instruction to my
disciples how they shall manage the whole institution.>>
Because SP was getting old, 75, and due to his health issues, he
states that he may be out of the scene at any time. Therefore, he is
giving the Written instructions for how his disciples shall manage the
institution. When we take the DOM document as a whole, and apply
Item 1 – where in Srila Prabhupad will give all DIRECTION to the GBC,
and that Prabhupad has the FINAL Word in ALL Matters, then, it is
clearly understood that while Srila Prabhupad remained LIVING in his
physical form that HE would have Final Word in ALL Matters, and that his
on-going Direction were Final and that the GBC must follow his
directions. Then, what is the main purpose of the DOM ? It’s main
purpose was to serve as the foundation of how the GBC shall manage,
but, another clear purpose of the DOM as it shall serve as the
DOCUMENTED system by which the GBC shall manage AFTER Srila Prabhupad
departs. As Prabhupad stated, he wrote the DOM because of his
advanced age and he may leave at any moment, thus this document was made
as his written and signed formal document how the GBC shall manage in
his absence.
Thus, we find the TWO distinct means of adding or replacing the GBC to
be very pertinent. In Prabhupad’s presence the INITIAL members of the
GBC shall be SELECTED or APPOINTED by HDG ACBSP – and <<< _In the
*succeeding years* _the GBC will be _*elected*_* by* a vote of* all
Temple presidents *>>>
Clearly, during Srila Prabhupad’s presence Srila Prabhupad continued
to give his Direction on how the GBC shall manage, as is provided in the
DOM, and Srila Prabhupad continued to APPOINT and Hand SELECT the
INITIAL Members of the GBC. Thus, the ELECTION aspect of the
DOM would Not , Should Not, and COULD NOT have been implemented
in the presence of HDG for during his Presence He continued to Give
his immediate Directions, and He CONTINUED to APPOINT and Hand SELECT
the INITIAL members of the GBC. Thus, the ONLY time that the ELECTION
provision of the DOM would come into action would be AFTER Srila
Prabhupad physically departed. In the SUCCEEDING Years. AFTER he
stopped SELECTING members of the GBC. Those SUCCEEDING Years only
began at the end of 1977. Thus, the Three year Term limits would not
apply until AFTER Srila Prabhupad was no longer present, AFTER he
stopped Selecting. The 1981 Mayapur meeting of the GBC marks the First
Year that the ELECTION provision of the DOM would have been, and
SHOULD have been implemented, as understood from the terminology and
analysis of the DOM itself.
Thus, all this talk about how if SP really wanted to implement that the
TP’s should elect the GBC he would have done so during his presence is
complete NON-SENSE. It has no basis.
— now, what about that slip of the tongue given by Satsvarup in the
May 28th meeting where after SP says that GBC are to be ELECTED, Sats
slips in and says, ”By the GBC… ” Those who argue that this
CHANGES the whole thing are living in total MAYA. ILLUSION. Or
DELUSIONAL. No Company – No Government would allow their
Constituional Documents, Signed and properly executed, to be totally
over-turned by the passing comment of one lessor official.
Pancha Ratna states:
I don’t accept that Srila Prabhupada would not interrupt Satsvarupa to
clarify in this instance:
SORRY But, How in HELL Do you support the FLAKY idea that we are
to Burn and Bury the Written Direction Of Management all because one
lesser official makes a passing statement and Srila Prabhupad did not
interrupt him? How does a passing statement given by Satsvarup over
Rule and Totally Make INVALID the Written and Signed Formal
Constitutional DOM? To argue that such a major and important and
far-reaching aspect of our mission should be changed by such a slight of
hand passing statement is – in my view, on the verge of INSANITY.
First of all, it is not even a passing statement given by Srila
Prabhupad, it is a passing statement given by Sats, and who knows,
it may have actually been a SLIP of the Tongue by Sats? Can you say, for
certainty that Sats didn’t actually mean to have said elections by TP
and just made a slip of the tongue when he GBC? Is there any proof that
he didn’t make a slip of the tongue?
But, you are arguing that we must all agree to THROW out the WRITTEN and
SIGNED Instructions given by Srila Prabhupad, over a passing comment
made by one lessor man, which could even have been a mistaken slip of
the tongue? Only in YOUR iskcon, not in Srila Prabhupad’s
ISKCON. If he wanted such a far-reaching and important fundamental
change to the DOM he would have written up a formal document of at least
the same stature of the DOM and given it his Written Signature of
Approval, along with signed witnesses. That is how SP did things. Not
that he would have wanted such a major change on the basis of a passing
comment given by one lessor official. What sort of manager do you
think SP was? Whimsical? Foolish? What? That is how your
argument makes him out to be. Only a Whimsical Fool would expect to
change far-reaching fundamental constitutional changes to law in such a
way as you propose. Your arguments only attempt to show if SP accepted
such procedures for making fundamental changes, then he must have been
a Whimsical Fool? NO. That is not the procedures SP upheld to make
such changes. Your arguments are wrong. That’s all.
Next, okay, so Sats says election by the GBC. You say, hey,
if SP didn’t want that major change to take place he should have spoken
up and said something. So, then your argument goes on the line that -
well, it’s Srila Prabhupad’s Fault, i means, if he didn’t want that
major change to have taken place, it’s his fault for not speaking up
when Sats made the passing comment. When SATSVARUP SAYS Something,
whoa, look out, you say that Sats passing comments take all
precedence over what SP has written and signed. SATSVARUP’s passing
comments, in your world, take absolute precedence over Srila
Prabhupad’s WRITTEN and SIGNED instructions. In your world of maya,
prabhu, only. Not in our world of reality.
Now, even IF we were to hypothetically agree to your worldly view,
that Satsvarup’s passing comments are to take absolute precedence over
the written and signed instructions of Srila Prabhupad (a view which we
could NEVER actually agree to), still, you must then PROVE that Srila
Prabhupad actually HEARD and understood the passing comment made by
Satsvarup. Can you VERIFY, without any Doubt, that Srila Prabhupad
may not have been distracted at that point? Can you verify with no
shadow of any doubt that Prabhupad actually properly heard what
Satsvarup said? Do you realize there are many examples on tape where
it is obvious SP did not fully hear what someone had said. That he
answered a different question then what was asked because he did not
properly hear what was being said, that the person had to re-ask his
question again so that SP could reply to the proper question. How can
you be so certain that Srila Prabhupad actually heard him properly? You
want us to REJECT Prabhupad’s WRITTEN and SIGNED Instructions in favor
of a passing comment, possible slip of the tongue, of one ordinary
man, who recently had sex with his own spiritual daughter, who was the
religiously married wife of Prabhupad’s disciple??? NOT In a million
Creations, NEVER. No company, no government would allow itself
to be ruled in such a Sloppy and Whimsical manner, how can you argue
that Prabhupad’s ISKCON be governed in such slack and unprofessional
manner? Because it suites your political views?
The DOM is CLEAR – SP shall Appoint and SELECT the INITIAL members of
the GBC. He Selected the original 12 in 1970, and re-selected then
again in 71-72, and then Selected new replacements and additional
members right up until his departure in 1977. He Shall SELECT the
Initial members, and In SUCCEEDING YEARS (as he wrote, and signed on
to) the TP’s shall ELECT. AFTER SP stops Selecting the Initial
members, in the Succeeding years – and ONLY in those succeeding
years, the GBC shall be ELECTED by the TP. When we properly analyze
the DOM, then the Election process Should Not and COULD NOT have
taken place while Srila Prabhupad is still SELECTING the initial
members. The ELECTION by TP was ONLY to begin in the succeeding
years, AFTER SP departed. Marking 1981 as being the first year that
ELECTION by TP phase of the DOM should have been implemented. This
means that from 1981 on ward the GBC has been acting and managing
OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of Srila Prabhupad’s teachings and written
instructions. 1981 marks the year that the GBC went astray, and since
then have been acting in a deviant manner, no longer taking their
guidance from the written instructions of HDG ACBSP. Thus, since 1981
they have become a psuedo-GBC only. Their elections have been
illegitimate, acted outside of Prabhupad’s instructions. Rather than
their election process being based on the Signed Written Instructions of
Srila Prabhupad they, instead, have been based on the passing words
(possible slip of the tongue) of a man who has since fallen to the point
of incest with his own spiritual daughter. The illegitimate GBC argue
that we are to reject Prabhupad’s written and signed formal instructions
in favor or a passing comment of one fallen man who has engaged in
spiritual incest. That is also your arguments and it is the iskcon
you want to live in. ISKCON has ceased to exist and cannot exist
until we stand up and see that a properly legal GBC is elected by TP’s
in accordance with SP’s written and signed instructions. Until then,
there is no more Prabhupad’s ISKCON, there is no real GBC. It is all
an illusion of Maya. We want the REAL ISKCON to be revived. We want
SP’s written Instructions to be finally implemented, as they were
supposed to be. We want the farce to end.
Aspiring to become your humble and worthy servant, ameyatma das
Prabhupada: So add him. GBC is not to be changed.
Satsvarupa: But then, in the event that some present GBC member leaves,
either leaves…
Prabhupada: Another should be elected.
Satsvarupa: By the votes of the present GBC.
If Srila Prabhupada wanted elections by TPs not the GBC why did he not
interrupt and say so at this time? I believe he either agreed with
Satsvarupa Maharaja’s statement or he did not think it important.
Secondly, Srila Prabhupada had several occasions to invoke the procedures
of the DOM for electing GBC, but did not do so, preferring to select them
himself.
On the other hand, he twice invoked the DOM in connection with the removal
of a TP.
I find nothing to indicate that Srila Prabhupada did not want this process
of personal selection, rather than election by the TPs, to continue
through his appointed “ultimate management authority”, the GBC.
I am concerned that this is one of those grey areas which is subject to
interpretation. One can take a legalistic approach to try to determine
Srila Prabhupada’s intent, but I contend that Srila Prabhupada did not
pick and choose his words like a lawyer, but was rather a poet or artist
with language.
There are many statements from Srila Prabhupada indicating his desire for
the GBC to take over from him full responsibility for the management of
the Society.
So, it makes sense that the selection of GBC members would also become the
responsibility of the body.
Your servant,
Pancharatna dasa
From: Ameyatma das
Date: 5/29/2010 8:00:55 PM
Subject: Re: DOM Election of GBCs by TPs
Sriman NaraNarayan Vishvakarma Prabhu
Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupad.
Prabhu, I owe you and the Vaishnav community an apology. In my article I did not include where most of those arguments came from. In that way, I was misleading everyone for the obvious gain of wanting the adoration and prestige of being falsely glorified for these being ‘my’ conclusions.
So, to set the record straight, I cannot take any credit for these
arguments or conclusions as I gleaned most of these arguments from non-other than NaraNarayan Prabhu. It wasn’t until 2004 that I first heard of the DOM or first sat down and read it (~2005). All because of NaraNarayan Prabhu’s continual insistance. And, as I did read and some arguments came out for and against, it was NaraNarayan’s insight’s
that gradually led me to understand the document properly and reach the same conclusions as he was propogating. Therefore, I cannot falsely take any credit for that which is all due to your own credit, Prabhu. I really didn’t add much to what you have been arguing and defining for years.
But, I would like to take the opportunity here to try and clarify a
point that I made in the previous email, though.
When Sats gave his passing comment that GBC are to be elected by the present GBC, Pancha Ratna argues that because Srila Prabhupad did not correct him, that we are to reject Prabhupad’s written instructions over the passing comment of a lessor man, I asked if he could provide proof, without any doubt, that Srila Prabhupad in fact properly
heard that comment. Can he provide proof that Srila Prabhupad may not have heard, was distracted for that second?
My additional point is that simply noting Prabbhupad’s silence does not give us substantial Proof that Srila Prabhupad complied with that passing comment. IF Srila Prabhupad had engaged in even a short discussion of this point afterward it would have provided some evidence that at least he had properly heard what Sats said. Had Srila Prabhupad
made a verbal agreement that, yes, this change can be made, etc. The fact is, there was no additional discussion of that passing comment. Rather, Satsvarup, in the same sentence, moved right on into another major topic, and Srila Prabhupad then responded to that. But, arguing,
as Pancha Ratna and the gbc have, that Prabhupad’s silence was his agreement to such a far reaching change is totally unacceptable, and totally out of character as to how Srila Prabhupad would have dealt with such a major fundamental change to such a major point. There is no proof that SP complied or even properly heard it. The lack of a dialog
on this idea, rather then taken as compliance, is actually damning to their argument, because rather then proof his compliance, more it provides evidence that he must not have properly heard the passing comment.
Another point that I left out, but that I have made many times, is in regard to the 1974 TOPMOST URGENCY – Amendment written by Srila Prabhupad. That document, although written as an Amendment, is also worded as a Written – Signed DECREE – a written Instruction or Order by His Divine Grace. That directive, order or written and signed Decree
was a call to Act. The action that was called for by that decree was to amend that very decree to ALL of ISKCON’s legal incorporation documents, thus makng that Decree a part of all of ISKCON Temple’s by-laws. That Decree is a GENERAL Written and Signed Order, meaning that it is not directed to any one devotee, or groups of devotees. It is not directed to the GBC, nor to the Temple Presidents. It is a general
order. It is a Call to Action, Amend this document to all of
ISKCON’s by-laws IMMEDIATELY and with TOPMOST URGENCY. Being a General Order, not directed to any single person or group, then it must be taken as a direct order to each and every one of us. Of course, the only ones who were capable to actually doing this was / is the TP’s and temple boards. But, today, the burden falls onto each and
every one of Prabhupad’s followers to see that the order is actually, and finally, carried out. At the time, in 1974, the only means by which this order could be propogated to all the TP’s was via the GBC. And the only way to over see that it was carried out properly was via the GBC. Thus, the burden of over seeing that it was carried out fell onto the GBC. And the burden of actually doing it, once they received this order, was on the TP’s. But, today, since the GBC of 1974 failed
to execute this TOPMOST URGENT order, the burden now falls onto each and every one of us. Are we going to also fail Srila Prabhupad, or are we going to take this matter seriously and stand up and take action?
To this day this order had not been carried out. It may be, that at best, 1-2 temples may have taken some of the words from the document and added them into their bylaws, but, I have not seen any solid evidence showing that even a single temple actually took that document, as it was written and signed and co-signed, and simply amended that document as it
is to their by-laws. Thus, it appears that there is actually
absolutely 0% compliance with that written and signed order.
That is deplorable to the nth degree. This is a Written and Signed Decree given by our Founder-Acharya. I have seen no other written document by him that rescinded this order. Thus, it remains to this very day an unfulfilled Order by our Spiritual Master. And not an ordinary order. It stands as Unique. As the ONLY order he gave with such emphasis. This order is written by him in a mannor intended as a Legal (ISKCON-Law) document. It is signed by him and co-signed by other
GBC officers. It has the Unique emphasis that at the top of the signed decree are the ominous words, written in Full Caps, TOPMOST URGENCY - and, yet, despite it’s unique characteristics of being the most emphasised order Srila Prabhupad gave us in writing, it has never
been fulfilled. That is completely unacceptable. But, I have seen devotees argue that we need not be concerned, that we don’t need to feel any obligation toward following that order. That it can be totally rejected, and again, their only real key basis for such rejection - It was never executed in Prabhupad’s presence, so he must not have really cared
enough…. he just let it go… So, we should follow suite and
Drop the idea as well.
But, that raises lots of questions, which i have asked in the past. The thing is, to get into that here, again, would require a whole presentation again, meaning a very long email. So, I will save it for another time. But, the main point is that this order still stands, and any argument that such a standing order can be rejected and ignored is simply, in the end, not acceptable. If we can justify Rejecting of this order, the most emphasised written order he gave us, emphasized with the words TOPMOST URGENCY, a written DECREE that he wrote as a Formal Legal Document, a DECREE that he not only signed, but had additional GBC officers also co-sign as witnesses, if we can justify that this order need not be executed or implemented, then it opens wide the door to wholesale rejection of ANY and ALL of Srila Prabhupad’s instructions – Period. We might as well burn all his book,
tapes and letters and live our lives free of having to follow Prabhupad at all. If we can reject this written, signed, co-signed legal document decree, then how can we argue that any other instruction he gave be followed?
It is for this reason that I cannot comprehend why there has not arisen yet a widespread OUTCRY among Prabhupad’s followers DEMANDING that this order be finally executed. What are we waiting for? I had never seen or heard of this until 2004-05 And, it took me a while for the whole thing to register. But, once it registered, there is no turning back on this issue. This order MUST be executed. No Ifs, Ands or
Buts. No Changes. Take the exact order and each temple amends their bylaws with that exact document. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nothing else is remotely acceptable.
The other thing is that I keep asking The fact that this Decree was not IMMEDIATELY and Fully implemented in 1974 begs a very big question WHY????? Why wasn’t it implemented. Right on the document are the all cap words TOPMOST URGENCY. If SP walks in the room and
shouts, TOPMOST URGENCY - Do ‘this’ IMMEDIATELY - anyone who is even 1% his follower will jump up and do what ever it takes to implement the order. So, this issue DEMANDS that there be a FORMAL and Very Thorough Investigation and those heading the investigation should
not be connected to the GBC or TP’s an investigation is called for to determine WHY this decree was ignored. Was it passed on to the TP’s, are they the one’s who dropped the ball. If it was not passed on to them, then WHO dropped the ball? Was it the whole GBC of 1974? Did they meet and decide to keep this away from the TPs? If not, then was it just one to two of the GBC who DELIBERATELY chose to keep
this decree suppressed, to keep it out of the hands of the TP’s? And WHY? WHO, HOW, WHY, all these questions must be addressed and answered. These are SERIOUS Questions that DEMAND answers because the Order itself is so Serious and important. We can’t just let it go..
These answers DEMAND to be known. Was there a deleberate act to suppress this? Why was this document kept away from devotees and not made public? Why was it not implemented? Were the GBC of 1974 simply imcompetent and just let it go from sheer neglect? Then, we must
demand that the it now be finally executed. Why were the temples not informed, and then commanded to comply? IF an investigation reveals there was a deliberate act of suppression, this must be taken Seriously and dealt with appropriately.
Other then the investigation, all TP’s must be HARD PRESSED that TODAY they MUST comply with this still yet outstanding and yet unfulfilled Written and Signed Decree. Take this document and Amend your constitutional papers TODAY NOW . Prove where your loyalty stands. Either comply to SP’s written order, or GET the HELL out of
His temple. WE need to organize the masses, as Gandhi did, as Mahaprabhu did when he took a large Sankirtan party to the steps of the Kazi. We need to organize such mass civil disobediance and demand this Decree be implmented and demand a FULL investigation why it was not implemented, and if it is determined there was a deliberate effort by some to suppress it, then proper action be taken. We need the masses to get behind this. Now. To the TP’s - Either comply, or openly admit that you reject SP’s order, and then proclaim
your temple as non-iskcon. And, then let that temple’s congregation decide if they want to keep such a TP or not. This order has to be pressed - HARD- by all of us. We need to instigate REAL Pressure to get this done. We need to ignite the masses on this issue.
And, what this Amendement does is that it Ties the GBC to the Direction of Management… It will Tie the temple to the DOM and the GBC to the DOM. Once that tie is made in the Temple’s ByLaws, it will then obligate the temple and the GBC to comply with the ELECTION aspect given in the DOM.
It has been my conclusion that this yet unfulfilled Decree is the REAL Solution to this whole issue. Because it stands as such a powerful written order by SP, and it stands as having never been implemented.
And, yet, it Still Stands. That is, SP never wrote or instructed
that this decree no longer needed to be followed. It still stands.
So, to resolve this whole DOM issue, all that needs to be done is to DEMAND each and every TP and temple board - FOLLOW SP’s ORDER .
Amend you by laws with his order to so. Failure and rejection to do so equates to their rejection of Srila Prabhupad. This point has to be be propogated. Take it to every devotee, to all the congregation. We need to create a ground swell.
All right, I will now step down off my soap – box…
ys ameyatma das
*From: *Greg Jay <jay.greg@gmail.com
*Date: *May 28, 2010 3:57:27 AM PDT
*Subject: **Re: DOM Election of GBCs by TPs*
Dear Swami ji, PAMHO AGTSP
I could as well say “If Srila Prabhupada had wanted Varnasharma he
would have instituted it! The fact that it has never been instituted
means he didn’t really want it.”
Actually we can argue about Varnashram from here to eternity but with
the issue of the DOM which is a legal document eventually someone is
going to challenge it in court and they will certainly win.
Its non-implementation does not render it legally impotent.
The GBC should get legal advise on this.
GKD
On May 27, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Trivikrama Swami wrote:
I agree with Pancharatna 100% on this issue. If Srila Prabhupada
wanted the
GBC to be elected by the TPs he would have made it clear. This part
of the
DOM was NEVER implemented.
Ys TS
May 28, 2010, at 3:02 PM
Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances.
All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!
A though reading of the Direction of Management will reveal that this document was an utterly “irrelevant” document when Srila Prabhupada was manesfesting Vapu to the Conditioned souls.
Srila Prabhupada managed the entire institution from 66 to 77, why would he need a document arrirming his position. Which the DOM along with the Top Most Urgency letter clerifys?
The answer is simple, the Direction of management was set in to place as a legal document for AFTER HE WENT INTO SAMADHI.
This is why he never implemented it during his manefest Lila.
Do as he wanted Implement the Direction of Management Now!
YourServant,
Gajendra das (Alachua, FL)
May 8 2010
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-10/editorials6079.htm
by Krsnachandra dasa
introduction
June 18, 2010
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) is the creation and property of its Founder-Acarya, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who incorporated the institution as a nonprofit religious organization in the year 1966. Srila Prabhupada, as He is called by His followers, physically departed in the year 1977, leaving the ISKCON movement in the hands of a small group of His leading disciples known collectively as the Governing Body Commission (GBC), appointed previously by Srila Prabhupada to oversee operations within ISKCON and maintain the standards and precepts established by Him. Since that time there have been numerous controversies, scandals and criminal activities throughout the worldwide ISKCON organization, resulting in dramatic reduction of membership and worldwide defamation. The original spiritual purpose of this institution has been seriously diminished due to social stigma, and the current standards and practices of ISKCON reveal a dramatic departure from those of the institution bearing the same name 40 years ago when Srila Prabhupada was personally present. To reconcile the ISKCON of 40 years ago with the ISKCON of today, and to restore the ISKCON intended by Srila Prabhupada, it is necessary to analyze the chain of events that took place between then and now.
On July 28th, 1970, Srila Prabhupada presented to the ISKCON Governing Body Commission (GBC) a signed order that was to function as the essential Managing Structure for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) from that point onward – The Direction of Management. This order went ignored by the GBC, and failed to reach the thousands of individuals composing the rest of the ISKCON membership, most notably the Temple Presidents (one per temple), to whom the document specifically pertained. When Srila Prabhupada discovered the GBC’s rejection of His Direction of Management order in 1974, He again issued the order for the Direction of Management in a letter marked “TOPMOST URGENCY”. Just as in 1970, this second order for the Direction of Management went ignored and largely uncommunicated to the ISKCON public.
The ramifications of the disobedience of the 1970 Direction of Management order are complex, and at the root of all ISKCON activities of a questionable nature that have transpired from its inception to the present day. This website is created by disciples of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, to reveal the Direction of Management and its re-statement, the “TOPMOST URGENCY” letter to the public, and associated items. Our goal in presenting this information is to create a surge of interest throughout ISKCON leading to public advocacy for the establishment of the Direction of Management, and all other orders of ISKCON’s Founder-Acarya Srila Prabhupada, into the incorporation papers, charters, and legal contracts of all ISKCON temples.
Every written order of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada is to be followed “As It Is”, just as His Bhagavad Gitapresents Lord Krishna’s Order “As It Is”. His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada, by virtue of being an Uttama Adhikari, exists and speaks on the same exact platform as Sri Krishna, and therefore can be known and understood as the “Person Bhagavat”. As such, we can consider His Divine Words to be equal to and as substantive as Divine Scripture. For this reason, His Direction of Management of 1970 must be considered to be equal to revealed scripture itself. Disobedience of the direct order of the Pure Devotee, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, is not in any way different from direct and deliberate disobedience of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna Himself.
