.William G Benedict Dandavats Srila Dasa Prabhu. I was out of the system in 1980, when the acaryas ordered me to leave ISKCON. I've never attempted to place myself under their control again. I often comment that the system now is not transparent, the leaders are not accountable to those the profess to lead, and those they lead have no choice in selecting their leadership. Internally it feels wrong to me. I've seen this very important issue discussed in depth again and again, and those who accept the GBC self appointment system, say that this is what Srila Prabhupada intended. Because of a conversation that took place in what 1975? There is supposed to be a constitution, so every devotee can know the system of governance and everyone's responsibilities.
I agree with Smt. Roupa Manjari and her husband on this; I also feel pain when I hear/see leaders being compensated with salaries and other benefits for their "service", which was beyond anyone's' imagination during Srila Prabhupada's manifest leela.
I feel concern for the lack of financial transparency, the lack of published financial reports of the temples and of the sanyassi/gurus. I've been told than some sanyassi / gurus have more than $1 billion in assets under their control. Whether this is true I do not know, but the information comes from devotees who are in the upper levels of management and should know.
I have appreciated Srila Jaiadvaita Swami Maharaja who has carefully published his personal finances, both income statement and balance sheet every year on his personal web site. For this this is refreshing and if I saw the same from every sanyassi, guru, GBC, Temple President, and temple, it would be most refreshing.
I agree with Smt. Roupa Manjari and her husband on this; I also feel pain when I hear/see leaders being compensated with salaries and other benefits for their "service", which was beyond anyone's' imagination during Srila Prabhupada's manifest leela.
I feel concern for the lack of financial transparency, the lack of published financial reports of the temples and of the sanyassi/gurus. I've been told than some sanyassi / gurus have more than $1 billion in assets under their control. Whether this is true I do not know, but the information comes from devotees who are in the upper levels of management and should know.
I have appreciated Srila Jaiadvaita Swami Maharaja who has carefully published his personal finances, both income statement and balance sheet every year on his personal web site. For this this is refreshing and if I saw the same from every sanyassi, guru, GBC, Temple President, and temple, it would be most refreshing.
If we see these letters of instruction from Srila Prabhupada, there was supposed to be a Iskcon constitution formed long ago. Without a constitution, a full legal and B&W framework, where the systems of authorities are given along with the responsibilities, how can these problems cease simply by the retirement/passing away of one generation for the next?
Roupa Manjari Devi Dasi Akruranath Prabhu, I challenged you in the Krishna Kirtan thread on your "points" supporting the allegation made by you that Srila Prabhupada "changed His Mind" about the DOM, and as far as I can see, you did not respond (did I miss something?)...in fact I also wrote privately to you to that effect, because I am THAT INTERESTED to hear your rebuttal....which at this point there appears to be none. So why are you going onto this thread and making your same ham-handed statements while having neglected (or failed) to respond to my rebuttal? this is not in the principles of proper debate.
Anyway, for the sake of those reading this thread who are NOT informed as to the debate between myself and Akruranath Prabhu, I will again revisit and address the misleading information posted above by Akruranath Prabhu's good self. Here goes.
^^^Srila Prabhupada wrote "we are in the experimental stage." This is a clue to those who suggest that Srila Prabhupada knew past, present and future and therefore whatever he said in the DOM in 1970 was good for all time. He clearly changed his mind about electing GBC's and in the May 28, 1977 conversation he unambiguously stated that whoever was currently GBC should remain and new members could be added by vote of the GBC board.^^^ -Akruranath Dasa
Yes, we are in the experimental stage. This does not change, supersede, invalidate, or make optional ANY stated orders from Srila Prabhupada. This does not give you, the GBC, or any of us license to simply "play doctor" with Srila Prabhupada's Vani, in the name of it "all being in the experimental stage". No way Jose.
As far as your line about "He clearly changed his mind about electing GBC's", exactly where or what are you referring to? The 1975 resolution "no elections"? Because I squarely defeated that little pseudo "evidence" of "no more DOM", with citation from Srila Prabhupada's Letter to Jayatirtha Prabhu of the same year, 1975, saying that whatever was decided at Mayapur GBC meeting of 1975 is "good for one year". Any questions?
As for the May 28th 1977 conversation, Srila Prabhupada states at the beginning that when GBCs leave or die, that new ones "should be elected". Elected means one thing: Direction of Management. There is no other stated process of election by Srila Prabhupada other than DOM. Now, you may want to cite something along the lines of, "But, GBCs appointed other GBCs to position in Srila Prabhupada's Lifetime, under His Authorization and Approval", as so-called "evidence" of "GBCs CAN appoint GBCs!", except for one thing: When GBCs appoint other GBCs, it is NOT called "election" by Srila Prabhupada, but SELECTION. Meaning they pick among themselves, that there is not a slate of candidates from which 8 are voted by the pool of ISKCON Temple Presidents.
AND THE WORD SRILA PRABHUPADA USES AT THE END OF THE MAY 28TH, 1977 CONVERSATION IS, "SELECT", NOT "ELECT", IN HIS NOW OFTEN CITED ONE LINER: "Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC."
So, just because Srila Prabhupada PERMITS the GBC ("Can") to SELECT other GBCs (in the duration of their lives, during which they, the first GBC CHOSEN....BY THE ACARYA, SRILA PRABHUPADA HIMSELF...."CAN SELECT" other men to post if he is competent.....DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, NEGATE, OR EVEN REMOTELY CHALLENGE, THE AUTHORITY AND ORDER OF THE DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT.....or the stipulation to elect!
SO Please.....stop it with the false propaganda! You have no order from Srila Prabhupada to ignore the elections clause of the DOM (or any other part).....and have NO ORDER FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA...to change His Books post-samadhi.......simple, easy, no order! end of story!
Anyway, for the sake of those reading this thread who are NOT informed as to the debate between myself and Akruranath Prabhu, I will again revisit and address the misleading information posted above by Akruranath Prabhu's good self. Here goes.
^^^Srila Prabhupada wrote "we are in the experimental stage." This is a clue to those who suggest that Srila Prabhupada knew past, present and future and therefore whatever he said in the DOM in 1970 was good for all time. He clearly changed his mind about electing GBC's and in the May 28, 1977 conversation he unambiguously stated that whoever was currently GBC should remain and new members could be added by vote of the GBC board.^^^ -Akruranath Dasa
Yes, we are in the experimental stage. This does not change, supersede, invalidate, or make optional ANY stated orders from Srila Prabhupada. This does not give you, the GBC, or any of us license to simply "play doctor" with Srila Prabhupada's Vani, in the name of it "all being in the experimental stage". No way Jose.
As far as your line about "He clearly changed his mind about electing GBC's", exactly where or what are you referring to? The 1975 resolution "no elections"? Because I squarely defeated that little pseudo "evidence" of "no more DOM", with citation from Srila Prabhupada's Letter to Jayatirtha Prabhu of the same year, 1975, saying that whatever was decided at Mayapur GBC meeting of 1975 is "good for one year". Any questions?
As for the May 28th 1977 conversation, Srila Prabhupada states at the beginning that when GBCs leave or die, that new ones "should be elected". Elected means one thing: Direction of Management. There is no other stated process of election by Srila Prabhupada other than DOM. Now, you may want to cite something along the lines of, "But, GBCs appointed other GBCs to position in Srila Prabhupada's Lifetime, under His Authorization and Approval", as so-called "evidence" of "GBCs CAN appoint GBCs!", except for one thing: When GBCs appoint other GBCs, it is NOT called "election" by Srila Prabhupada, but SELECTION. Meaning they pick among themselves, that there is not a slate of candidates from which 8 are voted by the pool of ISKCON Temple Presidents.
AND THE WORD SRILA PRABHUPADA USES AT THE END OF THE MAY 28TH, 1977 CONVERSATION IS, "SELECT", NOT "ELECT", IN HIS NOW OFTEN CITED ONE LINER: "Rather, one who is competent, he can be selected to act by the board of the GBC."
So, just because Srila Prabhupada PERMITS the GBC ("Can") to SELECT other GBCs (in the duration of their lives, during which they, the first GBC CHOSEN....BY THE ACARYA, SRILA PRABHUPADA HIMSELF...."CAN SELECT" other men to post if he is competent.....DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, NEGATE, OR EVEN REMOTELY CHALLENGE, THE AUTHORITY AND ORDER OF THE DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT.....or the stipulation to elect!
SO Please.....stop it with the false propaganda! You have no order from Srila Prabhupada to ignore the elections clause of the DOM (or any other part).....and have NO ORDER FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA...to change His Books post-samadhi.......simple, easy, no order! end of story!
Replies
Giri-nayaka Das Damodara, I wrote what I did after reading you points. I seems like you know how to put things properly enoght to be tolerated by the power, yet at the same time I noticed in other cases that things are easily brushed aside by GBC, even if presented properly enough. On the other side, GBC is challenged in several areas by those who have really good points, but they don't even come close, because GBC rejects opinions, if they don't like them. It was more a general observation of things. You know best where you fit. Same for whether I include Roupa Manjari in the other category. It is more a general observation, also based on what I observed in backgrouds of Guru issues in ISKCON, where several very senior ISKCON devotees worked hard to present their findings to GBC, just to be ignored in the end. The point being, that GBC listens to whomever they like, and they reject hearing from whomever they don't like. They are not just, and they are partial. There are devotees with different understandings from GBCs, but they are not given a chance, just because their opinion is different. I felt your point was that if proposition is properly presented to GBC, they will listen. I disagree with that, some propsitions they refuse no matter how they are presented. And some they accept, no matter how those are presented. It is not a matter of presentation, but a metter of what they like to accept. Although this is not the impression they are trying to make. They try to make impression that if properly presented, anybody can have his say - but this is just a pretty f