Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

I have just read the GBC Meeting minutes from march 1975, there is no mention of the DOM.

It is just common sense that GBC members should be elected every three years, this way many devotees will be trained up in management,and in time
there will be many more devotees with good management expierience,makes sense dosent it?

There are many perks involved with being a GBC member , so the present GBC members have every reason to resist practicial and benificial change.

Is it true that not a single Prabhupada grand-disciple or Gurukula graduate ( most are in their 30s now ) are not qualified as GBC candidates ?,
this doesnt say much for the future of Iskcon does it ?

where is the document?

the quid is that some say that GBC 1975 meeting updates the DOM with this words in the resolutions:

'93The 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.'94

That came about because SP was very upset about GBC voted in a new GBC w/o His Divine Grace knowing.

Some say that these words out-rule the direction to elect GBCs every 3 years in the DOM.
Others that these 2 signed document ordering the DOM in 1970 and 1974 are clear evidence and there is no doubt about it.

Facts:
DOM was never made public until a few months ago.
DOM has been presented as only proof of GBC authority in ISKCON at the famous gurukula court cases.

Also during the meeting in 1975 we read :

" Resolved: GBC has divided zones as follows, based on recommendation of Srila Prabhupada that GBC members should have jurisdiction over no more that about 6-temples. "

Sounds great to me, now lets see here, 350 temples divided by 6 ...I was never really good at math...equals 58 ( well skip the .3 )
so where is the other 28 GBC members ?

Gopal Krishna Maharaja told me he is GBC for 75 temples , sounds like quite a lot of mangerial responsibilty for a sanyasi dontt you think ?

"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 hansadutta can change the president whimsically or anyone else can change the president. according to the Direction of Management the GBC cannot change the president but only by vote can it be done. the GBCs business is to see that the president and its members are doing nicely, FOLLOWING THE REGULATIVE PRINCIPLES,
AND CHANTING 16 ROUNDS and that other things are going on nicely."

letter to mukunda, 29 september 1974

"regarding replacing abhirama and damodara, i refer to the Direction of Management as follows: "removal of the temple president requires support by the local temple members." therefore, you should take a vote of the temple members and do the needful."

letter to rupanuga, 7 november 1974

> DOM was never made public until a few months ago.

Fact: DOM is included in Vedabase 2003, i.e. 4 years in public (if not before).

...more the reason to follow it.

... " the GBCs business is to see that the president and its members are doing nicely "

Thats certainly nice to know.Someone should tell Iskcon Vancouvers ( New Gokula ) three co-GBCs HH Gopal Krishna Maharaja,HH Bhaktimarga Swami and Harivilasa das about that.

Harivilasa das, Iskcons first " International Multi-Temple President " should explaine why that community has not had a Temple President for the past six years.

Lets have a look at Resolution 407 of the 2004 GBC Meeting :

407. Picture of GBCs and Temple Presidents in ISKCON temples

[ISKCON Guideline]

WHEREAS:

Srila Prabhupada is the Founder-Acarya of ISKCON, the GBC body is the ultimate ecclesiastical managing authority of ISKCON, the individual GBC zonal secretaries are the representatives of the GBC body, and the temple presidents are the local authority,

It is a general practice of institutions to publicly display pictures of their leaders,

Although a significant percentage of temple visitors know the temple president, most do not know of the GBC, what purpose the GBC body serves, or who their local GBC zonal secretary is,

RESOLVED:

In the reception area or any equivalent public place of every ISKCON temple there should be:

A large framed picture or painting of Srila Prabhupada with a plaque saying, "His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness."

Alongside Prabhupadas picture and significantly smaller, a photograph of the local GBC, Regional Secretary (where there is one), and Temple President, with a plaque stating the name of the GBC and temple president, and the name of the city the temple is in.

Alongside the photos a one-page framed document on ISKCON letterhead briefly describing Srila Prabhupada as the Founder-Acarya, the GBC as the ultimate ecclesiastical authority, and the local GBC and temple president (or local temple management team or board) as the local authorities.

It seems to me that since there is no picture of the Iskcon Vancouver Temple President ( because they dont have one ) in the temple lobby,then the three co-GBC Members are candidates for discipline for not implementing this resolution.

For more on Iskcon Vancouver please visit :

http://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/248/should-iskcon-vancouver-have-a-temple-board-and-temple-president

and:

http://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/238/is-it-ok-for-iskcon-gbc-members-to-promote-material-culture

please try to stick to the question, refrain from elaborate on all kinds of (even related) topics. Thankyou.

[quote]Is it true that not a single Prabhupada grand-disciple or Gurukula graduate ( most are in their 30s now ) are not qualified as GBC candidates ?[/quote]
[p]there are grand-disciples on the GBC. im not sure how many, exactly, but HH bhaktipurusottama maharaja & kaunteya pr. both fall into that category.[/p]

[quote]It is just common sense that GBC members should be elected every three years, this way many devotees will be trained up in management,and in time
there will be many more devotees with good management expierience,makes sense dosent it?[/quote]
[p]GBC isnt to train people in management; its the highest authority we have, and those best suited for the job should be on it. first of all the job needs to be defined, of course, thats what the constitution is supposed to do.[/p]
[p]second, the idea of ISKCON-wide elections scares me. ive seen examples of a so-called democracy in bangladesh, where most people dont have the slightest idea what theyre voting for, or why. even in india the democracy-idea often appears more of a joke than anything else. or, in the rest of the world, for that matter.[/p]
[p]imagine the propaganda machine that would burst into action before such an ISKCON-wide election. everyone with a web site, everyone with enough money to print & mail pamphlets, would inundate the whole world with [i]their[/i] solution for a better ISKCON. many devotees dont have the experience and/or intelligence to discriminate, and those with the better PR-skills or the most money to sustain their campaign would end up on the GBC.[/p]
[p]if you can arrange green-cards in US, canada, or any other economically desirable country, i could supply you a looong list of devotees wholl vote for you ... just promise me a percentage of your post-election income ...[/p]
[p][i][the last para was [b]not[/b] serious, if you didnt notice.][/i][/p]

Isnt Guru Prasad Swami also GBC/grand-disciple?

No, but e.g. Bhakti Vijnana G. is.

So you are saying that SP clear instructions on elections are to be dismissed. And you use the argument widely used by the current establishment of not trusting the
masses.

I can tell you one thing, devotees are not common bangladeshis and that negative point of view on the community of devotees is generated by self-content. fear and power hunger contaminated brains. Talk about offenses to devotees, youll find this mentality widely among many leaders.

If you were not to trust people in general then you wouldnt go on sankirtan and go just to "milk the ignorant karmis", tactics that have proven disastrous.

I can tell you one real example, very vivid. A temple president was giving a class and he said "Lets face it, we hate Krishna". That summarizes that mentality.
Compare that with what Srila Prabhupada says we actually love Krishna, but we have forgotten, etc

im surprised at your passion sometimes, and how youre pulling a discussion down to a personal level.

if i thought i knew all the answers i wouldnt have asked the question to begin with. the fact that im willing to consider the argument used by the establishment seems to make me a demon in your eyes.

and no, i dont worship "the masses" and dont think that any gaudiya vaisnava mission, including ISKCON, should be led by the consensus of the masses. if thats what SP wanted, im greatly mistaken.

and who told you that devotees arent common bangladeshis? very many are; common bangladeshis, common indians, and common whatever. devotees dont leave their material attributes behind when deciding to serve krsna. ideally theyll get rid of them while performing devotional service, but thats a gradual and often long process.

"GBC isnt to train people in management; its the highest authority we have, and those best suited for the job should be on it. first of all the job needs to be defined, of course, thats what the constitution is supposed to do."

What I am implying is that by being a GBC for three years you would gain a lot of expirence that you can apply to other types of service,and share your knowledge on with your local temple community.Ever three years there would be another group of trained up devotees.

Whats with all this " authority " talk I hear these days, when I was a full time devotee in the 80s it was never once a subject to speak about, we were too excstatic spreading Krishna Consciousness.

Here is a recent (today in history) quote from Srila Prabhupada on the role of the GBC:

"The Governing Body Commissions duty is therefore to see that every member is following the rules and regulations and chanting sixteen round regularly on the beads. I hope the GBC in cooperation with the Sannyasis in their touring program will be able to keep vigilance systematically in order to keep the Society as pure as possible."

source: http://prabhupadaletters1970.blogspot.com/2006_08_20_prabhupadaletters1970_archive.html#115623451392429456

taking this statement alone, without the contents of the DOM and various GBC-resolutions re. the GBCs role, this leaves a lot to interpretation or speculation: what do they actually have to do, what are they allowed to do, to keep the society pure? doesnt that sound a little like the (un)holy roman inquisition?

Back to the original question of for and against the DOM:

In a recent posting by Ravindra-svarupa, he claims that at the 1975 GBC meetings Prabhupada changed his mind on the usefulness of the 1970 DOM. There is no evidence of this other than Ravindra-svarupas interpretative text. In contrast, an unbiased look at the historical evidence shows Prabhupada was using the DOM. For example, in July 1974 Prabhupada added a Topmost Urgent amendment to the DOM, and in letters dated September and November of 1974, he refers devotees to follow the DOM. This was only a few months before the 1975 meetings Ravindra-svarupa claims that Prabhupada evolved his thinking about the DOM.

The biggest hole in Ravindra-svarupa prabhus argument against the DOM is the fact that Prabhupada did not legally revoke the DOM, nor even amend the election clause. Did Prabhupada forget to? No he didnt, and in fact hed just made a legal amendment 7 months earlier. From a legal standpoint, the document stands as it is. It is not an invalid or superseded document. It has been used by the GBC in recent court cases. It is a legally bona fide document and there is no scope to pick and choose the clauses you want to follow and those you dont. You cant say, "We like the bit about the GBC being the ultimate managing authority but we dont like this bit about elections so lets interpret that part out of the picture." You cant pick and choose and at the same time claim to represent Srila Prabhupada. Ultimately, if I am a good leader, why should I be scared of elections? And anyway, what is the harm in making leaders accountable? Why the resistance? I would appreciate Sita-pati prabhus comments in this regard

Any argument against the DOM that is related to the fear of vote by the masses argument shows ignorance of the DOM itself. This document deals with votes by Temple Presidents for the electing the GBC, not votes by the masses. Its a straightforward document. Its not tricky.

True, Prabhupada did not insist in elections, but as stated in the document itself Prabhupada had the full constitutional right to decide what and would not happen, and this does not in any way negate any of the other clauses. For example, the first clause in the DOM is that Prabhupada has "final approval in all matters," and the first clause in the 1974 amendment is that Prabhupada is "the supreme authority in all matters of the society." It is the only intelligent way to set up the management of his society otherwise Prabhupada would have been giving the final say to his neophyte and often power hungry disciples. (Look at the mood of the first clause in the 1974 amendment and see Prabhupada heavily re-emphasize his position.)

By the way, in the introduction to the Vedabase, the founding legal documents are placed as having equal importance as Srila Prabhupadas books. Please think about that.

your servant
SKC

[p]thank you, SKC prabhu. that was the type of reply i have been waiting for. if now you can point me to the source of these documents, i might actually change my mind about this whole DOM-issue:[/p]
[quote]For example, in July 1974 Prabhupada added a Topmost Urgent amendment to the DOM, and in letters dated September and November of 1974, he refers devotees to follow the DOM.[/quote]

you can read the amendment on the Vedabase, or at the same link the Mishra provided:

http://www.16108.com/DOM/dom.htm

For Prabhupadas letters, they are also on Vedabase and have also been posted in this thread by Janmastami.

additional point regarding the "fear of vote by the masses", the vote by the temple presidents of the GBC, as already explained, is not the "mob rule" democracies are famous for. the other point being, the temple presidents are supposed to be elected
by the members of the local temple, not appointed by GBCs to insure their loyalty.
if that ever came to the point of "vote by the masses", those are definately
"problems" devotees would welcome.

[quote][cite] SKC:[/cite]you can read the amendment on the Vedabase, or at the same link the Mishra provided:

http://www.16108.com/DOM/dom.htm

For Prabhupadas letters, they are also on Vedabase and have also been posted in this thread by Janmastami.[/quote]

[p]veda prabhu, or anybody else with a full vedabase: when you have a minute or two, can you email these docs to me (phani00 at gmail.com)?[/p]

[p]thanks in advance ...[/p]
[p]

attached

[quote] legal documents are placed as having equal importance as Srila Prabhupadas books. Please think about that. [/quote]
I would not place then on the same level as his books. why? because for example Jiva goswamis will was not placed in the same category as his books, so is Sarasvati Thakuras wills...

...you should, otherwise you may be guilty of " minimizing the order of the spiritual master ",the DOM is meant to sustain a healthy Iskcon,far,far into the future,
in other words ever increasing book distribution.Anything with Srila Prabhupadas hand written signiture is of top most importance.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Jiva goswamis will was not placed in the same category as his books, so is Sarasvati Thakuras wills...[/quote]

Well maybe for some... to me, the will of the Vaisnava is everything. :-)

...why are we talking about wills ?

because GBC was the last will of Sarasvati Thakura? But instead both Tirtha Maharaja and Ananta Vasudev settled based on the 1934 will? Hence Srila Prabhupada did not only wrote his will but also looked and trained GBCs to make sure ISKCON will not split up, ie his will? Just some reasons..

[quote]DOM was never made public until a few months ago.[/quote]
I have read it, strange. What means public? It was certainly circulated before. Do you mean internet Public?

Come on, we can go on and on about words and meanings, wills, Gaudiya Math, BSSM, I said, you said.

Important is the question, does the DOM apply today? Looks like there is no strong argument to think otherwise.

Not that we have to prove the validity of a document already clear. Those who say it is not valid now, should prove it.
But only fly on the sky arguments so far.

The DOM positively indicates Prabhupadas desire for GBC elections, and the historical facts for an election system for Temple Presidents can also be verified via Prabhupadas letters, conversations and documents:

1. Prabhupada stated the we should hold TP elections.
2. Prabhupada participated in TP elections.
3. Prabhupada had to sort out disagreements regarding TP elections.
4. Prabhupada sometimes appointed a TP himself.
5. Prabhupada sometimes let a GBC appoint a TP.
6. Prabhupada put a clause in the Direction of Management outlining restricting GBC removal of a TP.

On balance, it appears that Prabhupada wanted elections but sometimes adjusted according to time, place and circumstance. This conclusion is consistent with the following letter by Prabhupada:

2nd March, 1970
London

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.

(end)

Sampradaya Sun publishes an opinion on this subject: http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/09-07/editorials1959.htm

Excerpt:

"There shall be a Governing Body Commission of trustees appointed by the founder-acarya, His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada according to the document "Direction of Management", dated 28 July 1970. The GBC is to act as the instrument for the execution of the will of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada."

Letter labeled TOPMOST URGENCY
Amendments to Registration Documents
July 22, 1974, approved by Srila Prabhupada

Disclaimer: I personally have no opinion on this subject, Im just collating information

For many years i have been thinking about all the malfunctioning in our society and at the present moment I think the remedy is here: put in practice the DOM.

Famous old example is there: if 2+2=5 then all other mathematical operations after that one are sure to fail.

If the GBC is getting its authority on Srila Prabhupadas instructions then their duty is to follow themselves the instructions beginning with its very foundation.

Otherwise we are going in circles, doing mistake after mistake and wandering why is not working.

Nobody to blame or purge on any camp: Just begin to implement Srila Prabhupadas instructions beginning by the GBC itself and well start to see the "magic" of Krishna consciousness again in no time.

Physician, Cure yourself !

"Important is the question, does the DOM apply today?"

I have read it all above. It did not make me think that it must apply or apply already, if yes then Prabhupada would never given a contradicting instruction on GBCs to this instructions, such as his 1977 conversation about replacing GBCs if needed.

But it would be nice if it was implemented, however, gradually and Im sure its being gradually done so.

Him replacing GBCs is not equal to nor even similar to the DOM directives. But as you say, important is not "I said you said", but to implement something that activates and frees our movement from so much confusion.
It is not so difficult, really. Temple devotees elect TP and TPs elect GBCs. What is the big deal?

Besides it is apparent that Srila Prabhupada coudnt trust a GBC with absolute powers. Just look at the records and the DOM will make sense to you.

[quote][cite] Misha:[/cite]Besides it is apparent that Srila Prabhupada couldnt trust a GBC with absolute powers. Just look at the records and the DOM will make sense to you.[/quote]" You see the only people who can implement the principles of DOM are gbcs. In all my discussions with them, none except for retired ones will ever accept that SP could not trust GBC with absolute powers.

I would take it exactly the opposite way, its exactly because GBC is entrusted with ultimate authority they can if they want implement DOM (something that was never done by Prabhupada himself).

ys

now, if I tell you to do something in writting and you do not do it, and tell you again in writting and still you do not do it.
And then you blame ME. Ha!

...no DOM means no direction of management,in others words, Iskcons managers have no direction.The idea of GBC members being appointed for life has to be the most insulting idea that has ever emerged from the GBC,some of these people dont even attend mangala arotik or chant 16 rounds,its a joke.

Here is the Chronology of The Direction of Management (1970). (Written by NNV)

1. 1970 Srila Prabhupada creates the Direction of Management after SF Rathayatra

2. 1971 First GBC meeting takes place in New Vrindaban with 12 GBC'92s present.

Several months after the '93TOPMOST URGENCY'94 letter, Srila Prabhupada writes several letters to GBC members, referring to the DOM as the Constitutional Basis for Iskcon.

In a separate communication, Srila Prabhupada states that he '93reserves the right to nominate GBC during his lifetime'94....(Elections not absolutely required at this time).

(The Direction of Management is hailed by Rupanuga prabhu, as the '93Constitution of Iskcon)

NOTE

After the first GBC meeting in New Vrindaban, (1971) one would have thought that the DOM would have been printed up and distributed to each of the temple presidents....All of the initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada should have gotten a copy so that they could understand the organization that they had joined. Instead, the GBC told the Temple Presidents as well as any inquiring Iskcon member that the DOM was '93Top Secret, to be read only by the GBC'94.

How were the temple presidents to vote for GBC'92s if they were not allowed to even read the document that gave the exact procedure for holding GBC elections?

I recall the GBC treating the DOM as a secret document, not to be shown to anyone as though it were some super secret Masonic initiation ritual. In retrospect, one wonders why this document was considered secret and confidential and not to be read by the common devotees, or even by the temple presidents.



3. 1972 A secret meeting was held in New York with many GBC members present. They '93elected'94 an accountant (Atreya Rishi) to the GBC post, and created a plan to completely centralize Iskcon , (similar to how it is today).

Srila Prabhupada was not even informed of this meeting and he was also not invited to this meeting. When he found out, he declared the meeting to be a conspiracy, dissolved the GBC, and stated that it was a great offense to Him to hold a secret meeting behind His back without His authority or permission; to overthrow a document that they had all signed into Iskcon Law in 1970.

Clearly, the GBC of that time had no intention whatsoever to follow the orders of the DOM, or holding elections as prescribed in the DOM.

(CONT"D, also by NNV)

4. 1974 Spring of 1974 would have been the first GBC election following the formation of the GBC in 1971. The GBC made no move to hold elections. Later in 1974, Srila Prabhupada sent out a letter marked '93TOPMOST URGENCY'94.

There were two main points in the letter, the first was followed impeccably by all temples, the second point concerning the DOM was disobeyed completely. (See the Attached letter from 1974)

Several months after the '93TOPMOST URGENCY'94 letter, Srila Prabhupada writes several letters to GBC members, referring to the DOM as the Constitutional Basis for Iskcon.

5. 1975 Srila Prabhupada insists on the LA temple entering the DOM as part of the Non Profit documents filed with the state. This direct order was obeyed. (The DOM has since been deleted after that time).

In 1975, I request the then GBC, Jayatirtha das to show me the DOM. He snarls that it is locked in a Safe and '93you will never get to see it'94! This is the approximate same time that the DOM was added to the Iskcon LA corporate papers, most probably by Jayatirtha himself and most probably forced by SP to do so.

6. 1977 The second GBC election could have been held in the Spring. Instead, on May 28, Satsvarupa suggests that the GBC elect new GBC members (obviously bypassing the DOM election process) Certainly, Satsvarupa pays no regard to the 1974 '93TOPMOST URGENCY'94 letter, which (as it was never implemented, apparently does not cross his mind to ask about

DOM elections, rather than the GBC electing new GBC, which Srila Prabhupada thoroughly condemned in 1972.

In May of 1977, Srila Prabhupada states that although his personally selected GBC are to remain '93for good'94 any vacancies in the GBC body should be replaced by election, presumably referring to his '93TOPMOST URGENT'94 DOM order in the 1974 letter.

Later in July, He appoints 11 men to initiate in His name.

Srila Prabhupada leaves his body in the Fall under strange circumstances.



7. 1980 offers the first date for elections absolutely required after Srila Prabhupada'92s passing, as per terms of DOM and May 28,1977 directive. He has stated that the GBC '93Nominated'94 by Him are to remain '93for good'94. Satsvarupa asks and is told by SP that only the GBC members who have for some reason vacated their '93appointed by SP'94 GBC post are to be replaced via elections.





NOTE:

NO ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN HELD THEN OR SINCE. The DOM has been carefully secreted and hidden away by the GBC , so that not even any Temple Presidents (Who would certainly need to see and have a copy of the document if they were to hold GBC elections every three years as per the DOM).

I was able to find a copy of the DOM in 1994, which was the first time that I had seen it since 1971 in New Vrindaban. With my collaboration, the DOM was proposed for adoption By the late Sridham prabhu, at the Mayapur Meeting in 1996(?). Sridham prabhu was very, very excited by the DOM and thought everyone would like it, and hail it as the true authorized solution to Iskcon'92s conspicuous leadership problems.

As soon as it was included in the Agenda for the GBC meeting in Mayapur, it was roundly attacked and savaged by Jayapataka, Tamal Krishna, and Rabindra Swarupa. They claimed that Srila Prabhupada had Himself rejected the DOM, and that this was a dead issue from many years ago. They accused anyone of looking into the DOM of disloyalty bordering on treachery.

After a hiatus of thirty five years, It is certainly time for us to move on this matter.

Those who would benefit