Proposal: Restructuring the GBC

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Letter PAMHO:11614638 (6 lines)

Praghosa (das) SDG (IRL)

21-May-06 13:38 (14:38 +0100)

Samba (das) (Mayapur - IN) [22323]

Reference: Text PAMHO:11604066 by Samba (das) (Mayapur - IN)

Proposal: Restructuring the GBC

---------------------------

> Dismantling all the current GBC and replace them with a new ones is a

> vivid wishful thinking. One thing, there has to be a vote of the current

> GBC for it to happen. The reality is there has never a history of the

> world where someone will vote himself out of power.

 

Power? What power is that exactly? I'd love to know :-)

(Text PAMHO:11614638) -----

 

------- End of Forwarded Message ------

[Guest guest]

Dear Vidura Prabhu,

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. My answers are

interspersed.

 

On Sun, 21 May 2006 21:54 +0100, Vidura (das) SDG wrote

> I sent my response to the general conference. Now, I see you are replying

> to me directly with a 'CC' to the conference, which has not actually

> appeared on the GBC restructure conference. One usually sends

> comments on a conference to that conference unless there are serious

> reasons of confidence to do otherwise. But your reply to me appears

> to have been copied to so many people it makes me wonder why you

> could not simply have sent your comment directly to the conference.

> However, that is another issue. Let me try and reply to your

> comments as best I can.

 

Please, know that I do not belong to the conference. I simply emailed the

document to several devotees and somehow or other Samba Prabhu received it

and posted it. I sent my reply to you because I understood that to be the

most appropriate way of addressing your concerns. Yet, I ask for your

forgiveness if I offended you with my words or actions.

 

> Why you were not 'aware' of this is beyond my

> comprehension. This rule has been the case for more than 20 years. Where

> have you been?

 

I am 31 years old and have been corresponding with my gurumaharaja for over

a year now. I will receive initiation next month in Atlanta. However, I've

been in association with devotees both in Puerto Rico and New York for the

past 12 years. Nobody ever raised the issue on the honorifics in my presence

and not until last week did I become aware of it. My only intention with

addressing my gurumaharaja as Srila Acaryadeva was to praise him. Since when

is it a bad thing to praise devotees, what to speak of one's guru? But

again, forgive me for my ignorance.

 

> Plus the fact, as you state, that your were

> encouraged to do this by none other than the secretary himself

> beggars belief. Where has the secretary been for the last 20 years

> that he 'encourages' people to use these honorific titles?

 

All of us are encouraged to address him as Srila Acaryadeva. I understand

that the GBC is aware of that. I sugest you contact them in this regard.

They could better address your concerns.

 

> The fact that you now compound the situation by insisting on using

> the title again, under the plea of ignorance of the facts, with a

> total disregard for the history of this fundamental point and

> ISKCON's reasons for the application of these rules strikes me

> equally as being quite ludicrous on your part. Your persistence on

> this point certainly compounds your ignorance of the facts at best

> and without a doubt automatically disqualify you to raise any point

> at all with regard to 'restructuring the GBC'.

 

Srila Acaryadeva is the only way in which I address my gurumaharaja. I did

not mean to vex you by praising my guru.

 

> Precisely. And it seems you will always find great difficulty in

> ever understanding.

 

Perhaps I am too dumb to follow the logic. Yet, a little more respect and

mercy on your part might have helped this fallen soul understand things in

their right perspective.

 

Your servant,

hector