Should the GBC resign?

[Guest guest]

> At 22:09 +0200 7/12/2000, Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) wrote:

> > > Srila Prabhupada implies that if the responsible leader comes under

> > > suspicion, they cannot go on with their duties. Therefore the GBCs who

> > > >

> >stand accused in the child-abuse court case must resign.

> >

> >Should one not wait until proven guilty?

>

> I think the view in some quarters is that an honorable leader who was

> in charge while atrocities were committed, resigns voluntarily to

> spare the members and the organization additional embarrassment and

> pain. Because of their positions, such leaders always *feel*

> responsible, even if they never personally authorized the abuse. Of

> course, if the members insist, they can always be reinstated later.

>

>

> ys,

> madhusudani dasi

 

The "hands on" managers are the TP's, School heads, etc. On the other ,

GBC's and R.S's are supervisory or advisory roles. Even they have no

control over manpower, money or properties. It is their job to find out if

things are going wrong and when they get wind of it to sound the alarm (or

bark if we use the watchdog analogy). Now it seems that if they do their

job and discover wrong doing then they also have to resign? Something

doesn't make sense. It is like the night guard who raises the alarm has to

resign because a thief entered and he took steps to deal with the danger.

Usually it is the other scenario that is a disgrace---the night guard saw

the thief and ran away and resigned rather then face the danger.

 

In the GBC body we are also grappling with many of the principles underlying

these issues. What is the exact job description of each role in ISKCON?

How do they interact? How much is each level responsible for each kind of

activity? If this conference could help in discovering and recommending

some basic enhancements in ISKCON's management system it could be a useful

contribution. It would be constructive.

 

We face practical challenges. When Srila Prabhupada was physically guiding

the movement ISKCON had 108 centers and maybe 20-40K or so congregation. At

that time we had 25-30 GBC men. Today we have around 400 Temples, thousands

of Nama Hatta and Bhakti Vrksa Centers, and practicing congregation of a

minimum of 500,000 and possibly millions (we don't get exact figures). We

still have 30 GBC's. In order to supervise temples either we have to add

another level of supervision, which is what Bhaktivinode Thakur did in his

Nama Hatta structure--he had seven levels of supervision and management in

Nama Hatta. ISKCON has basicly 4 levels. TP's, RS's (almost non-existent

in many places), Zonal Secretaries (GBC members) and the GBC body. During

the physical presence of Srila Prabhupada we had 5 levels as Srila

Prabhupada was the fifth.

 

Some years ago the Deputy GBC's proposed the GBC body come upto the fifth

level and the GBC members be more brahminical in nature concentrating on

spiritual leadership rather than management. That a new level for directly

supervising the temples and zones be created. Maybe seperating the role of

Zonal Secretary from being a GBC was one proposal that arose from that.

Modern Management codes indicate that one manager shouldn't have more then

around 6 persons reporting to him, I am told. Yet today in ISKCON some GBC

member's may have dozens of persons reporting to him and many other

responsibilities added to his/her plate.

 

In ISKCON it is hard to engage grihasthas as GBC's since there is no fixed

income and it involves travelling and being away from the family. If the

number of GBC's are increased then the GBC body would become unwieldy like

an oversized congress. If Zonal Secretaries were members of continental

committees and didn't have to be GBC member's and if they had small

manageable zones with some fixed income source then grihasthas could more

easily do it. There are some who feel that GBC members as heads of massive

"zones" with many Regional Secretaries is still the way. A GBC task force

is supposed to meet and discuss at some time. If you can come up with some

viable paradigms on how to rationalize ISKCON Management for the year 2000

then it would help to understand who is responsible and to what degree.

Hopefully it would help us safeguard future generations from facing the

difficulties we are facing today.

 

Srila Prabhupada said to study the Roman Catholic Church structure, for

instance. It seems they have many levels of management, namely: the Pope,

The Vatican, Council of Cardinals, individual Cardinals, Council of Bishops,

Arch Bishops, Bishops over a Diocese, Auxilary Bishops over Departments in a

Diocese, (Maybe they have like Regional Secretaries, but I don't know

exactly. Seems like Bishops are Zonal Secretaries.), and Priests over each

Church/Parish. Maybe some more levels also exist, but at least this much.

I was sitting next to a Bishop while flying in Australia and he explained

how for Australia they had four regions EAST, WEST, NORTH and SOUTH and each

region had an Arch-bishop who headed a council which was comprised of many

bishops each in charge of his diocese. IN other words, each region had a

number of dioceses with dozens if not hundreds of churches. For the whole of

Australia there was one Cardinal who annually went to the Vatican. The

Bishops would go once in five years to Rome, but had regular meetings in

Australia.

 

So as ISKCON grows we need to see how to organize ourselves effectively. We

can see we have not been effective enough even when we were less expansive.

Now the load is more. So how much control is to be excercised and how much

autonomy each temple or level should have? How to actually make things work

properly? If first the structural enhancements are worked out then the

details could be worked on next. It is a pressing issue and any

constructive ideas on it would be very welcome.

 

Yours in service,

 

Jayapataka Swami

[Guest guest]

> >>sounds sentimental. just to sarisfy one's feeling one should not resign,

> imho. Hare Krishna.>>

>

> That was not the point. The point was if they were hurting the

> organization by remaining at its helm (after they had been in charge

> during a time when unbelievable atrocities had been committed), they

> should resign voluntarily to spare the organizations and its members

> further pain and embarrassment.

>

>

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

In an organization where every center is totally autonomous financially,

managerially and geographically who is at the helm? Is the watchdog GBC at

the helm or the local management? Can someone give a corporate example of

ISKCON's unique structure where practically we have no legal control to tie

in our managers or compell them to do anything. Look at the ritvik leaders

who have rebelled against the GBC! What recourses do we have? ISKCON has

always run on love and trust, but if someone wants to cheat or deceive then

it is very difficult to check it. Child abuse issues are totally cheating

and for the most part in ISKCON only when the children abused grew up and

started revealing what happened did we really understand what was happening

as the abusers were so secretive about their horrible activities.

I may be over simplifying it, but from my perspective that is how it seems.

It wasn't like the abusers were openly doing their mischief and we just

tolerated it. At least I didn't know about it until well after the fact.

Even now I am only being made aware of what was happening. We got caught

unawares, but who could have suspected that people would treat the children

like that? Once we knew then we had investigations and remedial measures,

maybe still not enough, but whatever we could think to do. Somehow the GBC

gets the blame for local ills although it is far removed as the world body.

 

Clear assignement of responsibility is needed. GBC is responsible for

everything in one sense, but Srila Prabhupada once told me that each aspect

of ISKCON had to be under some particular authority. That is the person to

be held responsible. The GBC is to see that there are such persons and if

needed to replace them if not qualified. Now training is also needed. this

is important.

[Guest guest]

>

> Dear conference moderators, if people who write passages such as the above

> remain in this conference, I am doubtful if we ever get a reasonable,

> constructive discussion together.

 

I am requesting to both parties to please not get into heated arguments.

Thankyou.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> I find that confusing

> because I thought that everyone, regardless of where they take

> their inspiration and whom they choose to listen to, was using

> their own brain. So again, can you explain how it is possible to

> use another person's brain?

 

In the case example below it is not the brain only being borrowed, but the

whole head.

 

"After everything was executed exactly as directed by Lord Siva,

Daksa's body was joined to the head of the animal meant to be killed in the

sacrifice.

 

When the animal's head was fixed on the body of King Daksa, Daksa

was immediately brought to consciousness, and as he awakened from sleep, the

King saw Lord Siva standing before him."

 

(SB 4.7.8-9)

 

Thus we have substantiated that one may even use another's head. But Srila

Prabhupada says that there is a class of men who have no brain. How could

they possibly use another's brain, if they have no brain to do it?

 

"Therefore I say they have no brain. All, they are rascals."

 

"Alpa-medhasam and sumedhasam, they are two words in the Vedic

language. Medha means brain substance. So one who has got sumedhasa, nice

brain substance, they will understand something. And one who has got no

brain substance but cow dung, they will understand something else. So we are

selecting, or even if he is filled up with cow dung, by this Krsna

consciousness education, we can make him sumedhasa, fine brain. That is the

Krsna consciousness movement."

 

All of this may be very confusing. How it can be that there are people who

really don't have brain? They told me in school that everyone has a brain.

How can it be that there is someone who only has cow-dung instead of brain?

How can Srila Prabhupada replace cow-dung with fine brain? I knew he was

working with medicine, but I never knew he was into brain surgery. How to

understand this all? Here we need some brain to avoid confusion.

 

"No brain. For brain there must be a brahmana."

 

The word "brain" is used figuratively to mean the intelligence.

 

"Suppose if I say if, 'You have no brain,' that means 'You are

rascal. You are fool.'"

 

Having established the figurative use of "brain", we may understand that a

person who has no brain is a person who does not know how to discriminate

between right and wrong. He is brainlessly following the brainless. He

depends on other people's brains. Unfortunately he is deluded, since he does

not know what is good brain and what is cowdung, and is thus prone to be

mislead by brainless people who act as if they had some brain. Therefore we

are advised to study the transcendental philosophy.

 

"Asammoha, freedom from doubt and delusion, can be achieved when one

is not hesitant and when he understands the transcendental philosophy.

Slowly but surely he becomes free from bewilderment. Nothing should be

accepted blindly; everything should be accepted with care and with caution."

 

(BG 10.4-5pp)

 

Let us close the chapter with a famous question.

 

"Have you heard this with an attentive brain? Are your ignorance and

illusions now dispelled?"

 

If not, we will attempt to explain everything all over again.

 

Hare Krishna.

Your servant,

Ekatma das

[Guest guest]

Ekatma wrote:

 

<snip>

 

Well, this whole tirade of yours doesn't explain how you are

using your own brain as opposed to someone who is not. You see,

'use your own brain' is just an empty slogan used by the less

intelligent to denounce those who happen to not agree with their

inane ideas.

 

It is quite obvious that everyone is using their own brain, they

are just differently motivated and inspired. But hey, this is

probably way over you head, so I'll leave it at that.

 

As you see, Madhusudani also couldn't explain herself, so don't

feel too bad about it. You are not alone.

[Guest guest]

> You see, 'use your own brain' is just an empty slogan used by the less

> intelligent to denounce those who happen to not agree with their

> inane ideas.

>

> It is quite obvious that everyone is using their own brain, they

> are just differently motivated and inspired.

 

Yes, everyone will inevitably receive a particular kind of motivation and

inspiration in accordance with their desires.

 

There is a class of men who are inclined to understand the true nature of

reality. They are keen to analyze the world in the light of the

transcendental philosophy. They are keen to discuss things with ample logic

and reason. They are detached from the fact that facing reality may not

initially be a pleasant task.

 

There is a second class of men who are inclined to establish their own

position in this world. They are keen of argumentation which is not

sincerely aimed towards a thorough understanding of a subject matter. They

are keen to follow others who have strongly established their positions in

this world.

 

There is a third class of men who are inclined to bring about chaos and

confusion in this world. They are keen of irrational argumentation which

brings good to none, including their own selves. They are keen to protect

institutional establishments that relieve them from the task of facing

reality by thinking on their behalf. Yes, it is a fact. This is going on.

 

The figurative expression "use your own brain" is a provoking slogan which

is meant to induce the individual to carefully analyze everything he or she

will face before accepting it. No, it does not mean anarchy. It does not

exclude the principle of following. It does exclude the principle of blind

following.

 

In essence, to think with another person's brain means to follow others with

their respective brains without bothering to analyze whether they are right

or wrong. This shifting of responsibility is called "thinking with the

brains of another person".

 

This is mainly symptomatic of the third class of men who are predominantly

in the mode of ignorance, who lack the desire to understand the reality and

thus constantly escape from a situation where their inner lethargy is

questioned.

 

It is partially symptomatic of the second class of men who are predominantly

in the mode of passion, who lack the desire to face the reality because

facing the reality might not fit their agenda, their passion to prove their

worth to others.

[Guest guest]

>

> In an organization where every center is totally autonomous financially,

> managerially and geographically who is at the helm? Is the watchdog GBC

> at the helm or the local management? Can someone give a corporate example

> of ISKCON's unique structure where practically we have no legal control to

> tie in our managers or compell them to do anything. #

 

I am amazed that jayapataka Swami can say this.

He just went to some lengths on Chakra to reject the idea that Temple

Presidents should be elected.

Now he asserts that the centres are autonomous.

In reality, they are not.

The GBC man selects the temple president and exerts huge control over the

centres.

That is the point that I have made in the TP election debate.

The zonal acharya system worked mostly because of the ability of the GBC man

to select his man as TP.

The individual devotees have never had a voice in ISKCON due to this top

down system.

 

One characteristic of top down authoritarian systems where the individual

has little or no say, is that they are an ideal cover for abusers.

eg, childrens orphanages, boarding schools, and unfortunately the Hare

Krishna movement.

 

The whole Turley case is based on instances where parents complained and

were not listened to.

 

This is all the result of the top down system where the GBC man chooses the

TP. As a result the wishes of the devotees are not important to the TP. THe

TP is responsible to the GBC rep.

 

The GBC body chooses the GBC reps who choose the TPS. And yet we are now

told that the centres are autonomous.

That is a joke. THey should be autonomous. But they certainly are not.

 

At any moment the TP can be removed by the GBC rep and replaced with a

person approved by the GBC rep. That is the ISKCON law as it stands.

 

The ritvik example is not valid as they have rejected the GBC. BUt any

centre that is GBC approved, is under this direct control of the GBC rep.

 

And now when a court case comes the GBC wants to shirk the blame, under the

excuse that every centre is autonomous.

Well, the GBC body has exerted control over every centre by controlling the

TP selection, and telling us that

"THe GBC is the ultimate managing authority of ISKCON"

(about the only management principle that exists in ISKCON, and the answer

to all questions)

 

So, as the GBC has taken all power to itself, it now has to take the thing

that goes with power.............responsibility.

 

So please dear GBC body, don't take the power and try to shirk the

responsibility.

 

And if you cannot take responsibility, it shows that you have usurped power

that is not rightfully yours.

(eg the selection of who should run each temple)

[Guest guest]

> I am not embarrassed either. we preach to and meet hundreds of people, and

> have not found much negative effect of all these scandals.

> Vijaya-venugopala dasa

 

> same here, at least my personal experience. I am still happy tht i am a

> member of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. I hope I always remain a faithful

> one.

> ys, bb

 

Where are these places?

[Guest guest]

Caitanya Candra Prabhu wrote:

 

>I am amazed that jayapataka Swami can say this.

>He just went to some lengths on Chakra to reject the idea that Temple

>Presidents should be elected.

>Now he asserts that the centres are autonomous.

>In reality, they are not.

 

It is a combination of appointment and election, or atleast no majority

objection from the local devotees. If we understand Srila Prabhupad's

words, that ISKCON is a *family*, then everything becomes clear.

 

One analogy would be the marriage of a daughter/son in a family. The

parents and other elders may choose a husband/wife for the daughter/son of

the house, but at the same time the daughter/son's approval is also sought.

It is not that the parents are dictators and they have chosen a life partner

for their son/daughter does not mean that they cannot say no if they do not

like. This saying *no* must have very valid reasons, which any parents can

understand. Otherwise the parents must be able to convince the daughter/son

what is good for them. Ofcourse if either the parents or the children are

unreasonable then such a family will suffer. There will no happiness in

such a family.

 

Similarly, GBC are like the elder members of the family. They

choose/appoint the TP the best among the available lot, in a certain time

place and situation, and the local devotees, can object if they have some

valid reasons. They can also propose who they would like to have as TP, and

as long as the elected candidate meets the basic requirements, the GBC can

approve. Just like the son/daughter has already decided to marry some one,

and that candidate is a *qualified* person, the parents/elders will

definitely agree to the choice of the children.

 

It is very simple, if everyone of us acts as a responsible family member,

keeping the whole family in happy and joyous situation. Some times one has

(GBC or TP or temple devotee or a congregation member) to sacrifice a little

on the individual level for the benefit of the bigger family.

 

Please correct me if my this understanding is wrong.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

> One analogy would be the marriage of a daughter/son in a family. The

> parents and other elders may choose a husband/wife for the daughter/son

> of the house, but at the same time the daughter/son's approval is also

> sought.

 

Nice analogy which sums up the present dilemma we are in.

If a marriage breaks up, who takes the blame - the elders who arranged it or

the couple themselves?

Seems to me that blame (and the other side of the same coin, praise) and

responsibility are mutually shared in some proportion.

 

Your servant,

Goloka Candra dasa

[Guest guest]

>

> The "hands on" managers are the TP's, School heads, etc. On the other ,

> GBC's and R.S's are supervisory or advisory roles. Even they have no

> control over manpower, money or properties. It is their job to find out

> if things are going wrong and when they get wind of it to sound the alarm

> (or bark if we use the watchdog analogy). Now it seems that if they do

> their job and discover wrong doing then they also have to resign?

> Something doesn't make sense.

 

To me it seems that the calls for resignations of some GBC's are

done with the understanding that these authorities did *not*

do the above mentioned job of theirs sufficiently well. Of course,

if the GBC's are convinced for themselves that they indeed did

good job then it makes sense that to them it does not make sense

to consider resignation.

 

 

Jayapataka Swami (in the letter posted a several hours latter,

under same thread):

"It wasn't like the abusers were openly doing their

mischief and we just tolerated it. At least I didn't

know about it until well after the fact. Even now I

am only being made aware of what was happening. We

got caught unawares, but who could have suspected that

people would treat the children like that?"

 

 

So the first message seems to be: "If we did rightly our job (finding

out if the things are going wrong and sounding alarm) so why are you

then asking us to resign?". And this later one reads: "We knew

nothing about that things went so wrong so why are you blaming us?"

 

Now, this is something that doesn't make sense to me. Either one

or another, but both...

 

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

Jayapataka Swami:

"Child abuse issues are totally cheating and for the

most part in ISKCON only when the children abused grew up

and started revealing what happened did we really understand

what was happening as the abusers were so secretive about

their horrible activities."

 

And, once again, Jayapataka Swami:

> It is their job [GBC's and R.S.] to find out if things are

> going wrong

> Now it seems that if they do

> their job and discover wrong doing then they also have to resign?

> Something doesn't make sense.

 

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

 

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi d.

[Guest guest]

Dear sane Prabhus,

Pamho. AgtSP and his pure followers!

I find this is an excellent analysis! I approve 100%. These leaders are not

being honest. That'all there is to it. They are too attached to their

position without having any desire to take the slightest responsibility.

That is very unfortunate for Prabhupada's Mouvement. I am wondering when we

are going to have a fair trial with qualified judges to point formally all

their wrong doings? I am desperately waiting for the sentence to come. We

can't go on with such irresponsible leaders who can't punish criminals at

the head of Iskcon for ever! Your servant in Prabhupada's mission,

Krsna-kirtana dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> Where are these places?

 

i stay in mayapur and i was talking about seeing people in calcutta mainly.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> > I am not embarrassed either. we preach to and meet hundreds of people,

> > and have not found much negative effect of all these scandals.

> > Vijaya-venugopala dasa

>

> > same here, at least my personal experience. I am still happy tht i am a

> > member of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON. I hope I always remain a faithful

> > one.

> > ys, bb

>

> Where are these places?

 

Well, my place is the Arabian gulf, but in my travels to Mumbai, bangalore ,

and Chennai, I found non-devotees understanding that the problems published

in the newspapers are no reason to diminish their respect for iskcon which

grows based on theor personal respect for devotees they know and Srila

Prabhupada's books.

 

Bhadra Balaram Prabhu is from Mayapur.

[Guest guest]

pl note that hh jayapataka swami is not a membe of granddisciple although he

may be one of varnasrama development. so if you are looking for his comment

on your text make sure he is added accordingly. Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

Jayapataka Swami wrote:

> If this conference could help in discovering and recommending

> some basic enhancements in ISKCON's management system it could be a useful

> contribution. It would be constructive.

 

My God, you make it sound like Srila Prabhupada never gave detailed

instructions for varnasrama dharma to be implemented into ISKCON management!

Recognition of the existence of varnasrama-dharma within ALL members of the

human society (catur varnyam...) is a fundamental and foundational principle

of Vedically inclined humans. ISKCON devotees are not exempt.

 

Varnasrama-dharma recognition and implementation has been discussed in this

forum in the past until some members were convinced once again that the GBC

and other management "leaders" simply were not listening nor have they

listened for more than 20 years.

 

Once again, it has been 26 years, 4 months and 15 days since Prabhupada

ORDERED the GBC to start varnasrama colleges in EVERY center for EVERY

devotee EVERYDAY.

 

Until the words 'varnasrama-dharma' enter into the mouths and minds of any

so-called concerned ISKCON management "leader" on a daily basis, the same

old crap will continue for years and years and years.

[Guest guest]

> I may be over simplifying it, but from my perspective that is how it

> seems. It wasn't like the abusers were openly doing their mischief and we

> just tolerated it. At least I didn't know about it until well after the

> fact. Even now I am only being made aware of what was happening. We got

> caught unawares, but who could have suspected that people would treat the

> children like that? Once we knew then we had investigations and remedial

> measures, maybe still not enough, but whatever we could think to do.

> Somehow the GBC gets the blame for local ills although it is far removed

> as the world body.

 

 

I am sorry, but this is a major, and naive, cop-out. You and the rest of the

GBC were fully aware for years and years what Prabhupada said to do to avoid

mismanagement. Start varnasrama colleges in EVERY center of the movement

immediately. That was stated by your guru over 26 years ago. How many

centers are there and how many have VAD colleges?

 

How could a leader expect anything but chaos and criminal activity from

sub-managers when they were operating on non-varnasrama dharma principles of

management? Prabhupada warned of this many, many times. It is a hellish

mentality, he stated. Hellish things happen when you are operating from a

hellish platform. The GBC let things go while giving only lip service to

varnasrama dharma and always spreading the illusion that ISKCON devotees are

above it. But not above child abuse?

[Guest guest]

> Jayapataka Swami wrote:

> > If this conference could help in discovering and recommending

> > some basic enhancements in ISKCON's management system it could be a

> > useful contribution. It would be constructive.

>

> My God, you make it sound like Srila Prabhupada never gave detailed

> instructions for varnasrama dharma to be implemented into ISKCON

> management! Recognition of the existence of varnasrama-dharma within ALL

> members of the human society (catur varnyam...) is a fundamental and

> foundational principle of Vedically inclined humans. ISKCON devotees are

> not exempt.

 

Dear Janesvara Prabhu, it seems at the highest level of our society the

initial revolutionary spirit of the early days of ISKCON to change the world

acording to the varnasrama principles has changed to creating a church like

institution like the catholic church.

Is it therefore a wander that varnasrama has no value for them?

 

>

> Varnasrama-dharma recognition and implementation has been discussed in

> this forum in the past until some members were convinced once again that

> the GBC and other management "leaders" simply were not listening nor have

> they listened for more than 20 years.

>

> Once again, it has been 26 years, 4 months and 15 days since Prabhupada

> ORDERED the GBC to start varnasrama colleges in EVERY center for EVERY

> devotee EVERYDAY.

>

> Until the words 'varnasrama-dharma' enter into the mouths and minds of any

> so-called concerned ISKCON management "leader" on a daily basis, the same

> old crap will continue for years and years and years.