GBC JOint Resignation Proposal

[Guest guest]

At 03:34 PM 7/26/00 +0630, Devakinandan (das) JUHU (Bombay - IN) wrote:

>I also agree with Mahatma prabhu and others that it

>should be changed very very carefully.

 

I like the way Devakinandan says this. Some have proposed gradual change,

or slow change; I like careful change. I supported the reform efforts of

the mid '80s, but the result they yielded are much less than we hoped for.

Let's make that MUCH less. We need to always keep in mind the purpose of

the changes, and do our best to make changes only with some strong

assurance they'll be helpful.

 

>1. Prabhupada's instructions on GBC and its functions should be brought in

>front. Otherhand I feel that GBC are not following the instructions of Sri

>Prabhupada as it is.

 

Ditto. As I understand them, Srila Prabhupada wanted the GBC to preach to

the devotees and help them remain steady in their sadhana and service, and

to meet for a few hours at Mayapur to make plans for increasing book

distribution. Over the last couple of decades, the GBC has acted largely to

perpetuate its own position at the center fo ISKCON and create

anprogressively complex bureaucracy, of which many of its members are very

proud.

 

>2. The post of Guru and GBC should be separate. One person having two posts

>brings the conflict of interest, in the service. So I propose to give the

>chance to present GBC Gurus to decide whether they want to remain GBC or

>Guru.

I'm less certain about this. I'm very sympathetic with the sentiments (not

meant in a derogatory way) behind this proposal, but I'm not sure how

strongly I agree that someone who initiates shouldn't manage, or vice

versa. I think it's a matter of scale. One thing is that "management"

responsiblities should be happily shared, not hoarded. These guys have been

made (or have made themselves, I'm not sure which) so damned busy that they

take their computers to the temple and work on their correspondence etc.

during mangal arati and Bhagavatam class. As far as I'm concerned, that

more than undermines any benefit they receive by attendance AND any

"example" they should set for others. That's a whole 'nother subject, and

you don't want to get me started on it.

 

Scale, I think, may be the key (that was my point). As far as initiating

goes, that's being harded, too, through the mechanism of a weird,

bureaucratic process for--heck I don't even know what to call it

anymore--is it certification? approval? appointment? Somehow, the GBC

decides the few who may initiate, then posts a caveat emptor disclaimer,

disavowing any responisibility for the ofiicial initiators' qualifications.

 

In November of 1977, on my first day back at work after Srila Prabhupada's

disappearance, one of my co-workers offered her condolences and asked my

who would take Srila Prabhupada's place. I replied that no one could take

his place, but that he had appointed a board to manage the cociety. Then

(and this was the first time I had actually considered such a thing), I

said that as far as making new disciples, he had made it clear that that

was all his disciples' respoinsibility. As I walked down Bishop

Street to our office in the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii, it struck me that

we would all have to stop holding back and become serious so we would

someday become qualified to guide others. When, some months later, the GBC

announced that Srila Prabhupada ahd appointed the next generation of gurus,

that responsibility was lifted from the rest of us. We didn't have to worry

about it; it was covered. All we had to do was go along. This was perhaps

the biggest mistake ISKCON has made. If more of us had over the last 20+

years been encouraged to preach vigorously and take full responsibility for

the results, we may have many more devotees accepting small numbers of

disciples and maintaining our other responsibilities for ISKCON as well.

 

 

>Anyway they are the senior members of the society. They must take moral

>responsibility of whatever happends in the society as well as they should

>take the responsibility of what will happen to the society in future. I

>feel we should air out our feelings and leave it to them. They are

>Vaishnavas. Prabhupada and Krishna will guide them.

 

We are the senior members of the society. I hope this doesn't sound

presumptuous. But many of us have been serving ISKCON in various ways for

more than 30 years. We're not boys and girls any more, and many of us have

shown competence by years of professional or devotional activities, and

steadiness over decades of daily sadhana, study, and association. As

Mahatma said, there's a lot of talent out here, and most of us are still

young and healthy enough to do things (much younger than Srila Prabhupada

when he went out to Jhansi, and certainly younger that when he came to

America). And it's our responsibility, not just theirs, to make this thing

work.

 

>One more funny thing is that none of the GBCs are giving any comment on the

>above.

 

Well, I just hope I've been wrong when I've suggested, admittedly cynically

and tongue somewhat in cheek, that they don't see any of us as one of them,

and they don't see themselves as one of us. They are, as has been pointed

out by others, rather aloof.

 

Okay, I'll log off before I commit any really fatal offenses.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

> >One more funny thing is that none of the GBCs are giving any comment on

> >the above.

 

how many of them are receivers? this time only i saw SP Disciples added to

this discussion. maybe they were Bcc. I am not sure. Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb