Managerial v. Brahminical GBC

[Guest guest]

I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions, but I wonder what

instructions of Srila Prabhupada there are on this subject, and which ones

are being considered, and how they are being interpreted or followed, by the

GBC and by any reform committees?.

 

The original GBC document (from way back in 1971, I think) was called

"Direction of Management". Also, the last will and testament says "managing

authority". So the word "management" is there.

 

But what kind of managing? We also have the GBC meeting from 1975 where the

GBC were reading the language of the proposed oath of loyalty. When they got

to the passage "and all the money under my control. . . " (paraphrasing),

Srila Prabhupada interrupted and said the GBC should not have any money under

their control. Then I think it was Atreya Rsi said that money means

entanglement (or attachment), and Srila Prabhupada approved this statement.

Someone can look this conversation up, because I am not quoting verbatim, but

Srila Prabhupada seemed to be instructing that the officers of individual

projects like temples and so on control the money, and GBC simply make sure

they are doing nicely and following the principles and philosophy.

 

Did that instruction later change? Did Srila Prabhupada permit GBC to

operate GBC-controlled bank accounts? At least GBC members did become

property trustees and BBT trustees. Or did Srila Prabhupada want such

trustees only to appoint officers like presidents and treasurers, but to

themselves not have any money under their control?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Of course, Srila Prabhupada himself was Founder-Acarya, spiritual master, and

ultimate manager. Even though he wanted to delegate the management, he

apparently never could completely trust his disciples to manage properly.

[Guest guest]

>Did Srila Prabhupada permit GBC to

>operate GBC-controlled bank accounts? At least GBC members did become

>property trustees and BBT trustees. Or did Srila Prabhupada want such

>trustees only to appoint officers like presidents and treasurers, but to

>themselves not have any money under their control?

>

>Any thoughts?

 

We have seen the results of GBC/gurus keeping large bank accounts. One by

one they left with millions of dollars of Prabhupada's money when they

originally joined the movement owning only their underwear. And each time,

we thought it couldn't happen again! And the resolutions were already on the

books that the money belongs to the society, not to the individual.

 

Obviously, if they had not controlled the money they could not have taken it

with them when they left. And the GBC was helpless to protect the money

because they don't follow their own resolutions in that huge Law Book they

have compiled.

 

yours in service, vaiyasaki dasa...

[Guest guest]

 

Akruranath.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Akruranath.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

Re: "Managerial" v. "Brahminical" GBC

 

 

"Did that instruction later change? Did Srila Prabhupada permit GBC to

operate GBC-controlled bank accounts? At least GBC members did become

property trustees and BBT trustees. Or did Srila Prabhupada want such

trustees only to appoint officers like presidents and treasurers, but to

themselves not have any money under their control?"

 

FYI: Property trustees really can't be called managers. Their only duty is

to prevent the unauthorized sale of a temple for which they are a trustee.

They have no "active" management role.

[Guest guest]

> I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions, but I wonder what

> instructions of Srila Prabhupada there are on this subject, and which ones

> are being considered, and how they are being interpreted or followed, by

> the GBC and by any reform committees?.

>

> The original GBC document (from way back in 1971, I think) was called

> "Direction of Management". Also, the last will and testament says

> "managing authority". So the word "management" is there.

 

> But what kind of managing?

 

I think he might have meant managing the preaching activities and it,s

developement in a particular area for which the person in the GBC positions

were responsible. He might have not seen the necesity at that time of a

leader in a management position acording to ksatriya principles of

management. So is also Prabhupadas responsability involved?

 

> We also have the GBC meeting from 1975 where

> the GBC were reading the language of the proposed oath of loyalty. When

> they got to the passage "and all the money under my control. . . "

> (paraphrasing), Srila Prabhupada interrupted and said the GBC should not

> have any money under their control. Then I think it was Atreya Rsi said

> that money means entanglement (or attachment), and Srila Prabhupada

> approved this statement. Someone can look this conversation up, because I

> am not quoting verbatim, but Srila Prabhupada seemed to be instructing

> that the officers of individual projects like temples and so on control

> the money, and GBC simply make sure they are doing nicely and following

> the principles and philosophy.

>

> Did that instruction later change? Did Srila Prabhupada permit GBC to

> operate GBC-controlled bank accounts? At least GBC members did become

> property trustees and BBT trustees. Or did Srila Prabhupada want such

> trustees only to appoint officers like presidents and treasurers, but to

> themselves not have any money under their control?

>

> Any thoughts?

>

> Of course, Srila Prabhupada himself was Founder-Acarya, spiritual master,

> and ultimate manager. Even though he wanted to delegate the management,

> he apparently never could completely trust his disciples to manage

> properly.