let's be constructive

[Guest guest]

Bhadra Balaram wrote: And so the

> > natural question is "who will be they?" and that's what I asked. I still

> > ask the same question because I, as a member of ISKCON would like to

> > know who we are proposing to manage ISKCON if the GBC body resigns at

> > all. I guess we are looking for better managers.

 

Mahanidhi prabhu answered:

> One may doubt in your sudden genuine interest in looking for the

> better managers than the current GBCs just after you have placed

> your inquiry for the names of the eventual replacing ones out of

> curiosity only:

> "just curiosity, can you give say 25 to 30 names who can replace

> the present GBC body?"

> Besides, you haven't really leave an impression of someone who is

> actually dissatisfied with the present GBCs and is asking for their

> resignation and replacement, did you?

> So, duplicity and tricky "questions". You seem to have learned some

> tricks from the rtviks that you are arguing with and against so

> bitterly. Why don't you first acknowledge your position on the topic,

> i.e. that you consider how the present GBCs have done a very poor

> performance in preventing and solving the numerous accumulated

> grave problems in the institution and that their resignation and

> replacement (in whatever extent it might be) is a serious option

> to be considered. Then only your questions like "who", "how"

> and "when" will be perceived as straightforward and natural and

> not as some trickery to fool out those with the opposing opinion.

 

Bhadra Balaram again:

> > Mataji, let's not get into arguments. We had enough of it with

> > rtvikvadis.

 

Mahanidhi's intelligent answer:

> But what is it exactly that you don't want to "get into arguments"

> with her over? Here it is what she stated when you came in with

> your "just curiosity":

> "We should look for qualified leaders and they are present in Iskcon."

> So do you share the same opinion or do you not? If you do, then

> indeed there is no question of getting into arguments. And if you

> don't, then don't get into arguments, and then ask her not to

> get into arguments. Don't play some rtviktrick, indeed. It would

> take a fool to start compiling such a list with the names here and

> at this instance. So don't demand from anybody do it, in the name

> of your curiosity only.

 

Bhadra Balarama insisted:

> > so in short, you couldn't give even one name, right? that certainly was

> > not expected! I think you got little paranoid while reading my question

> > and prejudged my intention.

 

Mahanidhi's patient and right to the point answer:

> She told you quite straight that she would perceive it as a

> humiliation to start making the list with the names of those she

> holds her respects towards, for the sake of satisfying your curiosity

> and challenge merely. Not that she couldn't give even one name!

> Don't play some game of children and call it "let's be constructive"

> or "mataji, let's not get into arguments".

> - mnd

 

Wow, mahanidhi Prabhu, first time I got respected so accurately.

That was a really far out answer on your part. I could never have expressed

myself so perfectly.

 

I really want to thank you from the core of my heart for understanding what

was in my mind, at that time, so perfectly. You can be a genius sometimes.

 

Please accept Srila Prabhupada's blessings and my humble homage.

 

your servant in Prabhupada's mission, Krsna-kirtana dasi.