Saturday, September 28, 2013

GBC has Wasted $30,000,000 Suing the Prabhupadanugas? (by Praghosha das)

[PADA: Yes, this is the old Praghosa das who was one of the biggest book distributors in ISKCON. Yep, he says that is $30 million dollars wasted.]


Hello PRATYATOSA the sums I had mentioned were rough estimates and based on the available public facts on the subject. I am in no remotely conceivable way considered an ISKCON "insider" by anyone in or out of the mainstream institution. Not since 1986. Don't know how you could possibly conclude otherwise. BUT - the simple facts are that 99.9 per cent of all money spent by ISKCON on legal matters fall under Srila Prabhupada's definition of "misappropriation of funds." And yes - the figure is surely $30 million or more. -- Praghosa das


Praghosa Das says:

Dear Pratyatosa Prabhu

Obeisances. all glories to Srila Prabhupada

You write :

“Great! We finally got you to say the word, “ritvik.” I didn’t think you had it in you.

You seem a bit confused prabhu. and a bit dodgy as well.

I have employed this term in every instance of recorded comment from myself since way back in my first effort in 1995 between myself and HH TKG. The essay you cited in your original questions to myself (1999) found me doing the same. Same with my comments in 2005.

I rely upon Srila Prabhupada’s own simple definition of the term: one who is singled out from amongst his happy servants and “selected, empowered and authorized” by him or his representatives -- to act “on behalf of Srila Prabhupada” as guru and assume full responsibility in the matter of who can and cannot be accepted as a bona fide initiated disciple in Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON mission.

This is the publicly recorded arrangement of Srila Prabhupada. Beginning with his conversations on May 27th and then the 28th -- he informed us as to what he planned to do. Then -- in June he did it and in July he informed us all what he did.

Once again -- for no apparent reason you again try to slight me. This time with the above pithy nonsense: .. ”Great! We finally got you to say the word, “ritvik.” I didn’t think you had it in you.

But it’s not “GBC / TP / Ritvik Acharya.” It’s “GBC / TP / Ritvik representative of the Acharya,” or simply “GBC / TP / Ritvik.” On May 28, 1977, when Tamal Krishna asked “Is that called ritvik-acharya?” Srila Prabhupada immediately corrected him and stated that the correct terminology is simply “ritvik.” 1½ months later, in his July 9, 1977 directive to all GBC men/temple presidents, Prabhupada further refined the terminology to “ritvik representative of the Acharya.” After that, he never again changed the terminology.

You again take liberties with what is said and give your meaning or interpretation to what is being said or was said by someone. In this case Srila Prabhupada.

He did not correct TKG when TKG asked "is that called ritivik acharya." He answered in the affirmative “Yes Ritivik”. He was not correcting. He was confirming. The word ritvik means empowered representative. TKG used term ritvik. Ritivik was not a word known to anyone at that time. There had been conversations on the subject initiated by Srila Prabhupada during that period and according to Gauri Das Pandit prabhu -- this was the only reason TKG even knew of the term to ask about it.

ISKCON has ALWAYS worked with the only realistic system that could work within the context of a formal worldwide mission if it was to the sanctity and importance of its 7 (stated) Purposes: ie a system that insisted those acting on Srila Prabhupada’s behalf -- as his agents -- were sworn to his Oath of Allegiance and committed to working hand and glove with HIS Governing Body. 

This is the very essence of the true meaning of “ritivik representative” or “officiatiing acharya”. I will waste no more time haggling with you over the terms or how they are placed. Ritivik Representative does not mean Priest in the context of Srila Prabhupada’s arrangements. The priest is the one who lights the fire and performs the ceremony 

The Ritivik Acharya takes personal responsibility in determining the legitimacy of a man’s professed “sincerity”. He is authorized to chant upon the man’s beads FOR SRILA PRABHUPADA. He is responsible for eliciting this man’s commitment to reciting with reverence and affection -- at least 16 rounds of the Lord’s Holy Name and to abide by the simple 4 proscriptions to which we are all familiar. 

He gives the initiate his new name. He himself -- (many do not realize this) is held accountable to Srila Prabhupada -- IF he -- the ritvik acharya -- fails to do all in his power to ensure the disicple’s LIFELONG commitment to these simple actions. He is doing all this on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. BUT HE -- is doing that. His doing so -- on behalf of Srila Prabhupada -- does not mean he is not actually doing this. Anymore than a mother’s doing all she does -- on behalf of the father -- means actually the father is doing everything.

“For the book distributors to go on strike is just one possibility to motivate the GBC to finally come clean and start telling the truth. Another possibility would be for Ambarish Prabhu to temporarily stop giving any money. Another possibility is for the Supreme Court of India to get on their case.”

This is all mundane conception. As if who gains or loses money is or even should be factored in as a means to resolve this issue. Were that the case -- then the 30 million and counting that has been already lost -- would have long ago served to move people back to the correct and simple solution.

You have not distributed any books in years. So technically -- you have been on the very strike you call for.

The BBT has botched things themselves. The GBC has botched that also. And most of us who were hard core book distributors -- also got married and were forced to do other than full time daily direct book distribution. To me -- in the end -- this is all of us -- in one way or the other -- going on strike so to speak. The only real reason books were ever distributed in the mass quantities of that period -- was because Srila Prabhupada wanted it to be done -- and most of us in ISKCON at that time -- took his desire as our own -- and WANTED to do that. 

After he left us -- each of us -- in our own way -- chose or were obliged -- to do something else. We all essentially -- went on strike. all that without any formal declaration of intent as you suggest. Now -- how has the above mentioned “strike” worked out for us? For Iskcon? In resolving this tenaciously contentious “guru issue”? Ahh…. I believe we all have an answer or two for that one.

“For their own good, the GBC has got to realize that the truth always wins out in the end, and that the longer they delay the inevitable, the more that they are going to have to suffer. Do they want to do down in history as the biggest fools/rascals in the history of Vaisnavism, or what?”

As I said -- the whole thing could be easily resolved within perhaps 1 Hour -- if all parties at the table are honest and sincere. From the day Srila Prabhupada “selected” some men -- to the exclusion of all other disciples -- we have had the exact system he left us. There are now some 10-12 thousand men and women whose initiating ritivik acharya himself -- either retired or fell away -- and the bulk of these men and women -- never saw it necessary to again search out another to RE- initiate them. Neither has any ISKCON leader of note -- insisted that they must do this. Even some of ISKCON’S present GBC members fall within this category and no pressure I am aware of has been directed towards them for taking this position.

Why not stop with the subtle slights you keep tossing my way and initiate a direct discussion that can bring about full resolution to this ultimately simple problem?

[PADA: OK, if they are willing to talk, why are they spending $30 Millions Dollars suing us? ys pd]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.