By: Abhiram Das (ACBSP) Posted on January 5, 2020
My most sincere obeisance. Kindly bless me to someday approach bhakti marg.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Being further requested to expand on my earlier appeal for ‘due diligence and due process’, I had already indicated that the history of our GBC dealing with important issues is not encouraging, to say the least. Although they have been mandated as “the ultimate managerial authority”, I wonder where they got anointed to evolve the format of Srila Prabhupada’s institution?
So far I can understand, a manager must execute the systems and policies of the owners of a company or institution. ISKCON is forever the creation and manifestation of only Srila Prabhupada, and should never be thought of in any other way.
I would like to point out that already the GBC have overstepped their mandate far too often, such as in the case of the infamous Zonal Acharya System, which alone drove out thousands of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples and then an anaemic and compromising attempt at reforming. That blunder has led us to another major split and loss of cohesion by causing the ritvik divisions.
My most sincere obeisance. Kindly bless me to someday approach bhakti marg.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Being further requested to expand on my earlier appeal for ‘due diligence and due process’, I had already indicated that the history of our GBC dealing with important issues is not encouraging, to say the least. Although they have been mandated as “the ultimate managerial authority”, I wonder where they got anointed to evolve the format of Srila Prabhupada’s institution?
So far I can understand, a manager must execute the systems and policies of the owners of a company or institution. ISKCON is forever the creation and manifestation of only Srila Prabhupada, and should never be thought of in any other way.
I would like to point out that already the GBC have overstepped their mandate far too often, such as in the case of the infamous Zonal Acharya System, which alone drove out thousands of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples and then an anaemic and compromising attempt at reforming. That blunder has led us to another major split and loss of cohesion by causing the ritvik divisions.
[PADA: Well not exactly. We were saying the "guru reform" idea is bogus in itself because gurus do not need "reform." And even if gurus did need reform in theory, why would a bunch of people who had just got out of eating hamburgers and having anonymous sex at rock music festivals be qualified to "advise the acharyas"?
So we were against the whole idea of acharyas being in need of "guru reform" for engaging in deviant behaviors such as -- illicit sex with men, women and children, because we never accepted that acharyas fall into deviations from square one. And now Abhiram Das wants to act as the newly minted current boss / reformer for the acharyas, that means he has no idea that acharyas do not deviate and thus do NOT need censuring, correcting, monitoring, reform etc. from square one.]
Please don’t try to misunderstand me, for I am not arguing for ritvik or against FDGs herein. Rather I am questioning the diligence and process of GBC decision making. That questioning of their past failures and obvious incompetency inspires me to raise another question as to their actual right to enter into changing formats, traditions, and any other manifestation of the bhakti marg within Srila Prabhupada’s institution. Having FDGs may be an excellent idea, but, but, but do the GBC have the authority to change or adopt a tradition that ISKCON’s Founder-Acharya did not manifest in his lifetime???
[PADA: OK so the GBC has maybe 60 acharyas, and they have a track record of making stupendous errors, creating a child molesting nest and webs program, reinstating sex with taxi drivers as Vishnupada, and so on, so how are they acharyas? Which previous acharyas behaved like this?]
If so, where did they get that authority? In committee? In some self appointing vote?? This is not enough!
[PADA: Acharyas do not need to explain their authority, they speak as Krishna dictates. That means Abhiram thinks acharyas get their authority from committees and votes. And worse, votes from people who are prone to giant bombastic errors. The GBC never had the authority to rubber stamp any of their acharyas, male or female.]
I suggest, that their ONLY authority is to follow the Bhagawat as the Person Bhagawat demonstrated and to preside over HIS institution as its managers to ensure continuity. To second guess what, if any changes the Founder-Acharya (in fact the true OWNER) of ISKCON might have made is a criminal violation of their mandate.
[PADA: Where is the mandate to vote in acharyas in the first place?]
My suggestion is, if any of those sixteen GBC votes [in favor of female diksha gurus] believes that their interpretation of what might be a better evolution of the preaching mission should be, they are very welcome to start their own institution and do that. There is no wrong in so doing, but to remain within ISKCON and alter the established traditions set during Srila Prabhupada’s direct leadership is not their right and will only continue to fracture the society and faith of its followers.
[PADA: Some of the GBC's folks already admit their acharyas are often fallen and maybe even illicit sex with men, women and children deviants. Why are we waiting for more evidence that this is ALL deviation?]
I remain on the same theme here as my earlier comments, namely context. I see much being argued, with great skill and erudition about FDG being right or wrong, and have tried myself to steer clear of that never to end cacophony, but prefer to raise broader contextual issues about the role of the GBC to establish any new traditions, not [already] established by Srila Prabhupada in his time leading his institution.
This is a more fundamental question about the limits of managerial authority. In common and legal terminology, a ‘manger’ always operates within constraints set by those superior in authority to himself. In operating Srila Prabhupada’s society or even reprinting his books, no ‘manager’ (be he ultimate or ordinary) can alter established protocol, despite their deepest conviction that it is right to do so. If they feel so deeply inspired that it is The Lord’s will, then they should be encouraged and applauded to go out and start a new manifestation of Mahaprabhu’s movement.
So we were against the whole idea of acharyas being in need of "guru reform" for engaging in deviant behaviors such as -- illicit sex with men, women and children, because we never accepted that acharyas fall into deviations from square one. And now Abhiram Das wants to act as the newly minted current boss / reformer for the acharyas, that means he has no idea that acharyas do not deviate and thus do NOT need censuring, correcting, monitoring, reform etc. from square one.]
Please don’t try to misunderstand me, for I am not arguing for ritvik or against FDGs herein. Rather I am questioning the diligence and process of GBC decision making. That questioning of their past failures and obvious incompetency inspires me to raise another question as to their actual right to enter into changing formats, traditions, and any other manifestation of the bhakti marg within Srila Prabhupada’s institution. Having FDGs may be an excellent idea, but, but, but do the GBC have the authority to change or adopt a tradition that ISKCON’s Founder-Acharya did not manifest in his lifetime???
[PADA: OK so the GBC has maybe 60 acharyas, and they have a track record of making stupendous errors, creating a child molesting nest and webs program, reinstating sex with taxi drivers as Vishnupada, and so on, so how are they acharyas? Which previous acharyas behaved like this?]
If so, where did they get that authority? In committee? In some self appointing vote?? This is not enough!
[PADA: Acharyas do not need to explain their authority, they speak as Krishna dictates. That means Abhiram thinks acharyas get their authority from committees and votes. And worse, votes from people who are prone to giant bombastic errors. The GBC never had the authority to rubber stamp any of their acharyas, male or female.]
I suggest, that their ONLY authority is to follow the Bhagawat as the Person Bhagawat demonstrated and to preside over HIS institution as its managers to ensure continuity. To second guess what, if any changes the Founder-Acharya (in fact the true OWNER) of ISKCON might have made is a criminal violation of their mandate.
[PADA: Where is the mandate to vote in acharyas in the first place?]
My suggestion is, if any of those sixteen GBC votes [in favor of female diksha gurus] believes that their interpretation of what might be a better evolution of the preaching mission should be, they are very welcome to start their own institution and do that. There is no wrong in so doing, but to remain within ISKCON and alter the established traditions set during Srila Prabhupada’s direct leadership is not their right and will only continue to fracture the society and faith of its followers.
[PADA: Some of the GBC's folks already admit their acharyas are often fallen and maybe even illicit sex with men, women and children deviants. Why are we waiting for more evidence that this is ALL deviation?]
I remain on the same theme here as my earlier comments, namely context. I see much being argued, with great skill and erudition about FDG being right or wrong, and have tried myself to steer clear of that never to end cacophony, but prefer to raise broader contextual issues about the role of the GBC to establish any new traditions, not [already] established by Srila Prabhupada in his time leading his institution.
This is a more fundamental question about the limits of managerial authority. In common and legal terminology, a ‘manger’ always operates within constraints set by those superior in authority to himself. In operating Srila Prabhupada’s society or even reprinting his books, no ‘manager’ (be he ultimate or ordinary) can alter established protocol, despite their deepest conviction that it is right to do so. If they feel so deeply inspired that it is The Lord’s will, then they should be encouraged and applauded to go out and start a new manifestation of Mahaprabhu’s movement.
I do not say this with tongue in cheek, for I sincerely believe that this will and also has happened and should go on. Let those sincerely inspired on both sides have a safe haven to execute their bhakti marg, rather than the liberals imposing their views on the conservatives, or visa versa. Let them each have a place, but the original ‘mother ship’ of ISKCON should only reflect the traditions established by it’ only Founder and only Acharya pre-1977.
Again, I appeal for further due diligence and due process.
Begging your all forgiveness for my impertinent intrusions.
Your servant
Abhiram Das ( ACBSP1969 )
Again, I appeal for further due diligence and due process.
Begging your all forgiveness for my impertinent intrusions.
Your servant
Abhiram Das ( ACBSP1969 )
[PADA: Fine except there are no "managers" in ISKCON since 1978 when the 11, working with Sridhara Maharaja, declared that they are NOW going to be the newly minted "acharya board." These alleged acharyas have over stepped the GBC managing process ever since, and have overtaken the GBC as the higher authority than the GBC. There currently is no GBC, there are maybe 60 maverick acharyas who say correctly, acharyas do not listen to a GBC since they are in touch with God. However they are not behaving like people who are in touch with God?
Abhiram thinks people who are in touch with God need managing by a committee, or by him, so he has never understood the principle of acharya. We first of all need to admit, these people are not acharyas, that is the root of all this mayhem. ys pd]
pada @ angel108b@yahoo.com
pada @ angel108b@yahoo.com
Thanks HD: Yes, where is the mandate -- for the original rubber stamp of 11 gurus in 1978? Where is the mandate to go to Sridhara Maharaja? Where is the mandate to follow Satsvarupa and Narayan Maharaja's idea to have a guru reform and vote in more gurus? Where is the mandate to force the children to worship deviants as their acharyas? Where is the mandate to change the books? Where is the mandate to kick out all the devotees? And so forth. And yes, there is no mandate to make women diksha gurus, but there was no mandate to make male diksha gurus. And now, Abhiram is making up a newly concocted mandate, that acharyas are getting dictation from Krishna, so he is going to kick out Krishna and take over the job of dictation to the acharyas. Wow, he thinks Krishna is his subordinate, there is no need for Krishna to dictate to the acharyas, he will do that instead. And there is a mandate for all this? ys pd
ReplyDelete