My dear prabhu,
I do not see that I am presenting any other plan. I do not
acknowledge any negative aspect of your comment (if there
was one), as it seems that you would rather dismiss my attempt
to spark a public debate by brushing off my points as useless
by way of being a different ‘plan’ then what you
want to see done.
First, the only
‘plan’ I am presenting is that I am humbly begging
that the senior men and those currently in position of managing
now, please debate these issues openly and publicly. I do
not see this as presenting any conflicting plan then what
you also want.
Prabhu, we share
the same basis. That is, we both are saying that the current
system of management of ISKCON is NOT the system that Srila
Prabhupad instructed to be followed or set up. That we both
agree. We both agree that the current leaders (and ALL followers
of Srila Prabhupad) must recognize this and we both agree
that all the followers of Srila Prabhupad must demand that
the system be restored. And we both agree that this will solve
so many of the problems.
if you insist to make an issue of it, is, at least as I see
it, that you are arguing that we must restore the Sys of Mangmnt
back to the Original - Hard Written 1970 “Direction
of Management” + 1974 addendum. And, I would assume
that your logic for this is that this is the only officially
signed formal document outlining how ISKCON is to be managed.
Therefore, I would assume your argument would be that –
in the absence of any other official addendums, all other
changes in the system of management is fundamentally, and
legally even, unacceptable.
I agree you have
a very valid point. One that would seem to warrant a strong
legal standing that if presented with proper council can be
taken to court to enforce that the hard written DOM be formally
taken up and followed by the ISKCON society.
I am not saying
anything that would dispute your position. Again, though,
if we were to point out a difference in our view, I would
say that what I have asked to be debated regards additional
letters and other directions that Srila Prabhupad gave regarding
some of the specific duties and of the leaders. These may
not have appeared as addendums, but they did not need to.
The addendum of 1974 that you kindly sent provides sufficient
evidence that Srila Prabhupad himself remained as the supreme
authority in ISKCON and that the GBC were to simply execute
his instructions. Thus, the instructions that he gave in 1972
that members no longer approach their diksha guru (Srila Prabhupad),
but should take all guidance regarding management of the society,
philosophy and personal problems, and should approach the
senior devotees for such issues. Such directives by HDG ACBSP
did not change any fundamental operation or function of the
DOM, but rather defined or delineated specific duties of specific
members within that management structure. In that directive
the Supreme Authority of ISKCON – HDG ACBS Prabhupad
also directed the devotees to no longer seek guidance from
their diksha guru (he was the only diksha guru) and should
seek guidance only from the senior men. So, again, this directive
did not affect the DOM that he had formally written and instructed
that we follow.
I see that we share
the same goal. That to request the mangers reinstate the directive
of 1972 – that devotees seek guidance from the senior
devotees – not their diksha guru, is a step closer to
reinstating the DOM – it does not conflict with it.
So, I will be happy
to include the subject of the 1970 DOM in the discussion.
I may create a branch-page for that subject if it warrants
Ys ameyatma das