“Implementing the Direction of Management”

By Ameyatma das (ACBSP), posted May 30, 2010

Prabhupada’s Direction of Management not invalidated by inaction of his disciples

Download the DOM – 444Kb, pdf

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Trivikram Maharaja said:

If Srila Prabhupada wanted the GBC to be elected by the TPs he would have made it clear. This part of the DOM was NEVER implemented.

It IS clear in the DOM – which is the ONLY formally written, signed and co-signed document signed by Srila Prabhupada with the full intent and purpose of being a legal (ISKCON Inc, or corporate Law) document that deals directly with this aspect of how ISKCON must be managed.

When Srila Prabhupada wrote the DOM and set up the GBC based on it, the DOM was referred to as ISKCON’s Constitution (this quote I heard from NaraNarayan, who says that’s what Rupa Nuga told him just after the first GBC meeting). NO COMPANY, NO GOVERNMENT will change its very Constitution based on hearsay or even a verbal statement, what to speak of by inference that a certain aspect never was implemented, thus, it can be tossed out. That is ABSURD, totally ABSURD, Maharaja. Totally.

Srila Prabhupada’s modus operandi is documented. First of all, he was an author. He committed his plans and rules in WRITING. Even when I first joined, there was a handwritten (may have been copy of the original) notice posted in the Los Angeles kitchen where Prabhupada had written the “Rules for Radharani’s Kitchen”, and at the bottom was his signature. He wrote down how he wanted things to be executed, and after writing, he gave his signature of approval. His thousands and thousands of written and signed letters attest to this. The DOM was written out by him, explicitly stating how HE wanted HIS mission to be managed. Then, he gave his signature of approval, along with the signatures of the original 12 GBC men.

The DOM is a formal document, written and executed in a formal manner. This is the mode of operation (modus operandi) that our Founder and Acharya followed.

All ISKCON temples were also formally incorporated, and their by-laws written up and executed in a formal manner. The BBT was a formal TRUST [see Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Agreement] and, again, Srila Prabhupada established its foundation and operation on a formally written document, which was executed in a formal manner — again, attesting to how Srila Prabhupada dealt with such far-reaching and serious matters. Another example which upholds the integrity in which He executed such matters is his Last Will. It is a formally written and signed document.

When there were changes or amendments to be made, he made them in WRITING – following the same principle and etiquette and procedures of formality. As evidence, refer to the 1974 “TOPMOST URGENCY” document, which was written in a formal manner, for the sole purpose of being an amendment to all of ISKCON’s legal incorporation documents. Srila Prabhupada had this document written on his letterhead stationery. It was written in a formal manner to become part of ISKCON, Inc. LAW. It was then signed by him and countersigned by two other GBC officers. That document was written as an AMENDMENT, with that very word given in all caps in the title of the document. This exemplifies the manner and procedures that Srila Prabhupada himself followed when he wrote important documents and wanted to have them changed or added to, or amended.

We find NO OTHER document signed by Srila Prabhupada regarding how HE wanted HIS mission to be managed other than the DOM. IF he wanted the procedures of management to be changed, he would have either rewritten a NEW DOM, or he would have had a formal amendment written up and duly signed by him and co-signed by at least two other GBCs.

Those who proclaim, as Trivikram Maharaja does here, that Srila Prabhupada wanted the DOM changed or certain aspects not followed, if they cannot provide verifiable documentation SIGNED by Srila Prabhupada to this effect, then their statements are nothing but hot, worthless air, because it appears that is all they are based on: thin air, not written and signed formal documents.

Trivikram states that IF Srila Prabhupada wanted the GBC elected by Temple Presidents he would have made it clear. Have you actually READ the DOM???? IT IS CLEAR. But, others have argued that IF Srila Prabhupada really had wanted the election process implemented he would have seen that it was implemented in his presence. That argument is made invalid by a careful analysis of the DOM itself, as I will do below:

I will now comment on some statements made by Pancha Ratna Prabhu:

Several devotees have argued here that Srila Prabhupada’s conversation
with Satsvarupa Maharaj on the topic of GBC only refers to those selected
by him and that the DOM is his direction for all other members of the
GBC.

I disagree that this was Srila Prabhupada’s intention, though I personally
find aspects of the DOM attractive for current ISKCON.

What is the basis of your disagreement, other than your own SPECULATION? In that conversation [May 28, 1977] Satsvarup is the one who makes this clear to Srila Prabhupada at the very beginning wherein he states:

SATSVARUPA: Srila Prabhupada, we were all asked by the rest of the GBC to come to ask some questions. Most… These are the members of the original GBC as you first made it up. So our first question is about the GBC members. We want to know how long should they remain in office?

The idea that Srila Prabhupada is, in his response, only referring to those ORIGINAL members of the GBC, as HE first selected them, is not based on speculation; it is based on the recorded conversation that took place. You may disagree all you want, but your disagreements are only based on your own speculation, and thus, in favor of the actual recorded conversation, your speculation is herein totally rejected. The evidence speaks for itself.

In this conversation the GBC men are referred to as those who are SELECTED and those who are ELECTED – two distinct means of adding or replacing – SELECTING & ELECTING:

PRABHUPADA: Selected men are chosen, so they cannot be changed. Rather, if some competent man comes, he should be added. I shall recommend that Vasudeva become one of the GBC.

Here, Srila Prabhupada is referring to the ORIGINAL GBC men as He first made it (the GBC) up, or as HE originally SELECTED them. Srila Prabhupada SELECTED those original men. They are CHOSEN. Yes, they were CHOSEN by Srila Prabhupada directly, and from 1970 until his disappearance in 1977 Srila Prabhupada continued to SELECT their replacements, or additional GBC – as He did right here in the above sentence by selecting Vasudev as additional GBC member.

SATSVARUPA: But then, in the event that some present GBC member leaves, either leaves… PRABHUPADA: Another should be elected.

Now, before we get into who shall elect, let me refer to the actual DOM in regards to how Srila Prabhupada therein refers to how the GBC men shall be added to or replaced:

[Srila Prabhupada is writing in first-person] My duty was to first appoint twelve (12) persons to my free choice amongst my disciples, and I do it now, and their names are as follows:…

This statement gives clear evidence that the DOM was, in fact, personally written by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada – and not written by his disciples, as this sentence is written in first person.

2. His Divine Grace will select the initial 12 members of the GBC. In the succeeding years the GBC will be elected by a vote of all Temple Presidents.

Here were find the same two distinct means by which the GBC shall be created or managed. The INITIAL (12) members of the GBC are SELECTED by Srila Prabhupada – and in succeeding years the GBC shall be ELECTED by the Temple Presidents. Srila Prabhupada uses these two words distinctly for two distinct purposes. The INITIAL GBC shall be SELECTED by Prabhupada, and in succeeding years the GBC shall be managed via ELECTIONS by the Temple Presidents.

Obviously, under Srila Prabhupada’s direct instructions and orders the number of GBC members was expanded, directly and personally by him to at least 24 before his departure. Yet, expanding the number beyond 12 does not invalidate the remaining aspects of the DOM, because those changes were enacted directly by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada Himself. Refer to the DOM:

1. The GBC oversees all operations and management of ISKCON, as it receives direction from Srila Prabhupada and His Divine Grace has the final approval in all matters.

This provision of the DOM states that the GBC will manage according to the directions given by Srila Prabhupada. He reserved the right to make whatever changes he sees fit. He had final approval in ALL matters. Thus, any changes made directly by His Divine Grace during his presence were fully authorized and did not violate the DOM or make the remaining aspects of the DOM invalid.

At the 1975 GBC meetings it was declared that Srila Prabhupada will select the replacements of any GBC who step down or leave. That provision is there in the DOM. It does not invalidate the Election process, as it clearly states in the DOM that His Divine Grace shall SELECT the Initial members of the GBC.

In his presence Srila Prabhupada also SELECTED the replacements for those who fell down or stepped down. That, again, is not a negation of the ELECTION provisions. Rather, during his presence Srila Prabhupada’s duty was to APPOINT (SELECT) the INITIAL members. The initial members were the members who were SELECTED or APPOINTED by His Divine Grace – so as he continued to live, he continued to SELECT and APPOINT. That was his prerogative, and as he stated, his duty, to do so.

Why was the DOM written – what was the purpose? That is stated in the DOM:

I am getting old, 75 years old, therefore at any time I may be out of the scene, therefore I think it is necessary to give instruction to my disciples how they shall manage the whole institution.

Because Srila Prabhupada was getting old, 75, and due to his health issues, he states that he may be out of the scene at any time. Therefore he is giving the written instructions for how his disciples shall manage the institution. When we take the DOM document as a whole, and apply Item 1, wherein Srila Prabhupada will give all DIRECTION to the GBC, and that Prabhupada has the FINAL Word in ALL Matters, then it is clearly understood that while Srila Prabhupada remained LIVING in his physical form, HE would have final word in ALL matters, and that his on-going Direction was final and that the GBC must follow his directions. Then, what is the main purpose of the DOM?

Its main purpose was to serve as the foundation of how the GBC shall manage, but, another clear purpose of the DOM was to serve as the DOCUMENTED system by which the GBC shall manage AFTER Srila Prabhupada departs. As Prabhupada stated, he wrote the DOM because of his advanced age and he may leave at any moment, thus this document was made as his written and signed formal document how the GBC shall manage in his absence.

Thus we find the TWO distinct means of adding or replacing the GBC to be very pertinent. In Prabhupada’s presence the INITIAL members of the GBC were to be SELECTED or APPOINTED by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada – and “In the succeeding years the GBC will be elected by a vote of all Temple presidents.”

Clearly, during Srila Prabhupada’s presence Srila Prabhupada continued to give his direction on how the GBC shall manage, asprovided in the DOM, and Srila Prabhupada continued to APPOINT and hand SELECT the INITIAL members of the GBC. Thus, the ELECTION aspect of the DOM would Not, Should Not, and COULD NOT have been implemented in the presence of His Divine Grace, for during his presence he continued to give his immediate directions, and He CONTINUED to APPOINT and hand SELECT the INITIAL members of the GBC.

Thus, the ONLY time that the ELECTION provision of the DOM would come into action would be AFTER Srila Prabhupada physically departed, in the SUCCEEDING Years, AFTER he stopped SELECTING members of the GBC. Those SUCCEEDING Years only began at the end of 1977. Thus, the three year term limits would not apply until AFTER Srila Prabhupada was no longer present, AFTER he stopped selecting. The 1981 Mayapur meeting of the GBC marks the First Year that the ELECTION provision of the DOM would have been, and SHOULD have been implemented, as understood from the terminology and analysis of the DOM itself.

Thus, all this talk about how if Srila Prabhupada had really wanted to implement the Temple Presidents electing the GBC he would have done so during his presence is complete NONSENSE. It has no basis.

Now, what about that slip of the tongue given by Satsvarup in the May 28th meeting, where after Srila Prabhupada says that GBC are to be ELECTED, Satsvarupa slips in and says, “By the GBC…”? Those who argue that this CHANGES the whole thing are living in total MAYA, ILLUSION, or they are DELUSIONAL. No Company – No Government would allow their constitutional documents, signed and properly executed, to be totally over-turned by the passing comment of one lessor official.

Pancha Ratna states:

I don’t accept that Srila Prabhupada would not interrupt Satsvarupa to
clarify in this instance.

SORRY, but how in HELL do you support the FLAKY idea that we are to Burn and Bury the written Direction Of Management all because one lessor official made a passing statement and Srila Prabhupada did not interrupt him? How does a passing statement given by Satsvarupa overrule and totally make INVALID the written and signed, formal constitutional DOM? To argue that such a major and important and far-reaching aspect of our mission should be changed by such a sleight of hand, passing statement is – in my view – on the verge of INSANITY.

First of all, it is not even a passing statement given by Srila Prabhupada; it is a passing statement given by Satsvarupa, and who knows, it may have actually been a SLIP of the Tongue by Satsvarupa. Can you say, for certainty that Satsvarupa didn’t actually mean to have said elections by Temple Presisdents and just made a slip of the tongue when he uttered “GBC”? Is there any proof that he didn’t make a slip of the tongue?

But, you are arguing that we must all agree to THROW out the WRITTEN and SIGNED instructions given by Srila Prabhupada over a passing comment made by one lessor man, which could even have been a mistaken slip of the tongue? Only in YOUR ISKCON. Not in Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON.

If he had wanted such a far-reaching and important, fundamental change to the DOM, he would have written up a formal document of at least the same stature of the DOM and given it his written signature of approval, along with signed witnesses. That is how Srila Prabhupada did things. Not that he would have wanted such a major change on the basis of a passing comment given by one lessor official. What sort of manager do you think Srila Prabhupada was?

Whimsical? Foolish? What? That is how your argument makes him out to be. Only a whimsical fool would expect to change far-reaching fundamental constitutional changes to law in such a way as you propose. Your arguments only attempt to show if Srila Prabhupada accepted such procedures for making fundamental changes, then he must have been a whimsical fool? NO. That is not the procedure Srila Prabhupada upheld to make such changes. Your arguments are wrong. That’s all.

Next… okay, so Satsvarupa says election by the GBC. You say, “Hey, if Srila Prabhupada didn’t want that major change to take place, he should have spoken up and said something.” So then your argument goes along the line that – well, it’s Srila Prabhupada’s fault, if he didn’t want that major change to have taken place, it’s his fault for not speaking up when Satsvarupa made the passing comment.

When SATSVARUPA SAYS something… WHOA, look out! You say that Satsvarupa’s passing comments take all precedence over what Srila Prabhupada has written and signed? SATSVARUPA’s passing comments, in your world, take absolute precedence over Srila Prabhupada’s WRITTEN and SIGNED instructions. In your world of Maya, prabhu, only. Not in our world of reality.

Now, even IF we were to hypothetically agree to your worldly view, that Satsvarup’s passing comments are to take absolute precedence over the written and signed instructions of Srila Prabhupada (a view which we could NEVER actually agree to), still, you must then PROVE that Srila Prabhupada actually HEARD and understood the passing comment made by Satsvarup. Can you VERIFY, without any doubt, that Srila Prabhupada may not have been distracted at that point? Can you verify with no shadow of any doubt that Prabhupada actually properly heard what Satsvarup said?

Do you realize there are many examples on tape where it is obvious Srila Prabhupada did not fully hear what someone had said? That he answered a different question then what was asked because he did not properly hear what was being said, that the person had to ask his question again so that Srila Prabhupada could reply to the proper question? How can you be so certain that Srila Prabhupada actually heard him properly?

You want us to REJECT Prabhupada’s WRITTEN and SIGNED Instructions in favor of a passing comment, possible slip of the tongue, of one ordinary man, who recently had sex with his own spiritual daughter, who was the religiously married wife of Prabhupada’s disciple??? NOT In a million creations, NEVER. No company, no government would allow itself to be ruled in such a sloppy and whimsical manner. How can you argue that Prabhupada’s ISKCON be governed in such slack and unprofessional manner? Because it suits your political views?

The DOM is CLEAR – Srila Prabhupada shall appoint and SELECT the INITIAL members of the GBC. He selected the original 12 in 1970, and re-selected then again in 71-72, and then selected new replacements and additional members right up until his departure in 1977.

He shall SELECT the Initial members, and In SUCCEEDING YEARS (as he wrote, and signed on to) the Temple Presidents shall ELECT. AFTER Srila Prabhupada stops selecting the Initial members, in the succeeding years – and ONLY in those succeeding years, the GBC shall be ELECTED by the Temple Presidents. When we properly analyze the DOM, then the election process should not and COULD NOT have taken place while Srila Prabhupada was still SELECTING the initial members.

The ELECTION by Temple Presidents was ONLY to begin in the succeeding years, AFTER Srila Prabhupada departed, marking 1981 as being the first year that ELECTION by Temple Presidents phase of the DOM should have been implemented. This means that from 1981 onward the GBC has been acting and managing OUTSIDE of the jurisdiction of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and written instructions. 1981 marks the year that the GBC went astray, and since then have been acting in a deviant manner, no longer taking their guidance from the written instructions of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada.

Thus, since 1981 they have become a psuedo-GBC only. Their elections have been illegitimate, acted outside of Prabhupada’s instructions. Rather than their election process being based on the signed written Instructions of Srila Prabhupada, they instead have been based on the passing words (possible slip of the tongue) of a man who has since fallen to the point of incest with his own spiritual daughter.

The illegitimate GBC argue that we are to reject Prabhupada’s written and signed formal instructions in favor of a passing comment of one fallen man who has engaged in spiritual incest. That is also your argument, and it is the ISKCON you want to live in. ISKCON has ceased to exist and cannot exist until we stand up and see that a properly legal GBC is elected by Temple Presidents in accordance with Srila Prabhupada’s written and signed instructions. Until then, there is no more Prabhupada’s ISKCON, there is no real GBC. It is all an illusion of Maya. We want the REAL ISKCON to be revived. We want Srila Prabhupada’s written Instructions to be finally implemented, as they were supposed to be. We want the farce to end.

Aspiring to become your humble and worthy servant,
Ameyatma das