Srila Prabhupada's Diksha Disciples
Report of Supreme Court hearing today [Monday, June 6, 2011]
From: Joseph Langevin <yasoda1…@yahoo.com>
For news release:
Bench: Hon’ble Justices Sri Chauhan & Sri Swatanter KumarISKCON Blr counsel: Sri U Lalit ISKCON Mumbai counsel: Sri Abhishek Singhvi.
Dear Prabhus, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
The hearing began with the judges asking our counsel whether society is registered separately in Blr. Our counsel said yes. The learned judge asked for the registration no. of Blr Society to which our counsel referred the hon’ble judges to the copy of the Bangalore Society’s registration paper with Karnataka Societies Registrar.
The hon’ble judges then asked about the Bombay regn no., to which our counsel replied that Bombay society’s registration no. is F……, registered in Mumbai. The hon’ble judges then asked why the two societies are fighting over the property. Our counsel replied that the issue is a theological dispute.
After Pujya Swami Prabhupada’s time (who established & built up the movement), there were 12 disciples who were appointed as rtviks. But instead of acting as rtviks, they started acting as gurus & acharyas like Swami Prabhupada. Hence there are two schools of thought in ISKCON. One school of thought followed by ISKCON Mumbai is that after Swami Prabhupada, his disciples become gurus & acharyas.
Another school of thought, which is followed by ISKCON Bangalore is that Swami Prabhupada did not appoint any gurus. It is this theological following that ISKCON Mumbai wants to throw out.
Our counsel then pointed out to hon’ble judges that immediately after the HC judgment on 23rd May, on 25th May, ISKCON Mumbai passed a resolution. In the resolution, they appointed a supervisory committee, the activities of which were listed out. The first point was “to look into all the aspects of Deity Worship at the Bangalore Temple”.
This clearly showed that Bombay wanted to all the gurus & acharyas of their society to be worshipped in Bangalore temple. This is against our belief and philosophy. The Mumbai counsel then erroneously said that Blr society is governed by 6 people out of which 4 are family members. Our counsel corrected him that only 2 out of 10 members were related & all others were independent.
Upon hearing & seeing the evidence, the hon’ble judges passed the following judgment: (This is a dictation taken as the judges were dictating. Hence there may be minor changes in wordings. For actual judgment, please refer to website):
It is unfortunate but true that two societies stated to be for the purposes of KC & to advance the cause of KC have chosen to litigate w.r.t its temples at Mumbai & Blr. However, dispute relates to management & properties at Blr. Trial court vide decree …. has decreed in the suit filed by Blr society in favor of the Blr society.
This was set aside by HC vide RFA ….. & suit was dismissed and counter claim was accepted & passed an order restraining Blr society and its office bearers from interfering in the possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. After passing the decree in favor of Bombay society on 23rd May, HC also passed an order on 24th May issuing certain directions wherein certain relief was also given to the Blr society.
Having heard and examined both the learned counsels, we consider that the following orders need to be passed:
1. Issue notice
2. Matter listed for consideration of continuance of interim order after vacation
3. Status quo as of today.
However, Blr society with its office bearers will continue day to day management but no major financial decisions w.r.t Blr society.
We express that learned counsel for both parties shall spend time to amicably resolve the appeal & do expect that this august institutions should not litigate & office bearers shall not interfere in each others affairs.
Ys mpd
—————————
From: charles dowson <hast…@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 02:21:05 -0300
RE: For news release: Result of Supreme Court hearing in New Delhi on Monday, June 6, 2011
I am not up on my legalese…can someone translate for me. The arguments regarding Srila Prabhupadas order is clear…what is the conclusion here?
I find it interesting that since 1978 there have been so many fabricated scenarios, concerning the official status of the GBC and ISKCON then and now that Indian citizens have never demanded that the courts examine the GBC and affiliated guru eligibility despite the continued stonewalling by ISKCON as well as the extreme reluctance of the courts to litigate their so called appointment issue.
ISKCON cannot accuse Srila Prabhupadas followers and initiated disciples of not following his final orders re the May 28th 1977 conversation and the attended July 9th letter, they can only accuse us of not following their disobedience of those orders. This they have done and continue to do confirming the existence of orders they refuse to include in their structure. They have yet to prove that the conversation and the letter are unnecessary and that the conversation and letter are ambiguous, therefore they are out of order and have never been eligible to hold the posts they have held or to make any of the decisions they have made since 1977. Therefore they cannot claim to be in a position to demand that ISKCON Bangalore succeed to their ISKCON structure as it is now but only to the ISKCON structure as it was prior to November of 1977.
Srila Prabhupada never had to qualify his orders to anyone while directing ISKCON and the GBC while referencing sastra, guru, sadhu, he ordered and those orders were followed. No one ever refused an order by asking Srila Prabhupada where in sastra his orders were to be proven valid. So to use this age old delay tactic of telling generation after generation of devotees that Srila Prabhupadas May 28th 1977 conversation and the July 9th letter must be found to be valid by guru, sadhu, sastra is complete denial of Srila Prabhupada and disobedience of Srila Prabhupada before, during and after the matter.
Which means that ISKCON must surrender its’ position to the order of ISKCON Bangalore by recognising His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada as the reigning Diksa guru for all of ISKCON. ISKCON has never recognised Srila Prabhupada as he wished to be recognised in his post mortal position, that directive is there. Never mind the struggle to control ISKCON assets where is the struggle to reveal the ISKCON truth?
Disobedience to Srila Prabhupada is proven by the actions of ISKCON but obedience is proven by the actions of ISKCON Bangalore, so let those who follow now lead and let those who disobey learn to follow from the real leaders or move aside!
Ys Hasti Gopala Dasa
————————–
From: “B. Radha-Govinda Swami \(ACBSP\)” <rgswami…@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 04:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
RE: For news release: Result of Supreme Court hearing in New Delhi on Monday, June 6, 2011
I don’t speak or comprehend legalese either, but the concluding statement:
We express that learned counsel for both parties shall spend time to amicably resolve the appeal & do expect that this august institutions should not litigate & office bearers shall not interfere in each others affairs.
To my understanding (for whatever that is or isn’t worth) seems to be saying, “The lawyers for both sides should take the time to in a decent way work these things out, so that this will not have to come to court, and the Mumbai and Bangalore ISKCON devotees should not interfere with each other’s ISKCON endeavors, (that Mumbai should stop bothering the Bangalore devotees).
Your’s in service,
B. Radha-Govinda
Hare Krsna
——————
Thank you for your presenting this, it seems that the answer for me has been made clear. I dare suspect that ISKCON and the GBC cannot legally prove that their positions of authority now and since 1977 are real. Their understanding of what Srila Prabhupada clearly meant in his July 9th 1977 order cannot be construed as a misunderstanding given the years of evidence both legal and otherwise presented by Srila Prabhupada and his disciples that his order is still valid under the law. That the GBC implemented the order as of July 9th 1977 is evident. As soon as the letter was signed and mailed out to all temple presidents it was legally accepted as a valid order from Srila Prabhupada. That there is no expiry date on the letter means along with it’s clear and direct instruction that the order is to this day supposed to be followed. In some apparent cases it was actually followed by the initiation of devotees after July 9th by the appointed Ritvik representatives of the Acharya.
Find the list of devotees initiated in 1977 or find the list of those devotees who were on a list of those qualified in 1977, also try to find the list of devotees initiated in 1978. Those initiated in 1978 are be under the law, disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Anyone initiated after the letter was sent out only need answer to Srila Prabhupada unless the representative is posed as a person of good faith who is accepting Srila Prabhupadas final July 9th order. If they do not openly agree to the July 9th 1977 order then they have no authority in ISKCON, only those who are following have any position of authority. That ISKCON has any authority at all is a massive illusion, as a result of 34 years of their abuse of authority they are naturally being largely ignored by the world. In a relative sense Srila Prabhupada has been returning since he left his body in 1977 as are his books. I think the courts in the Bangalore case are wise to instruct each other to work in their own arenas. ISKCON Bangalore is the ship of destiny and ISKCON is the ship of fools.
Ys Hasti Gopala Dasa
Speak Your Mind