Incorporating more than one temple under ISKCON Inc is maya
By Pratyatosa Dasa
Jan 1 2013, USA — Dear Prabhus, Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
When I was temple treasurer at ISKCON Boston in 1975-76 I questioned why the temple was incorporated as “ISKCON of New England” and not “International Society for Krishna Consciousness.” I thought that it was maya (illusion). The newly installed temple president didn’t have an answer, but didn’t seem to care one iota. Later on I discovered that I was wrong. The devotees who incorporated ISKCON Boston were simply following Srila Prabhupada’s emphatic and repeated instruction that all of his temples be independent!
Now certain “Prabhupadanugas” seem to be on a “Let’s all be ISKCON, Inc.” centralization trip! Why? In this particular case, the ISKCON leaders have it right, and these so-called Prabhupadanugas have it wrong! Srila Prabhupada didn’t want legal centralization. He wanted each temple to be legally independent. That means that each temple must be separately incorporated, just as was being done when Srila Prabhupada was personally running ISKCON. That means that each and every corporation, within one particular country at least, must have a different name!
It’s more difficult and expensive to do it that way, but that’s what Srila Prabhupada ordered, so that’s what most temples did, especially after Srila Prabhupada temporarily dissolved the GBC in 1972 after their rebellious centralization attempt.
As far as I know, Srila Prabhupada never expressed this as a reason for his “every temple must be independent” policy, but this policy has turned out to have the added benefit of making it much more complicated and difficult to sue all of ISKCON for the transgressions of one particular temple.
Your servant, Pratyatosa Dasa <http://groups.google.com/
Right, there seems a strong attempt to have all Prabhupadanuga temples affiliated with ISKCON Inc New York. Might be another attempt of centralization?
Actually, Iskcon Inc. was an umbrella incorporation that had rules that were to be in common with all independent Iskcon temples. Iskcon Inc. originally had a different temple in NY listed as its “religious institution” only because a physical location needed to be cited in order to register the Iskcon society. Remember, this was the first time Srila Prabhupada registered HIS SOCIETY, and called it Iskcon.
Like I said, in order to incorporate a society in the county where he was registering it, he needed to list a physical address of an institution. So he used one of the first addresses from NYC. I believe it was the second ave. temple address.
From then on each temple was encouraged to have their own local charter and board and register in their locality, yet all were beholden to the rules and regs set down in the original Iskcon charter, which was registered under Iskcon INC.
Later, during an attempt to wrestle legal rights to Iskcon Inc. away from the usurpers, some loyalists managed to get the newer Long Island temple onto the paperwork for Iskcon Inc.
That is the story. Iskcon Inc. is for every Iskcon temple, but the charter and bylaws of Iskcon Inc. do not prohibit any independent temple from incorporating locally to take benefit of local laws.
And the fact that Iskcon Long Island is listed as the representative address for Iskcon Inc. gives that temple no privilege or power over any other temple.
Iskcon Inc. is often cited as a Prabhupadanuga temple.
I lived there. I tried to incorporate certain of Srila Prabhupada’s rules for running a temple. And I was driven out. Don’t be fooled. The devotees who “run” that temple may not initiate any disciples officially for themselves, and put on a decent program, more or less, but they are neophytes who worship their own false ego as well, and as a result have changed some things and allow some things to go on that are NOT bonafide, and that is a fact I can testify to.
Hare Krsna
DECENTRAILZED ISKCON, INC.
http://prabhupadanugas.blogspot.in/2013/01/decentrailzed-iskcon-inc_2.html
ALL AFFILIATED CENTERS WITH ISKCON INC ARE SEPARATELY REGISTERED AS INDEPENDENT SOCIETIES
Gaurangasundar dasa says:
ALL AFFILIATED CENTERS WITH ISKCON INC ARE SEPARATELY REGISTERED AS INDEPENDENT SOCIETIES
Good, but that means that they cannot all be called, “ISKCON, Inc.” Why confuse the issue?
When ISKCON Bangalore started a new temple in Silicon Valley, California, USA, they chose a name that doesn’t include “ISKCON,” and never said anything about being affiliated in any way, shape or form with “ISKCON, Inc.” Wouldn’t it be better to follow their example?
In any case, it’s great news that new Prabhupadanuga temples are springing up all over the world. Please keep up the good work of keeping us informed, Gaurangasundar Prabhu.
Dear Devotees
Regarding the manifesto provided at the link provided by Gaurangasundar dasa
http://prabhupadanugas.blogspot.in/2013/01/decentrailzed-iskcon-inc_2.html
The only thing 100% bonafide that I read there is the first paragraph which was the excerpt from SP’s letter to Kirtanananda.
The rest of that manifesto is based on erroneous assumptions. Let me explain.
The most crucial misunderstanding is found in Paragraph 3, where the unknown author states…
“The ISKCON, Inc. society or Long Island temple…”
Here he erroneously equates Iskcon Inc. with the Long Island temple. As I pointed out in my post (#2) above, this is a pure concoction. Iskcon Inc. was originally “associated” with a different temple in NY and ONLY for the purposes of having a physical address on the Societie’s Incorporation registration form. This in no way gave any particular or special rights or powers to that temple. (I personally contacted the county registrar but do not remember if it was the Second ave. temple in NYC or another early temple). Therefore when the address was changed to the Long Island temple on the official Iskcon Inc. registration, it likewise gave no special status to the Long Island temple.
As I proceed, you will come to understand how terribly crucial this wrong assumption actually is.
Therefore, the author continues to make mistakes in that 3rd. paragraph.
“…cannot in any way control the local organizations whether it be legal, financial or administrative, as the local societies are only affiliating with it, not becoming legal branches or putting oneself in administrative control of ISKCON, Inc.
A small but important misunderstanding here is referring to individual centers as “local societies”. Each center had its independent identity in the sense that it was able to incorporate locally according to local laws for legal and financial purposes, but they were always beholden to the general guidelines of ISKCON! Which were fully enumerated in the Iskcon Inc. charter. Therefore, they are to act under the total administrative guidelines of Iskcon Inc. Which include the bylaws in the charter, the Iskcon constitution, and any bonafide GBC resolutions which were passed during Srila Prabhupada’s presence that do not conflict with Iskcon Inc. bylaws, constitution, or any other rules that Srila Prabhupada himself officially instituted over time, such as DOM, Ritvik initiations, among others.
By extension, this mistake is transferred to paragraph 1. where referring to individual centers, the author states..
” They only voluntarily affiliate to ISKCON, Inc. by a resolution passed by them”
This is completely wrong. Each temple or preaching center was absolutely beholden to the rules of ISKCON (aka Iskcon Inc.) Srila Prabhupada never wanted anyone to start their own society with its own rules. He wouldn’t stop anyone from doing it of course. But if anyone wished to have the benefit of using Iskcon’s name and having the privilege of the special relationship each center had with BBT, they were meant to be governed by the GBC. And the GBC never had any authority to use any guidelines except those laid out in the original Iskcon Inc. chartered bylaws, constitution, and whatever resolutions the GBC might pass at their annual meeting that did not contradict any of the guidelines already enumerated by Iskcon Inc.
As for paragraph #2.
2. This affiliation would always remain voluntary. The local center can any time dis-affiliate and go out of the Society by passing another resolution if they feel the dire necessity.
This is true in the sense that if the GBC were to go rogue and ignore the Iskcon Inc bylaws, a center could certainly disaffiliate with Iskcon Inc. for strategic purposes.
HOWEVER, that center has every responsibility to continue to follow every bylaw and tenet of the original Iskcon Inc which is applicable. They also have every responsibility to seek out other centers who would escape the rogue GBC management and cooperate with them, to form a new coalition using the Bylaws set down in Iskcon Inc. charter as far as possible.
This may seem like nitpicking, but the equation of Iskcon Inc. with the administration of ANY TEMPLE, LONG ISLAND OR NOT, is what led to the author suggesting an even worse change to the system.
6. Also, it is proposed that the Certificate of Incorporation of ISKCON, Inc. be amended to have trustees of ISKCON, Inc. to be GBCs for a true representative management.
This is a bogus concoction that might sound good on the surface to anyone who has NOT read the full Iskcon Inc. charter and bylaws, which were perfectly constructed by the transcendental genius of HDG Srila Prabhupada.
As long as there are a group of 2 or more centers involved (which there are) there is no reason to stray from the guidelines of the Isckon Inc. charter as they are perfectly applicable.
7. The post of President of ISKCON, Inc. is sought to be removed with the amendment so that the GBC and the Trustees of ISKCON, Inc. become the true drivers and controllers of ISKCON, Inc
More terrible misunderstandings.
First, the President of Iskcon Inc. is NOT automatically the president of the temple/center whose address is on the registration. Nor are the trustees necessarily to be selected from that temple. That is a RUSE, to get you to believe that a CHANGE IS NEEDED.
Second, the role of the president and trustees of Iskcon Inc. is completely separate from the role of the GBC. The president and trustees of Iskcon Inc. are NOT the “true drivers and controllers of Iskcon”. They have very limited functions as designated in the Iskcon Inc. charter bylaws. They meet perhaps twice a year as I recall, and do very little in one sense. On the other hand, they are necessary to remain independent of the GBC so that they can CHECK THE GBC if the GBC strays from the Iskcon inc. bylaws!!!
Whoever “envisioned” this ‘Decentralized Iskcon” manifesto is actually setting about to centralize power COMPLETELY and IRREVOCABLY by the changes being suggested.
Please do your own research, and don’t just accept everything this author said as fact.
Sorry to break it to you, but its my duty as a friend to Srila Prabhupada and his true disciples. The devotees who used the LI temple as a hub for their mission tried to use me for their own purposes at the Long Island temple. They are AGAINST the GBC of West Bengal (current bogus IskCON) FOR SURE. BUT they are a NEW BOSS, who is the SAME AS THE OLD BOSS. Perhaps worse because they operate under the color of reform. They never thought I was smart enough to poke around and figure out what was really going on. And by the time they caught on and kicked me out, it was too late. As long as I live and breath I will always be watching and will always speak up about what I know when I can. If anyone still cares that is.
Hare Krsna
your servant
Mark
mark says:
2. January 2013 at 7:07 pm
” As long as I live and breath I will always be watching and will always speak up about what I know when I can. If anyone still cares that is.”
I care. And i am sure there are many more just like me. As long as one is sincere and speaks the truth. We Care.
Hare Krsna.
Thanks SG.
I have brought this topic and exact information up many times in the past, and pointed out Bangalore’s involvement in the obfuscation and how their leadership directly ignored me and my input, yet MOST “Prabhupadanugas” seem to give them a pass and reserve any scrutiny their way, instead bowing to them and the India yatra as if they were infallible.
Without giving AND accepting constructive criticism, we will remain nothing but mediocre neophytes who Maya can play with at will.
Hare Krsna.
I also care, Bhakta Mark Prabhu.
If a person is a brahmana, then his natural qualification will be like this. What is that? Satyam: he is truthful. In any circumstances he will be truthful. Even to an enemy he will disclose the secret, “This is the fact.” That is truthfulness, not that I am very truthful, but when my interest is jeopardized, I tell lie. That is not truthfulness. Truthfulness means at any circumstances one will speak the plain truth. That is truthfulness. (Srila Prabhupada, Lecture, Montreal, July 9 1968)
Dear Bh. Mark Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances! All Glories to Srila Prabhupada!
It is nice to hear from you and see that you have interest in understanding legal/corporate documents and in ISKCON, Inc. Perhaps it would be good idea Prabhu if before trying to appear like an expert, you would have made a study of the basic legal corporate documents related to ISKCON, Inc. and what is the basis of the above written and proposed. I do not want to make you embrassed by citing ALL the many factually wrong statements and inferences you have promulgated. But a couple I will show below so that you can begin to understand.
You write to say that
“The most crucial misunderstanding is found in Paragraph 3, where the unknown author states…
“The ISKCON, Inc. society or Long Island temple…”
Here he erroneously equates Iskcon Inc. with the Long Island temple. As I pointed out in my post (#2) above, this is a pure concoction. Iskcon Inc. was originally “associated” with a different temple in NY and ONLY for the purposes of having a physical address on the Societies’ Incorporation registration form.”
The “OR” between ISKCON, Inc. society and Long Island temple is not meant to equate the two, but they are taken as EITHER OR i.e in essence, if anyone fears either ISKCON, Inc. OR Long island temple (which is a separate entity but as many devotees generally do not differentiate between the two, one may think Long Island temple may try to overlord over other temples, as was proposed by Karandhara in 1970s for LA temple, if not the ISKCON, Inc.). Both scenarios are being rejected by this statement. Not that the statement wants to show ISKCON, Inc and LI temple are one and the same. If you would have cared to read the current Certificate of Incorporation of ISKCON, Inc. you would have seen the difference CLEARLY and then VERY CLEARLY set about. Section 16(d) clearly states:
“The Trustees and Officers of ISKCON, Inc. have jurisdiction only over the principal place of worship. [i.e. currently LI temple]. The rules governing this control are laid out in the Bylaws of the corporation. Apart from that, the trustees or officers cannot interfere in any administrative or financial matters of the temples maintained by a Branch. They have no jurisdiction over the branches. …”
Therefore the rest of your exposition seems to go in a wrong direction — “As I proceed, you will come to understand how terribly crucial this wrong assumption actually is.”
You also write:
” They only voluntarily affiliate to ISKCON, Inc. by a resolution passed by them”
This is completely wrong. Each temple or preaching center was absolutely beholden to the rules of ISKCON (aka Iskcon Inc.) Srila Prabhupada never wanted anyone to start their own society with its own rules. “
You are correct to say that all the independent societies were to form by the same rules as of ISKCON, Inc., not by their own rules. That is what we have implemented in ISKCON, Inc. and have advised all affiliates to incorporate. Again, if you would have cared to read the current certificate of Incorporation of ISKCON, Inc. which has been sent to all affiliates, and publicly posted many places, then you would not be making these comments:
“Any organization, whether or not named ISKCON, Inc. or not, whether in the state of NY, outside of USA or in any other country of the world, who wish to be AFFILIATED with ISKCON, Inc., may do so by adopting or amending their certificate of Incorporation (or equal document) to be made to be the same as the Certificate of Incorporation of ISKCON, Inc. , NY., including this certificate of Amendment – adapting it to the local laws. (Ref Annexure G—letter to Mukunda from Srila Prabhupada instructing this procedure for establishing ISKCON Ltd in London). These organizations will be known as Affiliates.”.. (Section 16(c))
They were to be independent, yet following the same rules as ISKCON, Inc. otherwise they cannot be considered to be part of worldwide ISKCON. It is a voluntary decision. As far as our information goes, Srila Prabhupada never legally enforced the voluntary desire on the part of a local organization to part of or go away from “ISKCON”. If you find any example that he did, I would like to know. Based on this understanding, the above has been conceived.
In the end, we would request all respected Vaisnavas that it may better serve our Spiritual Master’s mission to work on a solid basic plan to cooperate, a solution to the continued infighting, i.e. to discuss AND POINT OUT DEFICIENCIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARBORING BETTER COOPERATION, GIVING SOLUTIONS, rather then the excruciating habit plaguing the Prabhupadanugas to try to bring down every sincere attempt to bring about cooperation. Let us go forward being discriminatory, but let us come up with positive suggestion/solutions that would really work to bring about cooperation in the Prabhupadanugas World.
This mood would be reflected in the above critique if the critique had found AT LEAST 1 GOOD POINT, 1 GOOD ATTEMPT TO SERVE SRILA PRABHUPADA.
Personally when I read any critique, which does not point good and bad points together in a balanced objective manner, I would normally look at the critique to see if I missed something, but do not usually take the author too seriously as he appears to be biased by some other motive, there can be many- to show feeling of importance, to want attention, to prove oneself better then everyone else, wanting others to listen to him only, dahdadah….etc.
Mark Prabhu, I would humble suggest that, with all your good qualities and intelligence, good heart to serve Srila Prabhupada, this could be a quality which could have prompted devotees at the LI Temple to let you go within 1-2 months of being there. I was not there at the time, but did speak to you a couple of times from India and this was my impression too.
If you like, Gaurangasundar prabhu can send you all the corporate documents of which you can make a thorough study. Then if you have some questions, pls make a list and send me and I will be glad to answer them on any public forum. Then after that, if you have any suggestion or correction and it is supported by majority of the Prabhus worldwide then we will incorporate it likewise in whichever corporate document or Constitution. WE WANT TO BE DECENTRALIZED as Srila Prabhupada desires and as this is the only way to train Brahmanas. If there is any mistake in our direction, we would respectfully take all corrections to better serve this aim.
Ys
Nimai Pandit Das
President
ISKCON, Inc.
and (also of )LI Temple
From: gaurangasundar dasa
Date: Sat, May 5, 2012 at 5:02 AM
Subject: Srila Prabhupada Quote
To: [The Google Groups Prabhupadanuga Forum]
“I will always be the spiritual master for the entire Krishna consciousness movement; for anyone in this age willing to follow the principles have given for the benefit of everyone.” (Conversation 1975, Ookala, Hawaii.)
Dear Gaurangasundar Prabhu, now that we have your attention, please tell us wherefrom you got the above quote. It’s not in the 2012 (the latest) version of the VedaBase.
Even though this information was requested of you on the forum, you simply ignored those requests. Why? Do you have something to hide?
Are the ISKCON, Inc. Prabhupadaanugas, similar to what Narayana Maharaja has obviously done, making up bogus quotes in order to try to strengthen their case?
PAMHO Nimai,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Sorry, it has been over 4 years since I was mislead and strung along at the LI temple by devotees who pretended to want to follow Srila Prabhupada’s rules, but actually only the rules that suited them.
As such my memory of the Iskcon Inc. incorporation and bylaws, which I read at the time, is a little fuzzy. Therefore I stand corrected about the details of my misunderstanding about the Incorporation of Iskcon Inc. bylaws, especially pertaining to the center used as the address on the papers.
Of course, I still comprehend the ESSENCE of the situation as I will show below. And furthermore, thank you for providing the exact terminology of Section 16(c), which even further works against the proposed changes made in that manifesto, as I will clearly question below as well.
First let me reiterate my position on the voluntary nature of affiliation with Iskcon.
It is a fine line to speak of Iskcon Inc. separate from Iskcon, but it is true that the distinctions can be finely enumerated. I did so GENERALLY. I also made a distinction between the “voluntary or involuntary” affiliation with Iskcon inc. and Iskcon saying,
“Each temple or preaching center was absolutely beholden to the rules of ISKCON (aka Iskcon Inc.) Srila Prabhupada never wanted anyone to start their own society with its own rules. HE WOULDN’T STOP ANYONE FROM DOING IT OF COURSE. But if anyone wished to have the benefit of using Iskcon’s name and having the privilege of the special relationship each center had with BBT, they were meant to be governed by the GBC.
We don’t need to speak about any Vaisnava center of worship that is “VOLUNTARILY” not affiliated with Srila Prahbupada’s Iskcon. They are all irrelevant to this discussion.
It is true that the NY incorporation laws state that the religious institution referred to (principal place of worship” must be governed by the bylaws of that registered society, and that the trustees and officers of that registered society are meant to have jurisdiction ONLY over the principle place of worship. (16-c)
The bylaws for how to govern Iskcon Inc. as a center (and by extension GENERALLY each center) were certainly constrained by the template given by the State of New York, USA for incorporation of a religious society. But common sense, and a little research, will show that the template is more or less boilerplate throughout the US, and thus very similar from place to place. Which means that IN GENERAL, the general rules for how to administrate Srila Prabhupada’s original center were meant to be applied to each center where the local incorporation bylaws would allow. Including the protections for open public worship, local control, potential term limits for trustees and officials via elections, use of finances, etc.
In addition, Srila Prahbupada only used those bylaws as a blueprint, and he filled in the blanks with many other rules and regulations over time which were meant to be applied uniformly in each affiliated center, as long as they did not break local bylaws, OR could be manipulated to avoid those laws.
It is a FACT that the trustees and administrators of each and every center (place of worship) that was to be blessed with the name of Iskcon and the benefits of such affiliation, have jurisdiction only in so far as they uphold the spiritual standards of worship and the spiritual standards of ADMINISTRATION (including use of finances). The GBC was meant to police each center. And “see that the spiritual standards are being kept up”. And if not, they were to take action to correct deficiencies. Including having the power to revoke Iskcon affiliation, and benefits of that affiliation, from any center. Yes that means excommunication.
So to the meat of our contention.
Srila Prabhupada and Krsna chose NY religious societies bylaws to incorporate their first temple. NY bylaw 16c governing religious societies holds that..
“The Trustees and Officers of ISKCON, Inc. have jurisdiction only over the principal place of worship. [i.e. currently LI temple]. The rules governing this control are laid out in the Bylaws of the corporation. Apart from that, the trustees or officers cannot interfere in any administrative or financial matters of the temples maintained by a Branch. They have no jurisdiction over the branches. …”
The fact that jurisdiction is given to the trustees and officials, by LAW, to the center directly associated with Iskcon Inc. is an even greater reason to NOT make any ammendments as proposed in 6 and 7 of your manifesto.
6. Also, it is proposed that the Certificate of Incorporation of ISKCON, Inc. be amended to have trustees of ISKCON, Inc. to be GBCs for a true representative management.
my comment :
This is centralized govt gone wrong. Each independent center is meant to choose its own trustees and officers. What if Iskcon Long Island devotees want to select trusted local devotees as trustees, and yet none are GBC’s. What if only one is a GBC. So then they are FORCED to choose someone from out of state or out of country?
Furthermore, the claim that this should be done in order to insure a “true representative management” makes no sense. Truly representative of what? If the trustees of Iskcon Inc. only have jurisdiction of the Long Island temple, why in the world would they all need to be GBC’s? I would LOVE to hear a logical explanation as to the rationale behind this proposed change.
7. The post of President of ISKCON, Inc. is sought to be removed with the amendment so that the GBC and the Trustees of ISKCON, Inc. become the true drivers and controllers of ISKCON, Inc.
my comment: Really? Again, if the trustees of Iskcon inc. are limited in jurisdiction to administration of the place of worship directly associated with it (currently Long Island temple), then pray tell why does the GBC need to become the “true drivers and controllers of Iskcon Inc.” when in reality, the only control granted to trustees and officials of Iskcon Inc. is over the “place of worship” directly associated with Iskcon Inc.
And as was stated earlier, the GBC are already the ultimate governing authority, if need be.
As for the subtle personal attacks you made.
NPD: “Personally when I read any critique, which does not point good and bad points together in a balanced objective manner, I would normally look at the critique to see if I missed something, but do not usually take the author too seriously as he appears to be biased by some other motive, there can be many- to show feeling of importance, to want attention, to prove oneself better then everyone else, wanting others to listen to him only, dahdadah….etc.
Mark: Your criteria that you reject constructive criticism because I did not take the opportunity to glorify some “good points” is truly your own subjective idealism, and is not germane to the facts I am pointing out, so please spare me being held to your standard. You pointed out one small detailed deficiency in my remembrance, and used that as a pivot point to reject the essence of my challenge, as I just pointed out in excruciating detail in this post. If you ignore the challenge because I did not glorify your good qualities, do so at your own reputation.
NPD: “Mark Prabhu, I would humble suggest that, with all your good qualities and intelligence, good heart to serve Srila Prabhupada, this could be a quality which could have prompted devotees at the LI Temple to let you go within 1-2 months of being there. I was not there at the time, but did speak to you a couple of times from India and this was my impression too.
Mark: I really don’t want to have to list in detail the entirety of the list of abuses, subtle and gross, that I experienced in trying to manage LI temple in your absence. The promises broken (including why you were NOT there at the time, the deceptions (which seem to continue, as you state you spoke to me a couple of time, are you kidding, we had almost daily contact for weeks at your convenience of course) and how I was ultimately hung out to dry. I am most forgiving and will consider it water under the bridge UNLESS you continue to use sophistry in an attempt to diminish my honest presentation here and ignore the challenge to your proposed CHANGES.
Then I will have no other choice but to engage more directly in a way I would rather not, so lets cut to the chase shall we?
Yours in SRILA PRABHUPADA’S service, affiliated with ISKCON ONLY
Mark
hare krsna prabhu
dandavat pranam
Prabhu the above quote is from an article by *Vikramasingha das called *
Sad-Guru Nama-hatta or “Guru-hatta”
Hati-mata?http://prabhupadanugas.blogspot.in/2012/03/sad-guru-nama-hatta-or-gur…
HE HAD SENT ME THIS ARTICLE N I HAD POSTED IT.HE IS NOT FROM ISKCON INC AND
THAT TIME I WAS ALSO NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ISKCON INC .
AND I THINK HE HAS ALSO USED THIS QUOTE IN HIS ARTICLE ”
Sri Guru-tattva
http://prabhupadanugas.blogspot.in/2012/03/sri-guru-tattva.html
your servant
gaurangasundar dasa
Hare krsna
http://krishnaconsciousnessmovement.com/gurunamahatta.html
This post also appears in Yasoda nanadan prabhu and Damaghosa
Dasaprabhu website
also and Vikramasingha
Dasa is one of the
contributors to that site also.His name is listed on their page as one of
the authors.
your servant
Gaurangasundar dasa
EVEN Prabhupada Vision WEBSITE
MENTIONS THIS ARTICLE . http://prabhupadavision.com/2012/01/guru-tattva-101/
Articles written by Vikramasingha Dasa has also been published by http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/
http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=27917
Gaurangasundar dasa says:
Prabhu the above quote is from an article by *Vikramasingha das* called *Sad-Guru Nama-hatta or “Guru-hatta” Hati-mata* http://prabhupadanugas.blogspot.in/2012/03/sad-guru-nama-hatta-or-guru-hatta-hati.html
1. There is no disciple of Srila Prabhupada named “Vikramasingha” listed on the official ISKCON disciple database (See: http://sp.krishna.com/disciples_v)
2. He also quoted Srila Prabhupada as saying, “Only Lord Chaitanya can take my place,” which is also not in VedaBase 2012.
3. He also quoted Srila Prabhupada as saying, “After me, there will be no more acarya.,” which is also not in VedaBase 2012.
It seems like he simply gets “Prabhupada said” quotes out of thin air!
Is this something similar to a government disinformation campaign designed to discredit the Prabhupadanugas by feeding them bogus quotes, hoping that they will make fools out of themselves by repeating them (as you have done)?
HARE KRSNA PRABHU
Pratyatoṣa prabhu on ur website there is a page called ”
Prabhupāda Said, but Not in the Vedabase?” http://pratyatosa.com/?P=46 where you have written i think an email to Brahmananda Prabhu–
Dear Brahmananda Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
At Anuttama’s, back in late 1996, you told me, “Most of what Prabhupada said is not in the Folio, because 90% of the time, there was no tape recorder running.” I have often thought about these words of wisdom, and they have inspired me to write the following (a work in progress).
Your servant, Pratyatoṣa Dāsa
Most of the quotes in that articles also have Source: Unknown.
These quotes are i think complied by you
gaurangasundar dasa
HARE KRSNA PRABHU
PRABHU I HAVE SIMPLY POSTED AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY VIKRAMASINGHA PRABHU. *ALL
MAJOR PRABHUPADANUAGS WEBSITES HAS ALSO POSTED THIS ARTICLE OR ARTICLES BY *
VIKRAMASINGHA PRABHU. SO INSTEAD OF ACCUSING ME FOR JUST POSTING THIS
ARTICLE WONT IT BE BETTER WE ASK VIKRAMASINGHA PRABHU ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THESE QUOTES??
Isn’t ISKCON INC like an umbrella organization at which there are those who are the managers, functioning as administrators? GBCs, Temple presidents are elected but those who function as administrators of ISKCON INC are above this election business, holder of the ISKCON INC adminstration so to speak, gray eminence? Just trying to understand what are the articles of ISKCON incorporation in practice?
Pratyatosa prabu the quote “Only Lord Chaitanya can take my place,” is also included in an article posted by http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/
http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=29330.So you are not only accusing my blog for posting these “bogus quotes” but also this website .AS U SAID IN YOUR QUOTE”Is this something similar to a government disinformation campaign designed to discredit the Prabhupadanugas by feeding them bogus quotes, hoping that they will make fools out of themselves by repeating them (as you have done)?
Bhakta Janos prabhu please send me your email i will send you all the related documents
The same article posted on this website http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=29330
also have this quote “After me, there will be no more acarya.” This is an article by Narasimha das. So now Narasimha das is also spreading “bogus quotes” along with this website and my blog and all other major prabhupadanuga websites???
Dear Gaurangasundar dasa,
Is the reply link at the end of individual posts on this forum disabled? When I click it, I get an error message saying (Can’t find the ‘commentformid’ div.)
Now to the business at hand.
Pratyatosa das simply pointed out quotes that you have reproduced that cannot be verified.
The fact that he did not search all the other “prabhupadanuga” sites where you showed that those quotes were also published is actually irrelevant to his questioning of your good self.
Likewise, you will note that the compilation of quotes attributed to Srila Prabhupada which cannot be proven, that Pratyatosa has on his website, is clearly marked as hearsay which cannot be proven/verified.
Pratyatosa das felt the need to give you a “jab”, by “wondering” if you are part of a conspiracy with Iskcon inc. and making up bogus quotes to strengthen your case. He did this probably to get your attention since you had ignored various requests he made of you for clarification. After all, you posted that quote on his google forum on 5/12/2012 and never got back to his request for clarification.
I can confirm his frustration, because I remember other times that both he and I had tried to contact you after viewing some of your “drive-by” threads you would create to post some quotes, and you just flat out would not respond to the replies in those threads, yet would be there the next day creating another thread.
Next, instead of simply admitting you have no proof of validity of that quote, you offer to show how so many other “Prabhupadanuga” sites also posted that quote. That effort did nothing but seem to confirm his conspiracy theory that there are many devotees who claim to be Prabhupadanugas that will say anything attributed to Prabhupada without knowing whether or not Srila Prahbupada actually said it. Your effort backfired.
Granted, Pratyatosa das seems to be exaggerating about liking this trend among Prabhupadnugas to a government disinformation campaign, but he is right that you should be more careful, regardless if every other Prabhupadanuga with a website is not careful.
Recently I made a mistake with my memory about the corporate bylaws of Iskcon inc that I read 4 years ago, but it was a mistake in detail that did not really interfere with the essence of my understanding. And because I made that mistake, my analysis was brought to the attention of a devotee who has maintained “radio silence” for many years. I am glad to have made that little mistake as it has led to a welcome opportunity which was otherwise unsought.
I think you will agree that when attributing quotes to Srila Prabhupada, especially in order to make a case in a debate, it is Paramount to insure that there is some generally agreed on source of evidence. Otherwise, it is just another “Prabhupada said”, however likely that he did say it.
Thanks for your time.
Hare Krsna
ys
Mark
Dear Gaurangasundar, please don’t think that I am singling you out because I don’t like you or something like that. You are doing a great service to the community of Prabhupadanugas. Of this there is no doubt. You are very good at what you do, and I, for one, am very grateful for your selfless service to Srila Prabhupada.
It’s just that other members of http://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi had asked you, several months ago, for verification of certain quotes which are contained on your website, and you never replied. It wasn’t until I questioned why ISKCON, Inc. is apparently being used as the name of more than one temple, that you finally “came out of the woodwork” and decided to reply.
The fact that you found these same suspect quotes on other Prabhupadanuga websites is interesting, but, as far as I know, they are quoted by authors that we don’t know, and could even be made up names. Therefore, they could be people posting anonymously.
http://rtvik.com/ makes our points just fine and dandy without resorting to unverified quotes. Using unverified quotes, instead of strengthening our case, as is seemingly being intended, only weakens it. Like Bhakta Mark Prabhu said above, we must always be skeptical of quotes which cannot be verified, especially when the person doing the quoting is obviously self-motivated.
Dear Mark prabhu
Hare Krsna!! There quotes were never used by me in any articles written by me .There quotes were used by various authors whose name you can see before each article and i had simply posted those articles on my blog on request ,as many other prabhupadanuga websites also have published/posted those articles or articles by those authors.So the real question about the validity of these quotes should go to the authors .
ys
gaurangasundar dasa
Regarding the quote “Only Lord Chaitanya can take my place,” just got a email from Damagosha dasa prabhu “This quote “Only Lord Chaitanya can take my place,” came originally from our book Srila Prabhupada Siddhanta. I asked Yasoda nandan about it more than once and he told me the quote was originally in Hindi and that is why most devotees have never heard or read it.
dd
Prabhu I have already pointed out that Vikramasingha Dasa prabhu is associated with Hare Krsna Society.His many articles can be found on the website http://krishnaconsciousnessmovement.com .Vikramasingha Dasa is listed as one of the authors on that website .The article in question is also posted on that website.So to nail the issue and get to the real question that from where these quotes came i think you should write to that website or ask Vikramasingha Dasa or Yasodanandan prabhu and other devotees associated with that website and Hare Krsna Society.
your servant
gaurangasundar dasa
Vikramsingh prabhu, is he the owner of the world famous Sargal Singh?
(quote from; retired diksa guru, Satsvarupa’s book ‘Srila Prabhupada Nectar 2’)
Dear Gaurangasundar dasa,
And see all the time that is being wasted now? The point is that it is your blog. You have editorial control. You are representing Srila Prabhupada. You have the final say. You have a duty to carefully read over whatever someone wishes to submit.
Of course, if it is just an opinion piece or speculation in the forum section here, that is one thing and you obviously can just let devotees say what they want, more or less.
But when someone is including quotes from Srila Prahbupada, I would suggest that you establish some sort of guideline, for the good of the readers, and the good of devotees who like try and establish siddhanta based on something they CANNOT PROVE Srila Prabhupada said.
In spiritual circles one must IMMEDIATELY quote from an authoritative source to back up their conclusions. An AUTHORITATIVE source is one which can be EASILY VERIFIED BY THE AUDIENCE.
This means, even if you heard Srila Prabhupada tell you something with your own ears, you cannot use that to justify your conclusions in a debate or article establishing siddhanta if others have to TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. And if you do wish to use hearsay as evidence, you must plainly identify it as such.
I think the point that Pratyatosa, and myself are making, is that this is the standard that Srila Prabhupada would want.
Just like Srila Prabhupada would not be pleased when I open up my big fat mouth and criticizing based on bad facts because I didn’t read correctly.. I seek to correct that when I catch myself, and actually appreciate feedback from others who can correct me as well.
So please understand there is a reason behind the criticism, it is not a personal attack, so you can take it as a good thing and not be defensive.
Thanks for all you do.
ys
Mark
Dear Devotees,
In case anyone is unaware, I have written an authoritative and conclusive series of short articles and posted them on their own thread at Prabhupadanuga Google Group, which anyone can read.
https://groups.google.com/group/istagosthi/browse_thread/thread/dddd0e3c2608ae75?hl=en#
I was inspired to write these articles after the views I expressed in my comments on this thread “Srila Prabhupada instructed all his temples be Independent” were challenged. On Jan. 1st I wrote the 2nd comment in this thread giving a short summary of what Iskcon Inc. really is. I stand by every word, it is all generally accurate, and has not been refuted.
In the next comment on 1/2 at 2:05pm, Gaurangasundar das posted a link to a manifesto entitled “Decentralization of Iskcon Inc.” without citing the author of the document.
On 1/2 at 7:07pm, I wrote a comment leveling criticism to the points that were proposed. I also criticized the some of the devotees from Bangalore and the Long Island temple due to past perceived slights against my self.
The next morning at 7:00am, Gaurangasundar das posted a letter, addressed to me from Nimai Pandit das, presiding trustee of Iskcon Inc, and who used to be (and still may be) the President of Iskcon Long Island. A person I have not spoken with in about 5 years, after being left high and dry at his temple. In this letter, Nimai declared that I was clueless, did not make one valid point, and then impugned my motives, and my character, which is regrettable. It led to another tit from myself the next day, and another tat from Nimai, before I composed myself, and did what I should have done from the beginning.
A little research to prove my criticisms and offer a direct solution as well.
My new articles give evidence that I was generally accurate in my criticism of the “Decentralization of Iskcon inc.” document. Not only that, but in the three days it took me to research and compile those short articles, I was able to come up with the solution to the problem that Nimai Pandit das and the other Iskcon Inc. officials have been missing all this time, which led them to put together that “Decentralization” manifesto that was not actually going to solve a thing.
But I must apologize for not taking some time to analyze the situation before responding to that document that Gaurangasundar das posted. If I had thought about it, I might have guessed that it was written by Nimai and his crew. The problem was that when I was at Long Island temple I only saw the original Iskcon Inc. Incorporation papers. I did not see the Second heavily amended version. This latest “Decentralization” manifesto turns out to be an effort to correct the mistakes that have resulted from the amendments made to the 2nd version. Which is why it really made little sense to me. And as I show in my latest articles, while it might be a good faith effort, it still missed the real solution, which I was able to discern and articulate.
Regardless of the fact that I was right, this is not only about being right or wrong. It is about respect and formality. The proper thing for me to do was to hold my pen, contact Gaurangasundar das, find out who wrote that manifesto, find out the history of events that led up to their decision to publish it, and then do research wherein my criticisms were placed simultaneously with the solutions. Which I eventually did. Regrettably, I first broke polite etiquette and ruffled Nimai’s feathers. I am sorry.
It is hard to apologize. Because I know I was treated wrongly by some of these devotees in the past. I also gave good advice that was ignored. Advice based directly on Srila Prabhupada’s vani. And it was rejected on the plea of new time place and circumstance. Now where have we heard that before?
And now spending a couple days researching the very laws and codes the certificates of Inc. are based on I show how these devotees have missed a simple solution while instead continuing to speculate and endlessly amend something that was never proper in the first place to reach the goal of decentralization they claim to intend.
There is a principle that leads one to be in illusion to the point where such repeated mistakes are made. Some would say they really didn’t want to give up the power of speculation at all.
My biggest problem with these devotees is that I have NOT once heard regret in their presentations, admission of mistakes, let alone apologies. This is what has led to my judgmental declarations about them being a new boss same as the old boss.
But even so, I still FEEL BAD about breaking good form and ruffling their feathers. Some would say this is too soft. Some would say not soft enough. I’ll stick with the truth of it. So my apology, I suppose, is not so much begging of forgiveness. I guess I am not so elevated. I am frustrated and even angry that these devotees act so damned holier than thou and condescending and proud of their little accomplishments, but can’t recognize good advice and good will towards them, and by their actions turn my demeanor sour.
I will not kiss up or suck up. If I see genuine willingness to engage in a neutral constructive relationship, including acknowledging Srila Prabhupada’s vani as the be all and end all in a matter if it applies, then I would be willing to ask forgiveness for my stridency and seek to have a working relationship.
Otherwise this is the last time they get a freebie from me. I will wait lifetimes if need be to be reborn on this earth, or another one, to be around a group of devotees who don’t pretend to know all the answers and horde power, even to the smallest degree, under the guise of reform. These neophytes can open a hundred more temples, but neglecting to manage them properly, they will only give birth to innumerable neophytes who will not be capable of making any advancement, and will degrade into sahajyism, carving Murti’s of Srila Prabhupada making ridiculous mudras and investing money into creating Bollywood disney land theme parks, while the land and cows go unprotected and the congregation feels satisfied treating the temple as a place for Sunday atonement.
Hare Krsna
ys
Mark