LETTERS TO THE VOID #9
Posted July 27 2004
Praghosa Das (GBC Chairman) writes:
Subject: 2004 GBC Resolutions
>>Due to the times we live in our resolutions have to be screened by a lawyer before publication. As it happens his advice was that the resolution in question should go into the unpublished minutes. However the resolution as explained by Krsnadasa Kaviraja prabhu is wholly accurate.<<
Yes these are troubled times indeed; troubles created by plebeian administrators who cannot pass a resolution without lawyers making the final decision. It becomes quickly apparent that the GBC is either stupid or inherently dishonest. Otherwise lawyers would not be necessary, what to speak of directing an ecclesiastical head in dealing with its body of clergy. Furthermore, there must be substance to the allegation for it to be suppressed by legal advice. This is amplified when we consider that nothing more than an internal joint-investigation was requested.
>>I believe that KKP is trying to see if our lawyer can be convinced that this resolution can indeed be published. Personally I would be far happier if it were okay to publish it.<<
If the GBC wanted the resolution published, it would have been. Here we have the Chairman of the GBC telling us that a deputy GBC member is trying to do what would make him, the Chairman, far happier, yet he makes no attempt to do it himself. So if the Chairman cannot make himself happier, and the deputy is trying to convince the lawyer..... then we must conclude that the GBC lawyer is the overriding conscience of the GBC; ISKCON's new acarya? Or a more sensible conclusion would be that he is acting as any lawyer would- on behalf, and under instructions from his clients; the self proclaimed "inheritors" of ISKCON, who just happen to be the suspects in the poisoning of His Divine Grace.
The bottom line is- the suspects are senior to the Chairman of the GBC. That is
why the Chairman (Praghosa das) must remain unhappy, and KKP (Krishnadas Kaviraja das)
will not succeed (even if he is trying) to convince the lawyer of the need
to publish the resolution.
>>Your servant, Praghosa dasa.<<
Truth is above all religion
In service to the Truth
Krsnadasa Kaviraja Das (GBC- Deputy) writes:
subject: Re: 2004 GBC Resolution
Dear Vyapaka Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
I was also dismayed that the resolution was not published by the GBC. I was on this committee and fully expected this resolution to come out in print. I wrote e-mails to this effect to Praghosa and Lila Suka (secretary of the GBC). I will be lobbying several devotees (including Armarendra Prabhu, who I believe made the decision not to publish) at the meetings this week in New Vrindavan. Publishing of this resolution will at least make everyone aware of the GBC stance on this important subject matter.
Krsnadasa Kaviraja dasa
Vyapaka Das replies:
Dear Krsnadasa Kaviraja Prabhu,
Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Prabhu, the important thing is not whether to publish or not but to get the investigative process on the move. The resolution has no relevance if something isn't done about it. So please lobby the powers that be and get
them to do something. Both ******** and ********** Prabhus have called me on other matters and they didn't give any specifics but they are hard at work and continuings the investigation. It seems that they are not bluffing and the GBC should be aware of that. They are holding back exercising every bit of patience they have but it is only a question of time when the genie will be let out of the bottle and nobody -- GBC, ********, **********, etc., etc., are going to get it back into the bottle again. They realize this and are dragging their feet but it does seem that everything is falling into line on their side and to say the least, the GBC is going to be disappointed that they didn't act earlier. Haven't they learnt anything from Robin George and the gurukuli lawsuits? I wonder why Krsna is giving them so little intelligence.
Have a pleasant and enlivening trip to N.V.
Letter from Vyapaka Das,and reply from Praghosa Das GBC- Chairman)
Subject: Re: 2004 GBC Resolutions
Vyapaka Das writes:
Dear Praghosa Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you again for your timely response.
If the proposal is not to be published, then I would presume that the GBC will be
notifying those concerned to push on the investigation by email or post. If not, then why
was the resolution passed in the first place?
There seems to be no point to it otherwise. My understanding, and that of others, was that the GBC was waiting until official notification via the resolutions before initiating some action.
Praghosa Das writes:
>> No the resolution was passed by the GBC body without any thought of whether or
not it would or would not be published. This is the general mood - the GBC pass
resolutions based on merit, not on any other consideration. However because of the times
we live in the resolutions have to be legally screened before publication and
unfortunately the legal advice was to not publish this resolution. Hence the position we
now find ourselves in.<<
This is becoming confusing. Certainly the purpose of passing the resolution was to initiate action and not merely an act of passing a resolution, either published or not. It is perfectly understandable that some resolutions are of a nature which bar them from the devotees-at-large and public. But one would expect that some type of action, either public or private, would ensue based upon the decision contained in the resolution. The publishing (or not) of the resolution should not veto the action decided to be taken. After all, the purpose of the resolution was not to pass a resolution but to initiate action. With or without publicing the resolutions, what is the GBC's plan to follow up on the resolution?
>> Well that will have to be decided. First we will see if the lawyers are prepared to relent on this particularly on this issue and then take it from there.<<
I know of no exchange with the GBC that requested public disclosure. The substance of
the request was to extend the investigation of Srila Prabhupada's alleged poisoning. My
understanding is that this group of
devotees would like to continue the investigation at their expense in tandem with the GBC. Their last proposition was to form a commitee with representatives of the GBC to get to the bottom of this once and for all. If, indeed, the GBC is convinced that there has been no wrong-doing, then the effort of having two or three representatives on this committee certainly wouldn't be too heavy a toll to bring closure on this grave issue.
So what will it be?
1. If the legal department decides to publish, then how does the GBC propose to implement the resolution?
2. If the legal deparment decides not to publish, then how does the GBC
propose to implement the resolution?
This issue does not revolve around the publishing of a resolution. Rather it is focused on a full investigation re. the alleged poisoning. If it comes to pass that the investigation proponents continue their effort without GBC
participation, the GBC will look foolish with the passing of the resolution which was then kept private and not acted upon. Without doubt, many devotees are already aware of the passing of the resolution and are watching to see if it proceeds or not with great interest.
Bringing this to a conclusion will be to everyone's advantage especially if the proponents make good on their claim to eventually proceed even without GBC participation. If the GBC does participate, it would be the best for the movement no matter what the outcome. If the investigation proves negative, the rank and file's faith in the GBC will increase based on the decision to participate in a process which conclusively brings closure (and
a huge sigh of relief) to this issue. If it is concluded that a poisoning attempt did occur, then the GBC's credibility will increase due to their commitment to seeing a comprehensive effort even though it resulted in an
It will be interesting to see what you decide. And I don't think the question "to publish" or "not to publish" has anything to do with the real guts of the matter.
>> Your servant, Praghosa dasa.<<
� Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force