Be sure to listen attentively to Sitapati and David Jorm's video podcast on annotating Srila Prabhupada's books. My evaluation: it's excellent--super-excellent.

Praghosh Prabhu makes the following response, in which he provides example situations wherein some of Srila Prabhupada's statements were taken out of context and were therefore in need of annotation:

I have 2 examples from my own experience as a devotee. One was on a radio discussion panel where the subject was the cultural influence of different religious traditions and the other was during a formal debate in a university in front of a 400 strong audience. In both situations a participant had done their homework and referred to a number of the 'controversial' quotes we are talking about.

Then of course there is the famous court case in the US some years ago where an ex-member had highlighted all of these controversial quotes and had his lawyer read them out one after another in open court. (Praghosh)

Given that devotees will always have to defend the statements of the shastras and the acharyas at some time or another, this raises the question as to whether our leaders think these statements are defensible at all. Perhaps the problem in the first situation was that our opponent had done his homework but our devotees hadn't. Instead of annotating Srila Prabhupdada's books, why not instead become expert in defending them?

As predicted in State of the ISKCON, resolution 311 is easily the most controversial resolution from this year's minutes. Now, for some commentary and analysis of the comments as posted on Dandavats, as related to this resolution:

"I think that this is very good idea to put footnotes in regarding to Srila Prabhupada statements in regards to “woman that like to be raped”. I had doubt when I first read this statement. But this made me very thoughtful. I was never into what my generation people following sexual liberation were into. But I observed that what Srila Prabhupada said it was right. Ladies got drunk in bars and they knew in this condition they will be easily exploited by man. They didnt even remmember next day what happened and with how many man they had sexual relationship. This can not be taken to represent the whole population of ladies in the world, although this behavior is clearly visible in society. Sometimes they even show ideas of man being raped by woman that in other side represent the completely degraded state of the modern civilization. The only hope we have is to make them correctly to understand Srila Prabhupada’s statements without us trying to water them down and cover the reality." (Damana Krishna Das)

Here is someone who thinks footnotes should be in SP's books. His reason is that when he first encountered it, he had his doubts about Krishna consciousness. Fair enough. There will be times when one encounters some circumstance, or statement, that will challenge one's faith. After all, if we were in complete agreement with whatever was in the Bhagavad-gita and other shastras, or the statements of the acharyas, there would be no need for sharanagati, or surrender. Arjuna himself had doubts, which was why Sri Krishna presented the entire Gita to clarify them. This means that the encountering of statements that cause doubts to arise is not a sufficient reason to annotate the shastras or words of the acharyas, at least without taking credit for the annotations.

We may explain things in our own way, and that is our explanation, or commentary, or tika, etc., of what we think Krishna or Prabhupada means. The point is that we claim responsibility for our own words and explanations.

"All glories to the GBC for Resolution 311! While the three quotes cited are among the most extremely damaging (to Srila Prabhupada’s image, to our preaching and even to the faith of our own members), there are, as the Resolution states, many “other such statements” that will also have to be addressed. But this is certainly a monumental step in the right direction." (Lalita Madhava d.d.)

This is another devotee who agrees with this resolution. The characterization of these statements as "extremely damaging" is extremely disturbing because this statement does not distinguish between an uncharitable interpretation and a charitable interpretation of these statements. No book has ever been written in the history of, like eternity, that is not succeptible to misinterpretation.

Uncharitable interpretations will always have to be rebutted, but charitable interpretations are an issue here. (For a charitable interpretation, one from a senior ISKCON leader can be found on this podcast here.) A charitable interpretation is an interpretation in which the author's message and intent is correctly understood. If a charitable interpretation is to be considered "extremely damaging", then the issue shifts from one of misunderstanding to one of fundamental values. The issue then is not whether such statements should be made at all but whether the devotee in question here making this statement shares the values that our acharya has expressed.

It is a fact that some devotees do not agree fully with Srila Prabhupada's views and ideals. What needs to be made clear is whether the "extremely damaging" statement is considered damaging even when charitably interpreted. Political writers should seek to have this clarified when discussing or corresponding about these issues.

"Noam Chomsky, the famous American intellectual, once observed that defending free speech doesn’t mean sticking up for ideas that you agree with - it means sticking up for someone else’s right to espouse ideas that you don’t agree with.

"The real test of commitment to free speech is not when you agree with what is being said, but precisely when you disagree with it.

"Similarly, the real test of support for 'annotations as a strategy' is not when you agree with the proposed annotations, but precisely when you don’t.

"Try this as a thought experiment - if you agree with the content and intent of the proposed annotations, imagine a hypothetical set of future annotations that you strongly disagree with. They are going to be put into Srila Prabhupada’s books even though you are certain that His Divine Grace would not approve of them. Still in favor of allowing annotations to Srila Prabhupada’s books?

"This is the kind of consideration that you should make before supporting annotations. It’s not about these particular annotations. At this point it’s about allowing annotations as a strategy.

"I disagree with it.

"ISKCON in its widest sense consists of people who accept Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, especially those in his books, as authoritative pramana. It is not a good idea to give the power to modify those books to any group within ISKCON who will invariably represent one or another interest within the wider society. Although the intention is good, and it always will be from the perspective of those wielding the power, the effect of doing this will be to further divide and fragment the society.

"Let there be tikas and 'smrti-sastra' equivalents explaining things in a time, place, and circumstance-relevant fashion. Let there be a canonical work produced by the BBT to sit alongside the Bhagavatam commentary of His Divine Grace. Let there be works bringing together the different perspectives on his works by representatives of the various schools of thought of the members of ISKCON; but don’t let any one group rewrite the book 'as they say it is'." (Sita-pati)

Although this devotee is likely sympathetic to the concerns of the others who have lauded the resolution, he nevertheless disagrees with the resolution. He detects a slippery slope here and the lack of a conceptual point at which we can say "no more annotations": "It’s not about these particular annotations. At this point it’s about allowing annotations as a strategy."

And this is a very important consideration: We feel that some statements are currently in need of annotation, but from generation to generation attitudes change, and as attitudes change, our criteria for selecting statements that need to be annotated and those that don't will also change. Hence, Sita-pati's test of proferring annotations that we presently do not agree with. What would prevent those annotations from being incorporated in future editions if future generations developed attitudes that would find those annotations acceptable?

This discloses a very important characteristic of the annotations themselves: the annotations reflect the meaning, intentions, and values of their own authors. It would be fair to say that the views and values of one annotator, who finds acceptable and necessary one annotation and not another, will be different from some other annotator, or future annotator, who disagrees with the first annotator's judgment. Meaning reflects intent, and intent necessarily reflects personal values.

The inclusion of annotations within any work, whether Srila Prabhupada's or someone elses, therefore introduces the intent of another author into the work itself. Because another author's intent is present--immanent to the work--the reader therefore has the additional burden of trying to separate the meaning intended by the original author from the meaning intended by the annotator. Hence, annotating the work has the effect of distancing the reader from the meaning intended by the original author. What we end up with is, in effect, a new text with new meaning--meaning the author did not necessarily intend to convey.

And finally, one last commentator (the site's editor in fact) agrees with the resolution and responds to Sita-pati:

"The decision to allow for endnotes was always likely to generate debate. Needless to say this decision was not taken lightly, and while there may be downsides to this decision, on balance it was felt there were more benefits than negatives.

"One of the main arguments voiced against endnotes goes something like this - 'Is Krsna consciousness not imparted via the heart rather than the mind or intellect? Isn’t it that the pure devotee gives his mercy to the conditioned soul without the need of contextualization or endnotes?

"'The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they has seen the truth' Bg 4.34

"This is certainly the experience of the vast majority of us, as we all took to devotional service without certain statements in Srila Prabhupada’s books being ‘unpacked’ for us. However that process will not change if endnotes are put in place, those of us fortunate enough not to be distracted or diverted by certain references in Srila Prabhupada’s books will similarly not be distracted or diverted by any endnotes that are published putting those statements into context. However the endnotes might be helpful for those who are confused by certain references in Srila Prabhupada’s books, and they will certainly be helpful in making it that bit harder for those who choose to deliberately use such statements to undermine the Krishna conscious philosophy, Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON.

"It would seem entirely appropriate for sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada to be the ones who give the definitive explanation on any statements that might, or are being misconstrued by others. And in our heart of hearts we all know that there are some statements in Srila Prabhupada’s books that lend themselves to being misconstrued more than others. A simple way to confirm this is to ask yourself 'When was the last time I sat down to give a public talk on the subject of how much women like to be raped?" (Praghosh Das)

This devotee also happens to be a member of the GBC body and, apparently, voted in favor of the resolution. First, he acknowledges that there are "downsides" and "benefits" to such a resolution, and they passed it because they felt there were more benefits to having it. As I have explained at length in my essay on ISKCON's emerging constitution, this cost-benefit mode of reasoning has its roots in philosophical pragmatism and utilitarianism. As explained therein, the big problem with this method of reasoning is that those who rely on it are very limited in their ability to predict positive and adverse consequences. They are limited to what they can grasp at present and little beyond that. Through this approach, one cannot reliably estimate what will happen in the long run, when circumstances have changed in ways one cannot presently imagine.

Sita-pati and Praghosh are therefore proferring two different strategies. Sita-pati's is more in line with what philosophers call "objective idealism", and Praghosh's strategy is more in line with what can be called consequentialism.

Now, to the heart of Praghosh's argument for annotations:

"This is certainly the experience of the vast majority of us, as we all took to devotional service without certain statements in Srila Prabhupada’s books being ‘unpacked’ for us. However that process will not change if endnotes are put in place, those of us fortunate enough not to be distracted or diverted by certain references in Srila Prabhupada’s books will similarly not be distracted or diverted by any endnotes that are published putting those statements into context."

Characterizing both "references [to other verses]" and "endnotes" as capable of "distraction" and "diversion" means that they do call attention to themselves. Praghosh draws an analogy between references to other verses (usually a reference in parenthetical statements to some other verse in another work) and end notes. Praghosh argues that end notes work similarly in that both provide context to the statement being read. And Praghosh is right about that. Both kinds of references (the reference to a verse somewhere else and endnotes) provide context, and because they provide, or contribute to, the context in which any of SP's statements are read, the references and the endnotes necessarily affect the meaning of those statements.

Praghosh effectively argues that since we have already allowed the addition of references, which necessarily affect the context and hence meaning of the statements, which further means that we accept the principle that it is allowable for us to change the context of those statements, then why disallow endnotes? Points go to Praghosh Prabhu on this one. Continuing on:

"However the endnotes might be helpful for those who are confused by certain references in Srila Prabhupada’s books, and they will certainly be helpful in making it that bit harder for those who choose to deliberately use such statements to undermine the Krishna conscious philosophy, Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON."

Now, we come to the questionable part of Praghosh's argument. What is questionable is the realization of the annotators. He assumes that whatever they write necessarily reflects the will and intent of Srila Prabhupada. That, however, is highly questionable. Accepting that Srila Prabhupada himself was a liberated and pure devotee, it is unlikely that those who will annotate SP's work are at a similarly elevated state of consciousness.

Instead, it is more likely that the annotators will be pious and on the path of devotional service yet still not liberated from the influence of the material energy. As such, they are liable to make mistakes that arise from their propensity to make them, their being prone to illusion, imperfect senses, and, most importantly, a propensity to cheat.

This last tendency, cheating, is one that should give us most concern. On this particular issue, the cheating propesnity is manifest in the notion that non-liberated people believe they can, without error, understand the meaning and intent of Srila Prabhupada in any particular statement he made and further ascribe the their own intent (as manifest in the annotations) to Srila Prabhupada himself. What the annotators believe Srila Prabhupada intended and what Srila Prabhupada intended will, in some cases, not be identitcal.

Praghosh does not entertain the possibility that these endnotes could instead help the reader arrive at an understanding that Srila Prabhupada did not intend or one that people with qualifications equivalent (or better) to those who created the annotations may not agree with. Regarding Srila Prabhupada's statements about women, there is much controversy and disagreement among devotees who can fairly be regarded as sober and dedicated to Srila Prabhupada's mission. Annotating these statements for the sake of clarification necessarily means privileging one position on these statements over another. Will the annotators be able to claim to be on a higher platform of consciousness than those who disagree with them, merely because of political appointment? Some might see it that way.

[Praghosh:] "It would seem entirely appropriate for sincere followers of Srila Prabhupada to be the ones who give the definitive explanation on any statements that might, or are being misconstrued by others."

What would be entirely appropriate is for sincere followers to write their own commentaries on Srila Prabhupada's works and claim authorship for it rather than ascribe the authorship for their own statements to Srila Prabhupada. To say that Srila Prabhupada communicated something that we in fact communicated is impersonalism.

[Praghosh:] "And in our heart of hearts we all know that there are some statements in Srila Prabhupada’s books that lend themselves to being misconstrued more than others."

Yes, and that is why we also say that book knowledge is insufficient, one must learn from the parampara. That some statements are more liable to be misunderstood than others is therefore not sufficient to support further annotations.

[Praghosh:] "A simple way to confirm this is to ask yourself 'When was the last time I sat down to give a public talk on the subject of how much women like to be raped?"

But before that, ask yourself when was the last time you had to give a lecture to a generally non-devotee audience from the middle of the 4th canto of the Bhagavatam? In your entire devotional career, it's unlikely that you ever had to do that--especially when in most circumstances in dealing with the non-devotee public you have the luxury of choosing what you will speak on.

If this is a problem for you, then the statements you are referring to are not these "rape" statements but are instead statements from books such as the Bhagavad-gita. It would help the public discussion tremendously if you gave us a better, representative sample of the statements you find difficult to defend to the general public.

The minutes of the GBC meetings in Mayapur, 2008, can be found at http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5705

201: GBC Budget

A graphical representation of the budget (click here to see full size):

More than half (53%) of the GBC's expenses come from the following categories:

• ISKCON Resolve
• ISKCON Ministry of Deity Worship
• EC Secretariat
• EC Travel
• GBC Corresponding Secretary

These are the top categories for spending money, with spending each category over 2 lakhs Rupees each (over US$ 6,500 each).

ISKCON Resolve and ISKCON Ministry of Deity Worship were the top spending accounts, each comprising nearly 12% of the yearly budget, or almost 25% of the total budget.

Cost for GBC corporate infrastructure, comprised of these categories, totals 12,89,750 rupees (US$ 31,792) or 49% of the budget. These categories include:

• EC Secretariat
• EC Travel
• GBC Corresponding Secretary
• Emergency Fund
• GBC Database
• GBC Deputy Travel

The amount spent specifically on ministries was 7,89,250 rupees (US$ 19,455), which was 30% of the GBC budget. These ministries include:

• ISKCON Ministry of Deity Worship
• Ministry of Cow Protection and Agriculture
• Ministry of Educational Development
• Vaisnavi Ministry
• Ministry of Health and Welfare

The top three ministries are Deity Worship, Cow Protection and Agriculture, and Educational Development. These categories together make up 90% of the spending on ministries.

What the budget numbers suggest:

The top spending categories suggest that for 2008/2009 suggests that these are the GBC's top priorities. ISKCON resolve and Deity worship being top priorities. Dealing with unrest among rank-and-file continues to be a top priority. Issues regarding Deity worship now appears to be a priority, although it is not evident from the rest of the minutes why Deity Worship has received significant funding.

Corporate expenses, those expenses incurred in the course of running the organization (travel, office, secretariat, etc.) makes up 53% of the allocated budget. This is a large percentage of the overall budget, which suggests that the GBC itself would like to contribute much more to its existing programs and most likely to a number of non-existing programs. It should be kept in mind that a single medium temple alone, what to speak of a large temple, easily has a budget that surpasses the entire GBC's budget. This further suggests that the GBC itself is very limited in its corporate influence. The economic and political weight of ISKCON by far lies with individual temples.

The allocation for ISKCON resolve appears to be less than in previous years. This suggests that the ISKCON Resolve institution has matured and is more efficient at handling its cases. This could also suggest that it has successfully handled a backload of cases in need of the ISKCON resolve services.

It is likely that the GBC considers ISKCON Resolve along with the Dandavats website to be a very important part of shaping public perception and controling unrest.

Dandavats is an important part of the GBC's strategy in shaping public opinion because it is the only popular devotee site that top ISKCON leader generally feel comfortable about contributing to. Also, the Dandavats editors are vigiliant in what they will allow to be posted (articles or comments) on their site. Although Dandavats is 6% of the GBC's budget, this is probably one of the GBC's most successful and effective programs.

ISKCON ministries are currently allocated 30% of the total budget. That the ministries are allocated less money overall than corporate expenses suggests that fund-raising is very much on the GBC agenda, as suggested by resolution 315 (ISKCON International Fundraising).

Overall, the ISKCON GBC has improved in its ability in dealing with unrest and shaping public opinion. Fundraising for ISKCON international seems to have made little progress. That ministries are allocated only 1/3 of the budget suggests that the GBC has a significantly diminished influence in local and global affairs. Preaching initiatives are therefore mainly driven by local and regional initiatives.

301. Extra Meeting 2008

No reason is given for the extra meeting, but the GBC could use one if only for assessing its corporate goals mid-year. Most mature NGOs have a biannual meeting of their board of directors.

303. Mayapur Management

We often see something about Mayapur Management in the resolutions. Too much managerial musical chairs impairs the steady pursuit of organizational objectives at the local level.

304. Long Island Trustees

Bottom line: ritvikism in ISKCON is not dead. Problem: ISKCON GBC thinks an action order is going to fix this. Given that some of the people mentioned in 304 para 8 are long-time ritvikists, especially Madhu Pandit, being kicked out of ISKCON is a symbolic gesture that will have little effect on the issue. Ritvikism is the only politically successful schismatic group that still claims to have fidelity to Srila Prabhuapda as their undisputed acharya. Those committed to ritvikism have their own sanga, infrastructure, and money quite indepent from ISKCON proper. Resolution 305 will have little if any effect on the ongoing case against Long Island.

305. Appointment of Trustees for ISKCON Inc.

If the Long Island Temple had been repossessed by ISKCON, we would have heard about that by now. Could it happen? Yes. Does this mean it will happen? Not necessarily. This will depend on how the state (in this case, New York) looks on congregations that split off from their parent organization. In some states, the congregation is favored. This explains why the North American GBC requested its temple presidents and boards to change their bylaws to give more authority, and hence control, to the GBC itself over ISKCON temples.

307. Jurisdiction of ISKCON Centers

That various preaching projects are less under the control of temple authorities than previously shows that ISKCON has grown and that ISKCON's cultural center of gravity has shifted somewhat away from its institutional core. In a significant sense, there is a "cultural ISKCON" and a "corporate ISKCON". The "cultural ISKCON" is larger than the corporate ISKCON and not fully under its control.

308. The Garden of Inspiration.

Interesting resolution about who gets their name / samadhi in the garden. Lots of devotees are getting old and expiring. A resolution like this is bound to be seen. We will probably see more of these kinds of resolutions in the next 5 - 10 years.

309. GBC Commemoration Committee.

Same comments in 308 apply here.

310. GBC Nominations Committee

This resolution aims to improve upon the qualifications of those who will eventually be at the helm as GBCs. Driving this seems to be a recognition that the leadership and the spiritual qualifications of that leadership has room for improvement. This is likely tied to the corporate goal of minimizing society-wide disturbance and dissatisfaction. Once the GBC is made up mostly of people who are not directly disciples of Srila Prabhupada, qualification will be especially important.

311. End Notes or Appendices in Srila Prabhupada's Books

This is easily the most controversial resolution made by the GBC in this year's resolutions. It is easily one of the most controversial resolutions they have ever approved of. The resolution itself:

RESOLVED: That the GBC Body recommends to the BBT Trustees that the above quotes, and other such statements as determined by the BBT, be explained in endnotes or in appendices.

Reliable sources say that most BBT Trustees disagree with this resolution. They are against footnoting or annotating Srila Prabhupada's works. Yet this resolution is likely a sign of things to come. Future BBT trustees are going to be ISKCON devotees and none other. Since this resolution represents the opinion of most top leaders in ISKCON, this resolution will likely be representative of most devotees in ISKCON. Devotees in the future elected as BBT trustees will likely want to implement this resolution in letter and in spirit.

Because of the importance of this resolution, it bears some closer scrutiny:

What is notable about this resolution is that they examples the GBC singles out as objectionable (or likely to be perceived as objectionable) and therefore in need of further explanation are statements from the 4th canto of the Bhagavatam. This is significant because the 4th canto is something that in all of ISKCON's history we have rarely distributed to the public at large, like the Bhagavad-gita.

This means that the vast majority of people who encounter it will be serious devotees. Either these devotees are already familiar enough with Srila Prabhupada's works as to be able to reliably arrive at the correct meaning, as Srila Prabhupada intended it; or, alternatively, if they are not sufficiently familiar with Srila Prabhupada's works, since they are nevertheless serious devotees (if you're reading the 4th canto, you are serious) these more junior devotees are necessarily in contact with senior devotees who are familiar with Srila Prabhupada's works and are capable of explaining the correct meaning to these devotees whenever such questions arise.

In either case, the devotees who read these controversial statements are experienced enough to divine the correct understanding on their own or are in regular contact with devotees who can help them divine the correct understanding. Since the group of people who will be reading these statements are almost exclusively serious devotees who will arrive at the correct understanding without the need of end notes or appendices, this begs the question as to why the GBC at all feels that these statements need to be annotated at all. Not everything in the books can be understood without error. That is why there is a guru-parampara. Book knowledge is not enough, which is why one must go to a guru.

Another important point is that these examples in this GBC resolution appear to be unrepresentative of what the GBC has in mind that needs to be annotated. If the GBC merely intends to address statements like those found in the 4th canto, then they might as well not have bother with making this suggestion, since there are so few.

It is more likely that there are statements in books that are distributed widely, such as the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam 1st cantos, and small books also contain statements which the GBC considers also within the purview of their recommendation. Yet since there are no statements in the Bhagavad-gita that are as awkward sounding as the ones the GBC has proferred in this resolution, it appears that the GBC has in mind statements that are less likely to be reviled because of their langauge than the actual ideas they convey. It therefore appears that the intended scope for this resolution is both broad and wide.

There is much more that can be said about the GBC's thinking behind this resolution, which to begin with can be read here and here.

Prediction: this resolution is, singularly, likely to polarize ISKCON more than anything seen in years. Lots of sparks are going to fly over this one.

313. Murali Krsna Das

This resolution is about the reinstatement of Murali Krsna Das with ISKCON. Of note is a mandatory provision that he "renounce his unauthorized sannyasa title", which means, of course, abandoning his sannyasa. This is very problematic because, on what authority does the GBC have to request someone to abandon sannyasa after he accepts it? Like marriage, sannyasa is not governed by GBC resolution by the dharma-shastras and Vaishnava smriti. Sannyasa requires making vows, and the GBC is essentially making the breaking of those vows as a precondition to becoming a part of ISKCON. The precondition of abandoning sannyasa in this resolution is very inauspicious for the GBC leadership.

315. ISKCON International Fundraising

We covered this already in the section on the GBC's annual budget. The GBC seems to be very much aware that they are much limited in what they can do on account of having very little money.

317. Guru Seminar

This reflects the GBC's having given priority to educational initiatives, as described in their annual budget.

322. Financial Reporting

As per the letter of this law, anyone who handles funds received from ISKCON and yet is not an official GBC authority are required to submit financial reports. This means that if you are not an ISKCON guru, sannyasi, GBC Body member, or International Project Director, and you raise your own funds, you do not have to submit financial reports. They could, of course, change this and require everyone to submit a financial report. But that is unlikely to happen.

323. Initiations where there are no Temples.

With this resolution, it seems the GBC is trying to cover all bases and situations. They want a non-guru to have the final say in whether someone becomes a disciple of some guru. In this resolution, however, the authority whom the guru has to get permission from also likely will not know much about, if at all, the candidate for initiation. This means that the permission the National Council or RGB gives will be based almost exclusively on their relationship with said guru.

It would be interesting to know what case of guru initiating disciples not connected to any temple inspired this resolution. But this resolution is of interest because the candidate for initiation is essentially irrelevant to this resolution. The regional authority or national council will not prohibit an initiation because of the lack of qualification of the candidate. They will block an initiation because of some difference they have with the guru himself.

What is missing.

One of the most significant events of last year was the GBC-EC's surprise announcement of the extent of Satsvarupa Goswami's tryst with a godsister, as revealed in 2004. In 2004, it was revealed that he had a romantic involement with a godsister, yet that relationship was said to have evolved in the course of a client-therapist relationship. However, it was revealed that the tryst had existed well before they officially entered into a therapeutic relationship. The GBC EC determined that despite the willful and misleading statements made by Satsvarupa that he would nevertheless be allowed to retain his status of sannyasa and retain a guru-disciple relationship with those disciples who wished to continue venerating him as their guru.

Despite this being a major announcement that affected many devotees around the movement, the only mention of this event is an oblique reference to the GBC accepting Satsvarupa's resignation as GBC Emiritus. Some regional ISKCON bodies communicated their dissatisfaction to the GBC.

Conclusion

The GBC has improved in areas such as shaping public opinion and controlling unrest among their rank-and-file. However, because the GBC is "cash-strapped" and has little funding on hand and at this time appears significantly limited in its ability to raise funds for the international GBC itself, it is correspondingly very limited in its ability to influence ISKCON's global culture. This means that internationally, the GBC is still rather weak in its global and cultural influence and hence GBC politically resembles a confederation more than it does a federation.

Aside from money, the GBC's chief troubles seem not to be with devotees who have personal problems with local authorities but more with regional authorities, gurus, and competing organizations, such as the IRM (ISKCON Revival Movement) who tend to have ideological differences with ideological positions and policies, both official and unofficial, that can be reasonably said to be held by the GBC as an institution.

Ideological fault lines that trouble the GBC and hence perpetuate unrest and challenge their legitimacy include their policies over sannyasa. For example, the GBC insisting that Murali Krsna renounce his sannyasa while no charges of breaking his sannyasa vows are evident and allowing Satsvarupa to retain both his sannyasa status and disciples when incontrovertable evidence exists that he has broken his sannyasa vows strongly reinforces the impression that the GBC regards sannyasa as a corporate franchise rather than as a samskara and order of life, as is marriage. This reinforces the public image that the GBC regards itself as beyond rules and has few restraints in making ad-hoc policy to produce desired outcomes rather than adhering steadfastly to the principles of dharma.

A further and more troublesome ideological fault-line has been opened up on the matter of Srila Prabhupada's own published works. As per resolution 311, which recommends that certain passages be annotated in Srila Prabhupada's existing works, already there is reason to believe that there is a difference of institutional opinion between the BBT and the ISKCON GBC.

Furthermore, because the examples of what the GBC found in need of annotation are not representative of either the scope or type of statements they feel are in need of revision, the GBC will find that it has created public doubts about the nature, extent, and even the intent of their resolution. Because these doubts are fundamentally ideological, they will generally be beyond the ability of ISKCON resolve to deal with.

Dandavats may be a more effective venue in shaping public opinion favorably toward this GBC resolution. Other devotee sites, especially Chakra (http://chakra.org) will very likely be supportive of this resolution, as well as most of the liberal ISKCON blogosphere.

All in all, as the GBC's organizational problems are decreasing and being better controlled, it's legitimacy faces increasing challenges on account of its evolving ideological stance that trends towards accommodation with Western culture, as can be undestood through its official statements and the policies it implements.

As problems arising from ISKCON's ideological stance on core issues escalates, the GBC will find that ISKCON Resolve will be less-and-less effective in changing public opinion in favor of the GBC's institutional policies and views. Initiatives like Dandavats will likely become more important to the GBC's strategies, as shaping public opinion is best suited to those programs that have the broadest reach to the public. The GBC's efforts at shaping public opinion and winning the ideological debate, however, will be significantly constrained by a lack of money.

Those challenging the GBC on ideological grounds, however, are at a disadvantage in that they have a less developed institutional infrastructure (the IRM for example) or no institutional infrastructure (those no aligned with the IRM but are still officially aligned with institutional ISKCON). Successfully challenging the GBC on ideological grounds will depend on the development of organizations (possibly ad hoc and informal) and raising money for their efforts, neither of which seems likely. This suggests that despite the GBC's existing and chronic disadvantages they are likely to prevail in the long run.

All in all, the times ahead in institutional ISKCON will be struggles over ideology. In closing, I wish to quote Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins, who in a recent essay predicted this new direction of ISKCON and the increasingly ideological nature of ISKCON's internal conflicts for the forseeable future:

There are still many problems to be faced, however, not the least of which is defining ISKCON’s identity more clearly in terms of both its past history and its future goals. This is not primarily an organisational issue to be solved by management decisions, but rather a basic theological concern that can only be resolved by intensive intellectual effort and spiritual insight over a period of time. At stake are ISKCON’s fundamental values and basic commitments, the core identity or self-identity that must be understood and accepted by all of its members before the central mission can be properly carried out.

Thomas J. Hopkins, “ISKCON’s Search for Self-Identity,” The Hare Krishna Movement: Forty Years of Chant and Change, Ed. Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole, (London: I.B. Taurus & Co. 2007) 186.

BERLIN - German historians want Adolf Hitler's infamous manifesto, "Mein Kampf," to be republished in the country before the copyright lapses in 2015.

Though the book is widely available in the English-speaking world, its publication has been banned in Germany since World War II and its resale is tightly regulated.

But German copyright law dictates that an author's work enters the public domain 70 years after his or her death, and that deadline is fast approaching. Hitler killed himself in his Berlin bunker on April 30, 1945.

Before that anniversary, historians want Bavaria — which controls the copyright because Hitler's last official address was in Munich — to authorize an annotated version of "Mein Kampf." They say a thorough, academic presentation that places Hitler's work in historical context would be the best defense against radical right-wing groups and neo-Nazis who might want to use the book to advance racist agendas once the copyright expires and anyone is free to publish it.

"The legends and myths connected with this book should be destroyed once and for all," said Hans-Christian Taeubrich, director of the Documentation Center at the Nazi Party Rally Grounds in Nuremberg, the Bavarian city where Hitler staged some of his most monstrous gatherings.

"Historians push for new ‘Mein Kampf’ version," 29 Apr. 2008, MSNBC, 29 Apr. 2008 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24371007/>

It's been suggested before that Srila Prabhupada's books be annotated. One of the reasons being that the annotation would make more pallatable some of Srila Prabhupada's more controversial statements, such as those that (to secular sensibilities) are felt to be disparaging of women. Some devotees have said that doing so would make his books more acceptable to a wider audience. And since the new editions would be annotated, not outright bawdlerized, the conventional wisdom is that people will get all of Srila Prabhupada's words along with some helpful commentary. To some of us, that is a plus--"Srila Prabhupada Plus."

But "plus" what? The "plus" is the addition of the annotators' own views of what the text means, or what the annotators think it means, or, more likely, what the annotators believe the text should mean. If Srila Prabhupada's books were to be annotated, not only would Srila Prabhupada's intent be represented but also the intent of the annotators. Since the annotators' intent is now also immanent to the work, their annotation also alters the context in which the meaning of the original author's own words are understood. Because the annotated version now has the views and intent of the new authors embedded within it, it can no longer be taken for granted that the meaning evident in the annotated work is necessarily that of the original author.

Within an annotated version of Srila Prabhupada's works, it could no longer be assumed that the narrative--and hence the intent--of the original author and the narrative--and hence the intent--of the annotators will always agree. On the controversial passages for which the annotation would have purportedly been commissioned, the original author and the annotators would most likely disagree. The intended meaning of the original author in this way becomes further removed from the reader.

The plan to annotate Hitler's book gives future readers of Mein Kampf "Hitler Plus", which is essentially the replacement of one set of "myths and legends" immanent in the narrative of the work itself with another set of "myths and legends" immanent in the narrative of the annotators' text. Of course, the annotators will claim, quite openly, that they have provided the real meaning and understanding of Hitler's work. However, what they cannot claim is that the new, hybrid work represents what Hitler intended when he wrote it.

The new context created by the addition of the annotators' own narrative--and meaning--would change, and obscure, the intended meaning immanent in the original text. This is exactly what the scholars in the above quoted article say they intend to accomplish: they want to keep the reader as far away from Hitler as possible in order to preclude the sustenance and formation of people who take Hitler "As He Is".

A noble reason? Perhaps. However, keeping the reader away from the true authorial intent of Hitler's work also keeps people from understanding the man as he was (as best as they can) and therefore from understanding the actual origin and nature of Hitler's evil. Since those who are ignorant of history tend to repeat it, the planned annotation could actually become an indirect catalyst for the resurgence of Hitler-esque evil in another time and another place and by another demagogue who will write his own, future Mein Kampf.

Nevertheless, as far as we are concerned, we can also question any future attempt to annotate Srila Prabhupada's books. All the reasons mentioned herein--expanding the audience for the books, explaining the controversial passages, etc.--are necessarily carried out at the cost of distancing the future reader of Srila Prabhupada's annotated works from the meaning Srila Prabhupada himself intended. The annotators have a purpose in inserting their own narrative in the work, and their narrative will necessarily convey that intent.

The annotators' intent, however, will not necessarily be that of Srila Prabhupada's. In some cases, their intent will most likely differ. Because of the difference, which necessarily underlies a narrative that competes with the narrative created by the original author, the meaning intended by the original author becomes conflicted and obscured. This, of course, distances the reader from Srila Prabhupada.

As far as some are concerned, distancing the reader from Srila Prabhupada is a noble purpose. In thought, word, and deed, those who in their own hearts favor the annotation of Srila Prabhupada's books are, indeed, sometimes found to be distancing themselves from Srila Prabhupada.

Over at Volokh.com, there is worry about belief itself being put on trial:

"In the previous thread, some commenters seem to assert that the CPS may take all of the FLDS's children away because (a) there has been documented abuse of children at other FLDS communities; and/or (b) the "culture" of the FLDS is inherently abusive, as it encourages early marriage and leaves its children inherently isolated by homeschooling them and not exposing them to social events, television, and the like. The latter criterion, at least, would place Amish and some of the more insular ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in jeopardy."

David Bernstein, "FLDS UPDATE", 24 Apr. 2008, "The Volokh Conspiracy", <http://volokh.com/posts/1209027623.shtml>

And, of course, this rationale, if it stands, also constitutes a threat against any of us who want to start a varnashram project and follow traditional Vaishnava social customs. More troubling seems to be that the initial call alleging abuse, which sparked the raid, was faked. Furthermore, the state just seemed to be waiting for a chance to shut the FLDS down on the slightest pretext.

"As one commenter, otherwise sympathetic to CPS, put it, "the judge should focus on current or past crimes and not the culture - this puts religious belief on trial rather than actual behavior." Relatedly, the focus of CPS, and the judge overseeing the case, should be on individualized evidence of child neglect or abuse. And it remains rather troubling that the CPS apparently had the authority to take 437 kids from their parents after launching an investigation based on an apparently fraudulent complaint of abuse involving a specific, apparently nonexistent, girl."

If belief itself is being put on trial (and it seems that it is), then this suggests that there may be a feeling, or belief, among the elites of the host culture that their values and way of life are existentially threatened. Otherwise, why so unabashedly go after the group because of their beliefs?

I'll post more on this later, with Krishna conscious commentary (of course!), but very briefly this could be a significant milestone in the internal decay (or transformation) of American culture. It signals both an opportunity and hard times ahead for the devout.

Sita-pati Prabhu weighs in on the trademarking of "Hare Krishna Movement":

It might be just me, but it kinda seems like "trying to become the most famous son of the family by killing everyone else with the same last name"...

Pithy, and to the point.

In addition, I would add that it seems to represent a trend toward relying too much on legalistic and bureaucratic means to regulate both institution and culture. Another such effort which has had very little publicity, except on the Sampradaya Sun, is the North American GBC effort to put more control over temple properties in the hands of the GBC. This involved a coordinated effort to get temple presidents in the U.S.A. to adjust their by-laws to this end. All this was a reaction to a ritvikist takeover of the New York Long Island temple.

The problem with this approach is it a) does what Srila Prabhupada cautioned his followers against doing--centralization, and b) it doesn't really address the actual cause of the problem.

The real problem was that there is an ideology out there that is active in the minds of a number of devotees and motivates them. You attack the ideology, then you are effectively dealing with the problem. But where "management" is regarded as the only tool, everything else seems like a nail. In this case, the problem ("the nail") appears to be managerial (or adjustable through management or litigation). Yet the problem is actually ideological, not managerial.

It seems that this yet-again-move to trademark "Hare Krishna Movement" is an indication of a persistent, institutional trend to overregulate the institution as well as the global Vaishnava culture through management and bureaucracy.

It won't work and, as Sita-pati Prabhu suggests, it will probably backfire.

In the notes of the last Euro-GBC meeting (Mayapur, 2008), there is this currious action item:

TRADEMARKS Praghosa dasa will inquire whether it is possible to trademark ‘The Hare Krishna Movement’ and the cost for doing it.

If this phrase were trademarked, then would this create a spiritual liability, an impediment, for those who may not necessarily identify with institutional ISKCON? The "Hare Krishna Movement" is a referent for Lord Caitanya's Sankirtana movement, not ISKCON specifically, and although ISKCON has been an important part of the Hare Krishna Movement's historical legacy, by no means can institutional ISKCON be said to be the Hare Krishna Movement's exclusive heir and proprietor.

The bureaucratic restriction of the use of such a broadly applicable name would be something like trying to prune the branches of the Caitanya Tree to one branch and not letting any others grow.

Let ISKCON keep the acronym "ISKCON" trademarked. They can have as much control over its use by others as they want. But do not trademark names like "The Hare Krishna Movement". There will be branches of the Chaitanya Tree that will not be a part of ISKCON, and they should be rightfully recognized by that name and be able to use it without having to fear lawsuits or threats of lawsuits.

One of the outstanding characteristics of postmodernity is the elevation of the subject position, or the perspective of the beholder, over any other theoretical position. What this means is that something "is" whatever one wants it to be. At the level of society, postmodernity's influence on race relations has resulted in some rather odd (yet popular) reconfiguration of race definitions. One consequence has been that, for quite some time now, Asians, in American parlance, are not Asians but "white":

I first noticed this effect 10 years ago, at a party where a friend of mine commented that the guests were all white. I responded by mentioning about a dozen Asians; oh, she said, that's right, but you know what I mean. At a recent UCLA conference I attended, two speakers complained that everyone on the panel was white, without even realizing that one of the speakers was ethnically Chinese, and another was an Asian Indian with skin darker than that of many American blacks.

Eugene Volokh, "How the Asians Became White," 9 Apr. 1998, L.A. Times, 21 Apr. 2008 <http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/asian.htm>

(More from the same author at this location.)

What is interesting is how the shift in terminology has moved from one of (biological ) race and distinct culture (language, religion, customs) to one of social utility, namely to designate the haves from the have-nots. We can call it veiled socialism, or perhaps veiled communism, since the objectives of these leftist ideologies is social equality at any cost.

Nevertheless, it's the cavalier use of language that is of importance to us. When you can take not only language, and other things it represents--in this case the physiology, culture, and, for that matter, the good fortune of a number of arguably minority communities--and re-categorize them for the sake of achieving selfish political ends, then that is a symptom of the postmodern influence on public thought and shared values. "You are 'white' because we say your are 'white' (and because it works out well for us if we define you that way)."

But notice that this radically subjective view rejects the validity of any higher authority or the possibility of any appeal to a higher authority. "You are whatever we say you are." It's humanism--limited, of course, to a select few humans who get to decide who goes in which category.

The devotee reader may be saying to himself, "So what? No one is 'white' or 'brown' or 'black', we're not the body, so leave me alone!" But this would be missing the point. What Srila Prabhupada broadly called "Mayavada-bhashya" is exactly this: being able to say what something is without appeal to anything higher than one's self or one's all-too-human interpretive community. It is the same thing, when one privileges one's one views and definitions over anything in the world, then that's Mayavada. That is true for the shastras, and it's analogical equivalent in the material world (the one we unfortunately live in) is enacted through the postmodern pigeonholing of others for the sake of selfish material gain.

We should be worried about the postmodern ways of the modern world, the material equivalent of mayavada, because things out there in the world shape our approach to spiritual life as well. That's why we not only have to have theoretical knowledge but also put it into practice as well. Our ordinary dealings should be informed by our spiritual life, and our dealings in the world also affect our spiritual understanding and practice--at least for those of us who are not yet liberated from the influence of material nature.

Generally the so-called scholars, politicians, philosophers, and svamis, without perfect knowledge of Krishna, try to banish or kill Krishna when writing commentary on Bhagavad-gita. Such unauthorized commentary upon Bhagavad-gita is known as Mayavada-bhashya, and Lord Caitanya has warned us about these unauthorized men. Lord Caitanya clearly says that anyone who tries to understand Bhagavad-gita from the Mayavadi point of view will commit a great blunder. The result of such a blunder will be that the misguided student of Bhagavad-gita will certainly be bewildered on the path of spiritual guidance and will not be able to go back to home, back to Godhead.

Srila Prabhupada. Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Preface

As shown in this statement, Mayavada too is a privileging, or elevation, of the subject position over that of scriptural authority. In this case, the scholars impose their own views on the views of Sri Krishna. They make Krishna's words say whatever they want His words to say, for whatever purpose they want. The same principle, the privileging of the subject position (which is arguably the essence of secular humanism) when directed at the poor residents of the material world results in a perversion of truth and justice perceivable even to common intelligence.