The Tip of the Iceberg
BY: YADU DASA
Jan 29, COSTA RICA (SUN) — A follow up to “The Stork and the Baby” on the Costa Rica Issue.
Document compiled by Yadu
"Questions and Answers"
TO:
Sannyasis,
GBCs,
Regional Secretaries,
Temple Presidents,
Srila Prabhupada’s disciples,
Senior members,
ISKCON Authorities,
And Concerned Members of ISKCON,
Respected Vaisnavas, Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Today you are reading a series of questions collected from Pamho and other sources. Some of these questions are somewhat repetitive, but I have decided to reply to them all, at least for the records. The answers to these questions again point to the same thing: the need of a new international leadership for Costa Rica, for which I have suggested the name of HARINAMANANDA. “The Tip of the Iceberg” although not originally part of the series under the name “New Leadership for Costa Rica”, significantly contributes to it, and can be taken as part of our case study.
Questions Collected from Pamho and Other Sources
In “The Stork and the Baby” this question was asked:
I would also like very much to hear the “other sides” of the story.
I answered more or less in theses terms: You have heard a little bit from Maharaja himself from his posting at the Pamho. You got a glimpse to the tip of the iceberg. You heard the short version of “The Stork and the Baby”. But I have about two hundred pages of exchanges with him. He wrote five letters; Manonath (his figurehead regional secretary) wrote two; Narayan (his advisor [and accountant?]) wrote one; and I responded with five. So the other side of the story is quite well known to me.
Now other questions follow, which-as I said, having been asked through different sources-they seem somewhat repetitive, but I have answered them also from a somewhat different point of view.
Maharaja said he offered the farm to Yadu to come and manage, and he would be happy with that.
This point is dealt with in my exchange with Maharaja. There are enough men there who could implement my plans. I could have inspired them from where I am at present. The proof is that Harinamananda has already gone there. I had the plan, I had the people, I was ready. He had to remove Manonath as a signer and put Yamuna. That was a necessary condition, so that we could actually move forward to the implementation stage. As long as the farm remains only in the names of Bhakti Bhusana and Manonath, it is not possible to march forward successfully... Certainly, I want to make Maharaja happy, but through success, not through failure...
Maharaja asked Yadu to go there and take up that responsibility, and the entire issue could be settled as easily as that. Why hasn't that been done?
This is what Maharaja told me: “Regarding your three-phase plan, I generally like it. [...] I can only speak for myself-who am only one individual in a team-that I would be willing to entertain many, or maybe all, of your suggestions if you agree to come. [...] Of course, it would require the agreement of the other two leaders involved”.
And this was my answer: “There is no problem with local leadership, but there has been a problem with encouraging it, or perhaps -to be more exact- with discouraging it. One word here, one word there; one gesture here, one gesture there; little, little things; very, very subtle nuances; all these things count. And after some time we may have a tiger or an ostrich”. [...] And we may not even realize how these things are happening, or why we prefer to cripple instead of enabling and maximizing”.
Maharaja’s offering was not very solid. In fact, it was conditional to the approval of Manonath, but what I needed was his removal. (And the approval of Virabahu was also required.) I have always been convinced that we have matured, intelligent, and responsible devotees there; and I have never been interested in telling them that they cannot do the programs. They could have done it. Ostrichland is not for me. But an important thing to notice here is that Maharaja said that he likes my suggestions; and Yamuna and Harinamananda, and others, are more than ready to implement them. Then: Why hasn’t that been done?
We cannot insinuate that Yadu is responsible for not solving the issue in Costa Rica. Yadu has offered a solution, suggestions and a plan. Guru Prasad Swami and Virabahu, as GBCs and property trustees, are responsible for creating the problem. They are the main actors in all this plan of not preserving the farm. Yadu became aware of it, objected to it, offered suggestions, presented a plan, encouraged the devotees to defend the project, and make it a public issue. But he did not create the problem.
If Maharaja offered the project to me, and in my place goes Harinamananda, who is accepted by me and accepted and invited by the leaders at the farm, why Maharaja doesn’t even talk to him or answer his short e-mail messages. Why hasn’t that been done?
Guru Prasad Maharaja seems to have faith in Yadu.
Yes, it seems like that when Maharaja speaks or writes. It seems that he has faith in Yadu. But he doesn’t seem to have faith in Yadu’s plan. He doesn’t seem to have faith in Yadu’s capacity to inspire others. He doesn’t seem to notice men like Harinamananda, who have answered to Yadu’s call, with: “Yes, I am here”. He doesn’t seem to have faith in Yadu’s ability to trust and select the local men and women to carry out his plan. Then how much valuable is that faith? Yadu told Maharaja that Yamuna Jivana should be reinstated as a signer in the property, to create the necessary confidence at the local level. Yamuna’s signature was required also to create the authority on the international level for plot marketing. But that was never answered by Maharaja, except with silence.
I also made an offering to Maharaja: Keep the farm, make Yamuna a signer, let him have full authority to begin implementing my suggestions; later on, I will go there and stay for fifteen years; and after those fifteen years I will withdraw again, and come back to India. That was my offering and I begged Maharaja to accept it.
I told Maharaja that I am a man of patience and that I can stick to a particular activity. I think Maharaja believes me, and I think that my sticking to this present issue about Costa Rica is also proof of my patience. I have been dealing with it since October 2006, and I hope that Maharaja is pleased and convinced: “Yes, this is a man of patience”. This much Maharaja can trust me.
The problem in Costa Rica as I see it now (and my view is developing and changing) is a lack of leadership with a compelling vision.
The lack of leadership with a compelling vision is epitomized by Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami. They are the leaders without a compelling vision; nay, they are the leaders without a vision. They are the leaders without inspiration in their hearts, without an inspired thought springing from their minds. Their idea of leadership is control; control the people, by hook or by crook; and if they can’t, then control the assets, control the properties, control the money, by the same means. They are appointees without the capacity to create, and without the capacity to maintain. Their capacity for making things shrink, diminish, and disappear, has been proved MORE THAN ONCE. They are the real problem in Costa Rica.
Virabahu is the root of the problem. Virabahu is the head. If the head is dizzy, the arms cannot coordinate their action properly. Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami are the head, the international leadership. If the head is not working properly, if the international leadership is not functioning properly, forget of finding a solution on the level of local leadership. If we want a better local leadership, then we need a change on the international level.
It appears to be no proper leadership of that farm, hence the many problems.
Local leadership cannot appear, cannot develop and cannot thrive, without first solving the problem of international leadership. We do have local leadership, capable people. But the solution is not to keep looking for local leaders; the solution is changing the international leadership. And this solution, certainly, is not the one that Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami love to hear of. We have to understand the problematic; we have to understand the root of the problem. And the problem is Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami’s lack of leadership, lack of dynamism, their inability to motivate others, and their inability to recognize those who can be the motivators, like Harinamananda.
Land is everywhere and can always be had. Leadership on the other hand is a rare and valuable commodity.
Yes, leadership may be more important than land, but in the meantime, before that leadership appears, let us sell the land we already have; let us destroy the infrastructure for the next leaders. Let’s do things in such a way that whoever comes after us, will take decades to recover from the disasters we have made. Does this make sense?
I have heard from others that if you don’t have a lot of experience in Latin America, it is easy to go there and create more problems than solutions.
It is not experience what we need so much. It is good will. It is honesty. You may have heard from those who have created the problems, and who want to blame them on the local devotees. Manonath is the last example of those who go there to create more problems, and he says of himself that “he wants to be a yes-man, a sort of puppet” (according to his own words). And if the yes-man has created more problems, if the puppet has created more problems instead of a single solution, under whose direction was he? Who were the puppeteers? But these puppeteers are so intelligent that they want us to blame the puppets. Therefore, I have avoided arguing with Manonath, for I have clearly identified the two most directly involved puppeteers. We need honesty more than experience. Experience develops as you go along, but honesty doesn’t. Honesty must already be there in the heart.
Yadu mentions other men, such as Yamuna Jivana, but if he were actually a capable leader the situation would not be as it is.
Yamuna’s twenty years as a protagonist in a series of events related to the farm actually do not disqualify him either as a possible good leader or as possible good administrator. We have to consider that when he was made the president of the community by Bhakty Abhay Charan Swami, Yamuna-more than occupying the position of a leader-was in a role of an executer. During Bhakty Abhay Charan’s time Yamuna did not have the freedom to squeeze his brains for new ideas and to implement them. He was following Bhakty Abhay’s directions, more or less as a manager under a board of directors. Afterwards, his position was even worst, for Guru Prasad Swami was always with scissors in hand to cut him his wings.
Yamuna has the quality of honesty. And that is his plus. He already proved-beyond any doubts whatsoever-that he was able to manage things according to Bhakti Abhay’s directions. Yamuna is a responsible, honest, and trustworthy man, capable of following directions. This much credit we have to give him; and he could have implemented Yadu’s plan, even while Yadu is in India. But Guru Prasad Swami had no plans and no directions for the farm; for he has no interest in preserving it. That is the reason why the situation is what it is.
Without good leadership the farm can easily come to be (continue to be?) nothing but 50 acres of weeds.
Harinamananda has described this project as being right now in a better condition than New Vrindavan and Gita Nagari, farms projects that he has seen with his own eyes. But Guru Prasad Swami describes it in a different way, and it is well known what his intentions are regarding the farm, so we can also infer why he describes it in different terms. Besides this, when the Deities were stolen Guru Prasad Swami told Kesava Maharaja that he didn’t know anything; but later on he told Visuddha Sattva that he had order to take them away. Therefore, if Guru Prasad Swami has said one thing one day, and another thing another day, then we cannot always believe what he says.
As I perceive it, if some experienced and responsible men will take up the responsibility of that farm, it will make a big difference in the outcome.
As proved by Harinamananda’s and Upendra’s letters, Maharaja is not so willing to accept experienced leadership, for he didn’t even grant an interview to two god brothers: Lokaswami (who has been residing in Costa Rica for the last twenty years, and is presently elected by the farm community as vice-president); and Harinamananda (who opened the temples in Guatemala and Panama, and another temple in Brazil, and who sent e-mail messages to him requesting a meeting, and flew all the way from the USA to Costa Rica just for that purpose). How much more experienced men can we offer?
As valuable as it may be, the farm appears to be not much more than a big set of problems for Guru Prasad Maharaja; one easy solution for which can be selling it.
Yes, Maharaja has no plans for the farm. But this is not the farm’s problems. It is Maharaja’s problem. Sita Devi in her letter (“The Fallible Man”, Part Ten) has proved the viability of developing the farm. Guru Prasad Swami and Virabahu have proved their inability.
In her letter Sita Devi says:
"I sincerely believe that the solution to sell the farm is due to being the easiest and most comfortable. Srila Prabhupada constantly criticized the Western attitude of consumerism, the mentality of “use and throw”. And, actually, the only thing that can be perceived in this decision of not preserving the farm is the same thing: “use and throw”... And I continue asking myself: What is the hindrance to look for other solution?"
Another solution, also an easy one, is that Maharaja and Virabahu resign to their responsibility as GBC and property trustees for Costa Rica. This, in fact, will be much easier than selling the farm and managing FIVE BIG WILD MILLION BUCKS!!!
The solution could be found if others would relieve Maharaja of the burden by taking up responsible management. Who will actually do it?
When Maharaja went to Costa Rica, last Jan 11th, he was practically hiding. Lokaswami wanted an interview precisely to relieve him of all the burdens related to the farm, and Harinamananda flew there for the same purpose, all the way from the United States to Costa Rica. But there were no reciprocation from Maharaja. Silence, zero, ZIPO, nada; it was like nirvisesa and shunyavadi: no where to be seen.
We have mostly one side and I have been asking Maharaja to make a public rebuttal to Yadu's statements so that the speculation can be put to rest.
Maharaja already tried a private rebuttal, and I will be more than invigorated to go again all over the same issues, for the benefit of the ISKCON public and for the sake of better transparency. In fact, if I keep hearing this type of suggestions, I may publish my exchange with him, in fourteen installments.
Hopefully he will do so soon, because what appears to be stonewalling only adds to the mistrust.
Yes, hermetism, secrecy, these things are good for the CIA, but not for preacher. For preaching, stonewalling silence is a disadvantage. It is not the example of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada. Was it silence what he had in mind when he said: “I want to die like Arjuna, fighting till my last breath”? If these two leaders-Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami-do not follow his example, what are they doing? Whom or what are they following? And why should we follow them?
Perhaps the whole affair isn't being looked at in the right way. Another way to see it is that this farm is a solution looking for a problem, but we haven't the proper problem. The problem that we need is a leader with such a compelling vision that he has attracted so many followers that he requires 50 acres in a tropical place. THAT is the problem to be solved.
That leader is certainly not Guru Prasad Swami or Virabahu. Therefore, as long as we continue thinking that they are the solution, for that long the problem will persist. These two men are not the solution; these two men are the problem. As long we cannot understand and accept these two men’s capacity-or incapacity, as the word fits best-for that long the understanding of the whole issue will be elusive to us.
Who could THAT leader be?
Srila Prabhupada is THAT leader. Srila Prabhupada is the problem who is looking for the solution of the farm... and the three hundred persons in Costa Rica who voted for the preservation of the farm are the proof of the problem. The place is required for worship and service, for residence and Vaisnava association. Preserving the farm IS the solution. Changing the international leadership is the process of mitigating the problem.
We, the International Community of Devotees, the Pamho Conference Readers, the World Vaisnava Readership, should also be a different “problem”. We should aspire to be the sweepers who want to clean Srila Prabhupada's House, mandira-marjanadau. Srila Prabhupada has ordered that he wants everything bright and clean. Time has dirtied his House in many ways, as many of us are certainly aware.
We need to come together to clean his House. We may not agree where to start or what tools to use. I say the brooms are worn out and ineffective. Let's retire them with honor and get fresh and effective ones.
Srila Prabhupada's House doesn't only belong to the leaders; it belongs to all of us. The farm is an important room in Srila Prabhupada's House, and Yadu, Harinamananda, Yamuna Jivana, and others have humbly begun cleaning it. They need assistance. They need your voice.
The present leaders' problem is that they don't know how to use the farm and they have lost the respect and confidence of the congregation, thus they consider not preserving it a solution. But this only solves the leaders' problem and completely neglects Srila Prabhupada's problem of requiring a place for his followers to serve. Both problems are solved if the leaders step down with honor and we preserve the farm: Win/win.
I think we need to look at is perhaps, not how to save the farm, but save the farm for what?
Yes, let us not speak of selling or not selling, but of saving the farm and saving it for what. We should preserve the farm because it is clear of debts, has no overhead and has a tremendous potential, as proved by Sita Devi’s, Harinamananda’s and Upendra’s letters (and there are still more letters to be shared). We should preserve the farm for the implementation of Srila Prabhupada’s vision, as declared in his Mission Statements: “To erect for the members and for society at large a holy place of transcendental pastimes dedicated to the personality of Krishna”. For this and the other points of the Mission Statements the farm should be preserved. It is Srila Prabhupada’s desire; it is Srila Prabhupada’s order. And that should suffice.
If we want to protect the farm, our very subconscious mind should lead us to use the words that strengthen that position, like saving and saving for what. Protecting, preserving, saving, using, these are the options.
I feel the author undermines himself by some comments he made.
I also feel that I undermine myself, not only by some comments that I may have made, but by writing this whole series of articles. I was doing other things, like practicing a translation directly from the Bengali and Sanskrit of the Caitanya Caritamrita in a free verse style. It was a wonderful experience; it forced me to look deeper and deeper into our philosophy; it inspired me to read again very minutely Srila Prabhupada’s translations and commentaries; it motivated me to read slowly the commentaries by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Bhaktivonoda and Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura. To read and ruminate what these great Acharyas have said, is something that gives much more pleasure than thinking about what Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami have done, have not done and have undone.
In that sense I have undermined myself. And you are not the only one who tells me this. Yasomatinanda Prabhu also told me anudvega-karyam vakyam, and reminded me that the shastras have been a place where I seem to fit. Other well-wisher friends also told me that perhaps this is a distraction from a greater contribution I can aspire for.
So, you are right in this sense, and you can be right in any other sense you may have intended. But while it may be true in every way that perhaps I undermine myself by the comments I have made, how about Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami? Don’t they undermine themselves by the silence they make? Don’t they undermine themselves by taking to the stonewalling silence, which was not Srila Prabhupada’s example: “I want to die like Arjuna, fighgting till my last breath”? Don’t they undermine themselves by the wrong decision of attempting not to preserve a project when the local devotees want to preserve it by all means? Don’t they discredit themselves by the actions they have made? Does Virabahu, specifically, doesn’t undermine himself by not being “significantly involved” in his GBC zone, as Sita Pati tries to defend him in the Sampradaya Sun?
It is not my personality or my style to be in the middle of a public fray. I prefer solitude. I prefer to speak of peace and harmony. I prefer to see only the good. But I have felt the call to do this; it is both a call from the devotees and a call from my heart. I have taken it as a necessary service for the time being, and I am also seeing only the good of this confrontation. I have not lost my peace of mind while doing this, but I hope that Guru Prasad Swami and Virabahu have lost theirs, out of public shame, for it is good. This is not a service that I am doing alone.
A Call to All Readers
Protest!
We have no pretensions and we have no pride. We know that single-handedly nothing is possible. In the field of leadership and social change single-handedly is only figurative. Even when we say that Srila Prabhupada single-handedly spread Krishna consciousness in the West, although it is true, it is also figurative. It is true when Srila Prabhupada was the only one playing the kartals under the oak tree, but it is figurative because thousands upon thousands of us extended our hands to help him distribute his books.
Srila Prabhupada’s mission for Krishna consciousness spread, and continues to spread, by this same process of many hands and many voices extending their help. Today, again, we have to come together to protect his vision of a Vaisnava community, to protect his Costa Rica farm.
Costa Rica is an important issue in ISKCON because Costa Rica is an important country, in the sense that it is an amiable country, a welcoming country to its visitors; it is the jewel of Latin American democracy, the jewel of civil liberties, and the jewel of social rights. It is really a good place for a Hare Krishna community of all nationalities.
Virabahu, as the man behind this mess, should step down after twenty years of disasters. And Guru Prasad Swami should not try to serve him as a proxy defense.
Protest!
Hare Krishna,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada
Yadu Das
