Costa Rica Defense

BY: YADU DASA

Mar 1, CANADA (SUN) — A response to Guru Prasad Swami's public defense.

On October 15th, 2006, I wrote to Guru Prasad Swami my first letter about the farm. A week later (October 22nd, 2006), Maharaja answered:

“The farm is not in my name anymore”.

I present here to our readers the deed of the farm. It is in Spanish and I don’t expect you to read it. I only ask you to run your eyes over it, see a line written in red, and continue reading my notes.

	Consulta por Número de Finca - Registro Nacional-
	10/dic/2007 REGISTRO NACIONAL PARTIDO DE CARTAGO 03:38 PM CONSULTA POR NUMERO DE FINCA MATRICULA 152242-- -000 PROVINCIA: CARTAGO FINCA: 152242 DUPLICADO:  HORIZONTAL:   DERECHO:000  SEGREGACIONES: NO HAY   NATURALEZA: TERRENO DE POTRERO Y AGRICULTURA SITUADA EN EL DISTRITO 9-DULCE NOMBRE CANTON 1-CARTAGO DE LA PROVINCIA DE CARTAGO   LINDEROS NORTE:  CALLE PUBLICA - JESUS JIMENEZ CORDERO SUR:  CALLE PUBLICA ESTE:  DOROTHY LANKESTER HAWKER Y MARCELINO ARCE SOLANO E OESTE:  RIO BANQUILLO   MIDE: DOSCIENTOS DIECINUEVE MIL SETECIENTOS TREINTA Y CUATRO METROS CON VEINTISEIS DECIMETROS CUADRADOS PLANO: C-0011719-1974     ANTECEDENTES DE LA FINCA: FINCA DERECHO INSCRITA EN 3-070891- - 000   3-070889- - 000   3-024990- - 000     VALOR FISCAL: 10,819,200.00 COLONES     PROPIETARIO: EL SOSTENEDOR DE LA COLINA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA CEDULA JURIDICA:  3-101-429682   ESTIMACIÓN O PRECIO: VEINTICINCO MILLONES DE COLONES DUEÑO DEL DOMINIO PRESENTACIÓN: 568-79402-01 FECHA DE INSCRIPCIÓN: 15 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2006     ANOTACIONES SOBRE LA FINCA: NO HAY   GRAVAMENES: SI HAY PLAZO DE CONVALIDACION (RECTIFICACION DE MEDIDA) CITAS: 568-79402-01-0003-001   AFECTA A FINCA: 3-152242- -      INICIA EL: 15 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2006      FINALIZA EL: 15 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2009 CANCELACIONES PARCIALES: NO HAY ANOTACIONES DEL GRAVAMEN: NO HAY       *** ULTIMA LINEA ***
	REGRESAR IMPRIMIR

 

 

 

Just above the red line there is a word written in capital letters, which means PROPRIETOR, and the words in red are the name of the proprietor, which in English means “The Lifter of the Hill, Limited”.

On the fifth line below the Lifter there is a date: “15 de diciembre de 2006”. The translation is obvious: December 15th, 2006. This is the date when the Lifter became the owner of the farm.

I wrote to Maharaja my first inquiry on October 15th, two months earlier, and Maharaja answered that the farm was not in his name. This was a lie.

But now in his defense, Guru Prasad Swami says: “Much public discussion has taken place, most of which consists of inaccuracies, misinformation and speaking ill of other devotees”.

In order to discredit the arguments in favor of preserving the farm, Maharaja says that our presentation is full of inaccuracies, misinformation and speaking ill of the Vaisnavas. To refute these three accusations I have been obliged to prove once again that Maharaja lies. (I have already presented a paper entitled The Last Pillar of Religion, with ten anomalies, each anomaly is a lie, and in each one Guru Prasad Swami is involved.)

Maharaja says that we argue with inaccuracies, I prove that Maharaja argues with lies. My statements are not based on misinformation because I have given exact dates, I have quoted the exact words, and I have stated the exact names. Now, when I say “this is a lie”, and prove it, Maharaja calls it “speaking ill of Vaisnavas”.

The truth is this: a detached Vaisnava is not supposed to lie; a Vaisnava sannyasi is not supposed to lie; a preacher who has initiated his own disciples is not supposed to lie. This is not speaking ill of Vaisnavas; this is speaking the truth, with the hope that it will improve Srila Prabhupada’s movement. If the truth, however bitter, cannot improve Srila Prabhupada’s mission, then do we have any hope to improve it with lies?

-o-

In support to Guru Prasad Swami’s lie, his Regional Secretary, Manonath Das, wrote a synchronized answer the same day that Maharaja did. Manonath said: “it's one year that this farm is not owned anymore by Maharaja, but by a society composed by two devotees”.

Manonath wrote this, two months before the Lifter became the legal owner of the farm. But he said that it had already happened a year earlier. This is a lie. It is not just inaccuracy or lack of information.

-o-

Not satisfied with telling me a lie, Manonath adds: “You speak out knowing too little. When you said that Maharaja has exclusive legal power over the farm, you proved to be misinformed”.

Then Manonath goes on to call liars those who disagree with him: “I am not surprised that you do not know these things, since the devotees who have written to you have the habit of lying”.

And then he tells me that the only correct thing I can do is to believe him: “Your mistake is rejecting the words of Maharaja and my words”.

When a person argues in the way shown here, I call it lying, manipulation, and hypocrisy. And I ask the devotees around the world: Is this how we want ISKCON of Costa Rica to be managed, or do we need a change?

-o-

Virabahu also lies. In a letter of only one page and a half he called Daru Krishna Prabhu a swindler, SIX TIMES. In a single paragraph he uses that word four times. This means that he was very intentional. It means that it was not by mistake that he used that term. It was his specific intention. But it was a lie, as he himself was forced to recognize it later on.

So when I have shown the written words of Virabahu, Guru Prasad Swami, and Manonath, and I have proved that these are lies, and when all of them are involved in the case of Costa Rica, should I still prove that the public defense presented by Guru Prasad Swami is incorrect?

-o-

I wrote to Guru Prasad Swami when the farm was still exclusively in his name, when the problem would have been solved simply by reincorporating Yamuna Jivana’s signature along with his in the title deed. But no attempt was made for a peaceful outcome. Instead, Maharaja and Manonath lied, saying that the Lifter was already the owner.

In his defense Guru Prasad Swami says: “Up to now we have been unable to explain everything in detail for various reasons”.

This is the constant problem, that the reasons are not given. They have not given good reasons for not preserving the farm, and they have given no good reason as to why they cannot answer in detail. Why is it that we cannot say the truth?

Just a week before Guru Prasad Swami’s defense, Manonath send the following message to the Pamho Conference: “Concerning the Costa Rica issue, all answers will come soon, one for the public and another for the GBC body”.

If Manonath and Guru Prasad Swami have lied before, what are we supposed to believe when Manonath says that there are going to be two versions? Unwittingly, Manonath is telling us that this public answer is different from the answer to the GBC. So, which one is the correct one? Which one is the truth?

-o-

Guru Prasad Swami has carefully avoided answering all the points we have raised during the Preserve the Farm campaign. Practically a whole year has passed since the time he took his leave of absence. So he had plenty of time for thinking. Our posting in Pamho began in December and it is only at the end of February that he attempts to say something. He waited carefully to collect all our arguments and pick at will whatever he felt comfortable with. Then in a conjoined effort the answer was planned just before the GBC meeting, so that we have little or no time for responding.

Now let’s examine what he says.

-o-

GPS: “Nobody ever put the farm for public sale”.

The very first thing I told Maharaja was that I had received information that “You already put the ads in the newspaper”. I wrote on October 15th, 2006. Maharaja wrote me five letters, Manonath wrote me two; and they were long letters. Both of them lied to me that the farm was no longer in Maharaja’s name. But none of them negated that the farm had been put for sale.

If they decided to lie about the Lifter, why could they not say the truth about the newspaper? If the information about the ad was false, why didn’t they refute it at that time? It is only now that almost a year and a half has passed that Maharaja denies that this never happened. Why? Can anybody guess?

-o-

GPS: “We have not made a definite decision to sell the farm”.

When Manonath was still new in Costa Rica, he met Upendra, the cartographer. Manonath ask him to make some plans of a few plots of 300 square meters each. Then he went with Upendra to the farm and met the devotees and proposed to give to each family this kind of plot and sell the rest of the farm. The devotees did not agree. At that time Upendra was the person who would bring Manonath in his car, from San Jose to the farm, and back. Some time later he again took Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami for another meeting at the farm. Again the devotees opposed. On the way back, Manonath said: “The farm is going to be sold; it is going to be sold”. This is the testimony from Upendra, who was sitting with them, driving.

To me, Manonath wrote: “Our plan is selling only a section of the farm, giving a part to the families, and in the future going back again into a farm project, in a more suitable location and with more suitable devotees.”

Although Manonath says that the plan was to sell only “a section”, we have to examine the whole sentence. The only section that he was not going to sell was the few plots that he was willing to give to the families. This is so because he himself says that in the future the plan was to go back again into a farm project in a more suitable location and with more suitable devotees. This clearly means that the whole farm was going to cease to exist because the present location was going to be changed, and the present devotees were going to be replaced.

-o-

GPS: “The Deities were not stolen”.

The Deities were stolen on July 2nd, 2007. Now, in his public defense, posted on February 21, 2008, after almost seventh months, Maharaja clarifies that they were not stolen. Why he could not say this before? To say such a simple thing doesn’t take seventh months!!!

Just a few days after the theft, Guru Prasad Swami told Kesava Swami that he did not know anything about it; that the local devotees-his disciples-has done it without telling him anything. Kesava Swami told me: “Yadu, don’t think that Maharaja is responsible for the theft of the Deities. He did not know anything. Just now I have visited him, and he was in great anxiety”. Bhakti Bhusana Swami also told another devotee that the theft was done absolutely without his knowledge. Now, after almost seventh months, the story is different.

-o-

GPS: “The Deities were taken away from the farm with permission of the local GBCs”.

This means “with the permission of Guru Prasad and Bhakti Bhusana”, who previously denied having any knowledge about it. (!!!) After almost seventh months the story has completely changed.

After almost seven months of silence, it is publicly declared that they knew it, that they gave the order to do it, and that they have permission for it. That which happened seven months ago “without their knowledge”; seven months later can be something that was done “with their full knowledge”, something that “they ordered to do”.

How can we change the past? Manonath says in his recent posting at Pamho: “All answers will come soon, one for the public and another for the GBC body”. The answer that the Pamho Conference readers got is the answer for the public. It is an enlarged version of the “Stork and the Baby”. Is everybody satisfied?

-o-

GPS: “Some local devotees threatened to kidnap the Deities.”

Maharaja doesn’t give any names of these kidnappers, because he cannot. He himself was the leader of the devotees who were planning to kidnap the Deities. They were his own disciples and followers. I have already given their names in the paper dealing with Tirtharaj. Mother Murari and Mother Ananda-Krishna were the first ones in speaking about the plan. Then the theft was perpetrated by Mother Ananda Krishna; her daughter, Nitya; her son-in-law, Prithivi Pavan; and Arjuna Vallabha.

I am giving the specific names, but Maharaja is unable to give us any names. Why? Simple: Because such devotees have never existed.

The reason the Deities were taken away is because Maharaja wanted to sell the farm, and there were ISKCON rules that “Properties where Deities are installed cannot be sold”.

-o-

GPS: “The only devotees doing almost all of the worship refused to stay any longer on the farm”.

“The only devotees doing all the service” is a correct statement. “The only devotees doing almost all the service” is a tricky statement. The fact is that there were other devotees doing service, but Maharaja doesn’t want to acknowledge them. They have divided the service. One day it was done by the submissive followers of Guru Prasad Swami; other day, by the devotees who opposed his idea of not preserving the farm.

Taking advantage of this, they hatched the plan. The night of the theft Prithivi Pavan, his wife, and his mother in law, who were living at the farm, would move out. That night they would also do the service of putting the Deities to rest. Therefore, they brought a truck to carry their household belongings, and after putting the Deities “to rest”, they load the truck late at night and at the end they camouflaged the Deities. Thus, the farm devotees were betrayed.

-o-

GPS: “That the Deities were broken during the process and the present Deities are copies, is not true”.

I never said that the Deities were broken. What I said is that I suspected it, and my reasons have already been given:

1) They were stolen in a hurry, as all thefts are done. They were transported together with the household belongings of mother Ananda-Krishna, her daughter, and her son in law. There were only two men and two women to handle the two large marble Deities, the small brass Deities, Srila Prabhupada’s life size murti, Srila Prabhupada’s small murti, all paraphernalia plus their household belongings.

2) Bhakty Abhay Charan wrote: “Let us think that the Deities can not only leave the farm, but they can also leave their marble forms”. So, it was Bhakty Abhay who suggested for the first time that the Deities could have left their marble form, and since he is a supporter of Guru Prasad Swami, his words generated a great suspicion.

3) After Janmastami, another supporter of Guru Prasad Swami, Caitanyadeva, invited us to see the Deities in his website, and what he showed were the Deities in Janmastami of the previous year, celebrated at the farm. Since Caitanyadeva is another supporter of Guru Prasad Swami and since nobody had seen the Deities since day of the theft, the suspicion grew stronger.

4) Then the court case for the theft was over, and Maharaja did not show the Deities anywhere. When he was asked about it by the daughter of the donor he did not answer. But Caitanyadeva answered again, saying that the Deities were not manifesting themselves for the time being.

5) Guru Prasad Swami had originally denied having any knowledge of the theft, and has been described as being in great anxiety, as if something had gone wrong.

These were the five reasons for suspecting that the Deities were broken, and it was thanks to demanding publicly to prove the contrary that Maharaja was forced to “reinstalled” them and continue their worship.

-o-

GPS: “The list of three hundred voters is not valid”.

We collected those votes on the request of the ISKCON Resolve. We presented specific names, duly identified. Maharaja dismisses it and gives us some general numbers.

GPS: “Some voters have never been in Costa Rica”.

We have always considered this an international issue. And the voters from other countries proved it.

GPS: “Thirty persons were family members of one devotee, none of whom are devotees. One was a 4 year old girl”.

Again Maharaja gives only numbers, no names. What is the difficulty in giving at least the name of this devotee who has thirty family members?

GPS: “Some others, when we explained the facts, lamented they had signed and said that they felt misled”.

Again, Maharaja doesn’t give a single name. And we know how well Maharaja and Manonath can explain “the facts”, as when they told me that the farm was no longer in Maharaja’s name. With this kind of explanation many innocent devotees can be convinced.

GPS: Quite a few are not ISKCON devotees but members of other Maths.

This is a national and international issue, and I requested the devotees collecting the votes not to keep it inside the boundaries of the institution. The devotees of the other Maths supported it because they have their own capacity to distinguish the potential. If the Government of West Bengal wanted to take away our Mayapur land for agricultural purpose and demolish Srila Prabhupada’s samadhi, should we make a petition signed only by the ISKCON devotees living in Mayapur, or should we mobilized the whole ISKCON world, the Gaudiya Maths, the four Sampradayas, and the whole of Bengal?

GPS: Some are not devotees; nor even vegetarian.

Maharaja has to prove it. But even if it were true, it only proves that the devotees have been in Costa Rica for about thirty five years and have interacted with the civil society. However, what I asked the devotees to do was to request votes from initiated or non-initiated devotees, with the condition that they should have a minimum of two years related to Krishna Consciousness.

-o-

GPS: “The loyal Costa Rica ISKCON devotees (who do not even want to set their foot on the farm until it again becomes an ISKCON project) signed a document supporting the GBC plans for Costa Rica”. ”.

GPS: “What are our plans for the future? Unfortunately we are not at liberty to discuss them publicly”.

Maharaja cannot reveal his plans, but he got the “the loyal ISKCON devotees” to sign a document supporting them. Another thing is that we presented our list according to the deadline given to us by ISKCON Resolve. Maharaja, however, has taken a year to get “these loyal devotees” to sign his paper.

Furthermore, how can Maharaja say that Mother Sevya is not an ISKCON devotee? He would have to prove it. Since this is impossible, she is an ISKCON devotee. And if she is an ISKCON devotee, the farm is an ISKCON project, because she is the president.

The devotees at the farm, beginning with Mother Sevya, are all ISKCON devotees. The only problem-if this can be called a problem-is that they don’t want to work under Guru Prasad Swami. But not wanting to serve under him doesn’t make Mother Sevya or anybody else a non ISKCON devotee or a devotee disloyal to ISKCON.

-o-

GPS: “The hospital project was rejected by the municipality of Paraiso”.

The hospital was going to be constructed in a farm known as “Campo Ayala”, at about 300 meters from the entrance to our farm. “Campo Ayala” is a farm of 16 hectares (about 40 acres). The owner didn’t want to sell it for money, but he was willing to exchange it for another farm located near the capital city, in Ochomogo, which already belongs to the Government. The transaction could not take place because Paraiso and Ochomogo are two different municipalities. The question we should ask is: Why didn’t the owner want to sell his farm to the Government? The answer is: Because the land price is going up.

-o-

GPS: “Wal Mart is not going to be built up in the proximity and it will not increase the value of our property”.

The distance between Wal Mart and the farm gate is 2.090 meters; converted into miles is about a mile and a quarter (1.35 mile).

At this very moment when I am writing (Feb 28th, 2008) the Government is widening to four lanes the road passing in front of the entrance of the farm. The construction is going on right now. For Costa Rica this is a super highway. Is this new highway not going to increase the value of our land?

The construction of the highway is the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Roads and Transportation (MOPT), and the Vice-minister of MOPT owns a farm at less than five hundred meters away from ours (Farm “Castro Brothers”). Is the Vice-minister interested that the roads in the area are improved? Is the he interested in doing something that increases the value of his property?

GPS: Concerning Wal Mart, this is misleading. It is a Mas Por Menos (Wal Mart is only a stockholder of that much smaller company). There are tens of other Mas Por Menos in the area.

It is Wal Mart. The name is not important, as in India, where Wal Mart entered under the name of Bharti Group and has a projection for three hundred thousand employs (3.300.000). Wal Mart doesn’t become a stockholder of a smaller company just for letting other insignificant companies to manage its money. Wal Mart dictates the policies. Our farm neighbor already made a contract to deliver thirty thousand (30.000) lettuces per week. And the place where he has to deliver his produce is in Curridabat (San Jose) where there is a huge establishment for collecting and storage fruit and vegetable. And it has a sign: “Wal Mart”.

About the other Mall right across the street from the farm, Maharaja says: “Half of the shops are closed because the area is not fruitful yet”. I say, let us not see that half of the shops are closed; rather let us see that that half of the shops are open. Let’s not see that the area is not fruitful yet; rather let us appreciate the clear signs of development. From now on, the urbanization and commercial activity can only grow.

-o-

GPS brings up the following doubt: “Our society owning the farm doesn't respect Srila Prabhupada's instructions on holding properties”.

GPS answers: The property is owned by a society formed by Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonatha Dasa, with other local devotees as members.

The two owners are Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath, only. There are other two members who have no power, specifically stated so in the statutes; one is a devotee prabhu from Colombia, and the other is a devotee mataji from Costa Rica. The other member is an initiated disciple of Narayan Maharaja, (her civil name is Vilma Meza). She is one of Maharaja’s lawyers, and she has the position of Resident Agent.

GPS: In the statutes there is a clause, which is public record and can be shown to anyone, establishing that no major operations (selling the whole or a part) can be done without the written approval of the other two devotees who are Guru Prasad Swami and Virabahu Prabhu (the property trustees) .

Just as I got the deed of the property (shown at the beginning of this paper), I also got the statutes of the Lifter directly from the Government (Certificate # 691825-2007; Incorporation # 3-101-429682). After examining the statutes I reported in “THE HOT POTATO”:

Guru Prasad Swami and Manonath have claimed that the Lifter is legally bound to the three property trustees, but in the documents of incorporation, as well as in the Certificate of Registration, there is absolutely no mention of it. The only condition stipulated in these documents is that both owners (Manonath and BBS) can act only conjointly. There is no reference whatsoever to the ISKCON property trustees.

Now Maharaja says that there is a clause referring to him and Virabahu, stating that only with their permission the property can be sold. That clause wasn’t there when I received the documents from the Government. If it is there now it is only because it has been incorporated later, either through a lawyer or through a computer. It doesn’t mean that they were not in violation of Srila Prabhupada’s will. Therefore, if this correction has been done, I should be given the credit.

-o-

GPS: “The future funds will be managed by a group of devotees above all suspicion”.

The way the Lifter has been created and the anomalies in The Last Pillar of Religion, plus Guru Prasad Swami’s and Manonath’s lack of truthfulness, make this statement questionable.

-o-

GPS: “The farm is wonderful, functioning and all the devotees are participating in the spiritual programs, this is not true”.

The description referred to here was given by Harinamananda Prabhu. He was there on the Jan 15th, 2008, only weeks ago. He described what he saw. Guru Prasad Swami and Bhakti Bhusana Swami have not been there for a long time. And even their followers have not been there since the time they stole the Deities, seven months ago. So the description we have given is the most recent one. Perhaps Guru Prasad Swami and Bhakti Bhusana Swami failed to inspired participation. But when Harinamananda went, he saw enthusiastic participation. Perhaps he inspired them. In any case, if Guru Prasad Swami or Bhakti Bhusana Swami failed to instill the daily inspiration, they fail as leaders... Poor excuse!!!

-o-

GPS: “In one of Yadu Prabhu's documents he states that he wants to transform the farm into a place where all Vaisnava Gurus can go and freely preach”.

What I have said is that we can create a community of Vaisnavas where all can live in harmony, regardless of who has been initiated by whom. The different gurus’ coming and going is a consequence of the Vaisnava community. It is not my purpose, it is not my goal, and it is not my objective to invite gurus to come and preach. What I have envisioned is Vaisnava community without the pettiness of “this is my guru” “this is your guru” “I hate you”. What I have proposed is to unify all the Vaisnava forces (which already exist) for the single purpose of prithivite ache yatra nagaradi gram, harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam. I have said that inasmuch this is Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s mission, to that degree we should see it also as Srila Prabhupada’s mission, and strive to achieve it: “The house in which the whole world can live”.

GPS: “A community of varying allegiances is not a viable option for us. Whoever is going to manage the project will have to be a proven ISKCON devotee”.

Even if we don’t want to try to unite all the Vaisnava forces at this time, what is the difficulty in preserving the farm for a community made exclusively with ISKCON devotees? I have never opposed to it.

Furthermore, the allegiance with devotees from different groups already exists. Example one: Allegiance of Guru Prasad and Bhakti Bhusana with their lawyers Sacidananda das and his wife (both initiated disciples of Narayan Maharaja); and remember that the wife occupies the post of Resident Agent in the Lifter. Example two: Virabahu and his wife, Karta Devi, who in the sanga of Narayan Maharaja goes by a different name.

According to these two examples, if having a harmonious relationship with devotees of other “allegiances” should be entirely prohibited, then Guru Prasad Swami, Virabahu and Bhakti Bhusana Maharaja are not “proven ISKCON devotees”.

-o-

GPS: “Virabahu Prabhu's role in the CR issue has always been marginal”.

Virabahu’s role always appears to be marginal everywhere. As Sita Pati (from Brisbane) said: Virabahu is never significantly involved in his GBC zone, and we already know the result of this: failure after failure, disaster after disaster. It is Virabahu’s style to appear to be not involved. Guru Prasad Swami says that he got written permission from the GBC EC; that two EC members questioned this; that he has countless letter exchanged with many GBCs and senior devotees. Yet Virabahu’s role “has always been marginal”. What does it mean; that Virabahu was left out? Who can believe it?!!

In Guru Prasad Swami’s public defense (which is also signed by Bhakti Bhusana Swami), Virabahu has managed once again-from behind-to appear not involved, and to enjoy the privilege of being defended by two sannyasis. I will speak more about Virabahu in my next article.

-o-

GPS: “This letter is just to cover some basic points. It is a one-time explanation. We hope that it clears up the doubts generated by the misinformed campaign ”.

I have answered to Maharaja in detail due to the respect that the audience who has been following this issue deserves from me. Among the devotees who have written for the Preserve the Farm campaign are mother Sevya, Lokaswami and Upendra. Mother Sevya began his devotional service in 1973, donated her house for the first Hare Krishna temple in the country, and donated a farm of 160 acres, more than thirty years ago. She is fully informed. Lokaswami came to Costa Rica after Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, and he has been there for the last twenty years. He is fully informed. And Upendra has been in the movement since 1976, and he has never left the country. He is fully informed.

I have argued due to the conviction that the farm should be preserved, and that it is the best option. I have been forced to say-in this and other documents-that Maharaja and his supporters have spoken lies, and I have been forced to proved it, not out of the desire to speak ill of the Vaisnavas, but only because it is necessary to prove that the farm should be preserved for the Vaisnavas. I cannot prove the validity of preserving the farm if I don’t prove that my arguments are correct; I cannot prove that my arguments are correct if I don’t prove that I am not misinformed; and I cannot prove that I am not misinformed if I don’t prove that Maharaja and his supporters have spoken lies.

As member of ISKCON I have the right to expect truthfulness, and I have presented all my arguments with a great hope; it is the hope of the ordinary and anonymous member of ISKCON who wants to see that his international representative is trustworthy. And trustworthiness can never be achieved through lies. I have the hope that we can grow as spiritualists; that we can renounce to whatever we need to in order to get the power to say the truth. When we say the truth we will generate confidence, our preaching will become more effective, and the movement will grow stronger. Truth is the seed of trust; trust is the seed of love. Srila Prabhupada’s motto of love and trust can never be achieved without truth. I have spoken with this conviction. I know some people feel hurt by my words, but I have decided to take the blame for saying the truth.

All glories to Srila Prabhupada
Yadu Das
Feb 28th, 2008, India

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |