Formal Complaint: Costa Rica, Part 2
BY: DASADASANUDASA DEVA DAS
May 9, USA (SUN) — 2nd installment: A travesty commited by Guru Prasad Swami.
This is our second day of news about the situation in Costa Rica. Today you will find here an answer from Guru Prasad Swami, an answer from his assistant, and the response from Yadu.
Deva das
First letter from Aniruddha das to Guru Prasad Swami:
Guatemala, October 16, 2006
Dear Guru Prasad Swami: Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Maharaja, I am writing this letter to formally let you know my opposition to the idea of selling the farm in Costa Rica.
It is a well known fact that when situated in a good location, properties always increase their value with the passing of time. This is called “plusvalía” in Spanish [def: increase of value through time or other extraneous circumstances.]
I personally have seen TV spots and read newspapers ads, that offer for sale real state in Costa Rica. Country which is portrayed as one of most politically stable in all of Latin America, as well as one of most beautiful in the world owing it to its tropical climate, exotic biodiversity, and plenty of tourist attractions and facilities.
I remember when Hridayananda Maharja was having difficulties keeping up with the payments of the mortgage of the then known “Govinda’s Vaikuntha Building” in Miami Beach. Kirtananda Maharaja wrote him a letter asking him to turn over the administration of the building, because “I’m very capable at developing and managing such projects.”
Of course, by now you most be thinking: “How stupid of Aniruddha to bring about such an incident! Had we turn over that project to Kirtananda -who later on became instrumental in committing murder, a megalomaniac, a traitor [of ISKCON,] and whose fund raising methods did not always abide by the law-, we would be by now lamenting the possible loss of such a property. Similar to what almost happened to New Vrindavan.”
But no, this is not the point I am addressing. What I am trying to highlight here is that shortly after that Miami Beach building was sold, the property value in that city skyrocketed. The local government took measures to expel all the immigrants from Cuba (the famous marielitos), who mostly had become rogues, vagabonds and drug dealers. The Miami Beach mayor, with the cooperation of the Miami Dade County, started to implement a development program in the area called South Beach (right there where the Temple was), which demanded the selling of all dilapidated or old buildings and establishments that didn’t met the new standards set by the city planners.
If Hrdayananda Goswami would have had a futuristic vision, three or four years later he could have perfectly sold the building for at least seven times the money he got. What to speak of how much such property would be worth today! We all know that today South Beach is a major and sophisticated tourist attraction in USA. It has become a prime spot for the film industry, as well as a resort for the rich and famous. Every year millions of people visit South Miami to buy at luxurious shops, designer shops, and enjoy a good dinner at any of the seven-star restaurants and hotels established there. If that ISKCON property would have been kept, by now it will be an American icon.
The same will happen in Costa Rica. That ISKCON property has now the same potential. At the rate the property value is increasing today, this 23-hectares farm will be worth a fortune in a ten-year period! Nevertheless, let me be clear: I am not advising you to postpone the selling of the farm any time in the future. What I am emphatically asking you is NOT TO SELL THE FARM AT ALL. This farm is the patrimony for all of ISKCON devotees. It doesn’t belong to you. Imagining the worst case scenario, and taking into account the exacerbated and volatile global politics, this farm could become a shelter for thousands of devotees at the time of an eventual world war!
The Costa Rican farm is a treasure that must be kept at all costs. You have always entertained the idea of getting rid of it. ¿Do you remember when you planned to associate with Narayan das? (Here this verb is perfectly used, because the main drive of this bond was to make a business) Your scheme was to sell the farm and to invest the money in the construction of a hotel complex at the beach. I also got to know about this project [1997], and then personally called you to let you know my strong opposition to it.
If you want a preaching center in San Jose (Costa Rica’s capital city), the best thing is to rent a house or a storefront. The devotees can pay the expenses of worshipping the Deities [Nitai-Gourasundar] and the asrama itself selling books, incense, ornamental candles, Indian paraphernalia, etc.
But I repeat to you ad nauseam: Please, DO NOT SELL THE FARM. The fact that you inscribed it under your name (in the Costa Rica National Register of Properties) the title deed of the farm, has been a totally irregular and arbitrary act. As far as I understand this is against the GBC laws and regulations.
The lady devotee lady who donated the farm did so under the condition that a spiritual community inhabited by devotees will develop there. The location of this farm couldn’t be better. All knowledgeable persons will tell you that Costa Rican real state has a high demand. If at the present time it cannot be done, in the near future capable devotees can establish there a self-sufficient community where cows can be protected, and where fruits, vegetables and flowers can be cultivated. Due to its volcanic origin, most of Guatemala’s soil as well as Costa Rica’s soil are very fertile. I cannot insist enough in telling you that this property is a paradise that should be kept at all costs.
In Spain some local devotees wanted to sell the farm in Brihuega (New Vrajamandala), but visionary devotees opposed this idea. They took their case to the GBC authorities, and finally it was decided that the farm shouldn’t be sold. The arguments given by those who wanted to sell the farm were the same arguments you are giving now: that there was no successful agricultural or cow protection programs going on, neither devotees who wanted to implement them, etc.
Maharaja, I ask you to please reconsider your decision, and take into account the opinion of the local devotees, a fact that you have deliberatively overlooked. For reasons I completely ignore, you haven’t considered their desires and capabilities. I hope it is not the same old inadmissible prejudice some foreign devotees have against the local devotees-e.g. “foolish,” “useless,” and other adjectives that I consider very offensive and not worth mentioning.
Up to 1986 Pancadravida Swami had successfully developed the Mexican yatra. He had established five temples and several preaching centers throughout the country. Nowadays, you only have two temples in a nation inhabited by more than one hundred and thirty million human beings. A nation that since the signature of the NAFTA treaty among Mexico, U.S and Canada (a market composed by more than 400-million people) has managed to implement a vigorous economy that keeps growing steadily every year. I do not mean to criticize, but I am trying to be objective. Please remember when the GBC suspended you for a year for not having made a most simple but required paperwork in order to secure the title deed of the Tiburcio Montiel Avenue property, and put it under ISKCON name or its equivalent legal entity. Adi Keshava Prabhu, who curiously enough sold the New York Temple located on the 55th Street (which Prabhupada used to call “my skyscraper”) putting forward the same arguments as you do, had to pay a high price for doing so: the ruin of his spiritual life. Please do not take this as a malicious reference, but as a genuine worry for your well-being.
The only thing necessary in order to develop the farm are qualified people. Even one man will do. In Vrindavan, Rupa-Raghunatha equals the work of a thousand men.
Maharaja, even a small-time businessman like me can conceive many ideas as to how to keep the farm and make it profitable, if your idea is to make a profit from it. For example, the farm could be converted into a beautiful facility for holding religious conventions or spiritual retreats in a natural setting. Also, it can become a tourist attraction with facilities for biking, hiking, horse-riding, etc. For a person with enough skills and initiative, this farm is a gold mine.
There is no valid excuse for selling this farm. It is a property that belongs to Srila Prabhupada. And I’m sure his Divine Grace wouldn’t approve at all of your idea of selling it.
Lastly, Maharaja, and you please excuse me for the way I write, but you know that I have always been straightforward, without inhibitions of any kind. I will include the following incident because I consider it worthy of mention. Once, while in Florida, Krishna Balaram Swami said the following words after having heard some arrogant statements the local GBC had made against the devotees: “Why does he believes he is the only intelligent person in the whole temple? No! We also have intelligence. We devotees also chant Hare Krishna and take prasadam!”
In my opinion the decision about the future of the farm in Costa Rica must be a consensus one, and not your exclusive and arbitrary attribution based upon your own personal frustration with the place. This farm has a lot of potential if properly managed. It seems to me that Bhakti Bhusana Swami is a devotee who knows how to manage.
I sincerely wish that your health may have improved.
At the service of the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada, our spiritual master. (“If you cannot expand, at least maintain whatever I have built”.)
dasanudas,
Aniruddha das.
Second letter from Aniruddha das to Guru Prasad Swami:
Guatemala City, October 21, 2006
Dear Guru Prasad Maharaja: Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Well, it seems to me that Yadu has hit the issue right on the head. His letter has clearly exposed that both of us haven’t achieved fullness in sattva-guna. To the degree we failed to recognize the renegades living at the C.R. farm as real Vaisnavas, to that degree we lack compassion. Yes, I referred to them as freeloaders. But Yadu’s reflections had changed my mind. The truth is that to reach the platform of sattva-guna requires hard work. We must continuously and diligently polish ourselves. The fact is that to develop a consciousness imbued with sattva-guna is a huge accomplishment, a milestone on the way to Krishna.
That’s the beauty of sadhu-sanga. Devotees make us aware of our shortcomings. That’s their mercy. As Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati used to say:“Those who praise me are my enemies. Those who criticize me, they are my best friends.” Criticism falls in two categories, constructive and destructive (political). One may be loyal to some individual or institution, and still oppose something-a deviation, or policy or a wrongdoing-and therefore criticize with the aim of getting them to a higher standard. Srila Prabhupada did this all the time. Another person may criticize with the aim of find fault, or just to project his or her innate tendency, or even to smear and discredit people. This of course is not good at all.
In our Krishna consciousness philosophy, it is without question considered a healthy practice to be self-critical. Obviously, some of us do this with greater or lesser degrees of success. To the degree one is sincere he polices himself and sees how he is doing in comparison to the ideal model given in sastra. Srila Prabhupada writes, “As for actual advancement in spiritual science, one should have a test to see how far he is progressing. He can judge by these items”. (Bhagavad-gita, 13.8-12)
Also, a good amount of impartial feedback in the matter of analyzing our performance, comes from our own peers. They are generally a more reliable source for discerning one’s level of Krishna consciousness. By peers I don’t mean our little circle of admirers or followers wherein the unspoken rule is “don’t you dare to preach to me”. No. By peers I mean nonenvious, sincere well-wishers that dare tell us the truth about ourselves.
The truth is that being a spiritual leader doesn’t mean that one is perfect in the sense that he never makes a mistake. First, he should be a perfect gentleman, that is to say, a man of integrity. And if that is the case, what is the difficulty to say, “I made a mistake. I am not perfect”. A devotee shouldn’t be to big to admit, “I made a mistake”. True, it’s hard to be humble when you are great; but, on the other hand, according to our philosophy, it is altogether impossible to be great unless you are humble. During the course of a conversation, Dr. Benford challenged Prabhupada, “Then you are not perfect”. Srila Prabhupada answered, “No, I am not perfect. None of us claim to be perfect; we have so many faults. But because we don’t speak anything beyond Krishna’s teachings, our teachings are therefore perfect”. (Consciousness: The Missing Link)
My humble opinion is that you give Yadu the time he has asked for. He’s a qualified person, a natural leader. Moreover, he’s Costa Rican [“We want to firmly establish centers in South America. I fully agree that the centers should be as far as possible manned by men who are native to the country; that will make our position stronger…”. [S.P.’s letter to H.G., 74-6-5]. It’s relevant to mention that the devotees at the farm have such love and trust in him. It’s clear they don’t rely on you. May be Yadu won them over because he really cares for them.
Finally, Yadu made a comment about you using the money from the sale of the farm for other purposes. Yeah, all the blunders, theft, and right out crimes perpetrated by gurus and gbc’s in the name of “serving Srila Prabhupada”, have created this kind of skepticism. I don’t blame him. I will tell him that in the event you sell it one-sided, you won’t spend a penny for any other purpose than “buying a new farm elsewhere and a plot of land around San Jose”. You have to come out clean. Everybody is watching expectantly.
Hoping your health is improving,
Your servant,
Aniruddha das.
Answer from Guru Prasada Swami: October 22, 2006:
Dear Yadu Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I thank you for your deep concern for the devotees in Costa Rica, and for the farm and projects there.
I am sending a copy, as you can see, to BB Swami and Manonatha P, as they need to be abreast of any opinions concerning the farm. I am also Including Govardhan-dhari dasa, since you mention him in your letter. He can speak for himself and for Caitanyadeva P, since he maintains close contact. As you have spoken frankly, please allow me to do the same.
It is difficult to respond to your letter because I respect you very much as a devotee inclined to live and act in sattva-guna. However, some portionso of your letter do not reflect what I consider your normal mode of thinking and behavior.
It is natural for us to assume something based on previous experiences. However, when dealing with decent and ethical persons, what to speak of friends, it is better to address them, presenting our doubts and questions, before acting on assumptions. Your letter is politely accusative. I will proceed to answer, clearing up misconceptions and lack of information.
The farm is not in my name anymore. I only allowed it to be in my name on the insistence of our lawyer. He has defended us without charging for years. Even then, I have had to spend around $20,000 USD in legal matters concerning the farm in Cartago. I don't have many funds. Most temples cannot even help me with my travel fare, some cannot even help with the airport tax. Most of the donations I receive are very small. If I didn't have a little fund left by my mother, I could not have ever continued to travel in this zone. Therefore, I cannot afford to loose a faithful and competent lawyer. He agreed that we could now transfer the farm to a different society. In Costa Rica, any non-profit society can loose its status if not renewed every 2 years, and if it expires, the assets are distributed to like-minded societies. That is why we never put the farm in the name of ISKCON.
Even if it were in my personal name, I would never sell it independently. I don't have that right. I do not agree that the farm is the exclusive property of the local devotees. I do agree that the assets in Costa Rica should be used for Costa Rica. The farm was given to ISKCON. We are the appointed officers for ISKCON, and therefore have a specific responsibility, without personal interest, to use it for the service of Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON.
Manonatha P is not our subordinate, who blindly follows our instructions. BB Swami, Manonatha P and myself have taken any and all decisions jointly, also consulting many other senior devotees and the GBC executive committee. I have also consulted with the local devotees. There are 5 families presently on the farm. One of them agrees with us because they want to go to the USA. Another agrees with us as long as are responsible with the deities. All the other devotees in Costa Rica (Manonatha P can give you the numbers) agree with us, only about 6 do not, 2 of which left the farm for their own personal reasons. Most of the devotees outside the farm, who are the majority, don't even want to go owing to the attitude of those who live on the farm. I don't blame the farm devotees, they have been devastated. But that is the reality, and it will not change unless we do something to revive the preaching.
Still, we are all open to practical suggestions and solutions. We are offering all the affected devotees an opportunity and basic means to maintain their families and live even better than they are now. But all this requires that we sell some portion of the farm.
The NA GBC has no idea of what we are doing. Regarding donations to the youth fund, we all had to make some. Ours in Latin America was small. It has already been paid. I never took one cent from the zone, nor would I ever do so. I consideded that intuition of yours an insult to my integrity and sense of ethics. I would never do such a thing. The GBC did not even request temples in my zone to contribute to the youth fund.
I think it is wonderful that you return to preach in Costa Rica and other areas in Latin America. However, we cannot wait for 4 years with no preaching. We would all love to keep the farm, however, I don't think that Srila Prabhupada would be happy to bank our future success on your return, however capable you may be, and in the meantime have no preaching. I have no doubt that you can do many positive things and make valuable contributions. Concerning the history of the farm, M Radha-govinda's retraction of her donation, etc, she lost faith upon seeing her ex-guru doing inappropriate things. Then she began to fight legally and we had to defend. I wanted to see her many times, but the lawyer told me not to; that it would be a legal liability. I have tried to contact Lila-shakti, and have assured her that we will help her, whatever the destiny of the farm is.
Certainly I am full of faults and capable of making mistakes. I have taken into account all of the positive points in your letter, as well as Aniruddha P's concerns. I have to consider all factors, weigh them one against another, and, in consultation with the other leaders, make a decision.
I humbly request you to consult me again about any doubts, and plead that, if someone accuses me of something, that you ask my side of the story before deriving any conclusions.
I am presently traveling in the US, so I have to stop here. I have tried to answer succinctly. Please forgive any offenses in my letter. I hope that you are well, and to get your association again in Vrndavana, if Krsna allows.
Your servant,
Guru Prasad Swami
PS. FYI, I do plan to put the Harlingen property in ISKCON's name, or sell it and use it in the future for some preaching project. I cannot do so at the present time. It was given to me by my sister, and she is gifting it to me to avoid taxes. It will be fully mine in a few more years.
Assistential Answer from Manonath:
Dear Yudu Prabhu,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I read the letter you sent to HH Guru Prasad Maharaja with surprise
and, if I may be sincere, with disappointment. Since you name me,
since I am involved here, since you made public your letter adding
confusion to confusion, and since for several years we had good
friendly relationship in Sri Vrindavana Dhama, I feel compelled to
say
something.
I was surprised because I know you as a thoughtful sattvik devotee.
And what a sattvik devotee would do upon receiving letters of this
nature?
Of course the first thing would be to write to the other party asking
to hear the other side of the story.
You didn't do it and prefered to speak out knowing too little.
The result is that you wrote a letter full of misinformations and
misunderstandings.
What Guru Prasad Swami wrote in his answer to you is correct.
The farm was at his name because,
due to various circumstances, the
lawyers wanted so. They personaly told me that. They not only are
well-wishers but also are first class professionals and when you have
the situations we had in Costa Rica you better listen to them.
Now it's one year that this farm is not owned anymore by Maharaja but
by a society composed by two devotees, which is *legally* bound to the
three Iskcon property trustees, as per Srila Prabhupada's will.
So not only none of the devotees owning the farm cannot do anything
without the other, but even together cannot do it without the personal
written permission of
the three joint property trustees in unanimous
vote.
This is how Iskcon works all over the world.
So when you say "with full and exclusive legal power over the farm"
you prove to be misinformed.
The plan for Costa Rica was conceived in a nice team work, also
calling into the discussion other GBCs and older devotees, like the
previous GBC Chairman, the present Chairman and the entire EC. There
were numerous "Skype" meetings with many leaders. Also several trusted
local devotees were
involved.
I strongly disagree with you that the farm belongs to the devotees.
The farm belongs to Iskcon, Srila Prabhupada, Nitai Gaurasundara. Not
to any single devotee or any group of devotees.
The Iskcon GBC are the rightful managers of Iskcon properties, as per
Srila Prabhupada's last will. He wanted the system of property
trustees, which he personally created and implemented durig his
lifetime.
Not that the property has to be put at the name of "some devotees" as
co-signers, as you say. Where do you take such wierd ideas? What
decentralization has to do with
properties? Srila Prabhupada left his
will about properties. We may like the system or not, but this is what
Prabhupada wanted and consequentially this is how Iskcon has to
function.
In the plan made for the future of Costa Rica the spiritual and
material interests of the families has been responsably being taken
into serious consideration, up to the point of wanting to do something
NEVER done before in Iskcon, and this includes the Matajis Radha
Govinda and Lilasakti.
I am not surprised that you do not know these things, since the
devotees who have written to
you have the habit of lying or telling
only the parts they like to be known.
The majority of devotees are in favor of our Costa Rica plan, which
include selling only a section of the farm, giving a part to the
families, buying a property in the city, developing economy like first
class restaurants, and in the future going back again into a farm
project, in a more suitable location and with more suitable devotees
who want to live in a Krishna conscious farm (working the land,
protecting the cows, self sufficiency,
etc.).
Did the devotees who have written to you tell you any of this?
About your "intuition", please forgive me, but it shoud more correctly
be called "speculation". This zone has nothing to give to the youth
fund and the future funds will be managed and controlled by a group of
devotees above all suspicions, following Iskcon rules.
If we want a future in this country the only thing to do is what I
described to you before.
Otherwise things will continue as they are, with low spiritual
standards, almost no preaching and zero economy for everyone. In other
words, no
future.
Your servant
Manonatha Dasa
PS: About me being a "yes man" or a sort of a puppet, I would like to be
like that, especially when handled by such advanced Vaishnavas.
Unfortunatey I got a big false ego and sometimes give the two GBCs
hard time trying to force my own opinions on them.
Bless me to become a "yes man" so at least this will be my last life
in a material body.
Second Letter from Yadu:
Vrindavan, October 25th, 2006.
Dear Guru Prasada Swami,
Please accept my humble pranams. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you, Maharaja, for your kind words. You have written a very reasonable letter. Coming from you, I am not surprised. I expected it, and you have answered with patience. You have understood me correctly: I have written only out of concern for the devotees who have approached me, because I am obliged by their letters.
You are most welcome to send copies of my letters to such important devotees as Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami, and to whoever you want.
Frankness is most required, I do not expect less. And it may be appropriate here to tell you, that I trust you, otherwise I will not waste time writing.
My normal mode for many years has been of isolation, non involvement. I don’t want to disturb anybody, I don’t want to cause pain or anxiety. But when some devotees wrote me and expressed their feelings of being abandoned and disregarded, if I don’t speak, if I don’t say something, if I don’t believe them, I could have not avoided to cause pain.
So when I talk in the terms I have done, these devotees will feel at least heard by somebody they appreciate.
Based on previous experiences we may assume something. But my letter was not based on an assumption. It was based on the fact that the farm was put for sale, and that some devotees have written to me. In advising me as a friend, you have to allow room for disagreement. And I beg you to acknowledge that those other devotees who wrote to me in the first place, are also my friends. I cannot say that they are my friends and at the same time not believe what they are telling me. I cannot expect that they trust me, if I don’t trust them. So essentially, I have talked to you on their behalf. It is their consensus I am arguing for. It is their voices you are obliged to hear.
When I heard something about Bhakti Abhay years ago, I did not approach him to ask if such things were true. In the same way, when I heard that you are selling the farm, I don’t need to ask you if this is true. Therefore I have written to object.
You have found my letter “politely accusative”. I have an opinion, which I have expressed as clearly as I could, but I have made no accusation. I have not accused you of anything. I have pointed out certain irregularities, and I want you to change your decision to sell the farm. That’s all.
That the farm is not anymore in your name is a welcome piece of new information but it is incomplete, because you don’t say in whose name it is.
You say that the lawyer agreed now to transfer the farm to a different society. But, again, you don’t say which is the name of this society? What kind of society? Who are the trustees?
I ask these little questions only because you have said “I will proceed to answer, clearing up misconceptions and lack of information”. But it is evident that you are not removing the lack of information, and therefore you are unable to remove whatever “misconceptions” you wanted to remove. Actually what you are giving me is a type of information pregnant with lack of information. If I follow it I may end, where? …
The same defect is in Manonath’s letter. He says:
“It's one year that this farm is not owned anymore by Maharaja but by a society composed by two devotees”.
Note the inconsistency: You say that the lawyer has agreed now to transfer the farm to a different society. Manonath says it’s one year that the farm is not in your name. A little discrepancy, but it makes it impossible to clear any supposed misunderstanding, although both of you have stated that this is your purpose. And note also that Manonath does not explain what kind of society. A society composed by two members doesn’t constitute a society in the sense of social organization. At the most it constitutes a company. Is that what he means? Why so much lack of clarity?
And another question is in place: Who are these two devotees? What is the difficulty in being explicit? It should not be a new devotee, because the issue is too serious. It should not be the lawyer, because he will be going beyond his role of legal adviser. It should not be a foreigner, because it is against the idea of participation of the local devotees. It should not be, certainly, Manonath himself, because he is the newest man in the area, and has to win first the confidence of the local devotees (something that even you are in the process of achieving). So who are these two men whose name cannot be mentioned? What kind of lack of information do you want to remove?
You say that you only allowed the property to be in your name on the insistence of the lawyer. I insist on my point, that nevertheless this was an irregularity. I wish you a long life, but we don’t know anything about our death, as it has happened trice in ISKCON that a leader is gone from one day to another. I am pointing out to this only to support in part my objection.
You seem afraid that this “faithful and competent
Lawyer” may be very sensitive, and that if you disagree with him he may stop helping. This puts you in a precarious position.
You are supposed to tell the lawyer what you want, and he is supposed to find the means. On his advice you have broken your own GBC rules, giving room for any member of ISKCON to criticize you. And this could have been avoided without much difficulty. In fact, Yamuna’s signature was already there. You did not give Yamuna a chance. You did not trust him. He could have been an asset to you, a valuable assistance. He needed to be trusted. You failed.
If you trust the lawyer so much, then he is leading. This is a reverse position. It should not be so. You should lead. You cannot tell me “The lawyer said”, and expect that nobody argues. I know the importance of lawyers, of course, and I have nothing against this lawyer, but you are the one who has to take the decision, who has to set the direction. You are the one who are supposed to have the vision.
If in Costa Rica the non-profit societies can loose their status if not renewed every two years, what is the big difficulty in renewing it? This is not an excuse for not registering the farm in ISKCON’s name, especially when you have a competent lawyer.
You said that even if the farm were in your name, you would never sell it independently. “I don’t have the right”. Correct, but independently from whom? You have consulted the GBC chairman, and the EC. You need their approval. But that is not my point. You have acknowledged that you don’t have the right to sell it. I agree. But even a group composed by you, the Chairman, and the Executive Committee, don’t have the right. Unless there is consensus of the local devotees, the farm should not be sold. You should not sell it independently from the local devotees. That is my point.
You do not agree that this property belongs to the local devotees, because “the farm was given to ISKCON”.
So, let’s begin by asking the simplest of questions: What is ISKCON? It sounds irrelevant, but it is not. ISKCON in this context doesn’t mean ISKCON of Anywhere Inc., it doesn’t mean the EC, it doesn’t mean the GBC, and it doesn’t mean you. It simply means ISKCON of Costa Rica. And what is ISKCON of Costa Rica? Is this another irrelevant question? No, if we want to be clear. ISKCON of Costa Rica is not an existing or non existing legal entity. ISKCON of Costa Rica are the local devotees living in Costa Rica. And since “the farm was given to ISKCON”, it means that it was given to them. Therefore, to whom it should belong? It is so simple, but I have to write a whole paragraph to make myself clear, unequivocal.
Now, when you say that it doesn’t belong to the devotees of Costa Rica, it doesn’t make sense. When you talk about ISKCON you cannot ask us to imagine an abstract entity over which you are invested with special powers. Logic and Justice demand that, in this context, ISKCON means only ISKCON of Costa Rica, composed by the physical and concrete devotees living now in that country.
You have said that the farm was given to ISKCON, but it has never been in ISKCON’s name. Perhaps this is also another discrepancy. But never mind the name, the meaning is clear, and I have elaborated it in the above paragraphs.
The fact that you are “the appointed officer” for this area doesn’t give the right to rule by one-upmanship, you have to rule by consensus. Being an appointee also doesn’t mysteriously bestow upon you special leadership. Being an appointee only means that you have been trusted by the higher ups. The big task that has confronted you in Costa Rica is how to be trusted by the people you are supposed to lead, a task not yet fully accomplished.
By the way, an appointee is not the same as a leader. A leader is one who gets his position by being acknowledged and supported by the people around him. An appointee earns his post by the support from the people above him. The leader is elected from below, the appointee is selected from above. He has been trusted by his superiors, but after being appointed he has to make himself valuable and trustworthy to the people below him. Therefore, when we hear that in certain places devotees don’t follow the leaders, it means that they don’t follow the appointees and that the appointees have not yet become leaders.
To be sure, Srila Prabhupada said that the GBC is “the ultimate managerial authority”. But note that managerial means administrative. And again, an administrator is not the same as a leader. The leader has the vision and the capacity to inspire others; the administrator follows patterns and enforces directives. In any company, the administrator is an authority, but not a leader. In Prabhupada’s time, he was the leader, and the GBC were the administrators… In his last will he did not change the status of the GBC…
You say that as an appointee you have “a specific responsibility to use the farm for the service of Srila Prabhupada”. I fully agree, provided responsibility is not taken as a synonym for right, and to use as an equivalent for to sell. I do not object to responsibility and use, I object to the right of selling.
I had never considered Manonath a blind follower, though from the point of view of institutional hierarchy he is your subordinate, in the sense that he has agreed to work under you. These are practical matters, there is no blame attached to it. When I added my post script footnote I was referring to Costa Rican devotees younger than the ones I mentioned. It was clear in the context. But Manonath wrote:
“About me being a "yes man" or a sort of a puppet, I would like to be like that, especially when handled by such advanced Vaishnavas. Unfortunately I got a big false ego and sometimes give the two GBCs hard time trying to force my own opinions on them. Bless me to become a "yes man" so at least this will be my last life in a material body”.
The paragraph speaks for itself. Therefore it is better that I don’t write to him. And by the way, I don’t have any bad opinion about yes men. I don’t speak about them with disrespect. I can never call any human being a puppet, because I have respect for people. I am aware that yes-men are very useful and can accomplish many good things. The only thing I’ve said is that they have no role in decision making. No reason to be angry about this simple truth.
You have said: “All the other devotees in Costa Rica
agree with us”. Perhaps you are using the word all somewhat freely. I have no doubt that some agree with you, but not all. This is what Yamuna wrote:
“El 98% de los devotos del yatra no estamos de acuerdo de esta decision del GBC, tenemos firmas de devotos, testigos, pruebas y suficientes argumentos para debatir esta decision del GBC y los argumentos de Guru Prasada Swami”.
(In our yatra, 98 % of the devotees do not agree with the GBC decision. We have signatures, witnesses, proofs, and enough arguments to refute the decision of the GBC and the arguments of Guru Prasada Swami.)
So you and Yamuna must be talking to different devotees, and a consensus has to be reached. That’s all I’m arguing for. You produce your list, Yamuna produces his. Take a written vote “Yes or No” with name and signature, make public the results, and the issue of consensus will be solved.
In my previous letter I said two things: That the farm is for sale and that there is no consensus. I did not jump to conclusions, I did not write on assumptions. The farm is for sale, and the consensus has to be proved. It is not me who needs consensus, it is you. It will benefit you as a leader. Please understand this, or at least believe me. You don’t need to make offerings to help the devotees in the future. You only need consensus in the present.
My intuition was about your being under pressure. And I am happy to have been wrong. I spoke frankly and I was very specific: It was an intuition. It was not an accusation. It was not a conclusion. It was simply an intuition. I have never suggested that you wanted to take money for yourself. No, because I have never even thought so. I was frank, and you should not feel insulted by my being frank. In this kind of letter frankness, openness, is a must. It was not my intention to insult you. And please take note that the fact that you may be under pressure doesn’t put your integrity or ethics into question. Even if some money from one project goes to another project, that will not constitute a breach of ethics, that will not tarnish your integrity. However, inasmuch as you have felt insulted, please forgive me, but read me well.
You’ve said: “I think it is wonderful that you return to preach in Costa Rica and other areas in Latin America. However, we cannot wait for 4 years with no preaching”.
You waited so much for Bhakty Abhay. He obstructed you in every way. I am not requesting you to wait with no preaching. I am requesting not to sell the farm. That is a complete different thing. Who says that the existence of the farm is an obstacle to preaching? Who said that you should stop preaching?
You say that you would love to keep the farm, I also think Srila Prabhupada would love to keep it too. Farms are his projects. The idea comes from him.
I have never asked you to bank the future on my return. I have said that I will come back and that people gather around me, and that I will help you. The farm offers the best opportunity to develop a community of Vaisnavas. And since you asks for suggestions, this is how I would develop it.
Phase One: First I would adjust my mind to the idea of not expecting respect from anybody.
Then I would call my friends, the devotees that I know since 75, beginning with Pankajanabha, and Sarvabhavana. (I would also approach Ramesh). I would call everybody who has lived in Costa Rica ever since, like Prahladanath, Rama Vigraha, Nirguna, Sudama, Srivasa. I would call those devotees who are almost forgotten, like Vidvan, Viduttama, Mother Sevya, Menaka, and Nitai, the aborigine. I would visit all the devotees who now live in Costa Rica, regardless of who they have taken initiation from. If we include Rama Laksman, Upendra, Mother Jagan Mohinni, etc, etc. etc., we get more than a hundred devotees, to begin with. But note carefully that I would not consider any of them my subordinate. I would only be a facilitator.
Phase Two: I would sell plots around the perimeter of the farm. These plots would be maximum of 20 x 20 (four hundred square meters), big enough to construct a beautiful house. There would be some “City rules of Construction”. Every house would have to construct a standard wall on the back (separating the farm from the adjacent properties), and a standard road in the front (a Parikrama Marg). Every house would follow Vastu indications, and use only half of the land for construction, and the other half for green area. These are my basic “City rules”. The plot would be sold beginning at $10.000. Some plots would be more expensive according to certain natural or Vastu advantages.
I calculate that the perimeter of the farm may be between two and a half to three kilometer long. So, more than hundred such plots can be made, and with the sale I would collect no less than a million dollars, which I would give to you, Mahajara, for developing your preaching programs in the city.
Phase Three: When this phase of plot selling and construction is finished, we have a solid community of Vaisnavas, in a safe residential area, with a nice Parikrama Marg and many beautiful gardens all along. From one hundred gardens flowers, fruits and vegetables will come to the deities. Such a large community then becomes the basis for other projects.
I would bring five white cows with humps (the ones that in India are called kamadhenus), not for milk, but for auspiciousness. Milk production implies breeding, and the number of cows may grow beyond our capacity of maintaining and protecting them. So the function of these cows would be only for creating and atmosphere of peace. They would roam free in the open areas of the farm and on the Parikrama Marg. With just the peels of fruits and vegetables, and other small portions of food from the houses of a hundred householders, these five cows can be easily fed. Dry cow-dung could be burned in daily homa sacrifices and its smoke would purify the atmosphere and the minds. It is a miraculous product.
Of the remaining land, I would separate one hectare for the temple, which I also donate to you, to construct a temple of Gour Nitai, Krsna Balaram, and Radha Krsna, like in Vrndavan, which should be called “Temple of Krishna, in honor of Srila Prabhupada, founder Acharya of ISKCON”. Although this Autonomous Community of Vaisnavas is of multi-denominational nature, all of them are Gaudiya Vaisnavas, all of them are related to Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and all of them are devotees of Gauranga. So none of them would object to a temple in honor to Srila Prabhupada.
I would separate another hectare for a Children’s Vaisnava School, another for Secondary Education, another for a variety of Vaisnava Institutes, another for a Park. Two hectares in two different areas would be assigned for sports, and another for a Shopping Center (the farm is between two growing cities, so a good income can be generated from it, while serving both the devotees and the outside community).
The remaining land would be developed later with an MVT type of neighborhood, and in the form of parks and gardens.
Also agricultural development is possible (devotees like Jiva Tattva from Spain can be invited to demonstrate how with a small piece of land a family can become self sufficient).
In this type of community, when the leaders of their preference come there --be you, Bhakti Bhusana, Paramadvaiti, Narayana or Puri Maharaja--, they will be received with many signs of respect. When I arrive, no one would be waiting for me, but I would not mind this difference, it would not bother me the least. Unless I have this attitude, I cannot aspire to encourage participation from such a variety of devotees, all of whom are senior and economically independent.
The present farm offers the grounds for the infrastructure to build up such a community. An infrastructure that you cannot duplicate in the city, even if you buy the buildings of the Supreme Court and Los Tribunales, in the best neighborhood in San Jose.
This idea would take years to implement but it is within the purview of reality. If you sell the farm now, you will get immediate money and you can begin a preaching center with new devotes by teaching them how to put on tilaka while reciting Om Keshavaya namah. My idea is different, it is the idea of sharing, of beginning with the old devotees. The opportunity is there, the potential exists.
I know that many Europeans, Canadian and US citizens like to visit Costa Rica, and live there after retirement. They find the country with no upheavals, welcoming, with political stability and respect for the law. The devotees of these countries will also like to do the same. The Latin American devotees who have settled abroad would also like to come back to a place as the one I have envisioned. Many of them are now more than fifty years of age, they have developed some means of livelihood, and they know that the Dollars and Euros will go a long way when converted to Colones. For these reasons I am confident that I can sell a hundred plots of land in the farm, and give you a million dollars.
To develop this sort of community, however, my priority would have to be to unite the devotees around the worship of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. If I make my priority to subordinate the devotees to me, or to the GBC, I may gather a few people around me, but will certainly alienate most of the senior devotees who are the most valuable resources. I would have to present a plan that does not interfere with their personal lives and sense of independence.
Why should I prefer to work with new devotees rather than the many senior and talented devotees who are already economically established? Is it because establishing myself as the authority is more important than uniting them? Should I reject old devotees because they are inspired by a senior Gaudiya Vaisnava who is also related to Prabhupada? Why reject them if their respect for Srila Prabhupada is not in question. Among these devotees the position of Srila Prabhupada is unchallengeable. For this reason I am most willing to approach them and work with them.
Regarding Mother Radha, now that the legal issue is over, there should be no liabilities to satisfy her in some appropriate way. She is not angry at the small devotees like me, but she is angry at the leaders, and therefore you can do something to pacify her.
I have argued my point: that leaders, and leaders, and leaders, should not take the decision on this issue of selling the farm. To think that the leaders are the most concerned and the most sincere, and that therefore they have the right to a decision of this sort, is an assumption that it is not always true. The small devotees may be equally sincere, concerned, and intelligent, and above all, they are the most affected.
In my previous letter I have raised only two points: That the farm is for sale, and that there is no consensus. The rest was argument. In this letter I have argued about the importance of consensus among the local devotees. Again, I reiterate my opposition to selling, and for your records my vote is NO.
With due respect and hoping you are well,
Yours,
Yadu das
DEAR READER, TOMORROW YOU WILL FIND IN THIS SAME COLUMN THE CONTINUATION OF THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN YADU DAS AND GURU PRASAD SWAMI.
In the mean time, we request all of you to protest. To send your support messages to the devotees of Costa Rica to make your voice clear against the selling of this project.
If you want to get in touch with me: devadasacbsp@yahoo.com
You can also send copies to the following addresses:
BHANU SWAMI, GBC CHARIMAN, 2007
e-mail: bhanu.swami@pamho.net
VIRABAHU DAS, GBC SUBSTITUTING GURU PRASADA SWAMI
e-mail: virabahu.acbsp@pamho.net
GURU PRASADA SWAMI, GBC FOR COSTA RICA FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS
(NEVERMIND HIS LEAVE OF ABSENCE OR MOMENTARILY HIDING)
e-mail: Guru.Prasad.Swami@pamho.net
BHAKTI BHUSANA SWAMI, GBC ASSISTING GURU PRASADA SWAMI
e-mail: bhakti-bhusana.swami@pamho.net
COSTA RICAN DEVOTEES OPPOSED TO SELLING
e-mail: prabhupadasfarm@yahoo.com
