This is our third day of news about the situacion in Costa Rica. Because Guru Prasada Swami and his assistant did not respond to the second letter of Yadu, today you find here another letter from Yadu.
THIRD LETTER FROM YADU:
Vrindavan, November 5th, 2006.
Dear Guru Prasada Swami: Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
It’s ten days since I sent my second letter. I understand you have a bulk of mail, but by now you must have read it, otherwise it would be a deficiency in your administration. I also understand that you may want to take your time to consider your answer. If that’s the case, I really appreciate your kindness in taking me seriously. However, in my previous letter, to avoid making it to long, I did not thoroughly address certain points raised by you and Manonath. But due to the attention that your words deserve, I have decided to write this third letter for further elaboration.
FIRST POINT:
Both you and Manonath are promising that the devotees will be treated very nicely in the future.
You:
We are offering all the affected devotees an opportunity and basic means to maintain their families and live even better than they are now. I have tried to contact Lila-shakti, and have assured her that
We will help her, whatever the destiny of the farm is.
Manonath:
In the plan made for the future of Costa Rica the spiritual and material interests of the families has been responsibly 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.
Undoubtedly, these promises are very wonderful. But in the past you have not been able to take care of the devotees. As a GBC you did no supervise properly during Bhakty Abhay’s time. And after that, you did not trust Yamuna, and humiliated him. Even now you are disregarding their view about not selling the farm, and so they feel despised, as people who do not count.
So, if in the past and in the present they don’t feel that they have been treated properly, how can they believe in future promises?
You don’t need to make promises for the future, which the devotees don’t believe anyway. What you need is consensus in the present. What you need is to heed their voices, so that they may feel properly respected.
SECOND POINT:
You denied that you are under pressure from other GBCs to sell the farm. I believe it. Then, it is to be understood that you are selling it on your own initiative. Thank God!, because otherwise it would be very difficult to confront many leaders. Please take careful notice of what I have to say about this.
It was a bad initiative on the one hand, because it has raised opposition from many local devotees, as demonstrated in Yamuna’s letter.
And on the other hand, it is an illegal initiative. This should be proved by quoting your own words and Manonath’s.
You:
1) “The farm is not in my name anymore. I only allowed it to be in my name on the insistence of our lawyer.”
(Illegal action according to GBC laws.)
2) “The farm was given to ISKCON”, but “we never put the farm in the name of ISKCON”, rather “I allowed it to be in my name”.
(Illegal action according to laws of Costa Rica.)
Manonath:
1) “The farm was in Guru Prasada’s name”.
(Manonath offers himself as a witness that the farm was in
your name).
2) “The farm is not owned anymore by Maharaja”.
(Manonath uses the word owned, meaning that you were the
owner of a property that did not belong to you).
These two statements of Manonath’s agree with yours,
meaning that you were in violation of both GBC’s and Costa
Rican laws.
3) “Now the farm is owned by a society composed by two devotees”.
(Illegal action because the farm was given to ISKCON).
I already pointed out that a society composed by two
persons is not a society in the sense of social
organization. It is only a company with two partners, it is
a partnership. The fact that a property donated to ISKCON,
is now in
the name of a partnership is totally illegal.
4) “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”.
Here Manonath acknowledges that these two devotees are the owners, which is the same as acknowledging a private partnership. The legitimate owner is ISKCON of Costa Rica, but it is owned by two private individuals. Therefore under his third statement, I have remarked that this is illegal.
That these two individuals cannot sell the farm independently of
each other is legally possible, but the rest of Manonath’s
statement “that unanimous vote and written permission from ISKCON
property trustees is necessary”, is not legally binding. The
proof? His fifth statement:
5)“This society is ‘legally’ bound to the three ISKCON
property trustees”.
If the farm is not in the name of ISKCON, as per Guru Prasada’s words, how can it be legally bound to the three ISKCON property trustees? No way. If it is not in the name of ISKCON, it is simply not bound to GBC laws, because the GBC laws have no jurisdiction outside ISKCON. That’s why Manonath puts the word legally in quotes, because actually the farm has no legal connection with the property trustees. His word ‘legally’ (in quotes) suggests at the most an internal agreement between these two devotees and some ISKCON leaders, but at the same time betrays an illegal action according to Costa Rican laws.
Maharaja, I have given you seven statements —from your own mouth and from Manonath’s— that show legal liability. Please note that I am not accusing you, I am simply analyzing your statements, hopefully for your benefit. Legal liability is somewhat of a technical term, something whose implication some may not clearly grasp. If I have to put this in plain and simple language, it is called fraud.
This is all illegal because the farm was donated to ISKCON, a fact already acknowledged by you (swayam Guru Prasada Swami), and known to all. Therefore it should have been put in the name of ISKCON, and not in the name of “a society composed by two devotees”. Legally it has all the characterists of fraud, and of what we called in Spanish confabulacion.
It makes me sad to use these words, but I have to, in order to make myself clear and to make you see clearly the implications. It is sad for me, and I am sure it should be uncomfortable for you too, but it is the truth, and I better speak clearly. Even your lawyer may feel upset for not seeing this.
But this is not all, Maharaja. Although I am writing from the other side of the world, I have seen these irregularities from the simple exchange of one letter from you and Manonath. Don’t you think that if someone examines this matter through all the available legal documents, many more complications will arise? Yes, I don’t need to tell you which are such possible complications, because many times in the past you have demonstrated a gentleman’s attitude in acknowledging administrative mistakes, so now I also believe that you can rectify this situation. The immediate thing you have to do is to retract from your decision of selling the farm. That will provide a state of calm for better reasoning.
You cannot keep saying: “The Lawyer uvaca”, for such a mantra doesn’t have the power to erase the fact that illegal transactions have taken place. You have landed in quick sand, and a quick retraction is in order. Please don’t take me wrong: it is not me who has pushed you into this mire.
It is how you have acted. The root mistake: You have not trusted Yamuna. You have not trusted a sincere devotee. Had you not dismissed him, this opposition from the local devotees would have never arisen. And again, don’t take me wrong: by pointing out these things I don’t want you to sink; I want you to see. I am not giving you trouble. I am explaining things. I am using your own words so that you don’t feel that I am accusing you. I want to help both you and the devotees. I want harmony and union. I want you to come out clean… It is possible.
Please do not think that because of the above paragraphs I have no respect for you. I respect you as a Vaisnava, a man of pure habits, a devotee strict in his vows, a good example of sadhana. But somehow or other, for whatever reasons, there are some administrative and legal discrepancies.
In my previous letter I have said that I trust you. Yes, I trust you as a person, as a sincere devotee who has enough humility to recognize personal shortcomings: “Certainly I am full of faults and capable of making mistakes”. But I don’t trust your administrative discernment or your expertise in legal cases. You can forward our exchange of five letters (including Manonath’s) to Sesa, Balavanta, Amarendra and Mrigendra. They are friends, all lawyers, a GBC and a former GBC, well-wishers, men of experience. They can tell you if these are troubled waters.
Maharaja, it is so easy for you to solve this problem. If you stop the selling of the farm, automatically you avoid further irritation, and automatically you also stop the antagonism of the devotees opposing you on this issue. They have been related to the farm for twenty years, and they believe that it has a potential. They have been under distress for spiritual and economic reasons, therefore they have not been able to develop the program, but they believe it can be developed. They resent your lack of trust. What kind of reciprocation do you expect?
THIRD POINT:
You have made a comment: “Yadu’s ‘intuition’ about my motives for wanting to sell the farm indicate a total distrust for the GBC, ISKCON leaders and myself”.
First of all, intuition is not the same as mistrust. Of course, you put the word intuition between quotes, because you are assigning to it another meaning. You are interpreting intuition as misgivings. It is very easy to discredit a person if you change the meaning of his words. But when I said intuition I meant it. I understand a possible problem with my choice of words because most people do not have the experience of intuition. So when I say intuition and I mean intuition, they imagine something else.
Besides that, what’s wrong if the Turley case comes to mind. I’ve heard about this from every corner. Ramabhadra is planning, Gopal Bhatta is advising, the sannyasis are sweating (each have been assigned a quota of eleven thousand dollars), Jayadvaita is fuming about legal expenses (“I will not give one penny, not one paisa, not one centavo.”), important properties in the U.S are at stake, etc. So many things are said. It is a pressing issue. It is in the air. So what’s wrong if it comes to mind while I am writing?
When you denied my intuition by saying that there is no relation with this case, that you are not under pressure about it, I believed you. There is no mistrust, otherwise, I would have not believed you. I have apologized because you said that you felt insulted and I respect your
feelings, not because intuitions are insulting. Intuitions are something that pops from the heart, spontaneously, like the glance of a child, and they cannot be insulting because there are no value judgments involved.
When you say that my words indicate total distrust for the GBC, ISKCON leaders and your good self, I beg to disagree. I respect all of you as persons. I have an inherent respect for people, so it is impossible that I don’t respect you all.
The statement “total distrust for the GBC and ISKCON leaders”, sheds a bad light on poor Yadu. If somebody believes such a statement he may conclude that something is wrong with Yadu, and thus Yadu becomes discredited and immediately turns into black sheep. To avoid this metamorphosis, I have to ask two questions: 1) Does Yadu have mistrust because something is wrong with him?, or 2) Does Yadu have mistrust because something is wrong with the GBC? The mistrust may be rational or irrational. If there is a reason for it, it is not irrational, and there is nothing wrong with Yadu.
You yourself are on records acknowledging that sometimes there is something wrong among the GBC. You made these two statements: 1) “There are some leaders, especially in the recent past, who did such things”. (Such things according to your context means “all the blunders, theft, and outright crimes perpetrated by gurus and GBCs in the name of serving Srila Prabhupada”.) 2) “There will always be someone who is enamored with power, prestige or something else”. (So if according to your own words, in the past, in the present and in the future, there is something or someone wrong, mistrust is not completely out of place. But it should be noted that it is you who says that Yadu has mistrust. Yadu himself says that he has respect, because he has an inherent respect for people, for all kinds of people, what to speak of devotees.)
If you ask me about individual GBC men like you, Sesa, and other Vaisnavas, of course, I have respect for them. I respect and trust them as persons. But if you ask me about GBC policies, that is a different thing. I may agree or disagree. When GBC laws prove to be detrimental for the society of Vaisnavas, (like in the case of the zonal acharyas) there is a reason for disagreement, there is a reason for rejecting such a law, there is a reason for asking the GBC to change it. But rejection of such law doesn’t mean personal mistrust for any particular devotee. My present position is the same: I oppose the selling of the farm. I am opposing your decision, not you. I am against the idea, not against you. I say you are a wonderful person, but at the same time I say that your decision is wrong. We disagree on an issue, but on the personal level we continue to be friends.
We all should be loyal to the conviction that spreading Krishna consciousness is Srila Prabhupada’s goal. We have to be loyal to our conviction, which means we have to be loyal to ourselves in the first place. If GBC policies obstruct the unity among Vaisnavas, and if this lack of unity makes it more difficult for the growth of Vaisnava communities in the West, then the policies have to be changed. No question of mistrust. I have no mistrust, although I may disagree with some policies or with some issues.
Maharaja, you cannot really say that we have not trusted you. Since Bhakty Abhay left Costa Rica, for seven long years nobody ever raised an eyebrow about how you were conducting the affairs there. Why? Because of mistrust? No. Everybody kept minding his own business. That’s why nobody observed that some illegal transactions have taken place. Even when I heard you saying to a mutual friend in Mayapur, months ago, that the farm was in your name, I remained completely silent. Why? Because of mistrust? No. It is only when you took the decision to sell the farm that opposition arose, and these things have come to light. I have said it before, and want to repeat it here: Secrecy will not help, because being contrary to the peace giving quality of straight forwardness, it will affect you with anxiety and health problems… And ultimately things will be known any way…
My writing and arguing is not a question of mistrust, it is only a question of respect for the local devotees who have written to me. I am arguing for them, the farm is only an issue. The most valuable resources are the devotees.
FOURTH POINT:
About decentralization Manonath says.
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 during 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 weird ideas? What decentralization has to do with properties?
My answer: First of all, it seems that Manonath doesn’t like the idea of decentralization. When I said
that the farm should be put in the name of the society with local devotees as co-signers, he calls this weird.
But elsewhere Manonath himself says: “This farm is not owned anymore by Maharaja but by a society composed by two devotees”, and “None of the devotees owning the farm can do anything without the other”. Here Manonath clearly says that the farm was previously owned by Maharaja, and is now owned by two devotees, but he doesn’t see anything inappropriate with this.
I have suggested putting the farm in the name of ISKCON society, with local devotees as co-signers, which means with a board of directors composed by local devotees. Manonath utterly disapproves of this, calling it weird, and invokes Srila Prabhupada’s will. But then he claps when the farm is owned by two individual devotees. Strange! How can I make sense of this? According to law it should be called misappropriation, because the farm was donated to ISKCON, not certainly to these two devotees, whoever they may be. The GBC may tolerate and excuse everything, considering the good intentions of the devotees and leaders. But carelessness is never praiseworthy. If in court somebody asks: “How did you become the owners of this property?” Don’t you think that there would be lots of problems for the participants?
Manonath says that Prabhupada wanted the system of Property Trustees, that the GBC are the rightful managers, and that decentralization has nothing to do with this. It seems that he sees the existence of Properly Trustees and the existence of decentralization as opposing ideas. But this cannot be so, because it was Prabhupada himself who spoke of decentralization, and that also, while chastising the GBC. Decentralization and GBC supervision are not mutually excluding. Since Prabhupada wanted both, both can co-exist in harmony.
Decentralization has not yet been fully implemented in Prabhupada’s society because many leaders are like Manonath. They have difficulty understanding the role of GBC authority in relation to decentralization. If one is a leader of authoritarian orientation he cannot promote decentralization in his zone, he cannot like it. He prefers unilateralism, a system of giving orders from the top. He bows down to his superiors, and demands that those in an inferior position bow down to him. For him participation and cooperation are synonyms of subordination. For all these reasons such leaders cannot at all encourage decentralization, never mind if the idea comes from Prabhupada. They know Prabhupa’s will, they know Prabhupada’s wish, and it is not that they don’t respect Prabhupada’s wisdom, it is rather that they cannot relate to decentralization, due to their psychological make up.
Decentralization cannot take place in ISKCON if we, the devotees without titles (the dasas and anudasas), expect it to be instituted from above, from those with positions and titles (from the Regional Secretaries and GBCs, from the Srilas, the Devas and the Padas). Sorry to say this, but it is a reality. Three decades have passed since Srila Prabhupada’s disappearance, and it has not taken place. We can wait another seven decades, and it will not take place.
Decentralization will take place when the local devotees decide that it should take place, when they fight for it, when they claim their right inherited from Srila Prabhupada’s order and vision. There will be opposition from the top, there will be resistance. The dasas and anudasas will be told that they are not mature enough, that they lack experience and knowledge, that they should not be proud, that humility is the ornament of the real Vaisnavas, that by submission they will go back to Godhead, etc. (As Manonath said: “Bless me to become a yes-man, so at least this will be my last life in a material body”.)
It is not by becoming a yes-man that one goes back to Godhead. It is by becoming enlightened. It is not by being a robot that one becomes more efficient. Efficiency is better achieved by being a thoughtful person who doesn’t require constant orders.
Decentralization is based on the premise that the common devotee can have extraordinary potential. It is based on the premise that allowing this potential to flourish, all programs can develop better. It is Prabhupada’s idea, it is his wisdom, and by no means should be dismissed.
Then, how can we help implementing decentralization? Let’s step aside and allow the local devotees to organize themselves. They can call for a meeting and elect by vote a council, a board of directors. It should be for a specific period of time, with the prerogative of reelection, and with the right of the community to call to early elections in case of dissatisfaction. It can be for one or two years, to begin with. Let them incorporate the society with suitable by-laws, with provisions for amendments and change. Let Guru Prasada Swami remain the GBC, with the function of supervisor. Let him adopt the role of advisor, not decision maker. Let’s follow the example already implemented in some places in Europe, where GBC directives cannot enter into effect unless approved by the local board.
Because the situation in Costa Rica is complex, authoritarian dynamics will not be effective. A fellow with authoritarian orientation necessarily lacks the tact and ability to deal with the complications that have evolved in the country. Things have to be resolved by consensus. Therefore the local devotees have to understand the principle of decentralization and implement it. They have to understand the difference between cooperation and subordination. They have to understand also the difference between humility and humiliation. And stand and fight! Decentralization is the right given to them by Srila Prabhupada. They should take the responsibility and the risk. And the GBC should allow and nurture the development of their potential.
Decentralization means that the local affairs are under the administration of the local devotees, who should be more than willing to show their account books to the GBC.
My call is for unity, my call is for
harmony. My call is for an Autonomous Community of Vaisnavas. A community where you can see the faces of those old devotees, who are now more than 50 or 60 years of age. Where you can see their children, who are now young men and woman, born to Vaisnava parents. Where you can see perhaps even their grand-children. Prabhupada would be pleased with the existence of such a community. He will be proud to see his disciples, their sons and the grand sons, all worshiping Krsna and Nitai-Gauranga. I imagine his immense satisfaction in seeing three generations of his devotees living together, his transplanting of Krsna consciousness taking root, really becoming established. But this community cannot manifest unless decentralized management takes over.
It will not be a community of subordinates. It will a community of independent people. Economically independent, mentally independent, devotionally independent. They will come together for kirtan, for Janmastami, for Gour-purnima, for Prabhupada’s Vyasapuja and Tirobhava. They won’t come together because they need food or shelter, or because they don’t know how to worship and need somebody to tell them what to do. They want to participate. They are generous and want to give and cooperate. They love Prabhupada, but know the difference between cooperation and subordination. Prabhupada asked us to cooperate among ourselves. At this junction, with the complexity that we have in Costa Rica, cooperation means the establishment of decentralization.
Maharaja, would you like to have in Costa Rica a community of Vaisnavas as large as the one that has developed in Alachua?
FIFTH POINT:
From some of your’s and Manonath’s statements, it seems that both of you as well as the other leaders see the selling of the farm as very necessary to get some money for preaching: “We would all love to keep the farm, however, […] in the meantime have no preaching”.
But it is not true that you need to sell the farm in order to preach in the city. Devotees have preached all over the world without selling farms. And it is also not true that you need a huge amount of money to open a center in the city. Devotees have opened centers everywhere without money. The best example: Srila Prabhupada in New York, 1965. Second best example known to you: Pankajanabha, Kalpataru and Narayana, in Hatillo, 1975.
LAST POINT:
Another reason for writing this letter is that I do not want to wait too long for your answer, lest it should be a short one: “Yaduji, we have sold the farm”. So before you may be able to write such an answer I want you to consider what I have said now.
I have written these things not as a rebel, but as an observer who has been invited by some devotees to give his opinion. I have written in response of the letters I have received from the local devotees and from you and Manonath.
I am going back to solitude for three years, but in the next couple of months I may exchange one or two letters with the devotees of Costa Rica. I wish you the best of success. I have taken your time, I have said enough, and hope it was not in vain. I hope that some of my thoughts may be useful to you.
I want to make my position clear, repeating what I already said: That I respect you as a Vaisnava, a man of pure habits, a devotee strict in his vows, a good example of sadhana. That I want to help you, either by organizing an Autonomous Community of Vaisnavas, or by teaching whatever I know to your disciples and other gurus’ disciples who live in your zone.
I have spoken strongly and frankly, but I am not against you, nor against the GBC. I am against one-upmanship and against centralization (which Prabhupada was also against). I am against disregarding the devotees whose sincerity has been proved for more than twenty years, who write letters and letters and receive no response. I am in favor of unity, and against your decision of selling the farm.
Hoping you are well,
Sincerely yours,
Yadu das
Guatemala City
November 5, 2006
Dear Guru Prasad Swami:
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Maharaja, I’ve waiting anxiously for your answer to Yadu Prabhu’s letter dated October 25, but meantime his third letter came! (dated 11/04/06).
So, Maharaja, why are you silent? Okay, may be you are too busy traveling and preaching. Still, you are bound to answer them. Please do it as soon as possible. Do not resort to the “technique” of ignoring them, implemented nowadays by many gurus and GBC’s when confronted by delicate issues or personal dealings. That is not worth of a gentleman, what to speak of a representative of Srila Prabhupada. Very important and subtle points have been addressed by Yadu’s letters. We are all very concern, expecting an honest reply to both these letters.
There’s a Spanish saying, “El que calla, otorga”. If I wrote to you in regards to Yadu’s first, “he has exposed both our lack of fullness in satva-guna”, his second letter has left you naked! And I do not mean to be disrespectful, no. But it’s an indisputable fact that he has extracted, like an expert surgeon, the truth not only about the anomalies perpetrated in the handling of the Costa Rica Farm, but also he has brilliantly made a “magnetic resonance scan” not only of you, but the authoritarian dynamics prevailing in the GBC (at least, the ones practiced by you).
You failed grossly when you said his letter indicate, “a total distrust for the GBC, ISKCON leaders and myself”. You have learned a lot about politics, Maharaja. You got angry at his “how-he-dares-statements”, and very cunningly have tried to slander his reputation, to incept the following notion in the minds of your readers. The classic maneuver, “this devotee is against the GBC”, and so, indirectly, “he’s against Prabhupada”. More precisely”: “He is against me, so he’s against all ISKCON leaders and the GBC. A very whimsical manner of interpreting loyalty to His Divine Grace.
Contrary what you called “my perceptions and realizations formed after reading his letter are quite different from yours” Yadu has actually acted as your best well-wisher, a thoughtful one though—which is very rare to find. But being carried away, at least momentarily, by raja-guna, you exerted your “Full Powers” as a GBC man, and to save face in front of Bhakt Bushana Swami and Manorath, very poorly (as Yadu masterly proved in his last two letters to you), almost foolishly, you tried to justify your actions. This has been always my complaint to you, Maharaja: that you don’t want to accept responsibility for your actions. Always, “something,” or “somebody” else is liable. And then you wonder why intelligent people don’t come to ISKCON temples in your zone.
I don’t want to extend this letter, because Yadu has cover lucidly more of the points I wanted to refute you.
I beg you to please understand that nor Yadu neither me are against you. We are your friends. We are only against your plan of selling the farm.
If you are really honest and humble, you would have realized by now that Yadu is a sattvic man, far more than you imagine. If you shut the door to him, oh, that will be such a loss for you, Maharaja! I beg you with a straw between my teeth: please allow him the time he has asked from you.
Your servant,
Aniruddha 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 meantime, we request all of you to protest. Send your support messages to the devotees of Costa Rica to make your voice clear against the selling of this project.
