Formal Complaint: Costa Rica, Part 4

BY: DASADASANUDASA DEVA DAS

May 12, USA (SUN) — 4th installment: A travesty commited by Guru Prasad Swami.

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.

    ANSWER FROM GURU PRASADA SWAMI:

    Dear Yadu Prabhu,

    Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

    I have not had time to answer your last letter, nor even read this one. I will do so when I can. I hope that you are well.

    Your servant,

    Guru Prasad Swami

    ................................

    ASSISTENTIAL ANSWER FROM MANONATH:

    (Note: For easy reading of this letter, please keep in mind that Manonath is cutting and pasting sections of Yadu’s third letter.)

    Dear Yadu,

    Please accept my humble obeisances. All gloeries to Srila Prabhupada.

    I write this letter on HH Guru Prasad Maharaja's request. I didn't want to write it. Having being the regional secretary for this zone, which includes Costa Rica, for almost two years now, he wants me to be involved in everything regarding Costa Rica. I have tried to be brief but it has been impossible since you touch many points.

    First point. Ours are not promises but facts. If it was not for the unreasonable lack of cooperation from a few devotees, everyone already had their lands, their houses, our community, our nice preaching center, economy to guarantee a pacific future to our movement and to our devotees in Costa Rica.

    That the devotees here have been disregarded and despised is utter nonsense. You were not here in the last year and half, so I invite you to be wary about sentencing about things you don't know.

    As I already told you, the majority of the devotees here are in agreement with our plan. Of course every plan can be improved. Our plan also can be improved and we are ready to modify it, but not on the base of talkers, who come here for a few days and then go away to mind his own private businesses.

    If we see devotees coming to stay here, cooperating with the GBCs, proving to be serious in spreading Krishna consciousness in CR, we'll be happy to make alternative plans. Untill now, there is nothing who gives us the least hope that something even close to what you are saying could be done. Then you come here and show us how your ideas have some concrete application. You are dreaming of a reality in Costa Rica that doesn't exist anymore.

    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.

    We have got written permission from the GBC EC and from the property trustees to do the necessary. How could a GBC do such a major thing on "his own intiative"? There are two GBCs here. And another property trustee. And a regional secretary. If this was GPS "own initiative" don't you think someone would have denounced him to the GBCs and stopped him? GPS confirmed the plan over and over with many expert leaders.

    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.

    Yamuna proved nothing. Even in front of Bhakti Bhushana Swami and me, several devotees told that he was pretending to represent them, while they had never accepted to be represented by him.

    Everyone was in agreement with our plans, Yamuna included. Click below and you'll see a letter hand-signed by all the families living in the farm, Yamuna included.

    They originally agreed because they understood it was the best plan. Otherwise why to sign a paper? We can have preaching in the city, we can have economy, we still can have our community in Cartago, we can have private houses for the families. What do you want more than this?

    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.)

    Not illegal. How do you know that the GBCs didn't give permission? How can you make such a statements?

    2) "The farm was given to ISKCON, but I'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.)

    There is nothing there of illegal.

    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.

    There is no need of a witness. Everybody knows that Maharaja offered himself as the signer of the farm for legal reasons.

    3) "Now the farm is owned by a society composed by two devotees".
    (Illegal action because the farm was given to ISKCON).

    They are both members of Iskcon. Ther is no Iskcon society in Costa Rica yet. The farm was never given to any devotee or group of devotees, but to Iskcon as a spiritual international organization which, after Srila Prabhupada demise, is leadered by the GBCs.

    The system for managing properties is clearly outlined in the GBC laws. Please go read it. Whoever wants to be in Iskcon has to observe GBC laws.

    I agree with you that anyone has the right to disagree. There are several points I myself disagree with the GBCs. Obviously we can speak out, but we have to know the limits in form and substance, beyond which we pass from being part of a solution to being part of a problem.

    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.

    There is nothing illegal. All over the world our properties are owned by societies of devotees, especially in countries where non-profit societies cannot own properties. In some countries it is possible, in other it is not. I know these things well, having been involved in legal matters for half of my life. We always follow the laws of the country we are in and the advices of knowledgeble professionals who tell us what is the best way to proceed in each case.

    I could mention so many examples. For instance in Italy we have four major properties, each one bigger and more valuable than our farm in Cartago and they are not at the name of local Iskcon societies. They have never been. Up to the 80's they were at the name of commercial societies and now they are under the name of what is called "Ente Morale".

    But all over the world the system of property trustees is followed.

    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.

    Nothing illegal.

    Our society operating in CR is legally bound to the three properties trustees, as it anyway would be if the legal owners were an Iskcon Costa Rica. Our plan is to have an Iskcon CR, composed by trusted devotees presently in good spiritual standing. But even in that case there would be no change in the system: this society would not be able to do major operations without the permission of Iskcon International Property Trustees. Why is that? Again, because this is Srila Prabhupada's will. We are duty-bound to follow the instructions of our Acarya.

    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.

    From these words you prove to know little or nothing about the laws of your own country. Costarican law allow any foreigner to own properties here, as much as to *legally* bind the most important activities of a society (non-profit or commercial) like selling, buying, mortgaging etc. to anyone, costarican or foreigner.

    So the S.A. giving protection to our property in CR is legally bound to the three property trustees appointed by the GBC for this zone. It is not an internal amicable agreement, it is fully legal.

    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".

    This pararaph is really nasty. Anyway, if we, against the advices of our lawyers, had done a non-profit, were there not single persons involved? What's the difference?

    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.

    There are no legal mistakes nor complications.

    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.

    What's the problem in simply admiting that you wrote something wrong? Why so much word jugglery just to avoid admiting a mistake?

    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.

    The mistake of Yadu is wanting to get involved in an issue without having taken all informations first. Your mistake is accepting Yamuna's words and rejecting the words of two GBC's, my words and many other costarican devotees who are telling you differently.

    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 Property 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.

    I am not against the concept of decentralization. Even during Bhagavan's time (who was the most centralizing person I've ever met) the concept was applied. Not in an oniric fashion as you propose, though, but in an inteligent way.

    In the 80's I was serving as regional secretary for three temples in south Italy and when I visited the temples under my responsibility I didn't get involved in every detail. I'd let the temple presidents do their own things. But when a major problem arises a leader must intervene and must have the possibility to exercise authority. Otherwise he is useless.

    You are mistaking decentralization with independence and separatism. You are depicting an anarchic movement with no leadership, or with impotent leaders.

    Srila Prabhupada wanted a united movement and the GBC system is the system who can keep alive the unity of our Iskcon. If one day the GBCs will accept to be impotent, this will be the beginning of the end. He didn't want independence or separatism. If he did, why he created the system of property trustess, the BBT etc.?

    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 Prabhupada'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.

    Without practical experience of managing the administrative and spiritual aspect of temples it is not possible to understand what it takes to lead a spiritual organization. Talking from a stage of purely ipothetic and mental platform only produces confusion.

    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.

    The system of going back to Godhead is clearly explained in the sastras. Amongst the many disciplines outlined by the Acaryas there are the service to other Vaishnavas, differenciating betwen superiors, equal and inferior, preaching by serving Srila Prabhupada's mission, cooperating, following the sadhana, avoiding offending other devotees, ecc. If we do not serve guru and vashnavas, we'll never learn how to serve Krishna.

    I had more things to say about your previous letter (especially your dream of a community where even spiritual masters who are not even friendly to Iskcon should be allowed to enter and preach, which no Iskcon leader would never accept) but this is enough.

    I know you'll not answer me, as you didn't to my first letter, but I wrote it only because I was asked to.

    Hare Krishna
    Manonatha Dasa

    ..............................

    FOURTH LETTER FROM YADU:

    Vrndavan, December 4th, 2006

    Dear Guru Prasada Swami Maharaja:

    Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

    Your last letter was very brief, and with it, it seems that the argument is closed. Manonath has written a long letter, and it may be inferred that my argument is lost, but I beg to remain in amicable terms.

    However, I have written something on the process of argumentation, only for sharing with you some thoughts in this regard. Please take your time to read it, because I am sending copies to other people also.

    Open Letter to Guru Prasada Swami on the Process of Argumentation.

    There is a Sanscrit definition of eloquence:
    Mitam ca saram ca vaco hi vagmita
    < “Conciseness and substance constitute eloquence”.
    (This is my literal translation. You can also see Srila Prabhupada’s spiritualized translation in the Caitanya Caritamrta.)

    Since your answer to my second and third letters is brief enough, its contents can be quoted in toto:

    “I have not had time to answer your last letter, nor even read this one. I will do so when I can.”

    From the point of view of conciseness, it definitely qualifies as eloquence. And from the point of view of content, from the amount of information that can be drawn from it, I would say it is also eloquent. Let me explain the variety of meanings that I see in it:

    The First Meaning:

    For the first sutra of the Vedanta (athato brahma-jijnasa), Ramanujacarya wrote a Sanskrit commentary of forty pages. Similarly, your short answer also deserves an explanation. And because it was addressed to me, I am perhaps qualified to a certain extent to comment on it.

    You were in the military, I was in martial arts. We both learnt that if with a single strike an opponent can be disposed of, that is an excellent accomplishment.

    If you have considered me an opponent in this argument, then with a masterful strike of an answer that even denies to be an answer, you have put me off. If you have no time to answer or even to read, how can I say anything more? I am forced to silence, and you have won. Isn’t it wonderful? I have to accept defeat, I have to submit like Galileo to the Pope.

    You are in a position of authority, you have the sword of power, and you strike with it. I have only a pen. I cannot strike back.

    Analyzed in its own, your short answer gives us the first unspoken meaning as:

    “Yadu, you can say whatever you want. I will do what I want. I am the appointed officer”.

    The power of the sword and the power of the pen are two different powers, and if they confront each other, it is sure that the sword will win. So history proves: Galileo, Socrates, Jesus… and in the more recent American history, your black countryman, Martin Luther King.

    It is therefore wise for the pen to make a truce, and I beg you: Let us remain in amicable terms. After all, in the future I will not be in the antipode, neither literally nor figuratively.

    When you sell the farm (even an inch of it), you can stand up high with your beautifully austere Saturnian body, tall and thin, and raising your hands even higher to the sky, you can declare: “I have defeated Yadu”.

    I will say: So be it. But this meaning makes you look self-righteous and authoritarian.

    To be sure, it has been said that the pen is more powerful than the sword. However, that is only true in the long run, and it has been proved correct only in the case of those powerful arguments shaping the history of men. For small arguments and short term objectives the siddhanta is “Might is right”. According to this you have the power and the right of execution.

    Those who read my letters may say “Yadu is right”. But because you are the appointed officer you don’t need to mind their opinions. And if these letters between you and me happened to be read by devotees twenty or thirty years younger than us, and if they can remember them after fifty years or so, perhaps they will also say that “Yadu was right”. But that shall not bother you, because by that time you will be in Vaikuntha, where nothing can disturb your transcendental ears. And regarding this servant of yours, I will be dead and gone and no benefit will accrue me.

    I have spoken on this issue with nothing to loose and with no expectation of personal gain. Therefore, whatever the outcome, I am not subjected to disappointment. I wish you the best.

    But let me tell you one more thing: If selling the farm were the issue, then you can easily win. But if bringing all the devotees together is a more important issue, if gaining their respect and establishing a working relationship with all of them is important to you, then you cannot win with a single strike. You cannot win by silencing yourself or by silencing me.

    The Second Meaning:

    If we read your short answer considering what you have said in your first letter, then another meaning can be derived.

    In that letter you have referred to me in very kinds words. It makes me feel grateful that you have such opinion of this humble servant. But for the sake of argumentation I have to point out another flaw in your short answer when contrasted with your first letter. Take this not as a sign of ungratefulness, but as a token of reciprocation. If you have high regards for me, it behooves me to endeavor to be utterly sincere with you.

    This is how you have spoken (emphasis added):

    1) I thank you for your deep concern for the devotees in Costa Rica, and for the farm and projects there.

    2) It is difficult to respond to your letter because I respect you very much.

    3) I think it is wonderful that you return to preach in Costa Rica and other areas in Latin America.

    4) I have no doubt that you can do many positive things and make valuable contributions.

    5) When dealing with decent and ethical persons, what to speak of friends, it is better to address them.

    It is all your kindness that you have expressed yourself in such a benevolent way, and for the moment, according to the issue that engages us, I have no other way to reciprocate with you than by being sincere.

    We have known each other for a little more than thirty years, and it is through these many years that we have built up an opinion of each other. You respect me, I respect you. But respect doesn’t mean that I should not argue with full force. It is for the sake of argument that I am writing this, so please excuse me and keep reading.

    What does your short answer mean in contrast with these five statements in your first letter? This is what we derive as the second unspoken meaning:

    “I don’t care for the opinions of concerned devotees whom I respect and whom I consider valuable contributions for my zone. I don’t care for them if they disagree with me. I don’t care even if they are my friends. I don’t care for how long we have had a relationship. I have no time for them. To do what I want I have to neglect them.”

    Sure, you have neglected me, and I say: So be it. But this meaning makes you look lacking in care and concern.

    I lower my head, but I don’t feel embarrassed. I gracefully accept defeat. After all, a pen cannot fight with a sword. You are in a position of authority, I am unknown and anonymous, and do not aspire for any sort of promotion. I have nothing to loose and nothing to win. Therefore I can speak frankly to a person I care for. I wish you the best.

    The Third Meaning:

    Now, suppose that you argue that this is not your answer, that you have clearly said that you have had no time to answer, not even to read it, and that you would do so when you can.

    This is a possible argument, and without a doubt it has its validity. Then I can be easily labeled as impatient and agitating, inconsiderate and unfair in writing the first two meanings.

    If it is so, we derive the third meaning.

    My letters were dated October 25th and November 5th. More than a month has passed. If that short message was not your answer, then so far no answer is forthcoming. If you really had the intention to answer and have been just unable to do so (and perhaps still unable to read it), then your third unspoken meaning is:

    “I am not fully competent to keep up with my responsibilities. Although I really care for the opinion of the concerned and serious devotees, I cannot even read a letter that takes only fifteen minutes. That is because my level of incompetence has reached the maximum degree.”

    Maharaja, it is unacceptable that you did not have even fifteen minutes to read a letter on a very serious matter. It is too much incompetence. In fact, I believe you did read it, and then asked Manonath to answer on your behalf, because Manonath says it so twice in his letter. But the fact that you say that you did not read it, it doesn’t honor our long standing relationship. Why do you let me down in such a way? And why do you make yourself to look so bad? This third meaning makes you look very incompetent.

    The Fourth Meaning:

    Now, suppose that you say that these three meanings are all wrong, because actually I do not deserve an answer.

    Even I may agree with that. After all, who am I, and who are you? Of course, I can see the difference. You are an important devotee in Srila Prabhupada’s society, and I am practically unknown. You are busy with many and varied duties, and I have little duties, mainly dealing with self improvement. So it is not difficult for me to accept that I do not deserve an answer.

    But this would be switching the topic. It is not my qualifications or disqualifications which ought to be analyzed, but the consistency of your two letters.

    If I am worth nothing to you, that you cannot even spare a few minutes to read my letter, then it is not possible to explain honorably the five statements that you made in your first letter. You spoke generously even without anybody asking your opinion about me. It was spontaneous, it was a nicety of yours, for which I am grateful. But if in order to justify your short answer, these five statements have to be rejected as false, then we end where we don’t want to. Your fourth unspoken meaning would be:

    “I really don’t care for Yadu. I said something in my first letter to please him, to put him on my side. It was a lie, but if it did not work I cannot care less, I cannot waste my time with him.”

    I will say: So be it. But such meaning would make you look duplicitous and manipulative.

    The Fifth Meaning:

    If you say that I am baselessly accusing you of not caring for my opinion and of being irresponsible and incompetent, and if you support this argument by saying that what you have really done is to delegate responsibilities on a competent person--which is a valid recourse of high level management--, and that you specifically asked Manonath to write me, and that in fact he has written a long letter. So what am I complaining about?

    If such argument could be accepted, then we derive another meaning.

    In his two letters Manonath has shown that he doesn’t know how to argue. He serves you bad as a proxy defense because he uses a good lot of fallacies (which I will explain after finishing my analysis of your sutra). Since you are unaware of Manonath’ deficiencies, there is another flaw of yours in asking him to answer. Thus your fifth unspoken meaning is:

    “I am a poor judge of others’ capabilities. I just don’t know how to select the right person for the right service”.

    Yes, Maharaja, again and again you have selected the wrong people for certain services, and that is why after two decades as GBC for our Central American countries, you have been able to expand nothing. (Should you want a specific list of names and instances I can refer you to Aniruddha for Central America and to Radha Krishna for Mexico.)

    Now you have selected Manonath as your Regional Secretary for a troubled zone. He is an authoritarian character. He says that he was the Secretary for South Italy in Bhagavan’s time. You know well how authoritarian Bhagavan was. Nobody could live in his zone unless he was completely submissive to him (ask poor Jayadvaita Swami, who had to walk bare foot for a whole year in Indian Padayatra for thinking independently). That Manonath could become the appointed Secretary for South Italy means that he was following Bhagavan’s dynamics.

    In this troubled zone what you need is humanistic dynamics, you need democracy, you need decentralization. You don’t need authoritarianism and dictatorship. And you can be sure that Manonath will face a lot of opposition. He is just not the right man to serve you as the Secretary for Costa Rica, nor is he the right man to answer my letters on your behalf. (I will substantiate this point later.)

    The Sixth Meaning:

    If you are not a bad judge of people’s character and capabilities, if you knew that Manonath would react like a volcano, erupting lava at full speed and in all directions, with no other purpose than leaving me on the bare bones, and If you knew that his arguments would not be the best ones, but at least it will save you the trouble to answer…

    Then we derive another meaning. You would be playing one of the Games People Play. You want to be seen as a nice man, a good mannered fellow, soft spoken, of mild demeanor, and brahminical. And for any controversial or difficult matter, what in slang they call “the dirty jobs”, you put somebody up in front. If so, your sixth unspoken meaning is:

    “I am playing “the good guy”. I have never said a single word that hurts Yadu, therefore he should not get on my case. I am nice to him and he should be nice to me. I give nobody any reason to be upset with me”.

    If I were caught in this game, I am supposed to see Manonath as the “bad guy”, the mean fellow who attacks me, while you are aloof and saintly, sitting on the Vyasasana.

    Furthermore, I am supposed to think that it is Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami who are selling the farm. That you have entrusted it to them and you are sitting in Mexico or the USA, while these two devotees are responsible for whatever is happening in Costa Rica.

    No, Maharaja, you are responsible. This sixth meaning would only make you look crafty and cold blooded.

    Conclusion regarding your short answer:

    Maharaja, what is my opinion about you, is one thing. And how this short answer makes you look like, is another. I can say that I respect you and I care for you, that I like you and I take you seriously, otherwise I would not write such a long answer because my time is very valuable to me and I have many nice things to do, things that give me much more pleasure than analyzing your style of argumentation.

    When we take your short answer in contrast with your first letter, we see many inconsistencies, many discrepancies. Suppose I give somebody an American style multiple choice question, based exclusively on these two letters of yours. He will have only one minute to answer (and you should also have time for this). Try to imagine which option he will mark.

    QUESTION:

    Based on the two letters Maharaja sent to Yadu, I see Guru Prasada Swami as:

      a) Self-righteous and authoritarian.
      b) Lacks concern and doesn’t care for serious devotees.
      c) Totally incompetent.
      d) Duplicitous and manipulative.
      e) Poor judge of people’s character and abilities.
      f) Crafty and cold blooded.
      g) All of the above
      h) None of the above.

    You see, Maharaja, it is not that I am malicious, a trouble maker. I see myself as your friend, a person who likes you, but these two letters, carefully analyzed, make you look very bad. It is as if you have managed to insult your good self. I wish you the best, and I think you will not take me wrong.

    You can send these letters to our psychologists Dhira Govinda and Vegavan, or to those who have given courses on clear thinking and argumentation, like Vraja Vihari and Jayadvaita Swami. I think that they will agree that when these two letters are considered together, there are many flaws.

    An Analysis of Manonath’s Style of Argumentation

    First of all, Manonath Prabhu should know that it is not because of disrespect that I do not answer him. I have chosen to talk to you because we have a longer relationship and because you are the authority who can take the final decision on the original topic for which I have approached you. That is one reason.

    That topic is now over, yet I have written this long letter on a side issue (argumentation) only because I think that you can appreciate it, and because I also think that you are sattvic enough to not hold grudges for the way I am speaking now. I know you are feeling uncomfortable, that I put you in anxiety and you are feeling sad. I know you would wish I don’t send copies to anybody, but you are a big man, and sometimes big men cannot be stopped and cannot be made to change unless by public resistance.

    Furthermore, you have been unfair with me with this short answer, which indicates that in the larger issue of a three and a half or four million dollar farm, you have been unfair and unjust with our younger senior devotees in Costa Rica. You are a GBC, you are an ISKCON public man, and to ask you for justice it is fit to go public. Otherwise you would completely ignore me.

    The second reason for not writing to Manonath is because he has declared himself a yes-man, and therefore there was no need for a separate letter.

    The third reason is that his arguments are full of logical fallacies, which makes it impossible to argue with. (I am using the word fallacy in the sense of incorrectness of reasoning.)

    I know Manonath is an intelligent man. He knows the philosophy, but he doesn’t know how to argue. To argue with someone who doesn’t know how to do it brings you to an endless and fruitless discussion. It has never been my purpose to engage in such a way. When I addressed you I had two specific points: Don’t sell the farm, and let the local devotees take over the project. And I still stand behind these two points. You have cut me off, and that is alright. After all it is your right to choose who you talk to and who you don’t. I don’t resent it. It is only as a friend that I am showing you the flaws in yours and Manonath’s arguments.

    The fourth reason is that it was you who brought him to the discussion, who sent copies of my letters to him. So by writing to you, he automatically knows about it.

    Samples of flawed arguments: 1) Not knowing the meaning of words

    I spoke that the devotees have some reasons not to believe in promises. He says: “Ours are not promises but facts”.

    He doesn’t know the difference between promise and fact. Promise is something that refers to the future. Fact is something that refers to the past. Something that you say that you will do in the future is a promise. Something that has already happened is a fact. But in his swift and voluminous answer he could not consider these simple things.

    This forces us to infer that he also doesn’t know the difference between past and future. If a person cannot distinguish the difference between such basic concepts, what else can he distinguish? How is he qualified to argue? Maharaja, do you see his lack of logic?

    2) Second sample of the same kind

    When I say that if you are not under pressure for selling the farm, you must be doing it on your own initiative, He says: “We have got written permission from the GBC EC and from the property trustees”.

    He is negating your initiative because you got permission. Therefore he is equating the meaning of the two terms. I am talking about initiative, but he answers that you have permission. If he cannot distinguish the different meanings of these common place words, what else can he distinguish? How is he qualified to argue? Maharaja, do you see his lack of logic?

    3) Not distinguishing differences

    I argue that since the property was donated to ISKCON it should not be in the name of individual private owners. He says: “Anyway, if we, against the advices of our lawyers, had done a non-profit organization, were there not single persons involved? What's the difference?”

    One thing is to be involved as a member of a board of directors and another is to figure as an owner of a property. Manonath, however, doesn’t see any difference between the two. He cannot distinguish between member of a board and private owner.

    If a member of a board of directors dies, the society continues in possession of the property. If an individual owner dies, his wife, son, or next of kin, has the right to claim the part of the property that belonged to the deceased. Maharaja, do you see this blunder?

    If a person doesn’t know the meaning of words, if he cannot distinguish between promise and fact, between past and future, between initiative and permission, and between member of a board and individual owner, then we cannot take his arguments seriously, because his statements cannot be considered pramana.

    These three samples should be enough to convince you that your Aide de Camp is not qualified to argue, but just to amuse you I give you more samples.

    4) Not having respect for himself

    He says: ”And about me being a yes-man or a sort of a puppet, I would like to be like that.”

    A person who calls himself a puppet, necessarily doesn’t have self respect. How can a puppet be qualified to argue? Maharaja, do you see my logic?

    5) Ad hominem attack

    He says: “The devotees who have written to you have the habit of lying or telling only the parts they like to be known”.

    He calls these devotees liars, and by his labeling them as such I am supposed not to believe them, and believe him. But as far as his two letters go, it is he who tries to hide information. For example, he says that the farm is in the name of two devotees, but he doesn’t mention them. So who is telling only part of the truth? I go from what I have in front of my eyes, and Manonath’s letters do not add up.

    6) Ad hominem attack

    He has been profuse in the use of this fallacy in reference to myself. Because I articulate my sentences carefully, with the correct choice of words, with logic and reason, he dismisses me with the ad hominem attack.

    He says: “Our plan also can be improved, but not on the basis of talkers, who come here for a few days and then go away to mind his own private businesses”.

    If a person disrespects himself by desiring to be a puppet, why should it be amazing that he insults others by calling them liars and talkers? In fact, a person who lacks self respect has no reason --nor is he able-- to respect others, and so it is quite natural that Manonath loves the technique of ad hominem attack.

    Sometimes he labels the objector and sometimes the objections. In both cases it is unacceptable to logic. Maharaja, do you see this fallacy?

    7) Changing the meaning of words

    He says: “Your intuition should more correctly be called speculation”.

    Speculation is a maligned term in ISKCON. Devotees are not supposed to listen to any speculators. By his changing my words, I become a person whose association is undesirable, and whatever I say loses validity, because “Yadu is a speculator”.

    8) Labeling and dismissing

    I gave a suggestion on how by selling small plots of land to devotees you can both keep the farm and get a lot of money to finance a project in the city. He says: “You are dreaming”.

    To dismiss by labeling is another fallacy, a cousin brother of the ad hominem attack. It is akin to character assassination. Although you seemingly do not attack the objector, by labeling the objection, as in this case, for example, as a dream, you are automatically calling the objector a dreamer.

    9) Defeating himself

    The passage quoted above is an example of yet another fallacy. Somehow or other Manonath can do this, put two or three fallacies in a single statement. He has said that your plans can be improved, but not on the basis of talkers, who come there for a few days and then go away to mind their own businesses.

    With this ad hominem attack he wants to dismiss me, but he ends up praising me. When he calls me a talker, he automatically acknowledges that my thoughts are clear and well articulated. When he says that I go there for a few days, meaning that in the last thirty years I have been there only three times for short visits, he has to acknowledge that devotees still remember me and appreciate me. And when he says that I mind my own business, he is acknowledging that I am non-political. All of which gives me credit, which is exactly what he doesn’t want. Thus he defeats himself.

    10) Missing the point

    I have argued that it is illegal that something donated to ISKCON of Costa Rica be put in the name of particular individuals. He says: “Costa Rican laws allow any foreigner to own properties here”.

    My point is not whether a foreigner can own properties or not. My point is that something given to ISKCON should not be in the name of particular individuals. Maharaja, do you see the incoherence?

    11) Missing the point

    I have argued that in view of the complexity in Costa Rica, decentralization should be implemented and that you would play a better role as an advisor that as unilateral decision maker. He says: “If one day the GBCs will accept to be impotent, this will be the beginning of the end”.

    First of all, in spite of his grandiloquence, he misses the point, because I am talking about your specific problem in Costa Rica, and he generalizes it to all the GBCs.

    A leader is potent if he implements a system that works. When authoritarian dynamics do not work, when authoritarian dynamics have alienated so many devotees, when authoritarian dynamics have brought disunity in the movement, how is it that in the name of potency we should insist in this system, disregarding the option of decentralization?

    12) Saying half truth and biting the tongue

    In his first letter Manonath said that the farm was in the name of two devotees, but he carefully avoided to name them. In this way, by withholding information, he only says half of the truth.

    But in his second letter, in his attempt to answer the argument that since the farm was donated to ISKCON it was illegal to put it in the name of individual persons, using another fallacy, he says that the laws allow any foreigner to own properties in Costa Rica. Thus he bites the tongue, and although he is careful to avoid saying in whose name the farm is, he gives it away. In his context foreigner means Manonath Das and Bhakti Bhusana Swami.

    13) No reference to what has already been settled

    Maharaja, when you said that my intuition was wrong, I apologized. But in my third letter I decided to explain this word because I did not want to be misunderstood.

    I was arguing against your decision of selling the farm, but all of a sudden it seemed that I was against the whole GBC and all ISKCON leaders. And so, devotees who have nothing to do with what I was talking about, like Jayapataka Swami, Kadamba Kanana Maharaja, Yasomatinandana, Purusatraya Swami, Vraja Bihari, Bhurijana, Sesa, Yamuna Jivana, and so many other leaders and GBCs could come to me and ask: “Yadu, why do you have misgivings for me. When have I done you any wrong?”

    Maharaja, do you see how the topic was switching? To avoid this, I explained the word intuition. But you have already said that it was a wrong one, and I have already apologized. Manonath, however, without reference to what had already been settled, comes around the circle.

    He says: “What's the problem in simply admitting that you wrote something wrong? Why so much word jugglery just to avoid admitting a mistake?

    Along with the fallacy of no reference to what has been already settled, he cannot miss the opportunity to use another one. To label and dismiss he inserts the word jugglery, which is already maligned amongst ISKCON devotees.

    14) Labeling and dismissing

    I speak in my first letter on the importance of decentralization.

    He says: “Where do you take such weird ideas”?

    When I answer that I got it from Srila Prabhupada, he bites his tongue. Then he says that he is in favor of decentralization. But since he cannot differentiate between past and future, between promise and fact, and between initiative and permission, it is also as sure that he cannot differentiate between decentralization and centralization.

    Maharaja, please notice how he proves (with more fallacies) that he is not against decentralization:

    15) Defeating himself, labeling and dismissing, and ad hominen attack: Three in one.

    He says: “I am not against decentralization. Even during Bhagavan's time (who was the most centralizing person I've ever met) the concept was applied. Not in an oniric fashion as you propose, though, but in an intelligent way”.

    By saying that he was applying this concept in Bhagavan’s zone, he shows that he mistook centralization for decentralization. He was hold up as a Regional Secretary by Bhagavan’s power, and when Bhagavan fell, Manonath also packed. Why? Because he was an appointee, not a leader that fostered independent thinking. This is the real meaning of decentralization, that devotees become independently thoughtful. Thus when he tries to prove that he is in favor of decentralization he proves exactly the opposite, for no one could be an authority in Bhagavan’s zone unless he is of the same disposition.

    Then after defeating himself, he goes on to a second fallacy with elegant word, and dismisses my ideas by calling them oniric (meaning a dream). And then again he proceeds to the third one when he says “in an intelligent way”, using the ad hominem attack by calling me a fool. And so he has a record of three fallacies in three sentences.

    Maharaja, do you see how expert he is in the art of wrong argumentation? Do you understand now how it is impossible for me to answer directly to him? I am writing to you with the hope that you can see these things, although you too used a couple of fallacies in your first letter.

    16) Labeling and dismissing

    Again, addressing the topic of decentralization, He says: “Talking from the mental platform only produces confusion”.

    Mental platform is also a maligned term in ISKCON. Thus I am dismissed.

    17) Another three in one, in grand style

    I have argued that it was illegal according to ordinary laws that you put the property in yours or somebody else’s name, because it was donated to ISKCON, He says: How do you know that the GBCs didn't give permission?

    I am not talking about your having GBC approval or not. So he misses the point (first fallacy). Because I already have said in my second letter that “Of course, you need their approval”, he is addressing a point already settled (second fallacy). And because he defends an illegal action by saying that it is not so in view of your having permission from the GBC, he defeats himself (third fallacy), in the sense that instead of freeing you from legal liability he makes the whole GBC responsible.

    Maharaja, can you see his new record: three fallacies in one sentence? Is this worthy of Believe it or not? Does this qualify for the Guinness Book? I don’t know, but I am sure that Vraja Bihari would like to have these samples for a book: The Twenty-six Qualities of a Bad Argument.

    18) Labeling and dismissing

    When I point out a legal liability and take the trouble to explain it and to call it by its name, He says: “This paragraph is really nasty”.

    Maharaja, even you have said that the lawyer has advised you not to talk to mother Radha because it could be a liability. This proves that liabilities are there in one form or another. If your good lawyer sees this exchange of letters, it is likely that he says that writing to Yadu could also be a liability. But Manonath just calls me nasty, and the argument is dismissed. Maharaja, does this stand to logic?

    The fact that yours and Manonath’s letters are so poorly written indicates a lack of straightforwardness, otherwise it is very difficult to understand so many inconsistencies, such a great inability to argue.

    19) Labeling and dismissing

    When I say that the devotees are not likely to trust you because they have not been properly cared for in the past, He says: “That the devotees here have been disregarded is utter nonsense”.

    Maharaja, you yourself wrote me a two sentence letter. Is this not neglecting me? Is this not disregarding me?

    I don’t need to present more instances of how other devotees have been neglected, your two letters are the proof!, for I think that you and others can understand that if (in spite of your five statements that reflect our old relationship) you have neglected me, you are very capable of neglecting others...(perhaps even to the point of death!). Yes, Maharaja, spiritually you are drying up their lives, you are killing their enthusiasm to serve by having Manonath there watering their creepers with acid.

    The evidence? His own letter.

    Manonath has dedicated to me a good many of his favorite words: weird, dreamer, talker, word juggler, fool, speculator, nonsense, and nasty (and I am not exhausting the list). Is this not mistreatment? Is this not disregarding?

    If just while writing a letter to a person sitting on the other side of the world, Manonath uses so many mistreating words, then there should be no doubt that he is quite capable of mistreating a younger devotee disagreeing with him in his presence. If he is so abrasive with me, can you imagine how abusive he can be with a younger devotee who is economically depending on him, who has no place to go, who cannot defend himself philosophically, and who doesn’t know logic and karate?

    Maharaja, does this make sense to you?

    Indeed, the very fact that you have imposed Manonath’s authority on these poor souls is a proof in itself of your lack of concern. If Manonath cannot distinguish between promise and fact and other simple things, how can he guide or help anybody? If Manonath doesn’t respect himself for aspiring to be a puppet, how can he respect others and desire to help them to achieve their maximum potential? If he thinks that being a puppet is glorious and synonymous of authentic Krishna consciousness, how can he desire anything else than making others into puppets? Do you think that imposing Manonath’s authority on anybody is an act of kindness?

    Maharaja, are you proud or embarrassed of selecting Manonath as your representative? Specifically, are you not embarrassed of asking him to answer my letters?

    Maharaja, who can respect this decision of yours?

    But I was not thinking about Manonath when I said that the devotees have been neglected for the past so many years, I was thinking about your neglectful or incompetent non intervention during Bhakty Abhay Charan’s time. I could have not been thinking of Manonath because at that time he had not yet written this voluminous letter that throws so much boiling lava upon his head, that so clearly depicts him as an authoritarian, non humanistic character, as a person who is really difficult to relate to unless one is willing to fully submit to him, even at the expense of relinquishing one’s intelligence.

    20) Wagging the finger

    Not happy with labeling and dismissing something as “utter nonsense”, he resorts to another favorite technique of the authoritarian character. Assuming a position of superiority, he pronounces his solemn admonition.

    He says: “I invite you to be wary about sentencing about things you don't know”.

    As if wagging the finger, he gives me his warning. Should I not be able to recognize it as a fallacy, I would be trembling in fear.

    Maharaja, do you see this fallacy of trying to win an argument by threatening? Does this stand to logic?

    Manonath says so many things, that if someone is cooperative and serious and wants to preach, he is most willing to accommodate such a person. But I already pointed out that we cannot take his words as pramana, because he can not distinguish basic concepts like past and future, promise and fact, and so on.

    What does he mean by cooperative? A total willingness to follow his commands? A willingness to become “a sort of a puppet” in his hands? (And mark that these are not my words, but his.)

    What does he mean by preaching? To present the philosophy of Lord Caitanya with the same style of argumentation that he is showing us in his letters?

    Maharaja, with Manonath at the helmet, what kind of preachers do you want to create?

    Conclusion regarding Manonath’s Style

    The fact that Manonath has not argued very well, it doesn’t mean that I do not respect him, for I have respected even my five year old students, like Sri Ram and Visvambhara (Rupa Manohar’s and Pancagauda’s sons). Now they are young men in their early twenties and have surpassed me in every imaginable way, but when they see me, they smile and greet me. They embrace me, and treat nicely as if I were still their teacher. Why? Because I have respected them.

    In this letter I have not attempted to answer Manonath. What I have done is to show you his many fallacies, which make him impossible to argue with. To engage myself in an argument with him would become a useless endeavor. It would be more intellectually stimulating and a more rewarding challenge to teach in the Kinder Garden. It would be mentally healthier to admit myself in the psychiatric ward. Due to self respect I cannot do that, it would be a desecration of my intelligence, such a wonderful gift of God.

    But I respect Manonath, first of all because he is worthy of my respect as a person, as a devotee of the Lord, as Bhagavad-amsa. Not knowing how to argue and not being worthy of respect are not the same thing. In fact, every one is worthy of our respect and deserves our attention, even a baby, whose argument is only crying.

    In any case, nobody becomes useless for not knowing how to argue. But Manonath has given us twenty reasons to think that he is not qualified to present the philosophy of Lord Caitanya to the most intelligent and sensitive men and women of Costa Rica and Central America. (And remember, Maharaja, by no means have I exhausted the list.)

    It is impossible to preach the philosophy of love of Lord Caitanya, the Prema Thakur, if you don’t have love. It is impossible to love Krishna if you don’t love others, for everyone is His part and parcel. It is impossible to love others if you don’t love yourself. It is impossible to love yourself if you don’t have self respect. And it is impossible to have self respect, if you “would like to be a puppet”. To be a puppet is not the goal of human life, and certainly not the highest goal that Caitanya Mahaprabhu came to teach, prema pum-artho mahan.

    My contention is that both of you are devotees, but because you want to sell the farm you have taken the wrong decision. Therefore, although you want to justify it, you cannot. Otherwise it would not have been possible for me to point out so many defects in your presentation.

    My contention is that Krishna has not given you the intelligence to argue well. He is the supreme controller. He has promised to supply the intelligence to His devotees. He could have done so, but He didn’t. Otherwise why is it that you have not argued well?

    Can you make a logical inference that the Lord may not want His farm to be sold? Can you believe that it is the Lord Himself who has bewildered you? Can you believe that the Deities have accepted the farm and want to stay there? Can you believe that the Deity is a person, that They like the place and don’t want to go? Or you believe that the Deity is a commodity that you can move as you please? Think about this. Why is it that you have no intelligence to argue?

    So far, this contention is from the point of view of bhakti-yoga. Now, from the logical point of view you should be able to understand that if your intelligence has forsaken you even in the matter of writing a couple of letters, it would not be in its peak to manage a lot of money. If you two cannot think clearly now, what do you think that money is going to do to your heads?

    And from the astrological point of view you can be sure that Mercury is now low for both of you, otherwise you would not have written such letters, for Mercury controls the power of speech. (Parasara Muni says that this and other planets are incarnations of the Lord, graha-rupi janardanah).

    Mercury also controls the skin, the intelligence, farming and business. Because now he is not favorable to you, your letters do not reflect all the intelligence you are capable of. For the same reason you don’t want to keep the farm, although it has tremendous potential. And also due to your Mercury’s position for the time being, you cannot see the good business that it means keeping the farm. Mercury will not help you to do good business. Selling the farm will bring lamentable loss. Loss of money and loss of prestige.

    In my second letter, I have given some ideas regarding how to keep the farm, develop a community there and get some money, but for Manonath and for you (if he has properly represented you) it looks like a dream. It is not a dream. It is a vision, but it takes courage to have such a vision, and it takes a lot of work to implement it. I am willing to do it. You wait. I already told you that I will help you.

    Again, due to the position of your Mercury neither you nor Manonath can do anything positive with the farm now. Even the selling of plots is not possible for you, because on the one hand, you don’t have the faith in the possibility of the project, you don’t have the liking for the farm, and you lack the enthusiasm to develop anything there, and the conviction to inspire anybody to join you. On the other hand, you don’t have the ideal relationship with the devotees due to your authoritarian orientation. Therefore I have requested you to wait. I will help you.

    You know me, I am a man of patience. I have lived in Vrindavan through summers and winters, tolerating the heat and the cold. You know me, I have taken my time to learn Sanskrit, Hindi and Bengali. Without patience you cannot do it, for it takes time and dedication. I have written this long letter analyzing Manonath’s style of argumentation. This is also another proof of patience. I am presently taking courses in astrology. It requires a lot of patience and attention to detail. So you can believe that I have the patience to deal with the complexity in Costa Rica. I am unassuming and I am accepted there. Maharaja, you can believe this much, that I am able to help you. You know me well enough since our times as bhaktas in Hatillo, and you can know that this is true.

    Similarly, I also know you. I have seen your first days as a most exemplary brahmacary. I have seen you as a sankirtan devotee, traveling and distribuiting books all over Central America. I have seen you leading the sankirtan party, taking the devotees to different places, and I myself have accompanied you. I have seen you as the most humble temple president, simultaneously managing and going out on book distribution, never demanding that mahaprasada should be kept for you, for when you came back in the late afternoon. I am a witness of your strict sadhana and austere life. I have seen you taking sannyasa and pushing forward with humility. I have seen you becoming the GBC in a moment of Latin American crisis. I have seen you assuming the role of guru. And I have celebrated all this.

    Through all these years I have no reason whatsoever to think that you are not a good man, and I want to serve you. But I cannot subordinate my intelligence to yours. I have never done that, and I will never do it. However, I want to help you, and you should know that this is true.

    As a GBC you have removed yourself from the people you used to be in touch with. That has been a set back. You have been an honest parliamentarian, and I have seen you confronting Tamal Krsna and other gopi-bhavis in the courtyard of our ISKCON Vrndavan. But as a leader I cannot praise you, nor can I praise you for the arguments you have given me in your letters.

    Reflections about the Farm

    Maharaja, for completing my presentation in this case, I am telling you and others some of the advantages of this farm, some of the reasons why it should not be sold.

      1) The farm, as you know, is between two growing cities (Cartago and Paraiso). These cities are bound to expand until the farm will be completely surrounded by them.

      2) The land is completely flat, like Vrndavan, you can construct as many houses as you like. And the weather never gets as cold as here, and never at all hot. For some reason, the area was name “Paradise” by the Europeans who first arrived there.

      3) In the farm there is a well more than three hundred feet deep (a hundred meters), from which you can draw pure drinking water directly from a subterranean river. Water that could be easily packed and marketed. But most importantly, water that could sustain at least five hundred families.

      4) There is also a small river running through the middle of the property. Although its water is not for drinking, the river creates a nice atmosphere. It is surrounded by a natural forest of pine trees. Around this river a beautiful park can easily be developed. An architect or a designer can make the plans very attractive because of the natural facilities available.

      5) The farm is in the tourist route to Lankaster Gardens. Many people pass right by our gate. It is therefore a very well known area that anybody can find, with perfect access by car.

      6) The farm is close to San Jose, the Capital of the country.

      About forty years ago, when I was a student, I used to go on Sundays from San Jose to Cartago, just to recreate myself, to see a different atmosphere. (Cartago along with Heredia and Alajuela, was rated then as a second city of the country).

      At that time the bus ride took just an hour. From Cartago to the Lankaster Gardens, it was about twenty minutes also by bus (the farm is before the Gardens). So, now, with the new high ways and private transportation, it must be less than an hour from the Capital to the farm (and that also through beautiful scenery).

      7) The soil of the farm is good for agriculture. It can produce a variety of vegetables, flowers, and fruits.

      When I visited there in 1989, there were oranges, chicos, and another Costa Rican fruit called nisperos. There were potatoes, cabbage, eggplants, cauliflower, carrots, and some other green leaves. There were also beans. All the flowers used for decoration and garlands were produced at the farm. There were cows and enough milk for more than twenty devotees.

      8) The farm’s value is bound to duplicate or triplicate in a matter of years.

      You told Aniruddha that now the farm may be worth three and a half to four million dollars. But I can tell you, Maharaja, that because the nearby cities are growing, very soon it will be surrounded by good neighborhoods and then it will be worth much, much more.

      9) By using the land and selling plots as I suggested in my second letter you can get a million dollars in no time, and still keep the farm with a community of devotees (instead of selling it to the karmis).

      Why do you think that the developers are going to buy it? To make a foolish investment? No, these men are tigers in business. They will buy only to profit.

      But we can do the same, we already have the customers. A little marketing and the next thing you know is that you have a hundred devotees there.

      Since I wrote you my second letter on October 25th, a little more than a month ago, five devotees who have read it told me that if such a plot selling would actually happen, they would like to buy a plot there. This means that more or less in a month or so, I would have collected for you fifty thousand dollars.

      10) When a Vaisnava community is established there and the cities come closer and closer to the farm, you can also have the first class restaurant and boutique in the farm itself. The devotees would be the main costumers, as always happens around the temples (Alachua, Los Angeles, Vrindavan).

    I can enumerate more reasons, but I think ten are enough to convince you and others to stop the selling of this farm.

    You want to sell it because you say that you don’t have devotees. But how is it that having money is equivalent to having devotees? Money is not such a miraculous thing. Money in itself will not make devotees. If you have no devotees on the farm, you will also not have them in the city. You may have employees, but that is a different thing. You may have young unemployed men willing to try spiritual life and serve for free in a restaurant under Manonath’s authority in exchange for some prasada and a place of residence, with the hope that “this may work”. But that is a very limited project, a very limited ambition.

    To attract devotees you have to change your attitude a little bit, Maharaja. To attract the most intelligent men and women, who are not in need of food and shelter, and who have good jobs and sufficient education, money is for sure not enough.

    To attract the devotees who are already established in Krishna consciousness, who have more than twenty years of sadhana, who are more than fifty years old, who are economically and psychologically independent, money is for sure not enough. You need to change your attitude a little bit, Maharaja.

    The devotees are already there. But you have to relinquish unilateralism, authoritarianism, and autocracy. Then they will automatically come to your help, because you have a saintly personality and you deserve help.

    Maharaja, see the MVT. It is an ISKCON project, but followers of Narayana Maharaja (like Raghunath, mother Manjari and mother Karta--Virabahu’s wife) have their apartments there. Dhananjaya, the administrator, collects the income and has no problem. During festival times, the MVT restaurant and guest house are full of Narayana Maharaja’s followers, and again, the administrators just collect the money, and nobody is hurt.

    Take also the example of Alachua. It is an ISKCON community, but it tolerates variety. We have there the pure iskonists, the ritviks, the poisonists, the antipoisonists, the geebeeceeists, the antigeebeeceeists, the narayanists, and even followers of Ramesh Baba, like Radha Jivan. But they are all living there without harming each other, and all of them come together for important festivals and chant Hare Krishna. In fact, they always chant Hare Krishna.

    Since in Costa Rica we cannot change the reality that there are devotees from different camps, then for unity and harmony we have to apply the same formula--harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam. This is the movement of Lord Caitanya, this is His mission. Srila Prabhupada is His pure devotee. Their missions cannot be different.

    It was only to explain this verse that the Lord wrote the Siksastaka. It is only through this verse that the yuga-dharma is established. And it is only through this verse that prema-bhakti is achieved. Therefore I have requested you that on the basis of this siddhanta let us use the farm to create a community of Gauranga bhaktas. Let us create a temple for Harinam, a Parikram Marg for Harinam.

    This idea is perfectly reasonable and within the limits of reality. It is not a dream. It is a possibility. But you and Manonath, due to a Mercurian problem, cannot implement it. And again, due to Mercury, even if you sell the farm, you will not be able to do much. The money will be scattered and your reputation will suffer. There is no way that you can gloriously exchange this farm for any project in the city.

    I have the vision and the faith in the project. I have the health and the endurance to implement it. I have the enthusiasm to inspire participation, and the acceptance in the Central American area. (I am hiding now for a particular purpose, but even by my horoscope it is seen that people gather around me. It has happened in the past, it will happen in the future.) You only have to wait.

    The project as I have depicted will happen if we allow it to happen.

    I am willing to help you, to help both of you. Please wait. Don’t sell the farm.

    Your old acquaintance, friend and servant,
    Yadu das.



    Dear Guru Prasad Swami:

    Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

    Once more, a new letter (the fourth one) of Yadu came before I could receive your reply to the previous ones-the one you personally told me you would obliged.

    Actually, I was about to write inquiring about your long delay in answering Yadu's letters. Now, it's too late, Maharaja. Yadu has once again brilliantly uncovered what I personally have witnessed in my 30 years of relationship with you: your total lack of regard for other's people concerns. Treading the same path, you are unconsciously following the sick pattern of your youth: you are so neglectful, so irresponsible, so hard-hearted, that you can go all the way even to the extreme, and in spite of desperate screams and appeals, of letting your own nephew to collapse.

    In the first letter, Yadu exposed your lack of fullness in sattva-guna. In the second letter, he masterfully portrayed your authoritarian profile (I called it a “magnetic resonance scanning”.) An now, Yadu has performed a very elaborated but successful “autopsy” of both you and Manonath’s lack of good judgment or, in psychological terms, your irrational attachment to dysfunctional dynamics. The ones that have cast adrift the good boat Srila Prabhupada constructed and then gloriously set sailed. Yes, figuratively Yadu performed an autopsy, because he went deeply inside your psyche to pull the truth and along with it, the soiled coverings of your minds.

    Even using the proper "tune"-the one you high-ranked ISKCON bureaucrats demand, and resorting (the fruit of many years of assiduously cultivating sattva-guna… By the way, do you remember when you scoffed at the devotees living in Vrindavan, saying ”it’s better to preach whatever Krishna consciousness you have grasped instead of leading a ‘solitary life’ in Vrindavan?” If you don’t, I do remember very clearly, Maharaja) to the most well-articulated, brainy, and above all, humanitarian rhetoric, you have failed miserably to reciprocate with a fellow, well-meaning God-brother. Shame on you!

    When I read Manonath reply to Yadu’s letters, I thought because you were in a hurry and in the middle of so many events in Mexico (Ratha-yatra, meetings, etc.), you had had postponed your most anxiously awaited answer, and hastily asked Manonath to refute Yadu’s points. I couldn’t believe (and still refuse to believe) that you consider Manonath’ botch (the Spanish word mamarrachada is a more accurate word) as a worth, serious, and efficient response to Yadu’s charges and proposal (about the farm.) It is the least I can expect from a GBC, the local “official appointee” of the managerial body created by Prabhupada.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will wait a couple of weeks more for YOUR reply, because Manonath’s fit of rage and arrogance is just an insult to both Yadu’s and my intelligence. In fact, is an insult to anyone who cares and is willing to preserve Srila Prabhupada’s legacy.

    Oh, Maharaja, you are acting in such an absurd way! Anyway, I will keep my personal opinions for a further occasion. Meantime, I beg you to please be serious, responsible, and answer Yadu’s three (3) letters. Personally, I don’t agree with Yadu when he says you have a “sword”. History has proved that the pen is mightier than the sword. If you don’t believe it, then read about writer Juan Montalvo. In the nineteen century, the Ecuadoran dictator Flavio Eloy Alfaro imprisoned him for writing “nasty” articles about him. A couple of months later, a revolution took place and as a result of it, Montalvo was freed. His first words to the exuberant crowd were: “My pen made him fall!” [‘Mi pluma lo derrocó’.]

    We are all insignificant devotees, Maharaja. If we are really objective, your contribution is almost nil to Srila Prabhupada’s movement; rather, has been detrimental. We expected a lot more from you, Maharaja. In your next letter, you have plenty of time to make a deep, sincere introspection; to purge your conscience and, as a result of it, vindicate yourself. Please show us that Krishna consciousness can produce a change of heart.

    Lastly, I don’t get tired of asking again and again: Please allow Yadu the time he has so vehemently ask from you.

    Your friend (the ones who dare to tell the truth),

    Aniruddha das

    PS.: After forwarding to our God-brother Praladanath Prabhu (ACBSP) a copy of Yadu’s second letter, he replied to me very enthusiastically: “Yadu’s idea sounds wonderful! If he actually gets the opportunity of implementing it, I’m willing to move to Costa Rica and work with him.”



    Guru Prasad Maharaj:

    Dandavat pranams. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. It has been some time since I wrote you and now I want to take advantage that Yadu’s Prabhu’s letter was also sent to me also. I feel grateful with Aniruddha Prabhu for doing so and I would like to share with you my thoughts about this.

    Yadu Prabhu has shown masterfully a great display of arguments to show you many aspects of what proper behavior amongst vaishnavas should be. For this you must be grateful. It is a sign of respect and care to give so much time and thought to a friend through a letter. This is the higher education we need.

    So many years have passed and you keep grasping at your position from which you must have seen things that surely make you sad, distressed but also ashamed. I hope there are also things that make you happy and proud.

    Not only that the institution you were in charge of did not grow--that means it was not even maintained-- but has actually decreased to the point it has almost vanished. I wonder what Srila Prabhupada would think at these results.

    We already had spoken at length in the Latin American Reunion in Peru so many years ago, about you not being able to solve simple matters that only needed some infusion of trust and hope in the devotees’ minds. A sense of enthusiasm [to inject in the devotees’ minds]it was your job to perform. Your duty was not to go out and work to collect money to maintain programs but only to enthuse the devotees to work for Srila Prabhupada. To give them a sense of unity and affection. But in order to do this you must earn their trust and love. This is something you must work hard for. It does not come free or cheap because you arrive labeled as authority. We are all expecting that from devotees, specially from the older ones.

    But by the results we can only see big time failure.

    All these Latin American countries are full of people with desire to listen to absolute truth, to feel and become part of a real family which will give them hope and a real sense to live. Everywhere we go we meet people with the desire to listen the proper arguments that lead them to chant and carefully listen to the Sound of the Holy Name. Everywhere devotees are preaching this, there are wonderful results.

    We have seen no results on your part. At least I have never heard of you preaching vigorously planting the seed of devotion in people’s hearts and minds. Just traveling and touching you feet here and there will not do the job. And still you claim to be qualified to take decisions like selling land without the approval of all the devotees involved.

    Accepting even menial service from devotees is a great risk if you are not conscious of immediately passing it through to your Guru and Krishna. What to speak of manipulating things, devotee’s hearts and minds to establish yourself as leader and authority.

    No wonder so many older devotees took a step back. Many of us feel cheated and ashamed by the ways things were managed under the name of keeping and maintaining Srila Prabhupadas mission.

    My conclusion: For your own sense of sanity and well-being, either you leave your post and let the managing and authority be taken by someone else or you take a serious step forward towards gaining the love and trust from the devotees you desperately need in order to push Srila Prabhupada’s mission forward. This second alternative seems to me closer to attain for you after so many years of traveling in Latin America back and forth. After all, how many times have you traveled north to south and back? By mow you must know hundreds of people you need to make your service a success.

    Hope this finds you in good health and to hear from you,

    Prahladanatha das


DEAR READER, DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT WAS THE REACTION OF GURU PRASADA SWAMI TO THE BRILLIANT 4TH LETTER FROM YADU?

IT TOOK MAHARAJA A FULL MONTH TO MANAGE AN ANSWER. HE BEGINS WITH A PALLIATIVE LETTER PROMISSING A FULLEST RESPONSE LATER ON. IN BETWEEN, ONE OF HIS FRIENDS, NARAYAN DAS, CONTRIBUTED SOMETHING IN HIS SUPPORT. THEN MAHARAJA AGAIN ANSWERS, BUT HE SAYS THAT HIS ANSWER IS NOT YET COMPLETE, THAT YADU SHOULD WAIT MORE. THEN, AFTER MUCH WAITING, MAHARAJA WRITES WHAT HE CALLS HIS “FINAL ANSWER”.

TO THESE MANY LETTERS YADU ANSWERS POINT BY POINT. TOMORROW YOU WILL FIND ALL THIS IN THIS SAME COLUMN.

In the meantime, 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.


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.

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



Homepage


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

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

Copyright 2005, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.