Today you find the assitential letter that Narayan das, an old friend of Guru Prasad Swami, sent to Yadu Prabhu. And finally, Yadu’s fifth letter.
To their arguments Yadu respond with a conscientious and fearless analysis of more than forty lucid pages. After reading it, Maharaja and his friends decided that it was better for him to take a leave of abscense. If you are short of time, you can go directly to Yadu’s fifth letter, because by reading it, you will be able to grasp the arguments of both sides.
I think that all this exchange is very educative and it is worth posting and reading.
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 die.
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
December 14, 2006
My dear Yadu Prakash Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada our beloved Spiritual Master and my eternal father. May I always take the mercy from his Lotus Feet and may he give me the intelligence to speak or write properly so that I may appropriately convey my message and avoid any offenses.
This is Narayan das of Costa Rica time 1974 to 1978 offering my vaisnava greetings and best wishes. Prabhu, I have been following, in part, your letters to Guru Prasad Swami (and also that of Anhirudda) and feel that I would like to make some short comments on of those points you raised. I have also recently spoke with Maharaja in the past few days and I understand that he will be thoroughly reviewing your letters to him and replying in depth quite soon. Due to my previous involvement with Costa Rica and knowledge of Latin America over the last thirty years in general along with my thirty two year history with Guru Prasad Swami I feel I have some privilege to speak here about some subject mentioned in your letters.
I do not intend nor do I have the time to spend the hours of writing in order t respond to you many points. I believe they can be evaluated under a few specific heading and I only want to direct you to a few considerations.
GPS has made the endeavor to preach and later GBC manage for, I believe, approximately the last 28 years. Over those years we have met or traveled together many times and regularly talk or have talked about the zone. If we did an audit or review of Maharaja's success or failures and if we agreed to the analysis criteria he may not score very high on the success chart. Yet what, according to Srila Prabhupada is the basis for success; for is it the number of devotees that are made or the amount of Laxsmi that is earned or the overall commitment dedicated to preaching?. What I see is that GPS has stayed in the Zone no matter what and that is commendable. If he was to be replaced now or anytime over the years why did it not happen? I know for a fact that GPS is not attached to this position or management or big number of devotees, therefore it appears to me, for better or worse, that he saw it as his duty to Srila Prabhupada. If you think that he is just attached to the position then ask him to leave or have the GBC approve his resignation for I am sure he will immediately accept it.
You see Prabhu if you think that you can solve the problems there then get out of Vrndavan and so something. This was SP message. This expression put up or shut up is quite appropriate although maybe somewhat crude. You see I don't think you have shared his last 28 years of experience and I do not think you are even aware of all the things he does behind the scenes right now like paying so much Laxsmi out of his own sannyas pocket to pay for lawyers in CR and elsewhere, rent in Columbia and elsewhere and so on, funds to support a temple business or a devotee or loans to people who never pay him back. I also may think GPS has made many mistakes or is a lousy manager, but I can only offer my opinion to help him unless I am willing to do something myself. So what is the issue that you do not like his decision on the farm sale and you have criticisms on his overall management? The latter is simple because Maharaja would never argue with you that he is a good manager only that he prays that somehow or other he gets it right sometimes. So if he is so bad then replace him. Please send me the list of possible replacements for review. In the former I say you get off your - you know what and go there and see what you can do. I am sure GPS would stop the sale of the farm for at least six months to give you a chance to change things around. Frankly if you won't do this then I feel you really do not have much to say or offer and your opinion should only be given if requested.
Next I want to say that how in the world do you think people, anyone, myself or GPS has 10 hours read over, outline the points and then respond to each one from your letters. Maybe you have this time, but most people do not. If someone has the courtesy and the time possibilities to do so then they are either doing very little preaching them selves or, like GPS has to wait a week or two until he has the time and place to consider these voluminous letters with dozens of issues and then reply. Frankly I think if one does so it is out of love, friendship and the goodness of their heart. He does not owe you any explanations and so if he does take the time to respond consider it meritorious. If you think that the situation is so critical and that so many people's lives are at stake or that Maharaja does not have such a good relationship or does not understand or whatever and you need to tell him that then you are greatly out of touch. He understands all of it, but again for right or wrong he may have a different or a very different perspective on the matter then you or others. Again if you do not like it and it does not add up then ask him to step down or have him removed, but you and others better be ready for this thankless task and jump in. Simple, if you can do a better job then he or Bhakti Bhusana Swami and/or Manonath then do it. On the other hand if you think that you have so many new ideas to consider then instead of spending hours of time writing call on Scape and discuss it first hand. This is much more personal and you will interact deeper, more personally and understand, right or wrongly, better or worse, accept or reject it will be immediate.
Here is another point about Manonath Prabhu. First of all if you spend twenty plus years trying to get help in the most difficult, poorest zone in the world and in addition do not have the skill or talent or even propensity for management like GPS then what do you do? You simply do your best and take what Lord Krsna has to offer and make the most of it. If it does not work out, even though you will be criticized up and down, you try to do you best with what you have. Remember SP and making battle field appointment of so many unqualified men. So sure Manonath just may not be the right man for the job or zone being too much from the old school, to autocratic and heavy and absolute and a lousy debater or arguer and all that and so what? What do you and the others got to offer as a solution except giving your opinion or instructions or ideas from eight thousand miles away. Look I gave GPS some considerations about Manonath back some time ago, so what should he do. Give him a chance and if he does not work out like so many before him then once again a change will be necessary and Maharaja will do it. Just also consider that anyone gets disgusted with a situation like getting good leaders that keeps repeating it over and over again and again with no relief and no answers. So, my friend, once again it goes back to the same story you do it or find others who will do it or prepare a list of people that will come and do this successful job in Latin America which everyone in the world knows it is a pain in the butt thankless task.
Now you can also consider the GPS has not been successful with his preaching because he has not made quality devotees to be leaders or has not inspired these wonderful, talented and skillful existing devotees to do the job. Maybe, if for example, the Mexico Yatra did not have over 25 revolutions of leadership takeover in the last equal number of years such a person may come forward and do something. Anyhow we can also make the case that GPS is not such a good preacher or he does not know how to touch, move and inspire the congregation of ashram devotees to contribute their time and money to help make the temples a successful place. If you think this then once again find a better main preacher. When it comes to those productive devotees at the CR farm what have they contributed in the last five years to preaching, making new devotees, sankirtan and book distribution?
One thing though never, and I say never make reference to Radha Krishna who spends his time making offenses and criticizing while stealing the heart of Mexico's business and income in incense by starting his own business off the back of the Temple's pat efforts for his own self aggrandizement and sense gratification. Just do not give some value to a person who fell from sannyas, left the important service of Spanish BBT and book publishing and then has given little or no help to the Mexico Yatra using GPS as his excuse. In fact I am being kind and not telling the half of it. I am not judging him here, but when someone, in a letter, gives someone like RK some value it irks the heck out of me I must speak out; otherwise I offer my dandavats to him and wish him well.
I covered the things I wanted to speak about and I am not looking for a big discussion on the matter for I offer it for your consideration in connection to what you have written in part. I have no wish to debate of address all your issues. GPS knows I have not agreed with him many times and in private have made my comments and held discussions with him in a spirit of helping him to do the best possible. He knows that we have some major disagreement on some very major issue, but I will not let that get in the way of our friendship which I hope we do have, but only he can confirm it. I truly believe that GPS is sincere, but things have never really gone very well in his zone although in some places like Trinidad it is progressing nicely and in other places like Columbia it is improving from it being at the bottom of the barrel a year or so ago. Anyhow I would not want this job for any offer unless my Spiritual Master himself ordered me.
If I have made any offense then please forgive me for I meant no harm and I am only trying to give a different perspective on the matter. I am not a very eloquent writer as you see so please over look some discrepancies I may have made. Just on a last note look into what GPS has done or accomplished and dwell on that before connecting on what he has not succeeded. Talk to him and see the austerities and sacrifices he has made for, at least, trying to please our SP. Maybe GPS should be selfish in a pure sense of the term and just focus on his Bhakti, yah why don't all of you make that possible for him.
Your servant and I will always remain Vaisnavadasanudasanudas,
Narayan das
FIFTH LETTER FROM YADU
Bhopal, January 15th, 2007
Dear Guru Prasada Maharaja,
Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you very much for your detailed response. You have honored me with four letters of respectable length. The first one was a Palliative Answer (12-8-06), the second one your Response (12-16-06), the third was an Addendum (12-07-06), and the fourth your Final Answer (12-27-06), a total of twenty pages, including Narayana’s letter. For reference I have capitalized them, but I am taking them as a unit.
In the first part of this letter I deal with the incidental things that have come up during the course of the argument. In the second part I address the core issue. I take in consideration the different statements that you have made throughout your four letters regarding a particular point and answer them in a single section. Although this letter cannot be succinct, for easy communication I add small leads at the beginning of each section.
Please don’t mind the extension of my letters. After all, we don’t write to each other very often and we are discussing a very important topic, with a clear idea in every paragraph. Apart from this, these letters are also preparing the grounds for our service relationship, how you and I are going to serve together in a short time from now, to the same devotees. I am looking forward to it, and I hope that you remain as the highest authority of ISKCON in the area and grant me your much valuable and appreciated support.
PART ONE - INCIDENTAL TOPICS
“I Won’t Bow My Head”
First of all, I have to acknowledge that your response is excellent because you have taken the time to think. It is well organized, it is quite reasonable, and you have offered a plausible justification for you two-sentence answer as well as for your desire to sell the farm. I have no doubt that you have demonstrated well your ability as our parliamentarian representative and have given us an answer that can be called acceptable or perhaps even compelling, and for those who support or advise you on this issue it may seem undisputable.
However, there are some incongruities, awareness of which may be useful for future presentations. The first one is that you spoiled everything with the closing statement of your Response: “I know that many expected that I should just bow my head and accept”.
This sentence tells us that you have written your Response in an endeavor to defend yourself. It is not the farm, it is not decentralization, it is not service to Srila Prabhupada or to the Deities of Nitai-Gaurasundar which count the most. This significant remark clearly indicates that the foremost thing in your mind is your own self. It is how you appear to others that has become the issue of concern, which goaded you to a laborious and seemingly reasonable answer. It is written not in defense of a cause, but rather in defense of the ego.
Your closing statement depicts you as an upset child with his arms across the chest: “I will not accept”. What is this sort of immaturity? Do you see it, Maharaja? Although you have made a good presentation, at the end you spoiled everything. And by the way, you also recognized that you were upset: “Another reason for not answering you is that I was a bit upset with your second letter”.
Continuing with your assertion that you will not accept, you say: “I will do so to any suggestion or comment that is applicable”. The incongruity here consists that in the body of your Response you said: “I would be willing to entertain many, or maybe all, of your suggestions for the future of Costa Rica, if you agree to come”. And again, in your Final Answer you repeated: “In relation to your three phase plan, I generally like it”.
If you are willing to entertain even all of my ideas, it means that they are reasonable, and your closing statement “I will not bow my head and accept”, is therefore unreasonable. Do you see this incongruity, Maharaja? My presence or absence does not deny the applicability of my suggestions.
The fact that you say that you cannot apply them unless I am there only speak bad of your good self. You are trying to defend yourself but with this kind of incongruity you are incriminating yourself.
“For Better or Worse”
On top of your mistake of spoiling everything with your closing statement, let me show you another great fault in your letter.
Referring to you, Sriman Narayan Das said: “Guru Prasada Swami has stayed in the zone no matter what and that is commendable. It appears to me, for better or worse, that he saw it as his duty to Srila Prabhupada”. When Narayan Prabhu refers to your management as something done in Latin America for “better or worse”, coming from him, who is our senior and a little rough in nature, it is acceptable as a justification of your limitations. Although he is trying to defend you, he actually incriminates you with such words, because “better or worse” implies that one may not be able do the best thing and has to be excused for doing even the worst.
But when you say: “For better or worse, Srila Prabhupada said in his last will that each property should have trustees”, you have made a terrible mistake. To say that Srila Prabhupada has done something “for better or worse” implies that among all the possibilities that he had, he did not choose the best, rather that he may have chosen the worst, but that we are stuck because it is Srila Prabhupada’s will. How can you, in all your sanity, have said such a thing?
Where from this total lack of soundness of judgment has come upon you? Srila Prabhupada is a pure and perfect devotee of Lord Caitanya. He knows bhakti as explained by Rupa Goswami: anukulyena krishnaanushilanam bhakitr uttamaa. Therefore, he performs only uttama bhakti, the highest type of devotional service, which is always the best for Krishna. But you said that he did something “for better or worse” and that also in his last will. In his last moments, when he had exhibited his highest degree of devotion, when he had achieved all his accomplishments, when he had had a whole life of meditation and tapasya, preparation, preaching, and awareness, at that time he did something “for better or worse”. Then, didn’t he do the best? How can you make such a statement?
The process of bhakti is anukulyasya sankalpah, pratikulyasya varjanam, accepting that which is favorable and rejecting what is unfavorable. But according to you, Srila Prabhupada in his last will was not aware enough and was unable to avoid the unfavorable, doing something “for better or worse”. How can he, whose whole life, from his first to his last breath, was meant only to fulfill the mission of Lord Caitnaya of prithiviti ache yatra nagaradi gram, sarvatra pracara hoibe mora nam, have done something unfavorable for the Lord’s mission at the very end of his life? No, he did the best, carefully meditating on the service of the Lord and the welfare of His devotees. Why so much carelessness when referring to Srila Prabhupada?
Maharaja, how can we explain this? Is this not due to desperation to defend the undefendable? This is a blatant error trying to justify a wrong decision. Coming from you, this is most lamentable and inexcusable; for sure, your biggest mistake. Enough to remove you as a GBC, enough to suspend you as a guru, enough to make one’s hairs stand on end in horror.
I have no doubts that Srila Prabhupada loves you, but he has withdrawn his mercy and allowed you to bite your tongue to bleeding, because what you want to do -selling the ksetra of Nitai-Gaurasundar- is not favorable for the expansion of Lord Caitanya’s mission, and therefore it is not service to Srila Prabhupada.
I also have no doubts that you love and respect Srila Prabhupada, but you have fallen miserably short with this statement. Please consider this and withdraw your wrong decision. I also believe that you would owe an apology to the whole movement, should these things come to be known to a larger audience.
Prabhupada and Property Trustees
When Srila Prabhupada instituted the system of trustees it was not “for better or worse”. It was not for the purpose that they can sell the properties. It was exactly for the opposite reason: to protect properties, to avoid that properties be sold. It was certainly not a license for foreign leaders, so that they could come to a country, sell the properties, and kill the enthusiasm of the local devotees. It was not with the intention to nip decentralization at its very roots, for decentralization is another child of his own genius for the expansion of Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s mission.
Incidentally, mother Radha put the farm in Bhakty Abhay Charan’s name because she trusted him more than she could trust the trustees. She put it in his name because she did not want that the farm be sold, as it is happening now, and as it had happened in other places, even in Costa Rica itself with the donation of mother Sevya.
Yes, mother Radha did not want the farm to be sold, and Bhakty Abhay Charan indeed did not sell it, because he knew that it was not his, but that it was for the devotees, for a community of Vaisnavas and for a temple of Krishna. It was for this purpose that it had been donated, and when Bhakty Abhay abdicated he left the farm in yours and Yamuna’s name. In this regard he left with his name clean, with his hands clean.
And it was also for the same reason -I repeat it again- to avoid that properties be sold that Srila Prabhupada established the system of property trustees, but you are doing exactly the opposite.
So, citing Srila Prabhupada cannot help you. If you are wrong, you are wrong, never mind how many times you quote him. If you are right, you are right, even if you cannot quote him even once.
Mother Radha and Prabhupada’s Mission
Referring to mother Radha you said: “Mother Radha Govinda did not actually donate the farm to ISKCON. She donated it to Bhakty Abhay Charan. Whether her inner desire was that he would maintain full control, or ISKCON, is hard to determine”.
This statement is contradictory and inaccurate in more than one way. It is contradictory because in your first letter you said that “the farm was given to ISKCON”. And it is inaccurate because, first and foremost, there was no difference between Bhakty Abhay Charan and ISKCON. He was sent to Costa Rica by ISKCON, introduced to the devotees there by another ISKCON leader, and he had a letter from ISKCON signed by three GBC’s and gurus specifically stating that he had been recognized in ISKCON as a guru, and that he was the ISKCON representative. There is no question that he was not an ISKCON man. He could move freely everywhere, not only in Costa Rica. He was welcomed all over Latin America, USA, Europe and India, and in all temples he was offered the vyasasana and the microphone, and all other honors due to a sannyasi.
And you yourself as an ISKCON GBC never negated before that he was an ISKCON leader. Although he was perhaps even antagonistic to you, you never told anybody that he was not ISKCON. Never mind that you did not get along with him so well, you accepted him as the ISKCON representative. So your behavior is the pramana that in Costa Rica he was the ISKCON leader.
In your Final Answer you give some reasons why you could not interfere with Bhakty Abhay Charan Swami, mainly that because when you became the GBC he had already established himself. But this is a very poor excuse because you know that in the past the GBC body has been powerful enough to sanction anybody. Indeed even the toughest of the toughest has been punished with suspensions, forced residence in India for short periods, prohibitions to visit the holy dham of Vrindavan, and even excommunication. Compared to these people Abhay was a poor and isolated sannyasi, and could have been easily reprimanded. That you opted for not putting the whole GBC body’s pressure on him is an entirely different thing, but you cannot negate now his status as an ISKCON leader.
So when he received the donation it is clear that he received it as ISKCON representative, and in the name of ISKCON. But Abhay clearly told mother Radha that the donation should not be put in ISKCON’s name, meaning not under the trustees, because he has experience with ISKCON management and wanted to avoid possible politics that may cause the property to disappear (as it is about to happen now). It was therefore clear to mother Radha that she was donating to Srila Prabhupada’s mission for the purpose of creating a community and spreading Krishna consciousness.
Furthermore, you have said: “Bhakty Abhay prepared the devotees to understand that his only authority was Srila Prabhupada”. So, to whose mission was mother Radha making her donation?
Do you see this incongruity, Maharaja? That now you are telling us that she did not donate to ISKCON. If so, then why should Abhay have felt obliged to you when he transferred the property? Bhakty Abhay Charan knew that “Here is Guru Prasada Swami, he is the ISKCON representative. I have received this in the name of ISKCON, so although I do not fully trust him, I should transfer it to him, and as a safe-guard, to Yamuna Jivana also”. The man behaved with all honesty. But for the worst you succeeded in removing Yamuna, and for this reason there are so many problems. Problems that Bhakty Abhay in his wisdom wanted to avoid.
Another inaccuracy is that you say it is “hard to determine” what was Mother Radha’s desire. Who do you want to impress with such triviality? Is she not still with us? Why is it so hard to ask her now? You said that in the past the lawyer advised you not to talk to her because it could be “a legal liability”. But now that the court cases are over, what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for you to go or send somebody to ask her: “Mother, we want to sell the farm, what do you think?” This is the simplest thing in the world that by no means can be called “hard to determine”.
It may be hard for you to approach her humbly, it may have been a legal liability in the past, but I tell you, Maharaja, that unless you respect her opinion, it is a moral liability.
Selling this farm has gone beyond legality. It is now a question of morality.
“Land, Labor...”
Now let’s turn to the other references to Srila Prabhupada, with which you are seeking support for your position.
The most prominent instance is the extract from the Conversations, where Srila Prabhupada said: “Four things are required: land, labor, capital, organization”.
Did you notice that Srila Prabhupada uses the word land first? He made this statement twice and in both instances he begins with the word land. Doesn’t this mean anything to you? Is it not a hint that land is more important than money? This is the first thing that we must notice, that your desire to sell the land is not supported by this quote.
Srila Prabhupada has said (jokingly, by the way), that organization and brains are less important than money, but he did not say that land is also less important. At the same time Srila Prabhupada is saying that money is a sign of intelligence, which means that intelligence is able to produce money, and not the other way around. This is the second thing we must notice, that unless you have a very intelligent plan, just getting money will not help you.
You are also missing the context, for here Srila Prabhupada is speaking about developing Mayapur, which can take place only with acquisition of land. This is another hint that money here means money for acquisition of land and for developing a project on the acquired land. It is never an encouragement for selling land to acquire money.
Similarly, you are also ignoring the history of how Srila Prabhupada acquired and fought for the property of Juhu Beach. At that time that property was far away from the city, in the middle of nowhere. There were also many problems, the sellers wanted to undo the deal and the dacoits were threatening to attack with pistols. Then Tamal Krishna Goswami, the GBC for the area, gave the land back and signed the papers, and with the money he wanted to preach in the city, just like you. But how did Srila Prabhupada react? Was he happy or furious? He fought, he really fought. I know a gentleman, about eighty years of age now, who told us that at that time he and his son used to spend the nights at the plot, serving Srila Prabhupada “with our revolvers in hand”. But now you can see how Juhu Beach is just in the middle of the city and how many hundreds of thousands come to the temple.
Even if we are very generous and imagine that this quote supports you in your endeavors to solve your money problems, it also supports those who object to the selling of the farm. For the sake of argument let’s say that the quote establishes equally the importance of money and the importance of land. If that were the case, you are also quoting it wrongly, because in logic to quote evidence that supports you and at the same time supports the opponent is inadmissible and becomes self-defeating.
Land and Brains
Maharaja, if you are really prepared to ignore Srila Prabhupada’s humorous mood in the Conversations, and if you are prepared to commit to the idea that only when you have money you can prove your intelligence, then please respect mother Radha and take her advise. She already proved her intelligence because it is she who donated the farm; it is she who could afford to spare such a property, whereas we are at the receiving end as mendicant sannyasis and poor Vaisnavas.
Yes, Maharaja, she should have full rights to tell us if she agrees or disagrees with the selling of this land. In this regard she has full moral rights and full intellectual rights. She has the full right to be the natural arbiter in this exchange that you and I are having. I am opposed to the selling of even a square millimeter, but if mother Radha supports you, then I will take a vow of silence on the issue.
Democracy
In another reference to Srila Prabhupada you said: “You favor democracy, I don’t, nor do I see that Srila Prabhupada did. Our system is varnasrama, not democracy.”
To this I again say that the issue is not democracy, the issue is decentralization. Don’t switch the topic. It is only in regard to decentralization that I have mentioned democracy as a means to that end. Now, being so, you cannot certainly say that Srila Prabhupada did not favor decentralization. And since decentralization cannot really exist without the full participation of the local devotees, it cannot be implemented by autocracy, nor can it be implemented by bureaucracy. So, what other means do we have?
If you think that you can implement it by autocratically appointing the local leaders, then it can never happen. The only thing you will achieve is a counterfeit, a disguised centralization. World leaders, like you, cannot really implement decentralization. They can only allow it to happen, they can support it, they can foment it; but they cannot create it, because by its very nature it can only take place with participation at the local level. And this participation at the local level is what we call democracy, which is not contrary to decentralization but the very means to achieve it, and therefore also never antagonistic to Srila Prabhupada’s mission.
Then you give us this brilliant argument: “Democracy is for detached persons with brahminical nature. When devotees who are attached to money, power, family, or sense gratification vote, they are swayed by their minds, senses, and desires”.
Your argument is begging the question. Who will not agree that the mind, perceptions and desires influence everyone’s opinions? Who can argue with this? But when you have Manonath and Narayan as your advisors and assistants, whose letters show everything, except that they are detached or clear headed, this argument comes back to you as a boomerang.
It is also not true that democracy is for brahmanas, for they guide themselves by the truth and by the sastras, not by votes. Demo means people, not brahmanas. Democracy is for those who want to make sure that their leader actually represents their interests. For you, Manonath and Narayana, the system should not be democracy but autocracy. This is the bottom line of your argument, which is therefore invalid and useless for preaching in the West, especially in Costa Rica, the country with the best democratic tradition in Latin America and perhaps even in the world. But above all, it is against Srila Prabhupada’s directives for decentralization.
Varnasrama
Regarding our system being “varnasrama, not democracy”, again, we should not switch the topic from decentralization to varnasrama. But since you have mentioned it, we can briefly say the following.
Varnasrama is a very complex topic, because it is a whole political system of how societies were once upon a time organized. The political systems that constituted a reality in bygone ages cannot be easily reintroduced in the modern society. This is one thing.
The second thing is that it is Srila Prabhupada himself who spoke of both decentralization and varnasrama, so we cannot take these two ideas as contrary to each other, and since democracy is a means to decentralization, democracy at a cellular level is also not contrary to varnasrama.
The third thing is that between varnasrama and decentralization, decentralization is a much easier thing to achieve from the societal organizational point of view. So, since decentralization is easier to achieve, then it should be first on the agenda. It should be taken as a short term goal, while varnasrama remains a long term one.
A fourth consideration is that for varnasrama we need a society, and for a society we need infrastructure, and for infrastructure in Costa Rica, we need the farm. But you want to sell it and talk about varnasrama.
The fifth point is that if we have to talk about varnasrama, why not begin with the head? In the evolution of any idea the head is the first thing that should be in place. So as a sannyasi and head of the not yet even incipient ISKCON varnasrama system, you, Tridandi Bhiksu Guru Prasada Swami, should not even be part of the management of the society, and should certainly not be sitting there taking the decision to sell the farm, because administration is a ksatriya function and sannyasis are beyond that social role. This is only to hint to you how far we are from varnasrama, whereas we are very close to decentralization. (In no way am I saying here that you should not be our GBC, the only thing I am saying is that the reference to varnasrama doesn’t support you.)
A sixth consideration is that since in the varnasrama system the protection of women is a key element, and given the fact that some ladies in your zone resent the way they feel treated, your allusion to varnasrama doesn’t give you any leverage.
A very respectable lady already told you that you are aggravating an elderly woman like mother Radha Govinda by filching and selling the farm she donated for another purpose, and that if you sell this farm, in the future people will not say that you sold it, but that you stole it. People will not say that you behaved as an exemplary Vedic leader of ISKCON but as an ordinary leader of Kali-yuga, dasyu-prayasu rajasu. (Srila Prabhupada: At this time the rulers of the earth will have degenerated into plunderers.)
And another lady who has most faithfully served the Deities at the farm for years and years even before you took over, has already referred to you as Sukracarya, for they feel that you are obstructing their service to Their Lordships Sri-Sri Nitai-Gaurasundar.
Are you not anymore afraid of the wrath of chaste ladies, of vaisnava ladies, when even Bhisma and Drona and the whole Kaurava Dynasty were leveled to ground zero for not respecting properly a single lady? Don’t you realize that selling this farm is an insult to mother Radha? Don’t you realize the pain that you are giving her? Why do you want to ignore her old age, her white hair, her many years of service, and see her dying with sadness that her service to Srila Prabhupada and his movement, that her sacrifice and donation, has not fulfilled the purpose for which it was done?
As I already said, by age she can be our mother, and for others, a grandmother. Why do you want money at the cost of her sadness?
Invoking Srila Prabhupada on the questions of varnasrama and democracy cannot help you. It is indeed self-defeating.
Meagerness vs Magnanimity
For your credit, you have said: “Concerning mother Radha, in my own meager way, I have tried to communicate to her our desire to help her and Lila Sakti in some way, and I will continue to do so”.
There is no doubt that this humble mood is your saving grace. But why meagerness, why not magnanimity?
If I were in your position, with the authority that you have, with the influence that you have, with the legal power that you have, then considering that it is an honor if mother Radha, her daughter and her grand-daughters-Govinda and little Lila-would remain associated with us as residents of the farm, I would do two things.
Of the hundred plots around the Parikrama Marg I would beg mother Radha and her daughter to accept one each, whichever they want, whichever are best located for business, for example. And I would also beg them to accept a hectare of land inside the farm, to be selected after determining the areas for the temple and the parks. I would give them the papers which entitle them as legal owners, without them having to pay even a penny for the transactions.
The second thing is that from the sale of the one hundred plots (one million dollars), I would separate a ten percent for a pension plan for mother Radha, and after her demise I would name one of the parks as “Mother Radha-Govinda Park” and I would put her statute there with a signboard honoring her as the founding mother of the community.
It is not that I call this magnanimity but at least it’s not meagerness. If my mother gave me one thousand dollars for my pocket money as a student and I bought her a gift of a hundred dollars, I shall not have considered myself magnanimous, but at least I can know that my mother understood that I was appreciative.
If we give mother Radha and Lila Sakti something that may be worth five hundred thousand dollars, we should never think that we have given them five hundred but rather that they have given us five millions. We should not think that we are giving to them four or five acres but that they have given us fifty.
I will call this “A fragment of the history of how Vaisnavism took roots in Costa Rica”. I will not dare call it magnanimity. But all the Vaisnavas of the present and future will know that we have been appreciative. It makes me happy to think that in a hundred years from now the grand-sons and grand-daughters of Govinda and little Lila will come to the park and say “This is our great-great-grand-mother”. Thus we would have honored a benefactor of her caliber up to the fourth generation.
If we do this, Maharaja, I am sure that we will receive a lot of blessings because these ladies are magnanimous hearts, and thus goodwill will flow towards us from so many other corners that there will be no stopping of the prosperity of the movement in Central America.
(By the way, I have a sense of history and want to have a book, written by the year 2016-2017, to celebrate the 50th aniversary of ISKCON. It should be called The First Half-Century of Hare Krishna in Central America. It will be an important historical document for posterity. I know how to write it; Aniruddha also knows; but it and can even be assigned to some students as a University thesis.)
Prabhupada Sending Yadu?
Referring to my life in India you said: “If Srila Prabhupada were present and knew that a senior man with leadership qualities is from Costa Rica, he would have sent him years ago to preach there”.
There is no doubt that this is a supposition, an assumption, to be sure. But let’s entertain it for a moment, just for the sake of argument.
For what we know of Srila Prabhupada, at first sight this supposition seems reasonable. But what would happen if I would tell him that there was one Yamuna Jivana there, who is also from the Central American area; who is also a senior man; who has been already twenty years in the movement; who has been the president of the farm for eight years; who was a signer on the property since 1986 to 2001 and whose honesty and capacity is thus sufficiently proved; who was the one who sat in court during ten years through six trials representing the farm; and who at the end was removed as a signer without any disqualification on his part, perhaps only because you wanted the farm in your name, and that now you are selling that very farm?
What do you think that would be Srila Prabhupada’s reaction? Don’t you think that he would reinstate Yamuna Jivana, and oblige you to include his name again as a signer?
Srila Prabhupada would never support or tolerate the disempowering of a devotee. For this he is like Lord Parasurama, who carries a big tomahawk.
As far my life in India goes, I have come here following the dictates of the heart and I have remained here on the inspiration of Caitya-guru. This I know for sure. It is my internal experience. It may not be possible to corroborate it by external pramanas, but it is a truth that it is known to me. And because Srila Prabhupada is non different from Caitya-guru, I have to stay here for the years that I have to. I have to take my internal experience as a command. However, I thank you for intimating that when I come back, it is because Srila Prabhupada is sending me.
The Trial of Patience
Again, in connection to my life in India you said: “You have been patient for umpteen years, that is a good quality, but now we require action”, as if patience and inertia were synonymous.
Patience is a quality of goodness; inertia is a quality of tamas. I gave you several examples of how I have been patient, none of them were examples of inaction. They were examples of perseverance. My intention when I said that I was a man of patience was only to give you the confidence that I can stick to a particular activity and don’t give it up. I wanted you to believe that when I go to your zone I am going to stay.
Now in this letter I want to tell you specifically that when I go there I will stay and help you for fifteen years. This is my willingness to put up. I will serve with you side by side, and you can know that “this man is there, has no plans to go anywhere, and has the determination to stay”. You can thus rely on me that I am not going to leave you in the midst of a difficulty. I want you to believe me, that’s why I told you that I am a man of patience, and you know that that is true.
In a ten days visit, as you say, or even in six months, as Narayan gives me, I cannot achieve something solid. I have to begin with a pilgrimage to all the houses of the householders, to see how they live, to see how they worship, to share with them my plans and ideas, to enrich myself and make sound friendship with them, for I am convinced that if there is no mutual trust our endeavors to spread Krishna consciousness cannot fructify and we will come to an impasse. Such trust cannot be built up in a short visit. But in fifteen years I can achieve something, for the devotees will also know that this man is there for a specific number of years with specific plans, and so they will trust me.
And afterwards, Maharaja, I will withdraw again. Taking your leave and your blessings I will come back to India, go to some holy place and spend the rest of my life in solitude. This is my offering and I am begging you to believe me and to accept it.
The Misinformation Theory
One of your favorite battleships to smash my arguments can be called “Yadu’s Ignorance”. Your letters, from the first to the last, abound with statements such as: Yadu is misinformed, Yadu is uninformed, Yadu is not fully informed, Yadu’s lack of information, Yadu’s misunderstandings, Yadu’s assumptions, Yadu’s misconceptions, Yadu is thousands of miles away, Yadu is not in Costa Rica, Yadu doesn’t know all the devotees, Yadu does’t know the facts, Yadu doesn’t know all the circumstances, Yadu doesn’t know the reality, Yadu is not realistic, and so forth.
All these words have been taken from your letters, but I don’t think that my arguments can be demolished, especially because you have liked my three phase plan, have agreed with decentralization, and have said that you are willing to entertain all my ideas.
It is interesting to note, however, that even you don’t know all the things that are happening in Costa Rica, for you depend on Manonath to inform you: “I asked Manonath to write you because he was on the scene and could give you a fuller perspective”. This means: “I am not on the scene and I don’t have a full perspective”. With this logic you have to accept that I know more than you, because the people who tell me are also on the scene, have been there for twenty or more years, know everything better than Manonath, and above all, are much more clear-headed than him.
Then you say: “If you were to go there now, or Aniruddha Prabhu, even to spend a week or ten days, carefully speaking to all concerned, then I would take such a person’s opinion much more seriously”. You want to undermine my opinion on the basis that I am not there, but you undermine the opinions of the local devotees who have been there for more than two decades.
I know two things: that the farm was advertised for sale in the newspapers and that Yamuna Jivana and others -including myself- disagree with this. These two are the facts, and based on these two facts I have argued.
Another thing is that I have been painstakingly meticulous from my second letter onwards to build up my arguments based on the feedback that I received from you and Manonath. I have taken your letters, analyzed them and sent my answers back. If in your letters there has been a lack of clarity this is a problem that arises due to how you make your presentation. You have given some excuses for this lack of clarity. However, it has been a recurrent pattern.
For example, in your Response (December 16) you have said that considering the many objections that you are facing, now you have decided not to sell the whole farm: “Even selling the first portion is time consuming and a slow arduous process”. Do you see this lack of clarity, Maharaja? How big is this “first portion”? If anybody agrees that you can sell it, out of the fifty acres are you referring to one acre or to forty-nine? Do you see how many things can be hidden in such imprecise terms? It is as if you don’t want to say the whole truth; and if we are satisfied... well, that’s the end of the story. And if we argue... then we are misinformed!
And in your Final Answer we have: “We will not sell the farm soon in any case”.
From one letter to another -from December 16th to December 27th- you changed from selling a “portion” to selling “the farm”. Do you see what I mean, O Great Master of Impreciseness! And again, what do you mean by “not soon”? Does it mean not before the celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of ISKCON? Does it mean not during the year 2007? Does it mean not before Janmastami? Does it mean not before the next GBC meetings? What does it mean, O Master of Misinformation Theory?
This reminds me of the ordinary politician, who is always expert in his talk to leave as many loose ends as possible, so that he can tie them later in whatever way it serves him best. It reminds me of lawyers who write their documents with so many loopholes that an ordinary fellow can never be sure of what is written there. Why have you allowed this style to pervade you? It is as if you are hiding something, and ultimately you will have to come to terms with this. Otherwise it will weaken your whole personality and credibility. It will make your presentation of the philosophy ineffective. For philosophy we have to strive to be rigorously exact. And this attitude has to be integral. You have negated that you are trying to hide anything, but the nebulous passages reappear.
Another thing is that my being in India does not obstruct me from knowing what is important: there is irritation. If from miles away I see black clouds of smoke rising from a mountain, I know that there is fire. Not knowing where exactly the fire is, for example, it is not a deterrent for the forest department to enter into action and raise the alarm, send helicopters, evacuate neighbors, etc. This is logic, and the aphorism is parvato vahniman, dhumat: that “there is fire on the mountain, because there is smoke”. You may call this an assumption, but the Indian logicians call it anumana-pramana (inference). We cannot reject it, for it is a valid means of knowledge.
Besides this we should remember that now we are living in the Cybernetic Age, the age of electronic miracles, and I can know a lot through this means. Even while in India I can get photographs and clear indications by direct perception. For example, I have seen photographs of the squatters’ settlement. It is a very small thing, perhaps forty families, living by the side of a rural street. It is not a huge demographic explosion of squatters taking over the farms around us. They are just poor people, and their settlement extends only on that street and only for about 250 to 300 meters. That’s all.
And on top of this I do know the area personally, I know the country, and I am fully aware of the rising price of the land. I also know perfectly well that when you took the program from Abhay it was not at all as you have described it now. By the chance of destiny I happened to be there in person just a week before he left. Everything was in order: many devotees, good standards, good fences... You have given a number of reasons as to why things have deteriorated under your administration. Never mind if we accept or reject them, it does not add to your glory that you took over a farm program that was running smoothly and now you want to sell it, under the excuse that it is in a dilapidated condition.
So we do know enough and we do have enough bona fide reasons to oppose your decision of selling the farm, and to request the change to a local administration.
(By the way, the modus operandi of our precaristas or squatters is not that they occupy a farm by force, with pistols, like the gundas of India. That will never be possible in Costa Rica.)
“No Local Leaders”
You may complain that you don’t have any local devotee competent enough to lead the project. In fact you have openly said it more than once: “There is a need of a local leader, and we don’t have anyone”.
I disagree. On the one hand because this attitude is disempowering for the local devotees, and on the other hand because it spells incompetence for you. If it were so, what is the result of your thirty years of preaching in the area, of your twenty years as GBC, and of your fifteen years as guru?
I am only asking these questions so that local leadership should not be obstructed. But Narayan Das, who wrote a fervid letter in your support, said: “You can also consider that Guru Prasada Swami has not been successful with his preaching because he has not made quality devotees to be leaders”, and “We can also make the case that Maharaja is not such a good preacher, or that he does not know how to touch, move and inspire the congregation or asram devotees”. I cannot see how Narayan thought that these statements could defend you, but in any case they corroborate what I say, that the absence of local leadership reflects badly on you.
The local devotees are actually able to organize themselves. We have architects, engineers, yoga teachers, designers, artists, gardeners, accountants, cooks, businessmen, writers, translators, etc., all of them with individual healthy brains, who can also present the philosophy and worship the Deity. They are professionals, not just young men depending on charity.
In fact, they have already presented you a plan which you did not approve. They thought they could attract some type of tourism, to make weekend retreats and seminars for a sort of spiritual seekers. But you thought that it was not possible because of the weather. From your point of view the ideas were impractical and the plan was dismissed. But the reality of tourism is to attract the mind. People go to Miami, which is hot and humid. People go to Egypt, which is dry and hot. People go to Alaska which is cold and icy. People go to the Alps which are snowy and windy. People go everywhere.
The same person who enjoys today being at the beach will enjoy tomorrow being on the top of a mountain. If the devotees can create the infrastructure and make effective publicity -which they were thinking to do through professional agencies- people will flock to our place in Paraiso (Paradise in English). In fact, tourists have been coming for years and years to Lancaster Gardens, only a few minutes past the farm. They go to our highest Volcano, Irazu, which is foggy and freezing, and to Orosi -where there are five-star hotels- all of which is in the Province of Cartago, whose weather you don’t like.
If your style of management and preaching does not foster initiative, but rather hinders it, then it is like getting an Arjuna of the Eighteen Chapter and turning him into an Arjuna of the First Chapter.
In the Eighteen Chapter Arjuna stood up and told Krisna: nasto mohah smritir labdha, karisye vacanam tava: “I am ready, Krishna, I am ready. I have no doubts, I know what to do. I know how to put your teachings into practice.” But you disapproved of such confidence and initiative when it is coming from the local devotees. Why should you disable in this way their spirit of enthusiasm, their utsaha? Why should they come to the point of despondency, like Arjuna, who putting bow and arrows aside sat on the chariot and said: na yotsye, dharma-samudha-cetah, sadhi mam: “I will not fight, I just don’t know how. I don’t know my duty, I am bewildered. Please instruct me.”
This attitude in a devotee may be appreciated in the beginning. But if a devotee has spent twenty years in the movement and we would still like to see such a mood, then something is wrong with us. Our whole goal in preaching is supposed to be to bring the devotees to the point of Arjuna at the end of the Gita, and be able to tell them, as Krishna told Arjuna: vimrisyaitad asesena, yathecchasi tatha kuru: “From now on always consider very carefully what you have learned. And always do what you consider the most correct”. A preacher has to trust the person he preaches to this much, so that both can move forward.
This is the example of Krishna, we have to represent Him. If we achieve a different result we are presenting a dysfunctional version of the philosophy, thereby becoming misrepresentatives of the Lord. Those who learn from you will always feel grateful. By remembering what you have taught them they will feel as if under your tutelage, but actually they are not following you, they are following Krishna’s teaching. You will have set them free, and at the same time you will also have remained free.
Tiger or Ostrich
There is no problem with local leadership, but there has been a problem with encouraging it, or perhaps -to be more exact- with discouraging it. One word here, one word there, one gesture here, one gesture there, little little things, very, very subtle nuances, all these things count. And after some time we may have a tiger or an ostrich. We may have a leader or somebody who is afraid to see or move or act, who is only happy if he receives commands, because receiving and executing commands at least liberate him from the burden of responsibility. And the worst part of this is that unless we are very attuned to ourselves and to others, we may not even realize how these things are happening, or why we prefer to cripple instead of enabling and maximizing.
You don’t want to allow decentralization to take place right now, and you said that “I don’t have any alternative, other than the one we are proposing”. You have preferred to give all the credits to Abhay for the smooth running of the program during his time. But this is not a fact, although he has a credit, the local devotees working with him also deserve it. In order to belittle them you suggest that Bhakty Abhay Charan was the one collecting all the money and maintaining the project. “Bhakty Abhay would come, bring donations and tell them how to spend it”. This is not only not true, but far, far, far from the truth.
From your statement it is clear that you have no idea how much credit the local devotees deserve. The reason is very simple: you have never lived with them. Your occasional two-day visits combined with Bhakty Abhay Charan’s mood and your aloof personality, did not allow you access to the devotees.
Although in Abhay Charan’s time I only made two visits, they were longer than yours. And I did stay with them, share with them, and talk with them in ways that did not inhibit them. I saw them on the streets with big bags of books and incense. Yamuna himself used to go to Plaza La Cultura with books, have a table there and collected thousands of dollars. Once I met Sita near the bus terminal, overloaded with huge bags, going to the distant city of Limon. And there is a record that in a single week Giridhari collected twenty thousand dollars. These people were working!
Abhay was not keen to maintain anybody unwilling to serve. He was not such a bad leader that he would have to collect all the money and bear all the expenses. He paid for his air tickets, medical treatment and printing his books. He used to finance a Food for Life program in Nicaragua, and occasionally gave some money for special festivals. But the day to day needs and maintenance was all the responsibility of the devotees. You can even now go and ask him if these things are not true.
Therefore when you suggest that Abhay did everything it is a great injustice, a total lack of knowledge and respect, an unwillingness to recognize the endeavors of the anonymous devotees, and a psychological trait indicating difficulty in relating to those you consider inferior. It is alienation, it is blindness. And this is one of the reasons why they don’t want to work with you. Who would like to work for free for a leader who doesn’t recognize their endeavors?
Tigers at Sight
You said: “The majority of serious devotees in Costa Rica are not willing to wait four years or more for a change”. Following this you added that should I not come now, in order to produce a change you have no alternative other than selling the farm, since there is no local leadership.
First of all, I disagree with classifying the devotees into serious and non-serious, because nobody should be discriminated in this way, for one thing; and, on the other hand, because all of them want to see a change. I also disagree that there is no local leadership. Yamuna is a leader, Prithivi Pavan is another, Rati Gopi is another... Caitanyadeva, Lila Sakti, and mother Sevya, are hundred per cent responsible. Caitanyadeva can be the accountant. Mother Lila Sakti can be the treasurer. Mother Sevya can preach to the ladies. Mother Radha Govinda can be invited to come back and to become a permanent member of the Local Council. There are also many other devotees with twenty to thirty years of experience in the movement. We cannot say so nonchalantly that they are not competent. They have heard the Bhagavad-gita and at any moment, under inspiration, they can act like purusha-vyaghras, tiger-like personalities.
At present they may not feel encouraged because of so many reasons, but a decentralized administration with a Local Board of Directors would offer them an alternative. Let them organize themselves. You won’t have to worry anymore for expenses. You don’t need to give them money. Give them the right to self esteem, the satisfaction and the dignity of taking up the responsibility. And as the GBC you ask them for clear accounts, not for money. That should be an easier task for you and should relieve you from significant load of anxieties. This change doesn’t need four years to take place.
Yamuna can take care of dealing with the older devotees and promoting the selling of plots, which will develop the economy for Prithivi Pavan to continue his preaching in the city. These are just some ideas. The details of the local organization have to be decided by the local devotees, not by me, not by you.
Bring the Guillotine
You said: “I agree with you about decentralization, however, Srila Prabhupada never did it in India. Why?”
No. You don’t agree with me. You have to agree with Srila Prabhupada, who is the one who spoke of this. We both agree with him, and therefore it should be allowed as soon as possible. You and I may agree or disagree with what we conceive as the reasons why “Srila Prabhupada never did it in India”. The important thing is that we agree that there should be decentralization.
Now that you have to agree simply because you cannot afford to openly disagree with Srila Prabhupada, you want to delay it, and so you argue. “You can’t start with a troubled area, with immature devotees whose faith has been damaged”.
Wonderful point! It really sounds reasonable, but it is not. We appoint the leaders. They fall. We punish the followers. Abhay fails, so let’s ready the guillotine, not for Abhay, of course; much less for those who appointed him, but for his followers. Is this logic? Is this justice? How fascinatingly the mind works to alienate us. How profound the depths we can reach by identifying ourselves only with the leadership.
These devotees who after the fall of their guru have remained faithful to the philosophy, cannot be called immature, cannot be said that their faith is damaged. When faith has been betrayed by a leader, and yet they continue in the process, they are heroic survivors of Krishna consciousness. When they have gone from the personality cult to the shelter of the philosophy and Krishna, they have demonstrated maturity, understanding and responsibility. It is we who show immaturity when we call them immature, or when we expect that they should approach another guru. No, they have understood the philosophy that Krishna is the only shelter, mam ekam saranam vraja. So let’s take them seriously. They will respond to us with love when we trust and respect them.
Regarding your reluctance to begin with a troubled zone, we have to acknowledge the fact that it is at troubled times and in troubled places that great social reforms and changes have taken place. If the change to decentralization shall be effective, if it is to make any difference to you and to the local devotees, it has to be born out of necessity. If you expect that there should be smoothness in order to allow it, then in such times you won’t get the most dynamic men and women to take over. Intrepidness, courage, and the visionary mind are born in moments of trouble.
Although you have to helplessly agree with decentralization, still -invoking loyalty to Srila Prabhupada- you said: “If you come, and others, who are trustworthy, who are sworn to uphold Srila Prabhupada’s desires exclusively, then the seeds of decentralization can be planted”.
The seeds were planted by Srila Prabhupada a long time ago. It is time for us to look not for seeds but for trees. What is the need to keep trimming and trimming and trimming, so that we cannot even show a bonsai? Maharaja, I am seeing the trees, full of power and vigor, solid; but you are still looking for seeds. These trees will continue to grow in the development of their full potential. Don’t keep trimming. Don’t say that they are not fully grown. Don’t give this as an excuse. All of us have to keep growing. But we have to choose our outlook, are we going to see the glasses half-empty and feel pessimistic, or are we going to see them as half-full and be ready to move?
Those devotees who remain in the movement despite the fall of their guru, who are they sworn to if not to Srila Prabhupada? Regarding Srila Prabhupada’s desires, a lot can be said from different perspectives, because he had many projects, many ideas and the benefit of the whole world in his mind. But we have to focus on the problem at hand. And for the situation in Costa Rica Srila Prabhupada’s desires fit perfectly with the desires of Lord Caitanya of prithiviti ache yatra nagaradi gram, harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam.
A second wrong use of the guillotine is to apply it in Costa Rica for what others have done in Mexico, the United States, or India. “After seeing a devotee robbing in Monterrey; one after another exploiting the Spiritual Sky; Madhu Pandit taking Bangalore; the ritviks fighting for Long Island temple; I am convinced that when there are not enough local representatives then an international leader has to take measures to make sure that the properties are secure”.
Your conviction is flawless, but the argument is faulty because none of these reasons can be used against decentralization in Costa Rica. And by the way, “to secure properties” should never be equated with “selling properties”.
Not allowing decentralization has also an additional defect: the leader gets the blame for the errors of the people he selects. The “robbing in Monterrey”, the “one after another robbing the Spiritual Sky” are direct punches to your face, not from Yadu, but from your ill-advised intelligence. Especially when you give these as reasons for not trusting the devotees in Costa Rica, they come to you with such a fury as if delivered by Mohamed Ali.
The Emasculator
In a previous section I complained that you have bombarded me with a lot of words which by themselves could inhibit me to argue by giving me the impression that “I don’t know”. Those very words have also the power to make others think that “Yadu doesn’t know”. If I am unsure that I know, and others also tell me that I don’t know, then most likely I give up my own thinking, my own mental processes, my own use of my intelligence, my own intellectual growth. The issue would be over. You speak and I obey. I have also pointed out that sometimes our words can make a tiger and sometimes can only make an ostrich.
I think that so far I have survived the insinuations or direct statements that I am in ignorance. At least I have tried to argue and to demonstrate that I should not be disqualified. But does everyone have the mind that I have? Has everyone developed the same type of confidence? By age, by experiences, by a series of circumstances we are all different. And so where someone is able to survive others may perish or be permanently handicapped.
In this section I want to draw a parallel between the words you use for me and the ones you use for others, and consider the negative effects. While referring to the devotees in Costa Rica, you have spoken as follows.
There is not a single local leader. Somebody should come from outside. They are sentimentally attached. They have no place to go. Their ideas are theoretical. They are not practical. Some think that they are capable by themselves, but have inabilities... They are not capable. They are not trustworthy. They are not sworn to Srila Prabhupada. They are not intent to uphold Srila Prabhupada’s desire. They are swayed by their mind senses and desires. They are accustomed to receive money. The nature of poverty is that it brings out all bad qualities. Sometimes devotees maintain a hackneyed view and make communication difficult. Somebody who we mutually trust should come. I don’t trust the devotees, they don’t trust me either. This is a troubled area. They are immature. Their faith has been damaged. Srila Prabhupada did not entirely trust the local devotees, especially in India. The international leader has to make sure that the property is secure. When enough trustworthy devotees are in place...
This is a long list that comes directly from you. How do you think they feel when you speak like this? Should they jump and run to serve you and be willing and determined to stick behind you until their death? Or should they feel discouraged and even want a change of leadership?
Maharaja, I may not be able to tell you all the implications that your words have, but please consider at least part of the message they receive:
They are not competent to decide their own affairs. They are fit only to be subordinates. Their sentimentality doesn’t allow them to understand philosophy or what is good or bad for them. They stay at the farm because they are useless fellows who cannot earn their livelihood. They don’t know how to think or do anything practical. Without guidance they are unable to do anything right. They are incompetent like little children who sometimes may fancy themselves capable. They are irresponsible, unworthy of trust. They may become traitors to Srila Prabhupada’s mission and therefore they don’t deserve any facility.
The authority has to be on constant guard because otherwise their mind, senses, and desires will lead them to cheat. They are lazy fellows, not accustomed to work to solve their basic needs. Because they are poor they may even steal. They are begrudging and irrationally holding to the past. They are not capable and should not participate in decision making, because they are immature and have no strong faith in Krishna.
If in your letters to me, which you write very carefully, you come up in so many passages with words of this kind, it is also possible that you have used them long enough so that by now you have killed their good will towards you. I hope it is not so, because otherwise you are stuck unless you have the mystic power to resuscitate the dead.
These words, Maharaja, are like razor blades that emasculate the spirit of service and the creative intelligence. If you keep this razor blade in your hand, then after some time you would have killed ISKCON in your zone, because an institution without creative enthusiasm has to die due to its inability to regenerate itself. Let this sterile operation not be attempted anymore on our men and women. I am willing to help you, but please put aside your scalpel.
Selling the Farm
You have said that the devotees want a change. Selling the farm is no doubt a change. But is this a good change? Do the serious devotees want a positive change, or just a change “for better or worse”? Will selling the farm and getting some money solve the problem of local leadership? If not, are you going to follow in the footsteps of what you said Bhakty Abhay Charan did: “give them money and tell them how to spend it”? And so, with no leadership brains behind, for how long will the money last? Or would you prefer to give the senior devotees some money so that they can move aside? Is that what you want: to be without land and without the most valuable human resources?
And to whom are you selling? Of course, you don’t know, and probably you also don’t care, because it should be to whoever comes first or pays the most. But what if the buyer ends up being a representative of McDonald’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken? You complain that now there are some bad neighbors near the farm, because they are poor. But by selling a portion of the land you may end up bringing these kind of rich people nearer and nearer to the temple. Perhaps you wouldn’t mind this either, because it would give you the excuse for selling the remaining portion.
And how much are you asking? That also you have not said. And where are you going to buy? You don’t know as yet. And how long do you have to wait until you find a suitable place? It is not known (but you told Aniruddha that maybe one and a half or two years). Then what are you going to do with the money in the meantime? Just keep it in the bank, or give it to someone like Narayan Das to invest? And in any case, even if after two years the whole money is still there, by that time the farm’s value will have risen to the skies, and the money that you have will not be even a fifth of the value of the land. Not only that, but your dollars also devaluate, so whatever money you get today, if in two years you show us the same amount, you would have actually lost a lot.
In contrast to this, I’ve given you a plan with all kinds of specifications. I have said to whom you can sell: to the devotees. I have said where you can sell: around the perimeter. I have said how much you can sell: a hundred plots of 20 x 20, four hectares in total. I have said how much you can ask: ten thousand dollars a plot. I have also said that from the selling of plots you can get the money that you want. So that both things can be achieved: preaching in the city and developing the community.
But you reject all this by calling it theories: “Maybe nice ones, but theories nonetheless”. But, Maharaja, these are not theories; this is a plan. Plans and theories are different things.
“Ideas come and go easily”. No, Maharaja. Good ideas don’t come so easily. They are the products of experience, cultivation of the mind, intelligence, or inspiration. And they don’t go away easily either. Look how much difficult it is for you to give up the idea of selling the farm. You are mistaking ideas for fancy. Take the example of Vraja Vihari’s Ministry. Their contribution is to give ideas how to solve problems. If you think that ideas are useless you better dissolve the ISKCON Resolve.
The Deity and the Farm
One of my arguments was that you should not sell the land because it didn’t belong to you but to ISKCON; that ISKCON in this context meant ISKCON of Costa Rica; and that ISKCON of Costa Rica meant the devotees living in Costa Rica. And in a later letter I also said that the farm belongs to the Deities, because “they have accepted it and want to stay there”.
You answered: “You say that the farm belongs to the Costa Rica devotees. I say that it belongs to the deity and to ISKCON”.
Actually, Maharaja, you are not saying anything different than what I said. However, you carried on with your non-argument and added that “the GBC is the ultimate managing authority”.
To this I reply that you cannot invoke GBC’s supreme authority everywhere because it becomes a trite argument, an arthritic argument without power to grab and hold, punch or knock down. Besides that, it is not called for in this context since I am not questioning the GBC authority as a whole, nor am I even questioning you as our authority. Rather I am appealing to you because I know that you have the authority to stop the sale of this farm. I am only disagreeing with a single decision of yours, so there is no need to invoke “the ultimate managing authority”.
I have already argued how in our context ISKCON specifically means the devotees of Costa Rica. Therefore I will deliberate now on what does it means that the land belongs to the Deities.
From the philosophical point of view there is no difference between the Lord and His arca-vigraha, and no difference between the Lord and His paraphernalia. Since the Deity is the Lord Himself and the farm is His property, then there is no difference between this farm and the Deity. Both enjoy the same sacred status. And just as the Deity cannot be mutilated, cannot be broken into little pieces and sell them as relics, so this farm cannot be cut into pieces and sold to the karmis.
As we understand that the Deity is an expansion of Lord Caitanya, we have to understand also that this land is an extension of Mayapur dham and also an extension of Vrindavan, for it is said: “Wherever You are, that is Vrindavan”.
So, how can we, the servants or aspiring servants of the Deity, who by a token of some great good fortune have received from the inspired heart of mother Radha her generous gift for the service of the Lord and His devotees, just take the freedom to sell it to the karmis? How can we just cut it into pieces and sell one portion here and another portion there to the ordinary people, who, as I said before, can be even the owners of McDonald’s. How can we, understanding the identity of the Lord and His paraphernalia, do that?
No, we have to see this land as a holy tirtha and protect every inch of it from falling into the hands of the non-devotees.
The Deity and His servants
Regarding the idea of selling plots around the perimeter you say that you don’t think that other GBCs will accede to a plan which involves “selling ISKCON property”.
This is contradictory because it is you as a GBC who initiated this whole thing about selling the farm, and also because you have said that you were not doing it independently, but that you have discussed it with other GBC’s, the EC, the present Chairman, and a former Chairman, and that it was only after all this due consultation that you put the farm for sale.
I can also approach the whole GBC and request them to consider this issue, but I prefer to deal only with you, because we already have a good relationship and know each other very well. Also because I really believe that you can solve this problem by yourself.
But I want to say another very important thing here. That selling to the devotees and selling to the karmis are not the same thing. Selling to the karmis is loosing a tirtha. Selling to the devotees is to give them the opportunity to commit themselves to live near the Lord’s lotus feet; it is to give them a better opportunity to serve the Deity and to raise their children, the future generations of Vaisnavas, in the most congenial atmosphere of a holy place.
Selling to the devotees is to help Srila Prabhupada to achieve one of the points in his Mission Statement: “To erect a holy place of transcendental pastimes dedicated to the Lord, for the benefit of the devotees and society at large”. Selling to the devotees means solidifying a community of Vaisnavas, which will not die when all of us die, but rather that will thrive and become more and more established generation after generation.
To sell to the devotees really means to serve the Lord by bringing His servants to live permanently near Him. Philosophically there is also no difference between the Lord and His servants, therefore selling to the devotees actually means not selling, only serving by promoting better opportunities to serve.
The Deity and His Protection
When I was in Spain, about twenty years ago, there were many devotees ready to construct their houses at the farm in Brihuega, but the ISKCON Administration did not agree to sell to them a piece of land for that purpose, because “there were rules that ISKCON properties cannot be sold”. So the householders also did not want to construct without permanent rights. The result: everybody left and bought their houses and apartments somewhere else. And so it came to pass that only two or three years ago they were ready to sell the whole farm to the karmis, because “no devotees were living there”.
If we want to secure a project we need to plant the roots of the society, and the roots of any society are the householders, the family unit. So let our Vaisnava householders make a residence at the farm without hesitation by giving them permanent rights.
More things can be said in this regard, but to conclude this point for now, let me add that it doesn’t make any sense to say that we cannot sell small plots to the devotees, who will protect and serve the Deity, but that we can sell the whole farm to the karmis.
Unifying the Devotees
Regarding the need of unification of all the Vaisnava forces in Costa Rica, you say that you do not agree with “the inclusion of certain individuals”, and that you think that other GBCs will object to “a Prabhupada, not ISKCON temple” and to the idea that “all acharyas can come” (“though they may all have affection and love for Srila Prabhupada”).
First of all, I never suggested to construct a “Prabhupada Temple”, what I said is that I would separate an hectare for a temple and give it to you, and that we would call it “Temple of Krishna, in honor of Srila Prabhupada, founder- acharya of ISKCON”. I am talking about a temple of Krishna, not a “Prabhupada Temple”. Everybody -from any institution- can accept unquestionably and without any difficulty or complain that Srila Prabhupada founded ISKCON.
When I said “in honor to Prabhupada” it was therefore because in that way we could introduce the word ISKCON, not as the institution owning the temple, but as the institution founded by Srila Prabhupada. The land in which the temple would stand would belong to ISKCON and it would be managed by you, our GBC. So the standards of worship would be the same.
In a multi-denominational and autonomous community of Vaisnavas, to call the temple “Temple of Krishna” -which is the real fact- elicits full participation and a sense of belonging, a sense that “This is our temple”, “Here I am at home”.
I am aware that at first encounter some of my ideas may sound as if not likely to be acceded to. But these ideas are born out of my awareness of the present needs, and for new needs we have to apply new solutions. Old solutions may have been very good and well tested, but if a problem is actually new, the old solutions are like old fossils that cannot breathe out life. You are liberal-minded and are willing to refine these ideas. I am sure that if you take this up and think afresh we can have a breakthrough.
“Excluding the Devotees”
Excluding the participation “of certain individuals” is an obstacle on the path to unity and harmony, it is an impediment to develop all the potential available. When our exclusive objective is to spread Krishna consciousness in the materialistic society we have to act like Lord Ramachandra: take Hanumans, take vultures like Jatayu, take Shabaris, and squirrels. Therefore I have said that I would approach all and beg them to participate.
Today we may consider somebody very small and insignificant, but we never know how he is going to turn up tomorrow. Maybe he shakes a lot of hands, smiles a lot, and tomorrow we see him there sitting amongst the most prominent leaders of the country. We really never know how influential a person can be, or how influential he or she can become. What we do know is that for cohesion we need everybody at present, because the Harinam Party has to become more and more powerful.
Of course, I do not object to your views or your feelings. I cannot do that. I can only hope that this person, who might have hurt you in the past, rise above past conceptions and past expressions.
We have to trust the maturity of the community as a whole. Ours is a small one and everybody knows everybody else. They will know whom and what they will take seriously, and whom and what they won’t. If somebody’s behavior is not up to the standard, nobody feels offended if he knows that we do not admire his behavior but like him as a person and respect many of his qualities. To accomplish our service we need the mercy of Lord Nityananda; we need to meditate on His mood; we need to pray for Nityananda-bhava.
Is the person that you want to exclude as bad as Jagai and Madhai?
Harmony
Like you, I also understand that there might be some objection to other leaders from outside ISKCON visiting our project. But just as you are liberal-minded, there must be other people in the GBC of similar attitude.
It is a reality that has been with us since the departure of Srila Prabhupada. Since 1978 some devotees have visited the leaders of the Gaudiya Math. First it was the GBC, then others, then conflict. Then, after twenty years, on the request of our Narasimha Maharaja, Visnu Maharaja and others, the GBC apologized. This is one aspect of our history.
Another historical aspect is that it was Srila Prabhupada himself who introduced us to his god-brothers and their disciples. It was Srila Prabhupada who first sent Achyutananda Swami and others to the Gaudiya Math. It was Srila Prabhupada himself who was seen in the midst of the whole ISKCON assembly, sitting together with Sridhar Maharaja, sharing the vyasasana and the microphones. It was Srila Prabhupada who at the end requested Narayan Maharaja to supervise the details of his samadhi ceremonials.
And it was proved for twenty years that ISKCON and this Maharaja could live in harmony and share moments of friendship. You know more than many how the present antagonism arose. Just for the jist of it: Tamal Krishna and others approached him and adopted the pose of disciples, but later on mistreated him. Then official policies compounded it. This is history; I am only impartially referring to it. But ten years ago there was not antagonism, and we can deal with it in such a way that in less than ten years from now there will again be harmony.
A third historical fact is that there was a time when ISKCON thought that the zonal-acharya system was good and necessary. It was implemented because our leaders thought that if there was only one initiating spiritual master per zone, the principle of authority would be more solid. The theory was proved wrong and the system was dismantled. Many gurus began to initiate in every GBC zone, and there has been full harmony between the spiritual authority and the managerial authority.
Similarly, now it is thought that if only ISKCON gurus initiate within the infrastructure of the institution, the principle of authority can function better, both spiritually and administratively. This is a parallel of what was thought before and was rejected because the times and circumstances demanded it.
So, on the basis of our experience, if we are willing to learn from history, we can create the infrastructure and accommodate many preachers. We have to coordinate certain things, no doubt, but above all we have to keep in mind that the mission of Lord Caitanya is to spread the holy name of Krishna. Since this is already accepted, the only thing we really have to do is to remind ourselves that this mission is more important than institutional exclusivity, for our institutional survival is never in question.
Perhaps, taking the liberty of Sanskrit grammar rules, we can give two meanings to the “i” of ISKCON, and understand our acronym as “International Inter-institutional Society for Krishna Consciousness”. The reality of this moment is that there are many groups in the West preaching the message of Lord Caitanya, among which ISKCON is the most prominent, and perhaps we have the capacity to create the infrastructure for facilitating the spreading of the Holy name. At least in Costa Rica we do have a special facility now for an unparallel infrastructure.
An example of good interaction is your relationship with the lawyer, who is initiated by Narayan Maharaja. You two have been working together for a number of years. Virabahu’s wife is another example of mature relationship; non-proselytistic, non- disturbing to anybody. We only have to realize that this kind of helpful relationship can exist and does exist amongst other devotees.
But even if we don’t see any benefit in the inter-institutional dialogue, if we just agree to sell plots to different Vaisnavas, the community will be developed very quickly, there will be a lot of money, and the Deity will protected better.
I don’t see how through this kind of cooperation we will fail to do something very nice and worthy of Srila Prabhupada and of our thirty-two years in the country. But we should do it first at the farm because it already exists and offers an infrastructure that can never be duplicated in the city. Later on, all your other plans will also take off.
Disharmony Not Inherited
I have pointed out that since Srila Prabhupada’s time we have had a relationship with the Gaudiya Math. Sure enough, it was not prominent, it was a faint one. But it was there nonetheless and we never thought of those devotees as antagonists. Nobody felt much interest in visiting them because Srila Prabhupada was present, and anyone who would have the opportunity to travel would go to see him. But when Srila Prabhupada left it was natural that some would feel the desire to visit these senior sadhus, especially because he had said: “You can visit”.
What I want to say is that we did not inherit a conflict from Srila Prabhupada. He made, no doubt, extremely strong statements, but nevertheless, we were not at war. And at the end, when he said: “Please forgive me,” he was also hinting at us that we should not say what he said. He spoke according to his position and his circumstance. If our position and circumstance are different, we are not entitled to the same stance. Had many troubles not come from our own ranks, it is most likely that our relationship with the Gaudiya Math would have remained ever feeble.
Actually, I would say that at the institutional level our relationship remains almost non existent. It is only with a very few leaders now preaching in the West that we feel a sense of disharmony. Then, what to do? Make it bigger or smaller?
I feel that this conflicting situation has arisen from a composite of reasons. And that you and I and others have not inherited it from Srila Prabhupada. Therefore I feel that it is not wise, nor that it should be required, that we carry for ever this big burden of animosity.
I know the cosmopolitan and non-bellicose nature of the Costa Rican people. For them it is much easier to make peace than to keep a fight going. It is much more appealing to speak of harmony than of antagonism. These are the kind of people that wouldn’t go to the Middle East. For this reason I have said that when some leader comes, let them receive him with all due respect. And when he goes, let all of us bid him farewell with joined palms in a mood of gratitude. And the rest of the time we just keep working and preaching together as brothers and sisters, for the pleasure of Lord Gauranga. This can only bring us benefits, both material and spiritual.
Miscellaneous
You don’t feel that you have ever mistreated Yamuna: “I never dismissed Yamuna, the other Costa Rican devotees did. The same devotees who are now standing behind him accused him of theft”.
I have talked to Yamuna about this. He explains that because he did not support but rather confronted Abhay when his case came up, other of his disciples resented him.
But you never helped him to make peace with them. It is true that from your side you never told him “Resign”, but as I said before, one word here and one word there, little by little, he felt that you also did not want him. This led him to present his resignation, which you immediately accepted. Now you say: “I did not remove him”. You discouraged him, which is not only the same, but worse.
Regarding a theft, he doesn’t know as of today of anybody having ever accused him. But he invites anyone to take him to court if he ever stole anything. The only people that raised an accusation have been you and the lawyer, when Yamuna submitted to the Register of Properties a subdivision of plans as a follow up of a certain project, already approved by you and Bhakti Bhusana Swami.
You say: “Some devotees are sentimentally attached to the farm. That I cannot remedy”
How can we just dismiss their feelings as pure sentimentalism when they have been there for more than twenty years? They saw the Deities being installed; they welcomed them and have worshiped them ever since. They have dedicated their best years of their life to serve there. It cannot be only sentimentalism. There is also bhakti. We should give them the benefit of the doubt. But even if we don’t, we have to accept that even sentimental attachment to a place sacred to the Lord is spiritual beneficial for them. It is not a defect, and it can be turned into a great asset to inspire them.
Regarding unilateralism, you explain: “I never tried to take a unilateral decision”.
If you take the decision by consulting the leaders of your rank, it is also unilateral in reference to those on a rank below. Or if you take the decision and get the devotees to agree, it is the same thing. When you are a leader you are naturally influential and the people who come around you, unless highly motivated and trained by you yourself, will usually accept what you say, especially if you are known as a person who doesn’t value ideas, but only labor and money (“Ideas come and go easily”).
Around a leader people fall into a mode of following, and that is the thing we have to always be aware and not allow happen, if we want dynamism. Every soldier should be trained as a general, have the whole view of the battlefield and know well the objectives. Then when the general comes they can hear him and intelligently contribute ideas to the strategy.
Having the trust of the people working under you is not the same as having their intellectual participation by contributing ideas. Having the trust doesn’t mean absence of unilateralism.
You have said that the reason many devotees agreed with you is that they dislike the farm devotees, and feel the farm has failed because of their attitude towards newer devotees and guests.
We have to acknowledge their disliking and feelings, but we cannot say that this is good a reason for selling the farm. We have to address other issues, such as interpersonal relationships, harmony amongst devotees, etc. We have to preach and help them grow, if such is the case. If there is a problem in the farm, we cannot think that the solution is to sell it, for this is the same as saying “There is a fungus habitat on my toe, chop it off”. “There is an irritating rash on my hand, cut it off”. You eliminate the problems by eliminating the farm. You eliminate the disease by killing the patient.
You say: “Mother Radha attempted to retract the donation, not because of my decision to sell the farm, but rather because Bhakty Abhay let her down. So I objected to such implications”.
I have never implied that her attempt to withdraw the donation was due to your decision. I know well the case. The litigation began in Bhakty Abhay Charan’s time. But Abhay never attempted to sell the farm. When the litigations were over, you never did anything to develop it. You have tried to convince the devotees and the leaders that it is useless, and then advertised the farm for sale. This is what has aggravated mother Radha’s sentiments. It is not useless. It has served the devotees and the Deities, and it offers the facilities for a community.
Disagreeing with Yamuna you say that: “His 98% is a gross misrepresentation. I dealt with it in my first letter, only 6 or 7 out of 30 or so, is not 98% in earth mathematics.”
It was in response to the statement in your first letter that I quoted Yamuna. I was not judging you or him. I was only stressing that the issue of consensus had not been reached. I only said that you two may be talking to different devotees. But I tell you, Maharaja, I myself am more concerned with conscience than with consensus. Even if a hundred percent agree with you, my conscience would still object because I know the potential of this property, and I will never vote in favor of selling it.
Legality
You have addressed very carefully the possible legal complications and all the related questions. To your explanations I give my feedback.
Explanation: “You did not clearly ask these questions in your first letter, thus I did not answer them. I was not trying to hide anything.”
Feedback: This is an evasion. How can I have asked these questions in my first letter, when they arose due to the lack of information in your response to that letter?
Explanation: “The property issues were handled this way: with non-profit companies or societies and shareholders, from the time of mother Radha Govinda, who was Costa Rican, intelligent, accustomed to property affairs and had access to other lawyers. She accepted Saccidananda’s views about holding properties, as all of us did. It was not confabulation.”
Feedback: You have said before that non-profit organizations were never used for the property, because their status had to be renewed every two years. Now you say that they were used “to handle the property issue”. (?)
The confabulation was not in whose name the property had been, rather that Yamuna was removed, the farm was put in your name, and then you passed the ball to others and ordered them to sell. This is what looks like a comfabulation: “Step one, step two, step three; now I have nothing to do with this. Nobody can accuse me that I sold anything. The farm was not in my name anymore”.
Maharaja, there was absolutely no need to transfer the property to others, just to try to sell it immediately afterwards. You could have signed the papers directly. Even a child can see that something is wrong here. I have preferred to call this a fraud, to avoid involving others, therefore I said that “it has the characteristic of confabulation”. I did not say that it was a confabulation. I said it was a fraud. And it looks like that even after your explanation.
Explanation: “The farm was in my name for some time, with a written will to pass it to ISKCON in the event of my demise, with Gunagrahi Maharaja as the executor. There was never a legal danger of it being usurped.”
Feedback: This is a very nice clarification: that you have a written will with a specific direction and a responsible executor. We trust you, we trust him. And the question of legality would have never come up, should you not had put the farm for sale. But why are you saying this only now?
On the basis of personal trust, yes, we can accept that there was never a danger of the property being usurped. But if that trust is absent, then the question is not solved, because anybody can argue that although there was a will that in case of death the farm should pass to ISKCON, what would have stopped you from selling it before your demise? Do you see? If a person doesn’t trust you, you have offered absolutely no satisfactory pramana.
But because I trust you, I accept your will as an act of responsibility and as an indication of good motives. Your motives can always be accepted as good, even now. The problem is that your decision to sell the farm is wrong. We are not objecting to your motives; we are objecting your decision which was accompanied by acts: advertising in the newspaper and the order of “Execute it”.
Explanation: “There is not any possibility of inheritance on the part of Manonath Prabhu’s dependants.”
Feedback: This is just a mere statement. You have not given any legal reason for it. In fact, you have not offered any reason whatsoever. We have to believe that it is so because you say it. In your case you have “a written will”. In Manonath’s case you have nothing. Of course, I also trust Manonath as a bona fide devotee, who in his last will won’t say that this property should pass to his dependants. I never even insinuated such a thing in my letter. What I said is that there is a difference between member of a board and private owner. It was in this context that I spoke of the right to legal claim by the next of kin. I was talking in general, and I said that it was a blunder on Manonath’s part for equating the terms member of board and private owner.
By the way, this legal possibility applies also to Bhakti Bhusana Swami’s relatives. It is a principle. The reason you made these blunders is because you never thought that there would be such a huge opposition to selling the farm, that you would sell it soon, and that these technicalities were not necessary. But considering everything carefully, don’t you think that you, as an international leader who has taken the responsibility over this project, have failed to make sure that this property is secure?
Maharaja, these and the other explanations that you have given on the question of legality can be accepted on the basis of trust. Otherwise they can all be rejected, because legal matters are not settled so easily. Everything has to be documented. I have not asked you for documents and you have not shown them either.
Also, when Yamuna was removed as a signer, it was done through an irregular procedure. Your lawyer visited Yamuna at eleven o’clock at night, on a weekend, on Friday; took him out of his house, because his wife should not hear; brought him to the car by the gate of the farm and kept him awake until just before mongol artik. Then Yamuna signed. I don’t want to give more details here, but this was invalid. We can object to it even on the basis of sleep depravation. But that is how you -whose management is for better or worse according to Narayana- illegally and illegitimately managed to remove Yamuna and became the owner of the farm that now you want to sell.
This is what I call a fishy protocol and if we open the lid the smell will not be gone with the wind. For sure the German shepherds could sniff it all the way to Harlingen, and even the lawyer would have to cover his nose. (This protocol will be glorious if the farm is kept; but it will be notorious should the farm be kept for sale.)
To wash your hands you have put the land in Manonath’s and Bhakti Bhusana Swami’s name, and have tried to sell through them. But you cannot save face, because it is obvious that you are the authority who can say “Stop”.
I am most desirous to drop this issue of legality for ever, ever, ever, for Srila Prabhupada says that those who litigated in Calcutta for forty years were both asaras. We place ourselves at your holy hands. No one wants another court case. But the fact is that we are convinced that the ksetra of Lord Gauranga should not be sold, and it is also a fact that you have the full authority to stop the sale, therefore I am begging you with sastanga-pranams: “Please save us”.
And please consider what I said before. Selling this farm is not only a question of legality; it has ethical implications. It is also a question of morality and of human compassion.
Narayan Das
In your support Narayan wrote: “Instead of spending hours of writing call on Skype and discuss it first hand. This is much more personal and you will interact deeper, more personally and understand, right or wrong, better or worse, accept or reject, it will be immediate”.
I disagree. It is not a fact that an exchange through writing is less personal. If we put our hearts and our intelligence in it, it is equally personal and can cause a profound impression in whoever reads it. (Don’t tell me that Srila Prabhupada made us devotees through his impersonal books.)
Also, we are discussing a very serious topic that concerns your service in Latin America. It is therefore to your advantage, Maharaja, that I should not take these things lightly. There is no need to be so impatient that we have to reach a decision immediately when you have already put thirty-two long years of service there.
Narayan shows his irresponsible attitude by demanding an immediate answer. He doesn’t care if it is wrong; he can’t care less if it is for the worst. The only thing he cares for is immediacy, although he has no responsibilities there. (Why...?) But I do care that things should be right; I do care that our understanding and decisions should be the best. That understanding that is wrong and for worse, cannot be called understanding but misunderstanding.
War for Oil
In his assistential letter Narayan comes out as your advisor, as it can be deduced from the following passages.
First passage: “Guru Prasada Swami has made the endeavor to preach in the zone and later as a GBC manage for approximately 28 years. Over those years we have met or traveled together many times and have regularly talked about his zone”.
There is nothing wrong with this. Narayan was our first temple president and it is absolutely welcome that you or I keep a good relationship with him and hold him in good regards. But it seems that you are influenced by him...
Second passage: “Look I gave Guru Prasad Swami some considerations about Manonath back some time ago, so what should he do. Give him a chance and if he does not work out like so many before him then once again a change will be necessary”.
Let’s say that there is nothing wrong with this advise, although you could have asked Madhusevita about Manonath, as Virabahu did and later decided not to engage him in Puerto Rico. It seems that Narayan has influenced you on this...
Third passage: “Sure Manonath just may not be the right man for the job or zone being too much from the old school, too autocratic and heavy and absolute and a lousy debater or arguer and all that and so what?”
Both you and Narayana don’t want to recognize your lack of capacity for judging people’s character and capabilities. He gave you some advise. You are following it, and it is not working so well. But let’s say that you are trying to adjust the situation and that there’s yet nothing wrong with this. But you have to acknowledge that you are influenced by Narayan...
Fourth passage: “I do not think you are even aware of all the things Guru Prasada Swami does behind the scenes, like paying so much Laksmi out of his own sannyas pocket to the lawyers in Costa Rica, rent in Colombia, funds to support a temple business, or loans to devotees who never pay back”.
You say that the lawyer doesn’t charge you anything. Narayan says you pay him a lot (?). As a varnasrami sannyasi sometimes you get money and use it in preaching endeavors, and sometimes in business. Then whatever money you invest is lost because you are not a wise businessman. But let’s say that your business attempts are related to Krishna and that there is nothing wrong with this. However, you have lost Krishna’s money...
It is also interesting to note that Narayan uses the words behind the scenes. There is no need to do behind the scenes all the things that he has mentioned. Think about this...
Fifth passage: “If we did an audit or reviewed Maharaja’s success or failures and if we agreed to the analysis criteria he may not score very high on the success chart”.
Let’s again say that there is nothing wrong in scoring very low. But here also it is interesting note that Narayan uses the word audit, which is specifically related with accounts and money. Think about it...
Sixth passage: “I also may think that Guru Prasada Swami has made many mistakes or is a lousy manager, but I can only offer my opinion to help him unless I am willing to do something myself”.
Giving one’s opinion may be in itself help. But if besides this one is able to do something more, it is a greater help. And therefore it can be said that there is nothing wrong with Narayan’s approach on how his opinion should be accompanied with his other contribution. But then we have to ask: What kind of help is Narayan Das offering? He didn’t say. He only says that you are bad at business and at management. Does he want to manage some money on your behalf? Keep this question in mind...
Seventh passage: “What is the issue that you do not like his decision on the farm sale and you have criticisms on his overall management? The later is simple because Maharaja would never argue with you that he is a good manager, only that he prays that somehow or other he gets it right sometimes”.
Here Narayan speaks of two things: The selling of the farm and Guru Prasada Swami’s overall management. Then he addresses the management question but doesn’t touch the farm. In my letters, however, the issue is the farm. If I have said anything about your management it is only as an argument. Otherwise, I have no interest whatsoever in criticizing you. I have criticized your decision of selling the farm. I am opposed to it, and have argued for this. Narayan has said not a single word on this regard. Why...? Perhaps he is very interested in selling the farm... Think of this...
Our history with Narayan is as follows. He went to open the movement in Costa Rica because his first wife was Costa Rican. His wife called her sister, a registered nurse, who donated her house in Hatillo, and who later became mother Sevya. Her house was the first temple in the country. Later mother Sevya also made a donation of a farm of sixty five hectares (about 150 acres) in La Suiza de Turrialba, not far from the capital. It was a most fertile land with fruits, forests, river, house, cows, etc. During Narayan’s administration both the house and the farm disappeared, and when he left, we were renting a place in La Granja.
Now, it is this same Narayan who is offering you help.
At one point in his life Narayan sued the L.A. Temple and got a million dollars. If he were a good businessman by now he should have much more and perhaps could donate the money back. At another point he went to Panama, made a lot of Hindus buy stocks of a gold mine and the money disappeared. He said that he was cheated, that the mine did not exist. The Indian community was highly irritated and complained to Hari Cakra, especially because it was you who introduced Narayan Das to them. I am not saying that Narayan doesn’t love Srila Prabhupada or his mission, for I saw him crying when Srila Prabhupada left the planet. But it is a fact that he likes money, and since you have said that those attached to money “are swayed by their minds, senses, and desires” I send back to you this boomerang. I have no desire to criticize Narayan; I only want to show his relationship with you.
Now listen to the following facts and rumors. One time Narayan took Guru Prasada Swami to Costa Rica and paid for all the expenses on the condition that the Swami should spend all his time with him alone. In that visit the Swami should not go to the temple. He called his senior-most disciple, Govardhandhari, who, as servant and cook accompanied both of them. Then the Swami went to the beaches and passed all his time with Narayan. The Swami’s reason was that his health was not good, and Narayan’s reason was his love and desire to share with him. No body else was supposed to know that the Swami was in the country. So far, these are facts. The rumor is that Narayan has proposed the Swami to sell the farm and build a tourist complex on one of these beautiful beaches. Narayan would manage the money, give the Swami back the investment capital, and from there onward keep sharing the profit.
Maharaja, you may want to dismiss the rumor part as absolutely false, nevertheless the suspicion comes now into focus, because: 1) You told Aniruddha that it will take you one and a half to two years to find a new place to buy, and that in the meantime the money should just be kept; 2) Narayan’s letter full of demands that a decision should be taken immediately incriminates you; and 3) You cannot justify selling the farm, for it falls in the category of either a total lack of planning strategy or of a desire for personal profit.
This may be a rumor, Maharaja, but it might carry as much credibility as the rumor that Bush is waging war not for democracy or other noble causes, but because he wants money and oil.
The Iskcon Republic
If ISKCON were a country the destiny of the farm would be an issue of national interest. For example, if the governor of Texas would agree and get all the Texans to agree to become again part of Mexico due to a great number of good reasons, and if somehow or other the Federal Government would also agree, then any citizen from anywhere in the USA, even from Maine, Hawaii or Alaska, would have the right to go to the newspapers and make a lot of noise for what he perceives as a symptom of national disintegration. This is the present situation in India where the government has the army geared to Pakistan for an inch of snow in Kasmir, and turning their cannons toward China for an inch of ice in Arunachal and Sikhim.
So, I would say, that the selling of the farm, being an issue of national concern within the Republic of Iskcon, is so serious than any devotee anywhere has the right to voice his disagreement, to send you his opinion and to aggravate the negativity in this regard, so that at the end this unfortunate event may not happen. Selling the farm threats the movement with disintegration in Costa Rica and with instability in Latin America, because it will be considered a breach of trust and will affect the morale and enthusiasm of the devotees and the work of the leadership. You will be the most affected, but the prestige of the other leaders will also diminish because you have involved most of them.
You say: “I beg third parties not to write or act on sentiment”. Does this mean that as our Governor you have the right to action, but others don’t have the right to speak? In what kind of country, in what kind of regime and in what age do you want us to live? How can we avoid unpredictable negative effects if not by at least raising our voices? We all together have to save our country and save you from the British-and-Sioux Syndrome. The citizens have even the right to appeal to the ISKCON Supreme Court or the Congress.
Secretary of State
You have said: “I consider it fine and proper that you, or anyone, challenge our decision to sell the farm, in part or in whole”.
That’s the only thing I am opposed to, Maharaja, and nothing else. But if this discussion has brought you to a new sense of awareness, then you can always move forward. I will never say step down. I say step forward. You are a devotee, a sannyasi who loves reading Srila Prabhupada’s books. There is only question of your going forward, never going down. You have many disciples and the service of preaching to them is already granted to you by Lord Krishna. Nobody can object to this.
It seems to me that sometimes you feel uncomfortable with your present service:
“You have chosen your present situation, it is admirable. However, because many devotees have chosen not to participate in managing ISKCON, justified or not, forces persons like me to manage, even though it man not be my propensity”.
If this is the situation, Maharaja, if sometimes you feel that it is not your propensity to manage, then I think you have the right to move on into another service which best fits your propensity. Krishna will give you His blessings, Srila Prabhupada will give his loving blessings. You may find yourself a happier man with the service of exclusive preaching.
You have to examine these things deeply. It is up to you. But again, if at present you are doing something against your propensities and against your best talents and abilities, then there is no wonder that your health is not good. The body and mind are a unit. Just as there is no blame if sometimes one gets physically sick, there also no blame if sometimes our ailments are of psychosomatic nature. But a psychosomatic ailment cannot be cured unless we recognize it as such. It is really possible that you are not serving according to your propensity, and therefore moving forward will never be displeasing to Srila Prabhupada.
You have said: “Thank you for reminding me about the difference between a manager and a leader. I have studied these concepts, but maybe I am not a leader”.
No, Maharaja, you are a leader. You have many qualities that people like. You are a leader much more than a manager. Perhaps troubles in your zone are due to this. You have accepted the responsibility of the “ultimate managerial authority”, but if you are not really a manager and you cannot find a good and reliable one to help you, then there will always be problems. I don’t think you are not a leader. Therefore I have spoken about the difference between the two.
Your management was criticized even by Narayan. And in this regard you said: “Others say that I am a lousy manager; I agree, although not quite as bad as some like to portray me.”
As I said in the beginning of this section I am opposing only the selling of the farm as a bad decision of yours. I am not opposing you as a person. I want to work with you and help you. We know each others since the beginning and I am fully confident that we can serve together. I prefer to work with old friends than looking for new relationships. I want you to somehow or other stay in the area.
There is a great need for a harmonious relationship between the many Vaisnava groups in Latin America and elsewhere. Since you are one of our most liberal leaders you could achieve this harmony between ISKCON, and the followers of Sridhar Maharaj, B.P. Puri and B.V Puri, Narayan and Govinda Maharaja, Paramadvaiti Swami, etc., etc. This will benefit all of us, including the karmis. We need a person who should be able to bring about this inter-institutional good understanding.
Perhaps you could become the ISKCON Inter-institutional Minister. Like Vraja Vihari has a ministry that in the Republic of Iskcon is equivalent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, your service would be equivalent to the Secretary of State. It would have GBC status but not managerial responsibilities. You could keep preaching to your disciples in Central America, so that when I come, I will still have the pleasure of serving together and sharing some time and common goals. You know ISKCON up and down and I think you are the best person to fill this long-felt need.
Closing the First Part
It will be a great pleasure to meet you in Vrindavan if Krishna allows. It will be for increasing my pious activities by personally offering you my humble obeisances and to purify myself by your holy presence. Now I am in Bhopal for some time, and it may be difficult to coordinate my trip with your arrival. In any case, we need the participation of all the local devotees, as well as your influence and experience at the GBC level.
I also think it is better for me to participate through the written medium. It takes no doubt more of my time, but I will not be talking only to you but to others. I will not be talking only once in one place, but the records will remain and I will not have to repeat the same things in the future.
I have enjoyed your letters. There was a quality in them meritorious of your status. If you could not defend your decision it is simply because it is untenable, not because you cannot make a good presentation. I haven’t had in my mind the desire of refutation; much more less the desire of establishing myself. I have sought to give you honest feedback, to argue for justice and for truth. I have only argued for the value of the farm and for the value of the local devotes, and for your relationship with Latin America as a leader in Srila Prabhupada’s mission. Please accept my most humble obeisances.
PART TWO: THE CORE ISSUES
The core issues of this exchange are only two: that the farm should not be sold and that there should be decentralization. Everything else is argument on favor or against these two issues. In the course of the discussion a series of related topics have been dealt with, but as important as they may be, we should consider them incidental.
The Farm
Your reasons for selling the farm were as follows. Need of money (Srila Prabhupada said: “Land, labor, capital...”); you have spent twenty thousand dollars throughout the years; no preaching center in the city; some devotees don’t pay the rent; fences are down; devotees don’t get along with each other, some don’t go to the farm, some don’t go to the temple; there are squatters nearby; the location of the farm may not be ideal in the future, because the farm is in the middle of two cities whose poorest sectors are at the outskirts of these cities.
All these reasons can be reduced to two: that you need money and that the devotees don’t get along with each other. Since money cannot solve the problems amongst the devotees, then all your reasons are again reduced to one: money.
I already said than when you took over this project, it was not in the condition you depict it now. When rents are imposed, when you speak about selling, when Manonath or the lawyer go there with letters and threats to vacate, when your representatives even refuse to accept the rent money and the devotees have to deposit it in the court to force them to accept it to avoid legal action, and when these devotees live with the insecurity of whether their rent contracts are going to be renewed after the expiration, what do you expect, Maharaja?, to have a vibrant program or the fences going down?
I also have said something about the squatters: thirty to forty families settled on the side of a rural street near the farm. These people never settle on lands occupied by the owners. They will never attempt to invade a land where several families are living. They usually take over municipal vacant areas or lands whose owner is not around and are practically abandoned.
About the farm not being in an ideal location in the future, contrary to what you suppose, as time passes the value of this area is going to raise more and more. In my fourth letter I enumerated ten reasons why we should keep the farm, and throughout the discussion I have given many many more. Here you have another two.
THE HOSPITAL: Right in front of the farm, at only three hundred meters from our gate, in a farm known as Campo Ayala, the government is relocating the main hospital of the Province of Cartago. It has already been made public news through the national newspaper, La Nacion.
The Hospital is destined to take care of a population of six hundred thousands citizens (600.000). Can you imagine that there are going to be hundreds of doctors and nurses, and all kinds of employees? Can you foresee the pharmacies and clinics that are sprouting around us? Can you see the road in front of the farm widened and improved to allow the ambulance easy access to the hospital? Can you see the hundreds of people that come with their relatives to the hospital? If we have a restaurant right at the farm, we can serve hundreds of doctors, nurses, employees, and public in general. And if we make a guest house there is already a guaranteed clientele of nice, fine, and professional people.
WAL-MART: Also right in front of the farm but even closer than the hospital, at only two hundred meters from our gate, a chain of super markets, called in Costa Rica the Hiper-Mas, is already on its way (I have seen the photographs of the advance stage of the construction). It is actually a mall that includes even cinema halls, and the owners are Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer. So far there are only a few of these super markets in the capital city. In India Wal-Mart has entered also with a different name, the Bharti Group, and it has tree hundred thirty thousand employees (330,000).
Do you think that these multi-billionaire international investors do not have any connection with the government? Do they just construct in the middle of nowhere without any marketing study? Are they going to invest in an area full of squatters destined to become the poorest neighborhood of Cartago and Paraiso? Or, are they building something in front of the Hare Krishna’s only for devotional service?
No, Maharaja, it is never so. We should know that the Wal-Mart people are very smart. (Otherwise, how have they made so much money? Does it sound familiar, eh?)
The real problem has been, Maharaja, that you have not seen this potential, and so you have thought that money is more valuable than the farm. This attitude is conspicuous in your statement: “I suggest that someone objective, who is interested in keeping the farm, should come to Costa Rica and do an in-depth study”. When you say interested in keeping the farm, it reveals that you are not interested. You have never been interested in it. The lawyer knew this from the beginning, for lawyers are not fools. He has given you all his services free, but he knew that you had no interest in keeping it.
We need only to open our nostrils and smell the definite plans for excellent quality urbanization around our farm, with very good roads, for this will be the most important commercial center in the area. It will attract all the people from the cities of Paraiso and Cartago and other neighboring places. Thousands and thousands of persons will come there every single day, to spend their money.
The demons are looking for opportunities to remove the devotees. They will come and try to tempt you. They will think that maybe like the Judas of the Bible, you will give them the ksetra of the Lord for some money. Those who help you in this matter either have zero vision or are planning to profit from the transaction, or both. Or, otherwise, they are really misinformed because you yourself have fallen short in understanding the potential. Selling this farm now is like exchanging gold for garbage.
Decentralization
You have said: “I generally like your Three Phase Plan”, and “I agree with you about decentralization”.
Then, Maharaja, I believe that we are really close to reaching a positive solution on this issue that has engaged us so far, and on which we both have spoken with all frankness.
I believe that we are becoming closer to each other through this exchange. You want me to go there, and I have offered to go. I have promised you fifteen years of help, and I know that you trust me, and that you want me to begin immediately, but that is not possible because I am in the middle of something else, and whatever I am getting here is going to be given there.
You have very kindly said: “I propose that when I come to Vrindavan by Srimati Radharani’s grace, that we sit together, refine the idea, come up with a proposal and see if it flies. Of course, such a proposal, at least in my mind, is contingent upon your willingness (or someone else’s, like Kurma Rupa Prabhu) to be the local ISKCON representative for such a project. We can measure the practicability of our final product by running it by some moderate leaders in ISKCON”.
I am sure that you can refine these ideas and I thank you for taking them as a basis. But I disagree with a number of things implicitly or tacitly expressed in your paragraph.
It is not you and I who can sit in some corner in Vrindavan and come up with a proposal affecting all the devotees living in Costa Rica. It is their participation, their input of ideas, that we have to hear. Actually, the proposal has to come from them. You and I can only serve as facilitators, or at the most as moderators. We cannot be the ones who make the proposal. We can only put our ideas on the table, and if they are very good, the local devotees will accept them, make them their own, develop a plan around them and work. If we want the work to come from them, we have to understand that the plan and the proposal also have to come from them. This is how decentralization should work. Otherwise, if you and I make the proposal, we are still set on the authoritarian mode.
Similarly, if we are talking of authentic decentralization, there is nothing that should be contingent in my becoming the local leader in Costa Rica. Of course, if I were able to go and the devotees would feel inspired by me, there would be nothing contrary to decentralization because I am from that country. But in principle I argue that for decentralization to be real you have to relinquish the idea of bringing anybody from outside.
If Kurma Rupa goes, I am sure that everybody would be happier than happiest with his presence. And I really hope that he goes. I am sure he will love the place and the devotees, and that they will also like him and cooperate with him wholeheartedly. Together they will achieve the goals they aspire for. But decentralization should not be made dependent on that either.
In your last sentence about “measuring the practicability of the final product by running it by some moderate leaders”, you show restraint and a sense of responsibility; you are not being impatient that things should be done immediately “for better or worse, right or wrong”, but rather you wish to put it through the consideration of other leaders. And in normal circumstances there is nothing wrong with this.
But when we are talking about decentralization, this very statement is indicative of another defect: clinching to authoritarianism. With all the softness you put in the paragraph, with all the apparent malleability to work together with others, at the end you show us that you are stuck with the authoritarian paradigm. You want to impose things from above. Leaders propose. Leaders discuss. Leaders approve. Leaders make the plans. Leaders give the directives. The rest follow. This is not decentralization, Maharaja.
The problem is not the lack of responsible, capable and trustworthy devotees. The problem is that you at present cannot see them as such. The problem is that you have developed a ruci for being the authority, the ruci for making decisions. You like the idea of leader and followers, but ultimately we have to come to the idea of being like brothers; elder brothers, younger brothers, but all brothers. After all, the only titles that Caitanya Mahaprabhu spoke of were dasa and anudasa, servant and servant of the servant. When you come to like the greater of these two titles, you will also have very little or zero objection to decentralization.
Closing the Second Part
At the end of your Final Letter you said: “We will not sell the farm soon in any case, there are many local requirements that we have to meet. Thus there is time for a systematic analysis, once we evaluate if local devotees are in place to consider other options”.
Thank you for this news. I beg you once again to desist totally from selling. You are the one who can grant the time for further analysis. Krishna is all powerful and He can give you the inspiration to find other options agreeable to all. In spite of the three property trustees and the two so-called owners, it is a fact that you are the authority on this issue. I am only requesting you a small answer: “Yaduji, I will not sell the farm”. You have the power to do this, and everybody will know that it is because you have taken this good decision that the farm of Lord Gauranga is not sold. All the credits will go to you.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Your humble servant,
Yadu das
Guatemala City,
January 7, 2007
Dear Guru Prasad Swami:
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
I’m answering the letters you wrote to Yadu Prabhu on December 17 and 27, both of which you called “My Final Answer”. As always, I will be frank, straightforward, brazen, without ceremony. If the shoe fits… After all, I joined Srila Prabhupada’s movement in pursuit of the truth and only the truth. If in the process of expressing myself I say something you may consider offensive, I beg your forgiveness.
First think I want to say is that I felt relieved you finally took Yadu seriously, and despite your illness, your surcharged agenda and other activities, you answered the letters dated October 25, November 5, and December 5, that he addressed to you. I even feel compel to thank you.
But even though I felt relieved, I couldn’t help experiencing sadness also. I fell sad because you wrote such a poor letter. In it, you not only didn’t remove the lack of information Yadu was vehemently requiring from you (since Manonath response was an utter self-defeat), but you failed to comprehensively address the many important reasoning and points he made. Similarly, you didn’t clear the charges and direct questions regarding what we considered mishandling and misappropriation of the farm. On top of that, your letter is riddled with misconceptions, many discrepancies, and contains pedant and out of place remarks, even unacceptable ironies (“But if you… sacrifice your plans for the compassion that you feel for the devotees in CR…”). It is clear also that your authoritarian demeanor doesn’t give signs of subsiding. Too bad for you. Too bad for the ideal Iskcon Srila Prabhupada had in mind. Even though this neurotic mentality has caused chaos and many fatalities in our Iskcon, you still cling to it.
By the way, I have always told you that Yadu is a sattvic man. He won’t relinquish to his well-planned, long term training in the philosophy, practices, culture, rituals, and so many other aspects of the Bhakti cult. He won’t be an improvised preacher, bound to commit who knows how many mistakes. It is not because you are incapable of managing the farm or finding a qualified person to run it, that now Yadu has to give up everything -propelled by the mode of passion- to obey your command. No way. It took Srila Prabhupada “A Lifetime of Preparation” to preach successfully Krishna consciousness. Yadu has the sincere desire to serve our Srila Prabhupada in an exemplary way (although he will always consider himself low and insignificant), and not to stain his good name, as many God-brothers have done.
You may answer me that Yadu’s letters are quite extensive, and that’s why you plan to discuss everything thoroughly next March when you meet him personally in Vrindavan. Nonetheless, the selling or not of the Costa Rica farm is now an issue of public domain. You have to provide to the many persons interested in knowing the truth, including myself, an appropriate, sound defense of your case. I fact, giving the circumstance that you are, in your own words, Iskcon’s official appointee for solving all matters pertaining your zone, you owe us a well-articulated, coherent, and satisfactory explanation. So far, we are not satisfied.
Another thing: In your letter I could perceive a softening in your tone. I was thinking all of Yadu’s solid, logic arguments had made you to somewhat reconsider your unfortunate idea. After the exhaustive, analytical, and humanitarian probe he made, the least an honest, judicious man can do is to simply acknowledge the superiority of his reasoning. Rethorically speaking, Yadu has irrefutably won the argument. All parties interested in the outcome of this debate agree with this verdict. I’m 100% sure that If we submit your exchange of letters to the GBC or any other group of intelligent people, they will support with my opinion.
Now brace yourself: Yesterday somebody gave me a very startling piece of information: Manonath has resigned his post as your Regional Secretary in Costa Rica, and he is due to arrive in Vrindavan on January 18th! My source also told me he already made the necessary arrangements for renting an apartment for him and his wife (for one year!) in the MVT complex.
If that is the case, then now I understand very clearly why the softening of your tone. You are in precarious position because your strong man in Costa Rica has turned the back on you! (Do you remember the letter I wrote you last November wherein I warned you to make sure of Manonath’s motives? I told you: “Beware of him, because he may end up stabbing you on the back!). In the wake of this ill-fated, unexpected circumstance, now you want to compromise. Good maneuver.
On one hand, it is a relief that such an authoritarian character has left Central America. We don’t want another Nero (e.g. ex Bhakti Abay Charan) wreaking havoc in the spiritual lives of the local devotees. On the other, now you are in serious trouble! How can now secure the ownership of the farm? How do you are going to justify your decision of appointing Manonath as your “right hand” in Costa Rica? What criteria you followed to designate him as such? Can you now see the blunder, the stupidity of authoritarian dynamics? Over and over again you commit the same mistake: choosing yes-men instead of independent thoughtful men [“Bureaucracy will spoil everything.” S.P.] Of course, it’s easier to lead when your followers think and act like sheep: “O, yes, Maharaja! Whatever you say and do is perfect. We are nonsense. We have no right to object your decisions because you are paramahamsa.” But on the long run, this has been the recipe for disaster, as you have experienced many times. This is precisely the mentality that has stifled, spoiled your preaching attempts.
Do you remember when you insisted in keeping Ramananda Ray (Satsvarupa Maharaja’s disciple) as Temple President in El Salvador, even though you received accurate reports from the local devotees he was having illicit sex simultaneously with 3 different women? You didn’t heed to my advice (I told you: “We are Vaisnavas, ideal human beings. What Ramananda has done it’s an ignominy! Send him back to Dominican Republic! What kind of morality are you promoting? Don’t you realize we will become a laughing stock for the common people?”.) Still, insulting the intelligence of those devotees, you kept him running the temple for three more months. Thereafter, to patch up the mess, you sent him to Panama. But again there he also disappointed everybody. Disgraced, he packed and left Central America.
And now, let’s talk about Keshava Swami. Even after the news spread all over the world that he had committed the crime of forging the signatures of all the members of the Board of Directors of Iskcon of South Florida, Inc., (in order to illegally get a loan for buying the Homestead farm), still you give him shelter in Mexico. And when I confronted you: “How do you dare to have this long-time mafioso in the Yatra? Do you think he’s going to change? You are more merciful than Caitanya Mahaprabhu!! Your are more Chatolic than the Pope!!,” you unabashedly responded me: “Since I appointed Keshava as Sankirtan leader, book distribution has doubled”. “Yeah -I retorted you-. That’s the problem with you, Maharaja: You value more physical, material results, instead of honesty, integrity, purity, and other Vaisnava qualities the devotees must endeavor to shine forth.” Eventually, the scandal grew to such a proportion, that Keshava had to leave Mexico, like a fugitive. The next year, the GBC officially expelled Keshava from Iskcon.
And what about Gita Krodha, the devotee staying in Panana, to whom you irresponsibly give permission to marry Uma? He was already married with the Peruvian twin sister of Rohini-nandada. She got very upset with you for consummating such a rascaldom. You didn’t protect her!! [Curiously enough, the backbone of my imputation and Yadu’s own appraisal of you is precisely your lack of concern for the devotees.] Of course, Gita Krodha was from Spain. He was white-skinned, and probably, had a lot of money. Yat tad agre ‘mrtopamam pariname visam iva. So, you just were adding up.
Although the list of examples of your bad, poor judgment is by no means exhausted, I have to finish somewhere. Just recently you threatened to prosecute two of your disciples (Narendra and other Prabhu whose name I can’t recall) for publishing a little book containing Srila Prabhupada’s Srimad-Bhagavatam translation of Dhruva Maharaja’s life and pastimes. When Hansaduta published Srila Prabhupada’s books with without the approval of Ramesvara, the late ran to His Divine Grace to get the head of the former. But, what was Srila Prabhupada’s reaction? He appointed Hamsaduta as BBT Trustee, entitling him to publish any of his books. “Because you had the initiative, you have earned the post”. But you, Maharaja, you were willing to send to prison these enthusiastic devotees. Aho!
The above analysis is to prove what I have sustained about you all these 20 years, and what Yadu has corroborated in his letters to you: “…I don’t trust your administrative discernment or your expertise in legal cases.” …“But carelessness is never praiseworthy.” …“In the past you have not been able to take care of the devotees.” …”As a GBC you are removed yourself from the people you are supposed to be in touch with.” …”because many times in the past you have demonstrated an attitude in acknowledging administrative mistakes.”
You wrote in your “Final letter”: “After seeing one devotee rob our collections for the Monterrey temple 15 years ago, taking advantage of local bank corruption, seeing one after another exploit the Spiritual Sky business, 5 devotees rob Prabhupada dasa in Colombia…” Come on, Maharaja! All these blunders had happened under your so-called supervision, right under your own nose! You putting the blame in others, but the truth is that you, and only you are accountable for the disaster you are describing! In particular, the fact you have hired 6 different individuals to run the Spiritual Sky business, and all of them stole, pinched goods or cheated you, it’s inadmissible! You are the sole responsible of this mess! Do you think that the CEO or General Manager of any struggling, agonizing business company will accept such an excuse? Most surely, he or she will immediately fire you on the spot! “You are useless! You are an inept at managing!”-he will yell at you!! Who are the ones that are allowing, overlooking this mediocrity to take place in Mexico and C.A. for such a long time!? For sure, not the older Mexican devotees (painfully, all of our Gog-brothers have misgivings about you), nor the Central American ones. [Because it has link with my argument, please allow me this digression: Do you remember when Jayadvaita Swami went to Costa Rica to check Padambuja (ex BAC) performance? He submitted the following report: “The only reason these persons are criticizing Bhakti Abay Charan Maharaja, is because they are envious of him.” Hridayananda Goswami also went and pompously said: “I’m marveled at the exemplary way Bhakti Abay Charan Maharaja has trained his disciples. He is the best!” Both of them swallowed the hoax, the pantomime Padambuja cunningly enacted for them.]
Just see! Yadu’s warnings have become self-fulfilling prophecies!!:
(1) “…due to the position of your Mercury, neither you nor Manonath can do anything positive with the farm now. …And also due to your Mercury 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 (or even the prospect of doing it) WILL BRING YOU LAMENTABLE LOSS. LOSS OF MONEY AND LOSS OF PRESTIGE. …The money will be scattered and your reputation will suffer.” [underlined and letter-bolding mine.]
(2) “Can you make a logical inference that the Lord may not want His farm to be sold? Can you believe that it’s the Lord Himself who has bewildered you? Can you believe that the Deity is a person, that They [Gour-Nitai] like the place and don’t want to move?
What else you need, Maharaja, to acknowledge that you are again perpetrating a foolish action? Like a boomerang, the effect of such an action will come back upon you, knocking down not only you, but many Costa Rican devotees.
I want to make another relevant point: In his letters, Yadu has very tactfully insinuated a fact that due to your short-sightedness, you have failed to admit: (2nd letter):
“Remember when you joined the movement in Hatillo. You have not come to this country to insult any body. At that time you did not have the smallest desire to hurt any one.” (3rd letter) “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.”
What is Yadu trying to imply? What Yadu is subtly telling you I will put in my own words, in my own free interpretation: ”Maharaja, what you think you are? Do you think you have a crown and we should bow down at your every word or whim? Come on, Maharaja: you are an ordinary devotee!, who joined the movement the same time I did. You don’t come to me as an absolute authority. You are not! You are my fellow God-brother, my contemporary, and you don’t deserve any special treatment beyond what is offered to any other Vaisnava. Respect is command, never demand. Please, come down “de la nube a la que te has subido” (‘from the High cloud you believed you are situated,’) and let’s talk like brothers, like equals. Do not pretend, not even in dreams, that you are superior to me. That has to be
proven. You are a servant of the servants of the Lord, not a master. Let us reason, and whoever has the best proposal, the best idea, the best arguments, then let us be humble and support to one who conceived it.” I fully endorsed Yadu’s covered meaning of his statements. Moreover, I feel exactly the same way: You are my fellow Gob-brother. That’s why I have the right and confidence in writing you in such strong terms. If were doing okay, don’t doubt I would sincerely congratulate you. But is you are doing wrong, as in this and many other instances, be totally sure I will object you and rebuke you. After Srila Prabhupada’s departure, who else but your God-brothers will dare to tell you the truth, to pointing out your mistakes? It’s what modern psychologists call “hard love.”
Another point: Narayan das forwarded my a letter he e-mailed to Yadu on December 14, in which he literally says: “Anyhow we can also make the case that GPS is not such a good preacher or he does not know how to touch, move and inspire the congregation of ashram devotees to contribute their time and money to help make the temples a successful place. If you think this then once again find a better main preacher.”
Overall, in his letter -besides unconsciously letting us know he a fervent adherent of authoritarian dynamics (“He does not owe you any explanations and so if he does take the time to respond consider it meritorious.”)- Narayan made a poor, sentimental defense of your person (in fact, flipping the coin, he incriminates you!) But the specific part of his letter I want to bring into context is: “Next I want to say that how in the world do you think people, anyone, myself or GPS has 10 hours to read over, outline the points and then respond to each one from your letters.”
Of course, when Narayan was suing Iskcon for child molestation, he didn’t mind to invest 1000 hours of his time to submit a “perfect case” to the Court House. After all, at the expense of the horrible act committed against his son, he secured the bunch of money he is now spending to live a very comfortable life. You took the issue lightly at the beginning, and you figured writing a short riposte, you would solve the matter. But no: the issue is too serious, and the concerned devotees who don’t want you to unilaterally sell the farm, protested again. Then, after Yadu’s second letter, you
commissioned Manonath to reply on your behalf. His botch just made look more incompetent, almost ridiculous. But more grievously, dodging the issues, Manonath tried to put Yadu down, mistreating him, insulting him, and scoffing at his proposal.
So, what do you think the attitude an honest, concerned, and well-intentioned gentleman would take? For sure, to clean up his name! To establish the truth! To make the enormous effort to distinguish reality from illusion for the welfare of all! His conscience will not allow anything less. No matter it takes 100 letters, 100 pages each! The crafty, biased interlocutors don’t given him another
choice. When I was an adolescent, my father -who was included in the list of “The Twentieth Century 100 Most Prestigious Guatemalans” prepared by the country’s Ministry of Education- told me: “The best gift I will give you is not paying your superior studies, nor the material assets you will inherit at the time of my death. My best gift to you will be an unblemished name. Please keep it clean.”
At this point, Maharaja, I want to refer to Yadu elucidation: “By the way, an appointee is not the same as a leader. A leader is one who gets his position by being acknowledged and supported by the people around him. An appointee earns his post by the support from the people above him. The leader is elected from below; the appointee is selected from above. He has been trusted by his superiors, but after being appointed he has to make himself valuable and trustworthy to the people below him. Therefore, when we hear that in certain places devotees don’t follow the leaders, it means that they don’t follow the appointees and that the appointees have not yet become leaders”.
You would find my next statement very uncomfortable, Maharaha, but it is a fact I personally witnessed. Par excellence, you are the typical example of somebody who was appointed from “above,” designated by the “higher ups”, using Yadu’s words. I know your record, your history since 1976. By 1985, you were tired of the crazy-making subordinate relationship with Hridayananda. Then, a juncture took place: Panchadravida Swami left Iskcon and joined Srila Sridhar Maharaja’s institution. So you seize the opportunity. With the blessing of Hridayananda, you were appointed GBC. A couple of years ago you told me personally: “Because nobody wanted to take that position there, I volunteered.” I have always said at that time you put into practice the popular wisdom: “Better to be the head of a mouse, than the tail of a lion.”
If we were to finally realize Srila Prabhupada’s vision for a better management of Iskcon, we would do a great service implementing Yadu advice (of course, he took from Prabhupada himself): “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…”
Suppose that after a referendum, we call for elections to choose a new GBC for Mexico and Central America. Suppose you and Yadu are the front-runners. The electorate is composed by all Iskcon adepts who became devotees since 1972, and who, for qualifying purposes, chant regularly Hare Krishna and have in their hearts Srila Prabhupada as their predominant spiritual guide and source of inspiration. (Of course, you will rather only call to vote your disciples and yes men, but that is not fair.) After counting all the ballots, I’m totally sure that Yadu will win by landslide!
You quoted Srila Prabhupada: “It is Krsna's desire. Nobody is useless. I was also useless. I could not do in India
alone anything. This is... Again this example (laughs). Two useless makes useful. Intelligence alone cannot work. Money is required. One man was challenged, "You have no intelligence." So he said, "Yes." He was searching these..."No, why you are searching here?" "No, here is intelligence. If here is money, then my intelligence can work. Otherwise what is the use of intelligence?" But he was searching here," Whether I have got intelligence?" Simply intelligence... In industry also: land, labor, capital, organization, four things. Simple capital will not do. Simple organization will not do. A man may have very good brain power, organization, but if he has no money-useless. So four things required: land, labor, capital, organization.”
Although I could, I won’t enter into a large discussion of my view regarding this part of your “Final Letter.” The simply fact is that Yadu’s proposal has all the “four things” Prabhupada requires: (i) The land exists (a very beautiful, productive and strategically situated farm.) (ii) The labor will be provided by the dozens of devotees who Yadu is capable of attract and enthuse (mainly to his sattvic nature, vast knowledge, and above all, his natural kindness and compassion for other living being, what to speak of devotees.) (iii) Yadu has very clearly outlined how he would produce the money (by selling plots of land). Besides, business-minded devotees, like Rama Lakshman, Prahladanath, and even myself, would be more than happy to conceive and implement productive business. Eventually, Rama Vigraha will join and with his expertise in the agricultural and forestry fields, he can put into action nature-friendly programs nowadays called ”Economically Sustainable Development Projects.”. If plausible and well-planned, these programs receive a lot of financial support (sometimes non-refundable funds) from the European Union and other nongovernment organizations [Ong’s]. In Guatemala these agricultural-oriented small business thrive. All the production is exported to U.S., various European countries, and Taiwan. (iv) Yadu has perfectly explained the organization.
So, your quoting Prabhupada is out of context. An empty bragging.
Maharaja, I’m sorry for being crude and going straight to the bone. But Prabhudapa himself advised us: “If there is a boil in the body, just get a knife an cut it off! What this useless blowing will do?” At the bottom of my heart, I wish you the best. I also believed you have a brahminical nature, an excellent sadhana, and the capacity to endure austerities. Personally, I like you. We had always cut jokes to each other. But as a manager, I don’t give a farthing for you. Remember when Dharma was appointed Temple President of the Coconut Grove (Florida) Temple? He almost ruined the program: no devotees, no programs, no money, no expansion whatsoever. Meanwhile, the whole thing was crumbling. Is it because Dharma is a bad devotee? No, definitely not. The reason for his terrible performance was his innate lack of abilities to manage properly. On the other hand, he is the best pujari and cook. He’s non-political and pure-hearted. He chant all his rounds, loves Gour-Nitai, and likes to study Prabhupada’s books. But in the matter of leading people, of conceiving feasible projects and successfully materializing them (in other words, transforming dreams into reality), he is a total failure. In my opinion, the same applies to you. All these 20 years, you had been just dragging, stumbling all the way, and as a result, alienating and disappointing a lot of Prabhupada’s followers. There are plenty of devotees that will confirm my assessment. Just ask me the names.
For the umpteenth time, I beg you: please give Yadu the time he has asked from you.
Your servant,
Aniruddha das.
Guatemala,
February 4, 2007.
Dear Guru Prasad Swami:
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Thank you for your letter. Because you wrote “if you send any more letters more than 2 pages, I will not have time to read it.”, then I will try to overturn your points in a succinct way.
First of all, I want to say that at the beginning and the end of my former letter, I apologize for the stern way I would express about yourself: “If in the process of expressing myself I say something you may consider offensive, I beg your forgiveness”. “Maharaja, I’m sorry for being crude and going straight to the bone. But Prabhudapa himself advised us: “If there is a boil in the body, just get a knife an cut it off! What this useless blowing will do?”
1.- “It seems that I cannot say anything to you, since I am defeated,
incompetent and guilty of so many psychological deviations in your mind.”
Your incompetence you yourself have admitted: ”Others says I’m a lousy manager; I agree although…” [Letter from you to Yadu, Dec-17-2006.] “It is true, and I admit, that I made mistakes with Ramananda and others in giving them authority.” [Letter to me, Feb-02-2007.] “I have never denied my mistakes, but…” [Letter to Sulochana d.d., Feb-03-2007.] Besides, there are many devotees who confirm your own assessment of yourself: “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.” {Letter from Yadu P. to you, Dec-04-2006.] “In my opinion, GPS is a terrible manager who projects his limitations to anything he touches. He is like King Midas, because he converts even gold into rubbish and to prove this point I refer to the existence evidence.” [Letter from Radha Krishna das to me, Oct-27-2006]. I beg to remind you that the GBC suspended you for one year precisely for not being a good manager.
Come on, Maharaja, we not are having a children’s conversation! We are dealing with a dead serious subject matter: nothing less than the future of the one and only farm ISKCON has in Mexico and Central America! Any smart observer can perceive that the overall world political climate is getting overheated. Somehow I have this hunch that in case a major conflict breaks out, the Costa Rica farm will be a shelter for hundreds of devotees. Anyway, coming back to the point, I also make mine Yadu’s words to you [letter dated Dec-04-2006): “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”.
Whether you accept or not Yadu defeated you in argument, it’s irrelevant now, because you are determined to sell Prabhupada’s farm anyway. In order not to hurt your sensibility, I will not quote strong statements and proverbs against those who don’t want to heed solid, well-intentioned advice. I will only say time will tell who was right.
And concerning “psychological deviations,” ..., please wait a minute! In none of my letters to you I have stated that you have “psychological deviations”. Nor have I ever said you are “megalomaniac”. You are lying.
What I wrote in my letter dated December, 6th, 2006, is: “Yadu has performed a very elaborated and successful “autopsy” of both you and Manonath, and has exposed your lack of good judgment or, in psychological terms, your irrational attachment to authoritarian dynamics.”. That’s quite different. By the way, you do have displayed a form of sociopath conduct. Let me be explicit:
In 1989 Kalpataru was in his deathbed. He got contaminated with AID’S, which at that time nobody knew how to treat it. Sadhu Prabhu and Yadu were taking care of him. Kaliya Krishna Prabhu told you in the morning: “Maharaja, thank God you are here! Your old friend Kalpataru is dying. Please pay him a visit and give him some words of relief!” But that night, Kalpataru left this “dreadful material world” without receiving your prayers. You see, Maharaja, the temperature of Kalpataruji’s body was so high, that it left a red spot on Yadu’s shoulder as a result of accommodating Kalpataru head in his lap in order to help him to drink water. Yadu didn’t care if he would get contaminated with AID’S or not. He fully depended on Krishna. For him, Vaisnava-seva was foremost in his mind. But you, Maharaja, you didn’t show up. You were so worry you might contract the ominous disease, that you rather “te protegiste el pellejo” [took measures to protect your skin.]
When I confronted you about your “lack of concern” towards to Kalpataruji, you just hastily made up some excuse. You told me: “We Vaisnavas are not so concerned with the material body.” Later
on, when I once again complained to you about this incident (I was outraged!), you twisted the story and you told me: “I arrived very late at the Temple on that day, so unfortunately at that time Kalpataru had already left his body”. Kaltataru!... You and he Yadu were bhaktas at the Costa Rica Temple, while
Kalpaturu was sankirtan leader. As God-brothers, you were taking prasadam together, taking rest in the same dormitory, going out in Harinam sankirtan together, etc. Kalpataru personally told me that during his 15-year campaign at the service of our beloved spiritual master, Om vishnu pada paramahamsa parivrajakacarya astotara sri srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, he single-handedly distributed more than one million and half of His Divine Grace books’s! But you, Maharaja, you didn’t have the heart, the gratitude to reciprocate with him at the critical time of death. For me, this is sheer “shamelessness.” I do not want to mention any more instances, but throughout your devotional life you have displayed this uncompassionate streak toward others.
“I refused at first. Then I reluctantly accepted to be GBC of Panama, Colombia and
Venezuela. Then, without myself being present, it was decided that I would also be GBC in Mexico. I refused, but finally, I was convinced to do so, along with C America”. You personally told me a couple of years ago: “Because there was no one willing to take that post, I
volunteered”. Either reluctantly or voluntary, you took the post. And because you willingly took it, since 1986 all eyes are staring at you. You have to meet the criteria of a humanitarian, loving, and trustworthy Vaisnava. In other words, you have to show the qualities of an advanced Vaisnava. But so far you haven’t in the opinion of many. I would like to elaborate more on this point, but it will take a long presentation.
Oops!, I’m exceeding the number of pages you kindly assign me. So, in order not to consume your valuable time, I will finish my
points in the form of sutras:
“I do object to both of you categorizing devotees, which may insult their intelligence.”
Characterization is a most common means of communication amongst writers. Par excellence, Srila Prabhuapada was the master of characterization. Please don’t be so naïve as to think I’m implying Manonath is an exact duplicate of Nero, a sadistic fellow
who committed murder and set afire the Costa Rica farm. No. My characterization of Manothat is just a rhetorical figure (it is called “sarcasm”) to highlight his authoritarian demeanor, as well as the harsh, arrogant way he has treated the C.R. farm devotees. That’s all.
“I appreciate your many quotes from our Venerable acaryas, and other philosophers and psycho-analysts. …But if you misapply them, you may commit an offense to a Vaisnava.”
Please do not try to scare me with worn-out quote of “beware of commiting Vaisnava-aparadha.” Translation: “Deny your perceptions. Whatever you see that doesn’t make sense, it’s really some fault in you. You have four defects and so your intelligence is zero. However, discriminating in which you blame on yourself, justifiable or not, is perfect. Discriminating in other ways is
really your excuse to faultfinding.” “Don’t criticize devotees,” we say-meaning close your eyes, stunt your intellect, don’t take a realistic look at the inconsistency between the character and the performance of those around you and the model described in the sastras.
“You don't even know him [Manonath Prabhu.]”
You are forgetting one very important point from our Krishna consciousness philosophy:
srutih pratyaksam aitihyam anumanam catustayam
pramanesv anavasthanad vikalpat sa virajyate
Srimad-Bhagavatam, 11.19.17
“There are four kinds of evidence
[pramanas] by which reality may be known: revelation, perception, history and hearsey, and inference”. [aitihyam: history and hearsesy. A.d.]
“I am enclosing at the end of this reply, a letter from Jiva-tattva dasa, offering his help in a practical, applicable and
immediate way to help the farm.” You also proudly said about this letter: “Practical solutions with Vaisnave etiquette.”
You may find both startling and amusing to know that Jiva Tattva wrote such a nice letter to you because I forwarded to Haripada Prabhu the first letter I wrote to you in Spanish on October 16th, 2006. Then Haripada -who inherited from his mother a house in Malaga- forwarded it or showed it to his devotee friends. So, the thing that has exasperated you the most -that we went public and made your bad idea of selling the farm a public domain issue, has actually bear good fruits. I hope you may also become happy upon hearing that I finally got in touch with Rama Vigraha Prabhu, who has a lot of experience in farm development. I suggested to him the idea of returning to Costa Rica and take charge of the farm, after coming to terms with you, of course. He welcomed the idea, and asked me some time to think about it.
“Harinama and Narendra. Whatever problem they had with BBT, was not handled by me. The devotee in charge told me they were printing without permission. He wanted to sue them…”
I’m sorry, Maharaja, but I don’t buy that story. (i) If it it’s true you didn’t intervene in solving the “problem”, then this another proof that you are out of touch not only with your disciples, but with the management of “all affairs concerning” your zone. (ii) As always, you are not taking responsibility for the actions taking place in your area of administration.
“Why have all my Godbrothers and devotees who have worked closely with me said just the opposite; that I need to be more assertive and demanding with others?”
Granted: you are not extremely authoritarian as other Gob-brothers. I publicly recognize that you are cordial and have good manners. Still, if by “assertive and demanding” you mean imposing your own will, then I’m sorry: Authoritarian dynamics will make your feeble preaching attempts come to a screeching halt.
“I object to underestimating any Vaisnava.”
What about: “His ‘ intuition’ [Yadu’s] about my motives for wanting to sell the farm, indicate a total distrust for the GBC, ISKCON leaders and myself”.? You are biting your own tongue.
I cannot write anymore because even I tried to squeeze as much as possible, still I couldn’t avoid to brake the two-pages mark. Excuse me.
Your servant,
Aniruddha das.
In answer to this fifth letter, Guru Prasada Swami took a LEAVE OF ABSCENSE FOR SIX MONTHS, and gave full power of attorney to Manonath das, Virabahu das y Bhakti Bhusana Swami, who were already in agreement with him to selling the farm.
How is the case continuing, we will inform all of you. Please keep posted.
Finally, we request all of you to protest. To send your message in support of the devotees of Costa Rica, and to make your voice clear against the selling of this Prabhupada’s property.
