Guru Prasad Swami Unabashedly Treats Nitai-Gourasundar Like Playthings

BY: ANIRUDDHA DAS

Guru Prasad Swami

Jul 11, COSTA RICA (SUN) — An update on the Costa Rica situation.

Unable to continue paying the rent at San Pedro (a city bordering San Jose), Guru Prasad Swami, Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath, probably following the backward steps and advice of Virabahu, last Sunday moved again the Deities of Nitai Gourasundar! Please remember that these four ISKCON leaders, forcefully and criminally - in the dark of the night, took away Nitai Gourasundar from Their farm, New Goloka Vrindavan, on July 2, 2007. With the help of their yes-men, that day they stole the Deities in order to clear the way for selling the farm, an absurd action which overtly goes against Srila Prabhupada’s Last Will and other instructions. All the details of this incident (and all the Costa Rica issue) were very well documented by Yadu in a 7-part series called “The Legitimacy of The Hare Krishna Movement in Costa Rica.” (Available on request)

Guru Prasad and Bhakti Bhusana Swami, along with Manonath, after offensively halting all worship to Their Lordships for a period of more than eleven months, relocated Them in a cramped apartment in San Pedro. They boasted they would preach and recruit “new bhaktas” from the National University,” just two blocks away. But soon, as predictable in the mismanagement of Guru Prasad Swami, the whole thing failed. There were no “new bhaktas,” not even money to pay the bills.

Now, in less than 2 years, Guru Prasad whimsically moved again Nitai Gourasundar. This time, guess what!: to a little house situated just three kilometers from New Goloka Vrindavan! Nitai-Gourasundar very clearly is indicated them They want to be back at Their farm, but these people are so callous, so shallow, that they cannot get the message across.

Never mind the yajna they performed to “please” -rather, “appease”, which again, they don’t know- Their Lordships for this second consecutive seva-aparadha (Srila Prabhupada: No, the large Deities can never be moved, not at all. Aug 21, 1975).

The truth of the matter is that Guru Prasad and accomplices are disrespectfully treating Nitai-Gourasundar. They are treating Them as if They were playthings. As objects for betting and fulfillment of their own whims. Besides, who guarantees them that Their Lordships are still living in that three-dimensional forms, after being stolen, manhandled, and thrown on top of a pile of household good ands clothes belonging to Priti-pavana das and his wife, both so-called disciples of Guru Prasad Swami?

Here is what Yadu wrote in this regard:

As legitimate owners, the devotees had been living at the farm for more than 21 years; they have cultivated the land; they have taken care and herded cows; they have built the Temple and installed Deities; they have built a community kitchen to prepare the prasada for all the members and visitors; they have built and improved the housing facilities, and they have continued the worship services even though the Deities were stolen.

Upendra: "Up to this day the worship of the Deities has never been stopped at the farm. Despite the fact that the Deities were stolen, the chanting of the holy names of the Lord has always been going on there uninterruptedly for more than 20 years. The idea behind the theft of the Deities was to discourage the devotees even more, and stop the chanting of the holy names of the Lord. That’s why they tried several times to shut down the program, but in spite of this, the devotional programs still go on unabated."

Since the moment the Deities were installed (January, 1994) to the present day, They have always been worshiped in the Temple at the Hare Krishna Farm in Cartago. For this reason the programs are still alive, and for this reason the Deities are still present.

We have already said that deity means divinity, and in this sense nobody can steal the Deity because the Deity is not subject of theft. Therefore, when it is said that “the Deities were stolen,” we are talking of the theft of the three-dimensional forms consecrated for the worship of Lord Caitanya, Lord Nityananda and Srila Prabhupada. What they stole and took away from the farm were those marble forms, not Lord Caitanya, not Lord Nityananda, and not Srila Prabhupada, because They will never allow Themselves to be under the sway of such gross materialistic wile.

Lokaswami: "The Deities cannot be removed from Their place of worship in the way they did it, stealing sacrilegiously the consecrated images. They broke in during the night, like vulgar thieves, and after cutting asunder the locks they took Them away without ceremony and without any respect. Afterwards they say the Deities “left”, but how do they know? How do they know that the Deities left after committing such a great offense? What guarantee do they have that the Deities left in the way they treated Them, as booty?

Srila Prabhupada: Once installed the Deities cannot be changed. [Letter March 31, 1973]

Lokaswami: What they did is not a romantic or theological act. It is a grievous offense. And it can neither be morally upheld with the excuse of having the title deed in their name, which is a lie anyway, a lie supported by Bhakty Abhay Charan Swami, as already proven in other documents. The next question is: How do they know that after “reinstalling” in San Pedro the Deities, which had already been installed at the farm, Their Lordships wanted to enter again into the marble forms they had stolen, after committing such offenses? What a dilemma! They don’t know."

For anyone who wants to analyze this from the doctrinal viewpoint, we should consider the following. The worship of the Deities is mentioned in the ancient Vedic literature such as the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, etc. The religious tradition of India is the oldest in the world and has a series of ramifications. The main branch which advocates the worship of the Supreme Lord -who in Sanskrit receives the names Vishnu, Narayana or Krishna (and many others)- is called Vaisnavism. Vaisnavism itself has several branches, differing not so much on philosophical and theological aspects, but rather in the emphasis regarding the form of God which is recommended to worship, as well as in the attitude the worshiper should have.

(We illustrate this with an example taken from the Western religious tradition: There is only one Jesus Christ, buy somebody can worship him as the child Jesus, another as the crucified Jesus, another as the Jesus arisen from the dead, and yet another one as the Blessed Sacrament. Nevertheless, the object of worship is the same, independently of the form or the emphasis put at the time of worship.)

The Hare Krishna Movement belongs to the Vaisnava branch expounded by Lord Caitanya, who appeared in Bengal at the end of the fifteen century, and who is accepted by this Vaisnava tradition as a direct manifestation of Krishna Himself. The main disciple of Lord Caitanya was Rupa Goswami, a prolific writer whose literary work includes a devotional treatise named Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. The importance of Rupa Goswami within this tradition is indisputable, so much so that the devotees of Krishna who follow Lord Caitanya are known as rupa-anugas: “followers of Rupa Goswami”.

Quoting ancient scriptures in his treatise, Rupa Goswami says the Deity is manifested in seven different ways, which are: A form made of metal; a form made of stone (marble or any other type of rock); a form made of wood, a form made of earth (clay); a form made of jewels; a form made with colors (oil painting, illustration), and a form made in the mind.

With this doctrinal information let us bring up again the theft of the Deities at the Hare Krishna Farm in Costa Rica. As the Deity can manifest in many forms, when the sacrilegious thieves stole the three-dimensional forms, there is nothing in our doctrine saying that the Deity couldn’t leave those marble forms in order to accept another form, perfectly fit according to the circumstances, to continue receiving worship at the farm.

And so it came to pass that the next day after the devotees discovered the theft of the marble forms, with great grief but also with great determination and conviction, they installed exactly at the same place, in the same Temple, on the same altar, a full-sized picture of the Deities (“a form made with colors”), and continued worshiping Them as before, with the same faith.

Furthermore, a theological principle of foremost importance in Vaisnavism is that from the devotional viewpoint there is no difference between the Lord’s name and the Lord’s presence; there is no difference between the name of Krishna and the form of Krishna. The Sanskrit text we are interested here says: abhedatvam nama-naminoh. This principle indicates that just as there is no difference between the name of Krishna and the form of Krishna, in the same way there is also no theological difference between the Deity and chanting of the holy names.

Therefore, because “the worship of Deities has never been stopped at the farm” , They have always been there (in the form of the picture and in the form in the mind, as confirmed by Rupa Goswami), and because in the farm “the chanting of the holy names has always been going uninterruptedly” the Deities have always been present there uninterruptedly due to the principle of no differentiation between Their names and Their forms (as the Vedic scriptures say.)

Consequently, what Lokaswami says -that the Deities cannot be removed from Their place of worship through an act of thievery, and that by doing so they cannot have the certainty that the Deities left as booty inside the thieves’ sack- is also corroborated by the teachings of Rupa Goswami. Besides, the farm was consecrated and offered to Krishna with all the prescribed rituals, and therefore it has become His Home, His Place of Pastimes. Then, who are Guru Prasad Swami, Bhakti Bhusana Swami, Manonath and Virabahu to pretend that through their subordinates they can issue Krishna, or the Deity, an eviction order? What is their doctrinal authority to perform such actions?

The most regrettable and shameless behavior in all this drama (and plot) is that the purpose of stealing the Deities was to wipe out the farm, disregarding Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, and disregarding the express whish of the donor, Mrs. Vera Cecilia Gonzalez Volio. And the most felonious mentality is that even though knowing that the Deity is not subject to theft, still they committed the sacrilege with the intention of clearing the way to FIVE MILLION DOLLARS, which could come along very cheerfully with the sale of the farm (without having honestly earned them by the sweat of their brows.)

-o-

Despite all the false accusations made by the self-proclaimed in their “Problems”; despite the many illicit maneuvers performed by their leaders (Guru Prasad Swami, Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath, supported by Virabahu); and despite the farce of pretending to be the official voice, the facts tell us this truth, this historic reality: The members of the Hare Krishna Community have been the dwellers of the farm since the moment Mrs. Vera Cecilia Gonzalez Volio donated it until the present moment. Why? Because the farm was donated to them. Period. Of this there is no doubt whatsoever. This is well known by the local neighbors, and internationally within ISKCON.

That the international leaders (Guru Prasad Swami, Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath) put the farm in their names is an abuse of authority, a swindle to the detriment of the local devotees, and a fraud.

In our Legitimacy it has been demonstrated that the devotees who advocate for the preservation of the farm are not a little group of dissidents. We are a substantial, numerous group, and above all, authentic, because we are part of Srila Prabhupada’s mission. And our leaders are loyal leaders because they insist on the implementation of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions such as his Last Will, the Mission Statements, and the Order of Decentralization.

-o-

Let’s see what would happen if Guru Prasad Swami, Bhakti Bhusana Swami, Virabahu, and Manonath would enter Srila Prabhupada’s room to consult directly with him. Let’s imagine some possible questions Guru Prasad and company could ask, but let us not imagine any answer from Srila Prabhupada, because we don’t need to imagine his words. We don’t need to speculate about what he would say. We only need to hear with faith what he has already said. We only need hear his direct words, because they are valid for all times. So although the question is a supposition, the answer is his answer.

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, we want to close a project in Costa Rica.

Srila Prabhupada: A center without a Deity can be closed, but a center with a Deity if closed it is a great offense. (Letter Oct 1, 1974)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, we have a great idea. We can steal the Deities in the middle of the night.
Manonath: If the Deities are removed, then there should be no offense.

Srila Prabhupada: No, the large Deities can never be moved, not at all. (Aug 21, 75)

Guru Prasad: We have been in this place for a long time and there have been no positive results at all.

Srila Prabhupada: When our Mexico City branch is open, how can we close it? That building is very nice and we had been there for five years now. I am not at all in favor of closing such a temple. Stay there in that building somehow or other. (May 25, 75)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, I am not talking about the temple in Mexico, I am talking about Costa Rica. And I am not talking about five years; I am talking about my twenty-two years as GBC for this country, and I have to do something because I have difficulties with this temple.

Srila Prabhupada: When you have opened it, it is not good to close it; that will be a discredit for the Society. Try to continue the branch by cooperation. (April 12, 67) Now that you have opened the temple do not think to close it even if there is some difficulty. (Oct 8, 74)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, I did not open it, I just want to close it down.

Srila Prabhupada: To close a temple is a very serious business, as well as opening one. It means that we are calling Krishna to come and reside there. Once Krishna is there, we cannot tell Him to now leave. (Letter to all GBCs, Sep 14, 74)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, the GBC is the ultimate managerial authority.
Virabahu: And the sole ecclesiastical authority of ISKCON by a 2008 GBC resolution.
Bhakti Bhusana: As authority we are supposed to take decisions, we have to.
Manonath: If one day the GBC accepts to be impotent, it’ll be the beginning of the end.

Srila Prabhupada: The primary objective of the GBC is to organize the opening of new Temples and to maintain the established Temples. (DOM Jul 28, 70) Since the temple is started, the temple cannot be closed on any day. (Jun 24, 1968)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, we already sent our lawyers to lock the doors of the temple and to stop the devotees from entering.

Srila Prabhupada: Once a center is opened it may not be closed down. That is very bad. (Jan 1, 71) Our policy should be to open branches as many as possible, but not to close a single one. That would be a degradation. (Jul 8, 69)

Bhakti Bhusana: Before us, another GBC closed the temple in Edinburgh.

Srila Prabhupada: I’m very shocked that he has closed the Edinburgh temple. This is very serious matter. Why has he done this? It is against the principles of devotional service to whimsically close a temple. I have written to him that the temple must be re-opened. (Sep 16, 74)

Manonath: Another GBC also proposed to close down Calcutta for economic reasons.

Srila Prabhupada: The proposal of closing Calcutta center is very inauspicious. Any center we open cannot be closed at any cost. (Nov 13, 76) I am not in favor of closing even a small temple. (Sep 12, 74)

Virabahu: Sometimes we see it necessary to close a temple. I closed Uruguay.

Srila Prabhupada: Closing a temple we cannot do. It becomes a farce and is against the bhakti cult. (Oct 1, 74) No temple can be closed for any reason. You have done a great mistake. (Sep 29, 74) The temple must be re-opened. (Sep 16, 74)

Guru Prasad: We are the appointed officers for ISKCON, and therefore have a specific responsibility.

Srila Prabhupada: Please make it a point that once a center is opened it should not be closed. (Dec 8, 67) Once a center is open it must be maintained. A responsible man for each center must be found out before opening. (Nov 15, 67)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, for opening a temple, yes, we need a responsible person. But to close down a temple we don’t need that. It is easier.
Manonath: Yes, that’s why I have come to help His Holiness.
Virabahu: As the ultimate managerial authority and the sole ecclesiastical authority we have to dictate to others the direction this movement should take.
Bhakti Bhusana: Srila Prabhupada, what else do you want us to do?

Srila Prabhupada: We must always remember that once a center is opened, it cannot be closed at any time. (Jan. 2, 1970)

Guru Prasad: Srila Prabhupada, I have been 22 years the GBC for the Costa Rica Farm, and I have not been able to plant even a lettuce. I have become very exhausted, that’s why I want to sell this farm.
Bhakti Bhusana: I also have been a GBC for 22 years, and for a number of years I have been helping Guru Prasad Swami in Costa Rica, but I have also not planted even a lettuce. Like him I am also very exhausted, therefore I agree with him on selling.
Virabahu: I have been a GBC for 20 years, since 1990 to be exact. I have been the property trustee here, and of course I also have not planted even a lettuce. Like His Holiness Guru Prasad Swami Maharaja and His Holiness Bhakti Bhusana Swami Maharaja, I am also very exhausted. Therefore we all three GBCs and Property Trustees have agreed that this farm should be sold.
Manonath: Your Divine Grace, we have consulted the GBC EC, the RGB, the GBC Chairman, the former Chairman, and other previous Chairmen. We have talked to many senior devotees, and had numerous closed-door meetings in the United States, in Houston. We spent hundreds of dollars and many hours in long distance calls, SKYPE conferences, etc. Your Divine Grace, your three Governing Body Commissioners are very exhausted and in poor health. Therefore they have to sell the farm. What other solution do you have?

Srila Prabhupada: The commissioners will serve for a period of 3 years. (DOM, 1970) Management, everything, should be done locally by local men. Do not centralize anything. Each temple must remain independent and self-sufficient. That was my plan from the very beginning. (Dec 22, 72)

-o-

EPILOGUE:

Guru Prasad Swami and allies are playing with fire. They have been committing offense after offense, but the GBC has chosen to turn a blind eye on their actions. Nevertheless, we, the real Srila Prabhupada’s servants in Costa Rica, the ones who are dutifully implementing his Last Will, the Order of Decentralization, as well as the DOM, are ready to welcome back Nitai-Gourasundar at Their 50-acre most beautiful farm, a green paradise, just a 45-minute drive from the capital city. For us, They are not a “burden”, playthings for political gain, but our beloved Lords Who were abusively taken away from our midst. And just for the sake of paper money.

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

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

Copyright 2005, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.