Costa Rica 'Hot Potato'
BY: YADU DASA
Jan 16, COSTA RICA (SUN) —
An exchange between Dhanesvar Prabhu and Yadu on the Costa Rica Issue
TO:
Sannyasis,
GBCs,
Regional Secretaries,
Temple Presidents,
Srila Prabhupada’s disciples,
Senior members,
ISKCON Authorities,
And Concerned Members of ISKCON,
Respected Vaisnavas, Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
After Dhaneshvar Prabhu read the first eigth articles of the series “A New Leadership for Costa Rica”, which is also being posted on the Pamho Conference for Srila Prabhupada’s disciples, he wrote to Yadu, asking several questions. The answers to those questions are presented here for the information and benefit of the world readership of the Sampradaya Sun.
After reading this exchange you will feel that, certainly, there is definitly a great need of a change of leaderhip in Costa Rica, for which I have suggested the name of HARINAMANANDA.
Insidentally, “The Hot Potato” also answers the core of Sita Pati’s letter, from Brisbane, to the Sampradaya Sun, which was that “Virabahu should be exonerated”. That was Sita Pati’s conclusion and if the conclusion is answered, his arguments can be considered as good as answered, although in a later issue I may address them.
Please read “The Hot Potato”, which although not part of the original series of articles under the name “New Leadership for Costa Rica”, it significantly contributes to the series, and can be taken as part of our case study.
A letter from Dhanesvar Prabhu:
Dear Yadu Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Today I received from Kurma Prabhu the complete file of events as you describe them and read through them carefully. It is very disturbing and heartbreaking for me to hear what is going on. However, the situation is indeed complicated and I want to make sure that I understand the facts properly. If you will please answer a few questions for me I will do everything that I can to see that dharma is served and the innocent are protected.
This has been a long drawn-out ordeal for all of you, but please don’t lose heart. Sri Krishna gives us tests such as these to see how well we understand how to act on His teachings, just as He gave similar tests to all of His close associates, such as Mother Devaki, Arjuna and the Pandavas, etc. Imagine Devaki had to have six of her children killed just after birth! So we should not lose heart, but stick close to the lotus feet of Srila Prabhupada and pray for Sri Krishna to give us proper direction from within as Supersoul, and take proper action. This is Krishna’s Movement and if we act according to His instructions we can only be successful.
Dear Dhanesvar Prabhu:
Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Thank you very much for having gone through all the documents that Kurma Rupa Prabhu sent to you.
The documents that I am releasing now under the title “A New Leadership for Costa Rica” were written in Spanish. Some sections, though, were originally in English, like the extracts from the letter to Bhanu Swami, and the extracts dealing with decentralization (exchange with Guru Prasad Swami). I have already translated the other half of the files, but I have to do a little introduction to accommodate them to our fresh audience. Once I sent them to Kurma Rupa I will ask him to forward them to you.
To give you the gist of what is still to come: After the Eighth Article, which includes Srila Prabhupada’s letter to Karandhar, we have several letters from different devotees, and two articles written by me about two things that so far nobody knows that I know, but which are going to add a lot of weigh. The last article is a summary. In total they are eighteen articles.
But in any case, what you already have, gives you an idea of the many anomalies that have been done, and good reasons to preserve the farm. You have said it right: it is dharma which is at stake.
I have been engaged in this endeavor since October 2006, when the devotees told me that Guru Prasad Swami has put an ad in the newspaper for liquidating the farm. Now a year and a half has passed and the farm is still there, and although the most horrible thing of stealing the Deities in the middle of the night has happened, I do believe that the farm should be preserved and that it will be preserved by Krishna’s will, and by the fearlessness of devotees like your good self, who speak up.
What you are doing in your letter to Guru Prasad Swami is an act of surrender. By the ordinary meaning of the word, in the ordinary world, surrender is something that a person may do at a given time. But in the transcendental process of Krishna consciousness, surrender becomes also a process; it is something that we choose to do at every step. As life keeps unfolding before us, the need for surrendering again and again to the will of the Lord, presents itself. Therefore, surrender is a process, and your letter to Guru Prasad Swami shows that you are living in that process. You wish to enter in the sannyasa list, which you deserve, but at the same time you have spoken fearlessly. This is what I call surrender. One cannot have fears and be a soul surrendered to Krishna; one cannot have fears, and expect that just formal entrance into the sannyasa order is going to confer upon him a special power for preaching. Sannyasa, from the bottom of the heart, means fearlessness.
Your references to the tribulations of Devaki and the Pandavas are a wonderful reminding of the spirit of hope that we should always keep alive in our hearts. I don’t think that my participation in this issue is an ordeal; I just think it is a call from my heart. And because you mention Paramatma, it fills me with peace to think that it has been a call from caitya-guru.
I want to offer a comment regarding one of the questions you asked Guru Prasad Swami:
Please provide us with good and sound arguments why this farm is to be sold despite the protests of the hundreds of devotees who live in that country.
At the end of my fourth letter to Guru Prasad Swami I gave him ten reasons to preserve the farm. None of them was the issue of consensus, although I had mentioned it as a problem in the previous letters. Then ISKCON Resolve approached me. (It is not that I approached them, but that they approached me.) The international secretary of ISKCON Resolvecame to the goshala to talk to Kurma Rupa. It was a friendly talk, but he explained the role of ISKCON Resolve. Kurma Rupa mentioned that Yadu was defending the farm, and the secretary send word that if I wanted I could give him the exchange with Guru Prasad Swami. I did, and after this, ISKCON Resolveasked me to get the local leaders to produce a list of all the devotees who wanted to preserve the farm.
I requested Yamuna Jivana to collect the names; to approach all those who have been in contact with Krishna consciousness since the preaching mission arrived in Costa Rica. I asked him not to limit himself to the devotees living at the farm, or to official members of ISKCON, but to approach anybody who has been practicing Krishna consciousness for at least two years, regardless if they had been initiated or not. I also told him to write down their spiritual name, their civil name and their ID number (which is a number that never changes, something like the U.S. Social Security number).
Thus, on the request ISKCON Resolve and according to the deadline giving to us, the extraordinary list of almost three hundred devotees was produced. All of them voted for the preservation of the farm because they understand that it offers the best grounds for the infrastructure for a community of Vaisnavas.
Some of my opponents have tried to discredit this list, but the people are there and their votes were registered with their ID number. I never thought that anyone would try to discredit our votes, otherwise I would have also requested telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.
Now let me answer all the questions you ask me.
Why the GBC want to sell the farm, or what they give as a reason?
The GBC is Guru Prasad Swami and the Chairman for Latin America RGB is Virabahu. Bhakti Bhusana Swami has been invited to Costa Rica as assistant co-GBC, and he is playing a role of subordination to Guru Prasad Swami and Virabahu, although he is senior. Therefore, I preferred to personalize the question: Why do Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami want to sell the farm?
The positive reason that Guru Prasad Swami gives is that he wants to open a center in the capital city.
[GPS:] “Somehow or another, we have a small preaching center now, but we cannot maintain it for long under the present circumstances. Srila Prabhupada said, preaching requires men, money, land and organization”. [GPS quotes Srila Prabhupada]:
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.
(Room Conversation, Mayapura Construction 19 Aug 76, Hyderabad.)
The negative reasons that he gives is that there are no good devotees at the farm.
[GPS:] [1] The devotees living on the farm do not pay their rent, usually less than $100/month, which is supposed to maintain the deities. [2] Many fences are down, many repairs are needed, what to speak of caring for the devotees. [3] There are squatters trying to invade our land, and no one to protect it. [4] I have had to pay thousands of dollars in legal and other expenses. I cannot continue to do so. [5] Most of the farm devotees rarely go to the temple, and even fewer worship the deity or perform regular service.
These were the main reasons Guru Prasad Swami gave, which I minutely refuted in the fifth letter of our exchange. A summary for you: Number one: Srila Prabhupada says we required land. Number two: About the negative reasons; none of them existed during Bhakty Abhay Charan ex-Swami’s time. When Guru Prasad Swami takes over, by his neglectful administration things deteriorate, and now he said we have these problems, for which the solution is:
1) Steal the Deities, perhaps even breaking them in the process.
2) Fences are down? Sell the farm.
3) Possible squatters? Guru Prasad Swami himself doesn’t say that there are squatters at the farm, but only they are trying to invade the farm, and that there is no one to protect it. If no one is there to protect the farm, what has stopped the squatters from invading it? But forget the talk of protecting the land, just sell it.
4) Thousands of dollars in legal and other expenses? According to Guru Prasad Swami himself, the lawyer works for free. Then what could be the other expenses? Most likely it is money used for maintaining Manonath.
5) Devotees not enthusiastic? Forget about preaching to them.
You see, Dhanesvar Prabhu, if when Bhakty Abhay left there was a program running smoothly, it was not because the devotees were not good.
How did the idea of selling ever come up in the first place? Only when you first heard that it was advertised for sale?
I heard about this in October 2006, when the ad was published in the newspapers. But later on Yamuna Jivana Das -the local leader who, on the manipulation of the lawyer transferred the property to Guru Prasad Swami- forwarded me two letters that he has written to Bhakti Vaibhava Swami and Bir Krishna Goswami respectively, because Bhakti Vaibhava was the current Chairman of GBC, and Bir Krishna was the former Chairman (By the way, they did not answered). But from these letters from Yamuna, we can know that the talk had been on the air for several months before the advertisement.
I was first informed by Kurma Rupa, who told me: “So and so came to the goshala and said that the farm in Costa Rica has been sold”. He told me this as if it was a fact that has already happened. I became annoyed because I knew of the potential of the place, but I was not thinking to do anything, since the farm was already sold. Then, a couple of days later I met the same person who had talked to Kurma Rupa, and this person told me that it was NOT sold already, but that it was advertised for sale, which for him was as good as sold. Then I became very happy, and told him: “No. I will write to Guru Prasad Swami, I will offer my help to go there”. I was thinking that I was going to make him change his opinion with a single letter... And probably Maharaja might have also thought that I was going to write only one letter...
If you have had 200 pages of exchange with Guru Prasad M. what reason did he give for his actions, or Bhakti Bhusana M., Virabahu or any of the others?
In the first question that you asked me above, I gave you the main reasons Guru Prasad Swami told me. They can be summarized in a single one: the need of money for preaching. I do not accept this as bonafide, but that is what is boiled down to. Bhakti Bhusana Swami has not written anything about this, although Guru Prasad Swami in one of his letters said: “I also hope that Bhakti Bhusana Swami will say something about this”. Manonath has written just to support Guru Prasad Swami and to try to disqualify me. Virabahu, in a letter to Aniruddha, denied having any responsibility in Costa Rica. But he was substituting Guru Prasad Swami in his leave of absence, he is the Chairman of the RGB for Latin America, and he is one of the Property Trustees for Costa Rica. Therefore I don’t accept Virabahu non accountability. When the Deities were stole I wrote him a couple of letters. He did not answer, and therefore I have no other recourse to go public, hoping to find people like you, on the one hand, and hoping to create enough public awareness so that the GBC body has to perceive this as a shame. (The three property trustees are Virabahu, BPS, and BBS).
Without hearing why one can only anticipate that they are going to take the money and use it for themselves, which is clear and simple theft; or perhaps they are doing this to get the money to pay for the gurukula lawsuit, which still actually amounts to nothing but theft from the innocent devotees of Costa Rica.
A sannyasi friend of mine, who is also a friend of Guru Prasad Swami, told me that he believes that there is greed as part of the motivation. He doesn’t see Guru Prasad Swami as greedy or needy, but he told me that somebody is getting a chunk. It is not that I am malicious, but since a sannyasi has this opinion, I don’t want to be naive, and so I also accept the posibility that there must be some money going to benefit private pockets. On the other hand, our Chairman of the RGB, Virabahu, has proved through many of the articles of the exchange “Virabahu-Darukrishna” that he has a particular liking for making money out of the temples he supervises. Regarding the gurukulis’ lawsuit, that was my intuition, but Guru Prasad Swami flatly denied any relationship between his decision not to preserve the farm in Costa Rica and the Turley case.
And why is Guru Prasad talking about a three-phase program? And why does such a conversation arise AFTER discussion to sell the farm?
The three-phase program Guru Prasad Swami is referring to is a plan that I presented to him in my second letter, and which I also repeat as reason 35 in my letter to Bhanu Swami. (If you want to read it again, by mistake I typed “35” two times, so please look at the first one.) The conversation about the three-phase plan arrives after the discussion of selling the farm, because it was precisely to stop the selling that I presented it. Maharaja said he likes it, but he said that his application was contingent on my going to take charge of the project. The fact is, however, that there are other devotees capable to put the plan in action. Yamuna Jivana, Lokaswami, mother Sevya, they can lead the program on a local level, and Harinamananda can be an ideal supporter and participant as a liaison between the local devotees and the GBC. I myself am in the middle of something that will take a couple of more years to finish.
Also dates are not properly indicated so it is difficult to understand the sequence in which things took place.
The sequence is as I narrated it in the paper The Last Pillar of Religion. In a nutshell: The farm was donated on 1986. The Deities were bought in 1992, and installed in 1994. Bhakty Abhay Charan Swami was having a number of romances for several years. I visited Costa Rica on September 1999. A prabhu who, while doing some service in the house of the guru, by chance has seen his gurudev naked on top of the body of a woman, talked to me; one of the ladies exploited in this way, also talked to me, without my asking or prodding. She just came up and revealed the affair. I said: “Go ahead, reveal it to others”. In 2000, after an initial negation, Bhakty Abhay Charan Swami pleads guilty. He decides to leave the country for good, and on the advice of the lawyer he puts the farm on the name of Guru Prasad Swami and Yamuna Jivana das, a man that Bhakty Abhay trusted for his utter honesty. After two years (2002), the donor wants back a 30 % that she has originally reserved for her and her husband, but which later on, without her full consent was transferred to Bhakty Abhay. At this time the lawyer manipulates Yamuna Jivana (as narrated in The Last Pillar of Religion, First Anomaly) and Guru Prasad Swami becomes the exclusive legal owner of the farm, through a simulation of selling-and-buying and trick of pre-dating the document.
On November 10th, 2005, Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami (legal names Mario Savellone and Stefan Kess) create the commercial company named “El Sostenedor de la Colina, Sociedad Anónima” (The Lifter of the Hill, Ltd). The incorporation papers are drafted by the lawyer, in which it is declared that Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami invest ten thousand colons (equivalent to twenty dollars, at the rate of 500 colons per dollar), to create the initial capital for the Lifter of the Hill. This initial or “social capital” is divided in a hundred shares, of which Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami owe fifty each. Each share is worth therefore a hundred colons (twenty cents of a dollar).
On December 9th, 2005, the documents requesting the incorporation are presented to the Government of Costa Rica. And for publication in the Official Gazette they pay a fee of 3.150.00 colons (three thousands one hundred and fifty colons, which is equivalent to six dollars thirty cents).
On February 14th, 2006, the Government of Costa Rica issued the certificate of Registration, and the Lifter of the Hill becomes a recognized legal corporation. The government document reads: Number of Certificate of Registration: 691825-2007. Number of Corporation: 3-101-426982.
On December 15th, 2006, The Lifter of the Hill becomes the legal owner of the Hare Krishna farm in Costa Rica.
This means that when I approached Guru Prasad Swami in October 2006, the farm was still in his name. His transferring it to the Lifter was to elude responsibility. He did not want to burn his hand with this hot potato. But the potato is too hot and is burning everybody anyway. Whoever has touched this potato has a red mark in his hand. Red alert!
And here goes the objectives of the Lifter:
OBJECTIVES: To give legal and financial advice; commerce, industry, agriculture; acquire, sell and mortgage real estate properties; make loans and mortgages; form fiduciaries.
The above objectives are the direct transcription and translation from the government Certificate of Registration. In the documents of incorporation, the eighth clause also gives the objectives of the corporation. The list is a little bigger but the principles are the same. (I deal with this in one of the papers that you have not so far received from Kurma Rupa.)
Dhanesvar Prabhu, do you see any relation between the objectives of the Lifter of the Hill and Srila Prabhupada’s mission statements?
Another thing: I also have the property deed. It was sent electronically to me directly from the Government of Costa Rica, on December 7th, 2007, at 3:38 PM. The color of the document is a glossy light blue, with dark blue borders, and letters in black, red, and dark blue.
It says that the owner of the farm is the ill fated Lifter, and that the estimated value of the property is twenty five million colons (25.000.000). When this is converted into dollars at the rate of 500 per dollar, we get a value of fifty thousand dollars ($ 50.000). But the farm is worth, at least five, million dollars. Think of this.
A property worth five million dollars is declared in the title deed to be worth fifty thousand. So, if the lawyer sells the farm and the money disappears, and after this you send somebody to investigate, they will tell you: What are these five million dollars Yadu is talking about? Look, this is the government price: only fifty thousands!!! What Yadu is telling are only lies, exaggerations, and misrepresentations.
Of course, now that we got them before selling the land, they may tell us that the fictitious price (a hundred times less that the actual price, from five million to fifty thousands), is just a device of our faithful and good lawyer to diminish the taxes of the commercial company The Lifter of the Hill. But what we have to know is that if the property were in the name of our bonafide ISKCON society, it will be tax-exempted.
H
To give you an idea of the price of the land: Just in front of our farm they are selling plots of 300 square meters for $ 35.000 (thirty five thousand dollars). In the deed it is recorded that our property measures 219.734 (two hundred nineteen thousands, seven hundred thirty four square meters). Divide this quantity by 300 and you get 732 plots; multiply them by $ 35.000, and you can have an idea of how valuable the land is in this area. Why is it so valuable? Simple, because it is in the middle of two growing cities, and soon it is going to be totally surrounded by them. But they say they want to go to preach in the city. (!?!)
And again another thing: Both Guru Prasad Swami and Manonath have claimed that the Lifter of the Hill is legally bound to the three property trustees, but in the documents of incorporation, as well as in the Certificate of Registration issued by the government, there is absolutely no mention of it. The only condition stipulated in these documents is that both owners (Manonath and BBS) can act only conjointly. There is no reference whatsoever to the ISKCON property trustees.
Is it true that NOW Bhakti Bhusana Swami, and Manonath das ALONE are the sole owners of the farm?
I have already answered this question above. They are the exclusive owners. They are the owners of the Lifter of the Hill, fifty-fifty. A company that they incorporated with an initial capital of twenty dollars divided in a hundred shares, is now the owner of Srila Prabhupada’s property, worth minimum five million dollars!!! Is the lawyer going to have any benefits from this prosperous company?
In the documents of incorporation it is specifically mentioned that a 20% should be eventually separated for legal expenses (i.e. for Guru Prasad Swami’s lawyer). So if the farm is actually sold, then you know now at least where a possible 20% may go. (That’s why I spoke a lot about this lawyer in The Last Pillar of Religion.)
Dhanesvar Prabhu, do you think that Virabahu is innocent in all this mess? Do you think that a Property Trustee for Costa Rica should not know this? Do you think that as a GBC substituting Guru Prasad Swami in his leave of absence, Virabahu has no responsibility whatsoever? Do you think that someone can be the Chairman for the RGB for Latin America and claim ignorance of what is happening in Costa Rica?
Have any other GBC besides Bhanu M. been apprised and know what is going on here? And what do they say?
I gave Bhanu Swami a chance to answer me. But after a month or so I sent the letter to Yasomatinandan Prabhu, a former GBC, and to Basughosh Prabhu, a member of the Indian RGB. They are my friends, and if they want to fight, they are not shy. Both of them acknowledged my letter, and wished me well. I also send copy to Sesa Prabhu, who knows me. He did not answer, but I met him in Vrindavan last Kartika. He embraced me I was very kind. I did not brought the issue to him again, but by his demeanor I know that he has read it, and doesn’t oppose to what I am doing. I also sent the document to Kadamba Kanana Swami, because I also know him and he had been instrumental in stopping the sale of the farm in Spain. He also did not answer, but I also met him in Kartika. He brought up the issue, and more or less in an apologizing way explained his inability to participate. He wished me well and said that he believes that I would have greater satisfactions if I engage myself in some intellectual service.
A mataji from Costa Rica wrote a letter to all the members of the GBC, and Malati Devi answered with two short messages. Then I also wrote a couple of short letters to Malati, but to my surprise, she did not answer to me, although she had answered to the Costa Rican lady.
Similarly, Jayapataka Swami answered with a short message to this Costa Rican lady. Thereafter Aniruddha therefore sent to him my letter to Bhanu Swami and other documents, but Jayapataka Swami did not answer again.
Also Lilanath Prabhu has sent the material to Bhakti Marga Swami. Maharaja briefly answered and he said that the case “warrants going to the GBC Chairman” and he suggested “a more senior level instead of just the local GBC to investigate the situation”.
That was before, now we have decided to send all the documents of the series “New Leadership for Costa Rica”, to every single GBC. This means that the nine documents that Kurma Rupa gave with this title have already been sent to the individual GBCs.
In your communication to the worldwide body of devotees let me suggest that you mention what they have said.
The only persons who have spoken on this are Guru Prasad Swami and Manonath. I decided not to discuss the issue with Manonath for the reasons I expressed to Guru Prasad Swami in our exchange. I have translated the exchange and released it in fourteen installments. This has been done with the idea to share my arguments with the local Costar Rican devotees and with Spanish speaking devotees in other countries, who cannot understand English. I also though to publish the exchange in English in the same numbers of installments, which makes the reading easier and more interesting, but I also considered that I have successfully summarized all the reasons to protect the farm in my letter to Bhanu Swami. Therefore, I think that it may not be necessary to publish the exchange in English.
In the eighteenth article of the series of which you have received half I will summarize the situation. And I will include some key passages from Guru Prasad Swami and Manonath. Thank you for this suggestion.
In the long zip file that I have there is some of the correspondence between you and Guru Prasad M., but if he is no longer the owner of the property all of that simply confuses the issue, for right now; as does the history with Virabahu. He and Virabahu, and the future leadership there can be sorted out later.
It may seem so far that the history with Virabahu and the references to Guru Prasad Swami may confuse the issue, but when you read the complete series of eighteen articles, then there is no confusion. Everything comes to focus at the end. The first half that you have read is important background information.
Although Guru Prasad Swami is no longer the legal owner, he is the GBC, and Virabahu is the Chairman of the RGB for Latin America; both of them are also property trustees for Costa Rica. Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami are actually in a role of subordinates. They are the legal owners, but they will not do anything against these other two GBCs. Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath are just figureheads. Guru Prasad Swami is a very nice man, but time and time again he makes managerial mistakes. His physical health is a mess, and because he has made so many mistakes, he has become insecure, and this insecurity makes him make more mistakes. It is a vicious cycle. But in spite of all the nice things I can say about him, and all the reasons I may have to understand his shortcomings, he is responsible for what is happening in Costa Rica. And if we want to strengthen Srila Prabhupada’s mission in that country and in Latin America we cannot spare him.
Regarding Virabahu, I will answer after your next point. But one thing is clear to me: that Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami are only figureheads. So as far as possible I have avoided talking about them. They will do what Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami ask them to do.
If the pressure is put on Guru Prasad Swami and Virabahu, then it is automatically put on Manonath and Bhakti Bhusana Swami.
Certainly the issue of leadership can be discussed later. I have suggested Harinamananda because he is a dynamic and very able man. Another reason is that eventually he will go back to Central America, anyway, then why not now? This is, however, clearly only a suggestion. I have exchanged messages with him and he has expressed his willingness and enthusiasm to come back. Besides that, Guru Prasad Swami has used as an excuse “the lack of local men to occupy the post of leadership”. Therefore, although I do not agree with Maharaja on this point, suggesting the name of Harinamananda addresses his argument.
It seems to me that it is better not to put the entire history with Virabahu before the public at first because at this point it seems that he has little to do with anything. If Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath das alone can sell the farm then that is where the pressure must be applied. Or rather, pressure applied on the GBC body to put pressure on them not to sell.
Yes, the farm is exclusively on the name of Bhakti Bhusana Swami and Manonath, and although legally they could sell it, they just won’t do it unless is a concerted plan. And this plan can never take place without the approval of Virabahu. I know Virabahu very well, that at this point it seems that he has little to do with anything, yes, it seems like that. It will seem like that always. That is his style. That was also how Sita Pati Das tried to defend him in the publications that are going on in the Sampradaya Sun. Sita Pati said: “Virabahu was not so much involved in Peru; therefore we should not make him responsible for the disasters that happened there.”
Dhanesvar Prabhu, if you go anywhere where Virabahu has been responsible, you will find that he was very little involved. But it is precisely this lack of involvement what disqualifies him. Go to Uruguay, Venezuela, Miami, Puerto Rico, Rosario, Peru, go anywhere, and they will tell you the same thing: that Virabahu is not so much involved. When I was working with him in the Spanish BBT, he was the translator, and he was jealous that no other person should become the translator, but he himself was very little involved in the translations, and so the story goes. This is Virabahu’s style: to occupy the highest possible position, to receive the greatest possible honors, and to get as little involved as possible. This is cheating.
If you take Guru Prasad Swami, Manonath, Bhakti Bhusana Swami, and Virabahu, you must know for sure that Virabahu is the most influential man in this group. But he likes to do his work from behind the curtains. Therefore I have to expose him. I want that the whole GBC body feels ashamed with his last of performance. Virabahu has been a GBC for twenty years, twenty years of non involvement and non-performance, and therefore twenty years of disasters.
If the GBC body could become agitated enough due to Virabahu’s ridiculous exchange with Daru Krishna and ridiculous performance as a GBC manager, and if the GBC body dismisses him, great favor will be done to Virabahu, and his health may improve; and even a greater favor will have been done to Srila Prabhupada’s mission and to all the devotees in Latin America.
It appears that the local devotees have been able to keep everything tied up by legal proceedings, and this is good to delay the sale of the property as much as possible. Continue to do that until we can build pressure on the GBC.
It was me who first talked to Guru Prasad Swami that we could be brought to court to stop the sale, and that therefore it was to his advantage and to his good credit to stop it on his own. Maharaja and Manonath argued that there was nothing illegal. So I asked the devotees to prepare all the documents for a legal battle. We had, however, all hopes that by Gour Purnima 2007 the issue would come to an end because we had produce the list of three hundred devotees. Nothing was solved in Mayapur.
The local devotees asked me again if they should go to court. I told them to wait until Guru Prasad Swami’s six month leave of absence finished, for continuing our talks with him.
But on March 16th (2007) Manonath send an ultimatum from Vrindavan, in which he mentions Virabahu’s name, who at that time was also in Vrindavan. The ultimatum said that the local devotees had only one month to present another plan, which should not be Yadu’s plan, and which should be approved by Virabahu and Manonath; that in case of the plan not being approved, then the authorities will proceed with their own plan to sell the farm, and that the promises done in the past will not be honored.
The plan was supposed to be ready by April 16th (2007), otherwise, according to the ultimatum they will sell the farm by May 16th. Then I told the local devotees that there was no other option but to go to a lawyer. But still we have the hope that all this could be solved out of court. Then on May 14th, (two days before the total expiry of the ultimatum) I send my letter to Bhanu Swami requesting his intervention. There was no answer. And on July 2nd the Deities were stolen.
Then the legal case for the theft of the Deities took place. This delayed the proceedings about doing anything with the farm.
We consulted several lawyers until we got arguably the best one, for he is the one contacted by the highest political people. He said that there is no need of money, but when the case is over he should receive a 15% of the property. This is a very prestigious lawyer; compared to him Guru Prasad Swami’s lawyer is in great disadvantage; it is like asking Bhimasena to fight with Sudama Vipra. But this lawyer made it clear that once he begins the case there is no turning back; that most likely Maharaja will have to negotiate fifty-fifty; otherwise the lawyer is ready to go to the end; he doesn’t how many years the case will take.
The 15% of 22 hectares (more than 50 acres) is about 8 acres. At the present rate of the land this will be an equivalent of $700.000 to $800.000, for the lawyer. We are ready to go for the legal battle, all the papers are in order in the hand of the lawyer; the only thing needed is that Yamuna Jivana should sign them. But because I got the hint from the exchange between Bhakti Marga Swami and Lilanath Prabhu, that there will be some discussion in Mayapur, I told Yamuna to wait till Mayapur. The reason is that these eight acres of land (or $700.000 to $800.000) that we will have to give to the lawyer belong to Srila Prabhupada, and it gives us tremendous pain to go to that extreme. If the GBC body in Mayapur doesn’t stop all this, then take it for granted the lawsuit will take place. We, the humble devotees, are trying to give the GBC body a glorious opportunity to avoid it.
I have openly told Guru Prasad Swami that we will go to court, and it is not a threat. But Maharaja must be in great trouble; perhaps he is framed by his lawyer. Guru Prasad Swami and the other leaders have allowed their lawyer do so many illegal maneuvers that if the lawyer wants, most like all of them will go to jail. This is what I told Guru Prasad Swami in private correspondence: “Either your lawyer made so many mistakes implicating all of the four leaders (you, BBS, Manonath and Virabahu), or else he has craftily worked his way, leading all of you to a trap, whereby he can easily frame you...”
Please send me your phone number along with your time zone and the best time to call.
Our mutual friend Rohini Priya was here and he gave his mobile phone, but it is now disconnected during the month of January, and perhaps also in February.
Most likely Guru Prasad Swami will not answer you in writing, but he will request your telephone number to talk. I suggest that you record him and make a reverse speech test.
Kurma prabhu is giving some help by putting this message out on pamho. Is anybody else taking any action now?
Last year Praghosh, our sankirtan man, wrote a number of nice letters to me, and he also wrote to Guru Prasad Swami. Then Maharaja talked to him over the phone. I know from Devadas what Guru Prasad Swami must have said. This is what Devadas forwarded to me: “Please send me your telephone and we can talk about this long story. I don’t believe these devotees who are saying lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations and politics” [quoted from memory]. This was the answer Guru Prasad Swami gave Devadas when Devadas sent him the same files that Kurma Rupa gave you. But the irony is that Daru Krishna Prabhu said: “I can repeat every word in front of the Deities”. And it was Virabahu who had to retract his false accusations. So who was telling lies?
When I transcribe to you the objectives of the Lifter you can know that I am not saying lies, but that they are acting in a shameless way in the name of serving our beloved Srila Prabhupada.
I believe that we should rally all of the senior devotees to put a stop to this.
Yes, of course, that’s why I have gone public. That’s why I went to the Pamho Conference, where the most senior devotees meet. The following is an advance quote from Harinamananda’s letter, to be published as number twelve of the series:
Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Convenience asks the question: is it politically expedient? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But consciousness asks: is it correct? And, unavoidably, the time comes when one has to take a stance which is not safe, which is not political, which is not popular; but one has to take it because consciousness tells you that it is correct”.
It may be a dilemma for some of our senior men to come forward and confront even senior god brothers, but sometimes we have no option. It is an act of surrender: we have to do what we have to do when we have to do it.
I beg you, Dhanesvar, in spite of all the difficulties that this implies, please to take up this cause.
This is no different than the crisis with the TP’s vs. Tamal Krishna and Radha Damodar Party in 1976, or the Zonal Acarya crisis that came to a head in New Vrindavana in 1986.
Yes, it is not different. The issue is not a farm in Costa Rica. The issue is dharma. The outcome of this confrontation should become a precedent for a new direction of Srila Prabhupada’s movement, not only in Costa Rica or in Latin America but in the world. The two instances that you mention bring to mind that there have been times when the humble Vaisnavas had no other option but to be bold. We cannot be humble, we cannot be saintly, if our humbleness or our saintliness is an obstruction to serve Srila Prabhupada and help him to strengthen his mission. We cannot be anything however glorious, if that glory is unfavorable to Srila Prabhupada’s service.
We cannot even aspire to be sannyasis if we have to preach but we cannot defend Srila Prabhupada’s legacy. We don’t need to be sannyasis if our preaching is not going to allow us to serve our guru.
In your letter to Guru Prasad Swami, you have already taken the risk, you have taken a step in fearlessness: “Maharaja, did you ever hear of this quote from Mohammed: ‘Our own men have done more to harm Islam than our enemies have ever dreamed of doing’? After so many past issues, and now yet what appears to be developing into another one, we can also say the same thing. But to top it off, it's not the rank and file who are doing such disservice time and time again-it is the supposed leaders!”
You can speak like this, Dhanesvarji, because you have faith, because you have only one shelter, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.
The GBC who are charged with protecting the Movement cannot be allowed to flagrantly violate their own procedures.
Yes, it cannot be allowed. But in Costa Rica, it has already happened. See again the objectives of the Lifter of the Hill. It is a violation, not only to GBC procedures but to Srila Prabhupada’s mission statements. It should not have happened; but since it has already happened, the next best thing is to correct the situation. In order to correct this we should know who the main men are: Virabahu and Guru Prasad Swami.
Oh, may I suggest one more thing. If we mix too many issues together somebody who is against one of them must take a stand against all. Better not to do that. I think it would be better to leave the issue of decentralization aside for now as well. I suggest that you remove references to it from you package.
The package that you received has already been published in the Sampradaya Sun, and it has also been sent to more than a thousand individual e-mail addresses, as well as to the individual GBCs. I am really not dealing with many issues. It seems like that in the process of the discourse, but from the very first letter to Guru Prasad Swami I have been dealing only with two issues: that the farm should be preserved and that there should be consensus. Consensus, local participation, decentralization, they are all synonyms. The point is this, that the moment the GBC body orders to stop all this nonsense, we should not allow the farm to remain in the name of the Lifter. The farm should be put in the name of a properly registered ISKCON society, and some senior local devotees should be included as co-signer. I spoke about decentralization, no so much to discuss it with Guru Prasad Swami, but as a means to empower the local devotees in Costa Rica. I wanted them to feel: “Yes, we have inherited this right from Srila Prabhupada. It is his wisdom. It is our duty”. I wanted that they all should feel that Srila Prabhupada was empowering them. If we preserve the farm, but it remains in the name of the Lifter it will not really be a victory for Krishna consciousness. As long as the farm is in the name of the Lifter, they will not allow it to develop into a community of a hundred families, and we will fail to encourage the local devotees to put a hundred percent of their energy in the project.
If the articles would have not been published in other internet outlets, I will consider removing some parts, as you suggest. But since they have already been published, let see what happen. Decentralization, anyway, will go hand by hand with the bonafide property trustee system.
Yes, you are correct they have NOT done that. But they haven’t done many more things as well. Again, we can take up that issue at another, better time. Don’t alienate any potential allies by mixing that in. Let’s save the farm first. Deal with the management issues later.
Yes, I don’t want to alienate any potential allies. But there are different types of allies: those who are members of the official leadership of ISKCON, and those who are leaders without any official position. The topmost official leaders can exert their influence on the authorities on the lower levels only to a certain degree and under certain circumstances. The dismantling of the Zonal Acharya system proves this. When independent leaders without any official position raise their voices and they are heard and supported by many, then the roads for a social change are opened. Usually the majority follows the leaders, but sometimes the leaders follow the majority, as Victor Hugo said: “I am their leader; I have to follow them”.
It seems to me that there is lots of pressure coming from somewhere high above because everybody seems to want to pass this hot potato off to somebody else and say they are not responsible. But still somebody must be pushing for this to happen otherwise these devotees might just do the right thing, which is the easiest thing to do!
Guru Prasad Swami is humble enough to rectify a course of action. He is detached enough to do the right thing for Srila Prabhupada. I believe that if Maharaja would have not been under pressure he would have accepted my proposal, for-as you say-to stop this course of action and do the right thing, would have been quite easy. But he did a great mistake. When I contacted him in October 2006 the farm was in his name, and on December he transferred it to the Lifter. In his personal correspondence with me (that you have) he denied being under pressure. I want to believe him, but it is a little difficult, because if it was really so, then I have to conclude that he has acted foolishly by unnecessarily transferring the property to the Lifter. I know Maharaja, and I cannot think that he is a fool, so he must have been under pressure, but the fact is that he denied it.
I know one thing, at least: that Virabahu is behind all this. If Virabahu would have not supported him, Guru Prasad Swami could not have never come this far. Virabahu supported Pramana Swami and Viraha Prakash Swami, way back in 1978, when they separated from ISKCON. Virabahu was the brain behind it. He personally told me: “They would have never been able to do what they did, had I not supported them.” (His exactas Spanish words were: Ellos nunca hubieran podido hacer lo que hicieron si yo no los hubiera apoyado”) But as always, he was behind the scenes. (When the Deities were stolen I wrote a letter to Virabahu, in which I reminded him of all this.)
In the exchange “Virabahu-Darukrishna” it is clearly seen how Virabahu loves money and loves to make money out of Srila Prabhupada’s projects. And again, I can tell you, Dhanesvar Prabhu, that if you take this small group of Manonath, BBS, GPS and Virabahu, you can be a hundred percent sure that Virabahu is the main man, although he is behind the curtains, as usual. He must be the man pushing the whole thing around. Therefore, I insist again and again that Virabahu should be removed as property trustee for Costa Rica, as Chairman of the Latin American RGB, and if possible as a member of the GBC body.
Somebody has to be responsible! Yes, there are people superior to Virabahu and heavier than him, but in this small group of four leaders, he is the main one.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you, thank you, once again for your inquiry.
May Sri Krishna bless you for all of your endeavors to protect Srila Prabhupada’s Movement.
I bow down my head and pray for the same blessings. It is to Srila Prabhupada that I owe my life in India; it is to him that I owe my faith in Krishna. It is to him that I want to serve to the best of my capacity; and by his mercy, it is devotees like you I want to associate with.
Very sincerely and happy that we have come in touch again, wishing you all the best,
Hare Krishna
Yadu das
Jan-12th, 2008
