A sannyasi keeps 'his' donations - is this a joke?

February 12, 1999

What about the case of the sannyasi president in Hawaii who aquired a boat

supposedly for ISKCON and at the end just took-off with it? In Mexico City

a previous temple president (a "brahmacari") who stayed on the job for five

years left with a bunch of vehicles saying they were his. The local GBC

never supervised his actions and deprived Srila Prabhupada's mission of

such vehicles. Again, in Mexico City, also under the supervision of the

same GBC, "shareholders" of the Movement's incense business refuse to

return what is theirs only on paper. One of them actually already said that

the shares are his and wants his 20% in assets and profits. And these

scenes keep repeating countless times around the world.

The point is that "in open coffers even a saint will steal" (as they say

around here--and in Spanish). In ISKCON it keeps happening again and again

in different degrees, from temple petty cash used for private use to

million dollar silencing-fees for "classic" acaryas. It is naive to think

that devotees, even "advanced" ones, will make sure by themselves that

there won't be more abuses or plain open stealing. There is still plenty of

laksmi to blow or steal in ISKCON, and 21 years of plundering tell us that

this can go on as long as clear rules are not established.

Some time ago I suggested in the Prabhupada Disciples conference that all

GBC's, gurus, sannyasis, etc, that receive any donations, should receive

them on behalf of a specific project and issue a receipt. They will be

known as great contributors to specific causes that they decide to support.

The projects themselves, or other arrangements, should pay for the

maintenance of such leaders (travel, etc.) but the income should be

strictly officially accounted for. Lets see for example the case of

princess Di. She would chose a specific cause to help (such as stopping

land-mines, or a cancer center, etc.) and the money would go specifically

for that project. People liked her but they also knew clearly where the

money was going. It is not that she, as an individual, would request

contributions and then decide by herself how to spend it. Well, that is how

ISKCON is still foolishly doing things after so many years and after so

many bad experiences.

Baffled by the lack of assertive leadership,