Jan 16, 2013 — CANADA (SUN) — A devotee called to our attention the recent article by Mahesh Raja of the UK, who wrote "A REPLY to Rochana Prabhu on his COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING of BOTH Guru AND Ritvik Issue: Part 1". Mahesh did not submit his article to us directly, or let us know that he had published it. He would perhaps prefer that we not respond to what he has written.
A few years ago, prior to publishing "Defeat of Ritvik-vada" (DOR), we invited Mahesh to debate the Ritvik issue with us. In the midst of our discussions with him on format and guidelines for that debate, he disappeared from the radar. Over the years, we've kept our readers apprised of various failed efforts to debate that we've experienced with the Ritviks, including this one.
For the record, since publishing DOR, we have received no formal responses or rebuttals. We have heard not a word from Krishnakant Desai. We have received a few emails of reply from individuals Ritviks, but nothing coherent enough to call 'a rebuttal', or even to merit publication. Within the last two days, Nimai Pandit das has said that he will be formulating a reply.
We did receive a series of replies from one other prabhu who we will answer as time permits. His approach in responding to DOR was to produce a high volume of commentary, but in no order keyed to the structure of DOR that would allow us to methodically apply his comments to the arguments in DOR. His voluminous emails were more along the lines of 'stream of consciousness' writing, in which he argued with us, argued with himself, took up every possible position and defended it, then rebutted it. In short, a slew of pages that will take us a great deal of time to plow through. We're working on it, but slowly. While it's an interesting read, thus far we find no convincing rebuttal arguments in his material.
Beyond that, we've had a few exchanges with Amar Puri prabhu, who Mahesh Raja quotes in the opening of his recent article. We made a sincere effort to respond to Amar Puri's numerous emails. He took a fanatic pro-Ritvik stance, refusing to address the actual arguments made in DOR, preferring instead to mount a campaign of "defense" that brought in many issues not on the table in the context of The Final Order or DOR. Again, his approach didn't begin to resemble an actual rebuttal of DOR, and as the rhetoric increased in pointless tit-for-tat, we ended the conversation.
Today, we are not at all surprised to see that Mahesh Raja opens his article with a cherry-picked comment from our correspondence with Amar Puri, presented out of context. On this weak footing, Mahesh opens his own so-called "rebuttal" of our position on the Ritvik issue.
Mahesh begins his article by referring (albeit loosely) to the instruction in the July 9th Letter regarding sending names to Srila Prabhupada of those to be included in his "Initiated Disciples" book. He writes:
"Srila Prabhupada had ALREADY given instruction of HOW he wanted the prospective disciples ACCEPTED. The system was ALREADY in place. Besides this, use of LITTLE COMMON-SENSE is necessary. WHAT sort of person can REPRESENT Srila Prabhupada. If REPRESENTATIVE OF ACHARYA falls down he CAN be REPLACED:
Note: OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE is the Ritvik Representative as per July 9th 1977 Order
Our argument in DOR, and as discussed with Amar Puri, is that the July 9th Letter does not refer to initiations after the time of Srila Prabhupada's departure, but just the opposite: the Letter says names are to be sent to Srila Prabhupada, indicating that he meant to be part of the process described in the Letter.
As one can easily see, Mahesh Raja's argument above does not counter that fact in the least. His comments have nothing to do with the points made in DOR about sending names for the book, or with how that point was being discussed in the quoted exchange with Amar Puri. Regardless of what system was in place, the July 9th Letter says what it says: send the names to Srila Prabhupada -- an instruction that indicates his presence as a participant in the process. That is the point, and Mahesh Raja has not countered it, nor has Amar Puri.
Mahesh goes on to offer commentary on various pasted-in quotes, including a reference to the Atmarama verse, which has nothing to do with the instruction in the July 9th Letter on sending names to Srila Prabhupada for inclusion in his book. Nor do the comments from the May 28th Conversation that he pastes-in have anything to do with sending names for the book. Even less relevant to DOR are the Nectar of Devotion and Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya quotes.
In fact, Mahesh Raja has given no counter-argument at all to the point of discussion the Amar Puri quote related to, which opened his own article. So it is difficult to guess at the point Mahesh is trying to make as it relates to Ritvik-vada. Whatever it is, it certainly can't be construed as a rebuttal of DOR.
Mahesh next moves on to mention our 2003 paper, "The Church of Ritvik", and quotes some of the discussion regarding Nectar of Instruction Text 5. By this point in his presentation, Mahesh has strayed entirely off the topic of the July 9th Letter, and all of DOR, for that matter. He is now in the arena of the debate over qualifications of the bona fide spiritual master, or the diksa guru (he does not distinguish between the two). Our only hint as to how this argument might relate to DOR or Ritvik-vada is found in the title of his article: that this is something to do with "Rochana Prabhu on his COMPLETE MISUNDERSTANDING of BOTH Guru AND Ritvik Issue".
Quoting a reference in Church of Ritvik to NOI Text 5, he writes:
Mahesh: We will just take a segment of his ERRONEOUS understanding of the DIKSHA Guru AND PROVE HIM COMPELETELY WRONG THAT KANISTHA AND MADHYAMA ARE **NOT** DIKSHA GURU as he SPECULATES:
Rochana Dasa: "While it is absolutely true that there is no Sampradaya Acharya who has ever fallen down, and that certain things disqualify a diksha guru, they cannot make the case that Srila Prabhupada has instructed that one must never accept a kanistha or madhyama as diksha guru. "
Mahesh does not make a distinction between the issue of the qualifications of a bona fide spiritual master, and the fact that sastra acknowledges that there also exist kanishta and madhyam gurus. He does not distinguish between the qualifications of the uttama diksa, and the range of possibility the candidate has for the sorts of guru he might choose for himself, which includes not only uttama-diksas:
"A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."
Nectar of Instruction, Text 5
Nor does Mahesh point out that in so many of the oft-quoted references used in this qualifications debate, Srila Prabhupada often refers to the 'bona fide spiritual master' rather than to the 'diksa guru'.
Mahesh writes:
"Some devotees are taking this above quote to mean that Kanistha can give Diksha. This is NOT what Srila Prabhupada says. There is NO mention of Diksha by kanistha. What it exactly says is about accepting DISCIPLES."
For the sake of putting this discussion into context, at the end of this article is a more detailed quote from the Church of Ritvik passage Mahesh is commenting on. We will no doubt write more on this subject of the qualifications of the bona fide spiritual master and the diksa guru in the future. But for now, suffice to say that Mahesh Raja has offered no rebuttal to Defeat of Ritvik-vada, and has by no means established that we have a 'complete misunderstanding of the Ritvik issue'. Nor has he made a cogent argument against our position on the qualifications of diksa, for that matter.
Thanks to the recent article by HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami, there is some renewed focus on the fact that to date, no rebuttals of DOR have been forthcoming. It is for those who might think we are shirking our duty in defending DOR by not replying to Mahesh Raja's challenge paper that we are even responding to it. And again, let us emphasize the fact that the discussion of qualifications of the diksa guru is not an argument central to the Ritvik debate as discussed in DOR.
Devotees like Mahesh Raja who are fond of arguing this particular issue on the guru's qualifications cannot claim either to have defended The Final Order and Ritvik-vada, or to have rebutted Defeat of Ritvik-vada by introducing this argument. Qualifications of the guru and whether there exists an instruction for post-samadhi ritvik diksa are two entirely different subjects, but it is an established Ritvik tactic to bring in the subject of uttama qualifications as a way to take focus off the defeat of the fundamental evidence Ritvik-vada relies upon. And that is exactly what Mahesh Raja is attempting to do in his latest article. This smokescreen no longer convinces anyone, except perhaps Mahesh prabhu, and the most uninformed of his Ritvik associates.
