Believe It or Else!
BY: HARAKUMARA DASA
Mar 9, CANADA (SUN) — So once again, we have been treated in the pages of the Sampradaya Sun ("Sastra versus Speculation) to more abusive foul-mouthed rhetoric from one Balavidya dasa, who despite whatever small amount of learning he claims to possess, has yet to realize that true knowledge and the insulting of Vaisnavas are not known to go together.
Srila Rupa Gosvami [in this sampradaya, since his time, we are to be known as Rupanugas] never approved behavior like that. We should note with profit the treatment given by Srila Rupa Gosvami to Jiva Gosvami (as recounted in Bhakti-ratnakara) when the latter attempted to correct a senior Vaisnava. When Rupa Gosvami was writing authoritatively, by mercy of Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, Vallabha Bhatta visited and was offered some of those introductory verses to read. Vallabha reviewed them and offered to make some corrections, after going to the Ganga to ablute. Jiva, who had been fanning Rupa, ascribing arrogance to Vallabha then followed him, on a pretext, in an angry mood [hmm?], and asked him what fault he had found in Rupa's verses. Vallabha told him, and Jiva countered the opinion of Vallabha. A debate arose, and Jiva emerged victorious, defeating all of Vallabha's points.
When they at last returned to Rupa, Vallabha relayed the episode to Rupa and expressed admiration for Jiva's expert scholarship. The final result? Rupa banished Jiva from Vrndavana, rebuking him and telling him to go back to Bengal and to return only when he was "calm enough". So due to a mild aparadha, or breach of vaisnava etiquette, despite the facts (we may be confident) that 1. Jiva did not indulge in verbal insults, that 2. Vallabha's points were factually incorrect, and that 3. Vallabha did not feel offended at all, Jiva Gosvami was then disqualified from residence in Vrndavana. [Lord Caitanya never overlooks offences to Vaisnavas.] How much more is this true in regard to one who angrily tongue-lashes Vaisnavas who merely disagree with him for perceived errors, calling them "fools and rascals...conditioned idiots...asara, useless...simply a disturbance to society"? [Is that what Srila Prabhupada thinks of them?] How much more does it apply then to one who is himself in error on some points? [After all, to err is human---what does Balavidya dasa make himself out to be? Srila Prabhupada does present the sastra As It Is, but Balavidya dasa does not always understand it As It Is.] And how much more is it relevant to one who insults Vaisnavas who may not be as forgiving as Vallabha Bhatta was? [No forgiveness for vaisnava-aparadha---no back home, back to Vrindavana.]
Reviewing these facts, we may note that Balavidya dasa does not appear to be a Rupanuga Vaisnava. If he were, he would know that in Vrndavana, rasa rules. The immediate Acarya after Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu is, primarily, Srila Rupa Gosvami, the rasacarya author of Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu and Ujjvala-nilamani. Vrindavana is the realm of madhurya-bhava, not aisvarya-bhava (as in Vaikuntha). And tattva-vicara, although important, is not as important as rasa-vicara. Thus,
merely scoring debating points, all the while wallowing in the muddy quasi-rasa of self-righteousness, will not be sufficient to ensure one's entrance into rasika Vrndavana. If Srila Rupa Gosvami virtually banned Jiva Gosvami, whose offence was far less, then what of the case of Balavidya dasa, who is not really in Vrndavana to begin with? So, for the time being, Balavidya dasa appears to have "won the battle, but lost the war". But there is hope, as Srila Jiva Gosvami later won the favor of Srila Rupa Gosvami by his sincere repentance issuing in his penances (i.e. a change of attitude) and by the merciful intervention of Srila Sanatana Gosvami.
We may also note that, true to form, in this case wherein abusive language befitting a kali-cela is so freely indulged in, Balavidya dasa also indulges in hypocrisy. After all, this is kali-yuga, the age of quarrel and hypocrisy. As one smothers an over-burnt pancake with insipid syrup, as one covers one's posterior with a dirty dhoti, so Balavidya dasa covers the end of his blistering essay with "we hope this is found helpful, your servant..." How cute. Most things are not likely to be found helpful unless they are sent helpful, and the tenor of his rhetoric does not inspire confidence. Perhaps he thinks that most of his readership is idiotic, except for those who agree with him, of course. Some people are 'holier-than-thou'; Balavidya dasa seems to entertain a 'more-intelligent-than-thou' form of false ego. Because he thinks of some Vaisnavas as useless idiots, he isn't even on the level of spirit soul. He writes that those who want to advance in Krsna Consciousness should avoid their association, but I will tell what association to avoid: Avoid, like the plague, the association of a self-righteous someone who tries to use the sastras as a club to bludgeon the devotees of Lord Krsna.
Now quarrel and hypocrisy are not divine virtues, but are material contaminations. So how can we believe that one who is wont to indulge in them is correct in everything he writes? Here is the first error of Balavidya dasa. He quotes Srila Prabhupada as saying in a room conversation in Bombay, 1976, "My point is unless it is authoritatively mentioned in the sastra, we reject." Besides the fact that his room conversations (often casual and meant for specific persons and circum-stantially unclear) are not on the same level as his books (always formal and meant for everyone and very clear to read), these words
of Srila Prabhupada are taken by Balavidya dasa out of context. "A text without a context becomes a pretext." It is very clear that these words refer to "daridra-narayana-seva", as is stated in the conversation itself, and that this daridra-narayana-seva is a false concept. It does not follow that all true divine things have to be mentioned in the sastra. [As Lord Sesa can testify, Lord Krsna is unlimited and infinite. So how can everything about Him be mentioned in the sastra? There is always something more about Him than is in sastra.] This interpretation of this conversation (it refers to the error of daridra-narayana-seva, and my point refers to the actual argument at hand) is limpid and self-evident in the transcript itself, but if our Balavidya dasa wants to conflate these contextual words of the Guru to mean that if something/anything is not mentioned in some sastra then it has no verity, then it is necessary for him to provide some evidence for this. This he has not done. To take something out of context without justifying evidence is not valid. One wonders why Balavidya dasa would do that, but seeing that he tries to use this quote to support another false idea, it becomes understandable (but not justifiable).
Balavidya dasa has made it clear that he is opposed to a rtvik system of diksa in ISKCON. He tries to use this deracinated quotation of Srila Prabhupada to support his view. But the historical fact is that Srila Prabhupada 'proposed' and used a rtvik diksa system for many years. So Balavidya dasa's ship of misfortune is now holed on the rocks of contradiction. If it is bad to do something not mentioned in the Sastra, then why did the Guru do it? But even if Srila Prabhupada did do in the past and will for the future [and for advanced devotees, pre/post are really only minor details] something ritually improper (that is not the case), nevertheless what would be the problem? Balavidya dasa, who is not nearly as learned as he imagines himself to be, appears to have overlooked this Bhagavata verse (SB 7.9.29), as Prahlada says to the Lord, "...manye sva-bhrtya-rsi-vakyam rtam vidhatum..." On this Srila Prabhupada comments in a lecture (Mayapura, 76/3/7): "Even the devotee or the servant of Krsna says something, even it is wrong, Krsna upholds this. Kaunteya pratijanihi na me bhaktah pranasyati [Bg 9.31]. So even it is wrongly done, still Krsna fulfills because He thinks that "My servant has promised; it must be fulfilled. ... In this way you'll find that He [Narasimhadeva] kept everything intact, what benediction was given by Lord Brahma, rtam vidhatum. "Yes." At last, of course, He little chastised Brahma that "You should not give such benediction in future. This is botheration for Me." ... But still, He kept His servant's promise intact." Therefore, it does not matter whether the rtvik diksa system is mentioned in sastra or not; Srila Prabhupada's all-auspicious desire is all that counts, because Bhagavan Sri Krsna underwrites every one of his determinations. We should always remember that. [Rasa trumps Tattva. And initiating devotees is much higher than giving benediction to a demon.]
In regard to the rtvik diksa system controversy, I have studied the evidence and I have made my decision. It is not the time now to go into detail [I have not finished my rounds], but to merely ask some questions which need to be answered:
*Unity is a divine principle. How can a system which promotes disunity be from God? The ISKCON guru diksa system promotes disunity since it provides multiple points of reference within a closed system. Only the rtvik diksa system gives unity, because there is one only diksa guru in the ISKCON system, the Founder-Acarya.
*No business can be successful unless it gives its customers what they want. What do the customers really want, now? They want what they've always wanted. If they believed/knew it were possible, would not everyone want to be initiated by Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya, for obvious reasons? What they don't want is someone trying to explain to them why they can't have it. God is totally beyond space and time, so His ISKCON diksa system must also be.
*The rtvik diksa system is flawless and practical. The ISKCON pre-disappearance days testify to this. So does the history of another spiritual tradition where it has worked well for hundreds and thousands of years. The alternative is flawed and impractical. "You can cheat, but it won't be effective."
*There is much evidence that Srila Prabhupada wanted the rtvik diksa system for the post-disappearance days. Those who support this tend to be unmotivated; those who decry such evidence (you know who) tend to be very motivated (and you know why).
So given the controversial nature of this, with many other ananswered questions, how can Balavidya dasa be so sure that he's got it right, even to the point of vehemently browbeating the devotees of Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Nityananda Prabhu? "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." Caution is the best option.
But one thing is for sure. The determination of Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is itself the actual fact. There will be Srila Prabhupada's rtvik diksa system in visible ISKCON in the future. I'm going on record predicting this. [Actually, one does not have to be a prophet to see this. The ISKCON guru diksa system has been evolving in this direction for a number of years.] He is right who is most in line with the future. So let the providential future decide; that will be the end of all controversy. At that time, Balavidya dasa, if he does not become more gentle and enlightened, will see his tower of pride where he is wont to dwell crumble to the low land and he will be forced to eat humble pie in the streets of the city. Snakes and milk don't go well together, and don't belong together.
trnad api su-nicena taror iva sahisnuna
amanina manadena kirtaniyah sada harih
