Defending the Indefensible
BY: VAIKUNTHANATH DASA
Sep 14, BRAZIL (SUN) — On justifying the posting of Rtvik ideas.
The website, the Sampradaya Sun, is famous for posting articles by the Rtviks. Almost daily, there are gross and subtle presentations by the Rtviks of their bizarre philosophy on the Sun. Over the last few days on the Sun, Rocana dasa, the webmaster, has been trying to defend this constant publication of deviant philosophy opposed to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Well, after reading his convoluted argumentation, it is difficult to say that he is being successful in his justifications.
Promoting Rtvikism
Apparently, a devotee has written to Rocana dasa making the point that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada, and our Srila Prabhupada never printed magazine articles expounding deviant philosophies, whereas on the Sun there are regularly articles expounding the glories of posthumous ‘Rtvik’ initiation. The devotee has a valid point; certainly our acaryas described deviant philosophies but at the same time defeated these philosophies. Our acaryas never allowed the adherents to present these deviant philosophies in their own Vaisnava publications. For Srila Prabhupada to publish an article by a Mayavadi preaching the glories of impersonalism in the Back to Godhead would be unimaginable. So, Rocana contravenes Srila Prabhupada’s example by allowing Rtviks to preach deviant Rtvikism on the Sun regularly.
False Justification
So Rocana dasa is certainly not following our acaryas’ example. His website is full of articles extolling the Rtvik deviation and these articles are written by the Rtviks themselves. But Rocana’s justification is certainly bizarre for this departure from the “path chalked out by the mahajanas”. The justification is that “we” (he talks for all of us) are not as expert as the acaryas in defeating deviant philosophies; therefore he publishes these deviant articles so that some people might write in and rebut them. Now it is hard to see the logic in such an idea. Using that logic (or absence of logic), one might say that because we are not so expert as Srila Prabhupada, then let’s publish articles extolling mayavada, or drug-taking, or illicit sex, or gambling in the Back to Godhead. Then perhaps some devotees will write in defeating the promotion of gambling, mayavada, illicit sex, etc. This would be absurd.
Our Acarya’s Example
Even if one thinks, as Rocana does, that this absurd idea is a valid way of dealing with bogus teachings, it is certainly not the way our acaryas behaved. Our acaryas did not promote deviation, rather they defeated deviation. They didn’t say: we will print your bogus ideas in our Vaisnava literature and then wait for someone to write in rebutting the nonsense. Put simply, the acaryas did not promote nonsense, full stop. Their example is the final word.
Vegetarian Restaurant Selling Meat
Rocana’s justification is rather like a vegetarian restaurant saying we will allow meat-eaters to present meat in our vegetarian restaurant, so that vegetarians will come to the restaurant and defeat the meat-eaters’ promotion. This is logically absurd, even crazy, and certainly not the way Srila Prabhupada dealt with deviant philosophy.
Actually if one sells meat in one’s restaurant, then one cannot claim to be running a vegetarian restaurant. Therefore because Rocana publishes articles promoting ‘Rtvikism’, the Sun is considered a ‘Rtvik’ website. Rocana presents himself as a follower of Srila Prabhupada but actually ignores the example of Srila Prabhupada and regularly presents deviant philosophy. His justifications are false.
Already a Defeated Concoction
The simple fact is that the ‘Rtvik’ concoction has been easily defeated from every angle for many years now by innumerable devotees. Where is the guru, sadhu and sastra to support such a bizarre idea as posthumous initiation for ten-thousand years? There is none; therefore Rtvikism is easily exposed as a defunct philosophy. But Rocana obviously feels compelled to keep the controversy going. The simple fact is that the hard-core Rtviks will never admit defeat, no matter how long the controversy is kept going, even to the end of Kali-yuga. So they are best ignored and left to their insincere envious behavior against the principles of Vaisnava disciplic succession.
Motivation
Perhaps Rocana dasa is promoting the Rtvik nonsense because he considers that it will make his website more attractive – he will get more ‘hits’. That may be so, but it means that his website has become a “place of pilgrimage for the Rtvik crows”. If those are the “hits” Rocana wants, then that is his free will. However he should consider that by keeping alive a bogus misinterpretation of Srila Prabhupada teachings, then he is quite possibly deeply offending his spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada. The Rtviks grossly distort so many quotations of Srila Prabhupada. Rocana is regularly presenting these distortions, so how can this be pleasing to Srila Prabhupada?
Dangerous Facilitation of Distortion
Or to put it another way, how can a real devotee of Srila Prabhupada give facility to the distortion of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings? We have the example of Lord Caitanya. When Lord Caitanya heard that some of his devotees were going to hear from the deviant Mayavadis, then the Supreme Lord was furious. Rocana facilitates the presentation of bogus philosophy and ignores the example of Srila Prabhupada on these matters, so we can be quite sure that he is treading a very dangerous path. He is ignoring the example of our acaryas, presenting bogus teachings, keeping a controversy alive that may bewilder the neophytes, and then justifies his deviation with the false logic, non-sequitur argumentation, and meandering obfuscation he has recently presented on the Sun. He presents himself as opposed to the Rtvik deviation, but then allows it to be openly promoted on his website regularly. Doesn’t he see the absurd contradiction?
Saying that “I am a committed vegetarian, but I promote meat-eating on my website” is as bizarre as the Rtvik concoction itself, but Rocana dasa is obviously compelled to defend the indefensible instead of humbly admitting his mistake.
