Vaikunthanath's Pity Party
BY: ROCANA DASA
Sep 22, CANADA (SUN) — We're commenting on today's article by Vaikunthanath dasa, entitled "Dissipating the Clouds Obscuring the Sun". We find the mood and writing style of this article to be very reminiscent of our friend Balavidya dasa, a regular contributor who offers a message similar to that presented in Vaikunthanath's recent submissions. Whether they be one and the same personality, or kith and kin in the devotee community, the similarities are certainly striking.
Vaikunthanath dasa begins in what has been typical of Balavidya's usual eloquent way of addressing the Rtviks. In this case, the writer has created the acronym "PITY", which stands for "Posthumous Initiation for Ten-thousand Years. While this is a clever turn of phrase, it really doesn't describe the Rtvik philosophy in a comprehensive way. The 10,000 year aspect of Rtvik-ism is a concept held by only some of the Rtviks. Others don't emphasize it, and still others don't adhere to it at all.
It's also a pity that Vaikunthanath dasa, or Balavidya dasa, or whoever the author actually is, hasn't himself written a paper that comprehensively rebuts the Rtvik position. I've done so, with the "Church of Rtvik, which is my refutation of Rtvik-vada. We can only wish that Vaikunthanath would provide his own detailed analysis and rebuttal of their arguments, thereby defeating the Rtvik movement. Instead, the author puts down the 'Final Order' by using all sorts of adjectives like verbal stones to attack them, which accomplishes nothing. He characterizes Rtvik-vada in this way:
"The Final Order provides absolutely no “scriptural authority” for PITY. Rather the Final Order is an overblown mish-mash of circular logic, self-serving conjecture, non-sequitur argumentation, wild speculation, groundless assumption, red-herrings, biased sampling of quotes, appeals to emotion, appeals to spite, slippery slope postulate, post hoc fallacy, false promissory, hasty generalization, ad hominem attack, verbosity and bizarre misinterpretation. It has quite aptly been renamed "The Final Disorder"."
We would find it much more impressive if the author would go line by line through the Final Order, pointing out the philosophical errors and defeating them with quotes from Srila Prabhupada and Sastra, referring to previous sadhus' implementation of these arguments, etc. Of course, it takes time and academic prowess to make a solid refutation of that sort.
Vaikunthanath dasa then goes on a bit of a rant about a comment I made in my previous article, "Defeating the Rtviks", in which I referred to him:
"Our friend suggests that defeating the Rtviks requires putting only one question to them, which they are unable to answer: "Can you support your interpretation of "henceforward" with reference to sastra and corollaries, the previous acaryas, and Srila Prabhupada's teachings?" As we all know, they cannot. Yet while our friend rather smugly proclaims that the Rtviks have been thoroughly defeated, we point out that even some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are still going over to the Rtvik side today."
In response to this, Vaikunthanath dasa writes:
"Asking for guru, sadhu and sastra is not acting “smugly” as Rocana dasa unkindly characterizes the question.
Unfortunately, Vaikunthanath prabhu has not carefully read my statement. I used the term "smugly" to characterize his proclamation that the Rtviks have been thoroughly defeated. I did not mention the test of Guru, Sadhu and Sastra, in any way. I was not referring to the process of Vaisnava debate, but rather to the author's personal mood in making the sorts of broad generalizations he has made.
In fact, anyone who reads Vaikunthanath's articles – just like Balavidya's articles – will be able to recognize that there's a tone of arrogance, a tone of conceit underlying the message. The mood is basically egotistical and the term "smug" fits rather well, I think. The fact is that you can focus the debate on "henceforward" if you like, but saying that you have absolutely defeated the Ritviks by focusing on that one word just doesn't fly.
As for the rest of the very lengthy presentation Vaikunthanath has made in his paper, we won't take the time to rebut his various statements, because the majority of the document, and all the logic contained therein, flows from a false premise -- completely erroneous opening assumption, i.e., the context of "smug", which he morphs into my supposed position on the importance of Guru, Sadhu and Sastra. It is unfortunate that he went to such great lengths to write an article based on this faulty foundation, but if prabhu would like to re-read my piece and re-write his own, I'll be happy to comment on any valid points that remain unanswered about guru-tattva, or the Sun's editorial policies on Rtvik-vada.
Aside from the incorrect and oblique structure of his presentation, Vaikunthanath also states that the "PITYs" have no right to use the Vedic term, "rtvik". He writes:
"Rtvik priests, as mentioned in the Bhagavatam, are quite bona fide parts of Vedic culture; they are expert brahmanas that perform fire yajnas on behalf of perhaps a kshatriya or vaisya. It is offensive to the Vedas that a bona fide Vedic term and practice should be purloined and twisted into an unintended meaning. This is demoniac."
Of course, Vaikunthanath doesn't mention the fact that in the May 28th Room Conversation, Srila Prabhupada himself used the word "rtvik" synonymously with "officiating acarya", nor does he explain to us exactly how the Rtvik's have exploited the use of this term in support of their vada. This would have been more helpful than simply harping on the idea that the 'PITYs are deviant'. But to my mind, suggesting that one's use of the term "ritvik" automatically makes them demoniac is a real stretch.
We're trying to be practical here, and to be reasonable. The Rtvik Movement is a phenomenon, and its true that a group of devotees accepts this argument in regards to taking diksa from Srila Prabhupada, regardless of the fact that he is no longer in his manifest lila. During periods when the Acarya is not personally present, we are going to have a certain amount of controversy. Just as when Krsna lila manifests, it's a very enlightening and fortunate period in time, but for the most part in this miserable material world, especially in this age, there's a far greater period of darkness during which persons such as ourselves, conditioned souls, have to sort things out. Those who get the mercy to be connected to the Sampradaya through the Sampradaya Acaryas and their representatives are the few and fortunate. It comes as no surprise that there are these sorts of dilemmas and problems facing those who come to Krsna Consciousness.
The Rtviks are making every effort to convince newcomers and the disenfranchised to follow their program of diksa initiation, and beyond that, they basically follow the same program that Srila Prabhupada presented as far as sadhana is concerned. But does this make them atheistic? No, I don't think it does. It's not on the same level as Sankaracarya's Mayavadi philosophy, or straight Atheism, nor is it Darwinian theory, which we're also supposed to be preaching against.
It's a PITY that Vaikunthanath dasa doesn't really apply himself in a manner that is not so arrogant, not so aggressive and fanatical, by instead writing in such a way that he'll really convince people not to go down the Rtvik path. We're supposed to be preaching here, winning hearts and minds. You can preach against this Rtvik philosophy, or you can preach against persons going and taking shelter of Narayana, or against ISKCON's rubber-stamp guru program. In fact, the latter two asiddhantic programs have caused more harm to the Sankirtana movement, and have introduced more asiddhantic principles than the Rtviks themselves. Re-initiation, committees and GBC's deciding who can and can't be a guru or sannyasi, all these things are very un-Vedic. There's no sastric basis whatsoever for these practices, what to speak of their Zonal Acarya program, which is still going on today. Then there's the matter of changing the Sampradaya Acarya's books. All sorts of programs are asiddhantic, on an equal if not worse level than the Rtviks. The Rtviks are pointing to the Sampradaya Acarya, but they're 'off' on the matter of post-samadhi diksa. The other aspects of guru, whether it's vartma-pradarsaka or siksa, still apply in their construct.
As I've said so many times, I disagree entirely with the Rtvik conclusion, but I also disagree with the preaching methodology of Vaikunthanath dasa, who appears to be a fanatic, who goes overboard, ready to write off all these people as demons. And that includes myself, as the editor of the Sun. I'm de facto in the same position because I facilitate some writers who accept the Rtvik philosophy. Yes, we publish articles that present new twists on the Rtvik argument, but we also reject many, many Rtvik articles that are just cookie-cutter propaganda pieces, regurgitating the main themes of Rtvik over and over again. The pro-Rtvik articles that we do choose to publish are presented because this is an issue that we all have to deal with, and they offer something of value that will assist us in that process. All of Srila Prabhupada's preachers have to deal with this issue, and we all do so as we see fit. The Sun has not become a conduit by which the Rtviks continually seek recruits or try to convince people, but rather, it has been a burr under their saddle, broadcasting the many excellent arguments against Rtvik-vada, and taking a stand against their conclusions.
I would also remind Vaikunthanath dasa that we're not trying to convert the unconvertible here -- those who are dyed-in-the-wool or fanatic Rtviks. Our main audience is those who are new, uneducated or confused about the philosophical issues, as well as those who are preaching against Rtvik-ism and need to get a better understanding of the arguments, and how to defeat them.
Vaikunthanath dasa emphasizes the fact that this is something the Acaryas would never do – they would never publish such articles in their magazines, such as Srila Prabhupada's BTG. They would never tolerate this. First of all, I'm not a Sampradaya Acarya, and I don't have a movement. I don't have disciples, and I don't profess to be on the absolute platform. Regardless, I've taken a certain position, and have chosen to preach against Rtvik-vada. Of course, the position Vaikunthanath takes against the Rtviks, we could also apply to ISKCON, to the Gaudiya Matha or people such as Narayana, or to those who are going to Tripurari Swami. You could challenge all of them based on Guru, Sadhu and Sastra (and we've done so, in all cases). You won't find ISKCON's GBC concept in the Vedas, but it’s a term Srila Prabhupada used, so we use it. Still, there's a lot of controversy over Srila Prabhupada's true intentions in that regard, and we should not hesitate to discuss that controversy.
Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, when the Kashmiri brahman came to Navadvipa, didn't throw him out as a deviant, or call him a demon and drive him out of town, throwing rocks at him. Nor did Mahaprabhu say, ''m not going to listen to you', or 'I don't want anyone to hear what we're going to be saying, lest they become contaminated'. No, he listened, then he soundly defeated him, using his own methodology.
Prakasinanda Saraswati, same thing. Sarvhabhauma Bhattacarya, same program – listen and then defeat. So if Vaikunthanath dasa wants to listen and then defeat, that's what we're inviting him to do. But to claim that I'm offending the Acaryas or not following in the footsteps of the Acaryas simply because I allow certain articles to be presented, that I don't accept.
As I've stated many times, my main argument is that the Sampradaya Acaryas are on the highest echelon of our Sampradaya. They're the ones who form the unbroken chain of disciplic succession going back to Lord Brahma, not all the twigs and branches that spin off from these Sampradaya Acaryas. Some of these branches are bona fide, some are un-bonafide, some are withering, some not. It's the Sampradaya Acaryas' pastimes, their presence, their writings, their preaching and teachings that really form this unbroken chain of the disciplic succession, and we have to be connected to them. Connection through diksa to the Sampradaya Acarya is not necessary. It's a rare thing for them to be personally present and for one to have the good fortune of getting their diksa initiation.
The truth of the matter is that a great many of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada don't accept him as the Sampradaya Acarya. They just see Srila Prabhupada as their diksa guru, and some are so foolish that they essentially give-up Srila Prabhupada as a diksa, or they see him as their diksa but put more emphasis on their siksa, whether it's Sridhar Maharaja or other Godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada who have outlived him. Same thing with the Narayana phenomenon. So to give up that connection with Srila Prabhupada, or to not recognize him as the Sampradaya Acarya, to not follow him in the way one should follow these rarified Sampradaya Acaryas, that is essentially the real problem. Following them -- that's real spirituality, that's real, pure, unalloyed Krsna Consciousness.
Whether one is a Rtvik, or whether one is plugged into the western GBC-oriented version of ISKCON or the ISKCON Guru's eastern oriented system wherein the Zonal Acarya types have basically eclipsed Srila Prabhupada, what is the difference? And what of those who have gone over to Narayana, who claims to be Srila Prabhupada's successor, and who now accept him as the most recent Sampradaya Acarya? (They don't use the term, but they don't recognize the difference between Srila Prabhupada and Narayana.) So there's all sorts of forces and phenomenon going on in the world today. And it behooves all devotees who are convinced about Srila Prabhupada and want to preach on his behalf to arrive at a firm understanding of his spiritual status, and on guru-tattva. The preachers must be able to present what the Rtviks stand for and how they're wrong, or what ISKCON stands for and why its wrong, and what the Narayana camp stands for, and why it's wrong.
Krsna is the original Guru, the Chaitya Guru. He's the one who puts you in association with different personalities, and gives you the realizations of what's right and wrong in terms of what's happening in your life. Ultimately everyone is an individual, and that individualism starts from the very top, beginning with the Supreme Individual, Sri Krsna. That individualism comes all the way down through the Sampradaya, through all the individual Sampradaya Acaryas who are speaking according to time and circumstance, and having individual relationships with their disciples and followers, just as is the case with Srila Prabhupada. You have to develop an individual, personal relationship with Srila Prabhupada and, hopefully, with his pure unalloyed, bona fide representatives. I emphasize the term "Sampradaya Acarya" as a way to encapsulate a certain perspective, the importance of recognizing the exalted status of Srila Prabhupada and connecting to the Sampradaya through the Sampradaya Acarya.
So this is our choice – to accept the Sampradaya Acarya, or to accept the philosophical conclusions of the Rtviks, the GBC-ISKCON, the Gaudiya Matha or the Narayana camp. These are the mountains on the landscape. Which mountain you want to climb, that's a decision you ultimately have to make. Another problem you have to deal with is the matter of association. This is a very important aspect of Krsna Consciousness that Lord Caitanya emphasized, as did all the great Acaryas. Who are you going to be associating with, and how is this association going to benefit you in becoming Krsna Conscious? The best solution is to associate with Srila Prabhupada, by reading his books and taking shelter of the mercy contained in his instructions.
