On the Matter of "Vaikunthanath dasa"
BY: ROCANA DASA, SUN EDITOR
Sep 25, CANADA (SUN) — Dear Sun readers, Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. Over the last month, we have had an ongoing exchange with our regular poster, Balavidya dasa, who has recently begun writing under the name "Vaikunthanath dasa". We have found several of his submissions unacceptable for publication, and felt it important to let readers know (especially those who have responded to him) that he has submitted articles that have gone unpublished.
In response to his latest, we have decided to make a public response to him. Although the author's lack of accountability, honesty and cooperation in the matter indicates that he is now happily wasting our time, we will make one more effort, for the sake of setting the record straight on what has transpired here. We offer this outline of events primarily because we consider it a serious matter when the editors find it necessary to reject submissions – particularly when others are responding, and there may be an appearance of unfairness in our not letting the challenges be answered.
For the record, we have no doubt at all that long-time contributor Balavidya dasa and the new "Vaikunthanath dasa" are one and the same person. The author has inadvertently confirmed it for us. Funny thing, the repetitious patterns one finds in typography. Although this may seem to be a breach of our promise of anonymity, we point this out to readers because we find that the author has used this second pseudonym to avoid making an honest public response to what has been in the past an extended private exchange of his complaints, and our explanations. This is a deceptive practice, and we won't honor the writer's pseudonym anonymity, thereby contributing to the charade. (Of course, we are not exposing the writer's true identify – only his use of dual pseudonyms.)
Knowing that you, Vaikunthanath, are the same person who has chosen to not respond to the long paper I sent you personally, as Balavidya, months ago, in response to challenges you were repeatedly making to me by personal email.
When you submitted your article, "GBC Purposes Behind Diksa-Guru Rubber-Stamping" on Sep 11th, I informed you that I was awaiting a response to my last, and would hold this article until you'd replied to the previous one.
On Sep 12th, you sent a one-liner type reply that was totally unsatisfactory.
I responded, informing you that I would proceed with my own article on the subject, re-purposing the material you had not replied to. On Sep 12th, I published "Guru-tattva Debate in the Sun".
On Sep 13th, I published "Defeating the Rtviks", making further points on the matter.
You immediately began submitting under the Vaikunthanath alias, with your Sep 14th article, "Defending the Indefensible". In that article, you chewed the chewed, making most of the same points you'd made to me privately, which I had responded to, and you had not answered. It was clear to us at the time what you were doing – avoiding a response and instead petulantly making your points yet again under a pseudonym – but we humored you. I now wish we hadn't.
Following your "Defending the Indefensible" article, there were numerous responses made by other Sun contributors.
On Sep 16th, you submitted a short piece in response to your challengers, entitled "If the Shoe Fits". The piece did not rebut any of your challengers' remarks, and was simply a brief and arrogant (sarcastic) reiteration of your theme. We rejected it, asking you to form a proper response/rebuttal.
On Sep 22nd, you came back with "Dissipating the Clouds Obscuring the Sun". Again, you did not address any of the points I made to you. You did not address the many points made to you by other respondents. You again chewed the chewed, asserting all your same arguments. You also quoted in your article a paragraph from my personal email to you, which you did not ask for, and did not have, permission to publish. We deleted it before publishing.
We decided to publish "Dissipating the Clouds" only to illustrate your obstinacy and unwillingness to actually engage in dialogue and debate. I sent you an email, advising that we would publish it, but that the quoted paragraph from my letter was being deleted.
The same day, we published a reply, entitled "Vaikunthanath's Pity Party". We pointed out that you had made a fundamental error in your opening assertion (re: your misread of my earlier statement), and we made various other points.
You wrote to me again, further insulted me by denigrating my reverence for Srila Prabhupada, and denied that Balavidya and Vaikunthanath are the same person. (Your attempt to begin sounding like a Brazilian in that email was amusing.)
I replied, and reaffirmed my displeasure with the way you were handling this exchange.
Not surprisingly, "Dissipating the Clouds" also stimulated some reader response.
On Sep 23rd, you submitted another article, "Do Not Tolerate Blasphemous Distortions", in which you once again ignored my requests for you to make a proper response. Your article did not address any of my points, either current or former, did not acknowledge the substantive error in your last submission, and did not reply to any of the points your other respondents had made, either current or former.
We replied, rejecting the submission and requesting that you either make a proper reply, or stop submitting.
On Sep 24th, you replied to my email, suggested that I simply had no answer to your "central point". You complained because I had "edited and distorted" your submission, saying there was no point in your replying further, because of that.
I replied, pointing out that the editing was strictly limited to the removal of one paragraph, quoted from my personal email to you, which you published without permission. And, I informed you that we will publish nothing further from you, until you backtrack and address the many points that await your response.
Let me make clear the fact that the paragraph we cut, which you quoted from my personal email, did not hold any substantive statements that made any difference at all to your article. You addressed my points elsewhere, in the paragraphs following, in which you created your own segue by introducing the issue of "integrated response", and you referred to me in that context. So absolutely nothing was lost in our eliminating that paragraph, except you didn't get to include something I had casually written to you, unpolished and less articulate than it would have been if intended for public consumption. You now harp on this point as if to make it some editorial conspiracy against you, which is simply another deceptive practice.
Finally, we received your submission of Sep 25th, in which you again reiterate your 'central point', apparently thinking that it is the only point that matters. You forget that my original article, "Guru-tattva Debate in the Sun", was the opening statement on the topic, not your follow-up article. Rather than address my points, or addressing any of the rebuttals you've received, you simply, and arrogantly, go back to harping on your 'central point'. You say that all the points others have made are "irrelevant segues from my initial point". This statement is a good indication of your state of mind and false ego, which have perpetuated all this churn.
We'll spend no further time trying to justify our editorial practices to you, or re-asserting our points of argument. It's all there, should you wish to respond. Nor will we spend any further time in back-and-forth email arguments with you, explaining why we won't publish your off-point submissions.
If you want to continue contributing to the Sun, then 1) go back and address my original points in "Guru-tattva Debate in the Sun", (which for the most part was a paraphrased version of the original personal piece I wrote to you after fielding your many complaints, and which have never answered), and 2) respond to the many points made by others who have responded to you here. Simply reiterating your own "central point" is not sufficient, and does not represent the mood of cooperative debate and discussion we expect our contributors to uphold.
