Does Balavidya Have Rasaprema?
BY: HARAKUMARA DASA
Sep 04, 2010 — TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA (SUN) — I must confess that as I was reading the recent article entitled "Contemplating the Two Jiva Fall Scenarios" by a certain Rasaprema dasa, I caught a slight whiff of something strange -- and strangely familiar. Faintly tainted as it was with hypocrisy and slander, the unwelcome olfactory synesthesia propelled me to look up quick some other articles by 'Rasaprema dasa', in order to find out whence the intrusive influxion originated. On that winding trail, the scent grew stronger until it seemed I could begin to perceive wherefrom the waft was emanating: the same vibes, same jibes, same diatribes; the same 'smell', same 'sell', same 'O well...' "What the hell", I exclaimed in dismay, "could this possibly be... Balavidya?"
Although I was alone in my temporary discomfort, I was not entirely alone in my tentative opinion, for I recalled the introductory words of Bahushira prabhu in his "Time Enigma of Krsna":
"Well, well, it looks like Balavidya has a new incarnation. His new pen name is Acaryavilasa. I can 'smell' him in the way he writes. His new writing is more polished, but I do miss his explosive rhetoric. His paper sounds nice at first, but then the avidya pops up. Let me restate that: I mean the Bala Avidya-- the partial knowledge that he always expounds."
By way of reluctant recollection, Balavidya's first day in the Sun dawned on June 4, 2006 with "Take Vedic Siddhanta, "As It Is"" (sic). Most, at least, of his articles ostensibly were sent from the USA. As a characteristic trademark, he has been wont to revel in abusive polemics dripping with self-righteous pride and tinged with searing contempt for honest devotees who disagree with his views, and being too ignorant to consider that abusiveness is a symptom of ignorance rather than knowledge - engendering goodness peaceable, he has preferred to diplomatically balance things up (somewhat in the manner of Duryodhana) by signing off with a superficially solicitous "we hope this is found helpful"-- a one-man 'good-cop, bad-cop' routine, as it were.
But, what man? It's not possible to know for sure, because 'Balavidya' could never muster the virtue or courage to write under his real name, for some reason -- something to hide? Someone to chide? Perhaps his opinions just weren't worth it -- either intrinsically or because he did not sufficiently respect them. But polemic writing under a pseudonym (the 'hit & run' or 'cut & cover' strategy) grants full facility to the unforthcoming or disingenuous writer to multiply falsehoods in another way -- by multiplying pseudonyms. 'Balavidya' was well aware of this, and he later went under cover of the following:
1. 'Vaikunthanath'--
+first article 2009/3/16;
+claimed to write from India and Brazil;
+politely posed early as an Indian devotee, but later displayed a similar abusive style ["You can't straighten a dog's tail."];
+ended some articles with "Aum Tat Sat";
+definitively outed by Rocana prabhu in his "On the Matter of 'Vaikunthanath dasa'":
"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'. ... In response to his latest, we have decided to make a public response to him. Although the author's lack of accountability, honesty and co-operation 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. ... 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. ... [W]e 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. ... 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, ..." (2009/9/25)
[(Vaikunthanath) Balavidya did not care to respond properly, and becoming defunct, he appropriated a new pseudonym a little over a month later.]
2. 'Acaryavilasa'--
+first article 2009/11/5;
+claimed to write from USA and LA-USA;
+similar abusive demeanor and tactics;
+ended many articles (especially more fervid ones) with "Aum Tat Sat";
+exposed by Bahushira prabhu, as quoted above.
Although it is good to end one's work with "Aum Tat Sat", as Sri Krsna recommends in chapter 17 of His Bhagavad-gita, in the context of the aggressive arrogance of (Acaryavilasa) Balavidya, "saying doesn't make it so". Balavidya strikes me as being someone locked in battle with his own mind; when he smites the devotees to straighten them out, he is really just trying to beat his own asattvic mind into some sort of shape -- which is not such a bad thing, after all. One person -- many names; one truth -- many errors.
Bahushira prabhu in his "A Hunch about Balavidya" expressed the overall situation well:
"Anyone who is engaged in any type of debate or deep discussion about anything naturally likes to know who they are reciprocating with. So on the Sun website, we like to have light shone on all those involved. Like Harakumara dasa, I have also contemplated about Balavidya's identity. But because he doesn't want to reveal it to all the readers, then one has to wonder about his motives. One quality of a devotee is being straightforward in one's dealings. That is what we want to see from all devotees who present articles on this website, especially if one wants to use the hatchet technique of writing about spiritual matters."
If we actually care about the opinions we espouse, and if our ideas are really related to Lord Krsna, Lord Caitanya, and Lord Rama, then why compromise their propagation with devious behavior and sharp practices that others will not accept?
It seems that, for his pushy purposes (or to shore up his unsteady mind) and in an overly political style, beginning around 2010/1/20, the Balavidya clone 'Acaryavilasa' coined (or at least began to wield frequently) the 'GEF' acronym, standing for 'Goloka-Envy-Fallvada' (or, -vadi), to label some of his adversaries (GEFs). [The other Balavidya clone, 'Vaikunthanath' also composed an acronym-- 'PITY'.] And (wouldn't you know it), just as I was composing this, an angry Rasaprema in his screeching screed, "Attached to Being Demons", has done it (again?) by coining the acronym 'PIP' (Posthumous Initiation Proponents) to categorize some devotees (PIPs). So... co-incidence? I wonder; I think these two fellows may be the same person. At the very least, they resemble "two black peas in a pod" (or one black pea, as the case may be). Rasaprema's latest reads too much like Balavidya not to wonder about it all.
[According to Bhagavad-gita, one loses one's intelligence when one gets angry; eh, Rasaprema? You ought to have "the honesty and clarity" not to put words in others' mouths. Where in "Misunderstood by the Sincere and Blessed" did I state that Diksa "is something that you don't have to take"? Nowhere. I even hinted at the opposite: "these two things (i.e. accepting a spiritual master and Diksa) are related, ..." My sole purpose in writing was to point out that you, while representing yourself as qualified, misrepresented a letter of Srila Prabhupada in dis-order to push your own interpretation; and I believe that I succeeded in doing that. Now if there is a fault in what I wrote in that essay, then bear witness to the fault; and if there is none, then have "the honesty and clarity to actually come out and state" that you should not have done that. You need to "accept responsibility" for your own decisions.]
Rasaprema dasa first supra-liminated into the Sun on October 26, 2006 -- just about four months later than Balavidya dasa -- with an article on "Prahladananda Maharaj's Recent Paper and GBC Silence". Ostensibly, he has written from, in order: Australia, LA-USA, Holland, and since 2010/8/4, from Austria. The writing of Rasaprema has generally been more fluid and less bombastic than that of Balavidya, and although it usually holds its innards, it occasionally seeps with elitism and drips with hypocrisy.
One case in point is his recent "Contemplating the Two Jiva Fall Scenarios", which as noted above is tainted with hypocrisy and slander. Rasaprema begins by proposing (emphasis supplied):
"Putting all the quotes aside, let us approach the initial fall of the jiva from another angle, the angle of transcendental vision rather than intellectualism and argumentation. The devotees are invited to contemplate the following two scenarios and see which rings true in their heart. Ultimately, the potency of Vedic Siddhanta resides in the fact that Vedic Siddhanta is an exposition of reality beyond illusion. In this manner, Vedic Siddhanta is rooted in Truth; it is not a speculative assertion. The potency of Truth is self-evident; it needs no support external to itself. ... In the same way, we invite the devotee with unprejudiced mind to contemplate the two competing scenarios that are at the heart of the conflict and see which takes root in the heart of the soul as the Self-Evident Truth."
Having read this first paragraph, we can pretty well stop reading. Rasaprema is inviting us to put "all the quotes [from sastra] aside". This is rather strange, coming from one who has ever been sloganizing 'guru, sastra, sadhu'. (Sastra is great if things are going his way; otherwise he may ask us to set it aside.) He proposes setting aside exercise of sastra, which he implies to be "intellectualism and argumentation", for the sake of "transcendental vision". This means that he is making a distinction between use of sastra and Vedic Siddhanta, which is "reality beyond illusion". This shows that he is still on the platform of duality (as are many). If sastra must be set aside in order to get somewhere, it means that we are not qualified to apprehend "reality beyond illusion", because we have no "transcendental vision". Therefore, an appeal for the devotees "to contemplate the following two scenarios and see which rings true in their heart" will not yield satisfactory results. This appeal to boldly step into the bogs of subjectivism will only lead to more division, since of all the sincere (but not yet fully blessed) devotees of "unprejudiced mind" who follow this method, some will choose the first scenario, and others will choose the second. How then can both sides have received "the Self-Evident Truth" into their hearts? (Does Rasaprema mean to imply that the group that chooses the second (GEF) option is not "unprejudiced"? If so, then he is not qualified to conduct this experiment.) Rasaprema wrote that the self-evident potency of Truth "needs no support external to itself"; why then is he trying to arbitrate Truth by bringing the sentimental conditioned heart into the picture?
Rasaprema next requests, "Thus by open-hearted, dispassionate contemplation, let us see which 'fall of jiva' scenario is self-evidently correct -- which rings True. Remember to be unbiased as you contemplate the truth of the following two scenarios:" Here this supposedly neutral, honest broker asks us to be "unbiased" as we contemplate both of the jiva-fall versions. In Scenario One, he merely lists the constituent points. But by the time Scenario Two rolls around, Rasaprema can barely contain his bias, which comes spilling out as he prefaces the constituent points with "Points as extracted from the writings of the Goloka-Envy-Fallvadis (GEFs)". Then after the points have been listed, but before the hapless contemplators have even had time to make a decision, Rasaprema foolishly launches into a short critique of Scenario Two. It is very clear where his bias lies, as he fails to hide it. Finally, he tries to cover his tracks by a somewhat unconvincing appeal to the Supreme Lord to guide the devotees in their selection of one of the two scenarios, as he has presented them. In his hypocritical appeal for the devotees to be "unbiased" when thinking about his "self-evidently" biased presentation, he is no better than a crooked pollster with a list of rigged questions.
Rasaprema has also slandered the GEFs by stating, "The GEFs do not quote sastra in support of their scenario, regarding their interpretations as sufficient." That is a blatant lie. Having openly lied to the devotees, he again resorts to hypocrisy in stating, "Thus, the Vedas, sruti and smrti, are sidelined." Just who was it that asked the devotees to sideline sastra at the start of this hypocritical and slanderous article?
We have already noted that the two Balavidya clones, 'Vaikunthanath' and 'Acaryavilasa', were often wont to terminate their attempts with "Aum Tat Sat". In the case of Acaryavilasa, if we consider his last 26 articles, beginning on 2010/1/15, we see that all but 4 of them end with "Aum Tat Sat" in bold (sometimes enlarged) letters. Similarly examining the articles of Rasaprema dasa, we see that the last 7 of those, beginning on 2010/8/7 (just after he went to 'Austria', interestingly enough) also end with "Aum Tat Sat" in bold letters and always spelled the same way as Acaryavilasa spells it (Aum, not Om). Considering these facts, we may ask: is it mere co-incidence, or emulation, or are we witnessing the habits of one person-- a person attempting to auto-stamp his interpretation with more authority than it deserves.
In regard to the question of the possible identity (or at least common origin) of 'Balavidya' and 'Rasaprema', it is important to note that they agree on very many issues of controversy. They closely agree on the GBC management and its shortcomings, the GBC-appointed diksa-guru issue, the Rtvik issue, the book changes issue, the need for new management in ISKCON and at the BBT, ISKCON Hinduization, the New Vrndavana fiasco and the leaders involved, the jiva fall issue, and in their response to Prahladananda. Very agreeable fellows-- unless they are one fellow.
One memorable downpour of acid-rain from the dark cloud of Rasaprema condescended in his article, "We Have to Test Like That Who is Guru". From this elevated storm, precipitated by the high-blowing dust of Balavidya, dropping Rasaprema first flows with the enthused effusiveness of his gushing admiration:
"He's [i.e. Janmastami is] weak and shy to come out and say it directly but he's a posthumous-rtvik advocate, and since Balavidya dasa has now blown that weird idea right out of the water with his quite brilliant insight into the context..."
"... accept the Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa of Santana Goswami that is being presented by Balavidya dasa and go the real direction..."
"Balavidya is perfectly correct to say that..."
"... Balavidya is giving great direction by pointing out that..."
"... as Balavidya wonderfully pointed out..."
One hand washes the other. Although not wanting to go with the flow of such effluent rasas (e.g. "They are so much in ignorance that they can't see how much they are suffering for their garbage ideas, rather like dumb animals who can't realize the bad condition in which they find themselves, like Indra enjoying being a pig."), it is not difficult to see that 'Balavidya' (whose nescience is strong) and 'Rasaprema' (who loves dubious rasas) could be, or are, good friends, assuming of course that they are not the same person-- especially considering that they agree on at least most of the issues that Rasaprema has commented on.
And now for a little lightning:
"... nothing, zero, naught, nil, zilch to do with such a speculative, concocted, deviant, abnormal, invented, irregular, non-standard, ridiculous, idiotic idea. ... Only great fools and cunning rascals will propose that such a great acarya as Srila Prabhupada would propose either idea, both of which completely countermand sastra, sadhu and guru. These offensive fools and rascals, by misrepresenting Srila Prabhupada's teaching in his name, are booking their tickets to Hell."
From flash to trash, as it were.
[Note the capital 'H': I wonder how that fits in with the destiny of Ajamila; perhaps RPd has recently re-incarnated from the Middle Ages, and hasn't been able to figure things out yet.]
The attentive reader may note that the noun "idea" is preceded by nine negative adjectives (he does not like that idea). Now where have we read something like that before? One buried piece that springs to mind is "The Actual Founder of the Odd Rtvikism", by Balavidya dasa -- the king of dis ('dis' is also a name for hell, interestingly enough). He wrote:
"Such a concept is abnormal, atypical, bizarre, deviant, different, eccentric, extraordinary, fantastic, freakish, freaky, irregular, outlandish, out of the ordinary, peculiar, queer, strange, unconventional, unusual, weird, whimsical and irregular. Or one might say: 'Just plain nuts.'"
Here, the "concept" is dissed by 22 negative adjectives (the king of dis, by a long dis-tance). To me, these facts suggest that at least 'Rasaprema' has been reading 'Balavidya' with emulation (as his own statements confirm), and that possibly 'Rasaprema' is 'Balavidya' (or the person who is both).
That rasa, pray, may not condescend much longer:
"Take responsibility for your own mistaken actions; forget about trying to off-load your fault by pointing the finger at others and ISKCON. Only the fools will agree that it is not your fault. The wise are watching you. They know that the strong and noble accept responsibility for their own decisions."
Is Rasaprema taking siksa from Ayn Rand? To be more consistent in his thinking, it seems Rasaprema should also ask the abused children of ISKCON to own up to their remotely situated karmic responsibilities, as rugged individuals. Survival of the fittest, old chap. "Brave new world that hath such people in it."
What is irksome to those who prefer the spiritual flavor of Tulasi leaves, flowers and incense offered to the lotus feet of Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, or Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu, is the invasive wretched wretching odor of elitism. So, "the wise are watching", are they? And just who might they be? Since Rasaprema has lauded high the "brilliant insight" of Balavidya, it's safe to conclude that he considers him to be of "the wise". Since the well-versed Rasaprema is attempting to impress the wisdom of Balavidya by lecturing Janmastami prabhu, he also must be of "the wise" (who, as he himself has said, are watching him); other-wise, what would be the point? So, from his own mouth, Rasaprema has informed us that he is now among "the wise". How then will it be possible for him to receive the Absolute Truth from the bona fide spiritual master?
Amanitvam adambhitvam: humility comes first.
(Formal initiation is not everything, you know.)
But it doesn't stop there. Rasaprema further tells us that the wise "know that the strong and noble accept responsibility for their own decisions". This implies that, by Rasaprema's own account, both he and Balavidya must be "strong and noble". Other-wise, it would be hypocritical for Rasaprema to 'talk the talk' by hectoring Janmastami to "accept responsibility" for his own decisions, if he would not 'walk the walk' by doing so himself. And if Balavidya, being of "the wise" who know these things, did not also do them, he would also be hypocritical, not noble. Yet Rasaprema implicitly praises as "strong and noble" a man who is not strong enough to nobly "accept responsibility" for what he decides to write, because he did not write under his own real name, but hid under a pseudonym-- all the while sniping at noble devotees who have the strength to take responsibility for their literary decisions by writing under their real names. And if that were not enough, as described by Rocana quoted above, Balavidya compounded his ignoble hypocrisy by taking another pseudonym in order to escape responsibility of making a public response to the legitimate challenges of Rocana prabhu.
Amanitvam adambhitvam: hypocrisy dies hard.
(There's that smell again.)
So... are they (rather, perhaps, he) Aryan? or merely Smaryan? These things which are going on, being circumstantial, don't prove with certainty that 'Balavidya' and 'Rasaprema' are the same person;
nonetheless, I can't help but wonder...
as the elitism slips
and the hypocrisy drips
while the incense burns
and the one world turns...
There is one final item to make complete. The 'Balavidya'-background (one-man?) crypto-syndrome pushes a number of problematic programs (a style similarly employed by the occult oligarchs, and by the hidden wizard of Oz), one of which is the 'Jiva Origin/Fall' polemic. For convenience, Balavidya (Acaryavilasa) is wont to employ the 'GEF' acronym to label his opponents, although those perceptive devotees feel, not without corroboration, that such modus operandi is also for the purpose of ridicule. Nonetheless, those humble devotees, anticipating the mercy of the Lord and desiring debating demeanors befitting a brahmana, are loathe to respond to that wizard on his own level. However, being desirous to level the playing field and to equalize unbalanced potentialities, and wanting to obviate unwanted obstacles, I feel that it is now time to supply an acronym for that doctrine of the wizard, whoever he may really be (or, of his 'friends', if they are individual real people, i.e. separate people with souls-- you know what I mean).
Let's see... Bala Avidya believes that the jivas at the first fall from the causal ocean. Hmm, causal ocean... How about 'brahma-samudra'? Yeah, brahma-samudra... that's close enough (it's only an acronym, after all). So, they originally fall from the causal ocean... first fall down-- 'ady-avapada'? That's it-- ady-avapada. Now we're making progress. But the phrase that 'GEF' stands for ends with vada (or vadi), so we've got to get vada in there somehow. Got it!-- it's 'durmedha-vada'. The fundament of our acronym can end with durmedha-vada. So then, the doctrine of Bala Avidya and the anti-GEFs (those rockers of the stage) is: Brahma-samudra Ady-avapada Durmedha-vada... it rocks! (It even rhymes, with 3x5 syllables.) And the acronym is: 'BAD'. So... may the GEFs now contend with the BADs-- and may the best side prevail.
Hoping that this has been found helpful,
Aum Tat Sat
