Oct 13, 2017 — CANADA (SUN) —
Following our recent article, "Challenging the Zonal Acaryas …and the Ritvik-Vadis", a reply from Yasodanandana dasa has been posted on a few Ritvik forums. In it, he informs that a mistake was made in our article – Pradyumna was not a key author of the 1979 Vrindavan challenge paper, as we thought.
Yasodanandana complains that:
"…the loquacious self-styled independent brahminical commentator and editor (the "Independent Brahminical Commentator") of the Sampradaya Sun, has attempted to misrepresent various statements, and written letters which I authored in 1978 and 1979, and my role in the submission of a paper presented to the GBC…"
Despite the fact that he was there in Vrindavan at the time, was heavily involved in the issue, and was named in the paper as one of two devotees who would be responsible for debating the paper with the GBC (along with Pradyumna das), Yasodanandana claims that Kailasa Candra dasa wrote the paper:
"Incorrect, the paper was compiled by Kailsa candra dasa. It was not compiled by Pradyumna dasa. He did not sign it. I was a signer on the paper, along with several other sannyasis, and over 30 devotees serving at the Krishna Balarama temple and Bhaktivedanta Swami Gurukula. Pradyumna did not sign it for personal reasons."
Yasodanandana first argues that we have misrepresented various statements and written letters he authored, and his role in submission of the 1979 paper. He then says Pradyumna did not write the paper. But he doesn't say he did not help to write the paper. So where is the mis-representation concerning him?
In our articles, the only documents we represented as having been written by him were a hand-written note (not "letters"), and co-authorship of the 1979 paper. Given that he didn't deny co-authoring the paper, we are still left to assume that in fact, he did.
Of course, it's easy to understand that Yasodanandana would find it beneficial to create a smokescreen around his participation in authoring the paper, given that it represents a position diametrically opposed to his later interpretation of the July 9th Letter, as evidence in support of his post-samadhi ritvik-vada conclusion.
We stand corrected on the point about Pradyumna prabhu's non-involvement as co-author, thank you. But with respect to our characterization of Yasodanandana dasa's actions, our main emphasis is on three things:
1) the fact that Yasodanandana was a key participant in the presentation of that paper to the GBC: as a senior disciple present in Vrindavan at the time it was written and delivered to the GBC, as would-be defender of it in debate, and (we now know) as a signer;
2) the fact that the paper memorializes Yasodanandana's understanding of the July 9th Letter, at that time, to be an instruction for the appointment by Srila Prabhupada of 11 diksa gurus who would be initiating their own direct disciples; and
3) Yasodanandana's hand-written cover note, appended to the copy he gave us of
the 1979 Vrindavan paper, in which he stated:
– WORD DIKSA GURU IS USED FREQUENTLY BECAUSE I NEVER FACTUALLY HEARD THE ORIGINAL TAPES OF 28TH MAY 1977 & 7TH JULY 1977
The fact that Yasodanandana did not deny in his rebuttal that he co-authored the paper simply underscores the question: what did he mean when he said that 'diksa guru' is used frequently in the paper because he never heard the original tapes until later.
If Kailasa Candra wrote the paper, and Yasodanandana was not a key participant in authoring it, then how can it be that the repeated inclusion of the term 'diksa guru' in the paper is due to the fact that Yasodanandana had not yet heard the tapes?
Based on Yasodanandana's own written words, our conclusion stands. His rebuttal is simply word jugglery.
Beyond that, his lengthy rebuttal offers little more in his defense than the usual litany of favoured Ritvik-vadi quotes and anecdotes, which have nothing to do with our final point of emphasis in regard to his flipped position:
that the May 28th and July 7th Room Conversations contain no evidence that supports his change of position to an interpretation of the July 9th Letter as an instruction for post-samadhi ritvik diksa initiations.
Yasodanandana's hand-written comment about the 1979 Vrindavan paper must be accepted as a true statement – as an indication of what influenced his reinterpretation of the July 9th Letter, and as an indication of his involvement with creation of the 1979 paper.
If he would instead have us believe that his hand-written note is simply an anecdotal fragment that can't stand as evidence, then the same would have to be said about the many anecdotal fragments he uses to round out his Ritvik-vada history and philosophy.
In recent days, we have also heard from Kailasa Candra das's long-time spokesman, bhakta Eric Johanson (née Riktaharsan das), who wrote to offer a correction and additional background on a quote included in our recent article, "The Roots of Ritvik-vada". The quote was from the 2003 paper, "The Church of Ritvik":
"This hypothesis [Ritvik-vada] originated from the person of Yasoda nandana dasa, who is one of the founding members of a loosely organized underground movement started in the late 1970's, aiming protest at the GBC/Zonal Acaryas. Most of the intellectuals who formed the inner circle of this cell were unceremoniously excommunicated from ISKCON for publicly voicing their subversive ideas. To the best of my knowledge, the membership included Pradyumna dasa, Jadurani devi dasi, Kailasa candra dasa, and Yasoda nandanana dasa. This school of radical thought wrote, printed and circulated many confrontational tracts in the early days, with limited results. Initially, they did not try to promote the return of the Rtvik process, but rather focused on the advanced spiritual qualifications required to become a bonafide diksa guru. These were qualities the Zonal Acaryas sadly lacked. Naturally, the Zonals' policy of exaggerated glorification and their self-anointed honorific titles incited the disgust and outrage of this early protest group. The sastric definitions for diksa set forth by this group were so unattainable by Kaliyuga Westerners that Srila Prabhupada was the only ISKCON related personality who unquestionably qualified. It was this train of thought that naturally evolved into the post-samadhi diksa concept. The group's need for supporting documental evidence required a re-interpretation of the same July 9th letter the Zonals had previously highlighted as their authorization to take unfettered, exclusive regional power.
Bhakta Eric points out that neither Kailasa candra dasa nor Pradyumna dasa were part of the group that branched off from the early Zonal Acarya challenge group to form the Ritviks. And we agree. We understood that to be the case in 2003, when "Church of Ritvik" was written. But Bhakta Eric is entirely correct, the paragraph is poorly worded and does not make that distinction (perhaps it was lost during editing). It should, and a footnote has now been added to that effect.
