A Day in Court: Closing Arguments
BY: HARAKUMAR DASA
Mar 19, TORONTO, CANADA (SUN) — In his recent article, "Our Rtvik Renounces Rtvikism, our Balavidya may have rejoiced prematurely, because no conversion has taken place. I have always held, following Srila Prabhupada, that the QUALIFIED disciple may (if ordered) become both siksa and diksa guru, but he must pursue his diksa-guru duties OUTSIDE ISKCON, within which there is ever only ONE DIKSA-GURU, Srila Prabhupada. (ISKCON is his own matha/asrama/society.)
So now I would like to take the time to respond very briefly to some more habitual refractory misconceptions in the latest screen screed from Balavidya dasa, "The Actual Founder of the Odd Rtvikism", and then to summarize the entire situation. This is the last occasion that I can counter directly an editorial from Balavidya dasa, because I've done what I can and the next engagement awaits. I trust that "sensible devotees" will be able to see beyond balavidya to the brighter satyavidya; perhaps some will write.
None of Balavidya's arguments are compelling. My purpose is not so much to convert, but rather to show that ISKCON rtvik diksa is both reasonable and backed up by evidence. This is very desirable to wreck the wheels of Balavidya's propaganda mill. [Balavidya reminds me of Rukmi playing chess against Lord Balarama (Who is akhanda-guru-tattva): "Again, Balarama was the winner according to the rules of chess, but Rukmi again cunningly began to claim that he had won."] Let us take one quick trip around the floppy disc of his repeatedly repeating errors.
1. Starting off on the wrong foot (which he previously shot), Balavidya dasa claims that a Rtvik has recently given some postings. I have a hunch that he is referring to me. Balavidya's ire has subverted his intelligence (Bg 2.63). By studying Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, I have come to know that all living entities are spirit souls and eternal servants of Krsna, especially if they act in bhakti-yoga. His boldly imputed bodily designation is not even materially correct; I have never officiated over a diksa-yajna or given a spiritual name in my entire life.
2. He then implies that ISKCON rtvik diksa is "[my] odd idea". I'm very flattered, but in point of fact the idea originates with Srila Prabhupada (who also put it into practice).
3. He then foolishly claims, "The Rtviks have no proof to offer..." That is an out & out lie. There definitely is evidence for ISKCON rtvik diksa: the encyclical letter of July 9, 1977; the room conversation of May 28, 1977; and more. If he wants to explain it away, or in a different way, that is his problem. But if he can't tell the difference between facts (i.e. the evidence) and interpretations (i.e. opinions about what the evidence means), then he is less intelligent. And if he simply denies the facts (the evidence), then he makes himself out to be a liar.
4. He writes of [my] "interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's teachings" which he refers to as "odd". But he is himself interpreting Srila Prabhu-pada's teachings, and I don't agree with his interpretation. His "odd" ascription is just his own personal opinion. Once again, he can't tell the difference between facts and interpretations.
5. Next comes the straw-man argument from a man with plenty of straw for arguments. His statement that ISKCON rtvik diksa is my, or someone else's, "concoction" is just his concoction. The idea was handed down from Srila Prabhupada and we just heard about it. And the concoction he mentions is his statement that I advocate a "ten-thousand year posthumous diksa-guru". That is false. What Srila Prabhupada advocates is an ongoing post-disappearance diksa-guru WITHIN ISKCON, NAMELY SRILA PRABHUPADA. Does Balavidya not believe that the nitya-siddha Srila Prabhupada is immortal? Then what is he doing here? Does Balavidya not believe that Srila Prabhupada is free to administer diksa in his own spiritual matha/society in the way he sees fit? Then what is he doing here?
6. Next Balavidya, who appears to have access to a thesaurus, proffers us exactly 22 (twenty-two) near synonyms of the word "odd". [Is this what they mean by a 'catch-twenty-two'?] I'm so impressed. However, "saying [even 22 times] doesn't make it so". [Yes, that too. What a coincidence.]
7. Next he somewhat politely requests that I (or someone) "give some proof from guru, sadhu and sastra" to support my position. Given the fact that I have done so in previous articles, and that he has obviated by non-response the points that were raised, perhaps it is time to ask if he has the necessary qualification to evaluate any proof that gainsays his prejudicial predilection.
8. He then claims that the 'Rtviks' have a favorite one word proof, that being "henceforward", from the appointment letter of July 9, 1977. The advocates of ISKCON rtvik diksa may have made too much of this word in the past, but the meaning of the July 9 letter remains unaltered even without "henceforward". He argues that "henceforward" can't literally mean from now on because he notes that the letter states "The name of a newly initiated disciple should be sent by the representative ... to Srila Prabhupada", implying that rtvik diksa was not meant to run after the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. This interpretation from the school of Balavidya does not rate an ABC, but a D or an F. Firstly, the letter states that the name "should be sent", not must be sent; failure to send is therefore an accidental fault, not a substantial dysfunction.
Secondly, Balavidya conveniently neglects to quote the reason why the name "should be sent", which is "to be included in His Divine Grace's "Initiated Disciples" book." Srila Prabhupada had nothing to do with those inclusions; it was all done by his secretary. So again a condition of disappearance is no reason at all to discontinue the viable system. Thirdly, sending/not sending the name of the initiate is something done/not done after the initiation. This implies continuance, not discontinuance.
9. Balavidya's canard about 10,000 years is a part of a feckless attempt. What does the number matter? ISKCON is expected to last a long time, much longer than the unified Gaudiya Matha did. Srila Prabhupada's smart idea is that he is (to be) the sole diksa-guru in ISKCON (his own matha, after all) for as long as it lasts. I've got no problem with that. We know that Srila Prabhupada wanted to retire to write books and he wanted the GBC to manage ISKCON. Is the GBC expected to be so feckless that it can't manage a simple elective procedure, as it will become necessary, to replenish the number of rtviks indefinitely? It is really just a simple administrative matter. And the eleven were merely initial representatives.
10. Balavidya further notes that there is no mention of the departure of Srila Prabhupada [in the letter], but he draws the wrong conclusion due to taking the letter out of context. He opines that, by non-mention, the departure was not in view when the letter was composed, but Srila Prabhupada's departure was in view in the May 28 room conversation, which cannot be separated from the letter of July 9, as it is stated in the first few lines of the letter itself. The May 28 reference: "Then our next question concerns initiations in the future, particularly at that time when you are no longer with us." The letter is the fact in view; the putative consideration that Srila Prabhupada was ill is Balavidya's speculative interpretation. I prefer the facts. The letter of July 9 points to the meeting of May 28, and the "factor under consideration" in the meeting was initiations in the future, especially after the departure of Srila Prabhupada.
[The next paragraph has already been dealt with.]
11. Balavidya now chooses to verbalize a prodigy of tantric assertion. With temerity emboldened by a darkness born of ignorance, this hero of the cyber-screen taps us to inform (not once, not twice, but three times) that "absolutely no one" in the society, "Absolutely no one", "not one soul" in ISKCON "even imagined the interpretation the Rtviks now give the letter" (not even the Rtviks). It doesn't get any heavier than that. Now would Balavidya dasa, ensconsed on high by the force of his knowledge born of diksa, in his condescending omniscience, deign to inform the lower folk just exactly how he knows that? Is he near the inside fast track? The ISKCON hierarchy? The guhya/guru-marma? The center of the universe? Does he have eyes and ears everywhere, and
always? Or, has it just been a long time since he perused Bhagavad-Gita 13? Did he prefer to listen to an ISKCON authority? Tamal Krsna Gosvami? Or, is it just that he is trying to soften us up for his next (dis)section? Stay tuned (but be media literate, because the medium is the message).
12. But if there is some truth in the humongous herculean historical asseveration of our very own Balavidya dasa, that would help a lot to account for that long lost golden age, nascent at sunset, of the Zonal Acarya, that age of the golden faucet, when gods walked over the prostrate earth in the eleven directions while some mortals felt most
fortunate to follow their directions, even unto death---a small price to pay for immor(t)ality. But flowery language (Bg 2.42-45) can't last forever (Bg 9.20-22), because Bhagavan Sri Krsna (Bg 10.8-11) does have His own agenda (Bg 18.65-66). Better to do it God's way from the start (the initial moment), as heard from the Guru. Then there would be no need for bhangi picking up trash & tripe of Zonal Acarya in ISKCON debris field.
Balavidya, in his over-intelligent naivete, then states that Tamal Krsna Gosvami, who "must have known Srila Prabhupada's intention for the letter", never declared that the July 9 letter instituted ISKCON rtvik diksa, but on the contrary "initiated his own disciples". He opines that Tamal Krsna, "the composer of [July 9] letter didn't have the idea [of ISKCON rtvik diksa] in his mind as he composed the letter under the personal direction of Srila Prabhupada" [more 'omniscience' from Balavidya]. But how does Balavidya know that? What if Tamal Krsna, who "must have known Srila Prabhupada's intention", DID have the idea in his mind (because Srila Prabhupada explained it to all of them day after July day), what if he didn't like the idea, and what if he disobeyed the idea at the earliest disappearance opportunity? That is what this is all about. Tamal Krsna Gosvami is the last person we should trust on this issue.
13. As we struggle to stifle our yawns, Balavidya struggles to convince us of his latest historical revisionist theory on the origin of "Rtvikism". He casts doubt on the moral character of the alleged author of ISKCON rtvik diksa, but as we have shown, the true author was a person of spotless character and a giver of matchless gifts, Srila Prabhupada. But if Balavidya wants to imply that Nityananda dasa (or whomever he is referring to) was the origin of "the idea" and his moral shortcomings render "the idea" invalid, then what about Hayagriva dasa, the editor of the Books, who also had moral failings? According to Balavidya's new theory, that means there is something wrong with the editing of the Books. Perhaps, to be consistent, he should stop quoting from them. But we, at least, know better than that. Both ISKCON rtvik diksa and the Books originate with His Divine Grace, Srila Prabhupada.
14. The befuddled Balavidya then cannons his canard that the Rtviks want to "throw out the way diksa has always been practised by all sadhus and mahajanas in our sampradaya" since time immemorial. Here are two 'yawns of Hell' from his gaping mouth of flame. First, he implies that Srila Prabhupada is not in the company of those sadhus and mahajanas because, historically, Srila Prabhupada did use rtviks. And second, the so-called diksa-gurus of ISKCON, with whom Balavidya has no quarrel, are not conforming to the "way diksa has always been practised by all sadhus and mahajanas in our sampradaya" because they pretend to be diksa-guru within their Father's house. Where are their own mathas and spiritual societies to 'continue the sampradaya'?
15. Balavidya stumbles on to imply that Srila Prabhupada, by instituting ISKCON rtvik diksa, "would change everything he taught about the disciplic succession". He would do nothing of the sort. The problem is that Balavidya is "so plainly mistaken" and "so ignorant" that he is not able to understand that. It is "astonishing" that Balavidya keeps on
pressing the 'Rtviks' for proof when in fact the burden of proof falls on him. In the letter (cum conversation) Srila Prabhupada gave direction on how initiations in ISKCON are to be conducted in the future, an order that he never countermanded. So if someone wants to stop that system at any time (specifically at the disappearance of ISKCON's Founder-Acarya), the onus is on him to justify his unprecedented action with proof. The burden of proof weighs on Balavidya, not on those who merely want to carry on with the mandated system. Balavidya, like a mad elephant blowing his nose, trumpets the dangers of "offence", but which is more offensive (hypothetically speaking): being subjectively mistaken on the path of objective obedience, or being subjectively mistaken on the path of objective disobedience?
16. With all the intelligence and subtlety of a jack-hammer on a chain-gang breaking rocks and driving spikes on a railroad through Zone 'A' of ISKCON County, Balavidya continues to drive in his propaganda point to the effect that some opponent thinks that sastra is "irrelevant" because he proved from the sastra that "It does not matter whether the rtvik diksa system is mentioned in sastra or not". So once again, let us be clear: Sastra is not irrelevant because it is necessary that ISKCON rtvik diksa must be not contrary to sastra. Our opponent appears to be deliberately obtuse. "When ignorance is bliss, tis a folly to be wise." So if anyone thinks that sastra is irrelevant, let's all repeat together, "What a classic nonsense! What pure humbug." What is also nonsense humbug is for someone to pose himself as a victorious scholar when he can't get a point as simple as this. Another Rukmi moment from one Balavidya dasa.
17. Our opponent now wants to close with effect. Based on his "odd idea" that we don't care for sastra, he continues to decorate his mean-looking scarecrow straw-man by inserting a branch from Bhagavad-gita (16.23). Actually we like this verse, all of Bhagavad-gita, and all Vedic sastra very much. That is why we continue to quote and cite it often. One thing we have learned is that misusing sastra to obviate the order of guru is a form of maryada-vyatikrama (sri-guru-carane rati, ei se uttama-gati).
18. Feeding on the false conclusions in his field of straw and chaff, Balavidya now broaches his narcissistic side. Not content to adore the feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he wants to sit on the Throne (somewhat akin to his mentors) the better to pontificate on the unhappy, very very dark future "as the shadows come to enfold...more and more" of the much demonized 'Rtviks'. ["Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows."] And what is that future, according to the gospel (?) of Balavidya? "No perfection, no happiness, and no Goloka-Vrndavana." [O! Boo, hoo hoo! ... What could be more confusing for an innocent neophyte?] Fortunately for us, we can see the rays come right through the nebulous Balavidya from the other side, and we're doing just fine, thank you, by the grace of God and Guru. Now if the vituperative Balavidya would just step down, we could enjoy that epiphany even more.
And so closing time is drawing near. Many arguments have been presented today. In an adversarial legal system, lawyers for both sides make their arguments in court before the judge. But the lawyers do not decide the case by rendering a verdict. The judge (or sometimes the jury installed by the judge) renders the decision before God, by Whom all swear to tell the truth. The truth will come out (satyam eva jayate). So the true Judge who will decide who is right and who is wrong is the Judge (Lord) of the Universe, Jagannatha, or His Representative.
Case closed. H ==={{{
