Locanananda’s confusion continues - Part 2


IRM


By Krishnakant

Locanananda Das (LD) has continued to present more false allegations in response to my paper entitled “Zonal Acarya revival – Locanananda’s contradiction and confusion” (which is posted here: http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html).

We already addressed one set up false allegations in our paper “Locananada’s confusion continues” (which is posted here: http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/Locanananda_confusion_continues.html).

These new set of false allegations will be exposed below, and are from e-mails LD sent to Brahmabhuta Das on 31/5/2010 and 1/6/2010. Statements by LD from these e-mails are given below enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with my comments following underneath.

Self-Contradiction

“Nothing against KK, but just because no one has proven him wrong (until now), it doesn't mean he is right.”

LD here opens with an admission of defeat. Since LD has already responded twice to the IRM’s position, which was addressed via the two papers mentioned in the opening paragraph, LD is admitting here that even he himself has not proven me wrong.

“I think you know I like KK. I just don't agree with his logic. Srila Prabhupada always said Krishna cannot be understood by logic and reason. “

There is no statement from Srila Prabhupada of the exact form “Krishna cannot be understood by logic and reason”. This is significant because LD states in another part of the e-mails that:

“I do believe KK would have  greater potency if he limited himself to just quoting Srila Prabhupada's exact words instead of inserting his own logic to explain what Srila Prabhupada had in mind.”

So LD needs to start by following his own words, and only quote Srila Prabhupada’s exact words.

“I haven't looked over KK's latest response, but if I do, and if I feel it deserves a reply, I will not hesitate to address him directly.”

LD has already claimed he does not wish to continue with what he claims is a useless debate:

“Like Govinda Candra prabhu, I am not really inclined to argue back and forth with other vaisnavas.”
(LD, 23/10/2009)

“In Krishnakant's letter to me, there are many, many false arguments which I could defeat one after another, but why waste our precious time in the back and forth exchanges of a useless debate.”
(LD, 10/5/2010)

It seems as if LD is singularly unable to follow his own advice.

“If he were to take initiation, first and second, he could then put into practice what he sees as the correct initiation procedure by acting himself as a ritvik representative.”

LD himself has stated a pre-condition for this:

“As to whether a new GBC will be formed in the future, and whether they will find devotees who fit the qualifications of ritvik acarya, that remains to be seen.”

So if we still need to “find” devotees who can perform such a ceremony, as well as form a GBC, the question of initiation does not yet arise. What we do not wish to do is to rush into doing ritvik initiations without proper consideration and application, otherwise you end up like LD, who conducts ritvik initiations, whilst at the same time claiming they are actually bogus! (documented here: : http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html).


Ritvik-Acarya

“Of course, KK thinks Srila Prabhupada never used the term ritvik acarya based on a thirty second recording made on May 28, 1977, although on other occasions devotees did hear Srila Prabhupada use the term.”

We accurately state that there is no record of Srila Prabhupada ever using this term. LD is simply confirming this fact by having to rely on what devotees claim they “heard”. By relying on what devotees claim they “heard”, one can prove anything, depending on what the devotee claims he “heard”.

“One expression he did not use was "ceremonial priest," according to my search of the VedaBase, but it is one of KK's favorites.”

1) The search of the same VedaBase shows that Srila Prabhupada never used the term “ritvik-acarya”. So if LD believes in accepting Srila Prabhupada’s authority based on what is contained in the VedaBase, then he must reject the use of the term “ritvik-acarya”.

2) Srila Prabhupada defined a rivik as follows:

rtvik—priests conducting the ceremony          
(SB, 5:3:20)

In the English language, a “priest conducting the ceremony” is a “ceremonial priest”. Another example is that a “a door which has the colour blue” is a “blue door”, and so on.

“I do believe KK would have  greater potency if he limited himself to just quoting Srila Prabhupada's exact words instead of inserting his own logic to explain what Srila Prabhupada had in mind.”

As has been proven above, it is LD who has not done this, not I.

 “I know there are devotees who look up to him as their siksa guru, but who is KK's siksa guru? Where is the disciplic succession of acaryas who taught him the point of view he espouses?”

Who is LD’s siksa guru? Where is the disciplic succession of acaryas who taught LD his view that a “ritvik-acarya” gives diksa and takes disciples, just as a Diksa Guru does? (documented here: http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html)

“Personally, I am not on a mission to defeat anyone. I would just like to see our movement made whole again. That will require a little give and take on all sides and a little flexibility in our understanding, especially when our ideas cannot be substantiated on the basis of guru, sastra and sadhu.”

LD’s idea that a “ritvik-acarya” gives diksa and takes disciples like a diksa guru, is not substantiated by Srila Prabhupada.

Defeated over Diksa 

“But if and when I write, it will be for his personal benefit, not with the intent of defeating his theory of how the departed vaisnava acarya continues to give formal inter-galactic diksa.”

1. We know it will not be with the intent of defeating me, since LD has never come close to defeating any points I have made.

 2. Since Diksa is a continuous PROCESS and not a one-time event, LD is continuing to receive “inter-galactic diksa” from Srila Prabhupada:

" Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa."
 (C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)

So LD would actually be attempting to defeat himself, if he attempted to defeat the proposition of “inter-galactic diksa”.

“Srila Prabhupada defeats KK's concept in one sentence:
"The bona fide spiritual master, who has also heard the sruti mantras, or Vedic knowledge, from his undisturbed acarya, never presents anything that is not mentioned in the Vedic literature."
(Sri Isopanisad, mantra 13, purport)
The onus is on KK to show the precedent for his theory based on the Vedic literature.”

Our concept is:

a) The Bona Fide Guru accepts disciples.

LD’s concept is:

b) The Bona fide Guru is restricted from accepting disciples after he physically departs.

Since concept a) is mentioned in the Vedic literatures but concept b) is not, it is actually LD whom Srila Prabhupada has defeated in one sentence.

“Of course, he cannot do so, nor can he point to any such unequivocal declaration from Srila Prabhupada that, "After I enter samadhi, I will continue to accept candidates for initiation within ISKCON as my own duly initiated disciples."

Of course, LD cannot do so, nor can he point to any such unequivocal declaration from Srila Prabhupada that, “After I enter Samadhi, there must be a termination of the ritvik system I have set up to accept candidates for initiation within ISKCON as my own duly initiated disciples.”

Unable to respond

“Is it an offense for KK to take a letter not addressed to him and attempt to defame me because I do not agree with his point of view? I didn't take it as an offense, just a disagreement he has chosen to air on the Internet. Well, when you do that, you have to be prepared to hear the response.”

1. As my response, which LD refers to here, (found here: http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html), clearly shows that LD has contradicted his own points, it is actually LD who has defamed himself.

 2. LD has not made any response to anything I actually wrote, as my follow-up to his reply, (found here: http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/Locanananda_confusion_continues.html), proves.

“There may be  various angles of vision, even among the acaryas, that can be substantiated on the basis of Vedic understanding. However, KK's ideas are not in that category because of his attempt to express that which is inconceivable by relying upon the very limited scope of his own logic and reason.”

We have already substantiated the IRM’s position via the words of Srila Prabhupada, and have also substantiated that LD’s views differ from Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. Our paper on the IRM website addressing LD’s view, (found here: http://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html), which stands unchallenged by LD, demonstrates this.

“I don't mind Krishnakant doing what he is doing, although I don't believe it is helping his cause to try to find fault where there is none.”

As LD has not produced any example of my trying to find fault where none exists, the above point from LD is a straw-man argument.

“He cannot see the value of any argument that is not in agreement with his own point of view, a characteristic that is not a sign of true spiritual acumen.”

This view is simply repeating Srila Prabhupada’s view, substantiated by Srila Prabhupada’s words. To accept views which are not in agreement with Srila Prabhupada’s view is not a sign of true spiritual acumen.

“not a single member of the GBC has ever sided with KK or Adri or Madhu Pandit or Rupa-vilasa in the ritvik debate.”

Actually, as we demonstrated in BTP Special issue 2, many of the GBC and gurus already agree with the IRM’s position – they simply do not follow it!


 Conclusion

The more that LD writes on the subject, the more he hopelessly contradicts himself, and the more he adds to the mass of false arguments he has presented.



Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare.
And be Happy!