Locanananda’s confusion continues


By Krishnakant

Locanananda Das (LD) has presented a series of false allegations in response to my paper entitled “Zonal Acarya revival – Locanananda’s contradiction and confusion” (which is posted here: https://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html). These false allegations will be exposed below, and are from an e-mail LD sent to Govinda Prema Dasa on 10/5/2010. Statements by LD from this e-mail are given below enclosed in speech marks “ “ thus, with my comments following underneath.

“I am writing this brief reply just to show you how dangerous the ritvik position is, because it offends the great lineage of our sampradaya by minimizing the stature of its members who are nothing less than pure devotees of the Lord. I am referring particularly to Yadunandana Acarya and Balarama Acarya who are reduced in Krishnakant's letter to me as being nothing more than expert priests. This is posted publicly on the IRM website: https://www.iskconirm.com/docs/webpages/zonal_revival_Locananda.html.”

Nowhere do I state that these personalities are “nothing more than expert priests.” So this is a straw-man argument.

“Krishnakant is creating an illusion, and you have apparently swallowed it hook, line and sinker. By quoting a single verse from the Caitanya caritamrita, he wants us to believe that these two great personalities should be seen as family priests because the word "acarya" refers only to their expertise in performing ritualistic ceremonies.”

Nowhere have I claimed that these two great personalities should only be seen as family priests. So this is a straw man argument.

“First, let us identify Sri Yadunandana Acarya:Yadunandana Acarya is an acarya in every sense of the word.”

Nowhere have I claimed different. All I did was give 2 quotes showing that Balarama Acarya was a family priest. (The second quote also mentioned the name of Yadunandana acarya, but it was not possible for me to “clip” his name without the whole quote not making sense. But the only personality who is mentioned in both quotes, which I wanted to highlight was Balarama Acarya).

“Govinda Prema prabhu, do you really think these teachings found in Srila Prabhupada's books are describing someone who is nothing more than an expert priest (Krishnakant's contention)?”

As already pointed out, nowhere do I claim that Yadunandana Acarya is “nothing more than an expert priest”.

“As for Balarama Acarya, yes, he was a first class priest, but he was a pure vaisnava as well.”

After a whole bout of huffing and puffing based on a series of straw-man arguments, LD finally himself admits the point I was making, thus defeating his attempt to defeat the point I was making! I merely stated that a priest may also have the title “acarya”, and correctly quoted Balarama Acarya as being a priest who has this title. I never claimed he was not a “pure vaisnava”.

“Those who defend the logical arguments of the IRM while diminishing the stature of such pure devotees as Yadunandana Acarya and Balarama Acarya should take note of the words of the latter in the pastime described in Antya Lila, Chapter 3, verses 201-202: "The priest named Balarama Acarya chastised Gopala Cakravarti. 'You are a foolish logician,’ he said. 'What do you know about the devotional service of the Lord?"

1) Since, as already proven, no such “diminishing” occurred, this is just more false straw man huffing and puffing from LD.

2) Above LD HIMSELF quotes Balarama Acarya being referred to as simply “the priest”, the very action he claims makes me guilty of being a great offender to Balarama Acarya. Hence, if LD’s accusations were true, he would also be guilty of everything he has accused me of!

“Similarly, you are treading on dangerous ground by twisting some false interpretation out of revealed scripture.”

As already shown, it is LD who has twisted some false interpretation out of what I wrote.

“You may be able to convince those who are not conversant with Srila Prabhupada's complete teachings, but word jugglery and logic do not reveal the real import of Vedic literature.”

Never mind being conversant with Srila Prabhupada’s complete teachings and understanding the real import of Vedic literature – LD is not even conversant with the import of what he claims he is responding to!

“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. I have taken a single point from his presentation to show how his technique is based on selecting passages or parts of passages from scripture that he can cite in support of his false conclusions.”

We can all make false claims. LD claims there are “many, many false arguments” I have made which he could “defeat one after another”, yet he has yet to reveal one such false argument. Rather so far, in my original paper, and now this follow up, it is simply LD who has been revealed to have presented “many, many false arguments” which I have defeated one after another.

“The right idea is to come to the point of pure, unalloyed devotional service, not to become the great Digvijaya who has defeated everyone in all directions.”

Making false statements is NOT the way to come to the point of “pure, unalloyed devotional service”.


Every point made in my original paper still stands. LD however, has now added to the list of the many 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!