© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL January 29, 2000 VNN5362 Related VNN Stories Twitting The Rits Or Ritting The Twits BY KUNDALI DASA EDITORIAL, Jan 29 (VNN) — Adri says when someone is defeated in a debate they have two options. "They can be a gentleman and concede, or they can try to change the subject in some way to avoid answering the other person's argument." First we have to establish "defeat" Adri. "What sort of scholar would consistently set out to defeat things he has never read, and clearly knows little about. It seems he would rather launch into irrelevant and illogical ad hominem attacks than simply answer our points directly." (Adri)Well, on this point, Adri, I have to give you a ten. You are completely right. Actually, I did this because I have seen this "tactic" practiced by the spokesmen for the rit-twit agenda with such regularity and vehemence (such as accusing those who don't accept the rit-twit rhetoric of aparadha), so I thought that what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. Simple logic there, right?
Evidently, I was wrong in thinking like this. So now my understanding is cleared up--irrelevant and illogical ad hominem attacks are the monopoly of the rit-twit wallahs. They are sole proprietors. I have to "play" against them with a handicap. And a very handy one it is, I might add. You are quite good at irrelevancy and fallacy and ad hominem. I can see why you would want to have exclusive rights. Okay, lemme think about it. Perhaps I'll concede. We shall see. "If this is scholarship, then it is heavily tinged with passion and ignorance. "Hmmm, now that you bring that up, since there is no support in the sastra for the concept of ritvik, which you have now re-dubbed the beyond-time-and-space-maha-bhagavata-diksa-guru conception, (new phrase, but same old apasiddhantic idea, which to me simply means that twit-vik by any other name is still a notion for your garden variety twits). Hmmmm, and since the sastra says that assertions that have no sastric support are in the mode of ignorance, and my take on this whole affair of the final disorder is that it is politically motivated, so that accounts for your rajas factor right there. But on this you can have an exclusive claim. This is a handicap I'm willing to accept. Completely. Adri, being a real gentleman, having pointed out my shortcoming in this area, writes: "It is strange that he should take this approach since he himself whinges: 'In no civil court of law can you make your case simply by leveling an accusation. You have to prove your case.' It did not even address the topic I put on the table." (Kundali das)The interesting thing about this is that this statement, " In no civil court of law can you make your case simply by leveling an accusation. You have to prove your case" was made with reference to his allegedly accusing me of offense to Srila Prabhupada because I do not subscribe to the rit-twit drek. And then this statement, "It did not even address the topic I put on the table." was made with reference to Puranjana's vitriol. When Adri the gentleman juxtaposes my two statements to suit his needs, it constitutes a willful twisting of my expressions, but this I must now assume is perfectly fine, because the monopoly on irrelevance and fallacy and ad hominem attacks, must no doubt include a clause saying "and we the ritvik rabids have exclusive rights to twist the statements of any who oppose us" or something close to that effect. As an aside, if I ever have to contract to draw up, could I consult you, because I have to admit that you are really strong in getting all the chips over to your end of the table. Of course, I have not seen your fees, I'm sure the chips are really over at your end when it comes to that. We all know that you are strong in the bucks department. But it strikes me as rather novel that you want to blow me away for taking the "gist" of your previous replies from others, because I was so "pathetic" for being offline, which does not mean that they did not give me the gist, mind you, and now you are directly looking at my wording and twisting it wilfully to suit your means, a unique display of gentlemanliness, in which you don't even need an go-between to distorty meaning. Awesome, yeah? But I'm not upset. After all the rit-twits wallahs even do this freely with the words of Srila Prahbupada in order to eke out meaning to suit their ends and even ignore the obvious implications of statements such as "his disciples" and "grand disciples" in the tape they love to analyze to death.. Now, I sit down, I pray and with a placid mind I ask myself, is there ground for taking these rit-wallahs seriously? And lo, bubbling up from the depths of my conscience comes a ringing laughter and the only meaning I can ascribe to this laughter is that the answer is "Nope." And this makes a heap of sense to me. Henceforward, Monday will fall on a Friday before Kundali will take you and your lot seriously. And since I have it on good authority that Monday shall never fall on a Friday, well, even you cannot deny the logical outcome of this bit of data, I think. So this will never become a true debate as far as I am concerned, because I'll never dignify the Final Dis-Order by taking it seriously. My heart goes out to those who do. Personally, I find it interesting that Mahaprabhu gave Rupa and Sanatan some instructions, and by applying their clear intelligence they were able to expand all this into volumes of books. Because they were not baffled, it seems to me. Then their representative, Srila Prabhupada, gave us volumes of books, and rather than take that and expand on it, with logic and reason that coheres with the cornerstone principles of our parampara philosophy, instead people ended up totally baffled. Until the end of my days I'll be trying to unravel this one, I'm a-telling yew. It is simply mahvelous how you and so many others pull of this bafflement deal. The virus runs lengthwise and crosswise even on the GBC (Great Baffled Commission). "As for the question of whether or not Rupa Goswami supports the 'ritvik' concept, if Kundali had any idea what the 'ritvik' idea was then he would not even ask such a silly question. We assert that Srila Prabhupada is the Diksa Guru for ISKCON (based on his final instructions on initiation). Rupa Goswami fully supports the notion that bona fide spiritual masters can initiate disciples. (Adri)."Ah, this is the kind of scholarly brilliance that makes me wonder if you and I are talking about the same Rupa Gosvami. I am sure my Rupa Gosvami supports the notion that bona fide spiritual masters can initiate disciples. And since Rupa Gosvami is a bona fide spiritual master, following your brand of logic, which you need not patent since you run virtually no risk that it will be stolen, I hereby proclaim that I am the direct disciple of Rupa Gosvami and in reality Srila Prabhupada only gave me "ritvik" initiation. Or is this too logical for ya??? So, hold on to your hat, in my privileged position as the direct disciple of Sri Rupa Gosvami, I am far and away your senior in this process, and so I invoke all my privileges as your senior to ask you to stop mis-representing Srila Rupa Gosvami to suit your private political agenda which is *almost* cleverly disguised as philosophy. Upata, a disturbance. We already ave that due to the rubberstamp policy of the Great Baffled Commission, so why do you aren your pals insist on adding to the confusion. Beats me. "Indeed it is Kundali who has proposed his own idea - that Bona idea Diksa Gurus can *only* initiate based on considerations of time and space - as defined by Kundali Muni. It is this *restriction* on the activities of the Bona Fide Diksa Guru that *Kundali* needs to support from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. (Adri)"Actually, there is not even a philosophical point to respond to here. Now word jugglery is also part of the rit-twit repetoire. Is this an exclusive right too, Adri, or do I get juggling rights too? This reminds me or the bit in my previous email where I mentioned that it has never crossed my mind in all the years that I have known Adri that he was a philosopher and with ingenious reasoning such as given here, the possiblity of it crossing my mind recedes to remoteness, to a place where the sun don't shine, beyond the Lokaloka mountains. It's amazing the resoucefulness of the mind that does not want to shoulder the responsiblity to shed illusions and sense gratification and please the previous spiritual master by becoming qualified oneself in the science of Krishna and teach by example. These brilliant wallahs can't be diksa gurus, becuase they are not beyond time and space, but they are super enthusisatic to interpret philosophy for the rest of the benighted world. Oddly enough, this is a role for gurus, but since the rit-twits can make up the rules of this game in mid-play, then they can tell us all what is philosophy but they cannot be gurus. Lawks. Next thing we know is that they will produce pomegrantes from gunga berries, but they will not have mystic powers. Oy. "Furthermore the argument that the whole ritvik system 'hangs' on one word - henceforward - is untenable, since even if we take the word out of the letter, nothing has changed. One still has a system set up by Srila Prabhupada four months before his departure, with no subsequent instruction to terminate it. Without such a counter instruction, this letter would still remain intact as Srila Prabhupada's final instruction on initiation." (The Final Order (1996) page 3)"No need, Adripada, for any counter instructions. You see, Prabhupada wrote several volumes of books, and in these books he explains quite a few times how one becomes guru, and since we his disciples were supposed to read these books, then it follows that they ought to know these things, hence there was no need for instructions pertaining to after his tirobhava, only the practical considerations had to be made while he was still present. We find therefore that when he came to Vrindavana from Hrisikesh in 1977, he addressed the assembly of devotees. "There is nothing new to be said. Whatever I had to say, I've already said in my books." And there is no mention of your concpetion of diksa guru explained in those books. I haven't read the final disorder, true, but I've read those books. Furthermore, he ordered Radha Govinda Maharaja "Become guru. You initiate them," when Maharaja brought some people to Prabhupada in those final months before Nov. 1977 for initiation. Also, when Bajaj asked Prabhupada in the very month of his disappearence, about who will succeed him, Prabhupada did not say,"No one. I will be the diksa guru beyond time and space." So, you may see a wide opening to drive your beyond time and space maha bhagavata diksa guru conception through, but ol buddy, all I see is a dead wall, with the appearance of a tunnel painted on it. "2) Also Kundali has never actually shown how Srila Prabhupada's continued status as ISKCON's current link to the succession puts him or us 'at odds with the parampara conclusions' of Srila Rupa Gosvami. "Well, for one thing I have not understood by logic or philosophy that Prabhupada enjoys continued status as the current link above and beyond the standard role of any predecessor acarya in the line of succssion from the previous acarya. And if you say that this is precisely what you meant, then what's the big deal, what are we debating? What is the need for the final disorder paper? All the gurus are links in the chain known as the parampara. Why manufacture a novel idea and a novel term "ritvik"? Prabhupada is always a link, just like Baladeva is a link, and Rupa and Jiva and so many others. So what's the problemo? "It seems that to Kundali's mind, unless Srila Rupa Goswami directly mentions something, then it must be bogus. Yet he did not directly mention the GBC, nor ISKCON, nor giving gayatri by magnetic tape, nor the BBT, nor pre-samadhi ritvik, nor Sanyasis giving marriage ceremony etc etc. (Adri) "zzzzz zzzzz zz zz zzzzz zzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzz zzzzz zzzz zzzzz zzzzz zz zz zzzzz "For some peculiar reason Kundali singles out the ritvik system (which Srila Prabhupada personally installed) as something that must be stopped at all cost. Our question is: (Adri)"For some peculiar reason Adri singles out the ritvik system which he believes Prabhupada personally installed as something that must be established at all cost, despite the fact that it flies in the face of philosophy, where as the extensive list of items above does not fly in the face of any philoosphy, but for some peculiar reason, philosophy eludes Adri and his cohorts. Political agendas can and will cause one to filter the philosophy to suit one's notions. "On what basis has Kundali decided which instructions of Srila Prabhupada not mentioned by Srila Rupa Goswami we can follow, and which we cannot?-(Adri)"That is something I only disclose to my most sincere friends, not to the monopolizers of irrelevancy, word jugglery, etc. etc. etc. Absurd inquiries are not worth a reply. They are condemned, actually. Prabhupada said. "3) Kundali confirms his lack of understanding with the following: "So, all the rit-twits have to do to make their views stick is stop citing Prabhupada quotes in a one-sided way, stop their twisted logic long enough to show me where ritvik guru is part of Srila Rupa Gosvami's teachings and the debate is over. So simple." As anyone who had bothered to read our position papers would know, *We* have never proposed nor even used the term 'ritvik-guru'. So we have no idea what Kundali is talking about here. More fabrication from a mind too lazy, or prejudiced, to properly study the position he is supposed to be 'deconstructing'. The guru the IRM's 'No Change' position speaks of is the maha-bhagavata diksa Guru, as represented by Srila Prabhupada. (Adri)"You are right Adriness, I have not read and do not plan to bother to read the papers expounding your idea of our parampara philosophy. I lack this understanding, you got that right. There are many things I don't plan to understand in this life, for example the hopeless specualtions of Ravindra Svarupa about the jiva falling but not falling from the pastimes of Krsna, the Sariraka Bhasya of Shankara, Gadamer's "Truth and Method", everything by Kant, jeeze, the list is long. But confidentially, I do want to understand how inspite of all the wondeful books of our spiritual master there is so much bafflement running amok among his followers. Oh yes, I really would like to get a grip on that. But the final disorder, I have always been of the conviction that it is not worth my time, and nothing you have said here has influenced me otherwise. So, I guess it comes down to this at the end of the day, you live your realization and I will live mine. Disunity in diversity. Neat. I rather like it. "We make no mention of any type of 'ritvik-guru'- whatever that entity may be. (Adri)"Jai. But except for mongoloids and wallahs born just yesterady, we all know that the political agenda of your lot carries one thing within the mind and externally seeks to find the language to make that conception plausible, to give it the widest possible appeal, but truth is sure to suffer when this is the agenda. But that is not important. The political ends are important. Basically, you are paying the GBC back in their own coin, because that is precisely how they have conducted this society for as far back as I can recall. In politics, as Mr. Nixon's slogan once held, "Winning isn't the thing; it is everything." So if term ritvik-guru has been struck from the record so what? The notion that the diksa guru who has had his tirobhava can still initiate beyond time-space is simply the same stupidity minus the terminology "ritivik". And by this amazing bit of "logic" people are supposed to be taken in. Wheeeee. Well, I'm sure, this been Kali-yuga and all, there will be heaps of wallahs who get taken in, but that don't elevate stupidity to something excellent. It only confirms the nature of this age and the statement of Srila Rupa Gosvami that bhakti is sudurlabha. It confirms my stance, that philosophy eludes you and your lot. But don't feel bad. It eludes the GBC as well. Too much selling of the books rather than reading and comprehending them, I reckon. "We hope Kundali prabhu will either have the decency to respond to what we actually say, or admit defeat. If he does neither then we shall know he truly is 'off line', at least as far as Srila Prabhupada's teachings are concerned."In a nutshell, in case you are interested, Srila Prabhupada's teachings is that one who knows the science of Krsna can be guru. He said it heaps and heaps of times. It is true that people may fake this or really believe they are on this platform when they may not, but however you cut it, this is our philosophy. And if you think about it, no one but the individual himself will know best if he knows the science of Krsna or not. So this nullifies the idea of guru by rubberstamp or as the ritvik position seems to be, to unmake gurus by rubber-un-stamp. It is not your business, then, or even the GBC's business to decide for anyone else who their guru shall be. It is up to the individual who has sraddha in whomsoever he or she has found to open his or her eyes. Your business is to know the science of Krsna and teach it according to your capacity yourself. Individuals will decide for themselves in whom they have faith and who they shall accept as guru. Therefore guru is "self-effulgent" for the disciple. That is his teachings. If we were not all so pathetically institutionalized and were more reluctant to try and use philosophy to control everything and everyone, we would have no problem at all understanding these things. We would be happy to teach all newcomers what is a guru and what is a disciple, instead of who is a guru (the iskcon agenda) and who isn't guru (the beyond time and space guru agenda). Teach people phlosophy and then leave them to make their own decisions in life. We would let the statement "Guru krsna prasade paya bhakti lata bija" have free rein in our society. But we want to control, ostensibly to "protect" and the end result is bewilderment and confusion and frankly, stupidity. But here, I'm happy to tell you, that you and your team do not have an exclusive monopoly. You have to share this privilege with our brothers on the GBC, which would do well to have a headless chicken as their symbol if it was not for the gross avaisnava implication of a mutilated animal. The rittwits want to say who can be guru, and no doubt feel righteous that they have settled on someone beyond time-space who is a maha-bhagavata diksa guru (I can't even type it withoug cracking up), and in this way they usurp the right of the seeker to decide under whom he or she has experienced om ajnana timirandhasya. .. . and the hopeless GBC, in the name of protecting the neophyte, have also usurped the right of the seeker to decide for themselves whom he or she will accept as diksa guru by making laws that oblige people to accept the "rubberstampted" guru. We all know the story there over the last 20 odd years. So, you and your astute pals have come up with a "foolproof" system. No risk, y'all. Take Prabhupada as your guru. Not just as one of the many predecessor acaryas, as has been the custom, but he will be your diksa guru, because Rupa Gosvami has not said that the diksa guru is restricted by space and time. Jai. Underwhelming all this brilliance. I'm simply blinded by the light. Well, whether you and your pals can see it or not, I see very clearly that both sides have deviated from Srila Prabhupada's teachings and if you can't see it, don't want to see it, are too heavily invested in the poltical angle to be able to see it, just mad to win debates and therefore must not see it, well my dear Baba, the plain and simple truth is that this is not my problem. I would like to engage in a battle of wits with you, Adri, but it makes me feel bad to fight an unarmed man. So, gotta go. . . Good luck taking over the world. And, Adri, ol' buddy, ol' pal, toodleooh. You can have the last word. I got no more time for gentlemen who have no problems twisting the philosophy to suit their ends. ys. Kundali Dasa. Related VNN Stories  Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
