We await Rocana Prabhu’s Offering in that Regard | Janmastami Das

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

BY: JANMASTAMI DAS, Nov 16, 2011 — WEST VIRGINIA, USA —
First, i would like to thank Rocana prabhu and his staff for their tireless efforts that makes any type of “free speech” in the matter of ISKCON politics available. His is apparently the only site “mahatma”, or “broadminded”, enough to do so. I do appreciate the service they have rendered turning my illegible efforts into something that was readable. As i have a tendency to be “wordy”, most compilations are a long run on sentence.

I applaud his courage and tenacity to stand up to philosophical pirating of Srila Prabhupada’s Mission, and i am somewhat amused by his stance, as when he is vilified at NVC, most often it is as “a ritvik”. That “ritvik” website, Sampradaya Sun, is most notably banned as “ashastric”.

When we speak of a system that does not exist, one that was intended for ISKCON for a certain time period that may or may not have ever been implemented, a ritvik system, the “ritvik”s referred to, the fire yjana performing ceremonial priests, are not supposed to be representing a particular philosophical school, per se. They are however, as “ritviks” supposed to represent someone who they are “ritviking” or representing.

The charge that i still believe that His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami still has the potency to serve as Guru for these conditioned souls in this material world is both “TRUE” and, a sad statement to the state of the mission when The Founder can no longer be found amongst those availing themselves of The Deities Mercy.

The adherence to a narrow minded dogma, in the name of religious regularity as it so oftem has been used in the past, cannot be “a religious discussion” in a mission whose founder challenged, “discuss these issues, threadbare!”.

Can it be understood that a definitive conclusion has been reached and no other thought patterns might be obtained, acceptable, valid or even considered? Has our spiritual knowledge truly taken us that far?

I prefer to consider myself “an ISKCON watcher” rather than as “a devotee” because it seems that the definition as it currently used in common parlance includes a cast of characters that might not appear in our venn diagram of “devotee”.

ISKCON Itself cannot seem to ascertain whether i am “a member”, a “life member”, a Prabhupada disciple, a kirtanananda disciple, or “not fit for membership in our organization”. Radhanath and my current GBC hold the latter position.

Rocana’s position, any position, that holds Srila Prabhupada responsible for the chaos, post samadhi seems to lack the authenticity of the once visible purity of KRSNA consciousness within an undivided ISKCON.

“More enlightened than most” may be excellent criteria for selecting associates, but it is scarcely good enough when choosing a bonafide Guru. Anyone who can’t understand the difference isn’t mature enough to choose yet anyway.

It is said “Over the long periods when little fresh commentary was being offered in the Great Rtvik Debate” as if somehow lack of internet access was an impediment to spiritual success. we cannot accept this thesis. Many feel exactly the opposite is the case.

The first basic flaw in the understandings presented by both ISKCON and Rocana prabhu is the commonality of belief that Srila Prabhupada left no clear system for continuity after His Departure. This must be due to the same misinterpretation of the mood and direction offered by may 28, july 7, and july 9 Guru Vani.

Those both parties ostracize as “ritviks” all those who hold that Srila Prabhupada made no such grievous error. Not all of us “ritvik”s agree on much other than that, that Srila Prabhupada never made that error that both ISKCON and your good self accuse Him of.

The restrictions on postings, clearly Rocana’s and the sampradaya sun’s to make and exercise, include four specifics, no pro ritvik propaganda, and nothing with no new arguments, no new evidence or no new realizations.

While Rocana and his staff clearly need to be internet accessed many hours per day, not all of us are so facilitated that the occasional hour on the library computer would keep us fully abreast of all the arguments, especially those that had been made by others than ourselves.

One man’s “new realizations” is another man’s “no new arguments, no new evidence”, as i can testify as each day new individuals request interviews and to answer questions.

“Read what i have already written on the matter”, as Rocana proposes here, is the same defense that i must use, but that would seem to violate the “no new evidence, no new arguments rule”, kind of like John Stuart mill’s “realization” that all logic begs the question and therefore is invalid.

A catch 22 for sure, and we cannot so boldly promise that “we’ve now completed an extensive analysis and commentary on that key piece of evidence in the Rtvik debate, and are inching closer to completing and publishing our comprehensive rebuttal of Rtvik-vada and ‘The Final Order’.” our public library may close for budget cuts.

Another invalid conclusion is the one posted “But if any member of the Rtvik community actually wants to address our points, they’re certainly welcome to do so, and we’ll be happy to publish them. It seems, however, that they simply don’t have any real counter-arguments. If they did, surely they would have at least published them on the Rtvik/Prabhupadanugas forums.”

Because it poses the dilemma that if there were any valid objects that they would have been posted on my website or “surely they would have at least published them on the Rtvik/Prabhupadanugas forums.”. By simply showing us one other possibility we escape “between the horns of a dilemma”, thus showing the invalidity of such reasoning.

The entire concept that “this person is a ritvikvada” is ashastric, as is the current multiheaded hydra of an ISKCON. Srila Prabhupada’s admonitions against association with His Godbrothers on matters of anything other than protocol have been violated by most, if not all, and the resulting association has yielded the ISKCON GBC we see before us today. It is shameful!

The contention that “what Janmastami has written…contains allegations of criminal behaviour for which you’ve provided no supporting evidence.’ Leaves me puzzled as to which ones you refer to. Do you mean the concealment of Taru’s death (and how it happened) and that it still is a FBI cold case, as his undertaker still lives at NVC? We could “prove it” if your brahmins were honest men. What do you think?

Swearing before The Deities to lies has not been above ISKCON gurus in the recent past and the future doesn’t look much brighter. If it was about the Sulocan murder conspiracy, Tirtha, Kuladri, Tapah punja, Hansadutta and Radhanath provided more than enough evidence than would be needed in a civil trial to convince a judge, but that was all produced in response to our earlier “unproven” statements.

If it was about the contention that the abuse claim recipients would get less than they were offered in the proposed settlement offer, the JAGA book, i didn’t have ithe proof at the time but i now do. Sorry for my lack of facility and skills once again.

It was further said “if Janmastami prabhu wants to challenge us on our application of the term “ritvik” or “rittik”, he’s more than welcome to do so.” And i will certainly take the opportunity to seek such clarification. The equivocation over the definition of terms is a part of ISCKON’s current connundrum, and since “ritvik”, as defined by Srila Prabhupada refers to a surrorgate priest, i am wondering of the epistomology that made the Vedic word “ritvik” mean “a philosophical heretic worthy of shunning or expulsion”.

We await Rocana prabhu’s offering in that regard. In your stated definition you said, “the label “Ritvik” is properly used to identify persons who accept the July 9th Letter as proof that Srila Prabhupada instructed a rtvik system of diksa initiations for after his departure. And i assume from that you hold that Srila Prabhupada intended the july 9 letter to expire with Him, leaving no answer to the question “how are initiations to be conducted after You leave us?”. Am i correct in that understanding?

In my teasing of the finest editorial operation in or around the ISKCON Movement about their imperialistic tone, i do not miss the fact that they so kindly remind us all of, “the Sun is the only news site outside of the ISKCON institution and the Rtivk/Prabhupadanugas community that has been willing to publish his writings.

And we constantly get flak from other devotees for doing so.” And neither do think that Srila Prabhupada will not answer our letters any less than He will answer our prayers. We thank all concerned in that regard.

ALL GLORIES TO SRILA PRABHUPADA !!!