ethos

Hayagriva dasa: Comte believed that man’s scientific attempt to improve nature is more desirable than a passive belief in God. He writes: “Even the laws of the solar system are very far from perfect… the increasing imperfection of the economy of nature becomes a powerful stimulus to all our faculties, whether moral, intellectual, or practical… the conception of man becoming, without fear or boast, the arbiter within certain limits, of his own destiny, has in it something far more satisfying than the old belief in Providence, which implied our remaining passive.” Srila Prabhupada: This means that he has no knowledge of God. There is no question of passivity.. God is the ultimate controller of everything, and although He may act through different agents, the ultimate decision is given by Him. He is sitting in everyone’s heart observing the activities of the individual soul, and without His permission, no one can act. He gives intelligence, and he also causes one to forget. By God’s grace, we can have the power to remember activities long past. In any case, God is the ultimate director. Man cannot be independent, because man’s actions are impelled by the three modes of material nature. “The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.” (Bg. 3.27) The ultimate director is the Supersoul situated in the heart of every living entity and within every atom. Syamasundara dasa: Conte believed that social reforms are implemented more by love than anything else. His motto was: “Love for the principle, order for the basis, progress for the end.” Srila Prabhupada: Unfortunately, he does not know what the end is. he is simply theorizing. The end is Viøëu. Srimad-Bhagavatam states: “Persons who are strongly entrapped by the consciousness of enjoying material life, and who have therefore accepted as their leader or guru a similar blind man attached to external sense objects, cannot understand that the goal of life is to return home, back to Godhead, and engage in the service of Lord Viøëu. As blind men guided by another blind man miss the right path and fall into a ditch, materially attached men led by another materially attached man are bound by the ropes of fruitive labor, which are made of very strong cords, and they continue again and again in materialistic life, suffering the threefold miseries.” (Bhag. 7.5.31) Unless we know the end, all our theorizing will not help. All their humanitarian work will never be successful because they have missed the main point: Krsna.

Syamasundara dasa: Conte considered sociology to be the most complex science because it depends on all the other sciences for its understanding. It is the science of human behavior, of group relations. Srila Prabhupada: Sociology is already given by Krsna. It is not Conte’s gift. In Bhagavad-gita, Krsna says: “According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated to them, the four divisions of human society are created by Me. And, although I am the creator of this system, you should know that I am yet the nondoer, being unchangeable.” (Bg. 4.13) This is perfect sociology. If you try to create some system, that system will be imperfect because you are imperfect. There will not be peace. Certainly, human groups are necessary, but they must have a scientific basis. Krsna says that He has created the varëas; therefore we have to accept the system as it is given. Just as different parts of your body work in order to sustain the body, the different parts of society should work to maintain the social order. It is not that you can artificailly create social orders. When people attempt this, they create only havoc.

Syamasundara dasa: Conte believed that theology, metaphysics and Positivism constitute three stages through which the perfect society evolves. In the beginniing, the theological stage, man moves from polytheism to monotheism. In the second stage, the metaphysical, man abandons the first stages and places his faith in impersonal forces, like cause and effect, gravity, and so on. Srila Prabhupada: This philosophy is imperfect. From the personal platform, you have to reach the person, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. How can the law of gravitation save you? It is an energy of God, a natural law. When we speak of law, we predicate the fact that someone makes the law. Syamasundara dasa: Conte suggests that primitive man worships personal forms in nature, and that as man becomes more sophisticated, he worships impersonal forms. Srila Prabhupada: That is backwards. The personal aspect is higher. Of course, if one does not know the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that is a different matter. Foolish men attempt to worship the impersonal. Primitive man by nature wants to worship a person. Because people do not know who that person is, out of frustration, they turn to impersonalism. As far a our philosophy is concerned, we know the person because the personal God has told us, “Here I am.” When He is present, He proves that He is God, the Supreme Lord. When people see him, they write books about Him. When Vyasadeva saw Krsna, He abandoned all other literatures to write of Krsna’s activities in Srimad-Bhagavatam. He knew by personal, meditative, and authoritative knowledge that Krsna is God. One who does not know Krsna may turn to impersonalism. Syamasundara dasa: Conte believed that above teh metaphysical platform is the Positivist stage wherein man abandons theological and metaphysical explanations in order to acquire positive knowledge. In this stage, man is sufficiently competent to ascertain facts and amass scientific data. Srila Prabhupada: We don’t agree with this. It is not that science is above metaphysics; rather, real scientific knowledge is mataphysical. Syamasundara dasa: Conte maintained that the more facts that we discover through science, the more complicated science becomes. Thus science advances toward the positive stage. Srila Prabhupada: We say that it becomes more superficial. Complete knowledge means finding the origianal cause. Sense perception is considered scientific, but the Vedas state that sense perception is misleading and is not independent. For instance, at the moment you can see me, but if there were no sunlight, you would not be able to see me. Your seeing is dependent on the sun, but you have not supplied the sun. The sun has come into being by someone else’s arrangement, and your seeing is dependent on that arrangement. Therefore your seeing has no intrinsic value.

Theist thanks for posting your rather disgusting article on milk puss. I couldn't bring myself to drink it anymore. My family has been drinking organic milk for about 4 weeks now. It last alot longer in the frige. It is also sweet and wholesome. I feel this goes much further than the flat processed milk we used to drink... it did have a snotty consistency to it. Anyway, this will hopefully make us smarter and undoubtedly be better for our overall health.

How refreshing to hear a woman speak with more intelligence than most men in the world––and perhaps this board. We all have to play the cards we're dealt.

Hayagriva dasa: Scotus argued for the existence of God on the basis of primary cause, but he felt that the proposition “God exists” is not of much use unless we understand what God is and know something of His nature. Srila Prabhupada: God is the Supreme Father, and He has created everything within our experience. When we are convinced that there is certainly a creator, we can make further progress to understand the nature of that creator. Is he animate or inanimate? Is He matter, or a living being? Further analysis takes up from this point, but first we must understand that God is the creator. That is very well explained in Bhagavad-gita: “It should be understood that all species of life, O son of Kunti, are made possible by birth in this material nature, and that I am the seed-giving father.” (Bg. 14.4) Everything is coming from the womb (yoni) of material nature. If the earth or material nature is the mother, there must be a father. Of course, atheists think that a mother can give birth without a father, but that thinking is most unnatural. One next asks, “Who is my father? What is his position? How does he talk? How does he live?” First we must understand that there is a creator father, and then we can understand His nature. This understanding must be beyond a doubt.

Hayagriva dasa: Scotus affirmed that it was the Church’s unfailing authority that provided the criterion of truth. Church dogma was sacred, and philosophy was naturally subordinate to it. Revelation was behind all Church dogma, and therefore sacred dogma is not open for debate. Srila Prabhupada: If by “church” we mean an institution wherein we can learn about God, then philosophy is certainly subordinate. In such a Church, we can learn what God Himself is, what He is willing, and how he is acting. We may learn this either from the Bible or another scripture. However, if the Church is polluted by imperfect interpretation, and there are different factions, the truth is lost. At such a time, the authority of Christ is no longer imparted. People become free to think and act as they like, and thus God’s kingdom is lost. Hayagriva dasa: Because the parampara is broken? Srila Prabhupada: Yes, The Church is the supreme authority provided that it maintains itself in exactly the same way and does not deviate from its beginning. As soon as we interpret and divide, the message is lost. Hayagriva dasa: The Protestants claimed that the parampara of the Catholic Church was broken, therefore they broke from Catholicism and fragmented into many dfferent sects. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, they condemned the Catholic Church because its parampara was broken, but they concluded, “Let us also break.” Those who first broke away from the message as it is and those who followed them by breaking away themselves are both to blame. Since the original solidarity of the Christian religion is broken, the Christian religion is dwindling and losing its importance.

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas felt that the less determinate God’s name, the more universal and Srila Prabhupada: Why? If God is active and has created the entire universe, what is wrong in addressing Him according to His activities and attributes? Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas claims that the very essence of God is the sheer fact of His being, the Srila Prabhupada: He is, certainly, but “He is” means that he is existing in His abode with his servants, playmates, hobbies, and paraphernalia. Everything is there. We must ask what is the meaning or nature of His being. Hayagriva dasa: It seems that Aquinas was basically impersonalist. Srila Prabhupada: No. He could not determine whether God was personal or impersonal. His inclination was to serve God as a person, but he had no clear conception of His personality. Therefore he speculates. Hayagriva dasa: In the Vedas, is there an equivalent to “He who is?” Srila Prabhupada: Om tat sat is impersonal. This mantra, however, can also be extended as om namo bhagavate vasudevaya. The word vasudeva means “one who lives everywhere,” and refers to Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. God is both personal and impersonal, but the impersonal feature is secondary. According to Bhagavan Sri Krsna in Bhagavad-gita: “And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable, and eternal.” (Bg. 14.27) What is the purport to that? Hayagriva dasa [reading]: “The constitution of Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramatma, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth.” Srila Prabhupada: That is divine essence.

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas believed that it is not possible to see God in this life. He writes: “God cannot be seen in His essence by one who is merely man, except he be separated from ths mortal life… The divine essence cannot be known through the nature of material things.” Srila Prabhupada: What does he mean by diving essence? For us, God’s divine essence is personal. When one cannot conceive of the Personality of Godhead, he sees the impersonal feature everywhere. When one advances further, he sees God as the Param¢tm¢ within his heart. That is the result of yoga meditation. Finally, if one is truly advanced, he can see God face to face. When Krsna came, people saw him face to face. Christians accept Christ as the son of God, and when he came, people saw him face to face. Does Aquinas think that Christ is not the divine essence of God? Srila Prabhupada: And didn’t many people see him? Then how can Aquinas say that God cannot be seen? Hayagriva dasa: It’s difficult to tell whether Aquinas is basically impersonalist or personalist. Srila Prabhupada: That means that he is speculating. Hayagriva dasa: He writes about the personal feature in this way: “Because God’s nature has all prfection and thus every kind of perfection should be attributed to him, it is fitting to use the word ‘person’ to speak of God; yet when used of God it is not used exactly as it is of creaures but in a higher sense… Certainly the dignity of divine nature surpasses every nature, and thus it is entirely suitable to speak of God as a ‘person’.” Aquinas is no more specific that this. Srila Prabhupada: Christ is accepted as the son of God, and if the son can be seen, why can’t the Father be seen? If Christ is the son of God, who is God? In Bhagavad-gita, Krsna says: aham sarvasya prabhavah. “Everything is emanating from Me.” (Bg. 10.8) Christ says that he is the son of God, and this means that he emanates from God. Just as he has his personality, God also has His personality. Therefore we refer to Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas seems to have encouraged individual interpretation. He writes: “It belongs to the dignity of diving scripture to contain many meanings in one text, so that it may be appropriate to the various understandings of each man to marvel at the fact that he can find the truth he has conceived in his own mind expressed in divine scripture.” Srila Prabhupada: No. If one’s mind is perfect, he may give a meaning, but, according to our conviction, if one is perfect, why should he try to change the word of God? And if one is imperfect, what is the value of his change? Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas doesn’t say “change.” Srila Prabhupada: Interpretation means change. If man is imperfect, how can he change the words of God? If the words can be changed, they are not perfect. So there will be doubt whether the words are spoken by God or by an imperfect person. Hayagriva dasa: The many different Protestant faiths resulted from such individual interpretation. It’s surprising to find this viewpoint in aquinas. Srila Prabhupada: As soon as you interpret or change the scripture, the scripture loses its authority. Then another man will come and interpret things in his own way. Another will come and then another, and in this way the original purport of the scripture is lost.

Hayagriva dasa: Concerning the relationship between theology and philosophy, Aquinas writes: “As sacred doctrine is based on the light of faith, so is philosophy founded on the natural light of reason… If any point among the statements of the philosophers is found contrary to faith, this is not philosphy but rather an abuse of philosophy, resulting from a defect in reasoning.” Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is correct. Due to material conditional life, every man is defective. The philosophy of defective people cannot help society. perfect philosophy comes from one who is in contact with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and such philosophy is beneficial. Speculative philosophers base their beliefs on imagination. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas concluded that divine revelation is absolutely necessary because very few men can arrive at the truth through the philosophical method. It is a path full of errors, and the journey takes a long time. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is a fact. We should directly contact the Supreme Person, Krsna, who has complete knowledge. We should understand His instructions and try to follow them. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas believed that the author of sacred scriptures can be only God Himself, who can not only “adjust words to their meaning, which even man can do, but also adjust things in themselves.” Alas, scriptures are not restricted to one meaning. the journey takes a long time. Srila Prabhupada: The meaning of scriptures is one, but the interpretations may be different. In the Bible it is stated that God created the universe, and that is a fact. One may conjecture that the universe was created out of some chunk, or whatever, but we should not interpret scripture in this way. We present Bhagavad-gita as it is without interpretation or motive. We cannot change the words of God. Unfortunately, many interpreters have spoiled the God consciousness of society. Hayagriva dasa: In this, Aquinas seems to differ from the official Catholic doctrine, which admits only the Pope’s interpretation. For him, the scriptures may contain many meanings according to our degree of realization. the journey takes a long time. Srila Prabhupada: The meaning is one, but if we are nt realized, we may interpret many meanings. It is stated both in the Bible and Bhagavad-gita that God created the universe. “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.” (Bg. 10.8) If it is a fact that everything is an emanation of God’s energy, why should we accept a second meaning or interpretation? What is the possible second meaning? Hayagriva dasa: Well, in the Bible it is stated that after creating the universe, God walked through paradise in the afternoon. Aquinas would consider this to have an interior, or mataphorical, meaning. the journey takes a long time. Srila Prabhupada: If God can create, he can also walk, speak, touch, and see. If God is a person, why is a second meaning necessary.? What could it possibly be? Hayagriva dasa: Impersonal speculation. the journey takes a long time. Srila Prabhupada: If God is the creator of all things, He must be a person. Things appear to come from secondary causes, but actually everything is created by the Supreme Creator.

Hayagriva dasa: Concerning the state, Aquinas believed like Plato in an enlightened monarchy, but in certain cases, he felt that it is not necessary for man to obey human laws if these laws are opposed to human welfare and are instruments of violence. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, but first of all we must know what our welfare is. Unfortunately, as materialistic education advances, we are missing the aim of life. Life’s main aim is declared openly in the Vedanta-sutra: athato brahma-jijnasa. Life is meant for understanding the Absolute Truth. Vedic civilization is based on this principle, but modern civilization has deviated and is devoting itself to that which cannot possibly relieve us from the tribulations of birth, old age, disease, and death. So-called scientific advancement has not solved life’s real problems. Although we are eternal, we are presently subjected to birth and death. In this age of Kali-yuga, people are slow to learn about self-realization. People create their own way of life, and they are unfortunate and disturbed. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas concludes that if the laws of God and man conflict, we should obey the laws of God. Srila Prabhupada: Yes. We can also obey the man who obeys the laws of God. It is useless to obey an imperfect person. That is the blind following the blind. If the leader does not follow the instructions of the supreme controller, he is necessarily blind, and he cannot lead. Why should we risk our lives by following blind men who believe that they are knowledgeable but are not? We should instead decide to take lessons from the Supreme Person, Krsna, who knows everything perfectly. Krsna knows past, present, and future, and what is for our benefit. Hayagriva dasa: For Aquinas, all earthly powers exist only by God’s permission. Since the Church is God’s emissary on earth, the Church should control secular power as well. He felt that secular rulers should remain subservient to the Church, which should be able to excommunicate a monarch and dethrone him. Srila Prabhupada: World activities should be regulated so that God is the ultimate goal of understanding. Although the Church, or the brahmanas, may not directly carry out administrative activities, the government should function under their supervision and instructions. That is the Vedic system. The administrators, the køatriyas, used to take instructions from the brahmanas, who could deliver a spiritual message. It is mentioned in Bhagavad-gita (4.1) that millions of years ago, Krsna instructed the sun god in the yoga of Bhagavad-gita. The sun god is the origin of the ksatriyas. If the king follows the instructions of the Vedas or other scriptures through the brahmanas, or through a bona fide church, he is not only a king but a saintly person as well. The ksatriyas should follow the orders of the brahmanas, and the vaisyas should follow the orders of the ksatriyas. The sudras should follow the instructions of the three superior orders.

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas felt that the monastic vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience give a direct path to God, but he did not think that these austerities were meant for the masses of men. He looked on life as a pilgrimage through the world of the senses to the spiritual world of God, from imperfection to perfecdtion, and the monastic vows are meant to help us on this path. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, according to the Vedic instructions, we must take to the path of tapasya, voluntary self-denial. Tapas¢ brahmacaryena. Tapasya, or austerity, begins with brahmacarya, celibacy. We must first learn to control the sex urge. That is the beginning of tapasya. We must control the senses and the mind, then we should give everything that we have to the Lord’s service. By following the path of truth and remaining clean, we can practice yoga. In this way, it is possible to advance toward the spiritual kingdom. All of this can be realized, however, by engaging in devotional service. If we become devotees of Krsna, we automatically attain the benefits of austerities without having to make a separate effort. By one stroke, devotional service, we can acquire the benefits of all the other processes.

Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas considered sins to be both venial and mortal. A venial sin is one that can be pardoned, but a mortal sin cannot. A mortal sin stains the soul. Srila Prabhupada: When a living entity disobeys the orders of God, he is put into this material world, and that is his punishment. he either rectifies himself by good association, or undergoes transmigration. By taking on one body after another, he is subject to the tribulation of material existence. the soul is not stained, but he can participate in sinful activity. Although you cannot mix oil and water, oil floating on water is carried away by water. As soon as we are in contact with material nature, we come under the clutches of the material world. “The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.” (Bg. 3.27) As soon as the living entity enters the material world, he loses his own power. He is completely under the clutches of material nature. Oil never mixes with water, but it may be carried away by the waves.

Hayagriva dasa: Unlike Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas maintained that God created the universe out of nothing. Srila Prabhupada: No, the universe is created by God, certainly, but God and His energies are always there. You cannot logically say that the universe was created out of nothing. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas would contend that since the material universe could not have arisen out of God’s spiritual nature, it had to be created out of nothing. Srila Prabhupada: Material nature is also an energy of God’s. As Krsna states in the Bhagavad-gita: “Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego—all together, these eight constitute My separated material energies.” (Bg. 7.4) All of these emanate from God, and therefore they are not unreal. They are considered inferior because they are God’s separated material energies. The sound that comes from a tape recorder may sound exactly like the original person’s voice. The sound is not the person’s voice itself, but it has come from the person. If one cannot see where the sound is coming from, one may suppose that the person is actually speaking, although the person may be far away. Similarly, the material world is an expansion of the supreme Lord’s energy, and we should not think that it has been brought into existence out of nothing. It has emanated from the supreme Truth, but it is the inferior, separated energy. The superior energy is found in the spiritual world, which is the world of reality. In any case, we cannot agree that the material world has come from nothing. Hayagriva dasa: Well, Aquinas would say that it was created by God out of nothing. Srila Prabhupada: You cannot say that God’s energy is nothing. His energy is exhibited and is eternally existing with Him. God’s energy must be there. If God doesn’t ahve energy, how can He be God? “He does not possess bodily form like that of an ordinary living entity. There is no difference between His body and His soul. He is absolute. All His senses are transcendental. Any one of His senses can perform the action of any other sense. Therefore, no one is greater than Him, or equal to Him. His potencies are multifarious, and thus His deeds are automatically performed as a natureal sequence.” (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8) God has multi-energies, and the material energy is but one. Since God is everything, you cannot say that the material universe comes from nothing.

Hayagriva dasa: Aqainas set forth five basic aarguments for God’s existence; first, God necessarily exists as the first cause; second, the material world cannot create itself but needs something external, or spiritual, to create it; third, because the world exists, there must be a creator; forth, since there is relative perfection in the world, there must be absolute perfection underlying it; and fifth, since the creation has design and purpose, there must be a designer who planned it. Srila Prabhupada: We also honor these arguments. Also, without a father and mother, children cannot be brought into existence. Modern philosophers do not consider this strongest argument. According to Brahma-saàhit¢, everything has a cause, and God is the ultimate cause. “Krsna, who is known as Govinda, is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal, blissful, spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes.” (Brahma-samhita 5.1)

Hayagriva dasa: For Aquinas, God is the only single essence that consist of pure form. He felt that matter is only a potential, and, in order to be real, must assume a certain shape or form. In other words, the living entity has to acquire an individual form in order to actualize himself. When matter unites with form, the form gives individuality and personality. Srila Prabhupada: Matter in itself has no form; it is the spirit soul that has form. Matter is a covering for the actual form of the spirit soul. Because the soul has form, matter appears to ahve form. Matter is like cloth that is cut to fit the body. In the spiritual world, however, everything has form: God and the spirit souls. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas believed that only God and the angels have nonmaterial form. There is no difference between God’s form and God’s spiritual self. Srila Prabhupada: Both the individual souls and God have form. That is real form. Material form is but a covering for the spiritual body. ... Hayagriva dasa: Today, some scientists even admit Aquinas’s argument that since nothing can create itself in this material world, something external, or spiritual, is required for initial creation. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, a mountain cannot create anything, but a human being can give form to a stone. A mountain may be very large, but it remains a stone incapable of giving shape to anything. ... Hayagriva dasa: So the soul has a form that is incorruptible. Is this not also the form of the material body? Srila Prabhupada: The material body is an imitation. It is false. Because the spiritual body has form, the material body, which is a coating, takes on form. As I have already explained, a cloth originally has no form, but a tailor can cut the cloth to fit a form. In actuality, this material form is illusory. It orginally has no form. It takes on form for a while, and when it becomes old and useless, it retruns to its original position. In Bhagavad-gita (18.61), the body is compared to a machine. The soul has his own form, but he is given a machine, the body, which he uses to wander throughout the universe, attempting to enjoy himself. Hayagriva dasa: I think that part of the problem is that Augustine and Aquinas could not conceive of a spiritual form. When they speak of form, they think that matter must necessarily be involved. Aquinas followed the Augustinian and Platonic doctrines maintaining that if the soul is infependent from matter, man loses his basic unity. He saw man as both body and soul. A man is a particular type of soul in a specific body. Srila Prabhupada: When you are dressed, it appears that you are not different from your clothes. Your clothes move just as you do, but you are completely different. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas did not believe that the living entitiy has pure spiritual form as such. Matter is necessary to give the soul form. Srila Prabhupada: No. He has his original form. Hayagriva dasa: Is this the form of the body? Srila Prabhupada: It is the form of the spirit. The body takes on form because the spirit has form. Matter has no form, but it coats the spiritual form of the soul and thus takes on form.

Great! Thanks!

So do you have contact with this Buddist expert? This information is worth pursuing. Can you contact him and give him the board address or ask him permission to give his email or something so we can hear more about this?

Stonehearted, Your post reminded me that many of the fallen gurus and sankirtana bramacaris did indeed become implicated with women by marriage or illicit sex. Prabhupada never succumed to this trap that caught so many other Indian gurus.

Mahak, I'm gonna break my promise not to interject my opinion here because this issue is a critical point in our devotional lives. To hell with my honor. I certainly didn't expect this dialogue. I thought it was self-evident. Concerning the staff commissioned to edit in Prabhupada's presence, of course this needed to be done. "There are also errors in the contents of his books, not of import, but of grammatical and structural nature. These errors are not at all an indication of "imperfection" of an advanced being of Srila Prabhupada, rather, an indication of human error and mechanical error of those who took on the tasks under the guidance of their professor. If errors of "apprentices" are rigidly criticized, then the purpose of master-disciple relationship is defeated." If Prabhupada approved of the copy directly then it is perfect. And so is the editing service rendered by others. He had done this with the Gita and Bhagavatam and all his books. They were completed to his specifications. It would not have been possible for him to produce the volumous literatures he created without the sincere efforts of many individuals. "Disciples must give Guru something to criticize, for this is guru's job." This is funny. "Jayadwaita Swami has stated clearly, and demonstrated to a dgree that his editorial work is to try to weed out publication errors in favor of having Srila Prabhupada's intended message delivered. He has used the original manuscript against the data obtained from the original editors." I don't know the background history well enough to understand your explanations clearly. I don't know if you are talking past or present. I do know that "to a degree" and "try" are not indicative of perfect knowledge as applied to the activity of editing the guru in his absence. The warning issued in this orignal post above is simply the contention––shared with many disciples––that the many completed works Prabhupada left behind should never have been altered. Many of us feel that is a grave error. Such changes do in fact contain different meanings and content. They may still be representative of Vaisnava philosophy, but they are sometimes departing from Prabhupada's original meanings. It also looks foolish to discriminating minds to find different interpretations of the same text by the same institution––especially where there are subtle changes in meaning. "Although I still have reservations as one of the most vocal opponants against changing his books, Jayadwaita has cooled this fire quite well, and I thank him for that. Interpretation is absent from his works (as he clearly promises), and thus, the "AS IT IS" trademark can still be applied. I have not done an extensive search by placing my original books against the new ones, but from what I have seen, there seems to be a presentation that does not "interpret" indiscriminately." These claims are not evident to many of us. In fact, just the opposite. As explained above in this original posting by Prabhupada himself, changing words of authorities is interpreting! Our best efforts cannot match Prabhupada's in my opinion. To change perfect statements from self-realized beings I think is quite presumptuous. I think this is true even of one qualified person changing another similarly qualified persons' words––in any field. But the disciple changing the guru's words? I see the changing of words as nothing short of cheating and misrepresentation. Why do you think I can't edit your messages on this board? Still, Prabhupada left alot of material that can be condensed into books as was done with Dialectic Spiritualism. But here too, some Gita and Bhagavatam verses don't match the Vedabase which they had already changed. We're already into subsequent changes!? I think modifying Prabhupada's words for a new presentation such as Dialectic Spiritualism is great as long as it is representative of the Parampara. We are certainly in need of more literature and there is alot of untapped Prabhupada. In such efforts, editors naturally have leeway to purport their own meanings by arrangement or explanation––it can't be avoided. What I and many people have issue with is direct substitution and interpretation of existing material as well as deviations as was sometimes found in the fallen gurus. You cannot justify that to many devotees with sophisticated explanations. They just see it as symptomatic of no common sense.

Anyone trying to represent the Vedic authorities must be very careful in his approach––not my opinion. In the view of Prabhupada's works being changed and individual efforts of many persons writing on their own (including myself), I thought this following excerpt most profound. Indeed, it could be a lifelong meditation. Please do not consider this a subtle reference to anything anyone said on this board. I present it as pure philosophy. Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas seems to have encouraged individual interpretation. He writes: “It belongs to the dignity of divining scripture to contain many meanings in one text, so that it may be appropriate to the various understandings of each man to marvel at the fact that he can find the truth he has conceived in his own mind expressed in divine scripture.” Srila Prabhupada: No. If one’s mind is perfect, he may give a meaning, but, according to our conviction, if one is perfect, why should he try to change the word of God? And if one is imperfect, what is the value of his change? Hayagriva dasa: Aquinas doesn’t say “change.” Srila Prabhupada: Interpretation means change. If man is imperfect, how can he change the words of God? If the words can be changed, they are not perfect. So there will be doubt whether the words are spoken by God or by an imperfect person. Hayagriva dasa: The many different Protestant faiths resulted from such individual interpretation. It’s surprising to find this viewpoint in Aquinas. Srila Prabhupada: As soon as you interpret or change the scripture, the scripture loses its authority. Then another man will come and interpret things in his own way. Another will come and then another, and in this way the original purport of the scripture is lost.

A good place to understand this issue is in the Bhagvad-gita or the Song of God which you can find online here: http://www.krishna.com/gita/index.htm Here God is personally speaking about his creation and yoga or our relationship with Him. The chapters "the Three Modes of Material Nauture" and "Divisions of Faith" are probably most revealing concerning your inquiry. Devotees: www.asitis.com now takes you to the address above... New design and navigation.

There is an excellent article entitled "The Path of Bhakti" under the Newsletters and Articles Section that provides a good overview of the different yoga processes and their results. Just go to Main Index and follow instructions above.

Ghari, thanks for the advice. My mouse and Mac don't work the way alot of you would expect. But I was able to get the picture process going with the help of JNdas and advice such as this. And thanks for sharing your sentiments. Reminds me of that "longing for home" feeling.