The de-emphasized guru system

[Guest guest]

Home Base: ISKCON-Baroda

 

Dear Maharajas, Prabhus and Krishna Kirti Prabhu,

 

Namonamaƒ. Jaya ®r…la Prabhup€da!

 

My humble request to Krishna Kirti Prabhu is to reshape this letter in the

form of an article and submit it to CHAKRA & VNN.

 

Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu!!!

 

This ought to be read by one and all for their own correct understanding of

the philosophy. Excellent analysis. Well presented.

 

At the present "moment of confusion" it can only do a world of good for all

ISKCON devotees to read this.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

 

> Dear Dvarkadish Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories

> to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> >> For example, one participant in this discussion has said that Srila

> >> Prabhupada's words are shastra.

> >

> >This is for your information, that Trivikram Maharaj has accepted Srila

> >Prabhupada words "as good as sastra" in the letter which commented Bhakti

> >Vikas Maharaja statement, and has not changed his opinion since. So your

> >interpretation of his last letter with quote from the Harmonist is wrong.

>

> We have all respect for Maharaj, and we apologize for any false

> accusations.

>

> But whatever he did say, it was not explicitly stated. Perhaps Maharaj no

> longer consideres Srila Prabhupada's words as shastra, perhaps not,

> because many in our society make no distinction between shastra and words

> that are as good as shastra. Indeed, they see them as interchangeable.

> If you recall, the letter I posted to Trivikrama Maharaj, to which he

> replied with some of the below words, was titled "Do you still think Srila

> Prabhupada's words are shastra?"

>

> Previously, Maharaj had explicitly stated that Srila Prabhupada's words

> were shastra, so if he now thinks that Srila Prabhupada's words are not

> shastra, then he should explicitly say so, because, as I said, many

> devotees in our society equivocate a sadhu's words with Vyasa's words.

> Without this widespread misconception, you wouldn't have such a widespread

> acceptance of ritvik. Therefore, previously since Maharaj has explicitly

> stated his position on Prabhupada's words vis-a-vis shastra (that it IS

> shastra), and if Maharaj has indeed changed his opinion on the subject,

> then it would greatly help clear further misunderstandings if Maharaj

> states his position as explicitly as he previously stated it.

>

> >>In other words,

> >> this idea that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra is really a form of

> >> Mayavada that is trying to ruin our society. (And doing quite a good

> >> job at it too.)

> >

> >Because you have already reffered to Trivikram Maharaj indirectly, for

> >your information, your above statement is indirect insault. Noone claim

> >jiva to be the Lord, so how is it Mayavada?

>

> Maharaj has yet to explicitly state his position on this. You may be

> considering that he has, but I and others don't see that (and I have a

> some recent letters from other devotees who also think this).

>

>

> As far as what is mayavada,

>

> prabhu kahe vedanta sutra isvara vacana

>

> "isvara vacana" means the words spoken by God. If I simply repeat the

> words of God, then that is still isvara vacana, but if I offer an

> explanation, or my understanding of those words, even if I am a pure

> devotee, my words are not "isvara vacana" simply because I am not

> "isvara", or the supreme controller.

>

> Therefore, claiming that the words spoken by a living entity and the words

> spoken by the Lord are identical is Mayavada. For example, "you are

> spirit, the Lord is spirit, therefore you are the Lord." The fault comes

> with considering the oneness without considering the differences.

>

> Practically, if you accept that a pure devotee's words are shastra, then

> the ritviks have a strong case. (And they are not the only example, there

> are other groups who do the same.)

 

<CUT>

 

> Dvarkadish Prabhu, please look at the example again. Men has two

> meanings: (1) persons who are male in gender, and (2) the human race

> (mankind). When you speak of "man" in the plural, it becomes "men", as in

> "several men". Here, in my example, "men" was definitely refering to the

> plural of "man", or the class of males, as differentiated from females.

> This example would be obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of

> English. (I'm not chiding you, but you did misinterpret it. Since English

> is not your mother tongue, your misreading can be overlooked. I would

> probably do the same thing if we were discussing this in Polish :-)

>

> Here is a more cross-lingual-friendly rendition:

>

> Apples are fruit

>

> Oranges are fruit

>

> Therefore oranges are apples.

 

<cut>

 

> >There is no question of interpreting words of sadhu and sastra and guru.

> >Only by pleasing Acharya you can convey the Divine Message. Otherwise

> >your interpretations, based on your wordly experiences will not help you.

> >

> >Besides is this what sastra teach you to be direspect to Godbrother of

> >your guru?

>

> Yes, this is also my specific objection to this idea of respecting one's

> guru according to the advancement we imagine that they don't have.

> Maharaj has been quite vehemently asserting that because he feels that he

> is not 100% Krishna conscious, that his disciples and others should not

> respect him as such.

>

> Here, we see that inspite of whatever faults he may have, you are more

> than ready to overlook those, even though Maharaj is asking you to also

> consider those faults. Why? It could be said that you are only defending

> him on a specific point, but why then do you cite as evidence the above

> quote: "The Absolute appears to the listening ear of the conditioned soul

> in the form of the Name on the lips of the Sadhu."? Is Maharaja 100%

> faultless? Maharaj will be the first to tell you that he is not, as will

> Rupa Goswami.

>

> The obvious problem with that is, if we accept this idea that the Absolute

> is not absolutely appearing on the lips of a non-uttama guru, then why

> should we even consider listening to him? For example, I might say

> something about shastra--it is Krishna's words. But if my understanding

> (due to my inferior advancement) is not proper, my interpretation will

> misinform you. Then, because you have a incorrect understanding, your

> activities based on that incorrect understanding will also faulty. And

> because they are faulty, you will not get the desired result.

>

> Take, for example, bhakti mixed with karma--karma misra bhakti. The karma

> mishra bhakta is a devotee, no doubt, but as long as his devotion is

> mixed, he will not develop the spontaneous urge to hear the messages of

> Vasudev (a sign of pure devotion). Now, if your guru's instructions to

> you are also similaraly tainted because they are not pure (because he is

> not an uttama adhikari), then there is no possibility that you will become

> free from your material entanglement because by the influence of such

> instruction, your activities will continue to be impure.

>

> Why, then, do we even go to such a guru? (This will be dealt with further,

> hang on.)

>

> Nayana-ranjan Prabhu has brought up some good points, that there are

> distinctions between the gurus, if only for the reason that Srila

> Prabhupada clearly makes a distinction between them. But that is not to

> say that the absolute truth is not fully appearing on the lips of even

> your kanistha or madhyama gurus.

>

> For example, if I tell someone that Krishna is God (paramesvara), then how

> is my instruction faulty? Is it tainted? Is it somehow "impure"? Or,

> more practical, let us say Maharaj tells you to chant Hare Krishna, is

> that instruction also somehow impure? No, the instruction is pure, but it

> is ACCORDING TO YOUR CAPACITY.

>

> This is where the difference lies between the realization of the various

> grades of devotees, gurus, etc., is in the capacity of devotee. Take

> Dhruva Maharaja's mother, for example. She is a simple woman, not learned

> in shastra, but her instruction was nonetheless perfect: "Only Lord Vishnu

> can help you, you must approach Lord Vishnu."

>

> Other examples of pure devotees who were not uttama adhikaris are Tapana

> Mishra and Chandrashekhara. Srila Prabhupada clearly describes them as

> kanishta adhikaris, yet he also describes them as great devotees. They

> are personal associates of the Lord. As such, they are 100% in touch with

> the Lord. But why are they kanistha adhikaris?:

>

> "Although a kanistha-adhikari also cannot tolerate such blasphemy, he is

> not competent to stop it by citing sastric evidences. Therefore Tapana

> Misra and Candrasekhara are understood to be kanistha-adhikaris because

> they could not refute the arguments of the sannyasis in Benares. They

> appealed to Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to take action, for they felt that

> they could not tolerate such criticism although they also could not stop

> it." (CC Adi 7.51 purport)

>

> This is the difference between a kanistha, a madhyama and an uttama. All

> three classes of Vaishnavas can be pure, but their knowledge of shastra

> (and hence ability to explain them) is different. That means that gurus

> who are in the lower stages may not be able to conclusively answer all

> queries of their disciples, or successfully answer strong challenges from

> the atheists.

>

> In practical dealings, this may mean that a disciple who does not get a

> conclusive explanation on a troublesome issue might just fall away, or

> that if an atheist challenges our preacher in a public place and wins,

> then all those who are listening will consider the atheist right and the

> devotee wrong and hence go down the wrong path. Hence, it can be said

> that the direction given by the kanistha and madhyama gurus is

> insufficient.

>

> But, as pointed out above, insufficient does not mean that what

> instruction they CAN give is not the 100% absolute truth. I may say, "You

> should offer all your food to Krishna", and you might challenge "Why?"

> Now, where is the impurity in this instruction? It is pure, and therefore

> it is 100% representative of the absolute truth. But my capacity to

> explain it is limited.

>

> If we accept a radical (absolute, 100% :-) interpretation of

> "insufficient", that the kanistha and madhyama gurus are truly unable to

> deliver their disciples (or deliver anyone, just one person), then that

> would contradict Srila Prabhupada's statement that a kanistha or a

> madhyama adhikari can become a guru, because "guror na sa syat", one

> should not become a guru unless he is able to liberate his dependents.

> Therefore, this radical interpretation of "insufficient" is incorrect.

>

> Considering these points, that although a non-uttama guru is limited in

> his ability to speak on shastra, what he CAN speak is still 100%

> representatvie of the absolute truth, and, therefore, the absolote truth

> also appears on their lips. This is true because if whatever they say is

> not 100% representative of the absolute truth (mixed with some maya), then

> you would never be able to make advancement, because your devotional

> practices based on their instructions would be intrinsicly misguided.

>

> What we are advocating is that for someone to properly represent the

> absolute truth, the minimum qualification is that he must conform to

> qualifications laid out in Nectar of Instruction verse 1. Then you have

> some ability to save someone, deliver them from the cycle of repeated

> birth and death, even if you are not an uttama-adhikari.

>

> Again, your ordinary life guard, although he is not the world's champion

> swimmer, still has the ability to save you if you are drowning. Of

> course, there may be some situations where only the world's greatest

> swimmer can rescue someone before it becomes too late, but the ordinary

> lifeguard is still useful. And you will still have the utmost honor for

> him when he does save you.

>

> Assessing gurus according to their disqualifications can be very

> subjective and unreliable. As conditioned souls, it is our propensity to

> find faults in others, therefore, what we consider to be the

> disqualification of someone else may not be factual. People could find

> fault with Srila Prabhupada (yes, disciples also), or with Lord Chaitanya.

> Therefore, a sign that someone is advancing in spiritual understanding is

> that he acquires an aversion to fault-finding:

>

> ahimsa satyam akrodhas tyagah santir apaisunam: "nonviolence;

> truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to

> faultfinding" (from Bg 16.2 - qualities of a godly person)

>

> Which brings us back to your initial reaction to my posting: you were

> offended. Why? Why are you not prepared to see Maharaja's faults,

> although he has many (according to him), and even tells you to do so? And

> you are even prepared to defend him inspite of those faults. That is why

> I object to what has been proposed as a "demphasized guru system" (past

> words from Nayanaranjan Prabhu, and also, aparently, mooted by Maharaj)

> because it is just contrary to the natural vaishnava way of doing things.

>

> Here is more evidence:

>

> vaisnavera guna-grahi, na dekhaye dosa

> kaya-mano-vakye kare vaisnava-santosa

>

> "He [Pandita Haridasa] always accepted the good qualities of Vaisnavas and

> never found fault in them. He engaged his heart and soul only to satisfy

> the Vaisnavas."

> [purport] "It is a qualification of a Vaisnava that he is adosa-darsi: he

> never sees others’ faults. Of course, every human being has both good

> qualities and faults. Therefore it is said, saj-jana gunam icchanti dosam

> icchanti pamarah: everyone has a combination of faults and glories. But a

> Vaisnava, a sober man, accepts only a man’s glories and not his faults,

> for flies seek sores whereas honeybees seek honey. Haridasa Pandita never

> found fault with a Vaisnava but considered only his good qualities." (CC

> Adi 8.62)

>

> And as I pointed out before, there is the example of Lord Caitanya's

> dealings with Ramachandra Puri. Why was Lord Chaitanya not relating to

> Ramachandra Puri as according to Ramacandra Puri's level of spiritual

> advancement?

>

> Therefore, I consider this "demphasized guru system", even on the plea

> that a guru is not an uttama adhikari, is not in line with the teachings

> of our acharyas. What it will do is encourage devotees to find faults,

> and thus develop avaishnava qualities like fault finding, because, by the

> very nature of this proposed system, you have to assess your guru's faults

> and worship him accordingly--according to what he is not. Bhakti Vikas

> Maharaj's assessment that it could lead to creating a culture of "hindu

> family priests" with whom we only maintain a formal relationship and have

> no trust in is therefore very realistic.

>

> Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

>

> P.S. Even though you say Maharaj has said that he no longer accepts Srila

> Prabhupada's words as shastra, I have doubts about this for reasons I have

> explained above. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. Maharaj may

> have said something which suggests that he might not any longer be

> considering Srila Prabhupada's words as shastra, but it was not explicit,

> and that is not the same as coming right out and saying, "No, Srila

> Prabhupada's words are not shastra. Transcendental, yes, but shastra

> no.", not explicit like he did when he first claimed Srila Prabhupada's

> words are shastra. I am doubtful, and you can hold that against me, but

> I'm not responsible for what everyone else says, either. For the benefit

> of further discussion, it would be good if Maharaj made his poisition

> clear on the matter. It will save us all time if we don't have to haggle

> over basic definitions, and that is practical.

>

> We have all respect for Maharaj, and we apologize for any false

> accusations.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/99 2:44:24 AM Central Daylight Time, cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net

writes:

 

<< For example, one participant in this discussion has said that Srila

>> Prabhupada's words are shastra.

> >>

 

The words of the acaryas explain the import of the sastras. Therefore they

are even more important than sastra.

[Guest guest]

> The words of the acaryas explain the import of the sastras. Therefore

> they are even more important than sastra.

 

Good point. (Can you elaborate on that, especially by quoting sastra?)

[Guest guest]

> > The words of the acaryas explain the import of the sastras. Therefore

> > they are even more important than sastra.

>

> Good point. (Can you elaborate on that, especially by quoting sastra?)

 

Sorry, I disagree with both of you, my seniors...

 

"even more important" is the questionable statement.

 

Krishna Kirti Prabhu has correctly pointed out, FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA's

statement that "shastra is the basis of all"; meaning that we derive our

understanding of the universe, the soul, etc., from shastra(s).

 

Anyone may claim to be an acharya - and let's keep in mind the definition of

an acharya is one who teaches by example. But the acharya must not deviate

from shastra(s).

 

So then how can you make the statement "even more important".

 

Important, yes. One of the "3"; "guru", "sadhu", "shastra"... but shastras

are the basis.

 

Vide Prabhupada's statement above. By tradition. Vide the teachings of the

reconginzed acharyas of vedic culture; Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya,

Madhavacharya, etc.

 

Hope someday we'll all agree on that... until then...

 

Hare Krishna!

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

Basu Ghosh prabhu writes:

 

> > > The words of the acaryas explain the import of the sastras. Therefore

> > > they are even more important than sastra. (Mahatma prabhu)

> >

> > Good point. (Can you elaborate on that, especially by quoting sastra?)

> > (Mahadyuti prabhu)

>

> Sorry, I disagree with both of you, my seniors...

>

> "even more important" is the questionable statement.

 

SB 1.1.3

 

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam

suka-mukhad amrta-drava-samyutam

pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam

muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah

 

O expert and thoughtful men, relish Srimad-Bhagavatam, the mature fruit of

the desire tree of Vedic literatures. It emanated from the lips of Sri

Sukadeva Gosvami. Therefore this fruit has become even more tasteful,

although its nectarean juice was already relishable for all, including

liberated souls.

 

[Comment: Sukadeva Goswami made the mature fruit of the desire tree of Vedic

literatures even more sweeter are tasteful]

 

Like for eg. the Brhad Bhagavatamrta was given to us by Srila Sanatana

Goswami, which is the refined essence of even Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

The Goswamis gave us literatures in accordance to the Vedic literatures but

added their extraordinary realizations (which are very very high) because

they are all manjaries, the highest position available in the spiritual sky.

They revealed to us in detail to us about the Radha Krsna asthakaliya

nitya-lila which is actually the essence of all the Vedas but which is not

mentioned directly or elaborately in the Vedic literatures.

 

Like HDG pointed out that according to arguments of KK prabhu, Cc & Caitanya

Bhagavata are also not scriptures, which is a completely wrong conclusion.

Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami (Kasturi manjari in RK lila) is situated at a

even higher position than Vyasadeva in the spiritual world. So why can't his

books be accepted as sastra.

 

Another point the Vedas were written by Vyasadeva at the non-mature stage of

his life. In the mature stage he wrote the Srimad Bhagavatam. And all the

acaryas have furthur elucidated on the Bhagavatam in much more detail. So

their works are the maturest fruit of the Vedic wisdom and is much more

sweeter than the Vedas without any doubt. If in Vyasadeva's works itself

there is the sweeter Bhagavatam and the not so sweet Vedas (as said by

Narada), then why can't the works of the Goswamis be the sweetest.

 

> Hope someday we'll all agree on that... until then...

 

I am trying to find the relevant verse and/or Prabhupada's quote which says

that works of the acaryas are smrti sastras and they are even more important

than the Vedas. I am sure they exsist. The verse may be in the Tattva

Sandarbha. I think if we find the verse, then you may agree.

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana das

[Guest guest]

>Like HDG pointed out that according to arguments of KK prabhu, Cc &

Caitanya

>Bhagavata are also not scriptures, which is a completely wrong conclusion.

>Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami (Kasturi manjari in RK lila) is situated at a

>even higher position than Vyasadeva in the spiritual world. So why can't

his

>books be accepted as sastra.

>

>Another point the Vedas were written by Vyasadeva at the non-mature stage

of

>his life. In the mature stage he wrote the Srimad Bhagavatam. And all the

>acaryas have furthur elucidated on the Bhagavatam in much more detail. So

>their works are the maturest fruit of the Vedic wisdom and is much more

>sweeter than the Vedas without any doubt. If in Vyasadeva's works itself

>there is the sweeter Bhagavatam and the not so sweet Vedas (as said by

>Narada), then why can't the works of the Goswamis be the sweetest.

 

 

Your comparison is valid only if Vyasadev is a jiva:

 

prabhu kahe vedanta sutra isvara vacana

vyasa-rupe kaila yaha sri narayana

 

"The Lord said:' Vedanta-sutra are the words of the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, spoken in the form of Srila Vyasadev.'" (CC Adi Lila 7th chapter)

 

Isvara vacana is very significant here. Of course, you may say that isvara

is used to describe any living entity who is in the capacity of a

controller, "tam isvaranam parama mahesvaram", but the statement "vyasa-rupe

kaila yaha sri narayana" would confirm that the "isvara" spoken of in this

verse is none other than "narayana", or paramesvara.

 

In which case, your comparison is quite invalid.

[Guest guest]

> > > The words of the acaryas explain the import of the sastras. Therefore

> > > they are even more important than sastra.

> >

> > Good point. (Can you elaborate on that, especially by quoting sastra?)

 

These points were made, but Basu Ghosh disagreed:

 

> Sorry, I disagree with both of you, my seniors...

>

> "even more important" is the questionable statement.

>

> Krishna Kirti Prabhu has correctly pointed out, FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA's

> statement that "shastra is the basis of all"; meaning that we derive our

> understanding of the universe, the soul, etc., from shastra(s).

>

> Anyone may claim to be an acharya - and let's keep in mind the definition

> of an acharya is one who teaches by example. But the acharya must not

> deviate from shastra(s).

>

> So then how can you make the statement "even more important".

>

> Important, yes. One of the "3"; "guru", "sadhu", "shastra"... but

> shastras are the basis.

>

> Vide Prabhupada's statement above. By tradition. Vide the teachings of

> the reconginzed acharyas of vedic culture; Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya,

> Madhavacharya, etc.

 

Some observations:

 

jivera nistara lagi' sutra kaila vyasa

mayavadi-bhasya sunile haya sarva-nasa

 

Srila Vyasadeva presented the Vedanta philosophy for the

deliverance of conditioned souls, but if one hears the

commentary of Sankaracarya, everything is spoiled.

(CC Madhya 6.169)

 

So Srila Vyasadeva is the sutrakara, the author of Vedanta-sutra,

which all Vedantists accept as sastra. The acaryas who wrote

great commentaries on Vedanta are called bhasyakara. No doubt,

in Vedanta darsan a difference between sastra and commentary

is admitted. But as we see from the above verse, there is a

sense in which the commentary is more consequential than the original

text: Vyasadeva's original purpose is spoiled by the Mayavadi

bhasya. Actually the sutras can't be understood on their own.

Sankaracarya's bhasya does a disservice to the sutras by

obscuring their real meaning. Those who try to understand that

bhasya go to hell. The Vaisnava bhasyakaras (Ramanuja, Madhva,

Visnuswami, Nimbarka and Baladeva Vidyabhusana) did great service

to the sutras by clarifying their meaning. Those who try to understand

the Vaisnava bhasya advance in transcendental knowledge. Reading

Vaisnava treatises on Vedanta, one is struck how much stress

is given to what the bhasyakara says, even more than what the original

sutra says. For what the sutra says must be explained. On

its own, the meaning is impenetrable for ordinary souls.

 

Therefore I think the argument about whether Srila Prabhupada's

purports are sastra misses the real point: though there is in

one sense a difference between sastra and his purports, we cannot

understand the sastra without his purports. Indeed without his

purports we will be dangerously misled, even in the name of

sastra. Thus in this sense the purports are more important than

the sastra.

 

Ys TS

[Guest guest]

> > The words of the acaryas explain the import of the sastras. Therefore

> > they are even more important than sastra.

>

> Good point. (Can you elaborate on that, especially by quoting sastra?)

 

<Sorry, I disagree with both of you, my seniors...

 

< "even more important" is the questionable statement.>

 

Basu Gosh, I sent the verse from the Mahabharata that one cannot understand

real religion by studying books but that that real religious principles are

sitting in the hearts of the self realized souls. Did you see that?

 

Could you have understand the Gita without Prabhupada's explanation? If you

answer yes, than his commentary was more important for you than the sastra.

 

Also, many of what we vedic sastras are simply the writings of the sadhus

anyway.

 

< Krishna Kirti Prabhu has correctly pointed out, FROM SRILA PRABHUPADA's

statement that "shastra is the basis of all"; meaning that we derive our

understanding of the universe, the soul, etc., from shastra(s).

 

Anyone may claim to be an acharya - and let's keep in mind the definition of

an acharya is one who teaches by example. But the acharya must not deviate

from shastra(s).>

 

He won't deviate but may explain them in a way that apprears that he

deviated. But this is not the case since he knows the import of the sastra

and those who think he deviated obviously do not understand it as well as he

does. (We are speaking of acaryas who are eternally liberated souls and

qualified to so called deviate).

 

< So then how can you make the statement "even more important".

 

Important, yes. One of the "3"; "guru", "sadhu", "shastra"... but shastras

are the basis.

 

Vide Prabhupada's statement above. By tradition. Vide the teachings of the

reconginzed acharyas of vedic culture; Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya,

Madhavacharya, etc.

 

Hope someday we'll all agree on that... until then...>

 

I could give you a more elaborate answer but the book I need to do this is in

Vrndavana and I am in America. But I could give pages of references to

support the position of the acarya being superior to the sastra.

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

At 11:55 AM 10/9/99 -0400, you wrote:

 

>I could give you a more elaborate answer but the book I need to do this is

in

>Vrndavana and I am in America.

Does that mean you're going to visit San Diego some time soon?

 

Babhru

[Guest guest]

Ok I think I understand what this debate is about now. I was not reading

carefully before and I thought someone was arguing that Srila Prabhupada's

books do not have the authority of shastra.

 

If I understand correctly, it is merely a detailed point being made, which

can be summed up as follows:

 

If when we say, "Srila Prabhupada's books have the authority of Shastra", we

are saying that "we will accept Srila Prabhupada words even if he speaks at

variance to Shastra," Srila Prabhupada himself will not be pleased with us.

 

When Srila Prabhupada was speaking to some Swami Narayana followers and they

said "even if the Vedas say we should eat meat, we will not do it", Srila

Prabhupada disapprovingly likened them to Buddhists, who reject the authority

of the Vedas.

 

Srila Prabhupada taught us that Lord Chaitanya's teachings, which he brought

to us, are completely in line with Vedic sruti and smrti.

 

It is the fourth offense to the holy name to baspheme Vedic literatures or

any literature in pursuance of the Vedic version.

 

So it is clear that there is a body of literature we accept as very

authoritative, which consists of Vedic sruti, and another which consists of

Vedic smrti, and we do not accept that Srila Prabhupada taught us anything

that is inconsistent with the real purport of these Vedic authorities.

 

That having been said, it is also true that he emphasized the very essence of

Vedic wisdom, pure devotional service, and did not encourage us in karma and

jnana kanda that might be encouraged elsewhere in the Vedas.

 

I know hardly anything about the Upanishads, but I am convinced that Bhagavad

Gita contains the essential phiolosophy of the Upanishads. I have never read

the Vedanta Sutra, but I understand from Srila Prabhupada that the Srimad

Bhagavatam is Srila Vyasadeva's own commentary on that authoritative work.

 

And Srila Prabhupada's explanations of Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam

make them accessible to the modern reader and make them even sweeter. Srila

Prabhupada's commentary is also perfectly in line with the great authorities

of the Gaudiya Vaisnava authorities (whose works I have never independently

read).

 

I think everyone here agrees on the essential point. It is really only a

linguistical or semantic difference that makes it appear as if there is any

dispute. No one here is saying that "We accept Srila Prabhupada, even if he

deviates from Vedic authority, because his books are as good as Vedic

Shastras."

 

We all agree that his books are as good as Vedic Shastras because they are

perfectly in line with Vedic authority. Also, we understand that his books

present the very highest conclusions of the vast and confusing Vedic

literature, in a way that is very immediately and directly understandable to

us. These books have made us and thousands like us into devotees of Lord

Krishna.

[Guest guest]

>Therefore I think the argument about whether Srila Prabhupada's

>purports are sastra misses the real point: though there is in

>one sense a difference between sastra and his purports, we cannot

>understand the sastra without his purports. Indeed without his

>purports we will be dangerously misled, even in the name of

>sastra. Thus in this sense the purports are more important than

>the sastra.

>

PAMHO AGTSP

 

It seems to me saying "just as important" is more accurate than "more

important", because without the sutras, you cannot have any commentary.

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

>Therefore I think the argument about whether Srila Prabhupada's

>purports are sastra misses the real point: though there is in

>one sense a difference between sastra and his purports, we cannot

>understand the sastra without his purports. Indeed without his

>purports we will be dangerously misled, even in the name of

>sastra. Thus in this sense the purports are more important than

>the sastra.

 

 

One further comment, what you say above is also true (like you can say the

devotee is more merciful than the Lord), but what seems to have happened is

that this has been taken beyond reasonable bounds by some. The ritviks are

an excellent example, because they reject any other source of information

that is not in Srila Prabhupada's books. They claim that presenting other

such sources is "jumping over", or that we do not have the ability to really

understand anything Srila Prabhupada has not translated.

 

Accepting this position would mean that you have not understood the essence

of what Srila Prabhupada has taught, because you would not be able to apply

his teachings in other situations: yavan artha udapane sarvatha

samplutodake, tavan sarveshu vedeshu brahmanasya vijanatah, "All purposes

served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservior of water,

similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the

purpose behind them." So if you understand the purpose, and import of Srila

Prabhupada's teachings (at least at some level), then you should be able to

understand other things properly. That would necessarily mean that the

ritviks do not understand even Srila Prahbupada's writings.

 

On another level, too, although we can say that the devotee's explanations

of sastra are in one sense even more important than sastra, the explanations

are also coming from Krishna, because the gurus and the devotees of the Lord

are also manifestations of the Lord (vande gurun isha bhaktan. . .).

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

>From Srila Prabhu

 

With all due respect, this debate is beginning to run the course that most

contentious issues in ISKCON do -- endless haggling over a false dilemma.

Thus each participant tries to prove they are exclusively right. On this

particular issue, however, I must side with Nayana-ranajana Prabhu, who, in

my humble opinion, presents the correct understanding.

 

If Nayana-ranjana Prabhu's arguments supposedly display the defect of

*ativyapti* (over-extension), then Krsna-Kirti's show *avyapti*

(under-extension). By KK's logic, we should only accept the original four

Vedas as *sastra*, much the same as the Mayavadis do.

 

>AN ESSENTIAL, UNIQUE QUALITY OF SASTRA IS THAT IT IS DIRECTLY

WRITTEN BY THE LORD.

 

By such a fundamentalist argument, we must also eliminate all the Puranas,

including Srimad Bhagavatam, and even BG because, it was NOT "WRITTEN" by

the Lord" as per your statement. Bg and SB are in fact SMRTI -- not SRUTI

-- and were "written" by Vvasa, an empowered jiva.

 

Again how can KKd conclude Vyasa is even GOD? Vyasa was NOT *VISNU-TATTVA*,

but an empowered jiva, a *saktyavesa*, a "literary incarnation". How do we

know that? Only from the testaments (writings) of liberated souls,

SMRTI-SASTRAS.

 

Prabhupada explains that BHAKTI-SMRTI sastras are more important than the

original VEDAS (Sruti). He further calls Mahabharata, "the 5th Veda". Deal

with that.

 

Srila Prabhupada was also an acclaimed *saktyavesa*, an especially empowered

Vaisnava, as confirmed personally by Srila BR Sridhara Maharaja (who was

also responsible for awarding Prabhupada the title "Bhaktivedanta"), and by

SMRTI-SASTRA, Caitanya-caritamrta. Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami

PRABHUPADA writes:

 

kali-kalera-dharma nama-sankirtana

krsna-sakti vina nahe tara pravartana

 

Only someone directly empowered by the Lord (*saktyavesa*) can propagate the

cult of devotion so profusely and preach so prolifically by his writings.

 

But according to KKd's definition, Caitanya-caritamrta is also NOT "sastra."

Interesting INTERPRETATION, Prabhu. Strangely resembles the Mayavada

version to me and directly contradicts Prabhupada's very clear explanations

on this matter.

 

Nayana-ranajana Prabhu wrote:

> >The Six Goswamis have not just compiled the books but have added their

>commentaries and have written many others with only their elaborate

>commentaries. So these are all bhakti-smrti-sastra.

 

Yes! As confirmed in the writings of Srila Srinivasa Acarya:

nana-sastra-vicaranaika-nipunau sad-dharma samsthapakau....

vande rupa-sanatanau-raghuyugau-sri-jiva-gopalakau

 

But KKd can offer us the hidden meanings beyond such "oblique"

understandings:

>Sorry, once again, you take an oblique quote and screw meanings out of it

>that are incompatible with other evidence. Why do you ignore the evidence

>I have presented?

 

Who is being "oblique" and "screwing out meanings" that are "incompatible"

with everything else Prabhupada says? What is the value of all our

"evidence" if we miss the entire point, basic Vaisnava *siddhanta*?

 

The rtviks and propounders of the Poison Theory about Srila Prabhupada's

Demise also present so much "evidence" with their perverted perspective. But

what is the value?

 

In the Caitanya-caritamrta, Srila Krsnadasa Kaviraja Goswami further states:

 

kali-kalera-dharma nama-sankirtana

vaisnava vaisnava-sastra ei sarva marma

 

"In this age of Kali, there are only three principles essential to religious

practice: 1) the holy name, 2) Vaisnavas and 3) Vaisnava-sastras (ie,

bhakti-smrti-sastras).

 

Frankly, as Gaudiya Vaisnavas, we offer our respects to the Vedas and then

head straight for Bh.gita, Srimad Bhagavatam and Caitanya-caritamrta with

all the adjunct *bhakti-sastras* written by the Goswamis and our previous

acaryas (Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, etc.). These transecendental literatures

have been summarized and condensed in the form of Srila Prabhupada's

wonderful books and purports as our main course in *bhakti-smrti-sastra*.

We have no need for any other VEDA.

 

Actually, the *bhakti-smrti-sastras* are BETTER than the VEDAs, what is

directly written by the Lord, because they exclusively expound the glories

of Bhagavan, Bhakta and Bhakti.

 

tasmat parataram devi

tadiyanam samarcanam

 

Whoever tries to argue that Srila Prabhupada's books -- or the spotless

literatures of our previous Acaryas -- are not *bhakti-smrti-sastras* has

little faith in Srila Prabhupada and his potency as a directly empowered

Vaisnava and modern-day Vyasadeva.

 

saksad-dhari tvena samasta sastrair

uktas tatha bhavyata ev sadbhih

kintu prabhor ya priay eva tasya

vande guroh sri-carananavindam

 

Srila Prabhupada was no ordinary spiritual master.

 

 

Hoping this helps to clarify the issue.

 

Dasanudasa,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

Thank you Akruranath Prabhu for so nicely summarizing the discussion

correctly.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

I find this discussion about Srila Prabhupada's books not being accepted as

sastra quite insane. Srila Prabhupada himself would oftentimes enjoyed

reading his own books. Just as all the writings of the goswamis including

Srila Baladeva Bidyabhusana, Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti THaura, Srila

Bhaktivinode Thakura and Srila Bhaktissidhanta Sarasvati Thakura are all

accepted as sastras. So also, Srila Prabhupada who is in the same category

of all the above mentioned personalities, his writings are all sastras.

Sastras are scriptures given either by God Himself or His empowered

representatives. I think we should stop all this madness of deliberating

whether Srila Prabhupada's book are sastras or not. Srila Prabhupada's

greatly learned Godbrothers would often marvel at how such a personality

could have produced such commentaries on vedic literatures despite the fact

he was not a known "matha-vasi". Srila Prabhupada himself said I did not

write these books, but Krishna Himself wrote them. Just as Govinda Bhasya

was dictated by Sri Govinda Himself, and Krishna-karnamrta was a direction

given by Sri Gopinatha Himself, so also Srila Prabhupada's books were

similarly directed by Sri Krishna Himself.

[Guest guest]

> Therefore I think the argument about whether Srila Prabhupada's

> purports are sastra misses the real point: though there is in

> one sense a difference between sastra and his purports, we cannot

> understand the sastra without his purports. Indeed without his purports

> we will be dangerously misled, even in the name of

> sastra. Thus in this sense the purports are more important than

> the sastra.

 

Sadhu! Sadhu!

[Guest guest]

> >Therefore I think the argument about whether Srila Prabhupada's

> >purports are sastra misses the real point: though there is in

> >one sense a difference between sastra and his purports, we cannot

> >understand the sastra without his purports. Indeed without his purports

> >we will be dangerously misled, even in the name of

> >sastra. Thus in this sense the purports are more important than the

> >sastra.

>

>

> One further comment, what you say above is also true (like you can say the

> devotee is more merciful than the Lord), but what seems to have happened

> is that this has been taken beyond reasonable bounds by some. The ritviks

> are an excellent example, because they reject any other source of

> information that is not in Srila Prabhupada's books. They claim that

> presenting other such sources is "jumping over", or that we do not have

> the ability to really understand anything Srila Prabhupada has not

> translated.

>

> Accepting this position would mean that you have not understood the

> essence of what Srila Prabhupada has taught, because you would not be able

> to apply his teachings in other situations: yavan artha udapane sarvatha

> samplutodake, tavan sarveshu vedeshu brahmanasya vijanatah, "All purposes

> served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservior of

> water, similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who

> knows the purpose behind them." So if you understand the purpose, and

> import of Srila Prabhupada's teachings (at least at some level), then you

> should be able to understand other things properly. That would

> necessarily mean that the ritviks do not understand even Srila

> Prahbupada's writings.

>

> On another level, too, although we can say that the devotee's explanations

> of sastra are in one sense even more important than sastra, the

> explanations are also coming from Krishna, because the gurus and the

> devotees of the Lord are also manifestations of the Lord (vande gurun isha

> bhaktan. . .).

>

> ys KKdas

 

This, and my last comment, originated from Suhotra Maharaja. At first

Maharaj didn't want his name used, but I have convinced him that everyone

will know that such lofty thoughts couldn't be coming from me, so better to

allow his name to be connected to his words.

============================================================================

Among Vedantists, the word *darsana* conveys the authorized revelation

of both sutra and bhasya by which *all the Vedic scriptures can be

correctly understood.* Sutra is like the sun, bhasya is like the

sunlight. Take one or the other away and darsana ("vision") is rendered

impossible. My suggestion is that we can settle this "sastra/not-sastra"

debate by accepting Srila Prabhupada's books--which consist of sastra

and bhasya--as darsana. Furthermore, darsana doesn't stop with the

writings of the bhasyakara. In every school of Vedanta, sutra

and bhasya are appended by tikas (additional commentaries by later

acaryas) that keep the darsana nicely polished. Darsana, then, is

an ongoing tradition of explanation and debate for the sake of elucidation

(i.e. making sutra and bhasya clearer). The commentary of rtviks and such

people falls outside of darsana because, as noted by the previous comment,

it appeals to unclarity. The argument that we cannot bring other

sastras into our discussion because Srila Prabhupada did not comment

on them is saying that Srila Prabhupada's books are not darsana: they

do not conclusively clarify all the Vedic scriptures. But that's

what the word Vedanta means! And that is the whole sense of "the

Bhaktivedanta purports"!

[Guest guest]

<< It seems to me saying "just as important" is more accurate than "more

important", because without the sutras, you cannot have any commentary.

>>

 

But the acaryas also write what becomes sutras and therefore sastra.

 

It is interesting to note that many acaryas write commentaries on their own

books.

[Guest guest]

<< Could you have understand the Gita without Prabhupada's explanation? If

> you answer yes, than his commentary was more important for you than the

> sastra.

 

Mahatma Prabhu, I don't think the above is what you intended to write, is

it? >>

 

It was late at night. It is supposed to say, "If you answer NO.

 

Sorry for late night accident.

 

BTW. Do you know that most car accidents happen after dark.

 

Prabhupada said that we could not understand the Gita without his purports.

[Guest guest]

 

COM: Trivikrama Swami <Trivikrama.Swami (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

>Nayana-ranjana Prabhu's arguments supposedly display the defect of

>*ativyapti* (over-extension), then Krsna-Kirti's show *avyapti*

>(under-extension). By KK's logic, we should only accept the original four

>Vedas as *sastra*, much the same as the Mayavadis do.

>

>>AN ESSENTIAL, UNIQUE QUALITY OF SASTRA IS THAT IT IS DIRECTLY

>WRITTEN BY THE LORD.

>

>By such a fundamentalist argument, we must also eliminate all the Puranas,

>including Srimad Bhagavatam, and even BG because, it was NOT "WRITTEN" by

>the Lord" as per your statement. Bg and SB are in fact SMRTI -- not SRUTI

>-- and were "written" by Vvasa, an empowered jiva.

 

 

First of all, the central point of this discussion/debate has been "What,

specifically, is sastra, and what is not." Srila Prabhu's arguments start

with assuming a position that is yet to be proven, that Srila Prabhupada's

words are sastra. This in itself is circular reasoning: "My opinion is

correct because it is correct."

 

Also, it seems Srila Prabhu is not seeing all the texts, because references

that Vyasa is not a jiva have already been presented. Here's one example:

 

prabhu kahe vedanta sutra isvara vacana

vyasa-rupe kaila yaha sri narayana

 

"The Lord said, 'Vedanta philosophy are the words spoken by the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, in the form of Vyasa.'"

 

There are other references too in previous postings, which others who are

joing the discussion at this time should look over before commenting. (It

would save us all time.) Srila Prabhu's objections have already been dealt

with at length, so I am not elaborating further. He and others joining the

discussion late should, in particular, follow the current discussion between

Basu Ghosh Prabhu and Nayanaranjan Prabhu. That thread is particularly

interesting because Basu Ghosh Prabhu is very nicely reconciling opposing

perceptions and explaining their simultaneous existence.

 

Also, although some of the words and language has been somewhat intense, we

are discussing, and arguing, on the basis of reavealed scriptures and words

of the acharyas to understand what is true, and what is not true. Krishna

says in the 10th chapter of the Gita: "Among logicians, I am the conclusive

truth." So, ultimately, we are interested in the truth, even if it is

contrary to our opinions, beliefs, faith, or even experience.

 

One of the problems in this discussion seems to be agreeing on what,

exactly, constitutes acceptable evidence. And this is very important

because, as we have seen, we can piece together a string of quotes from

Srila Prabhupada, call it shastra (or guru, sadhu and shastra all rolled

into one), and extrapolate from all those quotes a thesis which is in

actuallity asat sastra, or mayavada.

 

Our discussion is, therefore, about how to practically minimize the

emergence of apasiddhantik ideologies from within our own society.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

[Guest guest]

>

> If I understand correctly, it is merely a detailed point being made, which

> can be summed up as follows:

 

very nice summary. thankyou, prabhu.

 

ys, bb