Is disciplic succession a scriptural injunction?

[Guest guest]

 

The answer is quite simple ... most 'book vadis' are simply envious of the current Spiritual Guru's in the gaudiya vaisnava community today. They therefore try to minimize the importance of these Gurus by insisting that books are enough and there is no need to approach any of them.

 

They provide quotes & letters from Srila Prabhupada out of context to support their position. However this position is not supported by sastra or previous Acaryas. You have posed a wonderful question to disprove this 'books are enough' theory ... Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu sent Ragunatha dasa Goswami to Svarupa Damodara for instruction rather than handing him a book.

 

I do not think it is because "... most 'book vadis' are simply envious of the current Spiritual Guru's in the gaudiya vaisnava community today." , i think it is because there have been so many "gurus" falldowns in Iskcon. They certainly were not in the category of a Ragunatha dasa Goswami or Svarupa Damodara as you used for your example. Since Prabhupada said a guru does not fall down, that means they were never gurus to begin with. For a time Iskcon was even telling those who were intiated by such people to be reintiated by other Iskcon gurus. After some needed to be reintiated two or three times, this proposal was dropped. That is why people may prefer to depend on Prabhupada's books. It may have been better if those early senior disciples had just continued preaching and studying Prabhupada"s books untill they were in their 60' or even 70's before taking on disciples. But i don't think the 'book vadis' are simply envious as you said, maybe they just have more expieience of the movement then you.

[AncientMariner 0]

 

The books are dripping with the instruction to seek out a bona fide spiritual master, inquire from him/her - then - submission and service. Our sastra Gurus have established the process and it is very clear in all their writings.

 

BTW, for Guruvani - commentary on the scriptures did not start with Srila Prabhupada. He based his own commentaries on the commentaries of previous acharyas which are also sastra. No matter how much is in print it is still a 'passive voice' in that there is no give and take. When Srila Prabhupada described the spiritual master as the captain of the ship and the books as the boat that is what he was referring to. We all need an expert captain to guide us. Why try to minimize or distort this point which is very clear in sastra?

 

I have not seen anyone pushing a particular devotee who they view as the person Bhagavata on others in this thread. But I have repeatedly seen the principle of disciplic succession and instruction being validated by quotes from sastra. The point is - we should all read the books and pray to Krsna in our hearts that he manifest before us in the form of Sri Guru. That is a universal principle.

 

I know for myself after having read the teaching of Lord Kapila in the fourth canto of S.B. I realized the absolute necessity of association with advanced devotees.

 

Some people still view that Prabhupada is accessible through his books and that by reading and following his instructions in his books they are rendering service to him. Apparently you don't feel that way and that is your perogative so go ahead and seek out your spiritual master noone is stopping you.

[Guruvani 0]

 

The books are dripping with the instruction to seek out a bona fide spiritual master, inquire from him/her - then - submission and service. Our sastra Gurus have established the process and it is very clear in all their writings.

If that was his position, then why did he accept thousands of disciples who never have physical contact with him?

How can you possibly say that he was referring to physical contact, when in fact he accepted thousands of disciples through ISKCON authorized initiations with no physical requirement in place?

 

The way you interpret things and the way Srila Prabhupada showed by his example are two different things.

 

If you say that books aren't everything, then let's look at the practical example of Srila Prabhupada and we will find that he accepted thousands of disciples without any physical succession requirement.

 

Apart from what Narayana Maharaja and the vapuvadis say, Srila Prabhupada established most profoundly that succession is not a physical thing.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

My reply..................

You are seriously confused and envious of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

aaah... the final ritvik argument when everything else fails...

 

please... spare me the theatrics and stick to the point and the arguments.

[Guest guest]

as a side note, in post #119, the verse:

 

"SB 1.2.18

By regular attendance in classes on the Bhāgavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact."

 

In the original three volume set of SB that Prabhupada brought with him from India, the word was "or" not "and" in the part of the sentence that says

 

"attendance in classes on the Bhāgavatam (and) by rendering of service to the pure devotee"

 

It was edited to now read "and" but in the original that Prabhupada wrote, it said "or".

[Guruvani 0]

 

aaah... the final ritvik argument when everything else fails...

 

please... spare me the theatrics and stick to the point and the arguments.

First of all, you have to prove that your question is legitimate.

If your question is bona-fide, then it will have already dealt with in shastra, that is unless you think you are more intelligent than Arjuna or Maharaja Pariksit.

 

Not only answers must be bona-fide, but the questions must be bona-fide.

 

Your best bet is to look at how Srila Prabhupada showed by example what is disciplic succession and stop speculating about what you think disciplic succession actually is.

 

The vapuvadis of course find fault with the way Srila Prabhupada accepted disciples without any physical requirements.

That is because they are envious of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Many of the godbrothers of Srila Prabhupada were envious of him and now there is a class of vapuvadis that have been spawned by Narayana Maharaja and other similar vapuvadis who are keeping up the same campaign against the methods Srila Prabhupada incorperated in spreading the Krishna consciousness movement.

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada accepted disciples without a physical succession.

That is a fact.

He broke from that stereotype while he was with us, but after his passing the stereotype again reared it's ugly head even in the mind of his most trusted senior disciples.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

First of all, you have to prove that your question is legitimate.

 

which one? whether disciplic succession is based on a scriptural injunction? how can such a basic question be illegitimate? you are getting desperate... but if you insist... my question falls into this category:

 

- something is done by people and I want to know its shastric explanation. remember Krsna asking His father about Brijabasis preparing a sacrifice for Indra? that category.

 

 

Your best bet is to look at how Srila Prabhupada showed by example what is disciplic succession and stop speculating about what you think disciplic succession actually is.

 

so you DO admit that Prabhupada's disciples are the next link in the succession? Bingo!

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

your second point is a lot better. yes, books can be misinterpreted and their pages torn out or lost. that is why you need living Bhagavatams.

The Vedanta Sutras were highly esoteric codes.

Many sutras contained only three or four words but had deep, complex implications. One had to become self-realized to get the full meaning of the Vedanta Sutras.

 

Vyasadeva explained the actual meaning of the Vedanta Sutras in the Srimad Bhagavatam so that the actual meaning becomes very simple and understandable.

 

Srila Prabhupada explained the meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam to the English speaking world.

There is no need now for someone to explain the explanation of the explanation because it has already been securely given in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

 

 

so you DO admit that Prabhupada's disciples are the next link in the succession? Bingo!

 

There you go again with your stool-bag succession theory.

 

Srila Prabhupada is STILL the LINK because anybody can pick up a book and get his siksha.

Formal diksha has to a accepted from either the acharya or his authorized representative.

That is a fact.

But, as Srila Prabhupada has said many times and has been also confirmed by Sridhar Maharaja that initiation is just a formality. It is not as important as accepting and following the instructions of Srila Prabhupada.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Srila Prabhupada is STILL the LINK because anybody can pick up a book and get his siksha.

 

so is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his siksha from his books. he is still the link. but not the last link, or the current link. the parampara continues. the same with Srila Prabhupada. deal with it.

 

OR... are you saying that Prabhupada STOPPED the continuation of the parampara with his books? no more succession? he did what no master before him ever did - put a parking brake on his own link? no more succession (please, do check what that word means) of gurus, just one guru for all eternity (or 10,000 years)?

[Guest guest]

 

The Vedanta Sutras were highly esoteric codes.

Many sutras contained only three or four words but had deep, complex implications. One had to become self-realized to get the full meaning of the Vedanta Sutras.

 

Vyasadeva explained the actual meaning of the Vedanta Sutras in the Srimad Bhagavatam so that the actual meaning becomes very simple and understandable.

 

Srila Prabhupada explained the meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam to the English speaking world.

There is no need now for someone to explain the explanation of the explanation because it has already been securely given in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

Just need some urgent help for the last sentence in the purport of SB, 4th Canto, Chapter 25 Vers 41.

How to explain someone that what Prabhupada says here is realy true?

[AncientMariner 0]

 

so is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his siksha from his books. he is still the link. but not the last link, or the current link. the parampara continues. the same with Srila Prabhupada. deal with it.

 

OR... are you saying that Prabhupada STOPPED the continuation of the parampara with his books? no more succession? he did what no master before him ever did - put a parking brake on his own link? no more succession (please, do check what that word means) of gurus, just one guru for all eternity (or 10,000 years)?

 

You both make good points to me and I can see both arguments but how does one get authorization from Prabhupada to become the next link. Apparently the gurus that followed Prabhupada were not authorized or why did they falldown and if Prabhuapda was perfect then he would know they would fall down and would not authorize it.

[Guruvani 0]

 

so is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and his siksha from his books. he is still the link. but not the last link, or the current link. the parampara continues. the same with Srila Prabhupada. deal with it.

 

OR... are you saying that Prabhupada STOPPED the continuation of the parampara with his books? no more succession? he did what no master before him ever did - put a parking brake on his own link? no more succession (please, do check what that word means) of gurus, just one guru for all eternity (or 10,000 years)?

 

Then what the Hell did Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja mean when they said that initiation is just a formality?

 

If it is a formality, then the ACTUAL continuation of the parampara is actually something other than formal initiation.

 

You use Bhaktisiddhanta and predecessor acharyas as examples, but they all preached in India and were pressured by the customs and traditions of India.

Srila Prabhupada took Krishna consciousness out of India into Judeo-Christian countries and he made certain adjustments that made Krishna consciousness more practical in these foreign lands.

 

Srila Prabhupada broke out of India and Indian social and customary limitations.

He had more options open to him than the predecessors who preached in India and the land of Hindu customs.

 

It is so hard to understand that spreading Krishna consciousness in Judeo-Christian countries might be more successful if Krishna consciousness can be adapted to certain cultural norms?

 

Is the physical succession an absolute truth or a Hindu custom?

If you look deep into the principle of succession you will find that the physical succession is not absolute, but is more of a cultural tradition than an absolute necessity.

[AncientMariner 0]

Who is the current link and if he falls down does that mean he wasn't the current link?

[Guruvani 0]

Sukadeva Goswami never received "diksha".

When Vayasdeva tried to give him diksha, Sukadeva actually turned away and RAN off and never came back.

 

So, maybe this is why Lord Siva said that Vyasadeva may or may not know the actual inner meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

 

aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va

bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam, na buddhya na ca tikaya

 

 

Lord Siva said: "I know the meaning of the Bhagavat and I know that Sukadeva knows it also. But for Vyasadeva, he may or may not know it. The Bhagavat can only be known through bhakti, not by mundane intelligence or by reading many commentaries."

 

[AncientMariner 0]

 

Sukadeva Goswami never received "diksha".

When Vayasdeva tried to give him diksha, Sukadeva actually turned away and RAN off and never came back.

 

So, maybe this is why Lord Siva said that Vyasadeva may or may not know the actual inner meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam

 

 

Yes, and Jada Bharata played like a dumb and deaf madman so his father would quit trying to teach him all the rules and regulations of the Vedas and leave him alone so he could engage in devotional service.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Who is the current link and if he falls down does that mean he wasn't the current link?

 

just ask yourself a question: what if he does NOT fall down? was Gour Govinda Maharaj fallen when he passed on? or Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj? are YOU ready to accept them as next links past Prabhupada?

 

dont try to wave the threat of a possible falldown of another Vaishnava to promote your own guru. it is just not a Vaishnava behavior.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Who is the current link and if he falls down does that mean he wasn't the current link?

 

Sri Guru and His Grace

chapter 8.

Abandoning Bogus Gurus

Devotee: If the initiating guru falls down from the path, what should

the disciple do?

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: He may take shelter of the holy name of

Krsna again and wait for some time. If the guru was at first a sincere

disciple of his spiritual master, and now as a result of some offenses

he is being neglected by his guru, he may be led astray for some time.

But he may return to the standard again. Still, it is said in the

Mahabharata (Udyoga-parva 179.25):

guror apy avaliptasya

karyakaryam ajanatah

utpatha-prathipannasya

parityago vidhiyate

"A guru who does not know what is to be done and what is not to be

done, who has left the path of devotional service, should be

abandoned." This is found in Bhisma's statement in the Mahabharata.

Bhisma is one of the twelve mahajanas, and this is his statement to his

astra-guru, Parasurama.

Jiva Goswami says that if the guru goes astray he should be

abandoned, but there may be circumstances where, by the

inconceivable desire of Krsna, the guru may go astray for a time and

then come back again. In that case, the disciple should wait for some

time. It is very unfortunate for the disciple when such things happen.

You will find this elaborately dealt with in the Harinama-cintamani of

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. If a son leaves home and disobeys his

father, the father may be indifferent to him; he may exclude him from

the will. If, however, the son returns after some time and is again

obedient, then he may collect his inheritance. In a similar way, a

spiritual master may disobey his guru, and then his guru may be

indifferent to him for some time, but again if he sets himself right, he

will not be disinherited. This is explained in Bhagavad-gita (api cet

suduracaro). So we should not deal very abruptly with these

unfortunate incidents, but we should wait and see. Everything must be

done judiciously.

[AncientMariner 0]

 

just ask yourself a question: what if he does NOT fall down? was Gour Govinda Maharaj fallen when he passed on? or Bhaktiswarup Damodar Maharaj? are YOU ready to accept them as next links past Prabhupada?

 

dont try to wave the threat of a possible falldown of another Vaishnava to promote your own guru. it is just not a Vaishnava behavior.

 

 

That's just lame. I have said all along I wish the best for all gurus but you are claiming that Prabhupada is not the current link well then tell us who it is.

[theist 1]

From another angle we can say that Sukadeva did receive diksa. But that was while he was in the womb. And he initiated Parksit in succession by speaking the Bhagavatam and Pariksit accepted diksa by hearing Bhagvatam from a purified devotee.

 

This is a transcendental sound parampara.

 

Sorry if you think it has to fit neatly onto some chart of list but it is bigger than that. How about someone listening to the conversation between Sukadeva and Pariksit. Could such a person also not receive diksa from Sukadeva's words? And what if such a person passed it on to another?

 

See my point.The transcendental sound parampara is just too big for our brains to handle.

[theist 1]

 

That's just lame. I have said all along I wish the best for all gurus but you are claiming that Prabhupada is not the current link well then tell us who it is.

 

He must say who ever initiated him is the current link. Either that or according to him he is not linked up himself.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

That's just lame. I have said all along I wish the best for all gurus but you are claiming that Prabhupada is not the current link well then tell us who it is.

 

how is that "lame"? these are FACTS, so deal with them...

 

these gurus passed on in good standing, they were very mature, wonderful Vaishnavas. to THEIR DISCIPLES they were a valid current link.

[Guest guest]

Marriage is just a formality - but it has deep significance in the reality of the lives of the two who are involved in the formality. They are already commited to each other - they are already 'married' in heart - but there is also the formality in which they declare their allegiance to each other and share their hearts openly in front of others.

 

Initiation being just a formality only means that Sri Guru has accepted the disciple and the disciple has accepted Sri Guru already. They have a heart connection which if 'formalized' in the initation ceremony.

 

Obviously there is much more to inititation than a ceremony which is a formality. The relationship is what is important and each person in that relationship has a role to play.

 

I totally disagree with you Guruvani regarding what Srila Prabhupada did in terms of accepting disciples. First off - he personally accepted all his initiates. The ceremonies were done through proxy - but he took full responsibility for the relationship. Srila Prabhupada guided all his disciples personally while he was present. In some cases that guidance came down through his proxies - but in all cases Srila Prabhupada was the master and all others servants. He had very clear standards in terms of what he expected from his disciples and he did not accept disciples that didn't follow the discipline.

 

At any rate the principle of hearing from advanced vaishnavas was definitely in place when Srila Prabhupada was 'physically' present and that continues to this day and will always be there.

 

BTW - Krsna is unlimited so revelation will go on unlimitedly. It is not a part of vaishnava doctrine that all that can be said has been said and there is nothing further to be said.

 

A person who is Krsna conscious can explain Krsna to us - that is actually the process and the reason why it is ludicrous to keep saying that you can simply read books and that no one can add to what is written there, clarify points or shed new light on sastra. Krsna is unlimited and has unlimited capacity to reveal himself to us. He chooses to do so through the medium of his pure devotees who actually are able to speak and shed light on the teachings for those who are eager to hear.

 

Be honest - why do you think that Srila Prabhupada's books have been in print for over 30 years and many devotees have read them cover to cover many times over yet still - there are questions and differences of opinion and different conclusions are being drawn by different sadhakas? If Srila Prabhupada was 'physically' present he would answer all questions and there would not be differing views, but since he isn't and most devotees aren't advanced enough to hear the dictates of Caitya-Guru darkness has spread and there is need for new light - in other words - there is need for the pure devotee to guide sadhakas in the practicing stages through the jungle of sounds to reach the shore of conclusive truth.

 

Everyone can contuinue to view things from their conditioned perspective and support their views by cutting and pasting quotes ad naseum - but it will never lead to conclusive truth. For that - service and surrender to the pure devotee is needed.

 

All these varying 'theories' about what Srila Prabhupada meant or how to reconcile seemingly disparate comments and reach conclusive truth are coming from someone - in every case someone (other than Srila Prabhupada) is found to be the person upholding any particular view. So the question really becomes - who do you trust? Is there a pure devotee who you can rely on and under whom you can study?

 

If you deny what I said above then you have your head in the sand and are denying the obvious historical facts of the situation. Take a look around. Ritviks (with varying ideological stands), Iskcon, book Bhagavata only, those who have taken siksha from Sridhara Maharaja and others, those in a siksha Guru/disciple relationship with others - there are so many differing views - yet all have the same books!!!!!!!!! All have the same folio!!!!!!! Hence the need to good guidance. Enough said.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

From another angle we can say that Sukadeva did receive diksa. But that was while he was in the womb. And he initiated Parksit in succession by speaking the Bhagavatam and Pariksit accepted diksa by hearing Bhagvatam from a purified devotee.

 

suuuure. and all the other sages who already had proper diksha from their gurus and were present during that conversation got another "diksha" from Sukadeva Goswami at no extra charge...

 

that is what happens when poetry meets hard reality...

[AncientMariner 0]

 

how is that "lame"? these are FACTS, so deal with them...

 

these gurus passed on in good standing, they were very mature, wonderful Vaishnavas. to THEIR DISCIPLES they were a valid current link.

 

 

I thought it was lame to dismiss my concerns of a falldown and twist that into saying I was trying to promote Prabhupada over anyone else. For me it is a real concern when people say you have to abandon Prabhupada and find the current link. How am I supposed to know the current link isn't going to falldown. That is a valid concern in my opinion but apparently you don't think so and you are entitled to your opinion. I wasn't commenting on the Vaisnavas you mentioned one way or another as I know virtually nothing about them.