Will Prabhupada said hold up in 21st Century?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

And as for the moon quote, this part right here is telling.

 

Prabhupada: According to our sastra, the moon planet is above the sun planet, and the distance is 1,600,000 miles. So accepting that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, then you add another 1,600,000, almost 2,000,000, it becomes 15,000,000 miles away.

 

Telling of what?

 

Just yesterday I was thinking about how much we accept on blind faith when we receive quotes over the internet for which we may not have a complete vedabase to verify their veracity. And even that is subject for I have seen fatal flaws in Folio software in regards to search results, and also considering all the cheating and editing that has gone on....

 

so just look at that quote. Srila Prabhupada is figuring some simple math.

 

The equation should equal to 95,000,000 miles away. That is what should be issuing from Srila Prabhupada's lips. He added 93 plus 2 and would have said Ninety Five million.

 

Now even though it just looks like a typo, that 15 should have been 95, try imagining Srila Prabhupada speaking the word "Fifteen" after doing that math. Maybe "Eighty five" or "One hundred and five", but not fifteen.

 

That said, your point is?? Are you trying to say that you checked sastra and that was not the proper delineation, or are you still just believing the myths proposed by Illuminati controlled Karmi scientists?

 

 

besides the obvious typo (Prabhupada could certainly add), the point is that SP was mixing linear distances and elevations. not only that, but he was mixing distances given by material scientists - like the 93 million miles as Sun to Earth distance, which does not come from Bhagavatam, as the elevation difference between Sun and Earth given by the Bhagavatam is about 90,000 yojanas - and figures taken from SB. If Prabhupada accepted the distance to Sun as calculated by material scientists, why not the distance to the Moon?

 

the entire issue is totally mixed up and I suspect that this part of Bhagavatam needs to be re-examined and perhaps even re-translated.

 

Maybe the devotees working on the Vedic Planetarium project will have the guts to approach this issue properly, and with unbiased mind. Last I have heard, however, is that if they arrive at anything that does not confirm what SP said there is no way Iskcon will stand behind it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why few serious scholars want to work on this project.

 

as to not trusting modern science - there is no consistency in our own presentation, at least science is very consistent on the sun, moon, earth distances since early antiquity. even the distances given by the vedic astrological books contradict these distance claims in our books.

[ThomasLB 0]

I don't think Srila Prabhupada said anything that wasn't said before by his Guru, and his Guru's Guru, and his Guru's Guru's Guru…

 

I do feel a special attachment to him, partly because he worked so hard to bring Krishna consciousness to us here in the west, and partly because he was just here a moment ago.

 

I expect that future generations will say "Thank you" to Srila Prabhupada and pay him obeisances- and quote from their own Gurus.

[cbrahma 0]

 

if his vani is so unambiguous and sufficient, how come his disciples are so divided when it comes to understanding all the issues we talk about on this forum?

The attitude of the disciple is as important as the contents of the instructions. Neophytes are fraught with desires that can easily distort the simple reception of the instructions. BTW the Prabhapada followed his guru-maharaja's instructions to the letter - without any need of 'critical analysis' simply because of his purity.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I don't think Srila Prabhupada said anything that wasn't said before by his Guru, and his Guru's Guru, and his Guru's Guru's Guru…

 

 

I don't think he did either.

But, I do think he more-or-less encouraged the fall-from-goloka fairytale because he was fearful that without the fall-from-vaikuntha fable to fall back on that the brahmajyoti origins of the jiva as described in shastra would get misused, abused and exploited by persons with an impersonal tendency.

 

The "vigraha phenomena" did not happen out of the blue.

This sleepervadi concept is being supported and advocated on the basis of things Srila Prabhupada actually said.

Granted, these people have taken extreme liberties with the words of Srila Prabhupada and extrapolated a bogus conclusion, but the fact is that there is a little fuel for their outragious theory in the words of Srila Prabhupada, especially in his letters more so than in the books.

 

We don't find the same level of pablum preaching in the books as we see in the old letters of Srila Prabhupada to some young western students.

 

But, this "sleepervadi - dreamervadi" theory is being contrived on the basis of the words of Srila Prabhupada even though he did not explicitly want his words to be taken to such extremes that the "vigraha phenomena" would occur and the paroksha method of preaching by fable would get out of control and fuel the creation of an asinine theory we call "sleepervada".

 

I don't accuse Srila Prabhupada of preaching sleepervada.

What I do say is that his approach to preaching lended some support to the creation of this sleepervada-dreamervada fairytale that is surely a false representation of the Gaudiya siddhanta on the origins of the soul.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

besides the obvious typo (Prabhupada could certainly add), the point is that SP was mixing linear distances and elevations. not only that, but he was mixing distances given by material scientists - like the 93 million miles as Sun to Earth distance, which does not come from Bhagavatam, as the elevation difference between Sun and Earth given by the Bhagavatam is about 90,000 yojanas - and figures taken from SB. If Prabhupada accepted the distance to Sun as calculated by material scientists, why not the distance to the Moon?

 

the entire issue is totally mixed up and I suspect that this part of Bhagavatam needs to be re-examined and perhaps even re-translated.

 

Maybe the devotees working on the Vedic Planetarium project will have the guts to approach this issue properly, and with unbiased mind. Last I have heard, however, is that if they arrive at anything that does not confirm what SP said there is no way Iskcon will stand behind it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why few serious scholars want to work on this project.

 

as to not trusting modern science - there is no consistency in our own presentation, at least science is very consistent on the sun, moon, earth distances since early antiquity. even the distances given by the vedic astrological books contradict these distance claims in our books.

 

After reading the passages from the Bhagavatam I have printed below, the only mistake I possibly see is mistaking 800,000 miles for 1,600,000 miles, unless that distance doubles due to the angle created by the vector from earth to moon as compared to the earth-sun vector.

 

Either way, it is irrelevant as he is using the karmi's measurement of approx 93 million to the sun, give or take the extra .8 to 1.6 million, and claiming, on the basis of the vedic injunction that the moon is above the sun (away from the earth) by 100,000 yojanas, that IF the Karmi's are right with their sun measurement then according to Vedic scripture they cannot have made their moon trip in the time alloted at the speed they claimed to travel at.

 

The way to double check this for the doubters is to check previous translations of SB Canto 5 by predecessor Vaisnava acaryas and to check the Vedic scriptures other than SB which relay this information. If 100,000 yojanas above is the consensus, then that is that. I personally am not so motivated, I am fine with SB.

 

SB 5.16.1

In this verse it is stated that the planetary system known as Bhu-mandala extends to the limits of the sunshine. According to modern science, the sunshine reaches earth from a distance of 93,000,000 miles. If we calculate according to this modern information, 93,000,000 miles can be considered the radius of Bhu-mandala.

 

SB 5.22 summary-

The moon is situated 100,000 yojanas above the rays of the sunshine. Day and night on the heavenly planets and Pitrloka are calculated according to its waning and waxing. Above the moon by a distance of 200,000 yojanas are some stars,

SB 5.22.8

TEXT

evam candrama arka-gabhastibhya uparistal laksa-yojanata upalabhyamano ’rkasya samvatsara-bhuktim paksabhyam masa-bhuktim sapadarksabhyam dinenaiva paksa-bhuktim agracari drutatara-gamano bhunkte.

SYNONYMS

evam—thus; candrama—the moon; arka-gabhastibhyah—from the rays of the sunshine; uparistat—above; laksa-yojanatah—by a measurement of 100,000 yojanas; upalabhyamanah—being situated; arkasya—of the sun globe; samvatsara-bhuktim—the passage of one year of enjoyment; paksabhyam—by two fortnights; masa-bhuktim—the passage of one month; sapada-rksabhyam—by two and a quarter days; dinena—by a day; eva—only; paksa-bhuktim—the passage of a fortnight; agracari—moving impetuously; druta-tara-gamanah—passing more speedily; bhunkte—passes through.

TRANSLATION

Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas [800,000 miles] is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun. In two lunar fortnights the moon travels through the equivalent of a samvatsara of the sun, in two and a quarter days it passes through a month of the sun, and in one day it passes through a fortnight of the sun.

PURPORT

When we take into account that the moon is 100,000 yojanas, or 800,000 miles, above the rays of the sunshine, it is very surprising that the modern excursions to the moon could be possible. Since the moon is so distant, how space vehicles could go there is a doubtful mystery. Modern scientific calculations are subject to one change after another, and therefore they are uncertain. We have to accept the calculations of the Vedic literature. These Vedic calculations are steady; the astronomical calculations made long ago and recorded in the Vedic literature are correct even now. Whether the Vedic calculations or modern ones are better may remain a mystery for others, but as far as we are concerned, we accept the Vedic calculations to be correct.

SB 5.24.2

TEXT

yad adas taraner mandalam pratapatas tad vistarato yojanayutam acaksate dvadasa-sahasram somasya trayodasa-sahasram rahor yah parvani tad-vyavadhana-krd vairanubandhah surya-candramasav abhidhavati.

SYNONYMS

yat—which; adah—that; taraneh—of the sun; mandalam—globe; pratapatah—which is always distributing heat; tat—that; vistaratah—in terms of width; yojana—a distance of eight miles; ayutam—ten thousand; acaksate—they estimate; dvadasa-sahasram—20,000 yojanas (160,000 miles); somasya—of the moon; trayodasa—thirty; sahasram—one thousand; rahoh—of the planet Rahu; yah—which; parvani—on occasion; tat-vyavadhana-krt—who created an obstruction to the sun and moon at the time of the distribution of nectar; vaira-anubandhah—whose intentions are inimical; surya—the sun; candramasau—and the moon; abhidhavati—runs after them on the full-moon night and the dark-moon day.

 

TRANSLATION

The sun globe, which is a source of heat, extends for 10,000 yojanas [80,000 miles]. The moon extends for 20,000 yojanas [160,000 miles], and Rahu extends for 30,000 yojanas [240,000 miles]. Formerly, when nectar was being distributed, Rahu tried to create dissension between the sun and moon by interposing himself between them. Rahu is inimical toward both the sun and the moon, and therefore he always tries to cover the sunshine and moonshine on the dark-moon day and full-moon night.

PURPORT

As stated herein, the sun extends for 10,000 yojanas, and the moon extends for twice that, or 20,000 yojanas. The word dvadasa should be understood to mean twice as much as ten, or twenty. In the opinion of Vijayadhvaja, the extent of Rahu should be twice that of the moon, or text of the Bhagavatam, Vijayadhvaja cites the following quotation concerning Rahu; rahu-soma-ravinam tu mandala dvi-gunoktitam. This means that Rahu is twice as large as the moon, which is twice as large as the sun. This is the conclusion of the commentator Vijayadhvaja.

SB 8.10.38

PURPORT

The cloud of dust covered the entire horizon, but when drops of blood sprayed up as far as the sun, the dust cloud could no longer float in the sky. A point to be observed here is that although the blood is stated to have reached the sun, it is not said to have reached the moon. Apparently, therefore, as stated elsewhere in Srimad-Bhagavatam, the sun, not the moon, is the planet nearest the earth. We have already discussed this point in many places. The sun is first, then the moon, then Mars, Jupiter and so on. The sun is supposed to be 93,000,000 miles above the surface of the earth, and from the Srimad-Bhagavatam we understand that the moon is 1,600,000 miles above the sun. Therefore the distance between the earth and the moon would be about 95,000,000 miles. So if a space capsule were traveling at the speed of 18,000 miles per hour, how could it reach the moon in four days? At that speed, going to the moon would take at least seven months. That a space capsule on a moon excursion has reached the moon in four days is therefore impossible.

Light of the BHAGAVATA ch.48

“The moon is too cold for the inhabitants of this earth, and therefore ordinary persons who want to go there with earthly bodies are attempting to do so in vain. Merely seeing the moon from a distance cannot enable one to understand the real situation of the moon. One has to cross Manasa Lake and then Sumeru Mountain, and only then can one trace out the orbit of the moon. Besides that, no ordinary man is allowed to enter that planet. Even those admitted there after death must have performed the prescribed duties to satisfy the pitas and devas. Yet even they are sent back to earth after a fixed duration of life-on the moon.”

 

Hare Krsna

[sevabhakta 0]

 

As to the question: Will "Prabhupada said" hold up in 21st Century? the short answer is: "Some will, some will not hold up". Eventually all of his teachings will have to be reconciled with the rest of the GV tradition and siddhanta. You cant forever pretend that the problem is always only with the reader, and never with the text itself.

 

 

"The short answer is some will, some will not."

 

A dire prediction.

 

How about giving the esteemed acarya the benefit of your doubt unless you are prepared to present contradictory translations of the Bhagavat Purana, not purports, but translations made by one or more qualified spiritual masters in the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya line in authorized disciplic succession as per page 29 of the 1972 Bhagavad Gita who's alpha and omega read #1. Krsna and #32. His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

Other bona-fide Vedic texts specific to such matters, from bona-fide Vaisnava sampradayas, texts not already sabotaged by the British, could be secondary source of such information.

 

Apply this method of verification to each instance where Srila Prabhupada "taught" some "thing" that you find dubious to your highly acute and sharply honed but defective senses that you mistakenly try to cheat others with. Have at it.

 

Then let us know the results of your scientifically conducted research before decrying the works of a Mahabhagavat acarya.

 

 

"Eventually all of his teachings will have to be reconciled with the rest of the GV tradition and siddhanta."

 

Have to be? Sounds imperative. Reconciled with tradition? You tradition-vadis tread a slippery slope and as usual wind up sitting on your brains more than we would like to see from our sanga.

 

The first thing we need to reconcile is that part of ourself that believes it can criticize an acarya, and that part of ourself that wants to avoid offenses and make spiritual advancement.

 

However, due diligence behooves any and all to reconcile Srila Prabhupada's conclusions with Guru Sadhu and Sastra, as he himself suggests.

 

As a matter of fact, I suggest to all the neophytes visiting this forum that by simply and exclusively reading Srila Prabhupada's 1972 MacMillan "Bhagavad Gita As It Is", you will be properly educated as to

 

1. who in your life is Qualified to be considered "GURU",

2. who is a "SADHU",

 

And then you will discover that what you just read is the first of the increasingly pure Bhakti Sastras, written by a Guru, and handed to you by a sadhu, who may someday qualify as a Guru if he meets the criteria you just read in sastra.

 

 

And lastly Kulapavana writes.

 

"You can't forever pretend that the problem is only with the reader, and never with the text itself."

 

By coincidence, I found an error in the spelling of a word in the Bhagavad Gita today. In this case another valid word resulted by the displacement of one letter. I went back and read the sentence again to be sure that there was no way the word that was printed could be reasonably construed to fit properly.

 

Then I immediately chastised myself, because at that next moment I realized that the essence was not changed at all, and that it JUST DIDN'T MATTER.

 

And this is the difference, probably the only one, between me and all you change-vadis out there.

 

I know it is Maya's trap. You don't.

 

I can just hear your mind whirring away now.

 

"Oh but Prabhu, if it is such an obvious and glaring spelling error, how do we just let that go. EVERYONE would understand us changing THAT ONE. And it would ENHANCE the presentation, I mean just think of all the "discerning" persons who will be turned off and think it not scholarly enough."

 

And that leads to rearranging minor grammar to make things more "fluid" and readable. And that leads in the end to the dark well where I found Jayadwaita and Dravida dasa's blatant omissions and twistings to a purport in the CC which they fully admitted were made to reflect the "current understandings in Iskcon".

 

I say the essence was there, is still there, and keep your muddy lower minds off of the text of the books. It is just fine AS IT IS.

 

AS IT IS. Which one of those 3 little words is so hard to understand?

 

So, as we see, in some cases the problem IS always with the reader, as long as that reader does not feel that what IT IS is good enough.

 

To all you changevadis, why don't you work on changing yourself into pure vaisnavas before contemplating these other changes you are simply not qualified or authorized to make.

 

Hare Krsna

[CCC 0]

 

 

Letter of Srila Prabhupada about vedic cosmology

 

 

"These things are not very important, we may not waste our time with these insignificant questions. There are sometimes allegorical explanations [in the Bhagavatam]. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krsna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavata, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam." (Letter 72-11-07)

[sevabhakta 0]

 

 

Letter of Srila Prabhupada about vedic cosmology

 

 

 

 

"These things are not very important, we may not waste our time with these insignificant questions. There are sometimes allegorical explanations [in the Bhagavatam]. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krsna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavata, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam." (Letter 72-11-07)

 

Of course for some, Srila Prabhupada gave personal instruction as above. I think it is sage advice for those blinded by science, and those just inclined to a useless waste of time arguement now and then. Like yours truly.

 

Some people misunderstand the word allegory.

 

Here are some nice comprehensive definitions of allegory

 

1. Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.

Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning

 

2. An allegory (from Greek αλλος, , "other", and αγορευειν, agoreuein, "to speak in public") is a figurative mode of representation conveying a meaning other than the literal.

 

So if one is to decide to GO THERE ANYWAY and waste time bothering with trying to prove or disprove the factual nature of Bhagavatam, instead of taking the essence, one must first determine which accounts in the Bhagavatam are allegorical.

 

Remembering that characters in the Bhagavatam more often than not embody and personify abstract ideas, and the stories always have more than one layer of meaning, so good luck at that.

 

And then the only way you can PRETEND to prove it is strictly allegory with no true literal meaning, will be to present the conclusions of a Karmi scientist which contradict some fact or two presented in the allegory.

 

Also consider that as always, Srila Prabhupada is merciful to all, and if someone was just a little skeptical due to Karmi training, Srila Prabhupada would be willing to call the stories allegories (because they are so far different from what we experience here in Kali Yuga that it makes them much easier to accept) so he tricked us into reading them, he didn't care that he fudged a little, let them believe they are ALL allegories. Just get em focused on the essence.

 

Hare Krsna

[sevabhakta 0]

 

Originally Posted by Kulapavana

As to the question: Will "Prabhupada said" hold up in 21st Century? the short answer is: "Some will, some will not hold up". Eventually all of his teachings will have to be reconciled with the rest of the GV tradition and siddhanta. You cant forever pretend that the problem is always only with the reader, and never with the text itself.

 

 

 

KP says, "Some will, some will not hold up"

 

A dire prediction.

 

How about giving the esteemed acarya the benefit of your doubt unless you are prepared to present contradictory translations of the Bhagavat Purana, not purports, but translations made by one or more qualified spiritual masters in the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya line in authorized disciplic succession as per page 29 of the 1972 Bhagavad Gita who's alpha and omega read #1. Krsna and #32. His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

 

Other bona-fide Vedic texts specific to such matters, from bona-fide Vaisnava sampradayas, texts not already sabotaged by the British, could be secondary source of such information.

 

Apply this method of verification to each instance where Srila Prabhupada "taught" some "thing" that you find dubious to your highly acute and sharply honed but defective senses that you mistakenly try to cheat others with. Have at it.

 

Then let us know the results of your scientifically conducted research before decrying the works of a Mahabhagavat acarya.

 

KP writes, "Eventually all of his teachings will have to be reconciled with the rest of the Gaudiya tradition and sastra."

 

Have to be? Sounds imperative. Reconciled with tradition? You tradition-vadis tread a slippery slope and as usual wind up sitting on your brains more than we would like to see from our sanga.

 

The first thing we need to reconcile is that part of ourself that believes it can criticize an acarya, and that part of ourself that wants to avoid offenses and make spiritual advancement.

 

However, due diligence behooves any and all to reconcile Srila Prabhupada's conclusions with Guru Sadhu and Sastra, as he himself suggests.

 

As a matter of fact, I suggest to all the neophytes visiting this forum that by simply and exclusively reading Srila Prabhupada's 1972 MacMillan "Bhagavad Gita As It Is", you will be properly educated as to

 

1. who in your life is Qualified to be considered "GURU",

2. who is a "SADHU",

 

And then you will discover that what you just read is the first of the increasingly pure Bhakti Sastras, written by a Guru, and handed to you by a sadhu, who may someday qualify as a Guru if he meets the criteria you just read in sastra.

 

KP writes: "you can't forever pretend that the problem is always with the reader, and never with the text itself."

 

By coincidence, I found an error in the spelling of a word in the Bhagavad Gita today. In this case another valid word resulted by the displacement of one letter. I went back and read the sentence again to be sure that there was no way the word that was printed could be reasonably construed to fit properly.

 

Then I immediately chastised myself, because at that next moment I realized that the essence was not changed at all, and that it JUST DIDN'T MATTER.

 

And this is the difference, probably the only one, between me and all you change-vadis out there.

 

I know it is Maya's trap. You don't.

 

I can just hear your mind whirring away now.

 

"Oh but Prabhu, if it is such an obvious and glaring spelling error, how do we just let that go. EVERYONE would understand us changing THAT ONE. And it would ENHANCE the presentation, I mean just think of all the "discerning" persons who will be turned off and think it not scholarly enough."

 

And that leads to rearranging minor grammar to make things more "fluid" and readable. And that leads in the end to the dark well where I found Jayadwaita and Dravida dasa's blatant omissions and twistings to a purport in the CC which they fully admitted were made to reflect the "current understandings in Iskcon".

 

I say the essence was there, is still there, and keep your muddy lower minds off of the text of the books. It is just fine AS IT IS.

 

AS IT IS. Which one of those 3 little words is so hard to understand?

 

So, as we see, in some cases the problem IS always with the reader, as long as that reader does not feel that what IT IS is good enough.

 

To all you changevadis, why don't you work on changing yourself into pure vaisnavas before contemplating these other changes you are simply not qualified or authorized to make.

 

Hare Krsna

 

 

I didn't think so.

 

As it is, is at it's best.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guruvani 0]

My intention with this topic was not to minimize Srila Prabhupada or his words.

 

What I do feel though is that instead of always trying to support something with saying "Prabhupada said" I think we should be trying to find the shastric basis for that "Prabhupada said" and present it in it original source.

 

As Gaudiya Vaishnavism spreads throughout the world, ISKCON will eventually just be one of several Gaudiya Vaishnava societies and the "Prabhupada said" way of preaching will not be as relevant as presenting something in it's shastric basis.

[sevabhakta 0]

 

My intention with this topic was not to minimize Srila Prabhupada or his words.

 

What I do feel though is that instead of always trying to support something with saying "Prabhupada said" I think we should be trying to find the shastric basis for that "Prabhupada said" and present it in it original source.

 

As Gaudiya Vaishnavism spreads throughout the world, ISKCON will eventually just be one of several Gaudiya Vaishnava societies and the "Prabhupada said" way of preaching will not be as relevant as presenting something in it's shastric basis.

 

Prabhupada said to do that at once when speaking in spiritual circles.

 

Of course from this moment on, my only qualification is a quick folio search for the relevant purport. And then cut and paste. 20 year meat eater, I am lucky I am not drooling on myself, i'll take a mediocre memory.

 

So being consistent, I'll take the lazy way out and just let those interested look it up themselves. It would be educational as well to imbibe the context of the nearby texts. I think I'll read that one again myself. Bhagavad Gita 17.15 purport. Something like "when discussing in spiritual circles one must at once back up one's statements with scripture." Oh, and how they should be pleasurable to hear.

 

Hare Krsna

[gHari 0]

"Bhaktivinoda said" held up in the 19th, 20th and into the 21st century.

 

Then there's:

SrIdhara SvAmI

--the author of the earliest extant VaiSNava commentaries on Bhagavad-gItA and SrImad-BhAgavatam. Though a resident of Benares and a sannyAsI of SaGkara's MAyAvAda school of philosophy, he taught pure VaiSNava philosophy. He was a devotee of Lord NRsiMhadeva, and his works were highly regarded by Lord Caitanya, especially his SrImad-BhAgavatam gloss, BhAvArtha-dIpikA. The Lord commented that anyone who wanted to write a commentary on SrImad-Bhagavatam must follow the commentary of SrIdhara SvAmI. [from Vedabase Glossary]

 

 

[Guruvani 0]

 

"Bhaktivinoda said" held up in the 19th, 20th and into the 21st century.

Only in the minds of the Saraswata Gaudiyas.

Even though many don't like to believe it, there actually is Gaudiya Vaishnavism outside of ISKCON and the Gaudiya Matha.

 

In the 21st century ISKCON is going to lose it's monopoly on Gaudiya Vaishnavism around the world and within the coming decades it could end up as one of the smaller sects of Gaudiya Vaishnavas around the world.

 

As such, the "Prabhupada said" approach to Gaudiya siddhanta is only relevant in ISKCON which is rapidly losing it's status as the premier Gaudiya Vaishnava society in the western world.

 

I personally accept what "Prabhupada said".

 

But, "Prabhupada said" has isolated ISKCON from the greater Gaudiya community which is growing much faster than a lot of ISKCON people would like to admit.

 

The important things Srila Prabhupada said can be supported in shastra.

If it can't be supported in shastra then I personally don't see the need to try and make a big issue out of it.

 

Some of the things Srila Prabhupada said were preaching tactics and devices that he thought we helpful in the early stages of bringing KC to the western world.

 

Maybe, after some 40 years laters and the firm rooting of Gaudiya Vaishnavism all over the world and the splintering of ISKCON, the growth of Gaudiya Matha offshoots internationally etc. etc., it is time to send some of these "Prabhupada said" letters and statements to the archives of memory.

 

Some of these devotees who are still wallowing in these anti-Godbrother letters of Srila Prabhupada from the 60's are like cavemen that can't come out of the stone-age of Krishna consciousness.

 

It is almost laughable.

If it wasn't so offensive to so many wonderful Vaishnavas it would be hilarious.

Unfortunately, it is just repulsive at this point in history.

[theist 1]

The moon again. Sheesh. Personally I don't care where the moon is or if the Bhagavatam was correct in it's cosmology or if Prabhupada was correct in presenting the Bhagavatam version of cosmology or not.

 

We must ask ourselves why we approach such a person as Srila Prabhupada. Are we trying to get an astronomy degree from his association or are we trying to get an idea of who God is and how to get to know Him?

 

What to speak of puny pieces of dust like the moon entire cosmic manifestations have been created and destroyed while we linger on in the material world for the want of transcendental knowledge.

 

You may have the moon earth distance down to the inch but at the time of death how will that help you?

[Guruvani 0]

Well boys, since there are 169 known moons orbiting the the eight official planets and three dwarf planets, which Moon are we talking about here?

Is it the Earth's Moon or or some other Moon?

Is Earth the center of the universe?

Is the Bhagavatam necessarily talking about the Moon of Earth?

 

Before we can come to any conclusion we have to know which Moon the Bhagavatam is referring to.

 

All the higher planets have Moons too.

Earth is not the center of the universe the last time I checked.

 

Can we all say "duh"?

 

The Bhagavatam was first taught to the Four Kumaras by Lord Sankarsan at the dawn of the universe.

Was Lord Sankarshan necessarily talking about the Earth moon when he first spoke Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

Our simple mind wants to reduce everything down to some remedial concept that fits into our crippled mind.

Unfortunately, the absolute cannot be reduced down to such blunted and stunted perception that our sickly minds can wrap their arms around it and hold the infinite within our fist.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

My intention with this topic was not to minimize Srila Prabhupada or his words.

 

 

I actually feel that the only way people in general will give Srila Prabhupada proper credit and appreciate his legacy is when we present his teachings in a REALISTIC manner. Nobody but the most fanatical zealots buys the bit about the guru who knows everything, has a perfect answer to every question, and whose teachings must be followed to the letter and without any questions to reach the elusive goal of true perfection. Especially when in practice his institution and his followers are anything but picture perfect.

 

If people appreciate the real and unquestionable contribution Prabhupada made to modern spirituality then they will read his books and progress further on their own. If we try to sell people fairy tales and sentimental guru fanticism, we will be rejected as just another guru-centric cult. The choice is clearly ours.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I actually feel that the only way people in general will give Srila Prabhupada proper credit and appreciate his legacy is when we present his teachings in a REALISTIC manner. Nobody but the most fanatical zealots buys the bit about the guru who knows everything, has a perfect answer to every question, and whose teachings must be followed to the letter and without any questions to reach the elusive goal of true perfection. Especially when in practice his institution and his followers are anything but picture perfect.

 

If people appreciate the real and unquestionable contribution Prabhupada made to modern spirituality then they will read his books and progress further on their own. If we try to sell people fairy tales and sentimental guru fanticism, we will be rejected as just another guru-centric cult. The choice is clearly ours.

 

Mahaprabhu charged his direct disciples to take his bhakti cult and substantiate it with Vedic references.

Mahaprabhu wanted his movement to be presented as authentic Vedic dharma.

So, if even Mahaprabhu wanted all his teachings to be established with Vedic authority, then surely we cannot hold up Srila Prabhupada as an independent authority who doesn't have to answer to shastra, guru and sadhu.

 

That was not the intention of Srila Prabhupada either.

The "Prabhupada said" cult was put down by Srila Prabhupada himself in his time.

After his passing a new Gaudiya siddhanta has been fabricated by neophyte misfits who want to make Gaudiya Vaishnavsim a cult of renegade gurus with absolute independence from shastra, guru and sadhu.

[melvin 1]

Prabhupad Swami Jesus teachings are here to stay. He just repeated what Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has been telling us in his works. That a devotee should never forget the most holy names of God. By chanting Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare, one immediately goes home, back to Godhead. Remember 911? Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya Sarvam Iti Mahatma Sudarlabha says Krsnaraja, the Raja of vidjayanagara, India.It never fails..

[sevabhakta 0]

 

I actually feel that the only way people in general will give Srila Prabhupada proper credit and appreciate his legacy is when we present his teachings in a REALISTIC manner. Nobody but the most fanatical zealots buys the bit about the guru who knows everything, has a perfect answer to every question, and whose teachings must be followed to the letter and without any questions to reach the elusive goal of true perfection. Especially when in practice his institution and his followers are anything but picture perfect.

 

If people appreciate the real and unquestionable contribution Prabhupada made to modern spirituality then they will read his books and progress further on their own. If we try to sell people fairy tales and sentimental guru fanticism, we will be rejected as just another guru-centric cult. The choice is clearly ours.

 

If you just get ahold of your emotional "feelings" on the matter, you might come to understand that the only "realistic" manner of presenting Srila Prabhupada's teachings is to present them AS THEY ARE.

 

Your feelings of needing to be accepted by "people in general" are nothing but a sentimental self esteem issue that you should put behind you before spouting off publicly about Srila Prabhupada's legacy. Many will reject his teachings, and Mahaprabhu. And they will reject you for repeating them like a (knowledgeable) parrot.

 

Perhaps you should get the translations of the core scriptures from every acarya in the line, for example start with Sridhar Swami for the SB. And read their translations and commentaries.

 

Then read what Srila Prabhupada had to say.

 

Then put any contradictions to rest.

 

Then preach, and you will be able to share with others according to their unique time place and circumstance in a way that will not be mundane repeating of Srila Prabhupada's words without relevance to the moment, yet will be your own paraphrase, quickly backed up by a relevant quote from scripture.

 

Until then, you are lost in confusion, as is evidenced by the negative connotation you give to a person who follows his Guru's teaching to the letter, when that is just what the Acarya's tell us to do.

 

BG 18.59 Translation

If you do not act according to My direction and do not fight, then you will be falsely directed. By your nature, you will have to be engaged in warfare.

 

purport. No one can ascertain his destiny as the Supreme Lord can; therefore the best course is to take direction from the Supreme Lord and act. No one should neglect the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or the order of the spiritual master who is the representative of God.

 

SB 3.24.5 Purport

 

One should accept the instruction of the spiritual master as one’s life and soul. Whether one is liberated or not liberated, one should execute the instruction of the spiritual master with great faith.

 

Srila Prabhupada disappeared today. I am struggling to be a disciple of his, and he helps me along. To wake up and read you railing against a Guru-centric cult, when he himself said to keep the Acarya in the center tells me you are struggling too. Don't worry so much what other people may think. You have to get it right first. Then Krsna will use you to take home whoever HE wishes, and it might not be all the Karmi's you are so worried about.

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Hare Krsna

[melvin 1]

I believed you just became a member of the audarya fellowship on October 2007. You`ve come a long way my friend. You`re on the right track by chanting always Hare Krsna. It never fails, you know. There`s no doubt about it. Hehehe

[realist 0]

 

Here is a couple of quotes on the Moon issue. Go to the sleepervadi threads for quotes on the fall from Vaikuntha

 

Morning Walk, Perth, 05/18/1975

Prabhupada: Yes. They might have gone to some hellish planet, where there is only sand, only, and very hot, and the culprit is pushed through that deserted place to the Yamaraja. And before going to Yamaraja he has to suffer so much. There are places, copperlike, you see. (aside:) Hare Krishna. So hot, and the criminal has to go on that copper land. There are mentioned for many millions of miles simply copper, and one has to pass through that to Yamaraja. So, they might have gone to some such place, not to the moon planet, who is the source of vegetation even throughout the whole universe—and in his own planet there is no vegetation. Now I am sure they have not gone to moon planet. How they will go? It is beyond the sun. I was protesting that they have not gone; now I am convinced that they have not gone. The Russian scientists and the American scientists joined on the platform, "Don’t expose me, I don’t expose you." (laughter) (Bengali) "You have to do your business and same I have to do my business. Let us support one another." In all other case, they are inimical, and the scientific field they are friends. That means that if a scientist, another scientist, opposes me, then my attempt will be futile, so let us don’t do it.

 

Room Conversation with Reporter, Los Angeles, 06/04/1976

Prabhupada: Yes. From the.... That question I was discussing the other day. In the common sense, gross sense, that all over the world, they accept Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, in this way Saturday last. So why these arrangement? Sunday first and Monday second, and nobody could reply it. But as a layman I can conclude that Sun planet is first and the moon planet is next. So if you cannot go to the sun planet, which is ninety-three million miles away, how you can go to the moon planet within four days? Nobody could answer me. Can you answer?

(...)

Prabhupada: According to our sastra, the moon planet is above the sun planet, and the distance is 1,600,000 miles. So accepting that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, then you add another 1,600,000, almost 2,000,000, it becomes 15,000,000 miles away. So if you go at the speed of 18,000 miles per hour, it takes more than 6 months. So how you go there in 4 days? And you advertise in the paper: "Now, they have reached." After 4 days.

 

Actually this last quote shows that SP clearly equates Sun and Moon's elevation with respect to Bhu-mandala plane of existence with linear distance from Earth. And that is the root of the apparent error, as the two are not the same.

 

 

 

 

I don't think you argument is belittling the teachings of NOT only Srila Prabhupada, it’s the entire Vedic texts you are questioning. Srila Prabhupada is only repeating the teachings of Srimad Bhagavatam. Personally I am convinced that man has been to the moon but NOT the heavenly dimension that exists there.

 

I recently went to a radio telescope and to a big telescope at an observatory in the US and there are beckons on the moon we would be stupied to deny. Anyway it doesn’t change my conviction or membership in the fall-avadi club, although I must object to the word vardi that means impersonal brahmajyoti. Maybe the real fall-avadis or sleep-avadis therefore are members of the present version of the Gaudiya math.

[Beggar 0]

 

If we try to sell people fairy tales and sentimental guru fanticism, we will be rejected as just another guru-centric cult. The choice is clearly ours.

Clearly Srila Prabhupada was promoting, Krsna Consciousness and not Prabhupada consciousness. Yet at the same time as we advance we will see that Krsna is most "real" to us within the heart of a pure devotee. This may be our internal realization, but our duty is to go on like Prabhupada and promote Krsna Consciousness while presenting the position of guru in a balanced way. Otherwise we will make some propaganda, like "Back to Prabhupada Magazine" and not only miss the mark but fall off the edge of sanity. Public displays of such fanaticism are alarming and will drive the general public away.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Your feelings of needing to be accepted by "people in general" are nothing but a sentimental self esteem issue that you should put behind you before spouting off publicly about Srila Prabhupada's legacy.

 

It has nothing to do with my self esteem, but with many years of preaching experience to people in general.

 

Srila Prabhupada represents Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but GV does not begin and does not end with Srila Prabhupada. I am preaching Gaudiya Vaishnavism, not Prabhupadism, thus a frame of reference is needed for SP teachings. That frame of reference is found in our shastras, our tradition, and our acharyas and SP teachings must fit this frame of reference. If you claim that there is no need for the frame of reference you are contradicting the teachings of your guru, as well as our GV tradition going back to Lord Caitanya and Six Goswamis. The legitimacy of our movement stands on the claim that we represent the teachings of the disciplic succession, and not merely the teachings of SP.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

I don't think you argument is belittling the teachings of only Srila Prabhupada, it’s the entire Vedic texts you are questioning. Srila Prabhupada is only repeating the teachings of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

If you read my post a little closer you would notice that I clearly differentiate between the planetary elevations Srimad Bhagavatam is writing about, and the distances SP is talking about. These two are not really the same thing. If you dont understand that difference you will certainly misunderstand my post, just like you will misunderstand Bhagavatam on this particular issue.

 

People tend to belittle themselves when they speak in definite terms on subject matters they have not studied enough. I have done it myself more than once.

[realist 0]

 

If you read my post a little closer you would notice that I clearly differentiate between the planetary elevations Srimad Bhagavatam is writing about, and the distances SP is talking about. These two are not really the same thing. If you dont understand that difference you will certainly misunderstand my post, just like you will misunderstand Bhagavatam on this particular issue.

 

People tend to belittle themselves when they speak in definite terms on subject matters they have not studied enough. I have done it myself more than once.

 

Then why don't you accept Srila Prabhupadas teachings that we are ALL presently in Goloka but presently on 'think' we are not?