Govindaji's mahaprasadam - Conclusive Comments

[Guest guest]

Pranams. Jaya Prabhupada!

 

On 17 Feb 2000, Nayana-ranjana das wrote:

<<<Only the author of the book Dr. OBL Kapoor must have known the original

source. >>>

Not necessarily; if indeed the story is paramparagata--something yet to

be

demonstrated--then many other vaishnavas must have also told it before.

However, as far as I know, Srila Prabhupada isn’t one of them.

And with all due respects to Dr. Kapoor, whom I have met personally and

do

honor, it must be admitted that he is far less discriminate about the

association he accepts than Srila Prabhupada. I don’t enjoy pointing such

things out, but it is necessary to acknowledge the fact that Dr. Kapoor has

taken shelter of another (babaji) guru after the disappearance of

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that he advocates ideas and practices

that are condemned by Srila Prabhupada. In case it is relevent, I have also

noticed that the references given in his books are often dead-ends--that is,

either they don’t exist, or they aren’t to be found where they should be.

Moreover, Srila Prabhupada himself tacitly assented when several devotees

objected to what they perceived as mayavada notions in Dr. Kapoor’s

statements, that Dr. Kapoor had deviated. This is a liberal interpretation;

we could also simply choose to take Srila Prabhupada’s comments just as they

were spoken: “He has become mayavadi” (room conversation,

Vrindavan, 10/14/77).

Given that mayavada imposes mundane contaminations upon the Lord, and

that

the Lord’s prasadam is nondifferent from the Lord, whom the shruti describes

as “zuddham apApa-viddham” (pure, sinless, and prophylactic--Ishopanishad, 8),

I think the suggestion that contamination somehow inheres in Krishna-prasada

is worth considering with the utmost sobriety and care. Avoiding what Padma

Purana calls “naraki” vision will also save us from a current

psuedo-intellectual fad--relativizing our bonafide spiritual master, or, after

that, anything and everything else transcendental.

 

 

<<<But it is very clear from Prabhupada's purports that actually Krsna & the

Vaisnavas do not accept this kind of offerings.

Cc Antya 6.276 purport:

"Because of their ignorance, however, they cannot understand that since their

minds are materially polluted, neither the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

Lord Krsna, nor the Vaisnavas accept their offerings.>>>

I think this is the crux of the matter. Either Krishna eats, in which

case

the offering becomes “anagha,” spotless--or He doesn’t, in which case

vaishnavas won’t accept the offering either. This is a case in which I don’t

think we can have it both ways. Because once maya is present--then curdled,

bas. That’s not Lord Vishnu.

 

 

<<<Now the question can be raised that how after Govindadevaji accepted it how

did the sinful reactions remain in the mahaprasadam and it affected the

Vaisnavas who ate it?

I feel this is answered in the above purport>>>

I know. And so far, you’ve presented no evidence stronger than your

interpretation of it, along with a dubious story of unspecified origin. But

especially since Prabhupada made so many explicit statements that prasada

can’t be contaminated, I for one would rather see some explicit corroboration

before accepting the radical proposition that it somehow can. Such

contamination does seem to be what you’re suggesting, so please correct me if

I’m wrong. And thanks for your patience.

 

 

<<<It means that assuming the money is accepted and food is offered to the

Deity already...

"a pure Vaisnava does not accept it" >>>

But you’re assuming much more than just this--as I read it, you’re also

assuming that because something is offered to the Deity, it is therefore

accepted by Him. But as we’ve already discusssed, this isn’t necessarily the

case.

 

<<<Now the question is raised that aham tvam sarve papebhyo... when Krsna

accepts He takes away all the sinful reaction in the food, then why is this

happening?

Even if it is mahaprasad but Krsna accepts according to the surrender of the

person who is offering. Therefore there are different degrees of mahaprasadam

as Dvarkadhisa Prabhu points out.

> We have 3 persons and 3 stages (kanistha,etc) and 3 gunas influencing

> mental condition. So, looks like we can have so many varietes of prasadam.

>>>

Would one of you mind corroborating this with guru, sadhu, and shastra,

please?

 

 

<<<There is devotional service mixed with ignorance, passion & goodness.

Similarly the offerings to the Lord or to his devotees are also mixed with

ignorance, passion & goodness depending upon the persons & the circumstances

involved.>>>

Devotees (and hence, their service) can be mixed--and we should note

that

even is not real bhakti, but probate bhakti, or bhaktyabhasa.

But the Lord is eternally untouched by Maya, and prasadam is the Lord. Two

things equal to a third are equal to each other; this is the logic which must

be addressed, for Prabhupada accepts it (Lecture in Seattle, 10/11/68, etc.).

Perhaps you should ask your bonafide guru what he thinks about this.

Thanks for your comments.

 

MDd