How can we understand the Srimad Bhagavatam?

[Guest guest]

Srimad Bhagavatam 5.25.8

Translation.

"If persons who are very serious about being liberated from material life

hear the glories of Anantadeva from the mouth of the spiritual master in the

chain of disciplic succession, and if they always meditate upon Sankarsana,

the Lord enters the cores of their hearts, vanquishes all the dirty

contamination of the material modes of nature, and cuts to pieces the hard

knot within the heart, which has been tied tightly since time immemorial by

the desire to dominate material nature through fruitive activities. Narada

Muni the son of Lord Brahma, always glorifies Anantadeva in his fathers

assembly. there he sings blissful verses of his own composition, accompanied

by his stringed instrument [or a celestial singer] known as the Tumburu."

 

Purport:

"None of these descriptions of Lord Anantadeva are imaginary. They are all

transcendentally blissful and full of actual knowledge. However unless one

hears them directly from a bonafide spiritual master in the line of

disciplic succession, one cannot understand them."

 

"..*hear* the glories of Anantadeva from the *mouth* of the spiritual

master".

 

"However unless one *hears* them *directly* from a *bonafide* spiritual

master in the line of disciplic succession, one cannot understand them."

 

Pretty specific. Looks like reading Prabhupadas writing about them is just

not enough, otherwise why would he be SO specific?

 

Your Servant

Samba das

[Guest guest]

Samba Prabhu wrote:

 

> "..*hear* the glories of Anantadeva from the *mouth* of the spiritual

> master". "However unless one *hears* them *directly* from a *bonafide*

spiritual master in the line of disciplic succession, one cannot understand

them." Pretty specific. Looks like reading Prabhupadas writing about them is

just not enough, otherwise why would he be SO specific?<

 

 

This is weak argumentation. Please look in the Vedabase, and I'm sure you'll

find Srila Prabhupada sometimes equating hearing and reading. To

misunderstand like this, as you seem to, the value of reading seems unwise;

Srila Prabhupada's books came from his lotus mouth. Besides, for those

wanting to hear, there are more than a thousand tapes.

 

-ys, td

[Guest guest]

> This is weak argumentation. Please look in the Vedabase, and I'm sure

> you'll find Srila Prabhupada sometimes equating hearing and reading.

 

I was only repeating Prabhupadas arguments (there are some more here which

are more specific), so I think they have some validity. I don't have the

vedabase, but I do have some texts of the nature you suggest that were sent

to me. I posted that (original) text as I had just come across it and

thought that it was a provocative argument against ritvikism and other

misunderstandings.

 

I don't think that looking in the vedabase for quotes is the right way to

understand the Bhagavatam (not that you were suggesting that), it needs to

be accepted in its entirety, with no part being discounted in favour of

another, but rather all accepted with faith, and an ardent prayer for the

Lord to reveal the actual truth. Usualy this is done by the Lord sending His

representative. He has been sending representatives since time immemorial,

not that Srila Prabhupada was the last one. It is rare that Krsna enlightens

the devotee directly as he does with Arjuna.

 

> To

> misunderstand like this, as you seem to, the value of reading seems

> unwise; Srila Prabhupada's books came from his lotus mouth. Besides, for

> those wanting to hear, there are more than a thousand tapes.

 

Of course the value of reading the Srimad Bhagavatam cannot be

underestimated. I guess I should have elaborated more on that. There is so

much that CAN be understood by reading.

 

Prabhupada said in a lecture in Rome, May 27th 1974:

"Unless one is svanubhavam, self realised [unless his] life is Bhagavat, he

cannot preach Bhagavat. That will not be effective. A gramaphone will not

help (listening to tapes?). Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's secretary,

Svarupa Damodara, reccomended, bhagavata pora giya bhagavata sthane, that

"if you want to read Srimad Bhagavatam, you must approach a person who is

life giving Bhagavata" Bhagavata pora giya bhagavata sthana. Otherwise there

is no question of Bhagavata realisation...There are many scriptures, many

religious scriptures, especialy the Vedas. Sruti means Veda. Sruti is

learned by hearing, not by reading. You can understand Vedic principle even

though you are illiterate, provided you hear them, aural reception. God has

given you the ear. And if you try to hear submissively, to hear something,

then it will be fruitful."

 

Five months later Prabhupada wrote this to Rupanuga prabhu.

 

"These are not ordinary books. It is recorded chanting. Anyone who reads, he

is hearing."

(Letter Rupanuga 10/19/74)

 

>From what I remember, letters to disciples cannot be considered the same as

the words the bonafide guru writes in authorised sastra, or that he speaks

in lecture, because letters are written by the guru to the disciple in a

situation where the (self realised) guru knows what the disciple needs to

hear at any given moment to encourage him in his surrender. Sometimes almost

opposite instructions can be given to different persons.

 

Also we understand that hearing actualy means to act on the instructions one

has heard. If he does not act, he has not in effect heard. So for a sincere

disciple initiated by a bonafide guru, all he has to do is act on the guru's

instructions. Then he has heard. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati made that

point;

 

"There have, however already arisen serious misunderstandings regarding the

proper interpretation of the life and teachings of Srila Bhaktivinoda

Thakur. Those who suppose they understand the meaning of his message without

securing the guiding grace of the acarya are disposed to unduly favour the

method of empiric study of his writings. There are persons who have got by

heart almost everything that he wrote without being able to catch the least

particle of his meaning. Such study cannot benefit those who are not

prepared to act up to the instructions lucidly conveyed by his words...."

 

Another 'apparently' contradictory text:

 

"...Srimad-Bhagavatam is so scientifically presented that any sincere

student of this great science will be able to understand the science of God

simply by reading it with attention..." S.B. 2.7.52.

 

What is a sincere student? One who acts on the instructions 'lucidly

conveyed by his (gurus) words'? What is it we are to understand from our

reading what is the message (the 'science' of God)? Could it be that

surrender unto a personal self realised guru is required, hearing from him

directly, and that personal endeavour by reading, seperate from the direct

process of 'submission and inquiry' is not enough? Surely the Science of

Krsna Consciousness is the surrendering process (of which a lot has been

written in Prabhupadas books which we have to act on). The translation of

the Subramanian edition of Mahabharata by Srila Prabhupada states:

 

"Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not

differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the

Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which

religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles

is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated self-realized person.

Consequently, as the shastras confirm, one should accept whatever

progressive path the mahajanas advocate."

 

One can argue:

 

"Regular reading or hearing of Srimad-Bhagavatam is also performance of

Bhakti-yoga, and one can attain the highest perfection simply by the

association of Srimad-Bhagavatam." S.B. 2.9.4.

 

This is certainly true, if we did not read the Bhagavatam we would not find

out that the Bhagavatam has to be heard from the lips of a pure devotee,

from his mouth, using our ears, taking the dust from his feet, and serving

him *directly*. Why use such specific terminology if one simply has to use

the empiric (a person who is guided primarily by experience) method of

study.

 

This verse was sent to me as above, but it actualy ends with the statement

"Both Sukadeva Gosvami and Maharaja Pariksit attained perfection through the

medium of Srimad Bhagavatam" As we know they weren't sitting and reading it.

 

"In my books the philosophy of Krishna Consciousness is explained fully, so

if there is anything which you do not understand, then you simply have to

read again and again. By reading daily the knowledge will be revealed to you

and by this process your spiritual life will develop."

(Letter Baharupa 11/22/74)

 

This is another letter to a disciple. It is not clear in which context this

is written, but the point here is that the disciple is in a position to

please his guru directly. Once the guru is pleased, he will impart the

correct understanding to the disciple. Without pleasing the guru, one cannot

make any progress.

 

"So there is nothing new to be said. Whatever I have to speak, I have spoken

in my books. Now you try to understand it and continue in your endeavor.

Whether I am present or not present it doesn't matter."

(Arrival Conv. 5/17/77 Vrn.)

 

Of course we understand that following the order of the guru whether he is

present or not must be done, and that if we please him, and pass the tests

he gives us we can advance.

 

Bhagavatam 7.13.9:

"Srimad Bhagavatam itself is meant for the paramahmasa (paramo nirmatsaram

satam). Unless one is in the paramahamsa stage, he is not eligible to

understand the Srimad Bhagavatam."

 

I could go on and on with this, there are so many texts that are apparently

contradictory, all from Srila Prabhupada. Who wouldn't be confused? This is

all the more proof that we need a self realised person present before us to

perfectly reconcile the apparent differences, otherwise we could argue on

forever! This knowledge is described as hidden. How can that be understood,

when it is all in black and white? It is hidden in the sense that by our own

powers of comprehension we will not acheive the desired success. The sabda

brahma, fully pure sound emanates from the cave like heart of the pure

devotee. He will only speak the same words as are written, but when he

speaks them, they are actualy coming from the spiritual realm, and therefore

they contain that mysterious power that can change our hearts.

 

It seems clear that to simply say that the books are enough, and that we do

not need to hear from the lips of a self realised soul using our ears, is to

preclude a whole and intrinsic part of the Krsna Conscious philosophy as

propounded by Srila Prabhupada. Krsna consciousness is after all based on

personalities. The dynamics of personal relationship, the action of body

language is so important. H.H. Satsvarupa Maharaja makes a nice example of

this, when he narrates his giving $100 (I can't remember if that was the

amount exactly) to Prabhupada. He describes that when he gave the money,

Prabhupada was very pleased and gave him a big smile. He then turned to sit

down, and the next time he looked at Prabhupada, his mood had changed

completely, and Satsvarupa got the distinct understanding that although he

had given that money, he still had to surrender, he had not purchased Srila

Prabhupada. So we may purchase a set of Bhagavatams, but so far my set has

not smiled at me!

 

Of course there is no doubt there is a wealth of instuction on practical

levels of surrender, that can be learned simply by reading, that cannot be

denied.

 

Finaly, I have been deliberating whether or not to send this text, as I

don't want to push somthing which may be an unpopular idea. But when I got

home, my son had a CD playing, and the purport being recited (as follows)

was so pertinent, I thought I should share this perspective;

SB 2.3.21 Purport.

"...The Lord imparted instructions with full senses, and Arjuna received

them with full senses, and thus there was a perfect exchange of sensible and

logical understanding between the master and the disciple. Spiritual

understanding is nothing like an electrical charge from the master to the

disciple, as foolishly claimed by some propaganda-mongers. Everything is

full of sense and logic, and the exchange of views between the master and

the disciple is possible only when the reception is submissive and real. In

the Caitanya Caritamrta it is said that one should receive the teaching of

Lord Caitanya with intellect and full senses so that one can logically

understand the great mission."

 

The dynamics of an exchange of views, and the engagement of the senses in

mutual body language, so essential.

 

Your servant

Samba das

 

PS. I realise that much of what is written here can be construed as my

misguided 'purports' (sorry for being so puffed up), and as such they should

be taken with a pinch of salt, or not at all!