Taking Srila Prabhupada Srtaight

[Guest guest]

On 14 Sep 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> Having a doubt or reservations about someone being actually a bona fide,

> senior Vaisnava is an excusable fault. Doubts are one thing, but to

> inappropriately publicize our doubts all over the place is called, in common

> term, *slander*.

 

> I have never heard RSP speak so ill even of the fallen ISKCON gurus, some of

> whom have taken deep dives into the muck of material existence, what to

speak

> of the ISKCON leaders who continue to serve and have problems. There seems

to

> be some inconsistency, therefore, in how RAV applies his philosophical

acumen.

 

Frankly, it has to be admitted that all this publicizing of so-called private

letters is a little uncultured and inappropriate. But this has been going on

by both sides long before RSd's letter was posted on the internet. And the

fact that any society has had more than its share of fallen devotees is enough

reason for members of that society to maintain a tone of humility when

questioning others. But that is no reason not to question, and frankly I am

more interested in the philosophical issues raised than in any sort of

character assasination.

 

> I am hoping for reconciliation and understanding between ISKCON, the Gaudiya

> Math and all disparate groups, ISKCON's disillusioned membership. But there

> can be no possibility of reconciling differences until ISKCON gains some

> self-awareness of the seriousness of its own problems. Until that opportune

 

Speaking only for myself (and I only represent myself, not ISKCON), I can say

only that I cannot submit to anyone as a guru if they espouse views of which I

have persistent doubts. Whatever problems one might wish to pick with RSd's

letter, it does present a very serious question pertaining to guru-paramparaa.

Specifically, the interpretation by NM of "om puurnam adaH puurnam idam" etc

in a way consistent with Madhva but not Srila Prabhupada is concerning,

especially as it is the stated claim of his (NM's) disciples that he is a

shiksha disciple of SP. Even more concerning is the allegation that NM found

fault with the interpretation of the same verse before he later found out that

it was Srila Prabhupada's own interpretation. I have now verified that both

Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur interpret the Isopanishad

invocation in exactly the same way, and thus I have doubts as to why NM

interprets it differently, and the allegation that he found difficulty

accepting Srila Prabhupada's interpretation. I think a discussion on the

relevant philosophical points is warranted, provided everyone involved can

participate in such a discussion without labeling everyone else as insincere,

rascal, mayavadi, etc.

 

I also have problems with many of NM's followers who seem to draw distinctions

between Lord Krishna and His expansions. This is not a sectarian bias either,

because I have that same problem with ISKCON devotees who do the same. Whether

or not this is NM's own view is not something I can definitely say, since I

never heard from him directly. But where there is smoke, there often is fire,

and in this case there seems to be a lot of smoke.

 

regards,

 

Krishna