The evil consequences of following Guru-Guru-Guru

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakta Sergei, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

> > Did you ever consider that your INTERPRETATION of what Srila Prabhupda

> > said is not subject to the same infallibility ascribed to Srila

> > Prabhupda? You cannot say you are simply repeating Srila Prabhupda's

> > words, you are offering an interpretation of those words, even if all

> > you are adding is just one or two of your own words to a thousand

> > quotes. You or I may say "Srila Prabhupda said. . .", but how do we

> > know we aren't misinterpreting what he said? After all, we (probabably)

> > aren't pure.

>

> But You've probably missed the argument standing behind my words, or I

> have done it not clear enough. Perhaps the latter, sorry.

> What I wanted to tell is that it was wrong to say by Krsna Dharma Prabhu

> "they are unlikely to be answered in the forseeable future", because the

> answers are already given by Srila Prabhupada. The problem that not all of

> us can properly understand them is another issue, and I didn't want to

> start discussing it at all, since many person take such discussions too

> personally and fall into anger or similar when they hear something

> different from what they think, so that there is rather more and more

> distance between devotees than union of theirs. And this is a sad truth.

 

Perhaps my point was also not understood. The question (implied) is, "How

are we able to understand spiritual subject matters?" Your answer ". . .

the answers are already given by Srila Prabhupada", although accepted by

many devotees, is actually against what Srila Prabhupada has taught us,

because we must also understand transcendental subjects not only from guru,

but also from sadhu and shastra:

 

--------------------Start of Quote--

 

Madhya 20.352 purport

 

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya

aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly

people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the

sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak

according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if

a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly

person. The sastra is the center for all.

 

--------------------End of Quote--

 

Notice here that even above guru, shastra is given more importance by Srila

Prabhupada. How, then, can we only rely on "guru" for answers?

 

It may be asked, "Prabhupada has also given sadhu and shastra, so why not

rely exclusively on Srila Prabhupada?" The answer is that first of all,

even if Srila Prabhupda quoted shastra and sadhu, we must still refer to it

because it is his order. BUT, if there is some subject on which Srila

Prabhupada has not quoted sadhu and shastra, or if certain instructions seem

equivocal (in other words, can be interpreted variously), then we have to

refer to Vedic literature that Srila Prabhupada did not translate, or we can

continue to speculate. For example, Srila Prabhupada has said that it is

forbidden for us to eat onion. There is no shastric injunction prohibiting

the eating of onion in any of the books Srila Prabhupada translated, nor is

such a shastric injunction quoted in any of his commentaries. Can Srila

Prabhupada just make this up? However, if you look in Manu-samhita, the

prohibition is there.

 

Of course, the prohibition against eating onion is a regulation which will

probably never be challenged, but the manifestation of ritvikvad, for

example, IS a situation wherein it is necessary to refer to scripture and

the teachings of previous acharyas which Prabhupada himself did not quote.

When Srila Prabhupada was physically manifest, he was the only guru;

needless to say, there were no gurus falling down. And Srila Prabhupada's

instructions on what to do if such a thing happens are scarce. For example,

Srila Prabhupda may have said that a guru who misbehaves should be rejected

(and elsewhere he says that he shouldn't be outright rejected, see

Bhagavad-gita 9.30 purport), but Srila Prabhupada never said that one should

take "reinitiation" if his diksa guru falls down. So why do we do it?

 

Can you see why we have confusions like ritvik or other deviant -isms?

 

> I am sorry that I became a cause of Your criticism. And I didn't want to

> look like a living spiritual encyclopedia and to teach everyone here;

> devotees who know me personally know that well. Sorry for this

> 'hurly-burly' once again.

 

You weren't the cause of "My" criticism :-) The idea of understanding

something exclusively on the basis of Guru (Guru-Guru-Guru instead of

Guru-Sadhu-Shastra) was the object of criticism, because it has caused so

much havoc in our society.

 

The problem is that many devotees are used to GGG, although it is bogus and

in contravention of Prabhupada's own instructions on the matter. The plea

of ONLY refering to Srila Prabhupada, because it has sentimental appeal, is

actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. And we can practically see that there

have been many innocent devotees who have had their spiritual lives ruined

by bogus ideas like ritvik, which also fully utilizes various "Prabhupada

saids . . ." that really have been things Srila Prabhupada has said.

 

I am not saying that you personally ascribe to GGG, but because it is so

common and fashionable and insidious, I'm taking the opportunity to point

out the evil consequenses of following GGG.

 

Guru-Sadhu-Shastra Ki Jaya!!

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das