The evil consequences of following Guru-Guru-Guru

[Guest guest]

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

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

>

> Now, WHO is given MORE importance?

 

Prabhupada gives primacy to shastra above guru and sadhu.

 

You cannot contradict Srila Prabhupada when he says "Shastra is the center

of all." And he says this with regard to guru and sadhu. Your reference to

verse 8 of Gurvastaka is not relevant here because it is only refering to

guru but not shastra, in otherwords, there is no relative comparison between

the two in Vishvanath Chakravarti Thakura's verse. His verse supports the

divinity of guru (after all, he is a manifestation of the Absolute Truth),

but the proper understanding is that he is guru on the basis of Vedic

authority. Shastra and guru are not co-authorities.

 

Verse 7 of Gurvastaka is more relevant here because the relationship between

shastra and guru appears here: saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastrair. . . "The

spiritual master is to be honored as much as the Supreme Lord, because he is

the most confidential servitor of the Lord. This is acknowledged in all

revealed scriptures and followed by all authorities. . ."

 

Notice here that it is on the basis of Vedic authority (sastra, which is

mentioned in this verse) that the guru is revered as much as the Supreme

Lord.

 

Again, with regard to guru and sadhu, "Shastra is the center of all."

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote:

> On 29 Jun 1999, Krishna Kirti wrote:

> > 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.

> His books are there for this. He said, "Everything is in my books." I believe

> him.

One reason we should be able to quote from sources which

Prabhupada's books confirm as authoritative is that we have a

responsibility to defend his statements from the doubts and/or attacks of

those who may not yet accept his authority. This is necessary in some

circumstances more than in others, but it's no one's duty except ours.

BTW, after identifying it's purpose, and then briefly defining the

Absolute Truth, the VedAnta-sUtra (1.1.3), upon which BhAgavatam is

directly based, specifies that zAstra is the source of all transcendental

knowledge (zAstra-yonitvAt). Prabhupada frequently quotes this sUtra.

 

 

 

> > 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.

> Where did Srila prabhupada ever say this? He said "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)

> Is there something equivocal about this?

Often enough. I think what KRSNakIrti Prabhu wants to stress

is that a sense of general context is a helpful (and possibly healthy) for

the interpretions all sentient people necesarily make when assimilating

such statements. Reading the books again and again and again can also

produce this, but (depending on the individual/s involved) sometimes

doesn't--especially for people don't even read the books very much, as is

too often the case. Like current and previous sAdhu-saGga, traditional

social norms and sampradAyic precedents--not to mention other bonafide

vaiSNava writings--can often provide, among other things, this sense of

context in a very concrete manner. But without a bonafide guru, these must

remain subjective. "Tarko 'pratiSTaH zrutayo vibhinnaH," etc. That we

are enjoined to offer our respects to our guru/s before studying (and that

this is done in the zAstra itself--cf. BhAgavatam, 1.2.2-4) is

significant. Personally, I don't see any harm in learning *something* from

any source, as that is always possible. But I never give anyone or

anything the same ears with which I listen to Srila Prabhupada, if you

know what I mean.

 

 

 

> > 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.

His purports often paraphrase those of the previous AcAryas, too,

which is part of why "everything is there." Correlating the statements of

Prabhupada's books with their original sources can often be illuminating,

or at least clarifying. But as with all things in general, it can also be

abused. Who is ultimately responsible for this?

 

 

 

> Why would anyone want to "check up" on Srila prabhupada to see if he was

> really following sastra and go read Manu-samhita to test him?

Many people would--and do; I've suggested one reason why above.

 

 

 

> > 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.

> One can find all the answers necessary for successful spiritual life in Srila

> Prabhupada's books.

No one here questions this, I hope.

Sometimes I wonder whether the tendency (seen invariably in the

diverse Rtvik groups) to adopt what KRSNa-kIrti Prabhu refers to as a

"GGG" approach isn't most prominant among devotees socialized in places

where prophetic faiths dominate. But it may just have a simplistic appeal

for those inclined to sentimental cultism too.

 

 

 

> "Ritvikism" may not be there, and I don't care if it is or

> isn't because I don't need it, but then the current method of leadership of

> ISKCON cannot be found or supported by Srila Prabhupada's books either.

As far as I know, the idea that Prabhupada's books are the

spiritual lawbooks for the next ten thousand years doesn't exist in

his books either.

 

 

 

Srila

> Prabhupada said to implement varnasrama-dharma in his movement 25 years ago.

> This is guru-sadhu-and sastra speaking. Why haven't the leaders followed

this?

> Cow protection and child protection are clearly and unequivocally described

> and ordered by guru, sadhu and sastra. What is our record on these?

For those concerned with ISKCON's critical loss of faith in its

leadership, this seems like a pretty clear hint.

 

 

Your humble servant,

 

Mukunda Datta dasa