The evil consequences of following Guru-Guru-Guru

[Guest guest]

On 02 Jul 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote:

> The point, I think, is that if Srila Prabhupada did not "finish" the

> explanation he did not feel it necessary to the context of the purport and

> verse. Otherwise, Srila Prabhupada would have started or planned the

> translation of every Vedic scripture. He didn't.

 

However, he did start or plan many Vedic translations which he

did not finish -- examples that come to mind are the Narada Bhakti

Sutra, Mukunda-Mala-Stotra, the last 2 cantos of the Bhagavatam,

etc. At other times, he makes comments about how the devotees

should know the Purusha Sukta, Vedanta, etc. (CC purports).

 

> In fact he told ud that

> Bhagavada-gita alone is all that is required to attain perfection.

 

Yes, and the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is means his purports as well --

if we don't understand why he has written about the 5 offerings

and the 5 altars, we have not gotten the full message of Srila

Prabhupada's purports. Perhaps knowing about 3 offerings and 4

altars is enough for some purposes, but it is certainly not enough

to enable one to have the same realized quality of reading and

writing that Srila Prabhupada exemplified, at least on this

concern. There are undoubtedly many similar places as well where

the purports do not explicitly elucidate some of the ideas they

discuss. In general, though, when we do not understand what Srila

Prabhupada means when he gives his purports, what exactly is the

value of our reading? Particularly on a case like this, when

Srila Prabhupada explicitly specifies the remaining element

("the Chandogya Upanishad"), how can we justify a refusal to take

the extra step required to complete the process of understanding?

 

Yours,

 

Vijay S. Pai