Guest guest Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Dear Jahnu (Dvipa das), On Oct 14, 2004, at 1:30 AM, Jahnu (Dvipa das JPS) (Mayapur - IN) wrote: > Gaura Keshava wrote: > >> (Oh dear, do we have another disciple of Jayapataka Swami who needs to >> study all of Srila Prabhupada's instructions???) > > Actually, I spent half my life studying all of Srila Prabhupada's > instructions. That's nice I have been studying them since I was a kid in high school (14 years old), so that's about 3/4 of my life. The real point is not how long you have studied. The real point is DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING? The reason I question this is clear from my previous email. >> But that IS the point, there are certainly ALWAYS ways to resolve >> these >> things. I have explained the ways. However you refuse to accept those >> ways. > > Not so. There is for instance the example of the jiva issue. There was > no > way to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction except to accept that two > conclusions were stressed differently by different acharyas. So > Prabhupada > stressed one the most, so we in ISKCON accept that. You are ABSOLUTELY NOT CORRECT that Srila Prabhupada ONLY stressed one side of this issue. It is actually a very clear issue but I do admit that he did give some statements both ways. Certainly it's very easy to reconcile if you want to. However if you are ignorant of your sampradayas siddhanta on this and also on ALL of Srila Prabhupada's statements then you certainly could have a problem. Many devotees do, but that is due to a lack of knowledge of ALL Srila Prabhupada's statements and also those of the Previous Acharyas. >> Lets be very, very clear about this. If as you say, there is >> absolutely >> no way of reconciling contradictory views between one Acharya and >> another in a sampradaya then one must be an APA-SAMPRADAYA view. > > Not necessarily. See above. You, see above. You cannot go on saying that Srila Prabhupada did not agree with the Previous Acharyas. That is 100% offensive. It is not Srila Prabhupada's fault that you are ignorant or unable to understand how his instructions are the same as those of the Previous Acharyas, it is your fault. >> When devotees say that Srila Prabhupada has said something >> FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from the previous Gaudiya Vaisnava Acharya's >> or >> the Gaudiya Vaisnava sastras or siddhanta what they are really saying >> is that they are rejecting their Sampradaya, and without the >> Sampradaya >> there is no way to accept Srila Prabhupada either. This attitude is >> actually very, very offensive not only to Srila Prabhupada but also to >> the entire Gaudiya Parampara. > > First of all, I don't accept that Srila Prabhupada said anything > FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from the previous acharyas, But above you did, please make up your mind. There cannot be two answers to some questions (like the jiva issue, either we fell or we did not, either we were in rasa with Lord Krsna before coming here or not. There can only be one answer accepted by one sampradaya. And there is only one answer ultimately given by Srila Prabhupada and it is the same as that of the previous Acharyas of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya.) > second of all, even if > he did, which he didn't, as members of ISKCON, we are to follow Srila > Prabhupada. This is not only offensive but ABSOLUTE FANATICISM. > Now, I don't know if you are a member of ISKCON, I take it you > are not, but still you should be able to appreciate the importance of > the > principle of being loyal to your guru and his institution. Obviously you don't know who I am, so perhaps you should understand that I am a godbrother of your Spiritual Master. Please accept my opinions in that light, as friendly advise from a senior Vaisnava. If you have a real problem with them then I suggest you take it up with you own guru. He is sure to put you in line. >> I have come across this attitude in a few fanatic ISKCON devotees >> before. However they do not realize the consequences of their >> zealotism. When one only accepts one's own guru and rejects the rest >> of >> the guruparampara (of which one's guru is a part) then one in fact >> actually rejects his guru also. > > This is a false dichotomy. No one in ISKCON rejects the rest of the > guru-parampara. It is all very well to say this, but how can you then also say that "even if there is a difference we accept Srila Prabhupada over the rest of the parampara", which is exactly what you are saying. I maintain that there is no difference, it is you that have been touting the differences. Again stop this, it is offensive. >> Therefore one must be able to understand ALL of the instructions of >> the >> Parampara in context. > > In context of what? In the context in which they are given. For example when Jiva Goswami tells his diciples that Radha and Krsna are married that does not negate the fact that according to every other Acharya they are not. It is something he told his disciples because they were too neophyte to understand parakiya rasa. That's an example of preaching in context. >> Some persons would like Srila Prabhupada to stand alone in a sort of >> spiritual vacuum as the only one with the absolute truth. > > No one is suggesting that, but it is a fact that Srila Prabhupada did > what > no one else did before him, i.e. he took the message of Chaitanya > Mahaprabhu > to the West and spread it on a grand scale all over the rest of the > world. > In that sense he out-shines all previous acharyas and the rest of the > Gaudiya Math. No one is denying that. That does not mean that he "differs" from the previous Acharyas. He does not. >> This is not >> the method of receiving the absolute truth. > > This is a strawman. Nobody has postulated that Srila Prabhupada is the > only > one with the absolute truth. You have said that you will take Srila Prabhupada's teachings over the teachings of the Previous Acharyas, and you have said that sometimes they differ, therefore you have, in fact said, just that. That Srila Prabhupada is the only one with the truth. Don't juggle words. Either Srila Prabhupada agrees with the previous Acharyas in every respect or he does not, which is it? If you maintain that he does not then you have put him out of the parampara. Parampara means agreeing with the other members. If you do not then you cannot claim to be part of the parampara. Simple as that. >> It is only received in the descending process. > > Right, ending with the present guru, whom the disciple takes his > understanding from. Yes, you are right and that your present guru is a transparent via medium for the instructions of the previous Acharyas. If he is not then he is not bonafide. So to say that a present guru has deviated from the teachings of the previous Acharyas is either incorrect and offensive or it is correct and he is apa-sampradaya or outside of the teachings or siddhanta of the sampradaya. Therefore we understand ALL Srila Prabhupada's instructions in the context that they must ultimately be non-different from those of the previous Acharyas and when we perceive a difference we have to reconcile that and realize our mistake in interpretation. It is our perception of the difference that is the problem (or yours in this case). > In the case of ISKCON we all accept Srila Prabhupada as > the pre-eminent siksha guru for all. Srila Prabhupada as the founder Acharya of ISKCON certainly sets the tone and emphasis of the siddhanta in ISKCON however there is absolutely NO difference between ISKCON's siddhanta as explained by Srila Prabhupada and the rest of the sampradaya's siddhanta as explained by the previous Acharyas. To say so is blasphemy. > I don't see the relevance of this point as this is not the case of > ISKCON. Just answer one question for me. Is ISKCON part of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya or is it it's own sampradaya? If it is a part of the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya then it follows the same siddhanta, if not then you can say that it does not need to follow the previous Acharyas. But if it is it's own sampradaya separate from the siddhanta of the previous Acharyas then what is the authority for such a sampradaya. Baladeva Vidyabhusana accepts only four (4) bonafide Vaisnava sampradayas according to his Prameya Ratnavali. And this is accepted by Srila Prabhupada in his books also, so if ISKCON is separate from those sampradayas then how can one maintain basis of the spiritual authority of ISKCON? >> If you cannot reconcile the perceived differences >> between guru in the parampara then your conclusion is that those who >> differ from the parampara are APA-SAMPRADAYA. Please don't come to >> this >> conclusion. > > I haven't seen anyone suggest such a conclusion. Probably what you have not seen can fill many volumes. That is not a valid argument against my point. The fact is that apasampradaya means not following the siddhanta of the sampradaya which does not change from member to member of the parampara. In order to belong to a sampradaya one must to the siddhanta of ALL the members of that sampradaya which are not different from each other. If someone has a different siddhanta they cannot claim to be "simply repeating the words of the previous Acharyas" nor be a part of that sampradaya. >> Instead read ALL the instructions and understand how they >> can be reconciled in context. You have no choice but to reconcile them >> otherwise you must declare one right and another wrong. That is >> small-mindedness and neophyte mentality. > > But you seem guilty of doing just that. Not at all. In the previous email two examples were given of instructions that seemed contrary within Srila Prabhupada's teachings. However you feel that those given in personal letters outweigh those given in his books. I cannot agree with this. We do not know the context in which instructions in personal letters were given. That's why they were instructions in personal letters and not written in books meant for everyone. Also we see some details change (like in deity worship) from early days to later days when Srila Prabhupada gave more detailed instructions. You do not consider any of these things important. But actually context and understanding the instructions of the Spiritual Master are more important than blindly picking a quote at random and insisting on following it to exclusion of general or later instructions given in Srila Prabhupada's authorized books which are definitely meant for acceptance by everybody. There are even those who cling to a blind following of Srila Prabhuada's personal actions which sometimes contradicted his statements in his books which he wanted us to follow (they blindly follow vapu over vani). A prime example of this in Deity Worship is the wearing of a shirt in the deity room. Srila Prabhupada clearly did it, and he also told us clearly in his books NOT to do it. The neophyte is confused by such a thing but the more mature devotee realizes that there may be things that are OK for Srila Prabhupada to do and not for us to do. Similarly we do not know the reason for some instructions to individuals, however we do know that in his books Srila Prabhupada gives only the siddhanta of the previous Acharyas and parampara. > I agree totally. But in case of _perceived_ irreconcilable > differences as > in the case of the jiva issue, which literally caused some devotees to > leave > ISKCON, our duty is to adhere to and propagate Srila Prabhupada's > version. And what pray tell is Srila Prabhupada's version if it is not the same as the previous Acharya's version? Srila Prabhuada in his books, not his letters, but his books, says "It is a fact that no one falls from a Vaikuntha planet". That is very clear. Now if you come up with a quote that says that we fell from the Spiritual Sky that is a different matter. Vaikuntha planet and Spiritual Sky are two different things. There is not one quote in Srila Prabhupada's books that says that we were engaged in active rasa with Lord Krsna prior to entering this material world. Not one. People who quote a letter where Srila Prabhupada likens our coming to the descent of Jaya and Vijaya should note that this example is only very superficially correct. We are NOT at all like Jaya and Vijaya (please read the story of their descent in the Bhagavatam including the purports if you don't understand this issue, it will be very clear once you read it). Jaya and Vijaya came here on the order of the Lord as part of the Lord's lila, we are NOT nitya siddha pure devotee eternal servants of the Lord come here for some lila. Simple as that. >> And if you can't then you need to ask your guru to help you >> understand. > > Right. And in the case of ISKCON the buck stops with Srila Prabhupada. > He > holds the last word as far as we are concerned. No, you misunderstood what I said above, what I mean is that you need to ask your guru Jayapataka Swami to explain these things to you, because obviously you don't understand Srila Prabhupada's teaching or those of the previous Acharyas. >> As for other contemporary organizations they have to be >> judged by the same standard that you judge anyone. Are they in line >> with the standards of the sampradaya? > > Usually we judge by guru, sadhu and sastra. Exactly. Guru (meaning all the gurus of the parampara), sadhu (meaning respected and senior Vaisnavas) and sastra (meaning the books of Srila Prabhupada and also those of the previous Acaryas of our sampradaya) must all be in agreement. That is my whole argument. Yours is that we need only accept some (not all) of Srila Prabhupada's quotes (and out of context at that), which might be in letters or whatever, without full understanding of context or reconciliation with the siddhanta of the rest of the parampara. > As for you and Ishvara I don't accept either of you as my authorities > in anything. Obviously, but that does not change the fact that I am your guru's godbrother so you should at least respectfully consider what I have to say. If you respectfully disagree that's fine and I will not waste my time on you. I hope that in time you will realize the immaturity of your views. >> We are senior devotees to you > > Are you sure? Yes, I'm sure. > Senior how? I joined long before Ishvara. I don't know Ishvara but I know Urmila and myself are. > As for you, I don't > even know who you are. May I ask who is your guru? A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. >> Actually you are wrong again, there are many times and places in Srila >> Prabhupada's books where he mentions that one should read a particular >> book when one is more advanced. Or where he indicated that we should >> study some other Gaudiya sastras to get more information. > > Can you substantiate that assertion? > "The items of worship, such as water, counchshell, flowers, incense > and lamp, should be described. You should also mention chanting > softly, offering prayers, circumambulating, and offering obeisances. > All these should be carefully studied." > > Purport > > All these are mentioned in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa. The Astama Vilasa > of that book should be consulted as far as possible. > > CC Mad 24.337 translation and purport by Srila Prabhupada. > >> And even >> during Srila Prabhupada's presence with us he introduced more complex >> ideas and parts to our sadhana as we became more able to accept those >> things. > > Can you give some examples? > Letter to Nitai dasa, 9th January, 1976. > > “My Dear Nitai, > Please accept my blessings.… Now beginning from this years’ Mayapur > festival the devotees will begin preparing for Bhaktisastri > examination. Therefore we require a guidebook for Deity worship, > Arcana-paddhati, based on Hari-bhakti-vilasa. All brahmanas will be > responsible to learn this book. I would like to have the manuscript > ready as soon as possible preferably by Gaura Purnima. Pradyumna began > this, but I do not know what he has done with his work.” > > Letter to Tusta Krsna Swami, 9th January, 1976. > > “My dear Tusta Krsna Maharaja, > Please accept my blessings. etc.… Bhaktisastri, Bhaktivaibhava, > Bhaktivedanta, and Bhaktisarvabhauma. All our brahmanas and anyone > wanting to become a brahmana, will have to sit for examination once a > year at Mayapur. They will be expected to know Bhagavad Gita, Nectar > of Devotion, Nectar of Instruction, Sri Isopanisad, a book soon to be > published on Deity worship, as well as all the small paperbacks. If > they pass the examination they will be awarded Bhaktisastri > certificate. Sannyasis will be asked to sit for the Bhaktivaibhava > examination which will include the first six cantos of the > Bhagavatam.” > > Letter to Aksayananda Swami (President Krsna Balarama Mandir), 13th > January, 1976. > > “My Dear Aksayananda Maharaja, > Please accept my blessings.… What are the Bengali dramas that Nitai is > working on? He should work on Arcana-paddhati, not divert his > attention here and there. He should make Hari-bhakti-vilasa into short > cut, not more than twenty pages. He can consult Nrsimha Vallabha > Goswami for help on this matter. This should be his first > consideration now.” > > Letter to Nitai dasa, 24th January, 1976. > > “My dear Nitai, > Please accept my blessings. I beg to thank you for your letter dated > 13th January, 1976. > Please continue to work on the Arcana-paddhati and finish it. We are > not sure that Pradyumna will come in time.” > > Room conversation with Tamal Krsna Goswami, 11th April, 1977, Bombay. > > Tamal Krsna Goswami: “The Deity worship book will be printed by > Jayatirtha dasa without BBT funds. This is that book. I forgot the > Sanskrit name Srila Prabhupada?” > > Srila Prabhupada: “Hari-bhakti-vilasa.” > > Tamal Krsna Goswami: “Hari-bhakti-vilasa. So Jayatirtha wants to print > it on his own. Means he doesn’t want to take BBT funds. So the > Trustees felt that that was very good, since funds were scarce, he > does a nice printing. He said that he would take responsibility for > printing and distributing it. Because it is a very limited edition, > it’s not going to be sold to the common people, just to devotees.” > > Srila Prabhupada: “No. Few copies.” > > Tamal Krsna Goswami: “Yes.” > Do you mean to say that Srila Prabhupada didn't speak the truth when > he said > that he has given us everything we need in the first canto to go back > to > Godhead? Not at all. Certainly one can see an Acharya like Gaura Kishora das babaji who was illiterate and yet was a pure devotee. Reading and understanding of 1st canto can certainly be enough to make one completely Krsna conscious. In fact just chanting Hare Krsna is enough. The sastras give us examples of devotees who attained perfection through each of the 9 forms of Bhakti. So despite 1st canto or chanting Hare Krsna being enough, Srila Prabhupada did give us more than that. So the answer is NOT that it is not enough but that he gave us more which also should not be neglected. What may be enough for one person may not be for another. Otherwise if you take it that ONLY 1st canto should be read or studied then we have to ask why would Srila Prabhupada give us all the other cantos and also so many other books. So it is not that you should take this quote as indicating that only 1st canto should be read and studied. >> This cannot be accepted as an absolute instruction otherwise other >> instructions for us to "read all my books" would have to be rejected. > > Where does 'instruction' come in? It was a statement from Srila > Prabhupada, > not an instruction. The statement: 'I have given you everything in the > first > canto' is not an instruction. Stop juggling words, your meaning was clear when you made this quote. If you don't see this as an instruction then I have no problem with you quoting it. If it is a statement then of course it is accepted but it also does not make any point for you to quote it, in this discussion. What would be your point in quoting this? It is a statement and Srila Prabhupada made other statements like this too about the chanting of Hare Krsna, etc. So what?, we accept them all. There is no conflict. > Of course. Personally I have read every single book Srila Prabhupada > wrote. That's very good, but do you understand and remember them all? > If there is no difference between chanting 16 and 64 rounds a day, why > don't > everyone just cant 64 rounds a day, or 192 rounds a day like haridas > Thakur? > What stops us if there is no difference? You can chant 64 or even 192 if you want to, there is no upper limit. The only difference is that Srila Prabhupada changed the minimum for his disciples. Initially he told them to chant 64 but no one could do it so he brought the minimum down to 16. That does not mean that the standard number of rounds chanted by Gaudiya Vaisnavas on the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu is not 64. It is. The answer to this dilemma is to be found in the point I quoted before from BRS or NOD "Always remember Lord Krsna and never forget Him. All rules and regulations are subservient to these two." So the point is to be Krsna conscious, not how many rounds you chant. The gopis did not chant rounds. So some Acharyas fix the minimum number for their disciples as 64 and others at 16, others at 4 or whatever. The Acharya can make that adjustment within the framework of the siddhanta. That is a detail obviously, otherwise if it were not accepted as detail then how could Srila Prabhupada have changed it and still declared that he was simply repeating the words of his spiritual master? > Srila Prabhupada wrote his books for his devotees to read and follow > them, > yes. And he also wrote them for all the rest of the world, for whom the > teachings of the previous acharyas otherwise would have been > inaccessible. > The fact is that if it weren't for Srila Prabhupada's books and ISKCON > no > one in the world, except for a few Vaishnavas sitting in their little > maths > in India, would have had the slightest clue about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu > and > the writings of the Gaudiya-vaishnavas. Yes, I agree 100% with this. But this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand. > One is faithful to the whole parampara by being absolutely and > exclusively > faithful to Srila Prabhupada's version. Right, which is the same as the version of the rest of the parampara. Things that are equal to other things are equal to each other also as Srila Prabhupada used to say. > One of Srila Prabhupada's instructions was for his followers to not go > outside of ISKCON to receive spiritual instructions. Obviously you are > not following that instruction and so you are not fit to instruct > anyone in Srila Prabhupada's teachings. First of all I don't accept that. Second of all what do you define as outside of ISKCON? Thirdly, even within ISKCON there are deviations. So simply spouting a reference that was not meant to mean what you say it does, means nothing. I know this because I know the circumstances behind that quote. It is in regard to Siddha Swarup and his followers. At the same time Srila Prabhupada did give us certain instructions to learn things (mostly deity worship and technical things) from what you call outside ISKCON. Like from Radha Raman Temple in Vrndavan or Radha Govindaji in Jaipur, look above at the letter where Srila Prabhupada suggests to Nitai to get help from Nrsimha Vallabha Goswami of Radha Raman, Srila Prabhupada told Yasodanandana and Pradyumna to learn from Sampat Kumar Bhattacharya (of Sri Sampradaya). You must be aware of the Gurukula in Mayapur. Where in Srila Prabhupada's teachings did they get all the mantras and fire sacrifices that they do from? > Actually, the quote came from Srila Prabhupada when he was sitting in > Krisna-Balaram Mandir in Vrindavan and seeing several devotees going > around > to different local maths to seek sanga. Sorry to disagree but the hallucination quote is regarding Siddha Swarupa. However if you would like to give me the exact details of this quote you are talking about I would be happy to know them. The real point is that all outside association is not bad and was not discouraged by Srila Prabhupada. However he certainly did discourage some people from going to his godbrothers at certain times and under certain circumstances, though he encouraged it at other times and other circumstances. And about somethings he told us to consult them (not all of them but I am thinking particularly of Sridhara and Narayana Maharajas. Don't get me wrong here I am not a follower of either one of these devotees. However I have gone to them, alone and with others on the express order of the GBC to ask questions on topics which the GBC wanted advise on. The GBC did this because at the time they believed that Srila Prabhupada had given them this instruction to get advise on certain subjects from these devotees. This is an undeniable fact. So if you have a problem with this I suggest you take it up with the GBC body. >> It does not apply to those following >> other bonafide Vaisnava sampradayas or groups. > > And this you know because of...? Why should one have a problem associating with other Vaisnavas? If they are bonafide, then what is the problem? There is only a problem if one thinks that they are not bonafide. Naturally one has more in common with those of one's own sampradaya or group. However if it is admitted that there are other bonafide Vaisnavas outside of ISKCON then it also has to be admitted that their association is not a problem. Unless one is so neophyte that one has not fully understood or is convinced of one's own sampradaya's siddhanta in which case one might be convinced to change sampradayas. But even if this happens where is the problem if one goes from one bonafide sampradaya to another? The main problem in this material world is not what kind of bonafide Vaisnava group one follows, it is leaving spiritual life altogether or following some bogus group or philosophy. > What makes you so sure YOU are not deluded and have not understood the > context of the quote? OK, the truth is not measured by number of votes. You might have the whole rest of the population of the material universe subscribing to your view and I might have no one else. And I am not saying that you are not sincere. You can be sincere and also sincerely wrong. So all I can say is this: One who does not have a consistent view is very unlikely to be correct. In this case this means that if one claims spiritual knowledge based on the system of parampara then one cannot also claim spiritual knowledge different to parampara (e.g. in the case of the jiva issue). > Were YOU there? Yes, I was in some cases and in others I was aware of these events that occurred as they occurred. > As far as I can gather you have only recently received > initiation, right? Wrong. You can look me up in the Prabhupada disciples database if you doubt me. > And you are not even in ISKCON. Since you have not defined ISKCON I don't know how to answer this. Besides being in ISKCON or outside of ISKCON is really besides the point when I told you above that there are bonafide Vaisnavas outside of ISKCON and there have been deviations within ISKCON. So being inside or outside does not make me any less of an authority. And also this line of reasoning is what is called argumentum ad hominem or arguing against the person and not the actual point of contention. Character assassination is not a thing that I think will help you in your spiritual life, especially when directed towards a godbrother of your spiritual master. It is a distraction from the discussion and Vaisnava aparadha. > May I ask you, what makes such an expert in Srila Prabhupada and > ISKCON? I would say that 30 years of being an ISKCON devotee probably gives me some insight into these topics. However again it is not length of time that is important but depth of perception. sincerely, Gaura Keshava das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.