Which sastra says...?

[Guest guest]

> The way the pro-rtviks put it is absurd: "A powerful diksa-guru such as

> Srila Prabhupada CAN post-humously initiate and accept disciples. Which

> sastra says that he cannot do so?"

 

It appears that some rtvik-vadis don't read their sweet siksa-guru mukha

padma vakya... Here is what KK Desai says in one of his papers

"Institutional Cataclysm":

 

> Just for the record we can assert with absolute confidence that there is

> one system that is never described in Srila Prabhupada teachings:

>

> This is the system whereby a powerful diksa guru suddenly becomes

> incapable of giving diksa simply and solely because he leaves his physical

> body.

 

Earlier this year, Sri Madhu Pandit das told Sri Srivatsa das (Hyderabad)

when I was in the same room this exact thing: "A powerful diksa-guru such as

Srila Prabhupada CAN post-humously initiate and accept disciples. Which

sastra says that he cannot do so?" I thought that Madhu is a faithful

follower of KK Desai and therefore ascribed his words to the standard

pro-rtvik doctrine.

 

So I am not presenting a strawman argument as some rajasic person might

think.

 

Another point is that we have to use some common sense. When sastra says

that we should serve the guru in vapuh, that obviously means that we have to

do so as long as the guru is physically alive on the planet. That is the

understanding that is conveyed to us both by precept and example of the

previous acaryas.

 

A final point is that the rtviks don't consult Guru AND Sadhu AND sastra.

They kind of mix up all the three sets of evidences into one: "Prabhupada

only". But this is against the teachings of Prabhupada because Prabhupada

taught us to refer to Guru AND sadhu AND sastra and not simply himself ONLY.

Prabhupada's words are in the guru category. Then there is previous acaryas'

words which is in sadhu category and then there is sastra which is Veda.

 

Here is something in this regard, which is based on something compiled from

Krishna Kirti Prabhu:

 

---Quote---

 

When we question the sastric validity of the post-samadhi rtvik system, the

pro-rtviks reply:

 

"Srila Prabhupada's words ARE sastra. The words of the pure devotee are also

as good as sastra. Our Sastra is largely made up of words and activities of

self-realised personalities."

 

However, it is faulty to reason like this. Why?

 

Let's analyze this:

 

Sastra are the words of self-realized personalities

 

Prabhupada is a self-realized personality

 

Therefore, Prabhupada's words are sastra

 

This seems to be a sound argument. Unfortunately, this leads to an absurd

conclusion:

 

Sastra are the words of self-realized personalities

 

The entire disciplic succession from Srila Prabhupada to

Vyasa is entirely made up of self-realized personalities

 

Therefore, all the words of all the self-realized

personalities in our disciplic succession are sastra.

 

Logically, this is also a sound argument. But then this statement of Srila

Narottama dasa Thakura would be meaningless: sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya cittete

kariya aikya. There is only sastra, no guru or sadhu. Narottama das

Thakura's statement would be absurd. And how can the words of a pure

devotee be absurd?

 

It may be argued that one can simultaneously be guru and sastra, or sadhu

and sastra, or even all three rolled into one-- guru + sadhu + sastra, as

was Vyasa's words. Such a person would have the adhikara (capacity or

eligibility) to create a new religious system or introduce new religious

principles: dharmam to sakshad bhagavat-pranitam. Some beatific,

starry-eyed person could easily say: "My spiritual master is jagad-guru, a

bona fide sadhu, and because he is self-realized, his words are sastra.

Whatever he says must therefore be the path of religion." And there you

have it--a religious system based on guru, sadhu and sastra, courtesy of his

"jagad-guru".

 

In short, there would be no words of sadhu or guru because all we would have

is sastra, which is not right. It is only alright for Vyasa's words to be

guru + sadhu + sastra and not others. Why is it so? Why can't it be for

others? Why not Prabhupada's?

 

Because Vyasadeva is an incarnation of God who has edited and compiled the

Vedic literature. Therefore his words are considered Veda (Sastra). And

whatever he has included as Veda are also considered Veda. In other words,

Sastra is the literature composed by Vyasadev as well as the literature

composed by other sadhus and are specifically referred to in Vyasa's own

works (e.g. Valmiki's Ramayana and the Pancaratra).

 

Sastra refers to Veda whose definition Prabhupada quotes in

Caitanya-caritamrta:

 

"Srila Madhvacarya, commenting on the aphorism drsyate tu (Vedanta-sutra

2.1.6), quotes the Bhavisya Purana as follows:

 

rg-yajuh-samatharvas ca bharatam panca-ratrakam

mula-ramayanam caiva veda ity eva sabditah

puranni ca yaniha vaisnavani vido viduh

svatah-pramanyam etesam natra kincid vicaryate

 

'The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancaratra

and original Ramayana are all considered Vedic literature. The Puranas (such

as the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Naradiya Purana, Visnu Purana and Bhagavata

Purana) are especially meant for Vaisnavas and are also Vedic literature. As

such, whatever is stated within the Puranas, the Mahabharata and Ramayana is

self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. Bhagavad-gita is also

within the Mahabharata; therefore all the statements of Bhagavad-gita are

self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret,

the entire authority

of Vedic literature is lost.'"

 

So the following literatures come under the category of Sastra or Veda:

 

The following are accepted as Veda:

 

* 4 Vedas

* Mahabharata

* Pancaratra (though not coming from Vyasadeva, but coming from Lord

Narayana Himself)

* Original Ramayana (Valmiki's Ramayana)

* Puranas

 

Mahabharata and Valmiki Ramayana are called Itihasas. Along with the

Puranas, they are classified as the fifth Veda. Itihasa-puranani pancamam

vedam... (SB 3.12.39)

 

That's all. That comprises Sastra.

 

Besides the fact that the originally posed arguments lead to an absurd

conclusion, here is a more fundamental reason to reject the idea that the

words of any self-realized personality are sastra. The first premise is

faulty because the words of some self-realized personalities, though they

may be pure devotees, do not qualify as sastra.

 

Yes, it is a fact that sastra is made up of the words of self-realized

personalities such as Svayambhu, Narada, Sambhu, Kumaras, Kapila, Manu, etc.

But there is a dividing line as to those self-realized personalities whose

words are considered SASTRA, and those self-realized personalities whose

words are classified not as sastra but as BASED ON SASTRA (the words of guru

or sadhu). In short, the buck stops at Vyasadeva. If you were a great

mahajana like Manu, or a sadhu like Narada, and you did great things (before

the present Kali-yuga), and Vyasa thought it appropriate to write about you,

or quote you, or say that what you or wrote is Veda and included it in the

list of Vedic literature, then you're in the books and your words ARE

sastra! Otherwise, they are to be considered in the category of sadhu or

guru as being "based on sastra" and not "sastra."

 

Here is a quotation from the Caitanya Caritamrta (Adi-lila 7.106) that we

should base our ideas on Vedic literature:

 

"The Lord said: 'Vedanta philosophy consist of words spoken by the Supreme

Personality of Godhead Narayana in the form of Vyasadeva.'"

 

"Purport: ...According to learned scholars, there are three different

sources of knowledge, which are called prasthana-traya. According to these

scholars, Vedanta is one of such sources, for it presents Vedic knowledge on

the basis of logic and sound arguments. In Bhagavad-gita (13.5) the Lord

said, brahma-sutra-padais caiva hetumadbhir viniscitaih: "Understanding of

the ultimate gaol of life is ascertained in the Brahma-sutra by legitimate

logic and argument concerning cause and effect." Therefore the Vedanta-sutra

is known as nyaya-prasthana, the upanisads are known as sruti-prasthana, and

the Gita, Mahabharata and Puranas are known as smrti-prasthana. All

scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by sruti, smriti,

and a sound logical basis..."

 

Here is another quote (Caitanya Caritamrta, Adi 7.117, purport) explaining

the same:

 

"As already explained, there are three prasthanas on the path of advancement

in spiritual knowledge--namely, nyaya-prasthana (Vedanta philosophy),

sruti-prasthana (the Upanisads and Vedic mantras) and smrti-prasthana (the

Bhagavad-gita, Maha-bharata, Puranas, etc.). Unfortunately, mayavadi

philosophers do not accept the smrti-prasthana. Smrti refers to the

conclusions drawn from the Vedic evidence. Sometimes Mayavadi philosophers

do not accept the authority of Bhagavad-gita and the Puranas, and this is

called ardha-kukkuti-nyaya. If one believes in the Vedic literatures, one

must accept all the Vedic literatures recognized by the great acaryas, but

these Mayavadi philosophers accept only the nyaya-prasthana and

sruti-prasthana, rejecting the smrti-prasthana. Here, however, Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu cites evidence from the Gita, Visnu Purana, etc., which are

smrti-prasthana. No one can avoid the Personality of Godhead in the

statements of Bhagavad-gita and other Vedic literatures such as the

Mahabharata and the Puranas. Lord Caitanya therefore quotes a passage from

Bhagavad-gita (Bg.7.5)"

 

Conclusion: Some self-realized people's words are sastra, but not all

self-realized people's words are sastra.

 

The original argument proposed by those who advocate a proxy guru system

(i.e. that Srila Prabhupada's words ARE sastra) cannot stand because the

first premise (sastra are the words of self-realized personalities) is true

under certain conditions and false under others.

 

The dividing line between a self-realized people's words and sastra is

whether or not Vyasa wrote it or someone else.

 

This means that Srila Prabhupada's words will have to fall in the category

guru (for those who are his direct disciples), and sadhu (for those who are

grand-disciples, etc.) Srila Prabhupada's words are bonafide because they

follow the Vedic version, but they are NOT sastra, nor are they a

substitute, nor are they sufficient in themselves to conclusively establish

a philosophical principle. Otherwise, why did Srila Prabhupada himself

quote so much from sastra?

 

Narottama dasa Thakura's instruction is sadhu-sastra-guru vakya cittete

kariya aikya, that one must understand spiritual subjects by the words of

saintly people (sadhu), scripture (sastra--that which is written by Vyasa),

and guru. Srila Prabhupada often quoted this; it is our standard.

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1971:

 

"...We should follow these principles, sadhu sastra guru vakya, tinete

kariya aikya... WE SHOULD CONFIRMED ONE THING BY THE OTHER, THE OTHER BY

ANOTHER. IN THIS WAY WE HAVE TO MAKE OUR CONCLUSION."

 

This shows that we have to consider all three: guru AND sadhu AND sastra and

not only guru or sadhu or sastra. "In this way" shows that this is the

standard way that Prabhupada is teaching.

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1974:

 

"Sadhu sastra, guru vakya, tinete koriya aikya. Anything we shall accept

through sadhu, devotees. A devotee accepts something. That we shall accept.

And sastra, NOT ONLY DEVOTEE ACCEPTS, BUT IT IS CONFIRMED IN THE SASTRA, IN

THE REVEALED SCRIPTURE. Sadhu sastra. AND GURU. And guru also will say,

'Yes, it is all right.'"

 

>From this we understand that it is not sufficient to rely on what the sadhu

accepts. We have to take all three evidences.

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1975:

 

"Sadhu sastra guru vakya tinete kariya aikya. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND

SOMETHING VERY RIGIDLY BY THREE THINGS, the... It must be confirmed by the

sastra, and it must be confirmed by the acaryas and by the spiritual

master."

 

Please note that:

 

(1) "Very rigidly" reveals that this is a standard procedure to understand

anything.

 

(2) "By three things" reveals that one of the evidences is NOT enough and

that we need to countercheck any philosophical/ theological point on three

evidences.

 

(3) The repeated use of the word "must" shows that this cannot be not

followed at all. This is a "rigid" requirement.

 

So when we examine the validity of any idea, we have to consider it in terms

of guru AND sadhu AND sastra. This is the way Prabhupada made us understand.

 

Now when we debate on the point of whether one can accept mantra-diksa from

a post-humous Vaisnava (post-samadhi rtvik theory), we naturally have to

consider ALL three distinct CATEGORIES of evidence. Prabhupada's words

(except when he quotes Veda or the previous acaryas) are in the GURU

category. When he quotes Veda, it is in SASTRA category and when he quotes

previous acaryas, it is in SADHU category.

 

The arguments presented in favour of having a proxy-guru system or

post-samadhi rtvik system only have Srila Prabhupada's words as their

evidence WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE FROM SADHU AND SASTRA. But as quoted

previously, Prabhupada taught us to consider all three distinct categories

of evidence:

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1975:

 

"Sadhu sastra guru vakya tinete kariya aikya. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND

SOMETHING VERY RIGIDLY BY THREE THINGS, the... It must be confirmed by the

sastra, and it must be confirmed by the acaryas and by the spiritual

master."

 

Evidence from the guru category alone is insufficient as evidence for

Vaisnava debates where you need evidence from all three categories: Guru AND

Sadhu AND Sastra. This is the point.

 

Therefore the post-samadhi rtvik theory cannot be considered bona fide

because it has no evidence from Sadhu and Sastra.

 

Another related point is that there are two levels of evidences:

 

(1) Evidence which is self-authoritative. Madhvacarya calls this as

upajivaka evidence, literally, "evidence which gives life (to other

evidences)." Let us refer to this as self-authoritative evidence.

 

(2) Evidence which derives its authority from self-authoritative evidence.

Madhva calls this as upajivya evidence, literally, "evidence which is given

life (from other evidence)." Let us refer to this as derived-authority

evidence.

 

So, we have to remember that Sastra evidence or Veda is self-authoritative

evidence, whereas Guru evidence or Sadhu evidence is derived-authority

evidence. Prabhupada always taught that he derives his authority from the

Veda/Sastra. Here is a quote (CC, 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."

 

Thus we understand that sastra is the center and basis of Guru, Sadhu, and

Sastra.

 

So, if our interpretation/understanding of Prabhupada's intent/teaching

contradicts Veda, it would be unacceptable. On close examination, however,

we find that it is the pro-rtvik concept which does not follow the Veda and

therefore is to be rejected.

 

In our experience, when we explain this point to devotees, some often ask,

"How can you say that Srila Prabhupada's writings

are less than sastra, since you say that we have to rely on Guru

(Prabhupada) AND sadhu AND sastra, to come to a proper conclusion?"

 

However, we are not saying that Srila Prabhupada's words are less

than shastra. Usually in rtvik debates, Srila Prabhupada's words have been

apotheosized beyond acceptible limits because on both sides, there is a

tendency to rely exclusively on Prabhupada's words as evidence to support a

conclusion -- but this is not allowed. The standard is

sadhu-shastra-guru-vakya cittete kariya aikya. Not simply guru

(Prabhupada), there must also be sadhu and sastra, especially sastra.

 

What we are saying is that if we exclusively rely on Prabhupada's words,

without considering sadhu and sastra, are insufficient because, although

Prabhupada's words are the words of a pure devotee, and are, therefore

without fault, our INTERPRETATION or understanding of Prabhupada's words is

not subject to the same infallibility.

 

Consider a philosophical idea spoken by Srila Prabhupada, and compare that

to a single point. Through that point, you may draw a line, and that line

represents our interpretation of Prabhupada's idea. But through that one

point, you can draw an unlimited number of lines at an unlimited number of

angles. In otherwords, a single idea can be interpreted variously.

 

But if you add another point, the conclusion of a previous acharya, a quote

from shastra, then you can only draw one line at one angle. And if you have

more points, then what is the intended meaning is all the more clear.

 

We have to keep in mind that "The Final Order" is an INTERPRETATION of

Prabhupada's words, and the GBC paper "Prabhupada's Order" is also an

INTERPRETATION. Now which interpretation is bona fide? That has to be seen

on the basis of how well it ties up with Prabhupada (Guru) AND Sadhu AND

Sastra.

 

The basis must be sastra, and supporting evidence is guru and sadhu:

 

CC, 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."

 

So, the point is that for any interpretation or understanding to be valid,

it MUST follow sastra.

 

Even when Lord Krsna teaches contrary to the Veda, His "teachings" are not

accepted by Vaisnava acaryas. Here are two instances of this:

 

(a) Buddha. Even though he was an incarnation of Krsna, because his

teachings contradict Veda, it is rejected and indeed refuted by Vaisnava

acaryas.

 

(b) Even Lord Krsna Himself spoke Karma-mimamsa philosophy to Nanda Maharaja

in Vrndavana before the pastime of Govardhana-lifting. This is mentioned in

the Tenth Canto. Of course, the Vaisnava acaryas, including Prabhupada, do

not accept the karma-mimamsa philosophy, even when Lord Krsna teaches it

because it goes against the Vedic siddhanta.

 

We have given these two instances to show the primacy, centrality and

foundation-ness of the Veda (Sastra) in relation to Guru and Sadhu.

 

So any interpretation or understanding that we have of Prabhupada's desires

which does not have evidence from the Sastra category cannot be considered

to be bona fide at all.

 

The post-samadhi rtvik system does not have ANY evidence from the Sastra

category. Therefore it is to be rejected as an apasiddhanta.

 

---Unquote---

 

Your servant

VGD