Which sastra says...?

[Guest guest]

It seems that my point:

 

> 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.

 

was not understood properly by some people.

 

My point was our understanding should be the same as that which is conveyed

to us by the precept and example of the previous acaryas in the disciplic

succession. I wasn't changing the topic at all. When we have some point of

dispute in interpreting some words of a guru, we have to consult Guru AND

sadhu AND Sastra. But the pro-rtviks never do this since they only try to

depend on Guru evidence. This is what I wrote next:

 

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

 

I then demonstrated elaborately the utmost necessity of deriving support

from Guru AND sadhu AND especially Sastra or Veda in regarding any point in

philosophy/theology.

 

Too bad some people aren't able to understand...

 

Here are some statements by Srila Prabhupada on sadhu-sastra-guru.

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Caitanya-caritamrta 1966:

 

Sadhu-sastra-guru. Sadhu means pious, religious, honest person. Sadhu,

whose character is spotless, he's called sadhu. Sastra means scripture,

and guru.

 

Guru means spiritual master. They are on the equal level. Why? Because

the medium is scripture. Guru is considered to be liberated because he

follows the scripture.

 

Sadhu is considered to be honest and saintly because he follows

scripture. Sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya. Nobody can become a sadhu if he does

not accept the principles of scripture. Nobody can be accepted as guru,

or spiritual master, if he does not follow the principles of scripture.

This is the test.

 

NOTE: (1) Sastra is the "medium" and that which gives authority to other

evidences. Cf. the past statement that sastra is the upajivaka pramana while

the other two are upajivya pramanas. (2) "Guru is considered to be liberated

because he follows the scripture."

---

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1975:

 

Sastra, guru, satam. Satam means, one who... Acarya means one who knows

sastra. He will not speak anything which is not in the sastra. He will

never say, "In my opinion you can do like this." No. He must give

evidence from the sastra. Therefore our practice is, whenever we speak

something, immediately we quote from authoritative sastra.

 

NOTE: The last sentence shows that if Srila Prabhupada did want to make us

understand anything, he would give evidence from sastra for its validity. He

did not provide any sastric evidence for a post-humous initiation system

with himself as the post-humous diksa-guru for ISKCON. So how are we to

accept that this was actually something Srila Prabhupada wanted?

---

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1972:

 

Sad-dharma-prcchat. You learn something about devotional service, BUT

THE DEVOTIONAL SERVICE SHOULD BE EXECUTED BY FOLLOWING MAHAJANA.

MAHAJANA YENA GATAH SA PANTHAH. THEREFORE WE ARE RUPANUGAS. WE FOLLOW

THE FOOTSTEPS OF SRI RUPA GOSVAMI, SANATANA GOSVAMI.

 

So sadhu-marganugamanam. Narottama dasa Thakura says: sadhu sastra guru

vakya, tinete kariya aikya. You must learn from guru, from sastra, what

is actually pure devotional service. Just like Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu.

One should read thoroughly this Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu to understand the

science of devotion. Sadhu-sastra. And the sastra means it is enunciated

by sadhu, Rupa Gosvami. You cannot read anyone's book. If he's approved

sadhu, you can read his book. Then you'll be benefited. If you read

hodge-podge, then you will not be able to understand. Therefore sadhu.

AND SADHU MEANS HE GIVES QUOTATION FROM SASTRAS, AUTHORIZED SASTRA HE'S

SADHU. Sadhu will not give anything manufactured by him. No. He's not

sadhu. Sadhu means whatever he'll speak, immediately he'll give evidence

from the sastra. Sadhu-sastra-guru. AND GURU MEANS WHO IS FOLLOWING

SADHU AND SASTRA.

 

NOTE: (1) Prabhupada makes it clear that we follow Rupa Goswami and that

that is our standard. Rupa Goswami doesn't ever talk about a post-humous

initiation system; so how can we accept rtvikism? (2) Even though Prabhupada

says here that sastra is those which are enunciated by the sadhus, he

clarifies that it is not "hodge-podge" because the sadhus are always giving

"quotation from sastras, authorized sastra." So the Prabhupada who was

always teaching us with reference to sadhu (Rupa Goswami) and sastra, did he

ever teach us with reference to the previous acaryas and the sastras about a

post-humous initiation system?

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1971:

 

That is known as Uddhava-gita. So in that Uddhava-gita these statements

are there, that acaryam mam vijaniyat navamanyeta karhicit: "Acarya

should be known as good as God." That is confirmed in Visvanatha

Cakravarti... Saksad dharitvena samasta-sastraih. He also refers to the

sastra, not that he is opining by his own intellect, no. That is the

speciality of learned scholars and devotees. They should immediately

give evidence from the sastra. Visvanatha Cakravarti said that "Guru is

as good as God by the verdict of the sastra." Saksad dharitvena

samasta-sastraih. And Krsna says, acaryam mam vijaniyat: "Acarya should

be known as good as Myself." Navamanyeta karhicit: "Never become

disobedient to acarya."

 

NOTE: "The speciality of learned scholars and devotees" is that they

"immediately give evidence from the sastra." By Prabhupada's usage of the

word "also" in the sentence "[Visvanatha Cakravarti] also refers to the

sastra, not that he is opining by his own intellect." clarifies that this is

the sampradayic principle that we quote from sastra, meaning from Srimad

Bhagavatam, etc.

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Bhagavad-gita 1974:

 

We should accept Krsna. Why should we accept? Because all the sastras

accept. Krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. Isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda

vigrahah. Sadhu-sastra-guru--that is the evidence. ACCORDING TO OUR

VEDIC KNOWLEDGE, WE SHALL ACCEPT A THING WHEN IT IS PROVED BY VEDIC

EVIDENCE.

 

Therefore Veda means knowledge, perfect knowledge. So sadhu-sastra.

SASTRA MEANS VEDAS, AND SADHU, SAINTLY PERSONS, AND GURU. SAINTLY PERSON

MEANS WHO ABIDES BY THE SASTRA, VEDIC KNOWLEDGE. [...] so, followers of

Vedas, they do not accept him as an authority. Even Lord Buddha, He,

because he did not accept the authority of Vedas, therefore in India he

was rejected.

 

NOTE: (1) Something is proven when it is proved by Vedic evidence. We accept

Krsna because all the sastras accept. (2) Even Buddha is rejected because he

did not accept the authority of the Vedas.

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 4: Chapter Sixteen, Text 1 purport:

 

As stated by Narottama dasa Thakura, sadhu-sastra-guru: one has to test

all spiritual matters according to the instructions of saintly persons,

scriptures and the spiritual master. The spiritual master is one who

follows the instructions of his predecessors, namely the sadhus, or

saintly persons. A bona fide spiritual master does not mention anything

not mentioned in the authorized scriptures. Ordinary people have to

follow the instructions of sadhu, sastra and guru. THOSE STATEMENTS MADE

IN THE SASTRAS AND THOSE MADE BY THE BONA FIDE SADHU OR GURU CANNOT

DIFFER FROM ONE ANOTHER.

 

NOTE: This proves Krishna Kirti pr's point that our understanding of

statements from guru and sadhu cannot contradict sastric statements.

 

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.

 

NOTE: 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."

 

NOTE: It is not sufficient to rely on what the sadhu accepts. We have to

take all three evidences.

 

Prabhupada's Lectures Srimad-Bhagavatam 1974:

 

Sadhu means saintly person. Sastra means revealed scriptures. Sadhu,

sastra and guru, spiritual master. So we must follow the footprints of

saintly persons, mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. That is the way. WE

HAVE TO FOLLOW GREAT SUPERIOR PERSONALITIES, JUST LIKE SAD-GOSVAMI.

Narottama dasa Thakura says, ei chaya gosani yara tara mui dasa: "I

become servant, servant or disciple, of such a person who follows the

footprints of the Six Gosvamis." Otherwise one becomes guru, anyone,

just like nowadays they become. They are manufacturing guru. Guru is not

manufactured. GURU IS IN THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION, ONE WHO IS STRICTIY

FOLLOWS THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE SAD-GOSVAMIS. Ei chaya gosani yara. Anyone

who is following the footsteps of the gosvamis, Rupa Gosvami...

 

NOTE: A guru is one who strictly follows in the foot-steps of the six

Goswamis. The six Gosvamis didn't follow or teach the principle of a

post-humous initiation system; so how is it possible for us to imagine that

Srila Prabhupada setup a system for the next 10+ years and was

simultaneously a Rupanuga?

 

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. Very simple thing.

 

NOTE: (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.

 

ys

vgd