Guest guest Posted June 23, 1999 Report Share Posted June 23, 1999 Vidvan, excellent presentation of the standard in presenting Vaisnava evidence!!! ys ada > 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 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.