Don't attempt to jump over Srila Prabhupada

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Sthita-dhi-muni (Dasa) SDG (Alachua FL - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2448813 from COM]

>

> On 04 Jul 1999, Gerald Surya wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Maadhva acharyas say that Jaya and Vijaya's souls were associated with

> sinful soulsa nd that both souls were present in the bodies of Hiranyakasipu

> etc.

> >

> > GS

>

> Could very well be, but it would be nice to be able to study some more

> detailed explainations as well as references in Prabhupada's books.

 

Very good point. At the very minimum we would need an exact scriptural quote

before we could consider anything that is not supported by what Srila

Prabhupada

told us.

 

And even if we do get an exact reference, we might still not accept it. For

example, there is a passage in the Manu Samhita which says that a brahmana will

lose his status as brahmana if he does not partake of the flesh of an animal

when it is offered in sacrifice. I am sure that none of ISKCON's brahmanas

will

eat goat flesh offered to Kali. We would not accept this part of the Manu

Samhita because it is not supported by anything that Srila Prabhupada taught

us. We keep ourself safe by viewing scripture through his eyes -- because he

has adjusted everything for our current time, place and circumstance. By

reading his instructions and studying his practical example our spiritual

progress is enhanced.

 

Thus, we are very cautious about accepting things from other sources if they

are

not supported by what Srila Prabhupada has taught us. What is to be gained by

jumping over Srila Prabhupada?

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Gerald Surya (New York NY - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2455274 from COM]

>

>

> >[hkdd] Very good point. At the very minimum we would need an exact

scriptural

> quote before we could consider anything that is not supported by what Srila>

> Prabhupada told us.

>

> [gs]An exact quote from an exalted acharya is at

> www.dvaita.org/list/list_26/msg00197.html

> His qualifications are at www.dvaita.org/scholars/VaadiraajaT.html

 

HKDD comments:

 

I visited the website for the quote and found this:

 

***********************

Sri RukminIsha Vijaya, Canto 1, verses 26 to 30

 

....Lord Narayana maintained indeed His own elderliness by His presence within

him (BalarAma) in the form of a white hair. He with His blissful form

conferred all through His avatar on Rohini (mother of Balarama)the

happiness of being His own mother.

********************************

 

[hkdd] In the Caitanya Caritamrta, Srila Prabhupada warns us that the depiction

of

Lord Balarama being manifested from a white hair is an asuric explanation. Once

again, we see that we gain no profit from jumping over Srila Prabhupada -- we

find

only flowery language which will divert us from carrying out the mission of

spreading Krsna consciousness, since it will only result in quarreling amongst

ourselves, rather than in productive preaching:

 

********************************

TRANSLATION

Illusory stories opposed to the conclusions of Krsna consciousness concern the

destruction of the Yadu dynasty, Krsna's disappearance, the story that Krsna

and

Balarama arise from a black hair and a white hair of Ksirodakasayi Visnu, and

the

story about the kidnapping of the queens. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu explained to

Sanatana Gosvami the proper conclusions of these stories.

PURPORT

Due to envy, many asuras describe Krsna to be like a black crow or an

incarnation

of a hair. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu told Sanatana Gosvami how to counteract all

these asuric explanations of Krsna. The word kaka means crow, and kesa means

hair.

The asuras describe Krsna as an incarnation of a crow, an incarnation of a

sudra

(a blackish tribe) and an incarnation of a hair, not knowing that the word kesa

means ka-isa and that ka means Lord Brahma and isa means Lord. Thus the word

kesa

indicates that Krsna is the Lord of Lord Brahma.

 

Some of Lord Krsna's pastimes are mentioned in the Mahabharata as mausala-lila.

These include the stories of the destruction of the Yadu dynasty, Krsna's

disappearance, His being pierced by a hunter's arrow, the story of Krsna's

being

an incarnation of a piece of hair (kesa-avatara) as well as mahisi-harana, the

kidnapping of Krsna's queens. Actually these are not factual but are related

for

the bewilderment of the asuras, who want to prove that Krsna is an ordinary

human

being. They are false in the sense that these pastimes are not eternal, nor are

they transcendental or spiritual. There are many people who are by nature

averse

to the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Visnu. Such people are

called asuras. They have mistaken ideas about Krsna. As stated in the

Bhagavad-gita, the asuras are given a chance to forget Krsna more and more,

birth

after birth. Thus they make their appearance in a family of asuras and continue

this process, being kept in bewilderment about Krsna. Asuras in the dress of

sannyasis even explain the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam in different

ways

according to their own imaginations. Thus they continue to remain asuras birth

after birth.

 

As far as the kesa-avatara (incarnation of a hair) is concerned, it is

mentioned

in Srimad-Bhagavatam (2.7.26). The Visnu Purana also states, ujjaharatmanah

kesau

sita-krsnau maha-bala.

 

Similarly, it is stated in the Mahabharata (Adi-parva 189.31–32):

sa capi kesau harir uccakarta

ekam suklam aparam capi krsnam

tau capi kesav avisatam yadunam

kule striyau rohinim devakim ca

tayor eko balabhadro babhuva

yo 'sau svetas tasya devasya kesah

krsno dvitiyah kesavah sambabhuva

kesah yo 'sau varnatah krsna uktah

 

Thus in Srimad-Bhagavatam, the Visnu Purana and the Mahabharata there are

references to Krsna and Balarama being incarnations of a black hair and a white

hair respectively. It is stated that Lord Visnu snatched two hairs—one white

and

one black—from His head. These two hairs entered the wombs of Rohini and

Devaki,

members of the Yadu dynasty. Balarama was born from Rohini, and Krsna was born

of

Devaki. Thus Balarama appeared from the first hair, and Krsna appeared from the

second hair. It was also foretold that all the asuras, who are enemies of the

demigods, would be cut down by Lord Visnu by His white and black plenary

expansions and that the Supreme Personality of Godhead would appear and perform

wonderful activities. In this connection, one should see the

Laghu-bhagavatamrta,

the chapter called Krsnamrta, verses 156–164. Srila Rupa Gosvami has refuted

this

argument about the hair incarnation, and his refutation is supported by Sri

Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentaries. This matter is further discussed in the

Krsna-sandarbha (29) and in the commentary known as Sarva-samvadini, by Srila

Jiva

Gosvami.

 

============ REF. Madhya 23.117-118

 

[hkdd] Thus we see that in refuting the myth of the hair incarnation, Srila

Prabhupada is backed up by Srila Rupa Goswami, Baladeva Vidyabhusana and Srila

Jiva Goswami -- what to speak of the instruction of Lord Caitanya Himself to

Sanatana Goswami.

 

> > [hkdd]And even if we do get an exact reference, we might still not accept

it.

> We

> would not accept this part of the Manu Samhita because it is not supported by

> anything that Srila Prabhupada taught us. We keep ourself safe by viewing

> scripture through his eyes -- because he has adjusted everything for our

> current time, place and circumstance.

>

> [gs]I agree. I was not offering an absolute answer to anything. I never got

to

> personally meet Jaya and Vijaya myself.

>

> [hkdd]>By reading his instructions and studying his practical example our

> spiritual progress is enhanced. Thus, we are very cautious about accepting

> things from other sources if they are not supported by what Srila Prabhupada

> has taught us. What is to be gained by jumping over Srila Prabhupada?

>

> [gs]Srila Prabhupada taught us to learn from the *living* representatives of

the

>

> disciplic succession. Today, for those of us who never had the fortune of

> meeting him, this refers to his seniormost disciples. And the example of his

> seniormost disciples is always keeping his books in the center, and not

> neglecting other spiritual sources if and when useful or relevant.

>

> [gs]For me to arrange my whole life around one letter by Srila Prabhupada

> telling

> us to ignore all other books that was not addressed to me, and utterly

neglect

> the example of the living authorities would constitute a JUMPING over the

> acharya on my part.

>

> Gerald Surya

 

[hkidd] To say that we would be "jumping over Srila Prabhupada" by *not*

following

the instructions of someone who endorses the myth of the hair incarnation of

Lord

Balarama sounds like some fancy footwork to me. I'm afraid I cannot agree with

this position at all.

 

I'm going to just stick with Srila Prabhupada on this one. These other

authorities you propose sound like a waste of my very precious time if I have

to

go to extensive lengths just to determine whether they even agree with what

Srila

Prabhupada taught us.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/7/99 2:43:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

npetroff (AT) Bowdoin (DOT) EDU writes:

 

>[hkdd] In the Caitanya Caritamrta, Srila Prabhupada warns us that the

>depiction of Lord Balarama being manifested from a white hair is an asuric

explanation.

 

> [hkidd] To say that we would be "jumping over Srila Prabhupada" by *not*

following> the instructions of someone who endorses the myth of the hair

incarnation of Lord> Balarama sounds like some fancy footwork to me. I'm

afraid I cannot agree with> this position at all.

This misunderstanding of Balarama (presumed by you) of the saint does not

automatically discredit the words of any acharya. Srila Prabhupada himself

quotes at length Srila Ramanujacarya on a Vedanta passage in CC Adi 5

(rather than the different explanation by Baladeva Vidyabhusana) even as he

notes that Ramanuja accepts Balarama as an empowered jivatma. It is well

known that anyone considering Visnu-Balarama-Nityananda as a jiva is a

pasanti, atheist, demon etc. If Srila Prabhupada was following *your* lead,

he would condemned Ramanujacarya as a demon and left it at that, not quote

his commentary *over* Baladeva Vidyabhusana's explanation.

 

On the other hand, some of Srila Prabhupada's disciples *occasionally* refer

to other spiritual literature for spiritual truths (e.g. Entering a Life of

Prayer, Surrender unto Me, Cure of Souls) even though they may contain errors

or differences. For example, in surrender unto Me, Bhurijana Prabhu mentions

the interpretation of Gita 1.10 which is exactly *opposite* of Srila

Prabhupada's and explains that this is a difference of acharyas. This seems

to be a mature example of how Srila Prabhupada would deal with the situation.

 

Also Vadiraja Tirtha is known to have introduced kirtana into his sampradaya

just after the visit of Lord Chaitanya. This indicates that he is a devotee,

and your analysis of his words is not consistent with Srila Prabhupada's

teachings about offense of sadhu-ninda.

 

In conclusion, the explanation dual good-bad soul in some entities like

Hiranyakasipu, etc is offered by acharyas. And if a specific case contradicts

Srila Prabhupada,it may be an example of difference among the acharyas.

Condemning a Vaishnava acharya by hinting his writings have an asuric

mentality is not at all the example of Srila Prabhupada's or his living

disciples. The knee-jerk condemnation offered as well as the automatic

rejection of the dual soul theory in respect to Hiranyakasipu etc is

unacceptable.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

> Condemning a Vaishnava acharya by hinting his writings have an asuric

> mentality is not at all the example of Srila Prabhupada's or his living

> disciples. The knee-jerk condemnation offered as well as the automatic

> rejection of the dual soul theory in respect to Hiranyakasipu etc is

> unacceptable.

>

 

 

I beleive hkdd said that Prabhupada had written that a certain explaination

was of an asuric origin, and thus based on that she couldn't place her faith

in it. I don't recall her condemning anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 08 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> > Condemning a Vaishnava acharya by hinting his writings have an asuric > >

mentality

> I beleive hkdd said that Prabhupada had written that a certain explaination>

was of an asuric origin, and thus based on that she couldn't place her faith>

in it. I don't recall her condemning anyone.

 

Yes, I apologize for saying she condemned him. Payonidhi's point about

dual-soul deserves consideration if he has proofs even though the concept is

not in Srila Prabhupada's books. The books are complete in the sense for

delivering one back to Godhead,not in terms of detailed descriptions of every

single living entity.

 

Gerald

[Guest guest]

On 08 Jul 1999, Gerald Surya wrote:

 

> Payonidhi's point about dual-soul deserves consideration if he has proofs

even though the concept is not in Srila Prabhupada's books. The books are

complete in the sense for delivering one back to Godhead,not in terms of

detailed descriptions of every single living entity.

>

>

 

My own feeling is that one can certainly explore the wealth of Vaisnava

literatures that have been made available, but for myself there is plenty of

spiritual knowledge available in what Prabhupada has already presented.

 

As far as ISKCON the institution goes, that should certainly be the last word.

As far as us as individuals, I feel our spiritual interests and allegiances

are a purely personal matter. As they say, love is voluntary.

 

ys,

 

Sthita