Interpretation is at the heart of the ritvik controversy.

[Guest guest]

>> It is sufficient. We are discussing eitiquette and attitude, and that

>> covers the worship of the guru.

>

>I understand that we offer our respect to superior - it is an eitiquete,

but

>what about attitude? What do you mean by attitude? Sri Upadesmrita clearly

>stays what are diffrent ways of respecting kanistha madhyama and uttama as

>general without bothering if we refer to guru or not.

 

Guru is a different situation from those who are devotees but not our

specifically our guru. This demarcation is made in the first verse of the

Caitanya caritamrita: vande gurn isa bhaktan, "I offer my respectful

obeisances to the spiritual masters, the devotees of the Lord. . ." (CC Adi

1.1)

 

So, we can see that although gurus are also devotees, they fall into a

different classification when considering the various aspects of the Supreme

Lord. Since the gurus are in a different classification, it is reasonable

to expect that there will be some considerations that are unique to that

class. For example: acaryam mam vijaniyan navamanveta karhicit na martya

buddhyasuyeta sarva deva mayo guruh. "One should know the acarya to be

Myself. . . "

 

So, we can see how this applies to Cintamani. She is not an

uttama-adhikari, but because (1) her influence was essential (in other

words, without her, he could not have accepted Somagiri as a spiritual

master, what to speak of becoming a pure devotee), she is offered full

respects. Again, the consideration is that someone has saved your life.

When someone does such a magnanimous thing, no matter what is their

qualification, we are obliged to offer them all resepcts (100%).

 

>None of us says to

>show no respect to kanistha guru, but if out of full respect and confidence

>you follow all his instructions without thinking twice and checking it,

then

>you ask for trouble. That is not the case of course regarding uttama.

>

Even your guru is an uttama adhikari, you must still regard shastra as the

basis, because on the basis of shastra, a guru (even an uttama) is genuine.

Even Srila Prabhupada maintained a doubt with regards to an instruction of

Sarasvati Thakura, when the later ordered a snake to be killed. Only on

encountering a relevant verse from shastra was that doubt dispelled. Since

that is a standard set by Srila Prabhupada, and we call ourselves followers

in Srila Prabhupada's line, then we must maintain that standard.

 

>> As I mentioned previously, there are different etiquette with regard to

>> respecting individuals.

>

>I think somehow we misunderstand each other. I agree with all your other

>points, regarding Bilvamangal's case and Druva's case. Why should i

>counteract. I agree that we show proper respect to everybody, but as you

>yourself says there are diffrent etiquete with regard to respecting

>individuals. That is all about. But principle is we respect evrybody else,

>even an ant. And your quots "All glories to Cintamani, Somagiri and Krsna"

>just prove that principle. And Srila Prabhupada explain that respect was

>equal. I agree that we respect but the original point was diffrent.

 

But the respect Sri Bilvamangala Thakura showed to Cintamani was not the

same as the respect shown to an ant, he was respecting her as his spiritual

master, adored equally with Somagiri and the Lord Himself. And since Srila

Prabhupada says that he has adored them all equally, we should accept that.

Externally, the customs may be different (and certainly there are

differences), but the attitude towards them all is not different. "Adoring

them equally" must therefore refer to one's attitude.

 

>>>(2) whether or not a guru

>>> is an uttama adhikari, he should be offered all respect as the most

>>> confidential servitor of the Lord; and

>

>>Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor?

>

>Do you propose that we do not see the difrences among kanistha, madhyama

and

>uttama guru, Although we may offer them respect? You proved that Kanistha

ie

>Cintamani, is also THE MOST confidential servitor of the Lord because she

>directed BT towards Krsna, the same with Druvas mother. But i would suggest

>that they were elevated to the position of the Most due to their service.

 

 

What difference would that make, whether or not they were elevated by that

service? In the case of Dhruva Maharaja's mother, although she was

personally not very advanced, but because she nonetheless gave the proper

instruction to Dhruva, that he should approach Lord Vishnu, she received the

benefit of her very advanced son. Gratefullness is one of the 26 qualities

of a Vaishnava. A vaishnava will consider that, "Oh, he has done something

so nice for me, how can I benefit him?" And Lord Krishna is also so

merciful, just as in the case of Putana. The Lord only considered that

Putana offered her milk to the Lord, so he gave her the position as his

mother in the spiritual world. So, if we really are vaishnavas, then what

respect, out of gratitude, do we show to the person who has given us the

most wonderful thing, which is love of Krishna, devotional service? Answer:

100%, because without that person's influence, we would be 0%.

 

>i pay my dandabats to you but somehow we read the same quots but our

>understanding is diffrent. (Bible, black and white)

 

If we see things according to shastra, previous acharyas, and our spiritual

master, then we will see everything clearly. There is such a thing as a

correct understanding, and an incorrect understanding.

 

Just consider this: Is our spiritual master ESSENTIAL to our progress in

Krishna consciousness? If he is, then we are obliged to offer him 100%

respects, because if IS essential, then that means without him we are 0%

even if everything else is proper.

 

And then, if he is not essential, then why bother accepting him as a

spiritual master?

 

>And what you mean by THE MOST cofidential?

 

 

See above.

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

> But the respect Sri Bilvamangala Thakura showed to Cintamani was not the

> same as the respect shown to an ant, he was respecting her as his

> spiritual master, adored equally with Somagiri and the Lord Himself. And

> since Srila Prabhupada says that he has adored them all equally, we should

> accept that. Externally, the customs may be different (and certainly there

> are differences), but the attitude towards them all is not different.

> "Adoring them equally" must therefore refer to one's attitude.

>

I follow, but let consider from another angel, i respect vartamapradarsaka,

diksa and siksa especially, because theyn were/are essential to my progress.

Thats not the same respect which i show to an ant. The ant i respect as a

soul connecting to Krsna, but condition. But gurus extra because they

actually pushed me towards Krsna. But i meaned also externally. I will not

observed Vyasapuja day of my vartmapradarsaka guru (although in my case was

it Tapasya das from Caitanyas Mission). I mean difrrnences betwen respecting

and worshiping. But madhyama i can treat as uttama because Srila Prabhupada

stays this in Sri Upadesamrita in commentary to text 5 "In Krsna conscious

Movement (...) if sb chants 16 rounds, follow all the rules, and is always

thinking how to spread Krsna c Movement, he should be consider AS uttama".

 

ys dvd

[Guest guest]

>I mean difrrnences betwen respecting

>and worshiping. But madhyama i can treat as uttama because Srila Prabhupada

>stays this in Sri Upadesamrita in commentary to text 5 "In Krsna conscious

>Movement (...) if sb chants 16 rounds, follow all the rules, and is always

>thinking how to spread Krsna c Movement, he should be consider AS uttama".

>

Sure. Someone who is preaching Krishna consciousness all over the world is

not an ordinary individual. Really, if one is actually always thinking of

how to spread the Krishna consciousness movement, then he must be

worshipable. My experience is that we do have devotees like that, not many,

but they do exist. (But that's just my opinion.)

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

[Guest guest]

> >>>(2) whether or not a guru

> >>> is an uttama adhikari, he should be offered all respect as the most

> >>> confidential servitor of the Lord; and

> >

> >>Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor?

 

I just wonder how it can be applied according to 5th sloka of Gurvastaka.

(1) Spiritual Master is fully selfrealized and reneder intimate service in

siddhadeha, (2) SM maybe not uttama but he helps gopi and manjaris, who

incarnate as our acaryas, in preaching Mahaprabhu's mission, and thus he can

be Most confidential servitor, because he always thinks how to spread the

glories of KRsna, and as Srila Prabhupada says in NOI text5 - he should be

consider AS uttama.

 

>It is sufficient. We are discussing eitiquette and attitude, and that

>covers the worship of the guru.

 

is that definition?

 

ys dvd

[Guest guest]

> >I mean difrrnences betwen respecting

> >and worshiping. But madhyama i can treat as uttama because Srila

> >Prabhupada stays this in Sri Upadesamrita in commentary to text 5 "In

> >Krsna conscious Movement (...) if sb chants 16 rounds, follow all the

> >rules, and is always thinking how to spread Krsna c Movement, he should

> >be consider AS uttama".

> >

> Sure. Someone who is preaching Krishna consciousness all over the world

> is not an ordinary individual. Really, if one is actually always thinking

> of how to spread the Krishna consciousness movement, then he must be

> worshipable. My experience is that we do have devotees like that, not

> many, but they do exist. (But that's just my opinion.)

>

> Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

 

I really love to discuss with you. I am very inspire to study. Actually i've

always lacked someone to discuss pilosophy. I hope we can have more

exchanges.

 

your servant

Dvarkadhuis das

[Guest guest]

> The relevant words in this verse are "guru-varam" (translated as

> 'spiritual master'), and "mukunda-presthatve" (translated as 'as the most

> dear to Lord Mukunda').

 

while discussing spiritual topics we shouldn't be fanatic abot taking the

dictonary meaning of evey single word. If somoene respects his spiritual

master as the "Most confidentil" it doesn't mean that there is no other

person who is more confidential than that spiritual master. HEre is the

beuty of spiritual understanding! For a disciple it's not at all wrong to

adore his guru as the most confidential sevitor of th Lord but for that guru

his guru is the most confidential servitor of the Lord, and still there are

many more previous acaryas are ALSO MOST CONFIDENTIAL servitors of the

Lord!! What can be done? Obviously our material intelligence get bewildered

when we materially try to access the meaning of such statements as of Srila

Bilvamangala Thakur.

 

We also know that Srimati Radharani is the most dear and beloved of Lord Sri

Krishna but still we use words like "most dear" for Srila Prabhupada! How is

that? Simply, that is it!

 

> >>(3) that the attitude that the guru is somehow inferior is never to be

> >>maintained.

> >

> >How you can make such nonsense statement?

 

 

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE GURU SHOULD THINK HE IS INFERIOR THAN OTHER

ACARYAS (trinadapi sunicena), NOT HIS DISCIPLES. IT'S NOT PROPE FOR A

DISCIPLE TO ACCESS HIS GURU'S POSITION. BUT BECAUSE THE DISCIPLE KNOWS THAT

HIS GURU THINKS THAT WAY, HE FOLLOWS THE ETIQUETTE ACCORDINGLY.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

Krsna Kirti wrote:

 

>>(2) whether or not a guru

> >> is an uttama adhikari, he should be offered all respect as the most

> >> confidential servitor of the Lord; and

 

My response:

 

> >Nonsense! How he can be the MOST confidential servitor? He is NOT the

> most

> >confidential, even though he may be confidential. Only the uttama is the

> >MOST confidential servitor. This is exactly the point we are making.

> >There

> must

> >be dscrimination between different levels of guru, otherwise the actual

> >value and position of the real MOST confidential servitor, i.e., Srila

> Prabhupada,

> >is lost. This is the main disrespect we need to be careful about at this

> >point, not the fear of disrespecting the lower level gurus (although

> >this, of course, is also something to be kept in mind).

 

 

> How can he be the most confidential servitor, even though he is not an

> uttama adhikari? Because he is giving you Krishna.

 

How can he give you Krishna if he has yet to get Krishna???? He can point

you in the direction of Krishna, he can introduce you to his guru who has

Krishna, he can explain to you the bonafide process that he is also taking,

that he is convinced will bring you to Krishna, but if he pretends that he

has Krishna when in fact he doesn't, then everything is spoiled.

 

The following quotations are from NOI Ver-5-purp.

 

"However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or

maha-bhagavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will

eventually become degraded."

 

"The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate

a devotee situated on a higher platform.".................

 

"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the

platform of uttama-adhikari."

 

(This is best, but if none are available then what?)

 

"A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can

also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and

it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the

ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.

 

(But as he advances they also will advance.)

 

"Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a

spiritual master."

 

(Obviously the best situation. But we can't wish this into existence. Krsna

Kirti wasn't around perhaps, but I have much first hand experience.

I personally heard Hansadutta say: "I didn't ask to be guru, Prabhupada made

me a guru. Everyone knows that the guru is perfect, therefore whatever I do

is perfect.")

 

(I also personally heard Srila Prabhupada say in a voice full of authority

to his Godbrother, "The trouble with the Gaudiya Math is they tried to

create a perfect person. You can not create a perfect person!!!")

 

 

> In other words, the

> guru, even though he is a madhyama or a kanistha, if he is properly

> situated, is a necessary component in the spiritual advancement of his

> disciple.

 

I agree, but what is wrong in speaking the actual facts to our disciples, do

we have to cheat them? This is very practical for me. Should I allow my

disciples to think that Srila Prabhupada and I are on the same level? Aren't

I supposed to teach them the difference between truth and illusion? Do I

think that they are so stupid that they won't see the difference? What is my

position and what is Srila Prabhupada's position? What has he done and what

have I done? Please!! You can quote sastra all day, but it should bring us

to the point of reality. Not some "pie in the sky" make believe.

 

Don't we have enough experience of the result of this "make believe"? How

many more "gurus" have to fall before we learn our lession? In this sense

Krsna Kirti is doing a big dis-service, by jacking up the current Iskcon

gurus and encouraging them to think that they are "as good as God".

 

So what is our duty to our disciples? We must explain to them that their

first duty is to try and please us, as we are trying to please our Spiritual

Master, and by so doing Krishna will be pleased and they will make

advancement, as we are also making advancement. In this way gradually we

will both attain to the perfect state of full Krishna consciousness.

This is the platform of reality, not some utopian concoction.

 

> Since the guru is giving Krishna to his faithful disciple, then

> how can he not be considered most confidential? Without him, you aren't

> getting Krishna, even if he is only 2% confidential.

 

It is true that "without him, you aren't getting Krishna", but if he is the

guru who is your main link to Krishna, and he is not 100% confidentially

connected to Krishna, then how will you become 100% confidentially

connected? We know that this guru is our leader birth after birth, and

remains so even when we reach the spiritual world, therefore we can

understand that he must always be in a more confidential, or at least as

confidential a position, in his relationship to Krishna.

 

> A guru is as good as God because he is giving God to his disciples. Please

> note that if a properly situated (as per the directives of NOI 1) madhyama

> or a kanistha weren't capable of doing that, then they couldn't qualify as

> a guru, since they would not be able to perform the functions of a guru

> (i.e. delivering his disciples, etc.)

 

As I mentioned above, and as quoted from the NOI, the guru (Ones main link

to the parampara) can only deliver you as far as he is delivered.

 

 

Yours sincerely

Trivikram Swami

[Guest guest]

This discussion is very interesting and relevant and raises some important

questions.

 

Trivikram Maharaja wrote:

 

> How can he give you Krishna if he has yet to get Krishna???? He can point

> you in the direction of Krishna, he can introduce you to his guru who has

> Krishna, he can explain to you the bonafide process that he is also

> taking, that he is convinced will bring you to Krishna, but if he pretends

> that he has Krishna when in fact he doesn't, then everything is spoiled.

 

What is the difference between a guru "pointing you in the direction of

Krishna," and a guru "giving you Krishna"? If it is taken that only the 100%

perfect guru can give Krsna, is their any difference between (a) the

dealings of 100% gurus and their disciples and (b) the dealings of less than

100% gurus with their disciples? Are present day disciples of ®r…la

Prabhup€da's disciples less fortunate, less able to engage in devotional

service, and less able to advance, than direct disciples of ®r…la

Prabhup€da?

 

What is the meaning of "introducing you to his guru who has Krishna"?

 

What does it mean for a guru to "have" Krishna? At what point does a guru

"have" Krishna and be able to give him to others? If it is understood that

the 20% KC guru cannot give Krsna, then what of the 90% guru? Is it that a

guru reaches up to 99%, then 99.9%, then one day realizes "I made it. I'm on

100%" and declares to his disciples, "Now I have Krsna. Take Him."?

 

> (I also personally heard Srila Prabhupada say in a voice full of authority

> to his Godbrother, "The trouble with the Gaudiya Math is they tried to

> create a perfect person. You can not create a perfect person!!!")

 

Just as a matter of personal curiosity, I wonder who this godbrother is.

Maybe Trivikram Maharaja could answer me privately.

 

> I agree, but what is wrong in speaking the actual facts to our disciples,

> do we have to cheat them? This is very practical for me. Should I allow my

> disciples to think that Srila Prabhupada and I are on the same level?

> Aren't I supposed to teach them the difference between truth and illusion?

> Do I think that they are so stupid that they won't see the difference?

> What is my position and what is Srila Prabhupada's position? What has he

> done and what have I done?

 

I think that ®r…la Prabhup€da's inimitable position is obvious to all in

ISKCON these days, whereas at one point it wasn't due to some unnecessary

hype.

 

Especially in view of our recent turbulent history, disciples of ®r…la

Prabhup€da's disciples will be very happy if their gurus instruct them that

"Prabhupada said like this, Prabhupada said like that." Disciples will also

be happy if their gurus humbly, within their own capacity, follow ®r…la

Prabhup€da's instruction to "do as I am doing." This also means to give all

energy for Krsna, especially for preaching Krsna consciousness. Those who

sacrifice their lives to preach become glorious and it is natural for those

who are being uplifted by the activities of such selfless preachers, to

glorify them.

 

By all becoming humble servants of our foundational acarya ®r…la Prabhup€da,

the disciplic succession of Prabhupadanugas is continued by following in His

Divine Grace's footsteps. It seems a pretty easy thing to understand.

[Guest guest]

HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

 

>If it is taken that only the

> 100% perfect guru can give Krsna, is their any difference between (a) the

> dealings of 100% gurus and their disciples and (b) the dealings of less

> than 100% gurus with their disciples?

 

There is surely a difference in dealings between the 100% gurus with their

disciples and the dealings of less than 100% gurus with their disciples as

described by Srila Prabhupada in the NOI, pg 58:

 

"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the

platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on

the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must

be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot

advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient

guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an

uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."

 

The guidance of the less than 100% gurus is termed by Srila Prabhupada as

"insufficient" and that such disciples cannot advance VERY WELL toward the

ultimate goal of life. Like for eg. for one Prabhupada disciple told me that

SBSST wrote a letter to one of his disciples who was attracted to taking

Siddha-pranali from one of the babajis, and in this letter he said that he

himself is Nayana-mani manjari in Goloka and also revealed to him what is

his constitutional position just so that he does not go astray and

understand the actual position of his own Guru Maharaj. Obviously the less

than 100% guru cannot have this kind of realizations.

 

> What does it mean for a guru to "have" Krishna? At what point does a guru

> "have" Krishna and be able to give him to others? If it is understood that

> the 20% KC guru cannot give Krsna, then what of the 90% guru? Is it that a

> guru reaches up to 99%, then 99.9%, then one day realizes "I made it. I'm

> on 100%" and declares to his disciples, "Now I have Krsna. Take Him."?

 

It's simple to understand. To the extent (%) the guru has Krsna, he can give

Krsna. That is why Prabhupada uses the word 'insufficient guidance' for the

madhyama & kanishtha gurus. They can surely give guidance as per their

advancement but it is insufficient because it is not coming from 100%

realization.

 

Ofcourse this does not mean that one should disrespect in any way his

madhyama or kanishtha guru. We fully accept the injunction by Narhari

Sarkara Thakura that the disciple should respect, worship & humbly serve his

not so-much-advanced guru. Narahari Thakura goes on to say that such a

disciple can go and hear from the 100% (or more advanced) siksha guru after

taking permission from his spiritual master. And even after hearing he

should come and share it with his less-advanced diksha guru and then

implement it in his life with the permission of his diksha guru. This he

should do as a son after earning wealth in a foreign land, has to come &

share it with his father otherwise he is considered sinful. And also the

example given that it is better to serve one's own defective husband rather

than going to another husband, which is a complete breach of chastity for

the wife. Ofcourse Narahari Thakura gives the facility to the disciple of

the less-advanced diksha guru to go & hear a more advanced siksha guru but

this has to be done completely under the permission & blessings of his

less-advanced diksa guru.

 

And this also indicates that the disciple knows that his guru is not 100%

self-realized otherwise why does he find the need to approach a more

advanced siksha guru. So if someone says that it is an offense for the

disciple to think that his guru is not 100% advanced in all cases that is

unjustified because sometimes the disciple may see clearly some shortcomings

in the guru. And if he finds that inspite of such shortcomings the guru is

posing like a 100% guru, the consequence is that he ends up becoming a rtvik

because he thinks something is wrong somewhere or starts looking outside

ISKCON. This is my humble opinion.

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana das

[Guest guest]

> HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

>

> >If it is taken that only the

> > 100% perfect guru can give Krsna, is their any difference between (a)

> > the dealings of 100% gurus and their disciples and (b) the dealings of

> > less than 100% gurus with their disciples?

>

> There is surely a difference in dealings between the 100% gurus with their

> disciples and the dealings of less than 100% gurus with their disciples as

> described by Srila Prabhupada in the NOI, pg 58:

>

> "One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the

> platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on

> the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples

> must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot

> advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient

> guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an

> uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."

>

> The guidance of the less than 100% gurus is termed by Srila Prabhupada as

> "insufficient" and that such disciples cannot advance VERY WELL toward the

> ultimate goal of life. Like for eg. for one Prabhupada disciple told me

> that SBSST wrote a letter to one of his disciples who was attracted to

> taking Siddha-pranali from one of the babajis, and in this letter he said

> that he himself is Nayana-mani manjari in Goloka and also revealed to him

> what is his constitutional position just so that he does not go astray and

> understand the actual position of his own Guru Maharaj. Obviously the less

> than 100% guru cannot have this kind of realizations.

>

> > What does it mean for a guru to "have" Krishna? At what point does a

> > guru "have" Krishna and be able to give him to others? If it is

> > understood that the 20% KC guru cannot give Krsna, then what of the 90%

> > guru? Is it that a guru reaches up to 99%, then 99.9%, then one day

> > realizes "I made it. I'm on 100%" and declares to his disciples, "Now I

> > have Krsna. Take Him."?

>

> It's simple to understand. To the extent (%) the guru has Krsna, he can

> give Krsna. That is why Prabhupada uses the word 'insufficient guidance'

> for the madhyama & kanishtha gurus. They can surely give guidance as per

> their advancement but it is insufficient because it is not coming from

> 100% realization.

>

> Ofcourse this does not mean that one should disrespect in any way his

> madhyama or kanishtha guru. We fully accept the injunction by Narhari

> Sarkara Thakura that the disciple should respect, worship & humbly serve

> his not so-much-advanced guru. Narahari Thakura goes on to say that such a

> disciple can go and hear from the 100% (or more advanced) siksha guru

> after taking permission from his spiritual master. And even after hearing

> he should come and share it with his less-advanced diksha guru and then

> implement it in his life with the permission of his diksha guru. This he

> should do as a son after earning wealth in a foreign land, has to come &

> share it with his father otherwise he is considered sinful. And also the

> example given that it is better to serve one's own defective husband

> rather than going to another husband, which is a complete breach of

> chastity for the wife. Ofcourse Narahari Thakura gives the facility to the

> disciple of the less-advanced diksha guru to go & hear a more advanced

> siksha guru but this has to be done completely under the permission &

> blessings of his less-advanced diksa guru.

>

> And this also indicates that the disciple knows that his guru is not 100%

> self-realized otherwise why does he find the need to approach a more

> advanced siksha guru. So if someone says that it is an offense for the

> disciple to think that his guru is not 100% advanced in all cases that is

> unjustified because sometimes the disciple may see clearly some

> shortcomings in the guru. And if he finds that inspite of such

> shortcomings the guru is posing like a 100% guru, the consequence is that

> he ends up becoming a rtvik because he thinks something is wrong somewhere

> or starts looking outside ISKCON. This is my humble opinion.

 

Sadhu! Sadhu!

 

Your servant

Trivikram Swami

[Guest guest]

>What is the difference between a guru "pointing you in the direction of

>Krishna," and a guru "giving you Krishna"? If it is taken that only the

>100% perfect guru can give Krsna, is their any difference between (a) the

>dealings of 100% gurus and their disciples and (b) the dealings of less

>than 100% gurus with their disciples?

 

Isn't Lord Krishna independent! In fact, nobody can give Lord Krishna. Only

He can reveal Himself to His devotees when He is pleansed with that

particular devotee. Even a "100% guru" cannot really *give* Krishna! Such

guru, as a servant of Lord Krishna, can simply request Lord Krishna to

reveal Himself to his sincere disciples. And such request itself is the

biggest benediction/blessing for a sincere disciple. In general Lord Krishna

doesn't reveal Himself to anyone who is not recommended by a bona fide

spiritual master. So guru-kripa is essential.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> SBSST wrote a letter to one of his disciples who was attracted to taking

> Siddha-pranali from one of the babajis, and in this letter he said that he

> himself is Nayana-mani manjari in Goloka and also revealed to him what is

> his constitutional position just so that he does not go astray and

> understand the actual position of his own Guru Maharaj.

 

What is that letter? I'd like to see it as I've been compiling a

biographical work on SBSST for several years and have not heard of such a

letter. According to my sources, SBSST never revealed to anyone either his

or their nitya svarupas; although he did indirectly acknowledge himself as

being Nayana-mani Manjari. Certainly "our" ®r…la Prabhup€da was extrememly

cautious about discussing such esoteric points, so I don't find this example

appropriate.

 

When a devotee becomes free from all material desires (anartha nivrtti),

then comes artha pravrtti (entering into nitya svarupa). What are the

differences in dealings (i.e. manner of instruction) between less than 100%

gurus and 100% gurus before that stage?

 

(As a reminder, I asked before) What is the difference between a guru

"pointing you in the direction of Krishna," and a guru "giving you Krishna"?

Are present day disciples of ®r…la Prabhup€da's disciples less fortunate,

less able to engage in devotional service, and less able to advance, than

direct disciples of ®r…la Prabhup€da?

 

NR Prabhu wrote:

 

> It's simple to understand. To the extent (%) the guru has Krsna, he can

> give Krsna.

 

Does this then mean that those chanting Hare Krsna under the guidance of

®r…la Prabhup€da's disciples get less effect from chanting than do direct

disciples of ®r…la Prabhup€da?

 

These points need further discussion, especially considering sastric

injunctions of the vital role of gurus in the spiritual life of disciples.

NR Prabhu pointed out that imitation of ®r…la Prabhup€da's position has

driven devotees to ritvikism. But it could be that excessive devaluation of

the role of gurus could drive devotees instead to Gauriya Math gurus who are

(at least advertised as being) full fledged paramahansas.

[Guest guest]

At 6:24 -0800 10/3/99, COM: Nayana-ranjana (das) (BBT Bombay - IN) wrote:

> Like for eg. for one Prabhupada disciple told me that

>SBSST wrote a letter to one of his disciples who was attracted to taking

>Siddha-pranali from one of the babajis, and in this letter he said that he

>himself is Nayana-mani manjari in Goloka and also revealed to him what is

>his constitutional position just so that he does not go astray and

>understand the actual position of his own Guru Maharaj. Obviously the less

>than 100% guru cannot have this kind of realizations.

 

 

SBSST wrote this about himself to a disciple? How did the Prabhupada

disciple in question know this? Did he give you a reference to anywhere

where this letter was published? If so, I'd love to see a copy.

 

Thank you.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

Bhakti Vikasa asked:

 

> (As a reminder, I asked before) What is the difference between a guru

> "pointing you in the direction of Krishna," and a guru "giving you

> Krishna"? Are present day disciples of ®r…la Prabhup€da's disciples less

> fortunate, less able to engage in devotional service, and less able to

> advance, than direct disciples of ®r…la Prabhup€da?

 

What is the difference between a person who points you in the direction of a

diamond shop and a diamond merchant you meet on the street who gives you a

diamond. Of course a cheater you happen to meet on the street may claim he

has a diamond and sell you a piece of broken glass ("real cheap price!")--so

let us not cheat and pretend we have Krsna like Srila Prabhupada does. Let

us direct our disciples to the real diamond merchant, Srila Prabhupada, who

directly has Krsna.

 

As much as a guru has Krsna, that much he can give. Srila Prabhupada

directly has Krsna 100%. Krsna would directly tell him what to say to us,

what directions to give us. This, of course, is the real meaning of Guru,

saksat hari. We are not saksat hari in this sense and we cannot give Krsna

100%. But we can give some.

 

> Does this then mean that those chanting Hare Krsna under the guidance of

> ®r…la Prabhup€da's disciples get less effect from chanting than do direct

> disciples of ®r…la Prabhup€da?

 

Chanting Hare Krsna is open to everyone, and the first sign that we are

chanting properly is that Krsna will direct us to a spiritual master so that

under his guidance we can learn to chant without offense. If however our

spiritual master is himself chanting with offense, then of course it will be

difficult for us to have the proper example and training so that we can

learn to chant without offense.

 

> These points need further discussion, especially considering sastric

> injunctions of the vital role of gurus in the spiritual life of disciples.

> NR Prabhu pointed out that imitation of ®r…la Prabhup€da's position has

> driven devotees to ritvikism. But it could be that excessive devaluation

> of the role of gurus could drive devotees instead to Gauriya Math gurus

> who are (at least advertised as being) full fledged paramahansas.

 

That is why it is so important that our Iskcon gurus follow carefully in

Srila Prabhupada's foot-steps and not be seduced by adoring disciples into

imitating him. This imitation is sahajaism, cheating, and spoils everything.

Sincere disciples will appreciate that my guru is trying his best to follow

in the foot-steps of his spiritual master and they will be happy to remain

under his guidance. This will be especially true if we can actually

establish Srila Prabhupada's unique position as the empowered shaktivesa

avatar, whose mission is destined to changed the world.

Ys TS

[Guest guest]

> Isn't Lord Krishna independent! In fact, nobody can give Lord Krishna.

> Only He can reveal Himself to His devotees when He is pleansed with that

> particular devotee. Even a "100% guru" cannot really *give* Krishna!

 

This statement has no basis from the sastra. Prabhupada says in one

Bhagavatam purport that Lord Krsna is independent and His pure devotees are

as independent & free as Krsna Himself, to give Krsna-prema to whomsoever

they feel like.

 

> In fact, nobody can give Lord Krishna. Even a "100% guru" cannot really

*give* Krishna!

 

Please think twice before making such statements and do provide sastric

references for them. Kindly take this statement back after reading the

quotes posted below:

 

Cc Adi 11.59 purp.

 

"Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has sung, krsna se tomara, krsna dite para,

tomara sakati ache. In this song, Bhaktivinoda Thakura describes that a pure

Vaisnava, as the proprietor of Krsna and love of Krsna, CAN DELIVER both to

anyone and everyone he likes."

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.6.8, Vrndavana, November 30, 1976

 

"Bhaktivinoda Thakura has sung, krsna se tomara, krsna dite para: "Vaisnava

Thakura, Krsna is your property. If you like, you can GIVE."

 

> Isn't Lord Krishna independent!

 

No, Krsna is not independent in giving His mercy according to Srila

Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in Madhurya Kadambini. He is subservient to

His devotee and bestows His mercy in accordance with the devotee's mercy.

_____________

 

The Mercy of the Lord and His Devotee (extract from MK)

 

In proposing the UNQUALIFIED MERCY OF THE DEVOTEE as the cause of devotion,

one may also see fault in the devotee's partiality in distributing mercy. If

one considers the nature of the madhyama bhakta, one finds that he does

exhibit partiality in his distribution of mercy: he exhibits prema towards

the Lord, friendship to the devotees, mercy to the innocent and disregard

for those hostile to bhakti.

 

Here we see how the Lord becomes SUBSERVIENT TO HIS DEVOTEE, bestowing his

mercy IN ACCORDANCE with the devotee's mercy.

_____________________

 

So the mercy of a devotee is more important than the mercy of Krsna.

 

Mad-bhakta-pujabhyadhika (Bhag. 11.19.21). The Lord says, "Engaging in the

service of My devotee is better than trying to engage in My devotional

service." (SB 7.9.42 purp)

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana das

[Guest guest]

HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami writes:

 

> > These points need further discussion, especially considering sastric

> > injunctions of the vital role of gurus in the spiritual life of

> > disciples.

 

HH Trivikrama Swami comments:

 

> That is why it is so important that our Iskcon gurus follow carefully in

> Srila Prabhupada's foot-steps and not be seduced by adoring disciples into

> imitating him. This imitation is sahajaism, cheating, and spoils

> everything. Sincere disciples will appreciate that my guru is trying his

> best to follow in the foot-steps of his spiritual master and they will be

> happy to remain under his guidance.

 

That is a very good comment Maharaj. If the ISKCON gurus, assume a natural

position and accept service & worship from their disciples as per their own

actual spiritual advancement and reject all artificial upadhis and

glorification, then it will really create a deep long-lasting bond between

the sincere gurus themselves & their sincere disciples. And I have seen that

some gurus who are trying to do this, they have not lost their disciples in

this process but have only gained the confidence of the disciples that my

guru is realistically honest & humble. Some few may want to go and accept a

'paramhansa' guru in GM or something else, but ultimately they are bound to

realize their mistake incase they see glaring imperfections in the GM gurus.

Then they may realize the greatness of their own honest & humble diksha

gurus.

 

Obviously this kind of understanding by the gurus & disciples will destroy &

uproot rtvikism from its very roots. Rtviks are either one or zero. Means

they say a maha-bhagavata guru or no guru. They don't know that there is a

middle guru also as described in the NOI and Krishna Bhajanamrta.

Ironically they don't accept the Krishna Bhajanamrta by Narhari Sarkara

Thakura, who is the guru of the famous Locana dasa Takura and an intimate

associate of Lord Caitanya. This book was published both by Thakura

Bhaktivinoda & SBSST. Because of the lack of knowledge about the dealings

with the less advanced disksha guru by his disciple & vice-versa as given in

the Krishna Bhajanamrta, they have become rtviks seeing some shorcomings in

their guru. Like for eg. today after a nice SB lecture by Jayadvaita

Maharaj, Madhu Pandit prabhu asked a question (something like) does 'kaitava

dharma' apply to us who have taken shelter of Prabhupada and have given up

dharma, artha, kama & moksha but have assumed a position of false

glorification & pretension. And Jayadvaita Maharaj said yes and explained it

furthur. So if the present gurus accept a position according to what they

actually are and in this way try to assist their disciples according to

their own realization, voluntarily rejecting all kinds of worship not

applicable to them, then the rtviks may get attracted to the genuine

humility & straightforwardness of the gurus and give up their concocted

theory.

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana das

[Guest guest]

>They don't know that there is a

>middle guru also as described in the NOI and Krishna Bhajanamrta.

>Ironically they don't accept the Krishna Bhajanamrta by Narhari Sarkara

>Thakura, who is the guru of the famous Locana dasa Takura and an intimate

>associate of Lord Caitanya. This book was published both by Thakura

>Bhaktivinoda & SBSST. Because of the lack of knowledge about the dealings

>with the less advanced disksha guru by his disciple & vice-versa as given

in

>the Krishna Bhajanamrta, they have become rtviks seeing some shorcomings in

>their guru.

 

This is more to the point, refering to the teachings of our acharyas and to

shastra to understand how one should conduct one's affairs:

 

tasmac chastram pramanam te karyakarya vyavasthitau

jnatva-shastra-vidhanoktam karma-kartum iharhasi

 

"One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the

regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one

should act so that he may gradually be elevated." (Bg 16.24)

 

Personally, I have no objection to making distinctions between more advanced

gurus and less advanced, provided these directives are based on shastra and

also accordingly explained by our acharyas.

 

Before we go any further in this discussion, we should settle this issue:

what constitutes proper and improper evidence (i.e. what is shastra, sadhu,

guru, etc.)? Otherwise, we are wasting time.

 

For example, one participant in this discussion has said that Srila

Prabhupada's words are shastra. This is not according to Srila Prabhupada's

own words, nor is it according to shastra. But since this is a popular

notion, and a foundational premise of ritvik (because without it, you

wouldn't have ritvik), this must be addressed publically.

 

Someone may well ask what is the necessity of distinquishing between the

two, if Srila Prabhupada's words are as good as shastra? The answer is that

if you do not discriminate, then you loose your ability to distinguish

between a principle and a detail, which means you loose your ability to

practically apply scripture or to apply the teachings of the acharyas.

 

For example, you will not find in any of the literature compiled by Vyasadev

(shastra) that one should chant 64 rounds of the Hare Krishna mantra on a

mala consisting of 108 beads. Now, if we take it that whatever a pure

devotee says is shastra (because his words are never contrary to shastra),

then we may consider that this injunction to chant 64 rounds is a shastric

principle. Since Srila Prabhupada has given a conession to Westerners to

chant only 16 rounds, we may further consider that he is able to "change"

shastra. The principle is that one should regularly chant the Lord's names;

the actual number is a detail. But considering the detail to be a principle

would render meaningless any attempts to evaluate a devotee, even though he

is considered pure, because, at will, he can always change the rules.

 

Going back to earlier posts that contested that Srila Prabhupadas words are

not shastra, here is the following evidence to the contrary:

 

>"Those who repeat the teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode from memory do not

>necessarily understand the meaning of the words they mechanically repeat".

>

>"Those who read the Scriptures for gathering empiric wisdom will be

>pursuing the wild-goose chase."

 

 

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura is an authorized acharya because his teachings

are fully founded on the srutis, smritis, puranas, itihasas, etc.

Therefore, the above two sentences implicitly refer to a class of devotees

who supposedly appear to be conversant with Vedic knowledge but who actually

aren't.

 

This class of people are known as veda-vada-ratas (vidyayam ratah), who are

described in the passage:

 

andham tamah pravisanti ye 'vidyam upasate

tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u vidyayam ratah

 

"Those who engage in the culture of nescient activities shall enter into the

darkest region of ignorance. Worse still are those engaged in the culture of

so-called knowledge." (Isopanisad, Verse 9)

 

[From the purport]:

"The veda-vada-ratas give their own explanations of the Vedas, neglecting

the authority of great teachers (acaryas). . . . Vidyayam ratah thus means

'those engaged in the study of the Vedas.' The so-called students of the

Vedas are condemned herein because they are ignorant of the actual purpose

of the Vedas on account of their disobeying the acaryas."

 

Here, we see that the reason someone may know scripture or even quote

acharyas but nonetheless be mistaken in his conclusions is because they do

not follow the prescriptions of the saintly persons coming in the bona fide

disciplic succession. This is also corroborated in Bhagavad-gita (4.2):

 

evam parampara praptam imam rajarsayo viduh

sa kaleneha mahata yogo nashta parantapa

 

"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic

succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in the

course of tiem, the succession was broken, and therefore, the science, as it

is, appears to be lost." (Bg 4.2)

 

And again from the puroport of Isopanishad, verse 9:

 

"Such veda-vada-ratas search out meanings in every word of the Vedas to suit

their own purposes. They do not know that the Vedic literature is a

collection of extraordinary books that can be understood only through the

chain of disciplic succession." (Iso 9, purport)

 

We agree that one cannot simply understand the Vedas

without obeying the injunctions of the acharyas, however there is a

difference between

words based on shastra and those words which are directly shastra, and that

is the

conclusion of the acharyas.

 

"I would say that 'Srila Prabhupada's words' are sastra."

 

"Srila Prabhupada's purports and instructions are no

longer guru, but are sastra."

 

Compare these statements with the following authoritative references:

 

"From the Vedas, asya mahato bhutasya nisvasitam etad yad rg vedah iti. The

injuctions of dharma emanate from the breathing of Narayana, the supreme

living entity." (from SB 6.1.40 purport)

 

And also from SB 6.1.40 purport:

 

"Srila Madhvacarya, the original acarya for those who belong to the

Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya, says:

 

vedanam prathamo vakta harir eva yato vibhuh

ato visnv-atmaka veda ityahur veda-vadinah

 

"The transcendental words of the Vedas emanated from the mouth of the

Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore the Vedic principles should be

understood to be Vaisnava principles because Visnu is the origin of the

Vedas. The Vedas contain nothing besides the instruction of Visnu, and one

who fvollows the Vedic principels is a Vaisnava." (from SB 6.1.40 purport)

 

>From the Caitanya-caritamrita:

 

prabhu kahe vedanta-sutra isvara vacana

vyasa-rupe kaile yaha sri narayana

 

"The Lord said, 'Vedanta philosophy consists of words spoken by the Supreme

Personality of Godhead in the form of Vyasadev'" (CC Adi 7.106)

 

And also:

 

"Krsna's word is given by Krsna. Just like Bhagavad-gita. Sva-kathah means

"His own words." So this is bhagavata. And sva-kathah, Srimad-Bhagavatam is

also sva-kathah. The Puranas also, sva-kathah. Because all these books are

given by Vyasadeva. Vyasadeva is incarnation of Krsna. So that is also

sva-kathah. So we have to hear about Krsna which is given by Krsna.

Bhagavad-gita is given by Krsna, and Bhagavata and other Puranas and Vedic

literature given by Krsna Dvaipayana Vyasa." (Lecture SB 1.2.18 August 21,

1972)

 

So, we can see that a unique, distinguishing feature of shastra is that it

has emanated directly from the Lord, "vyasa-rupa" (as quoted above).

 

Although our shastra consists of words spoken by saintly persons like

Narada, Manu, etc., their words were still compiled by Vyasadev. That means

the dividing line as to whether or not a saintly person's words are shastra

is whether or not Vyasadev wrote about them.

 

For Srila Prabhupada's words to be considered shastra, either Vyasadev would

have had to have recorded Srila Prabhupada's words, or at least directly

approved of him

or Srila Prabhupada would have to directly be Vyasa. But since Srila

Prabhupada is not Vyasa,

nor were his words recorded by Vyasa, Srila Prabhupda's words come in the

category of a saintly person (sadhu), or one whose words are based on

shastra.

 

>From above, we see that a veda-vada-rata, or a so-called follower of the

vedas is one who disobeys the orders of the acaryas. And since this idea

that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra is in contravention of the

conclusions of our acharyas and Srila Prabhupada's own words, the

classification of Veda-vada-ratah (so-called followers of the Vedas) can

only fit those who continue to consider that Srila Prabhupada's words are

shastra even after evidence to the contrary is shown.

 

>"What are the Scriptures? They are nothing but the record by the pure

>devotees of the Divine Message appearing on the lips of the pure devotee.

>The Message conveyed by the devotees is the same in all ages.The words of

>the devotees are ever identical with the Scriptures.

 

 

"The words of the devotees are ever identical with Scriptures."

 

This statement is often misinterpreted that "'Srila Prabhupada's words' are

shastra."

Why is it not said in this quote "The words of the devotees are the

Scriptures"?

This "indentical", or "oneness", cannot be taken that the words of sadhus

are scriptures, because not all sadhus are recorded in the Vedic literature

by Vyasa.

 

The words of sadhus and the words of shastra are however, "one", or

"identical" in their purpose:

 

maya mugdha jivera nahi svata krishna-jnana

jivere krpaya kaila krishna veda purana

 

"The conditioned soul cannot revive his Krishna consciousness by his own

efforts. But out of causeless mercy, Lord Krishna compiled the Vedic

literature and its supplements, the Puranas." (CC Madhya 20.122)

 

Delivering the conditioned souls is also the purpose of the saintly persons:

 

nana sastra vikaranaika nipuno sad dharma samstapakau

lokanam hita karinau tribhuvane manau saranyakarau

radha-krishna-padaravinda-bhajananandena mattalikau

vande rupa-sanatanau raghu-yugau sri-jiva-gopalakau

 

"I offer my respectful obeisances unto the six Goswamis, who are very expert

in scrutinizingly studying all the revealed scriptures with the aim of

establishing eternal religious principles for the benefit of all human

beings. thus they are honored all over the three worlds, and they are worth

taking shelter of because they are absorged in the mood of the gopis and are

engated in the transcendental loving service of Radha and Krishna."

(Sad-gosvamy-astaka 2)

 

Since the purpose of the Lord and the purpose of the devotees is the same

(namely, to deliver the conditioned souls), they can be said to be identical

because their purpose is identical. But the Goswamis are still not Krishna.

 

"Identical", as it is used in the quote from the Harmonist, must therefore

refer to purpose, a specific quality shared by two compared objects (namely

the shastra and the words of pure devotees), and not the sameness of the two

compared objects, compared in their entirity. In other words, this idea

that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra is really a form of Mayavada that

is trying to ruin our society. (And doing quite a good job at it too.)

 

If anyone thinks otherwise, then he must show us which Purana Srila

Prabhupada's words are recorded in, or demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada is

none other than Vyasa.

 

>"The pure devotee is the speaker of the Transcendental language. The

>Transcendental Sound makes His Appearance on the lips of His pure devotee.

>This is the direct, unambiguous appearance of the Divinity."

 

 

>"Thakur Bhaktivinode is acknowledged by all his sincere followers as

>possessing the above powers of the pure devotee of Godhead. His words have

>to be received from the lips of a pure devotee."

>

>"If his works are studied in the light of ones own wordly experience their

>meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His works belong to

>the class of the eternal revealed literature of the world and must be

>approached for their right understanding through their exposition by the

>pure devotee. If no help from the pure devotee is sought the works of

Thakur

>Bhaktivinode will be grossly misunderstood by their readers. The attentive

>reader of those works will find that he is always directed to throw himself

>upon the mercy of the pure devotee if he is not to remain unwarrantably

>self-satisfied by the deluding results of his wrong method of study."

 

 

Again, this can easily be misinterpreted with bad logic. Those who consider

that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra reason as follows:

 

Shastra is transcendental literature.

 

Srila Prabhupada's books are transcendental literature.

 

Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's books are shastra.

 

This like saying

 

All men are humans.

 

Sita is a human.

 

Therefore, Sita is a man.

 

This is bad logic, because there is transcendental literature that exists

but is not shastra.

 

Just as not all humans are men, not all transcendental literature is

shastra. Again, and considering the confusion on this subject, it cannot be

overemphasized: shastra is that which has emanated from the Lord. Since

Srila Prabhupada's books are transcendental literature, but not specifically

recorded by Vyasa, they are not shastra but they are shastriya, or in line

with shastra.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

[Guest guest]

> For example, one participant in this discussion has said that Srila

> Prabhupada's words are shastra.

 

This is for your information, that Trivikram Maharaj has accepted Srila

Prabhupada words "as good as sastra" in the letter which commented Bhakti

Vikas Maharaja statement, and has not changed his opinion since. So your

interpretation of his last letter with quote from the Harmonist is wrong.

 

>In other words,

> this idea that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra is really a form of

> Mayavada that is trying to ruin our society. (And doing quite a good job

> at it too.)

 

Because you have already reffered to Trivikram Maharaj indirectly, for your

information, your above statement is indirect insault. Noone claim jiva to

be the Lord, so how is it Mayavada?

 

> Shastra is transcendental literature.

 

A = B

> Srila Prabhupada's books are transcendental literature.

 

C = B

> Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's books are shastra.

 

A = C

 

> This like saying

>

> All men are humans.

 

A < B [A - class of men; B - class of human]

 

> Sita is a human.

 

c = b [c - element from class of C, which is class of women; b - element

of class B]

 

> Therefore, Sita is a man.

 

c = a [a - element of class A]

 

So, when you use logic, do it correctly.

 

you wrote at 12 SEP.

 

>we are offering an INTERPRETATION of

> what is said. In fact, you can't really read or hear something without

> interpreting it. Understanding something necessarily means interpreting

> the words, sounds, pictures, ink on the page, etc. from which we draw our

> understanding.

 

But according to SBSST

 

"If his works are studied in the light of ones own wordly experience their

meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His works belong to

the class of the eternal revealed literature of the world and must be

approached for their right understanding through their exposition by the

pure devotee.

 

The Absolute appears to the listening ear of the

conditioned soul in the form of the Name on the lips of the Sadhu. This is

the key to the whole position."

 

"The person to whom the Acharya is pleased to transmit his power is alone in

a position to convey the Divine Message. This constitutes the underlying

principle of the line of succession of the spiritual teachers"

 

 

There is no question of interpreting words of sadhu and sastra and guru.

Only by pleasing Acharya you can convey the Divine Message. Otherwise your

interpretations, based on your wordly experiences will not help you.

 

Besides is this what sastra teach you to be direspect to Godbrother of your

guru?

[Guest guest]

Hari bol,why you are so elocuent to always say, artificially worship? and

that a guru should reject all knds of worship so the poor confused rvtiks can

feel better??again I dont agree,PRABHUPADA said guru should be worship as

good as god,why you always want to put down the worship of GURU??? is most

essential.

prema

[Guest guest]

> > For example, one participant in this discussion has said that Srila

> > Prabhupada's words are shastra.

>

> This is for your information, that Trivikram Maharaj has accepted Srila

> Prabhupada words "as good as sastra" in the letter which commented Bhakti

> Vikas Maharaja statement, and has not changed his opinion since. So your

> interpretation of his last letter with quote from the Harmonist is wrong.

>

> >In other words,

> > this idea that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra is really a form of

> > Mayavada that is trying to ruin our society. (And doing quite a good

> > job at it too.)

>

> Because you have already reffered to Trivikram Maharaj indirectly, for

> your information, your above statement is indirect insault. Noone claim

> jiva to be the Lord, so how is it Mayavada?

>

> > Shastra is transcendental literature.

>

> A = B

> > Srila Prabhupada's books are transcendental literature.

>

> C = B

> > Therefore, Srila Prabhupada's books are shastra.

>

> A = C

>

> > This like saying

> >

> > All men are humans.

>

> A < B [A - class of men; B - class of human]

>

> > Sita is a human.

>

> c = b [c - element from class of C, which is class of women; b - element

> of class B]

>

> > Therefore, Sita is a man.

>

> c = a [a - element of class A]

>

> So, when you use logic, do it correctly.

>

> you wrote at 12 SEP.

>

> >we are offering an INTERPRETATION of

> > what is said. In fact, you can't really read or hear something without

> > interpreting it. Understanding something necessarily means interpreting

> > the words, sounds, pictures, ink on the page, etc. from which we draw

> > our understanding.

>

> But according to SBSST

>

> "If his works are studied in the light of ones own wordly experience their

> meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His works belong

> to the class of the eternal revealed literature of the world and must be

> approached for their right understanding through their exposition by the

> pure devotee.

>

> The Absolute appears to the listening ear of the

> conditioned soul in the form of the Name on the lips of the Sadhu. This is

> the key to the whole position."

>

> "The person to whom the Acharya is pleased to transmit his power is alone

> in a position to convey the Divine Message. This constitutes the

> underlying principle of the line of succession of the spiritual teachers"

>

>

> There is no question of interpreting words of sadhu and sastra and guru.

> Only by pleasing Acharya you can convey the Divine Message. Otherwise your

> interpretations, based on your wordly experiences will not help you.

>

> Besides is this what sastra teach you to be direspect to Godbrother of

> your guru?

 

Home Base: ISKCON-Baroda

 

Dear Dwarakadish Prabhu,

 

Namonamaƒ. Jaya ®r…la Prabhup€da!

 

This is just to let you know that I don't agree with your view that Krishna

Kirti Prabhu has shown disrespect to Trivikram Maharaj... who by the way I

know for more than 20+ years and whom I still have a friendly relationship

with.

 

Please do not degrade yourself into a fanatic; please stick to philosophical

points.

 

If you wish to defeat Krishna Kirti Prabhu then you will have to do it with

philoshophy and not by using the old "give the dog a bad name and hang him"

trick. You will not be able to convince "thinking people" of the validity

of your arguments this way.

 

But yes, you might be able to convince the fanatics...

 

Hope this meets you well.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

> "Identical", as it is used in the quote from the Harmonist, must therefore

> refer to purpose, a specific quality shared by two compared objects

> (namely the shastra and the words of pure devotees), and not the sameness

> of the two compared objects, compared in their entirity. In other words,

> this idea that Srila Prabhupada's words are shastra is really a form of

> Mayavada that is trying to ruin our society. (And doing quite a good job

> at it too.)

>

> If anyone thinks otherwise, then he must show us which Purana Srila

> Prabhupada's words are recorded in, or demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada

> is none other than Vyasa.

 

Excuse me if I am somehow expeditious in my comment, but I see all this

comment too "recherché".

 

There are sruti and smriti. Sruti are directly God´s words and smriti are

the words about God from his devotees. Both of them are Scriptures. You can

find many quotes about this in Srila Prabhupada´s books, that are smti

Escriptures.

 

Ys

Bhagavata-Purana Dasa

[Guest guest]

>There are sruti and smriti. Sruti are directly God´s words and smriti are

>the words about God from his devotees. Both of them are Scriptures. You can

>find many quotes about this in Srila Prabhupada´s books, that are smRti

>Escriptures.

 

 

The puranas, although words from devotees about God, are also compiled by

Vyasadev.

 

Please look again at the quotations presented, the point you brought up is

covered there.

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhadra Govinda Prabhu,

Hare Krsna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

 

> To me the above statement "Infact, nobody can give Lord Krishna. Even a

> 100% guru cannot really *give* krishna" are words of DEEP REALISATION AND

> UNDERSTANDING. This statement is simply perfect.

 

I have proved with references from Bhaktivinoda Thakura's song, Prabhupada'

purp. & Madhurya Kadambini, that a pure devotee has Krsna and can give Krsna

to others as per his desire. Ultimately it happens due to Krsna's desire

(like Damodara lila with mother Yasoda) but Krsna Himself desires & gives

Himself without hesitation if His pure devotee wants to give Krsna to a

particular person according to Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in MK. Your

eg. of Yasoda in Damodara lila & Bhanu's Swami's example does not prove

anything opposite. So we get Krsna only from His pure devotee. So why do

you say that "Infact, nobody can give Lord Krishna." are words of DEEP

REALISATION AND UNDERSTANDING? These are words without any realization.

 

Infact Krsna has given full freedom to His pure devotees to give Him to

whoever they want to. One should understand this than everything will become

clear.

 

Your servant,

Nayana-ranjana das

[Guest guest]

Dear Nayana -ranjana Prabhu,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and

ISKCON.

 

> > In fact, nobody can give Lord Krishna. Even a "100% guru" cannot really

> *give* Krishna!

>

> Please think twice before making such statements and do provide sastric

> references for them. Kindly take this statement back after reading the

> quotes posted below:

 

To me the above statement "Infact, nobody can give Lord Krishna. Even a 100%

guru cannot really *give* krishna" are words of DEEP REALISATION AND

UNDERSTANDING. This statement is simply perfect. The following is my

understanding of this statement.

 

Now Damodara month is around the corner.(26th Oct 99). In this pastime of Lord

Damodara mother Yashoda wants to punish Lord Baby Krishna. She *endeavoured*

to bind Him up to a wooden grinding mortar. But when she tried to bind Him,

she found that the rope she was using was too short - by *TWO* inches. She

added more and more rope but again and again she was falling short by two

inches. She connected all the ropes available at home but still she fell short

by 2 inches. Mother Yashoda was ASTONISHED. It was actually IMPOSSIBLE for

mother Yashoda to bind the Supreme personality of Godhead. Mother yashoda was

thinking that Krishna was her tiny child; she did not know the child child had

no limitation. There is no inside or outside of Him, nor beginning or end. He

is unlimited and all pervading. Indeed He Himself is the whole cosmic

manifestation.

 

In attempting to bind her son, she became tired. She was perspiring, and the

garland on her head fell down. Then Lord Krishna appreciated the hard labor of

His mother, and being compassionate upon her, He agreed to be bound up by the

ropes.

 

Mother Yashoda Ki Jaya. Lord Damodara Ki Jaya.

 

Now great Acaryas give the significance (was it Jiva Goswami?) why always

mother Yashoda fell short only by two fingers width of rope again and again.

It is explained one finger (inch) signifies the *endeavour* of the devotee and

the other finger *the mercy* of the Lord. Any one is not there one cannot get

krishna. Then one will fall short by one finger width (one inch). It is a

combination of both, her love/endeavour and mercy/compassion of Lord Krishna

that mother Yashoda could bind Lord Krishna.

 

This March 99 when I was at Mayapur for the Vyasa Puja of my spiritual master

HH Jayapataka Swami Guru Maharaj , I attended the Bhagavatam class of my

another worshipable master HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj. At the end of the class I

asked Maharaj why Srila Prabhupada mentions in the TLC only be *personal

endeavour* one can attain Krishna. If one can attain krishna only by personal

endeavour then what about causeless mercy. It is mentioned everywhere that

only by causeless mercy one can attain Krishna.

 

Bhanu Swami Maharaj gave a wonderful answer. He explained on this

contradiction *causeless mercy* or *personal endeavour*, an entire South Indian

Sampradaya split into two. One party said only causeless mercy and the other

party said only personal endeavour. One gave the analogy of baby monkey

holding to the mother by *personal endeavour* and the other gave the analogy

of the cat holding the kitten in the jaws and the kitten being completely at

the *mercy* of the mother.

 

Maharaj explained this was not resolved until recently until Srila Bhaki

Siddhanta Saraswathi Thakur came and explained. Srila BSST says actually both

are not correct. In one case they become completely lazy (cat philosophy) and

the other they become independent of Krishna thinking on their own endeavour

they can attain krishna (monkey philosophy). Srila BSST gives the analogy of a

drowning man in the well. Some body throws a rope at him and he will hold on

to the rope and comes out. The rope is the causeless mercy. But one has to

hold on to the rope by *personal endeavour*. So it is combination of both.

One without the other it is simply not possible to attain or get Krishna.

 

The same thing happened in Damodara Lila. Please note in the Leela only on

seeing the personal endeavour and Love of mother Yashoda the Supreme Lord

surrendered and showed His compassion or mercy.

 

So "no body can give Lord Krishna. Even a 100% guru cannot really give Lord

Krishna" are words of deep realisation and understanding, This is correct.

Because the disciple has to make endeavour by PARI PRASHNA AND SEVA and then

only guru can really give krishna.

 

krishna Consciousness is Science of (self) realisation and not science of

quotations. We need the blessings of current Acaryas like Bhanu Swami Maharj

to understand seeming contradictions / and seeming imperfect statements of

devotees.

 

Dear Prabhu, Please pray for me to Lord Damodara in the Damodara month and in

this way let the causeless mercy flow to me through you.

 

Devotees, Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

> Nayana-ranjana das

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

 

PS : Your regular quotations on com.org are very nice. I distribute some of

those copies here among friends.

[Guest guest]

> >There are sruti and smriti. Sruti are directly God´s words and smriti are

> >the words about God from his devotees. Both of them are Scriptures. You

> >can find many quotes about this in Srila Prabhupada´s books, that are

> >smRti Escriptures.

>

>

> The puranas, although words from devotees about God, are also compiled by

> Vyasadev.

>

> Please look again at the quotations presented, the point you brought up is

> covered there.

>

> ys KKdas

 

There are other scriptures, written by others... i.e. Manu Smirti (Samhita),

Valmiki Ramayana, etc.,

 

However they are accepted by all Rishis (Sages) and Acharyas (Sankaracharya,

Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, etc.,).

 

Therefore they are of the same status as the shastras that were complied by

Vyasadev.

 

Parampara teaches us that we cannot go on considering all books as shastras.

 

If such "granthas", books, are not strictly accepted as "shastras" by the

rishis & the acharyas, then they can be considered "sadhu"; the opinion of

religious, learned persons. It may be that they are "as good as shastra";

but still considered on a different level.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s