The de-emphasized guru system

[Guest guest]

Dear Dvarkadish Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

>> 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.

 

We have all respect for Maharaj, and we apologize for any false accusations.

 

But whatever he did say, it was not explicitly stated. Perhaps Maharaj no

longer consideres Srila Prabhupada's words as shastra, perhaps not, because

many in our society make no distinction between shastra and words that are

as good as shastra. Indeed, they see them as interchangeable. If you

recall, the letter I posted to Trivikrama Maharaj, to which he replied with

some of the below words, was titled "Do you still think Srila Prabhupada's

words are shastra?"

 

Previously, Maharaj had explicitly stated that Srila Prabhupada's words were

shastra, so if he now thinks that Srila Prabhupada's words are not shastra,

then he should explicitly say so, because, as I said, many devotees in our

society equivocate a sadhu's words with Vyasa's words. Without this

widespread misconception, you wouldn't have such a widespread acceptance of

ritvik. Therefore, previously since Maharaj has explicitly stated his

position on Prabhupada's words vis-a-vis shastra (that it IS shastra), and

if Maharaj has indeed changed his opinion on the subject, then it would

greatly help clear further misunderstandings if Maharaj states his position

as explicitly as he previously stated it.

 

>>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?

 

Maharaj has yet to explicitly state his position on this. You may be

considering that he has, but I and others don't see that (and I have a some

recent letters from other devotees who also think this).

 

 

As far as what is mayavada,

 

prabhu kahe vedanta sutra isvara vacana

 

"isvara vacana" means the words spoken by God. If I simply repeat the words

of God, then that is still isvara vacana, but if I offer an explanation, or

my understanding of those words, even if I am a pure devotee, my words are

not "isvara vacana" simply because I am not "isvara", or the supreme

controller.

 

Therefore, claiming that the words spoken by a living entity and the words

spoken by the Lord are identical is Mayavada. For example, "you are spirit,

the Lord is spirit, therefore you are the Lord." The fault comes with

considering the oneness without considering the differences.

 

Practically, if you accept that a pure devotee's words are shastra, then the

ritviks have a strong case. (And they are not the only example, there are

other groups who do the same.)

 

>> 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.

 

 

Dvarkadish Prabhu, please look at the example again. Men has two meanings:

(1) persons who are male in gender, and (2) the human race (mankind). When

you speak of "man" in the plural, it becomes "men", as in "several men".

Here, in my example, "men" was definitely refering to the plural of "man",

or the class of males, as differentiated from females. This example would

be obvious to anyone who is a native speaker of English. (I'm not chiding

you, but you did misinterpret it. Since English is not your mother tongue,

your misreading can be overlooked. I would probably do the same thing if we

were discussing this in Polish :-)

 

Here is a more cross-lingual-friendly rendition:

 

Apples are fruit

 

Oranges are fruit

 

Therefore oranges are apples.

 

>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?

 

Yes, this is also my specific objection to this idea of respecting one's

guru according to the advancement we imagine that they don't have. Maharaj

has been quite vehemently asserting that because he feels that he is not

100% Krishna conscious, that his disciples and others should not respect him

as such.

 

Here, we see that inspite of whatever faults he may have, you are more than

ready to overlook those, even though Maharaj is asking you to also consider

those faults. Why? It could be said that you are only defending him on a

specific point, but why then do you cite as evidence the above quote: "The

Absolute appears to the listening ear of the conditioned soul in the form of

the Name on the lips of the Sadhu."? Is Maharaja 100% faultless? Maharaj

will be the first to tell you that he is not, as will Rupa Goswami.

 

The obvious problem with that is, if we accept this idea that the Absolute

is not absolutely appearing on the lips of a non-uttama guru, then why

should we even consider listening to him? For example, I might say

something about shastra--it is Krishna's words. But if my understanding

(due to my inferior advancement) is not proper, my interpretation will

misinform you. Then, because you have a incorrect understanding, your

activities based on that incorrect understanding will also faulty. And

because they are faulty, you will not get the desired result.

 

Take, for example, bhakti mixed with karma--karma misra bhakti. The karma

mishra bhakta is a devotee, no doubt, but as long as his devotion is mixed,

he will not develop the spontaneous urge to hear the messages of Vasudev (a

sign of pure devotion). Now, if your guru's instructions to you are also

similaraly tainted because they are not pure (because he is not an uttama

adhikari), then there is no possibility that you will become free from your

material entanglement because by the influence of such instruction, your

activities will continue to be impure.

 

Why, then, do we even go to such a guru? (This will be dealt with further,

hang on.)

 

Nayana-ranjan Prabhu has brought up some good points, that there are

distinctions between the gurus, if only for the reason that Srila Prabhupada

clearly makes a distinction between them. But that is not to say that the

absolute truth is not fully appearing on the lips of even your kanistha or

madhyama gurus.

 

For example, if I tell someone that Krishna is God (paramesvara), then how

is my instruction faulty? Is it tainted? Is it somehow "impure"? Or, more

practical, let us say Maharaj tells you to chant Hare Krishna, is that

instruction also somehow impure? No, the instruction is pure, but it is

ACCORDING TO YOUR CAPACITY.

 

This is where the difference lies between the realization of the various

grades of devotees, gurus, etc., is in the capacity of devotee. Take Dhruva

Maharaja's mother, for example. She is a simple woman, not learned in

shastra, but her instruction was nonetheless perfect: "Only Lord Vishnu can

help you, you must approach Lord Vishnu."

 

Other examples of pure devotees who were not uttama adhikaris are Tapana

Mishra and Chandrashekhara. Srila Prabhupada clearly describes them as

kanishta adhikaris, yet he also describes them as great devotees. They are

personal associates of the Lord. As such, they are 100% in touch with the

Lord. But why are they kanistha adhikaris?:

 

"Although a kanistha-adhikari also cannot tolerate such blasphemy, he is not

competent to stop it by citing sastric evidences. Therefore Tapana Misra and

Candrasekhara are understood to be kanistha-adhikaris because they could not

refute the arguments of the sannyasis in Benares. They appealed to Lord

Caitanya Mahaprabhu to take action, for they felt that they could not

tolerate such criticism although they also could not stop it." (CC Adi 7.51

purport)

 

This is the difference between a kanistha, a madhyama and an uttama. All

three classes of Vaishnavas can be pure, but their knowledge of shastra (and

hence ability to explain them) is different. That means that gurus who are

in the lower stages may not be able to conclusively answer all queries of

their disciples, or successfully answer strong challenges from the atheists.

 

In practical dealings, this may mean that a disciple who does not get a

conclusive explanation on a troublesome issue might just fall away, or that

if an atheist challenges our preacher in a public place and wins, then all

those who are listening will consider the atheist right and the devotee

wrong and hence go down the wrong path. Hence, it can be said that the

direction given by the kanistha and madhyama gurus is insufficient.

 

But, as pointed out above, insufficient does not mean that what instruction

they CAN give is not the 100% absolute truth. I may say, "You should offer

all your food to Krishna", and you might challenge "Why?" Now, where is the

impurity in this instruction? It is pure, and therefore it is 100%

representative of the absolute truth. But my capacity to explain it is

limited.

 

If we accept a radical (absolute, 100% :-) interpretation of "insufficient",

that the kanistha and madhyama gurus are truly unable to deliver their

disciples (or deliver anyone, just one person), then that would contradict

Srila Prabhupada's statement that a kanistha or a madhyama adhikari can

become a guru, because "guror na sa syat", one should not become a guru

unless he is able to liberate his dependents. Therefore, this radical

interpretation of "insufficient" is incorrect.

 

Considering these points, that although a non-uttama guru is limited in his

ability to speak on shastra, what he CAN speak is still 100% representatvie

of the absolute truth, and, therefore, the absolote truth also appears on

their lips. This is true because if whatever they say is not 100%

representative of the absolute truth (mixed with some maya), then you would

never be able to make advancement, because your devotional practices based

on their instructions would be intrinsicly misguided.

 

What we are advocating is that for someone to properly represent the

absolute truth, the minimum qualification is that he must conform to

qualifications laid out in Nectar of Instruction verse 1. Then you have

some ability to save someone, deliver them from the cycle of repeated birth

and death, even if you are not an uttama-adhikari.

 

Again, your ordinary life guard, although he is not the world's champion

swimmer, still has the ability to save you if you are drowning. Of course,

there may be some situations where only the world's greatest swimmer can

rescue someone before it becomes too late, but the ordinary lifeguard is

still useful. And you will still have the utmost honor for him when he does

save you.

 

Assessing gurus according to their disqualifications can be very subjective

and unreliable. As conditioned souls, it is our propensity to find faults

in others, therefore, what we consider to be the disqualification of someone

else may not be factual. People could find fault with Srila Prabhupada

(yes, disciples also), or with Lord Chaitanya. Therefore, a sign that

someone is advancing in spiritual understanding is that he acquires an

aversion to fault-finding:

 

ahimsa satyam akrodhas tyagah santir apaisunam: "nonviolence; truthfulness;

freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquillity; aversion to faultfinding"

(from Bg 16.2 - qualities of a godly person)

 

Which brings us back to your initial reaction to my posting: you were

offended. Why? Why are you not prepared to see Maharaja's faults, although

he has many (according to him), and even tells you to do so? And you are

even prepared to defend him inspite of those faults. That is why I object

to what has been proposed as a "demphasized guru system" (past words from

Nayanaranjan Prabhu, and also, aparently, mooted by Maharaj) because it is

just contrary to the natural vaishnava way of doing things.

 

Here is more evidence:

 

vaisnavera guna-grahi, na dekhaye dosa

kaya-mano-vakye kare vaisnava-santosa

 

"He [Pandita Haridasa] always accepted the good qualities of Vaisnavas and

never found fault in them. He engaged his heart and soul only to satisfy the

Vaisnavas."

[purport] "It is a qualification of a Vaisnava that he is adosa-darsi: he

never sees others’ faults. Of course, every human being has both good

qualities and faults. Therefore it is said, saj-jana gunam icchanti dosam

icchanti pamarah: everyone has a combination of faults and glories. But a

Vaisnava, a sober man, accepts only a man’s glories and not his faults, for

flies seek sores whereas honeybees seek honey. Haridasa Pandita never found

fault with a Vaisnava but considered only his good qualities." (CC Adi

8.62)

 

And as I pointed out before, there is the example of Lord Caitanya's

dealings with Ramachandra Puri. Why was Lord Chaitanya not relating to

Ramachandra Puri as according to Ramacandra Puri's level of spiritual

advancement?

 

Therefore, I consider this "demphasized guru system", even on the plea that

a guru is not an uttama adhikari, is not in line with the teachings of our

acharyas. What it will do is encourage devotees to find faults, and thus

develop avaishnava qualities like fault finding, because, by the very nature

of this proposed system, you have to assess your guru's faults and worship

him accordingly--according to what he is not. Bhakti Vikas Maharaj's

assessment that it could lead to creating a culture of "hindu family

priests" with whom we only maintain a formal relationship and have no trust

in is therefore very realistic.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

 

P.S. Even though you say Maharaj has said that he no longer accepts Srila

Prabhupada's words as shastra, I have doubts about this for reasons I have

explained above. I'm also not the only one who thinks this. Maharaj may

have said something which suggests that he might not any longer be

considering Srila Prabhupada's words as shastra, but it was not explicit,

and that is not the same as coming right out and saying, "No, Srila

Prabhupada's words are not shastra. Transcendental, yes, but shastra no.",

not explicit like he did when he first claimed Srila Prabhupada's words are

shastra. I am doubtful, and you can hold that against me, but I'm not

responsible for what everyone else says, either. For the benefit of further

discussion, it would be good if Maharaj made his poisition clear on the

matter. It will save us all time if we don't have to haggle over basic

definitions, and that is practical.

 

We have all respect for Maharaj, and we apologize for any false accusations.