How would your Lib-O-Meter rate Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita?

[Guest guest]

>The Six Goswamis have not just compiled the books but have added their

>commentaries and have written many others with only their elaborate

>commentaries. So these are all bhakti-smrti-sastra.

 

 

Although the Six Goswamis have compiled books, your word that their books

are shastra is not evidence. Is it written in the Vedas we must accept your

opinion without question?

 

>If you are not convinced then here's the nail on the head:

>

>"Authoritative books indicating the ultimate goal and written by liberated

>souls like Vyasadeva (for example, Bhagavad-gita, Mahabharata and the

>Puranas, especially Srimad-Bhagavatam, the Maha-Purana) are called

>smrti-prasthana. " (TLC Chp 19, Further Talks with Prakasananda)

 

>Note smrti-prasthana has two characteristics:

>

>(1) It is written by liberated souls (need not necessarily be only

Vyasadeva

>as Srila Prabhupada indicates by saying LIKE* Vyasadeva) So you wrong by

>saying that the smrtis can only be written by Vyasadeva.

 

 

Sorry, once again, you take an oblique quote and screw meanings out of it

that are incompatible with other evidence. Why do you ignore the evidence I

have presented? If you did not read them, then please take the time to read

them now. We would all be interested to see you reconcile your claims with

them:

 

"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)

 

"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)

 

And other quotes are there. Are Srila Prabhupada's words "sva-katha"? If

Srila Prabhupada's words are of the identical category of Vyasa's words,

then there should be something that is "sva-katha", or independent of any

other source, just like Krishna is svarat, independent.

 

Now, although you are completely disregarding the evidence above, as if it

didn't exist (otherwise, why have you not tried to reconcile these

statements with other statements you have provided), it would not be proper

on my part to also disregard the evidence you have provided.

 

Yes, there are other authorities, like Manu, Narada, Parashara, etc., who

have written literature which are accepted as scripture, smriti shastra.

However, please note that ALL OF THESE PERSONALITIES ARE ACCEPTED AS

AUTHORITIES IN THE LITERATURE COMPOSED BY VYASA. For example, the Ramayana

is directly refered to in the Srimad Bhagavatam (cf 9th Canto), and Manu

appears in many places and is declared as an authority.

 

And yes, there is evidence for this:

 

"So how can we not be cheated? That is mahatmabhih. You have to follow the

previous great acaryas, mahatmabhih. Just like Krsna is accepted. Krsna said

He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Arjuna accepted, "Yes, param

brahma param dhama [bg. 10.12]," after hearing from Him. Param brahma. And

then, after Arjuna, disciplic succession. Lord Caitanya accepted. All the

acaryas, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, accepted Krsna, the Supreme

Personality. Sastra says, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam [sB 1.3.28]. So we have

to follow these mahajana. Otherwise we cannot get the right knowledge.

Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah [Cc. Madhya 17.186]. We have to follow great

authorities. So who are authorities? They are mentioned in the sastras:

 

svayambhur naradah sambhuh kumarah kapilo manuh

prahlado janako bhismo balir vaiyasakir vayam

[sB 6.3.20]

 

"Everything is there, sastra. So Yudhisthira Maharaja followed the

principles as it was done by the previous mahatmabhih, great personalities,

not only in his family but also otherwise. Because knowledge is... Right

knowledge is not different. "Two plus two equal four," it is right in

Europe, in America, in Asia, in white, in black, everywhere. It is truth,

"Two plus two..." You cannot make "Two plus two equal to five." That is not

possible. That is truth." (SB 115-44 Lectures Los Angeles 12-22-73)

 

Please note the question: "So who are the authorities?" and the answer

"They are mentioned in the sastras:"

 

and supported with many nice quotes from sastra.

 

>(2) These books should be authoritative indicating the ultimate goal of

>life.

 

 

Even you can write a book indicating the ultimate goal of life. You can cut

and paste a few quotes here and there, give your explanation, and, who

knows, someone might take up spiritual life (it happens), even though you

are not an uttama adhikari.

 

One time, as I was distributing books in the Chicago O'Hare airport, and in

the course of the day, a college-age student approached me, and asked if I

was selling Bhagavad-gitas. (Of course, I was.) And he told me that he

read Satsvarupa Maharaja's biography of Srila Prabhupada, and was thus

inspired to read Srila Prabhupada's Gita. (Of course, he bought it.)

 

My wife also, a devotee in the Bombay temple for 10 years, left her family

(very difficult for a girl born and brought up in India) and joined ISKCON.

The inspiration? Satsvarupa Maharaja's "Your Ever Well-Wisher".

 

One college student who regularly comes to the temple here in Baltimore also

came to Krishna consciousness through reading "Your Ever-Well Wisher."

 

Now, since Satsvarupa Majaraja's biography has demonstratedly indicated the

ultimate goal of life, inspiring someone in the right direction, does that

mean it has become "smriti shastra"? If so, then, according to one of the

definitions offered from you thus far:

 

"Authoritative books indicating the ultimate goal and written by liberated

souls like Vyasadeva (for example, Bhagavad-gita, Mahabharata and the

Puranas, especially Srimad-Bhagavatam, the Maha-Purana) are called

smrti-prasthana. " (TLC Chp 19, Further Talks with Prakasananda)

 

Please note the words "liberated souls". How could a non-liberated soul

write something that is authoritative, and has the potency to bring people

to Krishna-consciousness? Are you willing to accept that Majaraj might

actually be a liberated soul? And if so, then would you accept his

biography as authoritative, and, therefore, shastra? If so (yes to either

of these questions), then why all your hype about everyone in ISKCON being

less than liberated? And considering the transcendental quality of the

Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita, what kind of reading (percentage) would your

"Lib-O-Meter" assign to Maharaja? I am just using him as an example,

because there are many other devotees who are writing literature that is

also inspiring others.

 

Since Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita has demonstrated potency to inspire others

in their spiritual life, and since such literature cannot be written by

"non-liberated people", you will have to accept something written by your

contemporaries as shastra, and that would debunk the popular idea that

everyone of Srila Prahbupada's descendents is somehow in maya, even if you

say they are only a little bit in maya:

 

"It is by the mercy of all these Vaisnavas and gurus that I attempt to write

about the pastimes and qualities of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Whether I know

it or know not, it is for self-purification that I write this book." (CC

Adi. 9.6 [purport below])

[purport] This is the sum and substance of transcendental writing. One must

be an authorized Vaisnava, humble and pure. One should write transcendental

literature to purify oneself, not for credit. By writing about the pastimes

of the Lord, one associates with the Lord directly. One should not

ambitiously think, “I shall become a great author. I shall be celebrated as

a writer.” These are material desires. One should attempt to write for

self-purification. It may be published or it may not be published, but that

does not matter. If one is actually sincere in writing, all his ambitions

will be fulfilled. Whether one is known as a great author is incidental. One

should not attempt to write transcendental literature for material name and

fame."

 

Don't ignore this one like all the other references I have provided,

Nayanaranjan Prabhu, you have to answer this: is the Srila Prabhupada

lilamrita materially tainted, or not? And if it is not, are you prepared to

accept it as shastra? And the author as liberated? And if it is not

authoritative (because it has some material influence, because it is written

by a less than 100% Krishna-conscious person), then it would have no value

because:

 

"A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach

that which is worth hearing." (Bg 2.12 purport)

 

We anxiously await your answers to these questions. :-) On your

"Lib-O-Meter", what is the transcendental status of Srila Prabhupada

Lilamrita? :-D

 

Oh yes, and if you think that Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita is materially

tainted (even if only ever so slightly), why don't you all stop reading it

on Ekadasi days in the Bombay temple? You can simply read Srila

Prabhupada's books, and that will be more inspiring, wouldn't you agree?

After all, if you if you have to read a book, why not read from a 100%

Krishna-conscious person instead of a 90% Krishna-conscious person (or

whatever silly percentage your "Lib-O-Meter" assigns to Maharaja)?

 

>Both these conditions are met in the case of Srila Prabhupada's books

except

>if you say that Srila Prabhupada was not a liberated soul or his books are

>not authoritative or do not lead to the ultimate goal of life, which

>ofcourse is not the fact. SO SRILA PRABHUPADA'S BOOKS ARE SMRTI-PRASTHANA.

 

 

Let us say I write a pamphlet, it has a little Krishna-conscious philosophy,

it has the Hare Krishna mahamantra on it, and an invitation to the temple.

Someone gets the leaflet, decides to "check out the temple", and later on

becomes a devotee. Since my writing has lead to the ultimate goal of life

for someone (for goodness sake, the guy became a devotee! and later on a

great preacher, etc., what more do you want?), that must mean I am a

liberated person, and therefore I must be a liberated soul.

 

Come on, Nayanaranjan Prabhu, these are basic points of philosophy. The

defect of your argument is it suffers from ativyapti, or overpervasion,

because your definition defines something which it wasn't intended to

define. For example, if I define a cow as an animal with two horns, my

definition also includes goats. Goats, obviously, aren't cows. And

similarly, my literature is not shastra, although it conforms to the

criteria that you have outlined.

 

You may say, "But you aren't liberated, so it does not fulfill that

criteria." But you have forgotten about my disciple. On his strength, I

also become liberated. Although you claim that a disciple cannot surpass

his guru's level of spiritual advancement, that is not a fact. For the

umpteenth time, here is evidence from the pastimes of Dhruva Maharaja:

 

"The great associates of Vaikunthaloka, Nanda and Sunanda, could understand

the mind of Dhruva Maharaj, and thus they showed him that his mother,

Suniti, was going foward in another plane."

 

[purport] This incident that the siksa or diksa guru who has a disciple who

strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaj can be carried by

the disciple even thought the instructor is not as advanced. Although

Suniti was an instructor to Dhruva Majaraj, she could not go to the forest

because she was a woman, nor could she execute austerities and penances as

Dhruva Majaraj did. Still, Dhruva majaraj was abole to take his mother with

him. Similarly, Prahlada Majaraj also delivered his atheistic father,

hiranyakasipu. The conclusion is that a disciple or an offspring who is a

very strong devotee can carry with him to Vaikunthaloka either his father,

mother, or siksa or diksa-guru. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Srasvati Thakura used

to say, "If i could perfectly deliver even one soul back home, back to

Godhead, I would think my mission--propagating Krishna consciousness--to be

successful." The Krishna consciousness movement is spreading now all over

the world, and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many

ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong ad Dhruva Maharaja, then he

will be able to carry me with him to Vaikunthaloka." (Srimad Bhagavatam

4.12.33 translation & purport)

 

So, even though I am still hovering on the lower platforms of devotional

service, my more advanced Krishna-conscious disciple takes me back to the

spiritual world with him. And all for that silly little pamphlet!

 

>Do you accept defeat?

 

 

What do you think? Let's see you, for once, directly respond to the above

points, without grossly contradicting them. Nayanaranjana Prabhu, another

defect in your presentations are that sometimes you present this quote,

sometimes you present that quote, but we have yet to see you present for one

particular point quotes that are from all three sources: shastra (that

compiled by Vyasa), sadhu (previous acharyas) along with your quotations of

Srila Prabhupada, even if it is only Srila Prabhupada repeating shastra or

previous acharyas. Just do that much, and I'll take you seriously.

 

ys KKdas