Nayana Ranjana Prabhu... kindly reconsider your opinion...

[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.

>

> 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.

>

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

> life.

>

> 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.

>

> Do you accept defeat?

>

> Your servant,

> Nayana-ranjana das

 

nana shastra vicharanaika nipunaha...

 

The 6 goswamis were "nipunahaexpert" at "vicharanaikaconsidering"

(hindi-vichar)... what? "nana shastra"; "various scriptures".

 

The sense is that they were presenting explainations of various scriptures

in their "works"... not creating scriptures. No. It never says that

anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's or any other Gaudiya Acharya's writings.

 

Your proposal above, "SO SRILA PRABHUPADA'S BOOKS ARE SMRTI-PRASTHANA" is

dangerous. Why? Because anyone & everyone will then start to claim that

their gurus writings are vedic literature.

 

The fact is that Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas have indeed distinguished

between the writings of acharyas and "shruti, smriti, puranadi...".

 

Trivikram Maharaj rightly pointed out that the writings of our acharyas are

"as good as shastra". However, that does not make them shastra. If you

want to call it "one & different", well, fine. For the sake of

understanding. But the fact remains that there is a distinction between the

two. Shastras cannot be created by everyone & anyone. This statement

doesn't take away anything from the fact that acharyas & elevated devotees

write books presenting the science of KC/Bhakti Yoga for the ignorant. And

that the contents of those books are transcendental.

 

The bottom line here is tradition; parampara. Because all acharyas in our

line & in the other vedic & vaishnava sampradayas accept certain literatures

as shastras, we accept it.

 

This dilema is similar to another dilema; "can we or can we not accept

mahaprasad (grains) of the Deity on Ekadasi" (since Mahaprasad is

non-different from the Lord, then why can we not honor it on Ekadasi). The

answer that I heard in this regard is that, "yes, we could... but because

our tradition and shastras teach us not to, therefore, we do not take it on

the ekadasi day."

 

So...

 

Because tradition & shastras themselves teach us which "granthas" (books)

are shastras, we accept them as such. Other books, we can accept as "guru"

and "sadhu" and yes, we can accept them as being "as good as" shastra.

 

Just like we accept that the guru is as good as God, being his

representitive. But still he is NOT God. "Kintu prabhur yaha priya eva";

because he is very dear to God".

 

If you have the right to say that Prabhupada's books are "smriti-prasthana",

then other followers of other gurus will similarly "stake their claims" that

their books are "smriti prasthana". And this will go on "ad infinitum".

 

But tradition and shastras themselves teach us which books are "shruti

prasthana", "smriti prastana", etc. And BTW the other books written by

"liberated souls" mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in CC that you've quoted

above would be "Valmiki Ramayana", "Manu Smriti" and other dharma shastras,

which are accepted by all acharyas.

 

Hope you catch on to the logic employed here. And dispense with the game of

one upsmanship. Yes, we must try to deepen our understanding of the

philosophy of vaishnavism; but it ought to be done with the utmost

seriousness and humility.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

Excellent! Sadhu Sadhu!!

 

My reason for saying this is that Basu Ghosh Prabhu's explanation harmonizes

many conflicting theories, based on seemingly contradictory evidence.

 

This is the proper standard.

 

Thank you very much, Basu Ghosh Prabhu.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

 

>nana shastra vicharanaika nipunaha...

>

>The 6 goswamis were "nipunahaexpert" at "vicharanaikaconsidering"

>(hindi-vichar)... what? "nana shastra"; "various scriptures".

>

>The sense is that they were presenting explainations of various scriptures

>in their "works"... not creating scriptures. No. It never says that

>anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's or any other Gaudiya Acharya's writings.

>

>Your proposal above, "SO SRILA PRABHUPADA'S BOOKS ARE SMRTI-PRASTHANA" is

>dangerous. Why? Because anyone & everyone will then start to claim that

>their gurus writings are vedic literature.

>

>The fact is that Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas have indeed

distinguished

>between the writings of acharyas and "shruti, smriti, puranadi...".

>

>Trivikram Maharaj rightly pointed out that the writings of our acharyas are

>"as good as shastra". However, that does not make them shastra. If you

>want to call it "one & different", well, fine. For the sake of

>understanding. But the fact remains that there is a distinction between

the

>two. Shastras cannot be created by everyone & anyone. This statement

>doesn't take away anything from the fact that acharyas & elevated devotees

>write books presenting the science of KC/Bhakti Yoga for the ignorant. And

>that the contents of those books are transcendental.

>

>The bottom line here is tradition; parampara. Because all acharyas in our

>line & in the other vedic & vaishnava sampradayas accept certain

literatures

>as shastras, we accept it.

>

>This dilema is similar to another dilema; "can we or can we not accept

>mahaprasad (grains) of the Deity on Ekadasi" (since Mahaprasad is

>non-different from the Lord, then why can we not honor it on Ekadasi). The

>answer that I heard in this regard is that, "yes, we could... but because

>our tradition and shastras teach us not to, therefore, we do not take it on

>the ekadasi day."

>

>So...

>

>Because tradition & shastras themselves teach us which "granthas" (books)

>are shastras, we accept them as such. Other books, we can accept as "guru"

>and "sadhu" and yes, we can accept them as being "as good as" shastra.

>

>Just like we accept that the guru is as good as God, being his

>representitive. But still he is NOT God. "Kintu prabhur yaha priya eva";

>because he is very dear to God".

>

>If you have the right to say that Prabhupada's books are

"smriti-prasthana",

>then other followers of other gurus will similarly "stake their claims"

that

>their books are "smriti prasthana". And this will go on "ad infinitum".

>

>But tradition and shastras themselves teach us which books are "shruti

>prasthana", "smriti prastana", etc. And BTW the other books written by

>"liberated souls" mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in CC that you've quoted

>above would be "Valmiki Ramayana", "Manu Smriti" and other dharma shastras,

>which are accepted by all acharyas.

>

>Hope you catch on to the logic employed here. And dispense with the game

of

>one upsmanship. Yes, we must try to deepen our understanding of the

>philosophy of vaishnavism; but it ought to be done with the utmost

>seriousness and humility.

>

>VaiSNava dAsanudAs,

>

>BAsu Ghosh DAs