vaishnava-smrti-grantha = bhakti-smrti-sastra

[Guest guest]

> I claim victory for Nayana-ranjana in this debate, but this is not the

> victory or defeat of the school yard boys, no, this is the non-envious

> victory and defeat of the cowherd boys that they experience in their

> games. After all, both sides in this debate, are on the same Iskcon team,

> and both want to please Srila Prabhupada.

 

Maharaj, you are very senior godbrother, very senior sannyasi and highly

respected throughout ISKCON. Therefore I bow down at your feet and offer

you my most respectful obeisances.

 

> So let it be established that Srila Prabhupada's books are

> bhakti-smrti-sastra. This will certainly be recognised in the future.

> Like Manu samhita, Srila Prabhupada's books will be the basis of human

> civilization for 10,000 years.

>

> Ys TS

 

Let us hope that your prediction will come true, as you have written, "in

the future".

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

At 05:38 PM 10/13/99 +0630, COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) wrote:

 

>But the 6 goswamis, as Srinivasacharya so nicely pointed out 400 years ago;

>nana shastra vicharanaika nipuno... and THOSE are the shastras that I've

>been talking about. Religious principles have been established by our own

>acharyas on the basis of THOSE shastras... and therefore we too follow in

>their footsteps. Which doesn't mean we reject our acharyas books as not

>being shastras... but for the sake of broadening the scope of preaching and

>establishing our siddhanta... in one sense... we say that they are

>"sadhu"...

>

>Or do you propose that "guru" & "sadhu" are only those who are in front of

>us?

>

>Anyway... I'm willing to accept anything you can dig up in the folio, etc.,

>in that regard.

>

>It's just that when we say, "guru", "sadhu" & "shastra"; just what do we

>mean?

>

>In my present most humble opinion; which I am open to revise, "guru" means

>either "shiksha", "diksha" or "vartma pradarshak"; "sadhu" means

>purvacharyas and "shastra" means vedic & vedic supplimentary literature;

>with special important given to Vyasadeva as Krishna Kirti Prabhu was so

>nicely pointing out...

>smriti granthas"; but the distinction between them and other vedic

>literatures is made in those descriptions themselves.

 

Isn't this how we all have understood it since the beginning? Otherwise, if

we don't demonstrate such distinction, how can we use them as a system of

checks and balances, as we have asserted for so long? (Aand how American an

idea this is, eh?) If in the American government, for example, the

executive branch managed to subsume the power of the legislative and the

judiciary (as many right-wing conspiracy theorists have asserted), then

turned around and said (and we can easily imagine President Clinton saying

this in his oily, "caring" manner), "Look, our founders set up this system

of checks and balances among the three branches of government to protect us

against the dangers you claim we're in," it would be clear how specious his

claim is. And I think this may be at the heart of those who question the

assertion that any of Srila Prabhupada's books are better than shastra.

 

However, they are AS

>GOOD AS vedic literatures. And here I'm sure we'll agree.

>

>Just for the record I don't feel that I'm trying to "score" or play a game

>of "oneupsmanship" here. I'm just trying to share my own subjective

>realizations with the other readers of these texts. The aim was to have a

>good grasp on siddhanta, so that we wouldn't be "hoodwinked" into accepting

>deviant ideas, i.e. ritvikvad, sahajiyaism, etc.

 

And this is the real point of discussion of philosophy among vaisnavas: to

hone our understanding as well as our ability to present the conclusion of

shastra to others. Therefore, anyone following this discussion, as well as

those who participated, are the winners.

 

Your servant,

Babhru das