Quoting shastra v.s quoting one's guru

[Kulapavana]

In his books and lectures Srila Prabhupada uses almost exclusively shastric quotes to prove his point. He also used reason and logic in many of his presentations, especially when talking to people representing other religions or materialists. however, you will be hard pressed to find examples of him quoting Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, especially any verbatim quotes.

 

When is it appropriate to quote one's guru in preaching or discussions? Only among the Godbrothers?

[raga]

In a discussion or a dialogue, you can refer to any and all shared authorities in the capacity of evidence. Still, it is, of course, befitting to focus on the sastra, as sastra is the "original" authority. Doing that, you'll ensure the widest possible accepting exposure for what has been spoken. Non-shared authorities will either first have to be established as shared authorities (as Jiva Gosvami does with the Bhagavata in his Tattva-sandarbha), or otherwise quoted in a knick-knack capacity without resting one's points on them.

 

Deductive reasoning is a universal authority inasmuch as the premises of the rationale are accurate, and inductive reasoning will also generally pass if the leaps aren't massive. Precedents are authoritative inasmuch as accounts of them can be verified.

 

Then, addressing the original question: Given the above, it is generally appropriate to quote one's guru only among the godbrothers or in a similar environment, and moreover, even then generally only if a "higher level" evidence – the sastra – is not available, or when higher level evidences conflict (in which case the guru's rationale for accepting a particular view is also good to explain).

 

In inter-tradition debates, if neither of the participants is established in knowledge of scriptures with shared authority (such as the Puranas or the Upanisads), there is little to be gained from a debate where each cites his own tradition's interpretations as evidence – much like if a Christian were to cite the Bible for you. In such situations, the best mode of discussion is a dialogue in which both respectfully explore each others' heritages. That can, in fact, often be more beneficial than an attempt to be in a directly shared arena with a clash of interpretations.

[narayani]

Hare Krsna,

 

It has been my understanding that in order to be a bonafide guru you must agree with sastra, so would it matter if one quotes the bonafide guru or sastra since both should be in accord?

[Kulapavana]

 

Given the above, it is generally appropriate to quote one's guru only among the godbrothers or in a similar environment, and moreover, even then generally only if a "higher level" evidence – the sastra – is not available, or when higher level evidences conflict (in which case the guru's rationale for accepting a particular view is also good to explain).

 

thank you for your comments. is there a generally recognized (in GV) "hierarchy of evidence"? as in for example: Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Itihasas, Agamas, works of the six Goswamis, previous recognized sampradaya gurus, current guru, etc. Many disciples of GV gurus nowadays accept instructions of their particular guru as the highest level of evidence, above any shastra. Is that justified in any way in our tradition?

[Guest guest]

Understanding shastra is much like looking into a jewel with many facets.

 

Looking at the jewel from different angles of vision might show a different color to diffferent viewers.

As such, it is interpreting shastra and understanding esoteric messages in the shastra that distinguishes one teacher from another.

 

The spiritual master might say something based upon teachings of the shastra that might have been missed or untouched by previous interpretations.

 

Ultimately, it is the interpretation of shastra that is critical to each particular school of thinkers.

 

Therefore, quoting the spiritual master can be more important than quoting shastra directly, because the spiritual master is the one who gives us the proper understanding of shastra in a practical form that is most usefull according the time, place and circumstance.

 

Since shastra is originally in Sanskrit or Bengali, western devotees who depend on the books of Srila Prabhupada are actually totally dependent on the spiritual master, because otherwise they have no direct access to shastra.

[raga]

 

It has been my understanding that in order to be a bonafide guru you must agree with sastra, so would it matter if one quotes the bonafide guru or sastra since both should be in accord?

You'll then invariably end with a situation where two bonafide gurus have diverging views. Then, people who hold the above assumption naturally conclude that the other person's guru is not bonafide, since yours is, and since bonafide gurus present only sastra. Practically, this is a very problematic approach.

 

If one intends to quote one's guru's views on sastra, one'd better know why his guru holds a particular interpratation of the sastra and how he arrived at that conclusion. If one cannot present the line of thought that led to a particular interpretation, one'd better not say it in public.

[Kulapavana]

 

Therefore, quoting the spiritual master can be more important than quoting shastra directly, because the spiritual master is the one who gives us the proper understanding of shastra in a practical form that is most usefull according the time, place and circumstance.

 

That may be a valid point, but why then SP does not quote his guru more often?

 

 

Since shastra is originally in Sanskrit or Bengali, western devotees who depend on the books of Srila Prabhupada are actually totally dependent on the spiritual master, because otherwise they have no direct access to shastra.

 

that is very true - translation always conveys the views and understanding of the translator - but there are also shastras translated by other devotees, even to supplement the great contribution given by Srila Prabhupada in that field.

 

SP wanted to translate many more classic Vedic texts, and he stated that even while promoting his early editions of Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita. Obviously he saw shastras as the ultimate authority in his presentation of Krsna consciousness.

[raga]

 

thank you for your comments. is there a generally recognized (in GV) "hierarchy of evidence"? as in for example: Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Itihasas, Agamas, works of the six Goswamis, previous recognized sampradaya gurus, current guru, etc. Many disciples of GV gurus nowadays accept instructions of their particular guru as the highest level of evidence, above any shastra. Is that justified in any way in our tradition?

Nothing etched in stone, really. There are diverging hierarchies for different genres of knowledge.

 

In classical ontological matters the hierarchy would be along the lines of Upanisads & Vedanta-sutra -> Gita and Puranas -> works of the Gosvamis etc. On the other hand, with doctrines and practices specific to our tradition, the hierarchy of authority begins with Sri Caitanya and the Gosvamis. As examples, we sometimes find the views of the earlier authors revised or contradicted in matters of rasa-tattva, and doctrines on praxis (such as are found in Hari-bhakti-vilasa) cannot really be said to be "established in compliance to" as much as they are "established while drawing from" diverse Puranas, Pancaratras and the larger body of tantra.

 

As the general principle within the sampradaya, authority is derived, it descends from up downwards. This is the meaning of parampara. There is little meaning for the word parampara if one is prepared to forsake all predecessors in favor of one's guru. If a guru demands such an attitude from the disciple, one should respect him from a distance and learn under the shelter of a siksa-guru who is realized and modest in his attitude.

[Guest guest]

It onlys seems logical and practical that what the Goswamis gave in India 500 years agomight require some considerable packaging in a modern presentation that is relevant to the modern world and modern lifestyles in western countries.

 

It is the job of modern self-realized acharyas to package and present the essence of the Gaudiya siddhanta in a relevant manner.

 

Old school parivars in Indiacannot be expected to fully understand or endorse what the Saraswata acharyas have done to make Krishna consciousness relevant to the modern world in a practical way.

 

Without some adjustment, the Gaudiya culture is not relevant to the modern western world in any kind of practical way.

[Guest guest]

 

That may be a valid point, but why then SP does not quote his guru more often?

 

 

It is noteworthy that he never really made a big point out of the pujala raga patha verse of Srila Siddhanta Saraswati.

 

Maybe he knew that westerners were NOT going to be able to maintain a very high standard of vaidhi-bhakti and that they would need some allowance for the spontaneous approach?

 

Srila Prabhupada did say in his books that most often devotees come to Krishna out of love and attraction.

 

The vaidhi concept is best understood by the example of a child who is born is a devotee family.

In the beginning, the child is forced to attend aratrika, listern to shastra and chant maha-mantra.

If and when the child takes to devotional without being forced to, then that is when his raga starts to unfold and he then performs his service out of love and devotion.

 

Most devotees in the Krishna consciousness movement were not nurtured or coerced with forced vaidhi like are the children born in devotee familes.

 

Therefore, raga is actually the basis for their sadhana from the very beginning.

 

Vaidhi is for the purpose of getting those with no raga to awaken to raga.

 

When the raga awakens, then vaidhi-bhakti holds the secondary position in the sadhana of the devotee.

 

To classify the devotess of ISKCON as vaidhi-bhaktas is a common misunderstanding by those who fancy themselves as the true raganugas of "traditional" parivars.

 

Most devotees of ISKCON were actually raganugas from day one.

 

Srila Saraswati Thakur was a child of a Vaishnava father.

He was raised with vaidhi-bhakti.

His mood and views can be traced to his own background and experience.

 

Most ISKCON devotees were not raised with vaidhi bhakti and they came to Srila Prabhupada out of love.

[raga]

 

Vaidhi is for the purpose of getting those with no raga to awaken to raga. When the raga awakens, then vaidhi-bhakti holds the secondary position in the sadhana of the devotee.

You have invoked with devotion, and raga has awakened. Raga now prompts you to log in with your member account.

[Kulapavana]

 

It is noteworthy that he never really made a big point out of the pujala raga patha verse of Srila Siddhanta Saraswati.

 

Maybe he knew that westerners were NOT going to be able to maintain a very high standard of vaidhi-bhakti and that they would need some allowance for the spontaneous approach?

 

 

 

(1)

pujala raga-patha gaurava-bhange

matala hari-jana visaya range

 

 

 

"The servants of Lord Hari, who revel in satisfying His transcendental desires, worship the path of spontaneous devotional service in a mood of awe and reverence."

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

 

 

 

Interesting observation regarding possibly the reason for making some allowances for the spontaneous approach by SP.

 

 

However, I'm not sure how relevant it is to the issue on hand, ie. SP rarely quoting SBS in his works. After all Srila Siddhanta Saraswati was a master of making allowances for the sake of spreading the Holy Name.

 

 

[Guest guest]

In fact, I don't know of a place or a time when Srila Prabhupada ever repeated or quoted the pujala raga patha verse of Srila Saraswati Goswami

 

KB

[krsna]

Quotes on Guru or by Guru will enhance one's position?

 

Guru is real inasmuch as Sasta is real.

 

Guru makes satra come alive in real time.

 

Without Guru satra is dry, speculative and puzzling.

[krsna]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=430>

 

Pujala Raga-patha Gaurava Bhange

by

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura

(As revealed by Srila B. R. Sridhara Deva Gosvami))

 

 

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD width=34> </TD><TD vAlign=top width=430>

 

 

This song was composed by Guru Maharaja himself when we moved from the hired house in Calcutta (Bhaktivinoda Asana). The Deities were moved to a constructed matha (Bagh Bazaar Gaudiya Matha). The Deities were carried on a chariot and we were dancing and singing just in front of Them. At that time he composed some six lines perhaps.

 

 

 

 

Whatever he did, pujala raga-patha gaurava bhange, his whole life in a nutshell is expressed in this, his own expression. The very nature of the sampradaya is this. The whole tenor of his preaching expedition. Not only for him, but he has extended the banner to all. Come under the banner of such a nature of thought about the divinity, an initiation will be safely secured.

"Pujala raga-patha gaurava bhange — That is Bhaktisiddhanta vani — the real existence of Bhaktisiddhanta is there." — Srila Sridhara Maharaja.

[ Real Audio or Quicktime ]

 

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD width=34></TD><TD vAlign=top width=430>

 

 

 

 

Pujala raga-patha inscription at Sri Caitanya Saraswata Matha Closeup of Bengali inscription

 

 

 

 

 

(1)

pujala raga-patha gaurava-bhange

matala hari-jana visaya range

 

 

 

The servants of Lord Hari, who revel in satisfying His transcendental desires, worship the path of spontaneous devotional service in a mood of awe and reverence.

 

 

 

(2)

bramala chhadi bhoga cinmaya-bange

dhaula pathi-pathi bhakata-sange

 

 

 

Having given up all types of sense-enjoyment, one should wander through the divine land of Gauda-desa, running along all the paths and roads in the association of the devotees.

 

 

 

(3)

chhadala para-ghara arcite gange

bujhala rasa-niti nacata dhange

 

 

 

Leaving that previous house for ever, to worship on the banks of the River Ganga, one will understand the science of

rasa

by engaging in

sankirtana.

 

 

 

 

(This last verse refers to the moving of the Deities of Sri Sri Gaura Vinodananda from the house at Ultadanga Road to the new temple at Bagh Bazaar, which was situated on the bank of the Ganges.)

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Kulapavana]

one more reflection.

 

even among the disciples of the same guru there are various interpretations of guru's instructions, especially when these instructions are somewhat criptic or appear to contradict other instructions of the same guru. when guru has departed for Goloka, resolving of such controversies is no small matter.

 

what settles such debates?

[suchandra]

 

one more reflection.

 

even among the disciples of the same guru there are various interpretations of guru's instructions, especially when these instructions are somewhat criptic or appear to contradict other instructions of the same guru. when guru has departed for Goloka, resolving of such controversies is no small matter.

 

what settles such debates?

 

"Only unto to those great souls who have unflinching faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed."

 

Svetashvatara Upanishad 6.38

 

It is of course as such that we want to understand everything with our brain - after all why do we have such a phenomenous HDD with some 5 millions GB storage capacity?

Well, as quoted above - actual knowledge is revealed and becomes an irrevocable fact, quote below.

 

nasta-prayesv abhadresu nityam bhagavata-sevaya

bhagavaty uttama-sloke bhaktir bhavati naisthiki

 

"By regularly hearing from the Bhagavatam and by rendering service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact."

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.18

 

However, this probably only works perfectly when we are linked with a pure devotee of Lord. Any suggestions?

[bija]

 

even among the disciples of the same guru there are various interpretations of guru's instructions, especially when these instructions are somewhat criptic or appear to contradict other instructions of the same guru. when guru has departed for Goloka, resolving of such controversies is no small matter.

 

what settles such debates? quote by kulapavana

What settles such debates? I guess qualification of the disciple/practicioner would be a factor. The experience of gradual devotion should come into account. The subjective experience of progression through stages such as faith, steadiness, taste, attachment etc. would confirm the Guru's instruction and essence has been comprehended.

 

This approach may be perceived as risky though. Ofcourse, who is qualified to know such an experience is bonafide. I feel this is why the guidance of an advanced siksha guru would be of importance. Even if the siksha guru's implementations were somewhat different than the departed diksha guru.

 

These are just some thoughts, Kulapavana, I am not qualified to give an answer supported by scriptural quotes.

 

 

....there are various interpretations of guru's instructions, especially when these instructions are somewhat criptic or appear to contradict other instructions of the same guru. quote kulapavana

So to attempt to answer your quote in a more direct way, could it be possible that these apparent criptic or contradictory instructions are actually not so. But infact, that the guru may give instruction in a diverse way, but only implement some of the instructions practically. Practicality for time place and circumstance you might say. In that some particular instructions may not be implemented, but be left to a qualifided guru, further down the line in the parampara to implement at a later date when appropriate.

 

Just some thoughts.

[Kulapavana]

 

What settles such debates? I guess qualification of the disciple/practicioner would be a factor.

 

yes, this is the way I see it too. the actual level of realization of the disciples discussing these issues plays a major role in settling such debates.

 

a neophyte in terms of divya-jnana will see apparent contradictions as real and/or will misunderstand the instructions, while a mature disciple will use the tripod of guru (other instructions on the matter from his spiritual master), sadhu, and shastra to analize his guru's statements and understand them in the context of the entire tradition.

 

too often immature disciples will see their guru's instructions as "self-evident" - unconnected to the sampradaya's wealth of knowledge and accepted practices.

 

thus, neophytes who take pride in their own way of interpreting guru's instructions will not accept interpretations of more mature and realized godbrothers, often accusing them of ulterior motives.