authority of discussion

[mahak]

Another topic started to get bogged down in asking for authority, but this subject is a good one, on "whose authority does the vaisnava speak". This is a topic of all religious viewpoints so I ask a little tolerance if other cultural references are given in the course of this discussion, as Lord Jesus Christ also had some interesting things to say on the subject. This is not a Jesus or Krsna subject, this is about us, and where do we get off saying the things we do.

 

I have had discussions with my friends of officiating acarya persuasion for years. They have shown all the quotes, the quotes about the quotes, and even more quotes. But how can a disciple who is presented with all these quotes fail to surrender to the one who never has a thing to say of his own realization but onlt speaks using quotation marks, using exact nuance and phrasing of Srila Prtabhupada.

 

Easy, I dont follow them because I dont believe them. The quotes are fine, the problem is the quoter, how he is arranging his quotes, his motives for quoting, etc. Quotes are useless to me. Why? Because I have my own books, if I want to know something, ill look it up, thank you. I dont get god thru the mouth (or quotes supplied by) of dog. The mad quoters out there seem to think that their spiritual master has made a mistake arranging his books and speeches the way he has, so they take it upon themselves to supply his words in their own sequence, not his careful editorial arrangement.

 

Okay, we all know the mad quote disease, what about proving what you are saying? This is why I open up this topic. I dont care for someone calling out Sri Tripurari Maharaja for saying something without providing quotes. Who made him your disciple, who made him subject to your likes and dislikes. If you are his disciple, you may submissively inquire for clarification, but you can just go away if you are in a challenging spirit. Sri Tripurari is actually following Srila Prabhupada footsteps by not being subject to challenge. Acceptance of rejection is the ultimate option of those who lend or cover their ears, end of story. There is no challenging spirit in the hearing and chanting devotional process. We submissively inquire, this is not challenge. I been to a few public talks given By Srila Prabhupada where one in the audience was challenging him, and he did not pander to the person at all, he refused to give such a person the time of day.

 

Lets yak about this. A well placed and profound quote is cool, and may actually enhance the devotees presentation, but I got my own books, I have studied, and will ask clarification if you are off the wall. If your answer cannot be passed by the test of guru-shastra-sadhu, well, go back to the drawing board and try again (or in the mad quoters case, rearrange). Ill let you know if I buy it or not, your placement of quotes by my spiritual master will never help you.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guruvani]

My position is that any serious philosophical discussion that doesn't have shastric support is more or less useless.

 

We are not authorities in spiritual science.

If we preach without shastric support, then we are placing ourselves as authorities.

 

Even Srila Prabhupada with all the respect and authority that he had in ISKCON quoted verse after verse in his lectures.

 

That was the trademark of Srila Prabhupada that he quoted shastra in all his lectures.

 

So, if we think we don't have to quote shastra and have some authority on our own to preach by paraphrase, then really nobody will pay any attention to what we say.

I think it is quite obvious that discussions based on shastric reference are millions of times more relevant than discussions based on watered down paraphrasing recalled from our aging and decrepid brains.

[mahak]

what, ya sit in a temple all day quoting each other to death. Are we nothing more than our old casettes?

 

Truth is truth, discernment of truth is the responsibility of ears, not tongues.

[Guruvani]

 

what, ya sit in a temple all day quoting each other to death. Are we nothing more than our old casettes?

 

Truth is truth, discernment of truth is the responsibility of ears, not tongues.

Most any of us could set here all day talking off the top of our heads.

But, really, nobody gives any serious credibility.

 

Personally, I like to tackle major issues of siddhanta and philosophy that are contentious points facing devotees all over the world.

 

So, concerning the issues I like to discuss, there really is no way to debate, discuss or come to any solid conclusions without establishing our views on the basis of shastra.

 

There are many topics where opinions and personal views come into play.

But, the topics that really interest me can only be dealt with in terms of exacting shastric evidence.

 

The lectures of Srila Prabhupada are literally full of shastric quotes.

I don't see how discussions among devotees can really have any substantial meaning if we aren't discussing the conclusions of the shastra.

 

It's not all about parroting and quoting.

It's about supporting our position with shastric reference.

 

If we can't support our position with shastra, then really we have no position at all.

 

There is a member Ghari who practically posts quotes exclusively.

 

I don't see that as a fault.

I see that when he wants to make a point he wants to make it authoritatively, not just as the offering of an opinion or a personal point of view.

[theist]

One time Sukadeva in Seattle told Srila Prabhupada that when speaking on college programs for example he would not be able to remember to quote all the specific places in sastra where he learned what he said. Srila Prabhupada replied that he could put that understanding in his own words and that was all right.

 

The problems only arise when we try to speak above our pay grade. This is why in all my posts I try to stick to real basic stuff. I have no business trying to explain the nature of various higher rasa's. For those subjects I can submit a quote and gain feedback from the more experienced and advanced. That is when quotes are vital to me. But I don't feel I have to submit a quote everytime I refer to the self as being distinct from the material body or that God is a person.

 

I am trackin' with Mahaksadas on this one.

[Guruvani]

Sure, when we are just chit-chatting then there is no need to quote shastra.

But, I personally get bored with chit-chat quite quickly.

 

I kinda fell into this style over at the gaudiya discussions forum where there is a crowd of geeks and nerds who will chew you up and spit you out if you can't support your views with exacting verse from shastra.

 

I actually came to appreciate their standard and have imbibed that into my own approach to discussing philosophy on forums.

 

I tend to debate and argue over philsophical issues that divide the movement into a number of sects.

 

So, for me, I can't get anywhere trying to support my beliefs with opinion or point of view without establishing my points with shastric reference.

 

I can be as long winded and spontaneous as anybody.

I could set here day in and day out writing my own opinions.

 

But, I found out in my journey around the web that there are some mighty formidable characters out there that will make you look like a germ if you can't support your views with shastra.

 

The topics I like are the deeply technical aspects of the philosophy.

There really is no way to deal with such issues without shastric foundation.

 

Now, if you want to talk about my favorite UFC fighter, or my favorite beach in Florida I have plenty to say that doesn't need shastric support.

 

But, when we get into contentious issues of philosophy and ISKCON myths, there is no way to make my points apart from citing shastric evidence.

[mahak]

My point, basically, is that one should be careful despite the quotes, that quotes do not make or break the one using or not using them. This is our duty to analyze the speaker, see deeper into the motivation of such speaking. A fool who uses quotes is still a fool, one who is speaking truth does not have to depend on quotes to have the truth exhibited. The ears are responsible for what enters and what is decided as far as acceptance or rejection of what is being said.

 

Just as both theist and guruvani have ACTUALLY shown on past topics. Srila prabhupada is adequately qouted to verify both sides of many issues. We talk about the issues on other topics, but as example, he says analogy and no analogy. So on the side of analogy, there are good quotes, on the other side, there are good quotes. So, it comes down on the real issue of the hearers ability to discern the truth. Srila Prabhupada explains the word Paramahamsa while telling us all this is what we MUST become. We have water and milk mixed together. To be paramahamsa means that we have the ability to take either water or milk, leaving the other. To, me, to become paramahamsa means to discern the truth and apply it to our lives.

 

So, in the case of honest disciples speaking plainly, especially to the sleepers out there (BTW, I agree that arguements with other disciples, sources must be given), from the heart. Like prasadaqm. We dont feed the materially hungry, let the salvation army and the faith-based initiatives do that. We engage folks in the samkirtana movement by having them taste what has already been tasted by Krsna and his entourage. So, if we are out there spouting off stuff we have no inclination to believe ourselves nor apply such things to our lives, quotes aint gonna help in the slightest degree. Only if we have actually tasted the true can we honestly give the true.

 

Srila Prabhupada actually elaborated on this in a way. (Sorry, no quote, decide for yourself if what I say is factual.) He stated that while Bhaktivinode Thakura gave everything, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta gave more, because Bhaktivinode did not have bhaktisiddhanta to give. We have more, and we can appreciate this fact. Some have bhaktisiddhanta to give, but we give both him and Srila Prabhupada, so our gift is better. If one is fully empowered to succeed Srila Prabhupada, then we have one who gives even more, bhaktisiddhanta, bhaktivedanta, and themselves as well. Kinda like plundering Lord Chaitanyas storehouse, the more that is given away, the more is available to give away as well.

 

So, as far as hearing disciples of Srila Prabhupada, it is up to the ears connected to the heart (the seat of both Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga) to see if Guru and Gauranga is speaking thru them. Again, quotes will not help one at all in this decision, either the provision of nothing but quotes or a presentation without even one quote.

 

Simple does not mean cheap and easy. The disciple does not wallow in the dirty diapers of being newly born, maturity is expected.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[mahak]

it may seem I have sand in my sweetrice on this issue, but the biggest bag of bogus yogus Ive been exposed to in my 11 years on the internet is by folks who demand quotes. If I say Srila Prabhupada said chant hare krsna and your life will be sublime, they demand proof that he said it, and I cant find it on the internet. These idiots do not understand the rudimentary simplicity of debate, that many things must be stipulated by both sides to even begin. They are expert in scrolling thru the various data bases, but this is not conversancy in the science, this is conversancy with the internet. Id rather hear some karmi say prasadam is tasty than be exposed to whole websites with gigabytes of out of context quotes by people who want to create false doctrine by such arrangement. The "Tasty" quote from the meateater is expert preaching, the nonsense of the revisionist is a burden to society.

[mahak]

Remember, Guruvani, this aint a discussion about Jesus. But what he says here is quite profound.

 

<center>THE WILL OF THE SUPREME FATHER (John 7: 6-18)</center> The Judeans, always criticizing Lord Jesus Christ, were quite amazed at His preaching skills. Some said, "Here is a good man", while others scoffed, calling Him a cheater. They were thus fighting among themselves about His position. He then delivered a powerful lecture that stunned them all. They asked Him, "You are uneducated, how can You be so articulate?" The Lord responded, "What I am teaching does not originate from Me but with He Who sent Me. Anyone who does the Will of My Father knows well enough whether this teaching originates with God or whether I am speaking on My own authority. All who speak on their own authority are after praise for themselves. But for he who is only concerned with the praise of the One Who sent Him-He is truthful, there is nothing false about Him."

 

 

 

Quite profound, doncha think?

 

 

 

hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[AncientMariner]

 

Remember, Guruvani, this aint a discussion about Jesus. But what he says here is quite profound.

 

 

 

<CENTER>THE WILL OF THE SUPREME FATHER (John 7: 6-18)</CENTER>The Judeans, always criticizing Lord Jesus Christ, were quite amazed at His preaching skills. Some said, "Here is a good man", while others scoffed, calling Him a cheater. They were thus fighting among themselves about His position. He then delivered a powerful lecture that stunned them all. They asked Him, "You are uneducated, how can You be so articulate?" The Lord responded, "What I am teaching does not originate from Me but with He Who sent Me. Anyone who does the Will of My Father knows well enough whether this teaching originates with God or whether I am speaking on My own authority. All who speak on their own authority are after praise for themselves. But for he who is only concerned with the praise of the One Who sent Him-He is truthful, there is nothing false about Him."

 

 

 

Quite profound, doncha think?

 

 

 

hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

 

That is a beautiful verse.

 

I understand what you are saying but I gotta admit that Prabhupada has so many good quotes they never cease to amaze me. I realize you have to use discernment etc. when using Prabhupada's quotes but his quotes are just awesome in my opinion and I like to use them whenever I can remember or find them.

[mahak]

This is not the point, never. Srila Prabhupada initiates disciples to engage in his mission, by his authority. So all the truth one may find in anything I say or write comes from Him alone, everything eles is mine, to be settled with Srila Prabhupada as well.

 

The key is that when we are discovered to speak nonsense, and we are called on it, submit to Him. This is the safe way. admission of erroneous thinking, ability to correct oneself and give sincere thanks to the one who has pointed out the flaw.

 

Srila Prabhupada actually has ordered us to study him in total context. Sure, we read the Krsna Book, and we are thrilled with the stories, but we dont spout gopi bhava having no info from canto one thru nine. If we dont see how varaha snuffed Hiranyaksa, Govinda is just a lusty kid we imitate. Srila Prabhupada demands his student to be conversant in Bhagavad Gita before we tackle Srimad Bhagavatam, then we approach canto 1, canto 2, lie dat. In order, in HIS context. Not look at the index to find a convenient quote to justify our eccliastic religiosity. His quotes are surely dynamic, and can be used sublimely, but only one in ten do this properly. When we quote Him, we must have his motivation of love of whom we speak to, a desire to remind them of their swarupa (that which we have tasted BTW. Quotes never justify speaking above the level of ones own realization and practical application thereof.)

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[cbrahma]

Discussion may use many kinds of authority and valid forms of argument. One doesn't need authority to inquire, or make statements of fact not necessarily based on sastra. For instance there are historical facts, not in sastra that might be relevant. Discussing spiritual topics is different from preaching or a guru/disciple instruction.

[AncientMariner]

 

This is not the point, never. Srila Prabhupada initiates disciples to engage in his mission, by his authority. So all the truth one may find in anything I say or write comes from Him alone, everything eles is mine, to be settled with Srila Prabhupada as well.

 

The key is that when we are discovered to speak nonsense, and we are called on it, submit to Him. This is the safe way. admission of erroneous thinking, ability to correct oneself and give sincere thanks to the one who has pointed out the flaw.

 

Srila Prabhupada actually has ordered us to study him in total context. Sure, we read the Krsna Book, and we are thrilled with the stories, but we dont spout gopi bhava having no info from canto one thru nine. If we dont see how varaha snuffed Hiranyaksa, Govinda is just a lusty kid we imitate. Srila Prabhupada demands his student to be conversant in Bhagavad Gita before we tackle Srimad Bhagavatam, then we approach canto 1, canto 2, lie dat. In order, in HIS context. Not look at the index to find a convenient quote to justify our eccliastic religiosity. His quotes are surely dynamic, and can be used sublimely, but only one in ten do this properly. When we quote Him, we must have his motivation of love of whom we speak to, a desire to remind them of their swarupa (that which we have tasted BTW. Quotes never justify speaking above the level of ones own realization and practical application thereof.)

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

 

That seems to be a good point. I usually don't get into long drawn out philosophical debates to begin with probably because I am not intelligent enough to understand some of the real technical points of Vaisnava philosophy and it seems some of the debates just go on and on for years and never get anywhere. But for example if someone is making a point about gay marriage in Iskcon or something I might show them a quote by Prabhupada that says that Prabhupada seemed to think that it is degrading for a priest to grant gay marriage or something. Its not that I am even for or against gay marriage in Iskcon it just seems what Prabhupada had to say on the subject might be of some value.

[mahak]

and you make a great point here. I use quotes sometimes to verify something I dont want to do. Does this make sense? Ill go ahead and do the research in the grey areas of my understanding, and mostly, I quote Him for MY extra benefit, a hope that by repeating his instruction on an anarthic situation. (Hey folks, I invented a new word here, yall van use if ya like):

anarthic . adj. - a situation indicating approach of a serious roadblock to ones correct understanding. Contact Sri Ganesha immediately, and ask for his great armed help in removing the anarthic situation.

Sorry, I digress. But quotes are great for my own use, my own study, not something to throw around loosely as something I can take credit for.

 

You add a lot to all the philosophical discussions Ive seen ya in.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[gHari]

When I read Prabhupada it is a different process than when I read anyone else. Anyone. The internal 'editor' is never present with him, the words just go in. That's why I quote him all the time. When I write, it is Prabhupada boiled down and condensed so much that I feel sure at times I must sound totally insane to some. But they too must have their 'editors' turned on, and I do seem crazy to them indeed (not readily reachable from known premises). But when I encounter an old post from years ago, it all sounds still correct, sometimes even more correct than I now understand or even understood when it was written. I know when I use giant steps, I lose everyone - and wonder why can't anyone see just how incredibly profound that is, but I guess it was meant for me at the time.

 

I'm so used to working with the worldly that my 'preaching' style has become absolutely nonsectarean. What a joy it is to be able to say Krsna or Rama when an Indian comes into my dry life in the wilderness.

 

I will say that I firmly believe that the 'editor' is an important function to implement, especially here on the net filled with lions and tigers and bears. Providing quotes helps the 'editor' handle incoming messages, allowing realizations to be processed with higher degrees of credibility. Unfortunately I tend to be either all quote or all poetic schmaltz. Perhaps a happy medium will offer others more comfort.

 

At the risk of venturing beyond my dwindling audience's attention span, let me thank all the regulars that have made the Fellowship the place I choose to call HOME in cyberspace. You have dictated over the many years what I will think about and write about. You have offered encouragement and hope and a well for my tears over the years. It has been your surrender that has pushed my surrender - your love that has kindled my love. We are few; and we are fortunate. This may be the most glorious space in cyberdome. Thank you all for being here. Can you imagine how wonderful it would be to meet in person another Audaryan in the real world? My tears would drown the world. Perhaps before we leave this dusty world we should all get together at our gracious host's ashram for a kirtana of tears, rolling on the ground in mad laughter for a few days.

[mahak]

Me too. My associates are the social worker who works with the autistic, the wonderful brother who owns this cyber cafe and lets me run the place, the hardware store folk, the civilian army contractors that demand I take care of their property, and of course, all these dead folk. If I dont speak plainly, I keep quiet. Yet each word said is another breath dead (hey, thats good, eh, each word said is another breath dead, new song comin, stay tuned).

 

Anyway, Prabhupada trains us up, then sends us out to the streets.

 

Visnujnana did not quote prabhupada that day I picked him up hitchhikin (ca 1968). He spoke to me in laguna beach surf punk jargon. Siddha too. Goursundara was very erudite, yet he spoke his way, which BTW was good enough for prabhupada to engage him in translation work. The most real person, the late sudama swami, spoke to me, him to me straightforward.

 

When we converse, if we are maturing in this process, we develop the vaisnava characteristic of straightforwardness. That editor in the heart is Srila Prabhupadas protection, he has promised all that he would eternally reside there, and never disappear. His teachings are accessible in confidential ways.

 

Now, the mad quoters out there (please dont misread my intent here, as I use nectarian quotes as well, not at all opposed, just making points in reference to confidentiality as taught in Nectar of Instruction) put serious roadblocks in the way. They dont want my friendship, so I dont have respect for them as I do Visnujnana, siddha, sudama swami or goursundara. They want to hammer a point home by drowning me with shredded bhaktivedanta literature.

 

So here is what I do. I aint quoting nothing, but did you catch what I did do. I mentioned Nectar of instruction. I mentioned confidentiality. If someone is relating to me as a peer vaisnava in friendship, and they dont know what im saying or think Im off base or off the wall, or spewing forth on a sunday morning, well, its a little book. There is mention in one of the verses of how vaisnavas should relate with one another, and there is something there about confidentiality. I can surely easily access the exact verse and paste it here, give it another color, make it bigger, italics, put faces all over it. But its a little book, read the whole thing. Its sunday morning, what else ya got goin. Your only excuse is if you are goin to jaws (see world events - hey babhru, surfs up). You do the work, you study. What, ya want cliff notes??? These mad quoters criticize my godbrother without mercy, Sriman Jayadwaita Swami, for editing, yet they edit every time they try to convince others of their opinion by splicing together all kinds of quotes. This is, to me, much worse, because I can prove by a quote from Srila Prabhupada (not a memo, or a personal letter, but in his books) that Jayadwaita is authorized to do what he does.

 

Anyway, I speak from my heart. If it aint there, no quotes are gonna help me. So you listen, or scroll down, do your own research to see if what I say is fact or fiction. Sometimes it may hover between the two, as a devils advocate may be hiding or maybe just a speculation that is philosophical and not at all mental.

 

(Note: I did see a great quote a few weeks back about Srila Prabhupadas approval of philosophical speculation between devotees and differentiating that between MENTAL speculation, spoutin made up nonsense.)

 

I like the rollin around in the dirt, tears a-flowin, congas wailin, and jahs children wavin their arms in the air like they just dont care. Lets do that on a sunday morning, want it bad and your finger will get burned on the ghee lamp.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

Yeah, there is awesome internet vaisnava association.