Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

Sruti sastra is an eternal apauruseya sabda so guru and sandhu have to refer to it when they write smriti and derived works. In this way Vedas constitute the pramana for all Vedic (astika) philosophies.

Manu 2.13-14:
The knowledge of the sacred law is prescribed for those who are not given to the acquisition of wealth and to the gratification of their desires; to those who seek the knowledge of the sacred law the supreme authority is the revelation (Sruti).
But when two sacred texts (Sruti) are conflicting, both are held to be law; for both are pronounced by the wise (to be) valid law.

Sastra gives us the bigger picture, especially the cosmological context, within which we can identify the helping elements in our local environment, guru and sadhu, according to the standards described there.

Guru means an advanced practitioner who helps us personally. There are three types, vartma-pradarsaka - the first person to help us and introduce us to the process; siksa-guru - someone who gives you guidance; and diksa-guru, the person with whom you establish a strong connection that develops into a formal relationship.

Sadhu means fellow practitioners, including those more advanced, who help to give us a more balanced picture of reality. Otherwise we are filtering everything through our own consciousness, which introduces bias due to our individual perspective.

It is a process of triangulation in order to make a precise measurement of reality. All three are necessary. If one of them is off then the other two identify the deviation.

well put prabhu. I agree. your servant, Priya

regarding Sitapatis comment.

PARIPRASHNENA IS A WASTE OF TIME

Sitapati prabhu, I understand the triangulation picture you present but Im not sure its completely accurate. For example, in the purport to CC Madhya 20.352, Prabhupada twice repeats "The actual centre is the sastra..." This conclusion doesnt really lend itself to triangle imagery. (unless sastra is the top point in the triangle, or is this what you meant?)

Is one more prominent than the other? I recently heard an argument that you cannot assign an order of prominence and that there are contradictory statements about the relative importance of each. Some say sastra is the most important, others say guru. Has anyone done any research on this?

Imagine a table on three legs (guru, sadhu, and shastra). The table will not fall over as long as these legs are all there and are more or less equal in statue.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]Imagine a table on three legs (guru, sadhu, and shastra). The table will not fall over as long as these legs are all there and are more or less equal in statue.[/quote]

So what is the meaning, as Prabhupada says, sastra is the centre?

[quote][cite] deena:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]Imagine a table on three legs (guru, sadhu, and shastra). The table will not fall over as long as these legs are all there and are more or less equal in statue.[/quote]

So what is the meaning, as Prabhupada says, sastra is the centre?[/quote]

The way I understand it, is that without shastric basis the opinions of gurus and sadhus are not valid.

In every situation there is a personal choice that one makes, one should make it with a reference to sastras conclusions, however ones take on the sastra should always be checked against sadhu and guru. In this way sastra is the centre and other two are meant for balancing it.

We often take it that guru is the most prominent of the three, and sastra and sadhus if they do not support gurus views should be rejected. That is incorrect and leads to a lot of problems. Sastra is in the centre. It is not a table of a three legs, its one leg of sabha brahma that is supported by many sadhus and gurus.

BTW Prabhupada used term "sadhu" here to mean great acharyas, "such as Caitanya Mahaprabhu", nothing less.

The role of the persons intelligence should not be underestimated, it is not mindless following of guru nor its a mindless following of all three, without personal judgment, one should see the parallelness. One *must see* that there is no difference between the three, thus to assume that one can be something different to another is a false notion, while sastra is in the middle, you should think of it as three parallel lines. As Prabhupada said: "If you place your vehicle on these three parallel lines, it will go directly to Krishna, without any disturbance." Do not think that one is meant for checking the other, two supporting items are meant to correctly apply and present sastras conclusion, thus ALWAYS parallel.

If the sastra is presented as being superior or different from the pure associate of the Divine Couple, it is to be rejected. Srila Prabhupada is Sastra! The sastra is only relevant if it authenticates the reality of the full independence of the Lord and His Pure Loving Devotees.
Srila Prabhupada, the eternal associate of Lord Krsna a Divine resident of Krsna Loka is the quintessence of all that is to be found, expressed, revealed or promoted in any sastra.
When it is said that both guru and sadhu are bound by sastra, its self explanatory that when one studies the daily conduct of guru and sadhu we find that the sastra is then authenticated precisely because all that is set down in the scriptures is fully manifest in both guru and sadhus. The sastra derives its authenticity from the fact that it elucidates all reality as it pertains to the relationship between The Lord Sri Krsna, His pure devotees and the devotion.

SB speaks of the true essence of shastra being the heart of the pure devotee. Shastra as the beacon light for all and sadhus as, well, millions of things can be said...
You can extol the glories and importance of the three, but I would say that all three are important, without trying to add new age poetic or geometric figures (good mental gimanastic, but shastra quote inexistent).
Acyntia bedha abedha - the three are different manifestations of the same mercy of the Lord.

Ritvikvada apasampradaya(s) are more or less kartabhaja apasampradaya - ie accepting guru to be the main and the only principle, that overrides and can contradict sastras, in other words guru is god, he can do anything and is higher then sastra, and if some previous acharyas disagree with my guru, they must be in maya as well:-)

First and foremost, when I submitted these deep realizations I couldnt recall where I found the quotes. They belong to an advanced devotee whos sincerity brings about intense realizations such as the ones quoted above. Although I totally agree with them, the credit goes to the insightful Pragosh Prabhu.
Boobaji; (AKA,ccd) Because you are infected with immeasurable false pride and ego, and seem to know everything, I refuse to converse with you regarding any matters discussed on this site. All I can say to you is; "It is not possible to save the man who refuses to listen to the voice of reason. The so-called self proclaimed empirical pandits are no exception to this rule." Bhaktisiddhanta.
Furthermore, in addition to Pragoshs statements, he also says; "Sastra does not create these realities: it merely describes and explains them." We dont estimate the authority of Srila Prabhupada in any way against what we think we find in sastra."

I did not know that Pragosh Prabhu was your guru. I thought that you only accept Prabhupada as a true guru, apology. Since he is my guru as well (Prabhupada I mean) I will quote something that explains that there is no difference between the three:

Kuc0u7771 u7779 u7751 a says in the Bhagavad-gu299 tu257 (18.66):

sarva-dharmu257 n parityajya mu257 m ekau7745 u347 arau7751 au7745 vraja
ahau7745 tvu257 u7745 sarva-pu257 pebhyo moku7779 ayiu7779 yu257 mi mu257 u347 ucau7717

'93Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.'94 This same instruction is found throughout all Vedic literatures. Su257 dhu, u347 u257 stra and guru act as the representatives of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a, and the Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a consciousness movement is also taking place all over the universe. Whoever takes advantage of this opportunity becomes liberated.

CC Madhya 20.132 Purp.

Is Praghosh a representative of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a? If yes why is he suggesting something that is not suggested by Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Ritvikvada apasampradaya(s) are more or less kartabhaja apasampradaya - ie accepting guru to be the main and the only principle, that overrides and can contradict sastras, in other words guru is god, he can do anything and is higher then sastra, and if some previous acharyas disagree with my guru, they must be in maya as well:-)[/quote]

I dont consider Srila Prabhupadas instructions higher than sastra; I understand sastra through his instructions and example. Some devotees study sastra independent of the acarya, and use their independent understanding of sastra to define the acaryas limits for preserving the parampara. I know Srila Prabhupada is a bona fide acarya and would not overstep his authority, so I understand the limits of the parampara through Srila Prabhupadas clear and direct instructions. I dont pretend to be able to understand previous acaryas directly. Parampara means we understand things through the current acarya, Srila Prabhupada.

[br /][br /]
What you call asampradaya is following the acaryas direct instructions, whereas what you consider sampradaya has so many voted-in gurus contradicting Srila Prabhupada and falling down. We have sannyasi gurus doing all nonsense like sleeping with their married disciples, dressing up as karmis and saying that Srila Prabhupada was wrong on so many things as has been proven by the scientists, etc. Considering that were supposed to be primarily a siksa sampradaya, it would appear that the sampradaya has already ended with many of the current batch of gurus. The alternative is to accept Srila Prabhupadas instructions as equal to sastra, and all is well. It may mean that folks like you and me may not get worshipped as "Gurudev," but thats better than making fools of ourselves.
[br /][br /]
[Hey, whats with this? Kuc0u7771 u7779 u7751 a It reminds me of the folks who write G-d. Why not take the trouble to write out Krishnas name?]

Pandu:

Thats was a helpful input from someone initiated in ISKCON but understanding that Prabhupada is our only acharya. Do you know the basic characteristics of kartuc0u257 bhaju257 apasampradu257 ya (not asampradaya)?

BTW there is nothing wrong with dressing up as karmu299 s, (you mean western karmu299 s, not Indian karmu299 s we all wear that dress of a riksawallas do we?). I just read about how Prabhupada spent half an hour preaching to his servant, that he should advance himself and then become a guru and initiate thousands of disciples. Then he asked him to go and explain it to his GBCs godbrothers, well the servant was a bit shy, so Prabhupada made him explain it to them in his own presence. It was not in 1972 it was just before disappearance of our divine spiritual master from this planet.

I wanted to know is your guru-mahu257 ru257 ja also supporting u7771 tvik doctrine? Not that I worry about it, but I just want to know who on GBC does, I only know a few devotees.

There is nothing wrong with one u256 cu257 rya and many regular gurus. That is the system of both Madhva and u346 ru299 Ru257 mu257 nuja lines. In this case Gurus - u256 cu257 ryas - u347 u257 stra is a correct triangle, as long as you do not consider guru God, but see that he and su257 dhu and u347 u257 stra are representatives of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a, that is fine (for my overly inflated false ego:)

I do not see a contradiction of having a principal guru. But it is u347 u257 stra, that the law, su257 dhu means who is staunchly a devotee of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a. - it is even more then being a guru, Cintamani was a guru... for one fallen sannyu257 su299 (well he was outside of ISKCON, Dravida mendicant and hmm... an u256 cu257 rya, but we do not judge them we only judge the people who were born in the families of lower then dog-eaters):

u346 u257 stra means which governs. The Vedic literature governs. There is a verbal root which is called u347 u257 st. u346 u257 st means to rule. The ruling, there are three kinds of ruling. One ruling is u347 u257 stra, law codes.

(about codes, the code for displaying the diacritics is UTF-8 you can select it from the options for your page encoding).

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Pandu:

Thats was a helpful input from someone initiated in ISKCON but understanding that Prabhupada is our only acharya. Do you know the basic characteristics of kartuc0u257 bhaju257 apasampradu257 ya (not asampradaya)? [/quote]

Perhaps you can direct me to where in Srila Prabhupadas books I can read about it, if thats where you got your view.

[quote]BTW there is nothing wrong with dressing up as karmu299 s, (you mean western karmu299 s, not Indian karmu299 s we all wear that dress of a riksawallas do we?).[/quote]

Yes, I was thinking of Western karmis, but of course my emphasis was on preaching that Srila Prabhupada was proven wrong by scientists. I do recall reading that Srila Prabhupada permitted Western clothes (except for sannyasis) but required tilak and sikha. I dont know about elsewhere, but around here when I see devotees away from the devotee functions, I never see them with tilak, and about 90% of the men, mostly brahman initiated, do not keep shaven with sikha. My point with this is that you and others with similar views say that the contemporary bunch of initiating gurus are necessary to preserve the parampara, and that it is a siksa parampara; however these contemporary gurus change things as they like, even directly finding fault with Srila Prabhupada. Is that, along with giving initiation and accepting worship, how the parampara is preserved?

[quote]I just read about how Prabhupada spent half an hour preaching to his servant, that he should advance himself and then become a guru and initiate thousands of disciples. Then he asked him to go and explain it to his GBCs godbrothers, well the servant was a bit shy, so Prabhupada made him explain it to them in his own presence. It was not in 1972 it was just before disappearance of our divine spiritual master from this planet.[/quote]

Can you give a specific reference so I can read it? The only similar instance I know of was apparently not recorded (or the recording is withheld), but instead is given by Satsvarupa in his _Lilamrta_. Yet anyone can see how he has misrepresented history therein, for example Srila Prabhupadas so-called appointment of initiating gurus in the May 28, 1977, conversation. Also, considering what a stellar guru Satsvarupa has proven himself to be, the claim would be laughable if it were not so sad.

[quote]I wanted to know is your guru-mahu257 ru257 ja also supporting u7771 tvik doctrine? Not that I worry about it, but I just want to know who on GBC does, I only know a few devotees.[/quote]

Ive never discussed the issue with him, since its only since sometime this year that I began to consider it seriously. I will probably bring it up next time I see him. What I do know is that I picked him from the list of approved gurus because I thought he would be least likely to interfere with my relationship with Srila Prabhupada; also during my initiation he said that Srila Prabhupada is my "primary guru," and immediately after the initiation he hosted a meeting with a group of rtvik proponents. Quite frankly, Ive never felt sure that this initiation was bona fide, and more recently Ive felt some real doubt. Its like a pill Ive tried to swallow but has stuck in my throat. I respect him as a senior devotee and a sannyasi, and like him personally, but the times he has played the authority role of guru have given results ranging from detrimental to disasterous.

[quote]There is nothing wrong with one u256 cu257 rya and many regular gurus. That is the system of both Madhva and u346 ru299 Ru257 mu257 nuja lines. In this case Gurus - u256 cu257 ryas - u347 u257 stra is a correct triangle, as long as you do not consider guru God, but see that he and su257 dhu and u347 u257 stra are representatives of Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a, that is fine (for my overly inflated false ego:)[/quote]

I cannot comment on the other sampradayas. Im simply trying to understand Srila Prabhupadas instructions and orders. I dont see Srila Prabhupada as God, but as Krishnas pure devotee and transparent representative. Regrettably Ive been unable to see his disciples the same way, not for lack of trying. When Im told that I have to accept someone else as guru, it just makes me feel discouraged, hopeless. Recently one devotee explained that first initiation is not real initiation, and it was such a relief to think that I may not be bound to a guru who is someone other than Srila Prabhupada. Maybe if I meet someone who actually inspires me like Srila Prabhupada, that will change, but so far I cannot quite imagine what that would be like.

Sorry for the little tangent. Hare Krishna.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Pandu:

Thats was a helpful input from someone initiated in ISKCON but understanding that Prabhupada is our only acharya. Do you know the basic characteristics of kartuc0u257 bhaju257 apasampradu257 ya (not asampradaya)? [/quote]

[Perhaps you can direct me to where in Srila Prabhupadas books I can read about it, if thats where you got your view.] [br /][br /]
OK, I just found mention of it in this paper: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vishnu_mjs/ritvik/ [br /]
However, I find the comparison most ridiculous, and the paper itself is very unpersuasive, as it talks almost entirely about siksa, whereas the question pertains to diksa guru. He equates the two kinds of gurus based on CC Madhya 8.128p, but therein they are only equated in a specific context, i.e., that one can become any kind of spiritual master regardless of ones varna or asrama. The usage of this statement in other circumstances, such as CC Madhya 7.128, is simply cheating, and the whole paper is based on this cheating.[br /][br /]
Extrapolating the point to say that the order to become guru applies equally to diksa guru as it does siksa guru is a ridiculous proposition. My children can be siksa guru simply by telling people to read Bhagavad-gita As It Is and see that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead (per Lord Caitanyas order). However, they cannot be diksa guru because they have not received even first initiation, what to speak of authorization to give initiation.

I agree (to completely disagree) that to be a siksa guru, one needs to be more qualified, any brahmana pure devotee can be a diksa guru, to be a siksa guru, one needs to actually know something... to have a realization. In the same tape of May 1977 - Prabhupada confirmed that they can be regular gurus, but to translate sastras one needs a realisation. Is it not in the same tape?

For example uc0u257 bhu257 sa-ru363 pu257 , a slight glimpse of devotional service. At this stage if one has caught even a slight glimpse of devotional service, all needs to undergo pru257 yau347 citta, atonement, are superseded. What is your realization on that one? Would you say that Prabhupadas disciples are not able to arrive at this stage by his grace? Even at the stage of u257 bhu257 sa-ru363 pu257 bhakti, all the reactions of sinful life are uprooted and vanquished. -- these are Prabhupadas words, words of acharyas (Jiva) and is part of Amala Purana. Should you listen to these or to the u7771 tvik doctrine?

Anyway you can talk to Harisauri I think, he was the man who got the lucky push from Prabhupada. I mean of course Prabhupada was making a point - just elevate yourself, become a su257 dhu, and then be a guru. what is so difficult about it, regardless of if you are wearing white or pink? Satsvarupa is a nice guru, like anyone he had some problems and dealt with them, I wish all iskconites gurus dealt with their problems with the same success, and I wish them all well. Do you?

The whole system of primary guru is based on the research that ISKCON devotees did in the south (Sri and Madhvas). It is from the south that most of the structure and practices (in the Maths) that were brought in by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati.

On the other hand Gaudiya Karta Bhajas in the words of our spiritual master are "passed as the disciples of Lord Chaitanya with their cheap nefarious activities" and just as u7771 tviks they "became the most obstinate obstructors to the onward progress of the universal movement of Lord Chaitanya" (he wrote if when he was wearing white and according to your standard would not be good enough for you would he in 1952? No disciples, no sannyas, not a member of an institution, did not write any books, in other words PADA should have made a webpage for him as a pretender who has only one disciple)

If you think that your kids can be siksa gurus, you should think again. I bet they did not even get first initial angas of devotional service, guru-padasraya, diksa, what to speak of something that follows. From the above, I am not sure you had completed the course too. Everything is other way around. Prabhupada never even emphasized diksa from himself as some critical element, to some of his disciples he did not even give diksa (if they had it from some other Vaisnava guru). Why do we so much hang up on diksa? Because of zonal acharyas period, thats all. Better however to follow guru, sadhu and sastra, who does not make this distinction and emphasizes siksa qualifications (obviously).

According to them initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge.. Initiation is a formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing. Who gave initiation to Krishna dasa Kaviiraja Goswami, who gave initiation to Gaura-kisora Babaji Maharaja? Who gave diksa to Radhunatha Dasa Goswami? Initiation means the beginning of becoming a su257 dhu, not that after initiation immediately he becomes a su257 dhu. But any su257 dhu can give both diksa and siksa. Such a big thing out of nothing, and it is just because instead of su257 dhu, guru and sastra, we abide by politics, opinions and inventions. Just give them all up, do not care what political situation dictates, do not care what others say (they will always say something) and we should not invent, just follow the acaryas, guru and sastra, then you will be happy, not otherwise. The only reason of the u7771 tviks is because we want to deviate from this system of checks and balances, but the whole purpose of the system was that it will not happen.

I just do not know, why nowhere else, no other Vaisnava tradition, creates so many splinter groups. It puzzles me, must be some curse or something - any information from acaryas, guru and sastra on why so many apasapradayas follow the footsteps of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I just do not know, why nowhere else, no other Vaisnava tradition, creates so many splinter groups. It puzzles me, must be some curse or something - any information from acaryas, guru and sastra on why so many apasapradayas follow the footsteps of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu?[/quote]

That is a very interesting question. I have made a similar observation. Even the line from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta alone has splintered into so many groups - and all that happened in less than 100 years...

Perhaps it has something to do with our line claiming to be the only pure and proper manifestation of the highest form of spirituality? With this type of doctrinal attitude any compromise with other views seems like an undesirable impurity.

Or guru-centrism instead of Krsna-centrism. Only my guru is right. Only my understanding of my gurus instructions is correct... Instead of: this is my gurus understanding of Krsna consciousness, this is how Krsna used my guru to spread Mahaprabhus movement.

Karta-bhajas made their gurus to be the ultimate and only authority - guru centrism, and personality cult were the only proper way to express your spirituality. Servant of the servant to complete absurdity...

How often does Srila Prabhupada actually quote his own guru verbatim? Hardly ever, except for CC purports which are often taken from BST commentaries to CC. Yet his disciples are complete slaves to SP quotes - for many, if SP did not say it - it does not exist. Haggling over every word in such quotes, or trying to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements of their guru, they still proclaim that their gurus books alone are enough to keep his movement alive for the next 10,000 years... sheer insanity!

Extreme guru-centrism is a bane of our line, even as Mahaprabhu Himself did not place much emphasis on the guru. Read His Siksastaka - not a single mention of the guru!! Read the Gita - how many times does Krsna place emphasis on the guru? in 3 or 4 out of 700 verses? That is less than 1%.

That is what IMO separates our line from the rest of Vaishnavism. Claims of exclusive doctrinal purity and extreme guru-centrism. That is why all 3 things must be there: guru, sadhu, and most importantly - shastra.

I can not accept that guru-centrism is specific to our line only. Madhvas followers are more of the same if not more. Sastra when spoken directly by Krishna are certainly the reason why we worship guru as good as god, he speaks and explains His words to us, thus he is as good. That was Prabhupadas vision and reasons, we should accept his reasons we would not be putting his views higher then views of Krishna or suggesting that Bhagavatam is not the highest authority in the age of Kali. It is the highest truth.

Thanks for the thoughtful consideration to an answer of my dilemma. I only can try to explain it by the fact that there are so many rasas, and many acharyas are in different moods and relationships, such as Gosvami of Vrindavana would be in a different mood to direct disciples of Nityananda Prabhu. And when all the material rasas mix in it makes it quite easy to establish a tradition of chopping up into smaller sects or subgroups each with the god-like leader or a founder. My explanation does not satisfy me, since it is not based on gurus, acharyas and sastra really.

I quite liked the fact that Prabhupada went to Lalita Prasad many times, even it was a taboo among his godbrothers, he even wanted to build a temple for the birth place of Bhaktivinode Thakura.

CCD,
Hare Krishna. Its quite difficult for me to follow your line of thinking (comment 21). Maybe what youre saying makes sense, but it doesnt sound like the ISKCON I know. Then again, some of it makes no sense.

Take this, for example: "...any brahmana pure devotee can be a diksa guru, to be a siksa guru, one needs to actually know something... to have a realization" Youre contrasting diksa guru with siksa guru in a way that appears to say that a diksa guru must be a brahmana pure devotee, but that he need not be knowledgeable or have realization. Im sorry but that makes absolutely no sense to me. How can a genuine brahmana, what to speak of one who is also a pure devotee, lack knowledge? Even the illiterate brahmana was certified by Lord Caitanya as a real knower of Bhagavad-gita.

In ISKCON culture, someone gets attracted somehow, usually to Srila Prabhupadas books, and he is then told he has to aspire for a guru and get initiated in order to advance beyond the beginner stage. He then finds out who among the approved list of gurus seems cool, popular, charming, and spiritual," and aspires for him. Soon he begins chanting the gurus pranam mantra and worshipping that guru as Krishnas pure representative. After some time there is initiation and the relationship is made formal and permanent. The guru then gives the disciple advice and orders, which are accepted by the disciple as if given by Krishna Himself. The disciple worships the guru, offers him bhoga to eat, and serves him with care and attention, just like he would do for Krishna. The pujari puts his picture on the temple altar for arati and takes it off when finished. Often reading this gurus books and distributing his books takes precedence over Srila Prabhupadas books. Sometimes the guru may fall down from his vows, and this may or may not be OK, depending on the gurus relationship with the GBC.

Like this... "Satsvarupa is a nice guru, like anyone he had some problems and dealt with them..." He was outed by a disciple, practically forced to confess. Yet when he confessed, he made very light of it. Years later he confessed some more, admitted to being infatuated with a woman since 1978. He then manipulated her, his own disciple, in major ways based on his lusty moods. This went on for nearly 25 years until finally he got romantic and apparently tried to have sex with her. http://www.dandavats.com/?p=5000 Yeah, hes a nice guru'85 Oh please, whatever. Around here, Gita-nagari, hes one of the most prominent gurus, still worshipped by many devotees. Apparently his falldown is not well-known. If I were to mention it, his worship would continue while I would get labeled an offender. It'92s so twisted.

I remember reading Satsvarupas _Lilamrta_ as a new devotee. Recently I looked at the May 28, 1977, conversation as described by Satsvarupa and compared it with the version in the Vedabase. (Apparently there several versions of this conversation, for some reason.) I was shocked to learn that Satsvarupa did not write what Srila Prabhupada said, but instead wrote what he wanted Srila Prabhupada to have said. It was a highly inaccurate representation of the conversation, obviously intended to make new devotees think that Srila Prabhupada clearly authorized successor diksa gurus. I very rarely get angry, but this makes me angry, to think that my early impression of Srila Prabhupadas desire related to post-samadhi initiations was based on Satsvarupas deception. I came to ISKCON in search of the Absolute Truth, not to be fed a load of baloney by a horny sannyasi wanna-be guru.

Speaking of cheating... You wrote, "Gaudiya Karta Bhajas in the words of our spiritual master are passed as the disciples of Lord Chaitanya with their cheap nefarious activities and just as uc0u7771 tviks they became the most obstinate obstructers to the onward progress of the universal movement of Lord Chaitanya" Apparently the two phrases you quoted are from Srila Prabhupada, but you put in your own opinion in the middle of it saying that it is "just as rtviks." You have done nothing to show that the rtvik view obstructs spiritual progress, but you insert it in the middle of a Prabhupada quote as if it was his view instead of yours.

Hare Krishna

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]
I quite liked the fact that Prabhupada went to Lalita Prasad many times, even it was a taboo among his godbrothers, he even wanted to build a temple for the birth place of Bhaktivinode Thakura.[/quote]

Yes, there was definitely some transcendental relationship between these two grat Vaishnavas... the sad part is that they were quite apart on many doctrinal and practical issues. That is yet another footnote in the search for causes of splintering among Mahaprabhus followers.

While Madhvas are certainly guru-centric with respect to Madhvacarya himself, they are not very guru-centric in the sense of focus on regular, current gurus. We should be Mahaprabhu-centric as well (and we are). Problem arises when subsequent gurus become the main focus of the mission, essentially replacing their parama-guru (in our case: Mahaprabhu) as the interpreters of the shastra. Thus some interpretations keep changing, leading to splintering when disciples of such gurus start thinking that their gurus interpretation is the only correct understanding.

maybe, or maybe its the case that we left out the other two ingredients sastra and sadhus (achayas) - it seems to be a more likely explanation. It is true that when guru becomes a centre - the whole thing is very cultish, I had a feeling that both Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakura were trying to overcome this by a more universal and less sectarian approach in their expression. It is interesting to note that in both cases the disciples are often the culprits in reversing the trend.

Pandu:

You have a vivid imagination and it does not help does it? But I would suggest sticking to the topic, the topic is to follow all three sadhu guru and sastra, you seem to put too much emphasis on one and then getting too hard on the other, there are so mary bona fide gurus who lack realisation or level of purification of an acharya, so what? There are some minimal qualifications listed in Hari Bhakti Vilasa, I suggest your look it up (opps thats sastra, nope should be Vedabase.... okay just look at Sanatana Goswamis tika.... noway its not what my guru told me).

I should call it d-guru-tilt... (it does hurt people, remember it).

>You have done nothing to show that the rtvik view obstructs spiritual progress?

I do not need to, its the business of two other ingredients, sastra and previous acharyas, they did not support it so I will leave to the law as quoted. I am not your guru, so whatever I say does not count:-)

========
>You have done nothing to show that the rtvik view obstructs spiritual progress?

I do not need to, its the business of two other ingredients, sastra and previous acharyas, they did not support it so I will leave to the law as quoted. I am not your guru, so whatever I say does not count:-)
========

ccd, you are forgetting, that GBC guru system is also not supported by guru, sadhu or sastra. It is also not in line with (and against) Srila Prabhupadas instructions.

So, by expecting from ritviks to be "super vedic bonafide", dont you think it would be fair to confront GBC guru system with same high expectations?

Srila Prabhupada gave two instructions regarding diksa gurus in ISKCON:
1. guru can be anybody, who completes Bhaktivedanta exam.
2. ritvik initiators.

You can argue now that Srila Prabhupada was not acting according to guru-sadhu-sastra, but.....
It is obvious that you are missing something in your line of reasoning.

Giri nayaka, I have to disappoint you, I have not completed the Bhaktivedanta exam... I agree that emphasis on diksa that we have in the current system is not based on sastras, on acharyas and on direct words of our guru, Prabhupada. Its a historical result of a series of mistakes and mistaken reactions to the mistakes. I would not make it a social discussion, its a philosophical is it? Philosophically its following all agamas and acharyas system of the Madhva line (that includes rubberstamping:)

It interesting to note that Prabhupada did act on sastra and guru and previous acharyas. When you apply the same thing after his departure, you are not.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]It is true that when guru becomes a centre - the whole thing is very cultish, I had a feeling that both Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakura were trying to overcome this by a more universal and less sectarian approach in their expression. It is interesting to note that in both cases the disciples are often the culprits in reversing the trend.[/quote]

Yes, it is very much the work of the disciples. Initially SP did not promote this guru centric approach, but when faced with both covert and open challenges to the position of spiritual leadership of his movement (most obvious example was Kirtanananda), he started to change his approach. Initially SP stressed shastra as the basis of his movement. He wanted to translate ALL major Vedic writings and put his movement on a firm and broad shastric foundation. I find it very ironic that so many of his disciples cant appreciate shastra unless it was translated by their guru.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]It is true that when guru becomes a centre - the whole thing is very cultish, I had a feeling that both Prabhupada and Bhaktivinoda Thakura were trying to overcome this by a more universal and less sectarian approach in their expression. It is interesting to note that in both cases the disciples are often the culprits in reversing the trend.[/quote]

Yes, it is very much the work of the disciples. Initially SP did not promote this guru centric approach, but when faced with both covert and open challenges to the position of spiritual leadership of his movement (most obvious example was Kirtanananda), he started to change his approach. Initially SP stressed shastra as the basis of his movement. He wanted to translate ALL major Vedic writings and put his movement on a firm and broad shastric foundation. I find it very ironic that so many of his disciples cant appreciate shastra unless it was translated by their guru.[/quote]

And are shocked to know that some of it was done by Pradyumna:-)

======
I would not make it a social discussion, its a philosophical is it?
======

Well, Caitanya Candrodaya, you may try to separate philosophy from people and practice. But, is that practical?

And, btw, I know you havent completed Bhaktivedanta; but neither did your guru SDG. Or anyone else from ISKCON gurus. Although Srila Prabhupada wanted Bhaktivedanta exam for gurus.

We can talk philosophy till we drop, but GBC will still be selling their speculated institutional guru system, which is even more off than ritvik system. Ritvik system is at least directly based on Srila Prabhupadas words, and only complaint against is that it is outdated. But institutional GBC guru system is all the way off - it is neither based on direct Srila Prabhupadas words, neither it is working well in practice.

Ritvik system is a step away from GBC system, and as such it is welcome. Without GBC nonsense, there would be no ritviks at all. They are both on the same level (caught up in overemphasizing diksa), balancing each other out. Thats why they fight like cats and dogs for their territory, sueing each other to the shame of all.

Srila Prabhupada didnt stress diksa much, but he stressed siksa greatly. He wanted all his disciples to be gurus. His system is something else than what nowadays both GBCs or ritviks are proposing. And it is also something else than traditional vedic guru-disciple relationship. ISKCON will go on through siksa, diksa will become just "that external step". Time will show, but as I see it, both GBC and ritvik guru systems are transitory phase.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
Srila Prabhupada gave two instructions regarding diksa gurus in ISKCON:
1. guru can be anybody, who completes Bhaktivedanta exam.
2. ritvik initiators.
[/quote]

He also refered to the law of disciplic succession, or our broad vedic tradition, where ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure. I doubt he had any intention of changing that law. And if he did, he would have been starting his own apa-sampradaya. The only change in this tradition that manifested in our line was that non-brahmana born Vaishnavas were authorized to give even brahmana born disciples diksa mantras. And Bhaktisiddhanta fought very hard to defend that change (see his Brahmana and Vaishnava book)

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite] Time will show, but as I see it, both GBC and ritvik guru systems are transitory phase.[/quote]

I see it in that way also. However, the current GBC system is also based on SP instructions. The GBC system is no more arbitrary than Bhaktivedanta exam, and after all SP gave GBC the authority to nominate more gurus as they see fit. Ultimately it is up to the disciple to accept their guru as their spiritual authority. The ritvik or GBC stamp of approval are just procedural matters within preaching organization.

====
Kula-pavana: He also refered to the law of disciplic succession, or our broad vedic tradition, where ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure. I doubt he had any intention of changing that law. And if he did, he would have been starting his own apa-sampradaya.
====

Apasampradaya, yes.... As you say, the law is that "ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure". Not so in GBC system, is it? So there you have it, Srila Prabhupada didnt create apasampradaya, but some others did.... GBCs system of institutional guru is as bogus as, for example, church system in christianity. It is invention of some, with purpose to exploit others.

====
Kula-pavana: The GBC system is no more arbitrary than Bhaktivedanta exam, and after all SP gave GBC the authority to nominate more gurus as they see fit.
====

Yes, that is the usual argument in favor of GBC system. Regarding GBC having authority to nominate gurus, thats questionable. And even if SP did give them authority to regulate gurus, which just doesnt fit, still they brought it to higher doimensions. :) ISKCON has rock-star gurus, higher than the highest.... untill lower than the lowest.

You say that the current GBC system is also based on SP instructions. Thats not what GBCs say. They say they are doing exactly what Srila Prabhupada wanted. But if GBC system is exactly what Srila Prabhupada wanted, and fails, then something must be wrong with Srila prabhupada, even in such basic matter as guru system in ISKCON. But thats not an option for me. Not untill I see discrepancies between Srila Prabhupadas instructions and GBC system.

So, what we have is unfortunate situation, in which GBC system is not what Srila Prabhupada wanted. Maybe based on SP to some degree, but not exactly there. No wonder there are problems. Now they try to make gurus subordinated to GBC, to make them officially institutional gurus, and thats even further complicating everything.

I think the point we come that we all agree that guru out of three is overemphasized. The emphasis should be now strongly put on previous acharyas and sastra to try to minimize the damage to both poor devotees who took on the difficult and challenging service of being gurus and to the prospective disciples, who think that guru is the final word.

I wonder does anyone disagree with it?

CCD:

"Vivid imagination" -- I havent a clue what youre talking about.

"Sticking to the topic" -- We went off topic when you threw "Ritvikvada apasampradaya(s)" into the discussion. The rtviks are simply trying to follow Srila Prabhupadas direct order. May 28, 1977, Satsvarupa asked how initiations should be conducted after his departure, and Srila Prabhupada replied "officiating acarya," then agreed that it meant the same as "rtvik acarya." Much of the conversation that followed was a confused jumble, with disciples apparently thinking one thing and Srila Prabhupada thinking another. The answer was clarified by the July 9 letter, which specifically referenced that conversation, and appointed 11 rtviks to initiate on Srila Prabhupadas behalf. Although you say that this cannot continue post-samadhi, Srila Prabhupada never said that. As you know, Im interested in what Srila Prabhupada had to say, not you, but I find it irritating that you call post-samadhi rtvik "asampradaya" when that appears to be Srila Prabhupadas order.

"...there are so mary bona fide gurus who lack realisation or level of purification of an acharya, so what?"
The "what" is that they are treated as infallible in ISKCON, when in fact theyre not. I have seen so much perversion done for the sake of keeping some of these gurus phony image. How can it be that acceptance and worship of these men is necessary for spiritual advancement, but accepting Srila Prabhupada as the current acarya is detrimental? It is simply beyond belief. I would rather put my spiritual life on hold until the next birth than to put my faith in some of these characters masquerading as worshipable gurus and thereby risk being bewildered for who-knows how long.

"I should call it d-guru-tilt..." Again, youve lost me. Am I supposed to know what youre talking about here?

...

Also, you repeatedly bring up your view that the emphasis on diksa is wrong, but when you say that post-samadhi rtivk is detrimental to spiritual advancement, you are also emhasizing diksa. One as diksa from Srila Prabhupada, another says diksa not from Srila Prabhupada because hes dead. Either way the question is diksa.

What you seem to not consider is that the tradition at least in ISKCON is that the diksa guru is formally worshipped and is also generally emphasized as ones primary siksa guru. This fact contradicts your argument about the relative unimportance of diksa. It comes down to the simple fact that it is obviously foolish to accept a materially conditioned guru, worship him, and follow his orders.

Its amazing to me that you got such a great guru, but you dont seem to care, and at the same time you seem to be telling me that I should accept some guy who may or may not fall down, or may be cheating outright, as guru. What a twisted fate.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
Srila Prabhupada gave two instructions regarding diksa gurus in ISKCON:
1. guru can be anybody, who completes Bhaktivedanta exam.
2. ritvik initiators.
[/quote]

He also refered to the law of disciplic succession, or our broad vedic tradition, where ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure. I doubt he had any intention of changing that law. And if he did, he would have been starting his own apa-sampradaya. The only change in this tradition that manifested in our line was that non-brahmana born Vaishnavas were authorized to give even brahmana born disciples diksa mantras. And Bhaktisiddhanta fought very hard to defend that change (see his Brahmana and Vaishnava book)[/quote]

If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.

Pandu: <<Also, you repeatedly bring up your view that the emphasis on diksa is wrong, but when you say that post-samadhi rtivk is detrimental to spiritual advancement, you are also emhasizing diksa. One as diksa from Srila Prabhupada, another says diksa not from Srila Prabhupada because hes dead. Either way the question is diksa.>>

Well actually what you said it true. Concentrating on rtvik vs traditional diksa is also emphasis on diksa. I initially brought it in as an example that when out of three guru element is overbearing, the problems arise. The balance of authority is an important thing, misbalanced authority leads to trouble. All glories the the triad of guru-sadhu-sastra! All glories to Bhagavatam (everything else is a distraction).

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
Srila Prabhupada gave two instructions regarding diksa gurus in ISKCON:
1. guru can be anybody, who completes Bhaktivedanta exam.
2. ritvik initiators.
[/quote]

He also refered to the law of disciplic succession, or our broad vedic tradition, where ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure. I doubt he had any intention of changing that law. And if he did, he would have been starting his own apa-sampradaya. The only change in this tradition that manifested in our line was that non-brahmana born Vaishnavas were authorized to give even brahmana born disciples diksa mantras. And Bhaktisiddhanta fought very hard to defend that change (see his Brahmana and Vaishnava book)[/quote]

If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.[/quote]
The offensive bit of rtviks is that they suggest that Prabhupada willfully disobeyed sastra, misrepresented sastra and previous acharyas and then did not make it perfectly clear in his books as well. And it leads to all following interpretations, such as this one.

In this case Prabhupada was just presenting the sastra.

[quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]You say that the current GBC system is also based on SP instructions. Thats not what GBCs say. They say they are doing exactly what Srila Prabhupada wanted. But if GBC system is exactly what Srila Prabhupada wanted, and fails, then something must be wrong with Srila prabhupada, even in such basic matter as guru system in ISKCON. [/quote]

That is a very dangerous reasoning... Some 90% of disciples who got sannyasa from SP fell down. SP himself abolished sannyasa in 1977. These are hard facts. Does it mean that there was something wrong with SP because of these failures? At one time giving sannyasa to these young men was exactly what SP wanted. Yet later on that turned out to be a failure. So what? SP adjusted his approach. SP tried different things in spreading of Mahaprabhus movement and some of them did not work out. Big deal. Devotees ARE perfect in their dedication to serving Krsna, not in avoiding making mistakes. Even if there is an apparent mistake, their intent was pure and without flaw. // Iskcon must go back to the original tradition, where ANY duly initiated disciple of a departed guru can start giving diksa to people who desire to have him (or her) as their diksa guru.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think the point we come that we all agree that guru out of three is overemphasized. The emphasis should be now strongly put on previous acharyas and sastra to try to minimize the damage to both poor devotees who took on the difficult and challenging service of being gurus and to the prospective disciples, who think that guru is the final word.

I wonder does anyone disagree with it?[/quote]

Sorry but what to speak of understanding, you cannot even imagine what the previous acaryas said, even if you read their books. Dont disreagard what your guru said, understand from him:[br /][br /]

Srila Prabhupada: "I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya."

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
Srila Prabhupada gave two instructions regarding diksa gurus in ISKCON:
1. guru can be anybody, who completes Bhaktivedanta exam.
2. ritvik initiators.
[/quote]

He also refered to the law of disciplic succession, or our broad vedic tradition, where ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure. I doubt he had any intention of changing that law. And if he did, he would have been starting his own apa-sampradaya. The only change in this tradition that manifested in our line was that non-brahmana born Vaishnavas were authorized to give even brahmana born disciples diksa mantras. And Bhaktisiddhanta fought very hard to defend that change (see his Brahmana and Vaishnava book)[/quote]

If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.[/quote]
The offensive bit of rtviks is that they suggest that Prabhupada willfully disobeyed sastra, misrepresented sastra and previous acharyas and then did not make it perfectly clear in his books as well. And it leads to all following interpretations, such as this one.

In this case Prabhupada was just presenting the sastra.[/quote]

What Im saying is that we cannot directly understand sastra. We have to understand it through the acaryas orders and instructions.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]

"I should call it d-guru-tilt..." Again, youve lost me. Am I supposed to know what youre talking about here?

....[/quote]

I think you should not accept any guru, he may end up diksa guru, better listen to your kids, they are according to you siksa gurus:-) and maybe what you mean is that sastra directly spoken to you is more convincing then anyone, since you have trouble trusting people.. so you have your right to do that. I trust Prabhupada even he married publicly his disciples whom he has given sannyas. I trust him even he made contradictory statements. I trust him even I can not arrive at where he wants me to do, but its all because he represents sastra and sadhus as well and by the most part never made a mistake. Mistakes he did he corrected, based on sastra.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.[/quote]

So what are you saying? That there is no such law? That SP made up this argument to address a borderline deviant disciple?
Nonsense... that law was always there, and nobody in Gaudiya Matha stopped SP from accepting disciples because of that law. Do you know when SP started accepting disciples? In 1952, in Jhansi, when he was still a householder. What worked for him should work for his disciples as well.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Giri-nayaka das:[/cite]
Srila Prabhupada gave two instructions regarding diksa gurus in ISKCON:
1. guru can be anybody, who completes Bhaktivedanta exam.
2. ritvik initiators.
[/quote]

He also refered to the law of disciplic succession, or our broad vedic tradition, where ANY disciple can become initiating guru after their spiritual masters departure. I doubt he had any intention of changing that law. And if he did, he would have been starting his own apa-sampradaya. The only change in this tradition that manifested in our line was that non-brahmana born Vaishnavas were authorized to give even brahmana born disciples diksa mantras. And Bhaktisiddhanta fought very hard to defend that change (see his Brahmana and Vaishnava book)[/quote]

If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.[/quote]
The offensive bit of rtviks is that they suggest that Prabhupada willfully disobeyed sastra, misrepresented sastra and previous acharyas and then did not make it perfectly clear in his books as well. And it leads to all following interpretations, such as this one.

In this case Prabhupada was just presenting the sastra.[/quote]

What Im saying is that we cannot directly understand sastra. We have to understand it through the acaryas orders and instructions.[/quote]

At least you admit it, that is good. But he wants you to understand sastra... he wants you to learn what acharyas are saying? He wants you to stop being hang up on one out of three...

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think the point we come that we all agree that guru out of three is overemphasized. The emphasis should be now strongly put on previous acharyas and sastra to try to minimize the damage to both poor devotees who took on the difficult and challenging service of being gurus and to the prospective disciples, who think that guru is the final word.

I wonder does anyone disagree with it?[/quote]

Sorry but what to speak of understanding, you cannot even imagine what the previous acaryas said, even if you read their books. Dont disreagard what your guru said, understand from him:[br /][br /]

Srila Prabhupada: "I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya."[/quote]

Well... for me SP is in the same category as all other departed previous acharyas. Does it mean that I should wait for the next acharya? What if I see Narayana Maharaja as one of the current acharyas? Sridhara Maharaja was certainly an acharya to me. I love their books! // But truth is that what you quote is precisely an instruction to a deviant disciple: "You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me." This is an instruction to a deviant. A normal, dedicated disciple will obtain great benefit from reading books of previous acharyas.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]

"I should call it d-guru-tilt..." Again, youve lost me. Am I supposed to know what youre talking about here?

....[/quote]

I think you should not accept any guru, he may end up diksa guru, better listen to your kids, they are according to you siksa gurus:-) and maybe what you mean is that sastra directly spoken to you is more convincing then anyone, since you have trouble trusting people.. so you have your right to do that. I trust Prabhupada even he married publicly his disciples whom he has given sannyas. I trust him even he made contradictory statements. I trust him even I can not arrive at where he wants me to do, but its all because he represents sastra and sadhus as well and by the most part never made a mistake. Mistakes he did he corrected, based on sastra.[/quote]

The part about my kids being siksa guru by telling people to study Bhagavad-gita and thereby see that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead is a reference to CC Madhya 7.128, which is often used (surreptitiously switching concepts of diksa and siksa) to justify that everyone is ordered to be guru. (http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/7/128/) That is Lord Caitanyas order, "Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Sri Krishna as they are given in the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land."

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.[/quote]

So what are you saying? That there is no such law? That SP made up this argument to address a borderline deviant disciple?
Nonsense... that law was always there, and nobody in Gaudiya Matha stopped SP from accepting disciples because of that law. Do you know when SP started accepting disciples? In 1952, in Jhansi, when he was still a householder. What worked for him should work for his disciples as well.[/quote]

Indian man: When did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna
Consciousness?[br /]
Srila Prabhupada: What is that?[br /]
Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader
of Krsna Consciousness?[br /]
Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru
parampara.[br /]
Indian man: Did it...[br /]
Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don'92t go very speedily. A guru can
become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That'92s
all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.[br /]
(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think the point we come that we all agree that guru out of three is overemphasized. The emphasis should be now strongly put on previous acharyas and sastra to try to minimize the damage to both poor devotees who took on the difficult and challenging service of being gurus and to the prospective disciples, who think that guru is the final word.

I wonder does anyone disagree with it?[/quote]

Sorry but what to speak of understanding, you cannot even imagine what the previous acaryas said, even if you read their books. Dont disreagard what your guru said, understand from him:[br /][br /]

Srila Prabhupada: "I have heard something from my spiritual master, so I speak to you the same thing. So this is parampara system. You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me. This is called parampara system. You cannot jump over to the superior guru, neglecting the next acarya, immediate next acarya."[/quote]

Well... for me SP is in the same category as all other departed previous acharyas. Does it mean that I should wait for the next acharya? What if I see Narayana Maharaja as one of the current acharyas? Sridhara Maharaja was certainly an acharya to me. I love their books! // But truth is that what you quote is precisely an instruction to a deviant disciple: "You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me." This is an instruction to a deviant. A normal, dedicated disciple will obtain great benefit from reading books of previous acharyas.[/quote]

Well, for me, Srila Prabhupada is the current acarya. If not, then who? Or is there no current acarya? [br /][br /]

I will to research before answering to the suggestion that the "You cannot imagine..." statement only applies to deviant disciples.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don'92t go very speedily. A guru can
become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That'92s
all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.[br /]
(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)[/quote]

Because there is no external evidence (undeniable proof) of such an order, we can understand that it was an order from within (perhaps in a dream), which disciples of SP accept on faith. Nothing would prevent disciples of any guru from making such claims, especially if the guru spoke many times of his desire that all his disciples became gurus. It can also be argued that this is not a shastric requirement, or requirement supported by the sadhu principle.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
Well, for me, Srila Prabhupada is the current acarya. If not, then who? Or is there no current acarya?
[/quote]

For you current acarya is SP, for someone else it is their guru. It is a subjective relationship, just like with the guru... Acarya simply means one who teaches by example. In the sense of organization (matha) the current acarya (the head of the mission) is the GBC. SP replaced the single head of his mission (acarya) with the GBC.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite] But truth is that what you quote is precisely an instruction to a deviant disciple: "You cannot imagine what my spiritual master said. Or even if you read some books, you cannot understand unless you understand it from me." This is an instruction to a deviant. A normal, dedicated disciple will obtain great benefit from reading books of previous acharyas.[/quote]

The statement was apparently not a directed to an individual "deviant disciple." It was from a Srimad Bhagavatam 1.15.30 lecture on December 8, 1973, in Los Angeles. I dont have the Vedabase handy right now, but with this I think the burden is on you to show that this was a prohibition to a specific deviant disciple.[br /][br /]

Here is another relevant quote:[br /]
"Whatever is to be learned of the teachings of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura can be learned from our books. There is no need whatsoever for any outside instruction." - Srila Prabhupada, letter to Gurukrpa and Yasodanandana, Dec. 25, 1973.[br /] [br /]

Heres another:[br /]
"One should not partially study a book just to pose oneself as a great scholar by being able to refer to scriptures. In our Krsna consciousness movement we have therefore limited our study of the Vedic literatures to the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Caitanya-caritamrta and Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. These four works are sufficient for preaching purposes. They are adequate for the understanding of the philosophy and the spreading of missionary activities all over the world. If one studies a particular book, he must do so thoroughly. That is the principle. By thoroughly studying a limited number of books, one can understand the philosophy."
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 22:118, purport)

[br /][br /]
Check out this one:[br /]
"There is no need by any of my disciples to read any books besides my books - in fact, such reading may be detrimental to their advancement in Krishna Consciousness. All reading of outside books, except in certain authorized cases such as for example to read some philosopher like Plato to make an essay comparing his philosophy with Krishnas philosophy - but otherwise all such outside reading should be stopped immediately. It is simply another botheration. If my students cannot even read my own books thoroughly, why they should read others? I have given you TLC, what need is there to read Caitanya Caritamrta translated by someone else. You are right to stop such reading." [br /]
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Sri Govinda, January 20th, 1972)
[br /][br /]
Heres another, from a conversation:[br /]
Paramahamsa: Practically speaking, Srila Prabhupada, you are giving us the essence of all the previous acaryas books in your books. [br /]
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Yes.[br /]
(Srila Prabhupada Conversation May 13th, 1975) [br /][br /]
Hare Krishna.

In the Introduction to Shrimad-Bhagavatam, Shrila Prabhupada writes:

'93Many devotees of Lord Chaitanya like Shrila Vrindavana dasa Thakura, Shri Locana dasa Thakura, Shrila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami, Shri Kavikarnapura, Shri Prabodhananda Sarasvati, Shri Rupa Gosvami, Shri Sanatana Gosvami, Shri Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami, Shri Jiva Gosvami, Shri Gopala Bhatta Gosvami, Shri Raghunatha dasa Gosvami and in this latter age within two hundred years, Shri Visvanatha Cakravarti, Shri Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Shri Syamananda Gosvami, Shri Narottama dasa Thakura, Shri Bhaktivinoda Thakura and at last Shri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (our spiritual master) and many other great and renowned scholars and devotees of the Lord have prepared voluminous books and literatures on the life and precepts of the Lord. Such literatures are all based on the sastras like the Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads, Ramayana, Mahabharata and other histories and authentic literatures approved by the recognized acaryas. They are unique in composition and unrivaled in presentation, and they are full of transcendental knowledge. Unfortunately the people of the world are still ignorant of them, but when these literatures, which are mostly in Sanskrit and Bengali, come to light the world and when they are presented before thinking people, then India'92s glory and the message of love will overflood this morbid world, which is vainly searching after peace and prosperity by various illusory methods not approved by the acaryas in the chain of disciplic succession.
----------------------------------------


'93Similarly, other false devotees think that studying books of the previous acaryas is unadvisable, like studying dry empiric philosophies. But Shrila Jiva Gosvami, following the previous acaryas, has inculcated the conclusions of the scriptures in the six theses called the Shat-sandarbhas. False devotees who have very little knowledge of such conclusions fail to achieve pure devotion for want of zeal in accepting the favorable directions for devotional service given by self-realized devotees. Such false devotees are like impersonalists, who also consider devotional service no better than ordinary fruitive actions.'94 (Cc Adi 2.117)

-----------------------------------------

Amogha: I thought you said that we should not read the previous acaryas'92 books.

Prabhupada: No, you should read.

(Morning Walk with Shrila Prabhupada, May 13, 1975, Perth).
---------------------------------------------------


"A sincere devotee must, therefore, be prepared to hear the Vedic literature like the Upanishads, Vedanta and other literatures left by the previous authorities or Gosvamis, for the benefit of his progress. Without hearing such literatures, one cannot make actual progress. And without hearing and following the instructions, the show of devotional service becomes worthless and therefore a sort of disturbance in the path of devotional service. Unless, therefore, devotional service is established on the principles of sruti, smriti, purana or pancaratra authorities, the make-show of devotional service should at once be rejected. An unauthorized devotee should never be recognized as a pure devotee. By assimilation of such messages from the Vedic literatures, one can see the all-pervading localized aspect of the Personality of Godhead within his own self constantly. This is called samadhi." (SB 1.2.12 purport)
----------------------------------------------

Again we see apparently contradictory instructions of your GURU. It takes sincerity and intelligence to sort it out. GURU, SADHU, and SHASTRA. Try to remember that. All three MUST agree, otherwise we are to understand that such an instruction from guru unsupported by sadhu and shastra is meant for particular time, place and circumstances.

Admittedly, I have carefully read Srila Jiva Gosvamis _Tattva Sandarbha_ and found it to be a very valuable preaching reference. Specifically, I found its step-by-step approach to be helpful for presenting logical arguments beginning with the methods of inquiry up to the identificaiton of bhakti as the supreme goal of life. Its not that there was anything missing from Srila Prabhupadas books or that clarification was needed, but the method of presentation is a helpful preaching tool. Also, when someone does not accept Srila Prabhupadas authority, it can be helpful to cite other authorities.

The difference, I think, is that I would be reluctant to use other works to contradict what Srila Prabhupada has said, especially pertaining to how he ordered the disciplic succession to continue in his wake. If I find an apparent disagreement between Srila Prabhupada and sastra, I would understand it as an indication of my fault raher than a real disagreement. Similarly, if another devotee (sadhu) found such a disagreement, I would question their judgement. Maybe I would feel perplexed, but I would still take shelter of my developing love for Srila Prabhupada, and I would know with full faith that the same love would go all the way to Krishna. I do not accept that there is any mistake in the matter of understanding bhakti on the part of Srila Prabhupada. Sastra can be tricky, some sadhu may or may not have perfect understanding, but I cannot find any limit to Srila Prabhupadas understanding of bhakti yoga, and I dare not find any fault with him. Even if I cannot understand everything he says, his words are still like nectar, and I trust that by hearing them I will become purified enough to understand everything in due course of time.

.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
If you look at the context, the fact that Tusta Krsna Swami was borderline deviant and apparently itching to accept disciples of his own even while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, Srila Prabhupadas reference to the "Law of Disciplic Succession" appears to be more of a prohibition from accepting disciples as long as Srila Prabhupada could stop him.[/quote]

So what are you saying? That there is no such law? That SP made up this argument to address a borderline deviant disciple?
Nonsense... that law was always there, and nobody in Gaudiya Matha stopped SP from accepting disciples because of that law. Do you know when SP started accepting disciples? In 1952, in Jhansi, when he was still a householder. What worked for him should work for his disciples as well.[/quote]

Indian man: When did you become the spiritual leader of Krsna
Consciousness?[br /]
Srila Prabhupada: What is that?[br /]
Brahmananda: He is asking when did you become the spiritual leader
of Krsna Consciousness?[br /]
Srila Prabhupada: When my Guru Maharaja ordered me. This is the guru
parampara.[br /]
Indian man: Did it...[br /]
Srila Prabhupada: Try to understand. Don'92t go very speedily. A guru can
become guru when he is ordered by his guru. That'92s
all. Otherwise nobody can become guru.[br /]
(Srila Prabhupada Bg. Lecture, 28/10/75)[/quote]

Takes some intelligence to understand what Prabhupada is talking about, I guess you need some sastra backing for this one, since there is no letter to Prabhupada saying that he should become a diksa guru?

There was one devotee authorized to initiate during BSST lifetime as well lets see how our guru dismisses this doubt:

Regarding, Bon Maharaja, I am actually authority accepted by authority. In the Caitanya Caritamrta it is said, krsna sakti vina nahe nama pracar. So, now the Hare Krishna movement is world known, and learned scholars, etc. give plaudits to me as Professor Judah has. So, then why I am not authority? Nobody says Bon Swami has done it, or Vivekananda, or any other swami. There are so many yogis and swamis coming, but nobody is giving credit to them, they are giving the credit to me. So, why I am not an authority? If Krishna accepts me as authority, then who can deny it? 75-06-04

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] I find an apparent disagreement between Srila Prabhupada and sastra, I would understand it as an indication of my fault raher than a real disagreement. Similarly, if another devotee (sadhu) found such a disagreement, I would question their judgement.
.[/quote]
I just hope when you find contradictions in what Srila Prabhupada suggests according to time and place you will turn to sastra and to a living representative of Prabhupada for you, who will explain it according to time and place. Of course you never seen a contradictory statements in Prabhupada about the disc.succession and how it to continue. The truth is that Prabhupada did not leave a clear cut system of his successors to be gurus, he left a bit of confusion on this topic, since as he remarked "it is up to Krishna". I suggest he did it on purpose since none of the true acharyas has taken on the task to leave a successor guru.

Paramahauc0u7745 sa: u346 ru299 la Prabhupu257 da, I remember once I heard a tape where you told us that we should not try to read the books of previous u257 cu257 ryas.
Prabhupu257 da: Hmm?
Amogha: That we should not try to read Bhaktivinodas books or earlier books of other, all u257 cu257 ryas. So I was just wondering...
Prabhupu257 da: I never said that.
Amogha: You didnt say that? Oh.
Prabhupu257 da: How is that?
Amogha: I thought you said that we should not read the previous u257 cu257 ryas books.
Prabhupu257 da: No, you should read.
Amogha: We should.
Prabhupu257 da: It is misunderstanding.
Paramahau7745 sa: I think maybe he was thinking that there was some things about some of the Gauu7693 u299 ya Mau7789 ha books.
Prabhupu257 da: Maybe.
Paramahau7745 sa: And sometimes you said that better not to..., better to read your books.
Amogha: When the devotees went to India this year, they said that Acyutu257 nanda Swami very..., chastised them that "You should never... If I catch any of you buying Bhaktisiddhu257 ntas books from Gauu7693 u299 ya Mau7789 ha then I will take it away," something like this.
Paramahau7745 sa: Yeah, that was, the reason was because of, he didnt want the devotees going to Gauu7693 u299 ya Mau7789 ha. But theres nothing wrong with the idea of studying the previous u257 cu257 ryas books.
Prabhupu257 da: No. Who said? That is wrong. We are following previous u257 cu257 ryas. I never said that.
Paramahau7745 sa: All of your commentaries are coming from the previous u257 cu257 ryas.
Prabhupu257 da: Yes.
Jayadharma: But that wouldnt mean that we should keep all the previous u257 cu257 ryas books and only read them.
Prabhupu257 da: That is already there. You first of all assimilate what you have got. You simply pile up books and do not read'97what is the use?
Jayadharma: First of all we must read all your books.
Prabhupu257 da: Yes.

(Morning Walk with Srila Prabhupada, May 13, 1975, Perth).

Jayadharma: First of all we must read all your books.
Prabhupuc0u257 da: Yes

So of the assembled devotees, have we all read all of Srila Prabhupadas books and studied them in depth, or have folks moved on to other works prematurely? Personally Ive read nearly all the small books, all the medium books, Bhagavad-gita about 10 times, up to halfway through 5th Canto of SB (and reading a little each day), and several isolated portions of Caitanya Caritamrta. (Id like to start reading CC cover to cover, but Im trying to discipline myself to complete SB first.) Since I started reading Srila Prabhupadas books in 1995, Ive read only a few other books besides his, because time spent reading other books is not working towards "First of all we must read all your books."

Of course, whether Ive understood any if it is debatable.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
So of the assembled devotees, have we all read all of Srila Prabhupadas books and studied them in depth, or have folks moved on to other works prematurely? [/quote]

Yes, I have read all that SP wrote, some books even several times. I have also translated several of his books into Polish, or edited translations done by other devotees.

Interestingly in Prabhupadas books, specifically Bhagavatam you get all three, acharyas, guru and sastra (obviously). However the same can not be said about say GBC secretaries letters, say by Brahmananda or Tamal, that Prabhupada put his hand on and signed. In fact I would not be so sure if that what you call guru ingredient, its more like Prabhupada, devotees will not trust me, can you countersign... please?

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Interestingly in Prabhupadas books, specifically Bhagavatam you get all three, acharyas, guru and sastra (obviously). However the same can not be said about say GBC secretaries letters, say by Brahmananda or Tamal, that Prabhupada put his hand on and signed. In fact I would not be so sure if that what you call guru ingredient, its more like Prabhupada, devotees will not trust me, can you countersign... please?[/quote]

So youre saying that Srila Prabhupadas personally signed orders are not transcendental if he engaged his servants in writing them? Wow. Yet youve also argued that these same servants were/are bona fide gurus themselves once Srila Prabhupadas heart stopped beating. How strange.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]

So youre saying that Srila Prabhupadas personally signed orders are not transcendental if he engaged his servants in writing them? Wow. Yet youve also argued that these same servants were/are bona fide gurus themselves once Srila Prabhupadas heart stopped beating. How strange.[/quote]

What about being guru makes everything you do transcendental? In this way you will put Prabhupadas kids on the altar and start worshiping them, (BTW they did it to Swaminarayans family kids, and made him into a god... I guess that is a natural progression). The real weight of guru is in representing acharyas and sastra, not in being transcendental. No they are not transcendental just because he gave orders to his disciples to write them. ysccd

"One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the s'e4stra. The actual center is the s'e4stra, the revealed scripture. if a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the s'e4stra, he is not a saintly person. The s'e4stra is the center for all" [Cc.Madhya.20.352 purp.] (better here)