"We need a guru in whom we have absolute faith and whom we are willing to follow unconditionally in order to spiritually progress to the realm of pure devotion to Sri Krsna. This statement is made with reference to the point that each of us has many gurus, with "gurus" used in the sense of "teacher", or "person who inspires and guides us". " Read full article.

Replies: 74 Comments

Posted by Alex @ 01/07/2006 01:19 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am not sure if you still check this thread every once in a while. In any case, I would like to post something that I feel is relevant to the exchange that we had on here.

In a post marked 11/07/2005 07:43 PM PST, you commented on the following two excerpts from the PL book:

"For a devotee who comes to the movement Srila Prabhupada is the primary spiritual master, the Vaishnava to whom the devotee fully and unconditionally devotes his life."

(...)

"For devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement, however, the Vaishnava whose mercy without which we would not receive the benediction of Krishna and would not make advancement is Srila Prabhupada."

It seems to me that the above two statements are compatible with the following excerpt from Rocana Prabhu's article 'The Church of Rtvik':

"A genuine, direct relationship between the aspirant and the preeminent Sampradaya Acarya is not only acceptable, it is necessary, and a via media guru is not required in order for that relationship to be consummated."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/21/2005 09:53 AM PST

Indeed, that is amazing.

Posted by praghosa das @ 11/21/2005 09:29 AM PST

Hello Alex,
You are more than welcome prabhu. Anything I might be able to offer that will further someone's recognigtion of the opportunity given us by Srila Prabhupada is most acceptable. Srila Prabhupada is always only as far from us as his his next purport. That is where he is easily found.

I personally take so much delight in reading his books! I never tire of hearing his very unique and confident presentation of the Absolute Truth.

From the day I first met Srila Prabhupada in the fall of 1972 by means of his "Perfection of Yoga" till this morning reading his Science of Self Realization (one of my absolute favorites!) it has been easy to understand and accept the reality of Krsna Consciousness.

Srila Prabhupada once stated that Kali Yuga will advance more and more yet if we preach this KC then the world will become like Vaikuntha. I was so surprised by his apparently contradicting statements that I asked him "Can we really affect a change in the environment of Kali Yuga just by preaching Srila Prabhupada?" He responded by saying "YES! You have not experienced personally?"
I nodded my head "Yes..Srila Prabhupada". He then looked directly at me and said "So then?"

Now when the direct emmissary of Srimati Radharani - the predicted "Senapati General" of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - looks at you and emphatically says "So then" - believe me he conveyed such conviction and authority that I could only conclude that he was AUTHORIZED to confirm this statement and his saying "So then" simply meant "Well..if that is the case for you...and you are no more special than anyone else..it would serve you and them very well indeed if you could "THEN" share in my conviction and preach this GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to those who had yet to have been made aware of it.

By reading Srila Prabhupada's purports, which he described as his "devotional ecstacies" that were "NOT his words but merely the dictations of Lord Krsna Himself" and decorated with the "Saffron Particles of the Lord's Lotus Feet" - we are in direct contact and communication with the Lord Himself!

When we know this we have to think "SO THEN" I must emphasize this opportunity with everyone I meet.

This faith is simple and sublime. It is genuine and easy to share. THIS is the formula for spreading the glories of Lord Chaitanya's samkirtan mission.

Srila Prabhupada does not require our saying "He is our Guru" to be THE GURU! No more than our saying the Sun is the source of all energy in the material universe! The Sun is what it is!! We can only acknowledge the simple fact.

We can only like a mirror - reflect a portion of that sun. We are the saved! NEVER the saviour. Srila Prabhupada is respected as the Lord Himself - precisely because he is so incredibly dear to the Lord. He came to demonstrate or prove as it were how dear we all were to the Lord also. Sambhanda literally means "Dear To". That is the essence of our relationship to the Lord; we are very very very dear to Lord Krsna; being his forgetful parts and parcels. So His "DEARMOST" came on behalf of his DEARLY BELOVED to restore the long lost relationships of every DEARLY LOVED jiva with their ETERNALLY BELOVED and DEAR SWEET FRIEND!!!

Oh Dear!! That is amazing!

Posted by Alex @ 11/21/2005 05:56 AM PST

Dear Praghosh Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this forum. I am carefully considering what you have written. As I understand, a working title for the original PL essay was 'Srila Prabhupada: The Direct Link'.

This alternate title would acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is directly available to the members of his movement.

The PL book also acknowledges that Srila Prabhupada is available to act as the current link to the parampara.

I like the following PL excerpt:

"As described on page 49 of Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link, there is an expansive range of healthy, spiritually productive relationships between the devotee who conducts the initiation and the initiate. The Prominent Link (PL) framework supports a wide latitude of these relationships. We have many gurus. It's understood that not all of them are absolute in their position and transcendental stature. The point is that Srila Prabhupada is available as the direct and current link to the parampara. This doesn't negate the understanding that other gurus may also be pure and elevated souls."

Thank you for your time and attention. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by praghosa das @ 11/20/2005 06:50 PM PST

Hello Shiva prabhu,

Thank you very much for your comments. I see your reasoning and I agree with it. Srila Prabhupada is DIRECTLY in touch with Lord Chaitanya and his guidance is perfect.

Likewise are his wonderful purports fully qualified to guide us.

As are his specific directions and orders.

This all serves to align the entire planet with the will of the Lord.

In the 2nd Canto Srila Prabhupada states that ONLY in the human form of life can we align our actions with the "Mission of the Universe". Devotional service - under the guidance of Guru and Krsna is the means to properly use our God given energy.

The book Prominent Link is an attempt to acknowlege what is reality in this respect. However - even the Title is misrepresentative of the reality. Srila Prabhupad is NOT a "PROMINENT" link in our Parampara. He explained that he is the "CURRENT LINK" and will remain so to all those who confidently approach the Lord and His servants and service - by means of Srila Prabhupada's books - for the next 10,000 years.

This is the actual position of Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your comments Prabhu. Very much appreciated.

Posted by Alex @ 11/19/2005 07:47 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Yes, I agree with you that we have Srila Prabhupada's words to guide us and to help us to resolve disputes...and it seems to me that PL is in line with, and is guided by, Srila Prabhupada's words.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/19/2005 05:31 PM PST

Praghosa you misunderstood what was written down. The question was "Why do we need the PL? Why should the PL be used as an authoritave source on resolving disputes when we have the words of Srila Prabhupada, the previous acaryas and sastra for that purpose?"

Posted by praghosa das @ 11/19/2005 06:56 AM PST

Hello Shiva das

You have stated "If Dhira Govinda is not a liberated soul directly communicating with Krishna, why should we use the PL instead of using sources from people who are directly communicating with Krishna?"

It appears to me after reading DG's explanations - that he clearly does recognize that Srila Prabhupada was indeed directly in touch with Lord Krsna. He also confirmed this in a darshan in his quarters here in NY in 1976 wherein he explained exactly how he managed ISKCON. He said "I ask Krsna - and he tells me".

Not one of our Godbrothers makes this claim. None. They all honestly admit that they are simply trying their best to fulfill SP's wish that this Krsna Consciousness be shared with every man and woman on the planet.

That is our mandate. Srila Prabhupada once said Just like I am placing the wood here on the fire and you are handing me the kindling. Like that. You are assisting me in all my efforts to please Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and in this way push forward this samkirtan mission of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Acting upon all of Srila Prabhupada's simple instructions found in his books IS NON-DIFFERENT from taking DIRECT DICTATION FROM KRSNA.

In BG 18:57 in the purport Srila Prabhupada confirms this very point. Read that carefully. It will help us all to understand how simple and sublime this KC is. It is not difficult at all. It has been made "Super Easy" so that everyone in Kali Yuga can progress back home to Godhead - despite what appear to be insurmountable barriers.

If someone takes this directly from Srila Prabhupada through his books and his simple mission, they are fully secured. If someone views their Krsna Consciousness as inseparable from the influence of one or many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples - that is perfectly correct and acceptable as well. Coercion in this matter will not alter reality.

For some men - the contribution of the "initiating guru" will be almost nil. For others it can or is part and parcel to their happiness and progress in Krsna Consciousness.

No one should be forced to imagine this "relationship" is anything more than it indeed actually is. This is going to vary for every individual and this cannot be avoided.

The important thing is - whatever serves the ultimate purpose of providing every man and woman on the planet the opportunity to chant the Holy Name and support that chanting with the teachings of Srila Prabhupada - WHICH ARE THE DIRECT DICTATION OF LORD KRSNA - should be fully accepted.

Sri Krsna Samkirtan Ki Jaya

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/12/2005 09:08 PM PST

Dear Shiva prabhu,

You say:
"If you don't want to accept anybody else as being a self realized liberated bona fide spiritual master capable of being a direct link to Krishna that's fine with me."

Me:
Where did I say that prabhu?? Neither does the PL. Maybe you should have taken you more than 2 hours to read the book. No where in the PL book does it say that there can be no other self-realize spiritual masters capable of being a direct link to Krishna.
In fact it says the opposite of what you are claiming it says. The book says that anyone who gives you knowledge of Krishna is liking you directly to Krishna.

You said:
And all along I thought the role of the person giving initiation was to instruct his disciples passing to them the untainted message coming down through the parampara. I've never read anywhere from guru, sastra or sadhu that the diksa guru is supposed to "help people have firm faith" in any particular acarya over any other.

Again, prabhu, you don't seem to understand the PL. The PL does not say that. In fact it says that anyone who gives you knowledge of Krishna is considered your guru. It also says that there are different kinds of gurus. But the main guru in any Sampradaya, including our own is the Sampradaya Acharya. For us this person is Srila Prabhupada. He is the one that taught everyone of us about Krishna. Unlike other Sampradayas, all our knowledge comes from one person and that person is Srila Prabhupada. He is the one that introduced us to all of this. Before that we were all meat eaters. Therefore the initing guru should help us get closer to Krishna, of course, that goes without saying. But also one of his main jobs should be help us get closer the the man who taught them everything. Without him they didn't know Krishna. That is not so unreasonable to ask. Why be so argumentive about it.
Prabhu, I think you should read the PL again.

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 07:54 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Would you be willing to look at the following references? I think they are helpful for looking at the issue with a sober mind and intelligence:

"Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness" (CC Madhya 9:63 Purport).

"From 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. . . . And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja. Then officially I was initiated in 1933 . . ." (Lecture in Hyderabad, Dec. 10, 1970).

"Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who initiated Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji." (CC Adi, Page 1).

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity." (CC Madhya 15.108 Purport)

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."
(CC Madhya-lila, 4.111 Purport)

"Although a physical body is not present, the vibration should be accepted as the presence of the spiritual master." (Lecture by Srila Prabhupada, January 13, 1969)

"This is called initiation. Or initiation from the very beginning. This is called diksa. The Sanskrit term is called diksa. Diksa means... Di, divya-jnanam, transcendental knowledge, and ksa, iksa. Iksa means darsana, to see, or ksapayati, explain. That is called diksa." (Lecture by Srila Prabhupada, July 29, 1968)

Srila Prabhupada: "Only Lord Caitanya can take my place. He will take care of the movement." (Conversation, November 2, 1977, Vrndavana)

"I shall never die, I shall live forever in my books" (Science of Self-Realization, Foreword)

"What is possible in one country may not be possible in another...A Vaisnava is immediately purified, provided he follows the rules and regulations of his bona fide spiritual master. It is not necessary that the rules and regulations in India be exactly the same as in Europe, America, and other Western countries. ...We should not follow regulative principles without an effect, nor should we fail to accept the regulative principles. What is required is a special technique according to country, time, and candidate." (CC Madhya 23.105, Purport)

http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/23/105/en

In my experience, Srila Prabhupada is giving the most divya-jnana to the members of his movement.

It seems clear to me that the western world has learned about Krsna primarily through Srila Prabhupada and his teachings. The members of Srila Prabhupada's movement have learned about Krsna primarily through Srila Prabhupada and his teachings.

It seems clear to me that whatever divya-jnana the members of Srila Prabhupada may have received, it primarily comes from Srila Prabhupada and his teachings.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 06:33 PM PST

Alex you wrote:

To me, the PL model puts into words, and helps to make sense of, an experience that apparently many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement are having.

As opposed to the words of sastra and the previous or current acaryas who do not do as good a job as the PL?

It also seems to me, that ideas in PL could potentially serve as a platform for conflict resolution between certain factions in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Rather then the whole guru, sadhu, sastra thing?

If Dhira Govinda is not a liberated soul directly communicating with Krishna, why should we use the PL instead of using sources from people who are directly communicating with Krishna?

Why should I listen to Dhira Govinda when I can listen to Maha Bhagavat's opinions for "conflict resolution"?

Why is Dhira Govinda demanding that his point of view should be respected as the "preferred model" for how Iskcon teaches tattva about diksa, siksa, parampara, etc, like here from the PL:

We are almost equally confident that the PL model should be embraced as the preferred model for Srila Prabhupada's movement. However, there are many sincere devotees who are apparently not experiencing reality as described in PL, and who are doing well in their spiritual lives and making valuable contributions to Srila Prabhupada's mission. We believe that their position would be more secure if they came to the PL realization. But we may rightly be accused of presumptuousness in this belief, and thus we are open to the possibility that their experience is as valid and healthy as if they were consistent with the PL model. Therefore, in PL the PL model is presented, theoretically, as the preferred model, while acknowledging that we need to be open to the potential for other understandings being equally legitimate.

If he wasn't so serious I'd think he was being ironically funny. Instead he simultaneously tells us that only Srila Prabhupadas words are of any value for us...oh but with one exception, his own words as well are needed and should be accepted as the "preferred" version of Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

If it wasn't so funny it would be boring.

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 02:22 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You asked:

"Why do we need the PL?"

To me, the PL model puts into words, and helps to make sense of, an experience that apparently many devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement are having.

It also seems to me, that ideas in PL could potentially serve as a platform for conflict resolution between certain factions in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 01:49 PM PST

miriam you wrote:

Why makes things so complicated, Shiva prabhu.

Why ask me? Why not ask Dhira Govinda and alex?

The book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is quite simple.

Yes it is simple. We agree on that point.

All it says, is that Srila Prabhupa is the guru in which we could have full surrender.

If that is all it says then why does it take 160 pages to say what took you 12 words to say?

Don't we all agree on that?

I do.

Whether we take initiation or not, this still holds true, no matter what guru performs the initiation ceremony. Srila Prabhupa is our primary spiritual perceptor.

Thats more then 12 words. It seems that the PL is not as simple as you said before. If you don't want to accept anybody else as being a self realized liberated bona fide spiritual master capable of being a direct link to Krishna that's fine with me.

It is the job of the guru who gives us initiation to help us have firm faith in Srila Prabhupada. How can this be a new philosophy or changing the Sastras?

And all along I thought the role of the person giving initiation was to instruct his disciples passing to them the untainted message coming down through the parampara. I've never read anywhere from guru, sastra or sadhu that the diksa guru is supposed to "help people have firm faith" in any particular acarya over any other. Maybe you could point in mein the right direction? From my reading I've come to believe that the purpose of the Gaudiya sampradaya is to deliver the message of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. If you want to be exclusive in your acceptance and promotion of a particular acarya past or present as being someone to have faith in, I have no complaint. But why do we need the PL to tell us what we already know?

Alex, maybe for your next post you could try and respond to what I asked of you in my last post. Or better yet just answer one of them:

Why do we need the PL?

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 09:09 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your post. You wrote:

"As far as I know Srila Prabhupada didn't tell his disciples to see themselves as diksa disciples of Bhaltisiddhata, Bhaktisiddhanta didn't tell his disciples to see Bhaktivinoda as their diksa guru and on back through time the previous acaryas have not done like that."

PL touches on this issue:

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

"Q: Srila Prabhupada is not physically present and the PL model claims that he can be the direct link to the parampara. Would it be acceptable, then, if a devotee accepted Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura as the direct link to the parampara?

A: In the verse yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah, Sri Krsna specifies a two-center system, with the Lord as one center and the spiritual master as the other center. The spiritual master center must be the current link to the parampara. We maintain that Srila Prabhupada is the current link and suggest that he can remain in that role for the duration of his movement. As described at the end of the Scenarios section, Srila Prabhupada’s followers know Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and the other personalities who constitute the parampara primarily through Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada’s followers, however, notwithstanding when they joined his movement, are expected and encouraged to develop a primarily direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada. This direct relationship is naturally enhanced by the guidance and realizations provided by Srila Prabhupada’s followers.

All members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement do have direct relationships with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and other transcendental personalities. These relationships, however, are not primarily direct, but are primarily through Srila Prabhupada.

“Direct, current, and primary link to the parampara" is defined as the Vaisnava through whom Sri Krsna is giving the most direct transcendental knowledge. For many devotees, regardless of who performed the initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada fulfills the definition of direct, current and primary link. It is important for the institution to acknowledge that Srila Prabhupada is playing this role, and will continue to play it for many, perhaps even most, members of his movement, for the lifetime of his movement.

What if someone claims "By the definition given above, the direct link for me is Srila Rupa Gosvami [or Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura]"? The view of the PL model is that if someone did originally connect with the sankirtana movement through the books of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Gosvami, then Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura or Srila Rupa Goswami would arrange to connect that person to Srila Prabhupada, because Srila Prabhupada is the current link for the present time. Still, we are open to hear and observe the experiences of others, and adjust our perspective accordingly. If someone claims to be directly connected with someone other than Srila Prabhupada, in the primary sense as enunciated in PL, we recognize that possibility, though we are cautious about accepting such claims.

Srila Prabhupada’s organization is for those who are directly connected with the parampara through Srila Prabhupada. Someone may be primarily linked to the parampara through someone else, and that is appreciated. However, that linkage is not necessarily part of Srila Prabhupada’s institution. For example, if someone is in the line of the Sri-sampradaya, Srila Prabhupada’s followers honor that, while recognizing that it’s not in Srila Prabhupada’s line."

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

As far as the issue of using/quoting translations of the works of previous acaryas, I appreciate points brought up in Rocana Prabhu's article 'On Re-Initiation'.

Some years ago, I met what seemed to me to be a brilliant young Sanskrit scholar, when I spent some time living in an ISKCON temple.

The nature of the Sanskrit language being such as it is, he could easily translate a verse in many, many different ways.

He could also translate portions of Sanskrit commentaries by the acaryas in a number of ways.

Many of the different English versions of the same text seemed plausible and in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings, even though they were saying different things...in some cases very different things.

I also have a memory of him occasionally jokingly translating portions of text to me and others in ways that were obviously against siddhanta, but consistent with grammar, etc...perhaps in order to make a point in a humorous way.

I remember a friend of mine describing to me a conversation that he had had with this same scholar-devotee. From what I remember of the story, this scholar devotee was joking around with my friend, and at a certain point he became a bit grave, and seemed to 'go inside' a little bit and quiet down. He seemed to acknowledge, and exhibit a bit of concern about the fact that, if he really wanted to, he could justify a lot of things that are not okay using tweaked translations of Baladeva Vidyabhusana and others.

In my experience this devotee was truly a wiz. It was amazing to watch him in action. I remember a instance where he sort of went head-to-head with Hrdayananda Maharaja over a what seemed to be a small point (which IMO could nonetheless be potentially misused to justify unethical actions), during the question and answer period after Srimad Bhagavatam class. To my surprise, even Hrdayananda Maharaja seemed to concede to the devotee's point. I was hoping that Maharaja would have at least added a caveat.

From what I could see, this devotee was genuinely brilliant, and he had many, many Upanisadic verses and statements of the acaryas memorized. He could recall them easily.

He had an undergrad in Religious Studies and was going on the study Sanskrit in graduate school. He seemed to me to be extremely learned, and would read the commentaries of the acaryas in the original Sanskrit...and spent many hours in this way.

He could make a very convincing case as to which portions of Srila Prabhupada's commentary came from which other acarya's commentary. He could almost break down a commentary and show practically word for word how it came from this or that Sanskrit commentary.

My understanding, is that nonetheless translating sastra is more than a mechanical endeavour. The Sanskrit language, by it's very nature, can be translated in many ways. Some of these might be in line with siddhanta and some not necessarily so.

I think that translating Gaudiya texts can potentially be a very delicate thing. It makes sense to me that Srila Prabhupada gave us clear English purports where he re-visits certain points again and again.

I remember hearing a story where Srila Prabhupada was less concerned with how exactly some of the verse of the Bhagavad Gita were translated, he was more concerned with the purports that explain those verses. I also remember a story where Srila Prabhupada more or less says that many of Dr. Radhakrishnan's translations of the Bhagavad Gita verses are okay, but that it's the purports that are important.

From what I recall, before Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is was completed, he at times gave lectures using some of Dr. Radhakrishnan's verse translations...but with his own purports rather than those of Dr. Radhakrishnan.

My understanding is that in general the process is to understand the English translation of the teachings of previous acaryas through the lens of Srila Prabhupada's teaching, rather than the other way around.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/12/2005 08:45 AM PST

Why makes things so complicated, Shiva prabhu. The book Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link is quite simple. All it says, is that Srila Prabhupa is the guru in which we could have full surrender. Don't we all agree on that? Whether we take initiation or not, this still holds true, no matter what guru performs the initiation ceremony. Srila Prabhupa is our primary spiritual perceptor. It is the job of the guru who gives us initiation to help us have firm faith in Srila Prabhupada.
How can this be a new philosophy or changing the Sastras?

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 07:05 AM PST

As usual you neglect to directly comment on what I wrote and then go off on a tangent. I think that the entire thesis of the PL is a giagantic exercise in egotism. Gaudiya vaisnavism already has a well defined teaching and tradition on what Dhira Govinda is trying to re-write or "clarify" for those of us who are to stupid to understand what has been presented by Maha Bhagavats.

I have a question.

Do you think that the current amount of Gaudiya sastras and commentaries on the process of initiation and the disciplic succession etc is lacking in some way so as to make Dhira Govinda's thesis necessary?

It just seems to me that the process is already well defined and available for anyone to read. I think that anyone who is not speaking directly to Krishna should be humble enough to know their position vis-a-vis their qualification to create a new doctrine. Of course you can say that it isn't a new doctrine (I disagree) in that case then we have to wonder why we need the PL at all?

Again...to me you guys just come off as egotistic and delusional as per your actual qualifications to do what you are attempting to do.

I can tell you that you are getting nowhere fast. Iskcon will not accept what you are writing as some kind of doctrine that needs to be implemented. You may get a few people to praise you but that is all. What is Dhira Govinda's current status in Iskcon? How did he arrive there? Why do you think that it will get any better by continuing on down the same road that got him where he is today? I'm not trying to be mean or petty, I'm actually saying these things for your benefit. Humility is first understanding your own position in the whole scheme of things. Until you are directly speaking to Krishna you would be better off working towards that direction rather then wasting your time in futile pursuits in the hope of gaining respect from Iskcon. Dhira Govinda has absolutely nothing to say that is enlightening in the PL to people that are educated in Gaudiya siddhanta and he also includes many misconceptions about what the Gaudiya Sampradaya is all about. Besides the many msiconceptions he has it seems that the sole complaint he has is that Iskcon doesn't allow people to see themselves as diksa disciples of Srila Prabhupada. As far as I know Srila Prabhupada didn't tell his disciples to see themselves as diksa disciples of Bhaltisiddhata, Bhaktisiddhanta didn't tell his disciples to see Bhaktivinoda as their diksa guru and on back through time the previous acaryas have not done like that.

Why is it that Dhira Govinda feels he is empowered to change that tradition?

Dhira Govinda conflates the meanings and positions of diksa and siska gurus. He attempts to re-write what those words and ideas mean or at the least to interpret them in ways that are new. It should be the position of people who are not talking directly to Krishna that they take a humble stance and not think of their ideas as worthy enough to create new doctrine. If you guys think he is not presenting anythng new then what is the deal with the PL? If you simply feel that Iskcon is deviating from the proper teachings then all you have to do is cite guru, sadhu, and sastra. There is no need to get into long personal interpretations if you think Iskcon is deviating. You may disagree. Others may agree. Nevertheless I can only advise you guys and gals to move on to other things. Why be obsessed with an impossible dream?

Posted by Alex @ 11/12/2005 06:02 AM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

When someone first contacts the ISKCON organization, they do not generally, in my experience, participate right away in an initiation ceremony. In my experience, the generally accepted protocol is to encourage the person to 'take shelter' of Srila Prabhupada and establish a relationship with him. My understanding is that in this relationship, Srila Prabhupada is giving divya-jnana. In an essential sense, he is opening the devotee's eyes...he is initiating the devotee (in the essential sense of the term).

My understanding is that in the ISKCON organization, at least in principle, a person is not automatically considered ready for initiation. Usually they are supposed to study Srila Prabhupada's teachings and practice them for some time.

My understanding is that during this time Srila Prabhupada is (among other things) preparing the devotee to become qualifed to participate in an initiation ceremony. My understanding is that he is preparing the devotee for this by giving divya-jnana to the devotee.

My understanding it that in giving divya-jnana, Srila Prabhupada is initiating (in the essential sense of the term) the devotee into Krsna Consciousness.

My understanding is that once the devotee has been thus initiated by Srila Prabhupada, the devotee may be ready and willing to participate in an initiation ceremony. My understanding is that when the devotee is ready to participate in this ceremony, he or she is really (ideally) formalizing a connection which has already taken place in the essential sense.

Since the devotee is meant to be cultivating a relationship with Srila Prabhupada for at least some of the time leading up to the initiation ceremony...my understanding is that the it makes sense for the initiation ceremony to be a formal acknowledgement of that relationship.

A quote from PL:

"When someone first contacts ISKCON, at least in most parts of the organization, for a few months he is encouraged to directly accept Srila Prabhupada as his guru. We suggest that once someone has done this, as evidenced by accepting Srila Prabhupada in his heart as his spiritual master and following Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, the newcomer does not need to search for another Vaisnava to connect him with Srila Prabhupada. The newcomer is already directly connected with Srila Prabhupada, who is his current link to the parampara. Of course, many Vaisnavas have inspired the devotee, and will continue to do so. These Vaisnavas are also serving as his guru because they are helping him to understand Krsna consciousness and Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, and to apply those instructions to his life. Still, by virtue of being the main giver of direct divya-jnana, Srila Prabhupada is the devotee’s prominent link to the disciplic succession."

I'd also like, for a moment, to get back to the 'parampara list' that appears in the introduction to Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is. There is a longer excerpt from PL related to it that I would like to share at his time:

"Q: I understand that Srila Prabhupada is the primary giver of transcendental knowledge. And the giving of transcendental knowledge is the most important part of the initiation process. I also understand that the giving of transcendental knowledge is the essence of disciplic succession. Where I start getting confused is the part where you make the connection between Srila Prabhupada being the main giver of transcendental knowledge and being the direct link to the parampara. Does one necessarily lead to the other?

A: Inherent in assertions are axiomatic assumptions. An assumption of The Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link", "primary link", "prominent link", and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introduction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who is the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. If someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent, direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro.

I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the preceding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determinant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members of his movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above.

You asked "Does one necessarily lead to the other?" It does, if the terminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as "direct", "prominent", and "current", if not the Vaisnavas listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list- namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation.

The Prominent Link asserts that the criteria for being on the list is to be the Vaisnava who primarily delivers direct transcendental knowledge to the initiate. A further assertion is that the members of the list, who meet this criteria, can naturally be termed the direct and current links to the parampara. For many members of his movement, including those for whom he did not perform a formal initiation ceremony, Srila Prabhupada is the primary deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, and therefore it is right and natural to refer to him as the prominent and direct link to the parampara for those devotees. If there is an argument that being the prime deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge does not lead to being the direct link to the parampara, then I'm interested to hear that argument. What is the rationale of that argument? Even if some rationale can be conceived, what is the basis on which the argument that "the giver of direct transcendental knowledge is the direct link to the parampara" can be refuted, such that the idea is not even given legitimacy (perhaps alongside other conceptualizations) in Srila Prabhupada's organization? "

On a related note, whose teachings, if not Srila Prabhupada's, form the basis of Srila Prabhupada's movement?

I'd like to end with a PL quote:

"It's really not a matter of wanting or not wanting Srila Prabhupada to be the direct link. The Prominent Link primarily describes an experience that many devotees are having in relationship to Srila Prabhupada. The fact that that experience can exist is supported by sastra and logic, but apart from any arguments or wants or desires, the experience is a reality. This is one reason why the ideas in The Prominent Link are so difficult to refute, or even to attempt to refute- because the essay primarily describes an experience, and that is difficult to counter."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/12/2005 01:22 AM PST

Oh Alex, when will you do some thinking on your own. Why do I have to do it for you?

Even if a devotee claims "For me the direct link to the disciplic succession is my initiating spiritual master, and that is not Srila Prabhupada", that's fine. We don't object.

Doesn't that statement contradict these from the PL:

In other words, in PL Srila Prabhupada is presented as the guru wihout whose mercy we cannot advance in Krsna consciousness.

The formal initiation ceremony is an official acknowledgement that the devotee has established a direct link with Srila Prabhupada. The devotee does not make the link with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the ceremony. If the devotee has not already directly linked with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the formal initiation, then he shouldn’t be participating in the initiation ceremony.

Srila Prabhupada is transmitting transcendental knowledge, and we are confident that he will continue to do so for many generations. In this essential sense, Srila Prabhupada is initiating sincere followers. In fact, we propose that accepting divya-jnana, or initiation, from Srila Prabhupada, and thereby directly connecting with him, is the qualification for one to become formally initiated in Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

Also, we suggest that all who contact his movement should arrive at the point where they do experience Srila Prabhupada as the primary giver of direct divya-jnana in their spiritual lives. If someone has not come to this point then, we propose, he is not ready to be formally initiated.

Posted by Alex @ 11/11/2005 06:51 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

The PL position is also given in these statements from the 'Letters of Clarification and Explanation' section of the book:

"There might be someone, or many Vaisnavas, currently in the movement, who are at the topmost platform of purity and devotional service. This isn't the issue in question. The paper is not an argument of negativity. That is, the paper does not assert that there are no pure devotees in the movement and therefore Srila Prabhupada must be the direct link. The paper is asserting that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to be the direct link and he is performing that role quite nicely. There is no need for someone else to do it. Even if a devotee claims "For me the direct link to the disciplic succession is my initiating spiritual master, and that is not Srila Prabhupada", that's fine. We don't object. But we say that if someone experiences Srila Prabhupada as the direct link, what is your objection to that? Why should that understanding not be permitted? We are stating that Srila Prabhupada is fully qualified to be the direct link for the duration of his movement. If someone has a different understanding of who is the direct link for them, that's okay, but what is the sastric or philosophical argument that refutes the understanding that Srila Prabhupada can be the direct link? If there is no such rational argument, then let us accept it as a legitimate perspective."

(...)

"I'm saying that Srila Prabhupada will continue to be available to serve in this role as prominent link for the duration of his movement. We also acknowledge that some may not experience him in this capacity- they may experience one of Srila Prabhupada's followers in this capacity. That's okay. We accept that experience as legitimate. But in the next breath we express our opinion that the preferred model is for all members of Srila Prabhupada's movement to be connected directly and primarily with Srila Prabhupada. Ideally, in my opinion, no one should take Srila Prabhupada's place as serving as the primary link, even if there are Vaisnavas who may, theoretically, be as spiritually advanced as Srila Prabhupada. But we concede that others may give, to some members of the movement, more direct divya-jnana than Srila Prabhupada. Still, the experience of those who experience Srila Prabhupada in this capacity should be honored. Srila Prabhupada should never be excluded as a potential direct link for members of his movement at any time during his movement."

I understand the PL position more or less as follows:

PL presents a perspective on an issue. It also presents an opinion about the perceived value of this perspective. PL acknowledges that there may be other valid perspectives. While valuing its own perspective, PL also acknowledges and honours the experiences of Vaisnavas with a different perspective on the issue. PL proposes a way in which the different perspectives might coexist in spite of the extant differences of opinion about the value of the different perspectives.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 04:54 PM PST

Alex those 2 paragraphs stand in contradiction to other statements in the PL, which I have already pointed out. It's like writing a set of rules for a game and one of the rules is "no food allowed during the game", and then in another place a rule says "we are not against food being eaten in the game".

Don't ask me to point out the contradictions inherent in your last post, I have already commented on them, so go back and read what I wrote.

Posted by Alex @ 11/11/2005 01:48 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Among other things, you wrote:

"As I have stated repeatedly the main objection I have to the PL is the idea of minimizing other vaisnavas in the name of promoting Srila Prabhupada."

PL is not about minimizing other Vaisnavas.

I would like to share two excerpts from my favourite section of PL:

"We each can determine who is (are) the most important Vaisnava(s) in our spiritual lives. For some, Srila Prabhupada is the primary direct influence in their spiritual life. This should be respected and it doesn't mean that they are minimizing any devotee."

(...)

"If there were 1,000 mahabhagavatas in Srila Prabhupada's movement performing initiation ceremonies, the principles of The Prominent Link still stand. They are not dependent on the advancement or lack of it of any of the members of Srila Prabhupada's movement. Let's say that those 1,000 mahabhagavatas had thousands of disciples who experience them as the primary deliverers of transcendental knowledge, and thus the direct links to the parampara. Let's say there are a few others, or millions of others, who experience Srila Prabhupada in that capacity. I think that the reality for those few or millions ought to be legitimized in Srila Prabhupada's movement.

Further, apart from the accommodation described in the above paragraph, the mahabhagavatas in Srila Prabhupada's movement might act to connect the members of his movement directly with Srila Prabhupada. That is, the pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada's movement may naturally opt to establish Srila Prabhupada as the direct link for all members of his movement. But even if not, then Srila Prabhupada should still be recognized as serving in this role for those who genuinely experience him in that relationship."

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 05:39 AM PST

There are no quotes on record where Srila Prabhupada said his books will be the lawbooks for 10,000 years. There are a handful of quotes where he says the Krishna consciousness movement will go on for 10,000 years.

S.P. Room Conversation, July 22, 1973, London

Prahupada:Rather, this movement, as I have now began with my disciples, European, American boys, they're... They are not very satisfied, the present politicians. They are not very satisfied. They don't want. Everywhere this, more or less the same mentality, but it is our duty on behalf of Krsna to push on this movement. So we are doing, and we are getting response. It is not without response. It will increase. That is also stated, that for ten thousand years Krsna consciousness movement will increase. Yes.

Syamasundara: Ten thousand years.

Prabhupada: Within ten thousand years, if they become Krsna conscious, then life is successful. After ten thousand years, the gloomy picture of Kali-yuga will come. Still there is time. Ten thousand years is not small period. So we have passed five thousand years. So still ten thousand. We have got to the fifteen thousand years. Kali-yuga's duration of life is four hundred thousand, four hundred and twenty-seven thousand.

S.P. Morning Walk, June 5, 1976, Los Angeles

Ramesvara: Srila Prabhupada, when I first came to this, to your movement, the first thing I was told is that Lord Caitanya's movement in this age will, like a moon, rise for ten thousand years. I was told that number, ten thousand years. Is that true?

Prabhupada: Hm.

Ramesvara: And then after that, they will...

Prabhupada: This movement will go for ten thousand years without any impediment.

Ramesvara: So that means increasing, because it's the nature of the spiritual energy.

Prabhupada: It increases; you should take this opportunity. You work sincerely; it will increase, it will increase.

Ramesvara: Ten thousand years, there is a good opportunity to...

Prabhupada: Many fallen souls will be delivered back to home, back to Godhead.

S.P. Conversation in Airport and Car June 21, 1976, Toronto

Prabhupada:But you cannot expect that cent percent people will come; that is not possible. But even, even one-fourth percent people come to this, then it will be successful. Compared to the American population, what percentage we have got? Still they have made some impression, the Hare Krsna movement. Literatures are selling, they are appreciating, learned circle. Takes some time, but if we stick to our principles and do not make any compromise and push on--in this way, I have given you instruction, it will never stop; it will go on. It will never stop. At least for ten thousand years it will go on.

S.P. Morning Walk, June 11, 1976, Los Angeles

Ramesvara: Srila Prabhupada, you said yesterday, or a few days ago, that this movement will go on unimpeded for ten thousand years, so...

Prabhupada: Yes, provided we keep it uncontaminated. You should take this opportunity.

Ramesvara: So after ten years we have gotten so many devotees and so many houses, so I can't imagine how big this movement will be after ten thousand years.

Prabhupada: Yes. You'll get the government.

As I have stated repeatedly the main objection I have to the PL is the idea of minimizing other vaisnavas in the name of promoting Srila Prabhupada. The PL states repeatedly that other vaisnavas "Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement" should not be seen as direct links to Sri Krishna and the parampara. And that without accepting Srila Prabhupada as their main source of divya jnana that people shouldn't be initiated in Iskcon. Both of these concepts have no justification from guru, sadhu, nor sastra. You can join the Madhva sampradaya or the Sri Sampradaya if you like, but in the Gaudiya sampradaya that mentality is written of as being offensive.

In the Gaudiya sampradaya a self realized liberated soul in full knowledge of Krishna consciousness is considered to be an incarnation of Sri Krishna. But what you propose is that those vaisnavas who are on that level are something else and that only Srila Prabhupada for the rest of time should be seen in that way.

That is an offense. You can juggle words and be selective in what you choose to listen to or cite, but make no mistake about what Srila Prabhupada teaches.

Adi 1.44

yadyapi amara guru -- caitanyera dasatathapi janiye ami tanhara prakasa

Although I know that my spiritual master is a servitor of Sri Caitanya, I know Him also as a plenary manifestation of the Lord.

PURPORT

Every living entity is essentially a servant of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the spiritual master is also His servant. Still, the spiritual master is a direct manifestation of the Lord. With this conviction, a disciple can advance in Krsna consciousness. The spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna because he is a manifestation of Krsna.

Lord Nityananda, who is Balarama Himself, the first direct manifestation or expansion of Krsna, is the original spiritual master. He helps Lord Krsna in His pastimes, and He is a servant of the Lord.

Every living entity is eternally a servant of Sri Krsna Caitanya; therefore the spiritual master cannot be other than a servant of Lord Caitanya. The spiritual master's eternal occupation is to expand the service of the Lord by training disciples in a service attitude. A spiritual master never poses as the Supreme Lord Himself; he is considered a representative of the Lord. The revealed scriptures prohibit one's pretending to be God, but a bona fide spiritual master is a most faithful and confidential servant of the Lord and therefore deserves as much respect as Krsna.

Adi 1.45

guru krsna-rupa hana sastrera pramaneguru-rupe krsna krpa karena bhakta-gane

According to the deliberate opinion of all revealed scriptures, the spiritual master is nondifferent from Krsna. Lord Krsna in the form of the spiritual master delivers His devotees.

PURPORT

The relationship of a disciple with his spiritual master is as good as his relationship with the Supreme Lord. A spiritual master always represents himself as the humblest servitor of the Personality of Godhead, but the disciple must look upon him as the manifested representation of Godhead.

Adi 1.47

siksa-guruke ta' jani krsnera svarupaantaryami, bhakta-srestha, -- ei dui rupa

One should know the instructing spiritual master to be the Personality of Krsna. Lord Krsna manifests Himself as the Supersoul and as the greatest devotee of the Lord.

PURPORT

...There is no difference between the shelter-giving Supreme Lord and the initiating and instructing spiritual masters. If one foolishly discriminates between them, he commits an offense in the discharge of devotional service.

Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.58

The Ganges water is celebrated as being able to eradicate all kinds of sinful reactions. In other words, when a person takes his bath in the Ganges, he becomes freed from all life's contaminations. The Ganges water is celebrated in this way because it emanates from the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Similarly, those who are directly in touch with the lotus feet of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and who are absorbed in the chanting of His glories are freed from all material contamination. Such unalloyed devotees are able to show mercy to the common conditioned soul. Srila Vrndavana dasa Thakura has sung that the devotees of Lord Caitanya are so powerful that each one of them can deliver a universe. In other words, it is the business of devotees to preach the glories of the Lord and deliver all conditioned souls to the platform of suddha-sattva, pure goodness.

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 05:01 AM PST

750513mw.per Conversations

Paramahamsa: Srila Prabhupada, I remember once I heard a tape where you told us that we should not try to read the books of previous acaryas.

Prabhupada: Hmm?

Amogha: That we should not try to read Bhaktivinoda's books or earlier books of other, all acaryas. So I was just wondering...

Prabhupada: I never said that.

Amogha: You didn't say that? Oh.

Prabhupada: How is that?

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

Prabhupada: No, you should read.

Amogha: We should.

Prabhupada: It is misunderstanding.

Paramahamsa: I think maybe he was thinking that there was some things about some of the Gaudiya Matha books.

Prabhupada: Maybe.

Paramahamsa: 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 Acyutananda Swami very..., chastised them that "You should never... If I catch any of you buying Bhaktisiddhanta's books from Gaudiya Matha then I will take it away," something like this.

Paramahamsa: Yeah, that was, the reason was because of, he didn't want the devotees going to Gaudiya Matha. But there's nothing wrong with the idea of studying the previous acaryas' books.

Prabhupada: No. Who said? That is wrong. We are following previous acaryas. I never said that.

Paramahamsa: All of your commentaries are coming from the previous acaryas.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Jayadharma: But that wouldn't mean that we should keep all the previous acaryas' books and only read them.

Prabhupada: That is already there. You first of all assimilate what you have got. You simply pile up books and do not read--what is the use?

Jayadharma: First of all we must read all your books.

Prabhupada: Yes.

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 02:03 AM PST

Alex you wrote:

Next comes the part of the story that sticks out in my mind more clearly. Srila Prabhupada apparently told them something to the extent that “He is my spiritual master, not yours. Those books are meant for me, not for you.” I don’t recall the exact phrasing.

On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also apparently approved the publication (by the BBT) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita. For me, it follows from this that Srila Prabhupada likely approved that the members of his movement would read this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, and that perhaps some would even choose to study the commentary in-depth.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's Brahma Samhita commentary is the only one of his writings which is difficult to understand. The rest are not so deeply esoteric. So your memory of some quote about Srila Prabhupada not wanting people to here from his guru seems contradictory. So unless you can produce verification we have to reject it because not only did Srila Prabhupada publish the Brahma Samhita but also in the intro to the Srimad Bhagavatam (as already pointed out) Srila Prabhupada mentions numerous previous acaryas including his own guru whose books he mentions should be translated and distributed to the whole world.

As far as the story of Srila Prabhupada saying his books will be the "lawbooks for the next 10,000 years" there is actually no record of him ever saying that. According to various disciples of his that I have heard from that quote came from one of Prabhupadas disciples, but no has ever been able to verify that Srila Prabhupada said that. Since Srila Prabhupada's books are not lawbooks it seems unlikely that he did say that.

As far as the Madhva tradition they have come out in support of the ritviks to the ritvik proponents, I assume it's because their tradition follows a similar idea. I don't take them or ritvikism as authoritative. Clearly all of the stuff you believe is ritvikism with the caveat that people can be initiated by other people then Srila Prabhupada but that they would still be disciples of Srila Prabhupada first and foremost.

All of the other points you go through we have already gone through and I have already given my reasons for objecting to them. Instead of responding directly to my reasons for not accepting your positions you simply repeat your positions over and over in what I estimate you think is in new and inventive ways. Well, it isn't. It's simply tautology.

You seem to think that by being superficially polite that what you are repeating over and over will somehow have the effect of transforming my disagreement with you and your opinions without actually responding to my specific objections.

There is an old Grateful Dead song that comes to mind after reading your post. I hope no one minds if I quote the lyrcis.

Please don't dominate the rap Jack

if you got nothing new to say

If you please don't back up the track

This train got to run today



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Heard some say better run away

Others say you better stand still



Now I don't know but I been told

it's hard to run with the weight of gold

Other hand I heard it said

it's just as hard with the weight of lead



Who can deny? Who can deny?

it's not just a change in style

One step done and another begun

in I wonder how many miles?



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Things went down we don't understand

but I think in time we will



Now I don't know but I been told

in the heat of the sun a man died of cold

Do we keep on coming or stand and wait

with the sun so dark and the hour so late?



You can't overlook the lack Jack

of any other highway to ride

It's got no signs or dividing lines

and very few rules to guide



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

I saw things getting out of hand

I guess they always will



I don't know but I been told

if the horse don't pull you got to carry the load

I don't know whose back's that strong

Maybe find out before too long



One way or another

One way or another

One way or another

this darkness got to give

Posted by shiva das @ 11/11/2005 02:03 AM PST

Alex you wrote:

Next comes the part of the story that sticks out in my mind more clearly. Srila Prabhupada apparently told them something to the extent that “He is my spiritual master, not yours. Those books are meant for me, not for you.” I don’t recall the exact phrasing.

On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also apparently approved the publication (by the BBT) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita. For me, it follows from this that Srila Prabhupada likely approved that the members of his movement would read this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, and that perhaps some would even choose to study the commentary in-depth.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's Brahma Samhita commentary is the only one of his writings which is difficult to understand. The rest are not so deeply esoteric. So your memory of some quote about Srila Prabhupada not wanting people to here from his guru seems contradictory. So unless you can produce verification we have to reject it because not only did Srila Prabhupada publish the Brahma Samhita but also in the intro to the Srimad Bhagavatam (as already pointed out) Srila Prabhupada mentions numerous previous acaryas including his own guru whose books he mentions should be translated and distributed to the whole world.

As far as the story of Srila Prabhupada saying his books will be the "lawbooks for the next 10,000 years" there is actually no record of him ever saying that. According to various disciples of his that I have heard from that quote came from one of Prabhupadas disciples, but no has ever been able to verify that Srila Prabhupada said that. Since Srila Prabhupada's books are not lawbooks it seems unlikely that he did say that.

As far as the Madhva tradition they have come out in support of the ritviks to the ritvik proponents, I assume it's because their tradition follows a similar idea. I don't take them or ritvikism as authoritative. Clearly all of the stuff you believe is ritvikism with the caveat that people can be initiated by other people then Srila Prabhupada but that they would still be disciples of Srila Prabhupada first and foremost.

All of the other points you go through we have already gone through and I have already given my reasons for objecting to them. Instead of responding directly to my reasons for not accepting your positions you simply repeat your positions over and over in what I estimate you think is in new and inventive ways. Well, it isn't. It's simply tautology.

You seem to think that by being superficially polite that what you are repeating over and over will somehow have the effect of transforming my disagreement with you and your opinions without actually responding to my specific objections.

There is an old Grateful Dead song that comes to mind after reading your post. I hope no one minds if I quote the lyrcis.

Please don't dominate the rap Jack

if you got nothing new to say

If you please don't back up the track

This train got to run today



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Heard some say better run away

Others say you better stand still



Now I don't know but I been told

it's hard to run with the weight of gold

Other hand I heard it said

it's just as hard with the weight of lead



Who can deny? Who can deny?

it's not just a change in style

One step done and another begun

in I wonder how many miles?



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

Things went down we don't understand

but I think in time we will



Now I don't know but I been told

in the heat of the sun a man died of cold

Do we keep on coming or stand and wait

with the sun so dark and the hour so late?



You can't overlook the lack Jack

of any other highway to ride

It's got no signs or dividing lines

and very few rules to guide



Spent a little time on the mountain

Spent a little time on the hill

I saw things getting out of hand

I guess they always will



I don't know but I been told

if the horse don't pull you got to carry the load

I don't know whose back's that strong

Maybe find out before too long



One way or another

One way or another

One way or another

this darkness got to give

Posted by Alex @ 11/10/2005 10:32 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I thank you for the quotes from Srila Prabhupada. I accept that Srila Prabhupada has much to teach me if I am willing.

I am also not always clear as to how the quotes (from Srila Prabhupada) that you provide support your perspective, or how they go against what is in PL, but perhaps this is a side issue for now (or perhaps not).

Thank you also for some other things in your recent post.

Perhaps, I did not previously clearly or fully grasp what it was that you meant. And it is possible that with this post I will still not fully grasp or address what you mean.

As per my understanding of your clarification, I will focus my 'quote hunt' in relation the first part of the PL paragraph that you mention. I am still hunting for a quote. In the meantime, I wanted to share something.

The sentence from PL, which contains the statement that you have given in bold, is as follows:

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand."

My understanding of the above PL statement, is that it does not necessarily imply that devotees should be treated like cogs in an institutional machine.

My understanding is that the above PL statement also does not deny that there may be devotees who are at different levels of spiritual advancement in Srila Prabhupada's movement. It is not clear to me if you feel that PL is implying something like this.

My understanding is that the following PL quote seems to be potentially related to the concern about devotees being treated as cogs in a machine:

"The PL framework supports a wide latitude of relationships, the litmus test being whether the relationship assists the initiate to strengthen his direct link with Srila Prabhupada."

My understanding is that PL does not necessarily imply that devotees will not show proper respect to other more spiritually advanced devotees.

[Here, I am not fully clear that the above paragraph of mine accurately represents the concern that you have with PL.]

My understanding of the PL framework is that advanced devotees in Srila Prabhupada movement will be given proper respect (as they should me, IMO) and that they will be giving divya-jnana to others.

My understanding of PL is that, according to the PL model, the above would ideally be occurring in a climate where Srila Prabhupada is recognized by the members of his movement as the primary giver of divya-jnana, and therefore also as ideally the absolute point of surrender (as far as gurus go) for the members of his movement.

My understanding is that the above scenario would have some similarities with what is (or at least with what was) apparently occurring in Udupi, with at least some Madhvaites in the 1990s (and apparently for perhaps as much as 800 years before that).

My understanding is that these Madhvaites had 'bala-sannyasis' in their group, who were apparently staunch leaders of their sampradaya. My understanding is that these sannyasis acted as gurus and were given respect, and that they in turn gave divya-jnana.

My understanding is that these bala-sannyasis have/had disciples, but that their disciples also apparently identify/identified themselves mainly, primarily, directly, and foundationally--as a Madhvaites.

I don't mean to imply that because something seems to be functioning in Udupi, with at least some Madhvaites, that it is the last word in guru-tattva, or that it is necessarily the only valid model for Srila Prabhupada's movement, or that it is necessarily what Srila Prabhupada wanted for his movement.

My understanding is that there seem to be some compatibility between the sort of ideas presented in PL, and the sort of relationships that apparently seem (or seemed) to exist among at least some Madhvaites in Udupi (at least in the 1990s, and perhaps before that as well).

My understanding is that the relationships between gurus and disciples in Srila Prabhupada’s movement can be vital, intimate, and dynamic while at the same time being compatible with a model wherein the founder of the movement is recognized as the prime giver of divya-jnana (and where his followers accordingly take shelter of him in this way).

My understanding of PL is that it states that there have been various prominent links to our sampradaya during the existence of our sampradaya.

My understanding is that PL presents Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura as one of the prominent links in our sampradaya. My understanding is that PL states that members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement have a direct relationship with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, but that this relationship exists for them primarily through Srila Prabhupada (the prominent link for members of his movement).

As you clearly state, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura said that one of his disciples would stand out as a self-effulgent acarya and that he would take up the role of acarya.

My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada has (for me anyway) stood out amongst the members of what was once the Gaudiya Matha, as a self-effulgent acarya, and that Srila Prabhupada has (as I see it) taken up the role of prominent link to the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya for the members of his movement.

My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada did not say that one of his disciples would stand out as a self-effulgent acarya who would take up the role of acarya after Srila Prabhupada. Here I am using acarya in the sense of primary giver of divya-jnana for the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

And no, I do not mean to insinuate that you are implying that Srila Prabhupada stated that a self-effulgent acarya would emerge from amongst his followers.

My understanding is that Srila Prabhuapda remains present in his movement (at least in part via the divya-jnana that he is giving), and that all of the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement have the opportunity to push on this movement under Srila Prabhupada’s care (and also by the inspiration found in the divya-jnana given by Srila Prabhupada).

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura uses the term 'acarya' when he speaks of a 'self-effulgent acarya'.

I am using the term 'prominent link'.

My meaning of the term 'prominent link' may perhaps overlap with the term 'acarya' in the way that I assume that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura uses it in this context.

By the above, I understand that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura uses the term 'acarya' in the sense of 'acarya with a capital A', or perhaps even 'Founder-Acarya'. I understand the term ‘acarya’ (in this context) as the one who is the primary source of divya-jnana for his movement.

I use the term 'prominent link' (in this context) to differentiate the role that I am referring to from other possible definitions of the term 'acarya'.

For example, as I understand it, 'acarya' can also refer to a spiritual teacher, a guru, or one who teaches by example (or as the saying sometimes goes, an 'acarya with a lower case a').

The PL statement which you state that you objected to (at least the one that I am currently looking at), continues as follows:

"Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society."

My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada has established himself as the prominent link to the parampara (for the members of his movement) through the divya-jnana that he has given. My understanding is that when Srila Prabhupada is saying that his books will be the 'law books for the next ten thousand years'. . . that he is saying that these books (within which I understand both him and divya-jnana to be present) will remain the primary source of divya-jnana for the next ten thousand years.

It seems to me, that the books and teachings that Srila Prabhupada gave to the members of his movement and to the world, are and will remain for the members of his movement, something foundational. As a side note, I think that those books are an incredible achievement.

I don't think that it is necessary for someone else in Srila Prabhupada’s movement to, for example, write another set of books (or present another set of teachings) that would take the place of Srila Prabhupada's in the role of 'law books for the next ten thousand years' for the members of his movement. My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada has established himself (via his books and teachings) and the primary and foundational source of dviya-jnana for (at least) the members of his movement, for perhaps as much as the next ten thousand years.

And no, I am not saying that you are necessarily implying the above.

There is a story that I find interesting and relevant to what I perceive to be Srila Prabhupada’s role as the primary giver of divya-jnana for the members of his movement.

In the version of the story that I was given (in about 1998 or so), there were some disciples of Srila Prabhupada’s who were apparently spending a lot of time and/or energy reading and reflecting on the books (and/or perhaps also the articles) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. If I correctly recall the story, these disciples of Srila Prabhuapda were also perhaps having some kind of difficulty understanding some of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s writings. If I recall correctly, these disciples perhaps also asked Srila Prabhupada some questions in connections with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s writings.

Next comes the part of the story that sticks out in my mind more clearly. Srila Prabhupada apparently told them something to the extent that “He is my spiritual master, not yours. Those books are meant for me, not for you.” I don’t recall the exact phrasing.

I don’t imagine that a member of Srila Prabhupada’s movement (acting in any sort of guru capacity) would likely choose to make a similar statement to any one of his own disciples. I assume that this would be at least in part because the divya-jnana given by Srila Prabhupada is what the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement seem to be primarily working with (or so it seems to me).

On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada also apparently approved the publication (by the BBT) of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita. For me, it follows from this that Srila Prabhupada likely approved that the members of his movement would read this Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, and that perhaps some would even choose to study the commentary in-depth.

My understanding is that (to me) the most effective way for the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement to read Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura’s commentary on the Sri Brahma Samhita, is to do so via the lens of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and in a way that is informed by the divya-jnana given by Srila Prabhupada.

I remember reading a statement attributed to Srila Prabhupada where he apparently says something like "my disciples will write purports about my purports".

It seems to me that Vaisnava books containing divya-jnana are, and will remain, the basis of Srila Prabhupada's movement (perhaps this movement will even go on for as long as the next ten thousand years).

To use some supposedly Sri Vaisnava terminology, it seems to me that Srila Prabhupada's Vasinava books and teachings may perhaps well be in an 'uddarika' category for the members of his movement, for perhaps even as long as for the next ten thousand years.

Many devotees have written, and I assume, will continue to write, Vasinava books that can be viewed as 'purports' to Srila Prabhupada's purports. My understanding is that these Vaisnava books (written by members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement) exist because of Srila Prabhupada's Vasinava books. My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada (and his Vaisnava books and teachings) is the primary channel through which this divya-jnana has come down from Krsna to the members of Srila Prabhupada’s movement.

I have found some of the Vaisnava books (and articles and lectures) written (and spoken) by Srila Prabhupada’s followers to be very helpful to me (both philosophically and practically). These aforementioned Vaisnava books (and lectures, etc.) have been a source of divya-jnana for me, though Srila Prabhupada's Vaisnava books (and teachings) remain my primary source of divya-jnana, my ultimate shelter, my ultimate authority and also that which I strive to make my point of absolute surrender (all of this, as far as Vaisnava books and teachings are concerned).

My understanding is that in seeing Srila Prabhupada as the primary source of divya-jnana for the members of his movement, I see him as not only a ‘source of Vaisnava information’, but also as a living Vaisnava presence. Again, I do not necessarily mean to imply that you would not agree with the previous sentence.

I am not clear if I have actually addressed what you mean. My guess is that what I wrote in this post might still not necessarily be seen by you as valid, or perhaps as relevant, to what you mean to say, but I am sharing this post anyway.

I look forward to your feedback. If I have again seemingly misunderstood you, or again seemingly misrepresented what you are stating, then hopefully your feedback will help to further 'zero me in' on what you perceive to be some of the real issues.

I will also continue to explore Srila Prabhupada's writings in search of a sastric quote that seems to me to be relevant to at least the objection that I have looked at in this post.

I thank you for your time and attention. Until next time,
Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/10/2005 12:50 AM PST

Alex it's not the terminology from my point of view which is the problem. I don't know what the phrase "pure devotee" has to do with what I wrote. I made it clear what I meant. Srila Prabhupada used the phrase "pure devotee" in different ways. Sometimes he used as meaning anyone who is surrendered in serving the guru, other times he used to describe someone who has all the good qualities of a devotee, other times he used it to describe a sincere devotee, other times he used to refer to a devotee on the highest level of Krishna consciousness.

You stated that I have a problem with this:

"Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

And then you said that maybe if you change that to the following I won't have a "problem":

"Some pure devotees may naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada."

Perhaps this would feel less absolutist to you. Perhaps it is the perceived absolutism that you dislike.

So again we see you being dishonest in your presentation. I already explained what I had a problem with from that statement and so there is no need to speculate. The truth is that the above quote from Dhira Govinda was only part of a longer paragraph that I had a problem with. But you chose to only take a small bit from that paragraph and then state that I disagree with that small bit without putting my objection into context of the entire paragraph nor even mentioning why I had a problem and why you think I am wrong. You simply wanted to make it appear as if I have a problem with:

"Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

I don't have a problem with that at all, but you chose to try and make it seem that I do. Your continuing dishonesty and pathetic attempts at creating straw man arguments are surreal. Here is that paragraph in full followed by what I wrote. It is obvious by my comments that my problem was with the first part of the paragraph not the last part, the last part is what you chose to try and make into a reason to try and paint me as envious of Srila Prabhupada in your last post.

The full paragraph from Dhira Govinda: Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada

The part I had a problem with was the first part not the last, especially the part in bold type, that was obvious because my response was only a comment on that part. The first part is:

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society."

That is the part I objected to and the following was my stated reason why:

If someone is directly relating to Krishna he should be treated like everyone else and just be seen as a cog in the institutional machinery? Where do you come up with this stuff. Look, if you were talking about a university where the textbooks were all written by the founder of the university and all the teachers were meant to simply teach from the books, then your proposition would not be so off the wall. But we are not dealing with mundane concepts. We are dealing with a vital living spiritual tradition. The tradition that you want to change into a mundane religious school. Did Bhaktisiddhanta tell his disciples that after he left no one should act as an acharya? That he was the "current link" till the end of time in the organization he started? No, he didn't say that did he? He said that one of his disciples would stand out as a self effulgent acharya and that he would take up the role of acharya. If Srila Prabhupada would have followed the plan as layed out by Dhira Govinda then he would have had everyone see his guru as the "current link" instead of himself. And Bhaktisiddhanta would have told his disciples that his father was their current link, and on back through time all of the previous acharyas would have done the same. In effect Dhira Govinda's proposition would have none of the past acharyas as members or "links" in the parampara. But they didn't follow that path because that is not the tradition.

This whole idea of discriminating between self realized bona fide spiritual masters as if there is some difference in qualification amongst them is complete and total apasiddhanta.

A bona fide spiritual master is what he is, regardless of what you may think or how you may want to limit what he is authorized to do.

From CC Madhya lila

A Vaishnava acarya is self-effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgment. A false acarya may try to override a Vaishnava by a high-court decision, but Bhaktivinoda Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga.

From Srila Prabhupada at Bhaktisiddhanta's Guru Puja:

Gentlemen, the offering of such an homage as has been arranged this evening to the acaryadeva is not a sectarian concern, for when we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudeva or acaryadeva, we speak of something that is of universal application. There does not arise any question of discrirninating my guru from yours or anyone else's.There is only one guru, who appears in an infinity of forrns to teach you, me and all others.In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:

tad-vijnartham sa gurum evabhigacchet samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham

"In order to learn the transcendental science, one must approach the bona fide spiritual master in disciplic succession, who is fixed in the Absolute Truth.''Thus it has been enjoined herewith that in order to receive that transcendental knowledge, one must approach the guru. Therefore, if the Absolute Truth is one, about which we think there is no difference of opinion, the guru cannot be two. The acaryadeva to whom we have assembled tonight to offer our humble homage is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. On the contrary, he is the jagad-guru, or the guru of all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly.In the Bhagavatam (11.17.27) it is said:

acaryam mam vijaniyan
navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta
sarva-deva mayoguruh

"One should understand the spiritual master to be as good as I am," said the Blessed Lord. "Nobody should be jealous of the spiritual master or think of him as an ordinary man, because the spiritual master is the sum total of all demigods."

That is, the acarya has been identified with God Himself. He has nothing to do with the affairs of this mundane world. He appears before us to reveal the light of the Vedas and to bestow upon us the blessing of full-fledged freedom, after which we should hanker at every step of our life's journey.

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

Sorry to be so blunt, but all of Dhira Govinda's suggestions are based on a foundation that has no relevance to the tradition and teachings of the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

He may have good intentions but he is not educated on the tradition, or at least when he wrote these things he wasn't.

The whole thing is based on a misconception and is a recipe for creating a mundane religious organization. The idea that liberated souls should not be respected and treated as bona fide spiritual masters who are direct links to the Supreme Lord is the very antithesis of Gaudiya siddhanta.

So like I said it's not a problem with miscommunication. I know exactly what you guys are saying. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what I am saying. Since you brought this topic up and I had already explained myself, I can only wonder if you are being lazy and not reading what I write or that you are purposefully distorting what my position is in order to make it seem like I am against devotees faith in Srila Prabhupada. It looks like more demagoguery/a childish attempt at a straw man attack.

720518AR.LA Lectures

So we have got this message from Krsna, from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, from the six Gosvamis, later on, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura. And we are trying our bit also to distribute this knowledge. Now, tenth, eleventh, twelfth... My Guru Maharaja is tenth from Caitanya Mahaprabhu, I am eleventh, you are the twelfth. So distribute this knowledge. People are suffering.

761210DB.HYD Lectures

We got this information from His Divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and that knowledge is still going on. You are receiving through his servant. And in future the same knowledge will go to your students. This is called parampara system. It is not that you have become a student and you'll remain student. No. One day you shall become also guru and make more students, more students, more. That is Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission, not that perpetually... Yes, one should remain perpetually a student, but he has to act as guru. That is the mission of Caitanya Mahaprabhu... So we should become always a very obedient student to our guru. That is the qualification. That is the spiritual qualification.

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 10:17 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am wondering if at least some of our miscommunication is related, at least in part, to how each of us is defining our terminology.

When thinking about your objection about 'pure devotee' vs 'prominent link' the thing that originally came to my mind was an excerpt from a 1974 letter from Srila Prabhupada to Tusta Krishna Prabhu.

I did not share it at the time that I first thought of it. I will share it know. It's not clear to me that this will satisfy your concern, but I’ll share it anyway.

In the letter, Srila Prabhupada writes:

“If anyone thinks like that, that a pure devotee should be obeyed and no one else, that means he is a nonsense. We advise everyone to address one another as Prabhu. Prabhu means master, so how the master should be disobeyed? Others, they are also pure devotees. All of my disciples are pure devotees. Anyone sincerely serving the spiritual master is a pure devotee...”

Srila Prabhupada is apparently discussing a situation related to Siddhaswarupa Prabhu.

Srila Prabhupada seems to be using the term 'pure devotee' in an interesting way in the letter...and I feel that perhaps it has some relevance to our discussion.

First Srila Prabhupada says:

"If anyone thinks like that, that a pure devotee should be obeyed and no one else, that means he is a nonsense."

What is Srila Prabhupada referring to here? What is the definition of 'pure devotee' that Srila Prabhupada is using?

If I correctly understand the letter, in this situation, Siddhaswarupa Prabhu was apparently being seen by some of the devotees serving with him as more 'pure' than other devotees.

Some of these devotees may have seen Siddhaswarupa Prabhu as a 'pure devotee'...while seeing other devotees as being less so…and this may have resulted in some practical problems as well.

My reading of the letter is that Srila Prabhupada found this mindset to be nonsense.

Srila Prabhupada continues:

"We advise everyone to address one another as Prabhu. Prabhu means master, so how the master should be disobeyed? Others, they are also pure devotees. All of my disciples are pure devotees."

When Srila Prabhupada says "All of my disciples are pure devotees."...I am willing to take him at his word.

But how is Srila Prabhupada using the term 'pure devotees' in this case?

Does it mean that all of his disciples were completely free from the influence of the modes of material nature? Maybe...but this doesn't seem likely to me.

Was Srila Prabhupada simply encouraging devotees to treat each other with respect and Vaisnava humility? Maybe.

Was Srila Prabhupada referring to the fact that devotees were on the right path, and so eventually purity would come about...that since they were on the path they were pretty much as good as being pure. Maybe.

I remember hearing about a reference where Srila Prabhupada seems to be either implying or directly stating that one can be simultaneously a kanistha adhikari and a pure devotee. I don't recall what the reference was…but it sounds interesting and perhaps relevant to this letter. Perhaps you know the reference that I'm thinking of.

Anyway, back to the letter. Srila Prabhupada's disciples were working in different roles and capacites...it is not inconceivable that some were giving more divya jnana than others...but still Srila Prabhupada states:

"All of my disciples are pure devotees. Anyone sincerely serving the spiritual master is a pure devotee..."

Later in the letter, Srila Prabhupada states:

“As soon as we distinguish here is a pure devotee, here is a non-pure devotee, that means I am a nonsense.”

As I understand PL...the issue in PL is not about distinguishing between who is and who isn't a 'pure devotee'.

The issue is properly honouring and taking shelter of that person who is the primary giver of divya-jnana. Even if all of Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are ‘pure devotees’ it seems to me that the principles in PL still stand.

As I understand it, PL sees the above-mentioned primary giver of divya-jnana as the initiator (in the essential sense of the term) and as the most prominent link to the sampradaya.

The PL book states:

"Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada."

Srila Prabhupada stated (at least in his 1974 letter to Tusta Krishna Prabhu) that all of his disciples are pure devotees.

So it seems to me that perhaps 'pure devotee' is not necessarily synonymous with 'most prominent link to the parampara' (primary giver of divya-jnana).

When I look at the above-quoted PL statement some more, I wonder if you would find it less objectionable if it read as follows:

"Some pure devotees may naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada."

Perhaps this would feel less absolutist to you. Perhaps it is the perceived absolutism that you dislike.

To me, it seems that Srila Prabhupada is the person who brought us our culture and worldview (divya-jnana).

I would see him as the primary deliverer of divya-jnana for us in our time.

It seems to me that a pure devotee would recognize this...and would consider it a service to Srila Prabhupada to connect others to him via this divya-jnana. But that is my perception.

At the very least, it seems very possible to me that at least some pure devotees would be pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada.

Since the PL book itself acknowledges that PL is not necessarily the only valid and healthy approach to guru-tattva...then I think that in practice the previously quoted excerpt from PL ends up functionning sort of like what I write in the paragraph above.

The PL idea seems to allow the paradigms to co-exist side by side...even if those who prescribe to the various paradigms feel that their own perspective is the correct one.

Anyway, I wanted to share that. I'll go back to my sastric quote hunt now.

Thanks for listenning. Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 08:49 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humlbe obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Where would you like us to go from here? I assume that you are still waiting for me to give you a sastric quote that states that pure devotees would be happy to direct people to the prominent link in the parampara...and/or a quote that would show that there is a difference between being a pure devotee and being the prominent link in the parampara. That's fair enough.

I don't have such a quote at this time.

I will continue searching for such a quote if that is what is needed for us to be able to communicate. It seems to me that we are not communicating very effectively with each other.

As far as the issue of quoting past acaryas, I appreciate some of the points brought up in Rocana Prabhu's article 'On Re-Initiation'.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 07:47 PM PST

Alex that's another red herring if it's meant to be some kind of response to me. The story you bring up about something Srila Prabhupada said and the point he makes is something I have not argued against and in fact I have championed that position repeatedly all over the blogs on this website. Srila Prabhupada has made numerous statements just like the one you quoted and I have posted them repeatedly here.

That point is not what I was objecting to in the PL and your comments here. The PL contains much more then that simple point. In fact that simple point is the jumping off place for the "160 pages" of the PL.

You keep asking me to keep an open mind and be thoughtful and to study carefully what you have written and what is in the PL. I have done that, but since I disagree with it you assume that I must be wrong or have not understood what the PL is all about. Why is that your default posiion if someone disagrees with the various points in the PL?

Instead of dealing with my objections and citing relevant precedent for the ideas in the PL which I disagreed with, you instead resort to questioning my ability to understand what it contains in a thoughtful way. You also conflate what I was actually arguing against with a slew of unsupported allegations that I misrepresented in various ways what you have posted.

To me your type of rigid dogmatic adherence to a novel philosophical position such as the PL, and then demanding respect for that rigid adherence from people who don't share your faith in the PL as being a revealed truth, seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse. In other words why have such surity in the absolute truth of all that is contained in the PL if you cannot support many of it's philosophical conclusions in the accepted way i.e guru, sadhu, and sastra?

For instance; Dhira Govinda writes that he finds quoting the previous acaryas in support of a philosophical point is something which he doesn't accept. He said he only accepts the words of the previous acaryas through Srila Prabhupada. That is against the principle of citing guru, sadhu, and sastra which Srila Prabhupada taught. The guru for Dhira Govinda is Srila Prabhupada, the sadhus are other vaisnavas past and present, and the sastra is the revealed scriptures. All 3 sources are acceptable according to Srila Prabhupada. And on top of that if Srila Prabhupada quotes a previous acarya and you find that acceptable, how is that any different then reading that quote from it's source? In both cases the words are exactly the same.

But due to the faith that Dhira Govinda's "gut" or "intuition" supercedes and overides established siddhanta, you end up being unable to gain the respect you demand and instead end up looking like a blind follower of a blind man. You need to earn respect not demand respect. If you teach things which are in clear oppositon to established siddhanta and then brook no dissent from that position and demand respect for that position, then that is putting the cart before the horse. There is no valid reason why Dhira Govinda's positions all have to be respected and should be integrated into Iskcon or any other Gaudiya sangha as a respectable "alternative" philosophical doctrine without first demonstrating the absolute truth of those positions according to the accepted siddhanta of the Gaudiya sastras and acaryas.

Posted by Alex @ 11/09/2005 05:43 PM PST

Dear Shiva Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Your perception, as I see it, is that PL is not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings or with the teachings and tradition of the Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya.

Your perception, as I see it, is that PL is a badly put-together, unimpressive, Christianity-like, absolutist and speculative invention that can only be upheld with things like: lies, dishonesty, red herrings, demagoguery, changing the subject, misrepresentation, logical fallacies, smokescreens and tautology.

Your perception, as I see it, is that I have been lying to you in my posts, and have been responding in dishonest ways in order to attempt to divert attention from real issues, to attempt to manipulate the dialogue, and to distort truth.

My perception is that PL is the clearest and most reasonable statement that I have read about guru-tattva over the past ten years. It also seems to me to reflect my own experience in KC, as well as the experience of other devotees that I’ve come in contact with.

My perception is that I have communicated with you clearly, sincerely and honestly despite my shortcomings.

My perception is that even though our perspectives differ, I am benefiting from these exchanges. I honour and value your perception while acknowledging that it is different from mine. I remain open to continue to explore the issue with you (ideally in a dispassionate way).

I have read your posts in this blog, and so far, PL still makes sense to me.

I want to share something with you and with anyone who might be following this thread. And, by the way, I’m not presenting this as an “argument” to convince you of this or that. I’m just presenting it.

In the ‘Memories of Srila Prabhupada’ tape #31, Vaikunthanatha Prabhu is speaking about Srila Prabhupada. He is describing an event that apparently took place in Vrndavana in 1972.

What he says is something that I deeply resonate with:

". . . There was one doubt that was plaguing me . . .I had always been taught when I was first joining that the parampara is like a link, a chain. If you don't have the perfect link, if you are not initiated- You really cannot go back to Godhead . . . I presented this question to Prabhupada. I followed Srila Prabhupada from Rupa Gosvami’s Samadhi back into the courtyard, and just before Srila Prabhupada took the steps, in the courtyard, I said ‘We are distributing so many books but if people who read them aren't initiated then they can't go back to Godhead.’ And Prabhupada turned and looked at me right in the eyes and he said ’Just by reading my books they are initiated’"

My perception is that the above is dealing with the essence of initiation, the essence of diksa. My perception is that PL is dealing with the essence of diksa.

Thank you for making time for these exchanges between us.

Hare Krsna. Your servant, Alex

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 03:44 PM PST

Miriam I meant from the first chapter through the conclusion. It's not very much. If you add all of the rest it amounts to more. Every chapter in that book online is pretty short and I'm a fast reader. It's simple to check and see for yourself. Anyways most of it is tautological i.e repeating the same thing over and over. Alex has displayed dishonesty and demagoguery in his responses to me here. Instead of responding to my objections in an honest way he simply repeated what I objected to (tautology) or lied about what the PL actually said, and then said that I was misrepresenting what the PL says and creating smoke and mirrors. That was a complete cop out and totaly dishonest of him.

For example in one of his last responses to me:

me-"You can see in that way if you like for yourself, but the sastric process mentions nothing about needing to "directly link" with Srila Prabhupada in order to be ready for initiation. The above quote is almost non different from the Christian who demands that you accept that Jesus died for your sins or else God will not be available for you.
Maybe the aspiring disciple has more affection and has an easier time understanding, spends more time hearing from and has more faith in someone other then Srila Prabhupada? Is that wrong and will Krishna not accept that? Is Srila Prabhupada the Jesus figure of Iskcon?"

alex-As I've pointed out...in PL we are simply asking that the PL paradigm be accepted and respected. The excerpt above attempts to portray what is presented in PL as not honoring other viewpoints...though actually that is what you seem to be doing towards the PL paradigm. Of course, this is not a competition to see who can be more liberal-minded. We're not accepting of irrational, anti-sastric perspectives on the issue. I point out the above simply to illustrate one of many instances of seeming misrepresentation of what PL presents, in order to make it easier to attack.

His response was a red herring and a lie.

Let's examine what he wrote in response to the quote from me:

As I've pointed out...in PL we are simply asking that the PL paradigm be accepted and respected.

Well duh. Thats obvious, why the need to say that in response to my comment? It's like me disagreeing with your belief that the moon is made of green cheese and then your response is "I simply want my view accepted and respected".

The excerpt above attempts to portray what is presented in PL as not honoring other viewpoints.

The excerpt from above was part of a response to the PL where it was specifically "not honoring other viewpoints" i.e.

"The formal initiation ceremony is an official acknowledgement that the devotee has established a direct link with Srila Prabhupada. The devotee does not make the link with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the ceremony. If the devotee has not already directly linked with Srila Prabhupada at the time of the formal initiation, then he shouldn’t be participating in the initiation ceremony."

How is that "honoring" other viewpoints? In point of fact that quote does not honor other viewpoints, it's absolutist in nature.

Then alex cont

..though actually that is what you seem to be doing [i.e not honoring] towards the PL paradigm.

What the? What kind of nonsense is that? If I disagree with what the PL says I get accused of "not honoring the PL paradigm"? What a laugh. Does he really believe that by my stating my reasons for thinking the PL to be wrong that I am being dishonorable?

Alex's response cont

Of course, this is not a competition to see who can be more liberal-minded.

Oh I get it, I'm not "liberal minded" if I think you guys are wrong?

His response cont.

We're not accepting of irrational, anti-sastric perspectives on the issue. I point out the above simply to illustrate one of many instances of seeming misrepresentation of what PL presents, in order to make it easier to attack.

Where was the illustration of the misrepresentation? You illustrated nothing but your own inablity to be honest and forthright.

And then he wrote:

me-"Can you find any justification anywhere outside of the speculations of unqualified people that that list comprises the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters who are to be considered bona fide representatives of the parampara?"

alex-Similarly, neither Dhira Govinda Prabhu nor I assert that Vaisnavas on the list are the sole source of bona fide spiritual masters... PL asserts the opposite, and I've also clearly expressed that. Still, you've created an argument that's easy to attack and defeat, so you're sticking to it, at the expense, it seems, of attempts to genuinely deepen understanding.

That answer was a total fraud. That fact is that I was questioning the claim of the PL that:

"There may be hundreds of pure devotees in Srila Prabhupada’s movement. Being a pure devotee does not necessarily mean that one is the current link to the parampara."

"Regardless of the level of spiritual advancement of any member of the movement, the tenets of the PL model stand. Specifically, Srila Prabhupada is, or at least, ideally, should be, the direct and current link to the parampara and the prime deliverer of divya-jnana for all devotees in his society. Pure devotees will naturally be very pleased to help establish others in their direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada"

I believe both of those statements to be incorrect and I gave my reasons for that in my earlier post. I asked alex to respond with some kind of authoritative citation to back up those two paragraphs above. He did not do so, but he did contact Dhira Govinda for a response who also did not do so.

Then when I pointed that out, then alex responded like this:

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura is listed in Srila Prabhupada's introduction to the Bhagavad Gita As It Is...as the 29th link in a chain going back to Sri Krsna.

http://vedabase.net/bg/introduction/en

This Bhagavad-gita As It Is, is received through this chain.
There may have been other pure devotees (and self realized souls) on the planet at the same time as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura…and yet, they are not listed in this chain by Srila Prabhupada.

So he was using that list as an authoritative citation in backing up the points I challenged. I then made the case that that list is irrelevant to the points we were discussing. He then claimed that I was attacking a straw man and misrepresenting their position?

The whole debate has been surreal. Look I reject the PL. I also think that the way it's proponents debate it's merits or demerits has been dishonest and generally dogmatic and fallacious in it's presentation.

If that is seen as not "honoring" the position of the PL and therefore offensive or insensitive by some, I say you'll get over it. See Krishna in all things, savior faire is everywhere.

Posted by bhaktin Miriam @ 11/09/2005 02:26 PM PST

Dear Shiva prabhu,

You say that the Prominent Link book is hardly a book. I don't know what you call a book or not, but it has 165 pages with a title page that contains a list of authors; it has a contents page, a foward, a preface, an invocations page, an introductory page, several prologue pages; the main body pages, three extensive appendix sections,and an author's page. You call that "hardly a book?"

Posted by shiva das @ 11/09/2005 07:16 AM PST

Okay, one more thing. I skimmed through the responses to the SAC, both of them i.e the one you gave a link to and the one on the PL page. I have to say that Dhira Govinda was correct on calling [some] of their complaints, or at least the ones he refered to, as being mischaracterizations of what he wrote. Even though I only read the PL once, I could still see that the some of the responses that Dhira Govinda quoted from the SAC were mischaracterizations of what he said and all of the caveats he put on many points.

But they were also not mischaracterizing on some points as well and Dhira Govinda provided no substantial argument against them. Instead of giving a rigorous defense of the points utilizing guru, sadhu and sastra, instead he mostly relyed upon sentimentalism, speculation, logical fallacies, changing the subject in mid argument, demagoguery, and incorrect assumptions that what he believes is in fact supported by Gaudiya doctrine.

When Dhira Govinda wrote this I just had to laugh because it revealed the extent to which he will resort to nonsense just to try and support his conclusions no matter what:

Even with regard to the concept of "physical presence", we're not sure that we can support the SAC's contention that "he (Srila Prabhupada) is not physically present."

Dhira Krishna was trying to argue that the picure or murti of Srila Prabhupada is the same thing as a deity of the Lord. Therefore since the Lord is non different from His deity forms; therefore Srila Prabhupada must be physically present because he is non different from his picture or murti in the same way that the Lord is. He was stating that:

Just as Sri Krsna, Srimati Radharani, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are non-different from Their Deity forms, and are fully capable to act and relate in Their Deity forms, the murtis and pictures of the parampara acaryas, such as Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, can similarly act non-differently from the acaryas.

Of course Dhira Govinda gave no sastric justification for such a view and when the SAC called him on that view this was Dhira Govinda's response:

Many followers of Srila Prabhupada, including this author, believe that Srila Prabhupada is fully living and present in his murti form. It is important that the GBC and SAC clarify this issue for themselves and members of ISKCON.

So what if many vaisnavas believe this or that? What does that have to do with anything. That response is a logical fallacy known as Ad Populum or appeal to popularity. Plus it is apasiddhanta to state that Srila Prabhupada is "fully living and fully present" in his murti forms. Srila Prabhupada is most likely taking part in some pastime with Sri Krishna. If he is with Sri Krishna then he won't even know that Krishna is the Supreme Lord. The residents of Vraja are not aware of Krishna's true position as The Lord. Sometimes they think he may be some kind of avatar, but that thought is removed from their minds and they quickly forget due to the influence of Yoga Maya. So not only will Srila Prabhupada not know that Krishna is the Supreme Lord, he will also not know anything about his past life. He will be fully absorbed in Krishna's pastimes in Vraja. all he will know is that he is a resident of Vraja and that Krishna is very special, maybe even an avatar.

The fact is no one but Krishna can be present in many places at the same time. There are how many murtis and pictures of Srila Prabhupada? If he were to be "fully living and fully present" in all of those murtis and pictures he would have to do the impossible.

From Jiva Goswami's Krishna Sandarbha 155.6:

Lord Krishna's ability to be manifested in many places simultaneously and perform many different activities at the same time by His mystic potency IS NOT SHARED BY ANYONE ELSE. No yogi or sage can perform such wonderful activities

Dhira Govinda's response cont.

We receive transcendental knowledge through sound. Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.26.33) states, "Persons who are learned and who have true knowledge define sound as that which conveys the idea of an object, indicates the presence of a speaker screened from our view and constitutes the subtle form of ether." Srila Prabhupada is present, though he is screened from our view, just as Lord Sri Krsna was screened from the view of Lord Brahma. Sri Krsna initiated Brahma with sound. Through transcendental service Brahma could perceive Krsna.

That is also a logical fallacy known as a red herring. The point was whether or not murtis and pictures of a spiritual master are the same things as a diety of the Lord. The attempt to change the subject and use that as a proof of his point is a red herring tactic.

Dhira Govinda conts.

Knowledge given by Srila Prabhupada is apaurusa, "not spoken by any person materially created" (Bhag. 3.26.33 Purport). Srila Prabhupada, though screened from view due to our limitations, gives transcendental knowledge, jus