No Question of Like
BY: B.S. DAMODAR
Jan 11, 2011 — INDIA (SUN) — HDG Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami did say many nice things about the Gaudiya Math too, as mentioned by Sankarshan das in his essay, ". His Divine Grace did also take Sanyassa and the blessings to preach in the west from his beloved senior godbrother, HDG Srila Bhakti Prajnan Kesav Goswami Maharaj, which is not false. He had the greatest respect for Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhara Maharaj as an exponent of the pure scripture, the Srimad Bhagavatam.
My point is you can't deny all these positive things and they are also truths spoken by your gurudeva, so that is what I mean by misinterpretation. There is no question of jumping over guru, but when one is confused on details like these, this is when the siksa of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur is necessary for a neophyte devotee, if he is unable to approach any other elevated devotee. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's first instruction before his departure was for all to cooperate under the dearest representative of Srimati Radhika (parama gurudeva) to spread the message of Rupa-Raghunath.
Sri Guru may mention many detailed instructions to protect the budding devotion of his disciples but these instructions may vary according to the time, place and circumstances for the different disciples. However, His principle instructions must definitely include the instruction of Sriman Mahaprabhu, that is to learn to chant the Holy Name purely without offences and to serve all the devotees of Lord Krishna.
You, George Smith, seem to be positive that that all our gurur varga are under the modes of passion and ignorance, maybe like your good self, but I have news for you, jiva jago jiva jago gauracandara bole, whatever maybe said they are not and that is the actual truth.
As far as I am concerned, many of the things you claim under the heading 'I am aware' is simply hearsay and never conducted by the majority of the elevated devotees who are the epitome of compassion for the fallen conditioned souls. My Gurudeva never crossed the ocean to preach nor did he canvas for disciples, but we begged for initiation and He awarded it out of kindness. The act of any single individual can never represent the whole so in this aspect, the latter part of your essay is simply a generalisation and unfortunately betrays your gross ignorance of the real Gaudiya Math.
You definitely represent 'the frog in the well', which Srila Prabhupada mentions in his satire. When another visitor invited him to come out of his small well and see the great expanse of the ocean outside and all the other different wells, his angry retort was, how dare anyone say that anything is greater than the well I live in?'
I have the greatest respect for HDG Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami and so I have heard of his elevated status from my Gurudeva. Well I as a fallen soul am hoping to plod in this difficult path of devotion with all their combined blessings. Hearing from you will never ever help my spiritual progress nor any other reader because it is narrow, bigoted and can never represent the magnanimity of the message of Sriman Mahaprabhu. Maybe you should take to writing novels. Hare Krishna!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Relative Points of View BY: SANKARSHAN DAS
Relative Points of View
BY: SANKARSHAN DAS
Jan 11, 2011 — SINGAPORE (SUN) — The difference between my postings and Rocana das's postings is that there is sastric basis for my explanations, while he is giving his own opinions. There are prominent acharyas, but the concept of Sampradaya Acarya and one should discriminate that exclusive acharya from the rest is alien to me. Please verify from scriptures.
"Nobody should give his own opinion he must quote the authoritative statement to support his proposition"
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.43, London, July 30 1973)
I'm not interested in opinions because the mind is affected by prejudice. Prejudice meaning because he is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, he is speaking in a way which makes his acharya the most exalted, and at the same time degrading all others. We should stop and think with our brains, what if Rocana das is following another acharya from another institution -- would he have the same "Sampradaya Acarya" notion"? Therefore we consult the scriptures, which is above all sectarian and relative points of view. What does the scripture say, or from the words of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada?
"When we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudev or acharyadev we speak of something that is universal application. There does not arise any question of discriminating my guru from yours or anyone else's. There is only one Guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others."
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 70-71)
So it's very clear that Rocana das is making a discrimination of his Guru Maharaj, Srila Prabhupada, as the most exalted and at the same time undermining the rest. The guru-tattva is certainly been misrepresented. I have read Rocana das's postings, and much of it is based on his opinions, and I'm not really interested. Rather I would pick those which contradict shastra.
1. We must discriminate among pure devotees.
Is there a shastric evidence for this? Again let me quote:
"One should not be envious considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7 purport)
"Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami therefore offers equal respect to all preachers of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7)
The conclusion is we should not discriminate among those exalted preachers. If somebody is discriminating then he is envious. It seems Rocana das does not accept this etiquette. Furthermore Srila Prabhupada is Founder-Acharya of ISKCON and ISKCON is just one branch of the tree. Which also indicates that Mahaprabhu is the tree and ISKCON or Srila Prabhupada is one of the many branches from that tree. His other Godbrothers and other acharyas represent the other branches. This is how we should see things from the proper perspective in the light of the books.
2. Srila Prabhupada criticize his godbrothers, not to mix with them, and not qualified to be acharyas.
In my previous article, "We Should Not Take Sides", I have already given evidences to suggest that Srila Prabhupada in the end wanted unity, asked for forgiveness for his comments and also cited his godbrothers as examples of being acharyas in his lectures. If Rocana das is implying that Srila Prabhupada had criticized his Godbrothers with intention, then indirectly Srila Prabhupada becomes a sectarian personality with a criticizing nature. This disqualifies one from the "pure devotee" status, especially when Vaishnavas are involve.
"One should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others."
(Sri Upadesamrta, verse 5)
I personally do not want to see an exalted uttama-adhikari such as Srila Prabhupada have to criticize other Vaishnavas. It was very clear that Srila Prabhupada used the term "for the sake of preaching" that he has criticized in his meetings with his godbrothers during his last few months, which means he never meant it and wanted unity thereafter. So instead of digging out quotes from letters, conversations, etc., which are actually meant according to time, place and circumstances, we should see the squabblings of senior Vaisnavas as transcendental, just like Rukmini and Satyabama. The central point is always Krsna.
"Those, whose judgment is made of mundane stuff, being unable to enter into the spirit of the all-loving controversies among pure devotees, due to their own want of unalloyed devotion, are apt to impute to the devotees their own defects of partisanship and opposing views."
(Brahma-samhita 5.37 purport, p.72, BBT edition)
Rocana das wrote:
"some of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers have reached great heights of spiritual advancement on account of following the sadhana program set down by the Acaryas"
Indirectly Rocana das is implying that there is only One Nitya Siddha, which contradicts Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur's written article called "Thakur Bhaktivinode":
"Thakur Bhaktivinode's greatest gift to the world consists in this: that he has brought about the appearance of those pure devotees who are, at present, carrying on the movement of unalloyed devotion to the Feet of Sri Krishna by their own whole-time spiritual service of the Divinity."
(Thakur Bhaktivinode, published in The Harmonist, December 1931, vol. XXIX No.6)
Please see my previous article, "We Should Not Take Sides" for the comments as to "appearance of pure devotees refers to Nitya siddas".
Rocana das wrote:
"There are no other godbrothers who can point to such a literary achievement. The only others we can compare him to are his Spiritual Master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and of course Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur – the three successive nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acaryas."
Now we are simply ignoring the sastric injunctions and comparing based on literary achievement. If that is the case, is Srila Prabhupada better than Srila Gaura Kishore Das Babaji Maharaj? This is not how we should discriminate. It's offensive.
Rocana das wrote:
"Many ISKCON devotees got totally converted or influenced by the Gaudiya Matha leaders and left Srila Prabhupada's movement, adopting almost exclusively their new siksa guru's attitude and position."
Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.47 purport states:
"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."
The concept of this acharya movement or that acharya movement is the result of losing the line of thought. This is Mahaprabhu's movement and we are Rupanugas, not Prabhupadanugas. The acharyas are instruments in spreading this movement.
"We Gaudiya Vaisnavas are known as Rupanuga. Rupanuga means the followers of Rupa Gosvami. Why should we become followers of Rupa Gosvami? Because sri-caitanya-mano 'bhistam sthapitam yena bhu-tale. He wanted to establish the mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.2, Hyderabad, April 13, 1975)
Rocana das wrote:
"Krsna Consciousness is not being spread around the world in the manner and mood that the Sampradaya Acaryas demonstrated and desire to have perpetuated."
Krsna consciousness is NOT limited to any particular sectarian institution or any particular acharya, it's universal. Srila Prabhupada confirms:
"The disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami are all godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion and we are not acting conjointly, every one of us is spreading this Krsna consciousness movement according to his capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world".
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.31)
Srila Prabhupada continues:
There are primarily four parties spreading devotional service all over the universe. These are the Ramanuja-sampradaya, the Madhva-sampradaya, the Visnusvami-sampradaya and the Nimbarka-sampradaya. The Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya in particular comes from Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. All these devotees are spreading this Krsna consciousness movement very widely and giving protection to innocent people.."
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.31 purport)
The above quote also refutes George Smith's claim that everyone should adhere to only Srila Prabhupada. In his latest article he quotes from His Divine Grace Srila B.P Puri Goswami:
"In a very short time, there will exist only one school of Vaisnava teaching, which will be named the Brahma sampradaya. All other Vaisnava schools will come into the fold of that one disciplic succession."
(Mahaprabhura Siksa)
Puri Maharaja further elaborates:
"Bhaktivinoda Thakura continues his discussion of the subject by asking the question, 'Is the list of names of spiritual masters in the disciplic succession given without any breaks?' His answer: 'From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters' names are included in these lists."
And then he says:
"Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in his disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation. This is confirmed by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali."
In conclusion: Sri Brahma-Sampradaya would remain, that does not mean ISKCON only. ISKCON is just one branch in the Brahma Sampradaya, again confirmed by Srila Prabhupada in another verse:
Our International Society for Krishna Consciousness is one of the branches of the Caitanya tree.
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-Lila 9-18)
This Caitanya tree represents the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya and ISKCON is a branch of it.
As quoted, Srila B. Puri Goswami, who explains:
"Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in HIS disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation."
This "his" refers to an individual. If a devotee is from ISKCON he follows his Gurudev and Srila Prabhupada, another devotee from Sri Caitanya Sarasvati Math will follow Srila Sridhara Maharaj, and one who follows the Gaudiya Vedanta school would follow Srila Narayana Goswami. This is how we should see the many branches of disciplic succession.
This is Krsna consciousness. It is not limited to any particular acharya or his mood. If somebody is saying this then such a person is envious, that's all.
"The doctrine of universal love must therefore stand opposed to all sectarian ideas. A sectarian missionary preaching universal love is but a great inconsistency."
(Bhaktivinode Thakur in the Hindu Idols Jan, 1899)
Hare Krsna
Yours in Service
Sankarshan das
BY: SANKARSHAN DAS
Jan 11, 2011 — SINGAPORE (SUN) — The difference between my postings and Rocana das's postings is that there is sastric basis for my explanations, while he is giving his own opinions. There are prominent acharyas, but the concept of Sampradaya Acarya and one should discriminate that exclusive acharya from the rest is alien to me. Please verify from scriptures.
"Nobody should give his own opinion he must quote the authoritative statement to support his proposition"
(Srila Prabhupada Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.43, London, July 30 1973)
I'm not interested in opinions because the mind is affected by prejudice. Prejudice meaning because he is a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, he is speaking in a way which makes his acharya the most exalted, and at the same time degrading all others. We should stop and think with our brains, what if Rocana das is following another acharya from another institution -- would he have the same "Sampradaya Acarya" notion"? Therefore we consult the scriptures, which is above all sectarian and relative points of view. What does the scripture say, or from the words of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada?
"When we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudev or acharyadev we speak of something that is universal application. There does not arise any question of discriminating my guru from yours or anyone else's. There is only one Guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others."
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 70-71)
So it's very clear that Rocana das is making a discrimination of his Guru Maharaj, Srila Prabhupada, as the most exalted and at the same time undermining the rest. The guru-tattva is certainly been misrepresented. I have read Rocana das's postings, and much of it is based on his opinions, and I'm not really interested. Rather I would pick those which contradict shastra.
1. We must discriminate among pure devotees.
Is there a shastric evidence for this? Again let me quote:
"One should not be envious considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7 purport)
"Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami therefore offers equal respect to all preachers of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7)
The conclusion is we should not discriminate among those exalted preachers. If somebody is discriminating then he is envious. It seems Rocana das does not accept this etiquette. Furthermore Srila Prabhupada is Founder-Acharya of ISKCON and ISKCON is just one branch of the tree. Which also indicates that Mahaprabhu is the tree and ISKCON or Srila Prabhupada is one of the many branches from that tree. His other Godbrothers and other acharyas represent the other branches. This is how we should see things from the proper perspective in the light of the books.
2. Srila Prabhupada criticize his godbrothers, not to mix with them, and not qualified to be acharyas.
In my previous article, "We Should Not Take Sides", I have already given evidences to suggest that Srila Prabhupada in the end wanted unity, asked for forgiveness for his comments and also cited his godbrothers as examples of being acharyas in his lectures. If Rocana das is implying that Srila Prabhupada had criticized his Godbrothers with intention, then indirectly Srila Prabhupada becomes a sectarian personality with a criticizing nature. This disqualifies one from the "pure devotee" status, especially when Vaishnavas are involve.
"One should associate with and faithfully serve that pure devotee who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others."
(Sri Upadesamrta, verse 5)
I personally do not want to see an exalted uttama-adhikari such as Srila Prabhupada have to criticize other Vaishnavas. It was very clear that Srila Prabhupada used the term "for the sake of preaching" that he has criticized in his meetings with his godbrothers during his last few months, which means he never meant it and wanted unity thereafter. So instead of digging out quotes from letters, conversations, etc., which are actually meant according to time, place and circumstances, we should see the squabblings of senior Vaisnavas as transcendental, just like Rukmini and Satyabama. The central point is always Krsna.
"Those, whose judgment is made of mundane stuff, being unable to enter into the spirit of the all-loving controversies among pure devotees, due to their own want of unalloyed devotion, are apt to impute to the devotees their own defects of partisanship and opposing views."
(Brahma-samhita 5.37 purport, p.72, BBT edition)
Rocana das wrote:
"some of Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers have reached great heights of spiritual advancement on account of following the sadhana program set down by the Acaryas"
Indirectly Rocana das is implying that there is only One Nitya Siddha, which contradicts Srila Bhaktisiddanta Sarasvati Thakur's written article called "Thakur Bhaktivinode":
"Thakur Bhaktivinode's greatest gift to the world consists in this: that he has brought about the appearance of those pure devotees who are, at present, carrying on the movement of unalloyed devotion to the Feet of Sri Krishna by their own whole-time spiritual service of the Divinity."
(Thakur Bhaktivinode, published in The Harmonist, December 1931, vol. XXIX No.6)
Please see my previous article, "We Should Not Take Sides" for the comments as to "appearance of pure devotees refers to Nitya siddas".
Rocana das wrote:
"There are no other godbrothers who can point to such a literary achievement. The only others we can compare him to are his Spiritual Master, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and of course Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur – the three successive nitya-siddha Sampradaya Acaryas."
Now we are simply ignoring the sastric injunctions and comparing based on literary achievement. If that is the case, is Srila Prabhupada better than Srila Gaura Kishore Das Babaji Maharaj? This is not how we should discriminate. It's offensive.
Rocana das wrote:
"Many ISKCON devotees got totally converted or influenced by the Gaudiya Matha leaders and left Srila Prabhupada's movement, adopting almost exclusively their new siksa guru's attitude and position."
Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 1.47 purport states:
"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."
The concept of this acharya movement or that acharya movement is the result of losing the line of thought. This is Mahaprabhu's movement and we are Rupanugas, not Prabhupadanugas. The acharyas are instruments in spreading this movement.
"We Gaudiya Vaisnavas are known as Rupanuga. Rupanuga means the followers of Rupa Gosvami. Why should we become followers of Rupa Gosvami? Because sri-caitanya-mano 'bhistam sthapitam yena bhu-tale. He wanted to establish the mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.2, Hyderabad, April 13, 1975)
Rocana das wrote:
"Krsna Consciousness is not being spread around the world in the manner and mood that the Sampradaya Acaryas demonstrated and desire to have perpetuated."
Krsna consciousness is NOT limited to any particular sectarian institution or any particular acharya, it's universal. Srila Prabhupada confirms:
"The disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami are all godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion and we are not acting conjointly, every one of us is spreading this Krsna consciousness movement according to his capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world".
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.31)
Srila Prabhupada continues:
There are primarily four parties spreading devotional service all over the universe. These are the Ramanuja-sampradaya, the Madhva-sampradaya, the Visnusvami-sampradaya and the Nimbarka-sampradaya. The Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya in particular comes from Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. All these devotees are spreading this Krsna consciousness movement very widely and giving protection to innocent people.."
(Srimad Bhagavatam 4.28.31 purport)
The above quote also refutes George Smith's claim that everyone should adhere to only Srila Prabhupada. In his latest article he quotes from His Divine Grace Srila B.P Puri Goswami:
"In a very short time, there will exist only one school of Vaisnava teaching, which will be named the Brahma sampradaya. All other Vaisnava schools will come into the fold of that one disciplic succession."
(Mahaprabhura Siksa)
Puri Maharaja further elaborates:
"Bhaktivinoda Thakura continues his discussion of the subject by asking the question, 'Is the list of names of spiritual masters in the disciplic succession given without any breaks?' His answer: 'From time to time, only the more important spiritual masters' names are included in these lists."
And then he says:
"Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in his disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation. This is confirmed by Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Prameya-ratnavali."
In conclusion: Sri Brahma-Sampradaya would remain, that does not mean ISKCON only. ISKCON is just one branch in the Brahma Sampradaya, again confirmed by Srila Prabhupada in another verse:
Our International Society for Krishna Consciousness is one of the branches of the Caitanya tree.
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-Lila 9-18)
This Caitanya tree represents the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya and ISKCON is a branch of it.
As quoted, Srila B. Puri Goswami, who explains:
"Every disciple has the duty to remember the names of the spiritual masters in HIS disciplic succession as a part of his daily meditation."
This "his" refers to an individual. If a devotee is from ISKCON he follows his Gurudev and Srila Prabhupada, another devotee from Sri Caitanya Sarasvati Math will follow Srila Sridhara Maharaj, and one who follows the Gaudiya Vedanta school would follow Srila Narayana Goswami. This is how we should see the many branches of disciplic succession.
This is Krsna consciousness. It is not limited to any particular acharya or his mood. If somebody is saying this then such a person is envious, that's all.
"The doctrine of universal love must therefore stand opposed to all sectarian ideas. A sectarian missionary preaching universal love is but a great inconsistency."
(Bhaktivinode Thakur in the Hindu Idols Jan, 1899)
Hare Krsna
Yours in Service
Sankarshan das
Thursday, January 6, 2011
No Such Thing as One Exclusive Acarya
No Such Thing as One Exclusive Acarya
BY: SANKARSHAN DASA
Jan 04, 2011 — SINGAPORE (SUN) — Response to "Srila Prabhupada: Nitya-siddha" by Rocana dasa.
Rocana dasa writes:
"Many Gaudiya Matha followers see AC Bhaktivedanta Swami as one of many advanced disciples branching out from the Nitya-siddha Acarya, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. But if Srila Prabhupada is a successive nitya-siddha Acarya following Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, then is the Gaudiya Matha conclusion correct?"
The concept of successive nitya-siddha acarya meaning to have only "One nitya-siddha" is absurd. Christianity may have only one Jesus or Islam has only one exclusive prophet. In our siddhanta there is no such thing as one exclusive Acharya, this is total mis-representation of guru-tattva.
Dear Rocana dasa, I presume you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, so naturally you see him as the best and heir for the Sampradaya Acarya position, which is of course your own opinion. Put yourself in the shoes of a disciple of a particular acharya from the Gaudiya Math or any other Vaisnava institution, I'm sure your views would have been much different. This is a relative point of view. We should have a broader perspective of things and speak from an absolute point of view.
What is absolute point of view?
"When we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudev or acharyadev we speak of something that is universal application. There does not arise any question of discriminating my guru from yours or anyone else's. There is only one Guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others"
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 70-71)
Srila Prabhupada goes on the explain:
"The acharya is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. He is Jagad Guru or the Guru for all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly"
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 70-71)
Absolute point means acharya from any institutions is a Guru for all of us, but because of our tendency to discriminate and proclaim that my acharya is the best, we simply preach to only develop our society and acharya's glories instead of nourishing the soul thus subtle politics, canvassing and aparadhas are committed. As you have seen, today's Gaudiya Vaishnavism is like a battlefield.
"Krsna says all acaryas are his representatives"
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 58-59)
The Gaudiya Matha followers see Srila Prabhupada as one of the many advanced disciples branching out from Srila Bhaktisiddhata Sarasvati Thakur is in line with Shastric conclusion, because they are generally following the etiquette.
"One should not be envious considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7 purport)
"Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami therefore offers equal respect to all preachers of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7)
So if we are seeing Srila Prabhupada as very great and within the mind having some subtle notions against the rest as not so great or lower, it is simply an attitude of enviousness. Furthermore it seems we are simply judging qualification based on how may temples and followers. Srila Gaura Kishore Das Babaji never really had temples or many followers. Does this mean Srila Prabhupada is better than him?
I got an answer to this from a devotee, he said: "How can you compare, we should not make any comparison". My reply: If that is the case why are you making a comparison now, between Srila Prabhupada and his Godbrothers or his disciples? Just because they are later acharyas? We are simply looking at the bodily platform and material time scale to discriminate. This sometimes leads to subtle aparadhas and thus many actually have no taste for chanting. With all these confusion I submitted my doubts to a one particular Acharya from the Gaudiya Math and his Divine Grace has this to say with regards to the purport of Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7 purport:
"Whatever our Guru-Varga said all have some deeper meaning. Actually Srila Maharaj (Swami Prabhupada) wanted to explain that we should keep our equal vision towards every preachers. 'Vaisnava chinite nari devera shakati ' means- Even God and Goddess have no capability to recognize a Vaisnava. All preachers from SBMGS Sampradaya's are preaching with their practices. Who is preaching with exemplary practices they are Vaisnavas. Therefore, we should not discriminate amongst Vaisnavas; just serve them with due respect according to our capacity. But we should associates with such Vaisnavas who is like minded. I hope you understand my point."
Always in doubt we should submit it to someone who knows and not become puffed up with our own speculative theory.
"The bona-fide spiritual master, by his personal activities, teaches the disciple the principles of devotional service, one would go on speculating like impersonalist and dry speculation life after life and would be unable to reach the final conclusion".
(Bhag. 2.9.37 purport)
We must understand that Srila Prabhupada and his Godbrothers have different relationship from us. They have their own opinions when it comes to preaching, so some disagreements were there. We should understand that they are Godbrothers and they have their differences. Srila Prabhupada explains:
"So far as your question about controversy amongst the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja, that is a fact. But this controversy is not material. Just like in a national program, different political parties are sometimes in conflict and make propaganda against each other, but their central point is always service to the country. Similarly, amongst the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati there may be some controversy, but the central point is how to preach the mission of His Divine Grace. If the central point is fixed up then there is no harm in such controversy. Every individual being must have his opinion; that is the significance of individuality. But all such differences of opinions must coincide in Krishna."
(Letter to Mandali Bhadra, 28 July 1969)
This is also confirmed in Bhagavatam 4.28.31 purport:
"Among Vaisnavas there may be some difference of opinion due to everyone's personal identity, but despite all personal differences, the cult of Krsna consciousness must go on. We can see that under the instructions of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja began preaching the Krsna consciousness movement in an organized way within the past hundred years. The disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja are all Godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion, and although we are not acting conjointly, every one of us is spreading this Krsna consciousness movement according to his own capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world."
(Bhag. 4.28.31)
Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami, Srila Prabhupada's senior Godbrother explains in his classic "Heart of Krsna":
"The difference of opinion between Vaisnavas are inspired by Sri Chaitanya in order to instruct us. If anyone foolishly takes sides in such a debate, he becomes an aparadhi by contradicting and criticizing the other Vaisnava, and the results are most harmful to him. It's like someone serving Krsna with one hand slapping him with the other. When a person understands that Vaisnavas are the different limbs of Krsna's transcendental body, he understands that the Lord and his devotees are inseparable".
So because we are taking sides we are committing aparads against other acharyas and their followers, therefore everything is in a mess nowadays. With regards to Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers our position should be:
"One should respect one's spiritual master's Godbrothers as one respects one's spiritual master".
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-Lila 5-147 purport)
So we must not discriminate between Srila Prabhupada's and his Godbrothers and respect those who are preaching with exemplary conduct equally. The moment we discriminate, than this movement would be like a battlefield.
I'm only urging devotees to understand the guru-tattva, preferably under the guidance of somebody from that plane. We should see everything from the absolute plane. These fightings, and mis-representation is the result of perceiving issues from the relative point. Please give this up. Thank you Hare Krsna.
Yours in service,
Sankarshan dasa
BY: SANKARSHAN DASA
Jan 04, 2011 — SINGAPORE (SUN) — Response to "Srila Prabhupada: Nitya-siddha" by Rocana dasa.
Rocana dasa writes:
"Many Gaudiya Matha followers see AC Bhaktivedanta Swami as one of many advanced disciples branching out from the Nitya-siddha Acarya, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. But if Srila Prabhupada is a successive nitya-siddha Acarya following Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, then is the Gaudiya Matha conclusion correct?"
The concept of successive nitya-siddha acarya meaning to have only "One nitya-siddha" is absurd. Christianity may have only one Jesus or Islam has only one exclusive prophet. In our siddhanta there is no such thing as one exclusive Acharya, this is total mis-representation of guru-tattva.
Dear Rocana dasa, I presume you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, so naturally you see him as the best and heir for the Sampradaya Acarya position, which is of course your own opinion. Put yourself in the shoes of a disciple of a particular acharya from the Gaudiya Math or any other Vaisnava institution, I'm sure your views would have been much different. This is a relative point of view. We should have a broader perspective of things and speak from an absolute point of view.
What is absolute point of view?
"When we speak of the fundamental principle of gurudev or acharyadev we speak of something that is universal application. There does not arise any question of discriminating my guru from yours or anyone else's. There is only one Guru, who appears in an infinity of forms to teach you, me and all others"
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 70-71)
Srila Prabhupada goes on the explain:
"The acharya is not the guru of a sectarian institution or one out of many differing exponents of the truth. He is Jagad Guru or the Guru for all of us, the only difference is that some obey him wholeheartedly, while others do not obey him directly"
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 70-71)
Absolute point means acharya from any institutions is a Guru for all of us, but because of our tendency to discriminate and proclaim that my acharya is the best, we simply preach to only develop our society and acharya's glories instead of nourishing the soul thus subtle politics, canvassing and aparadhas are committed. As you have seen, today's Gaudiya Vaishnavism is like a battlefield.
"Krsna says all acaryas are his representatives"
(Science of Self-Realization, pg. 58-59)
The Gaudiya Matha followers see Srila Prabhupada as one of the many advanced disciples branching out from Srila Bhaktisiddhata Sarasvati Thakur is in line with Shastric conclusion, because they are generally following the etiquette.
"One should not be envious considering one preacher to be very great and another to be very lowly. This is a material distinction and has no place on the platform of spiritual activities."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7 purport)
"Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami therefore offers equal respect to all preachers of the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who are compared to the branches of the tree. ISKCON is one of these branches and it should therefore be respected by all sincere devotees of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu."
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7)
So if we are seeing Srila Prabhupada as very great and within the mind having some subtle notions against the rest as not so great or lower, it is simply an attitude of enviousness. Furthermore it seems we are simply judging qualification based on how may temples and followers. Srila Gaura Kishore Das Babaji never really had temples or many followers. Does this mean Srila Prabhupada is better than him?
I got an answer to this from a devotee, he said: "How can you compare, we should not make any comparison". My reply: If that is the case why are you making a comparison now, between Srila Prabhupada and his Godbrothers or his disciples? Just because they are later acharyas? We are simply looking at the bodily platform and material time scale to discriminate. This sometimes leads to subtle aparadhas and thus many actually have no taste for chanting. With all these confusion I submitted my doubts to a one particular Acharya from the Gaudiya Math and his Divine Grace has this to say with regards to the purport of Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 10-7 purport:
"Whatever our Guru-Varga said all have some deeper meaning. Actually Srila Maharaj (Swami Prabhupada) wanted to explain that we should keep our equal vision towards every preachers. 'Vaisnava chinite nari devera shakati ' means- Even God and Goddess have no capability to recognize a Vaisnava. All preachers from SBMGS Sampradaya's are preaching with their practices. Who is preaching with exemplary practices they are Vaisnavas. Therefore, we should not discriminate amongst Vaisnavas; just serve them with due respect according to our capacity. But we should associates with such Vaisnavas who is like minded. I hope you understand my point."
Always in doubt we should submit it to someone who knows and not become puffed up with our own speculative theory.
"The bona-fide spiritual master, by his personal activities, teaches the disciple the principles of devotional service, one would go on speculating like impersonalist and dry speculation life after life and would be unable to reach the final conclusion".
(Bhag. 2.9.37 purport)
We must understand that Srila Prabhupada and his Godbrothers have different relationship from us. They have their own opinions when it comes to preaching, so some disagreements were there. We should understand that they are Godbrothers and they have their differences. Srila Prabhupada explains:
"So far as your question about controversy amongst the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Maharaja, that is a fact. But this controversy is not material. Just like in a national program, different political parties are sometimes in conflict and make propaganda against each other, but their central point is always service to the country. Similarly, amongst the disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati there may be some controversy, but the central point is how to preach the mission of His Divine Grace. If the central point is fixed up then there is no harm in such controversy. Every individual being must have his opinion; that is the significance of individuality. But all such differences of opinions must coincide in Krishna."
(Letter to Mandali Bhadra, 28 July 1969)
This is also confirmed in Bhagavatam 4.28.31 purport:
"Among Vaisnavas there may be some difference of opinion due to everyone's personal identity, but despite all personal differences, the cult of Krsna consciousness must go on. We can see that under the instructions of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja began preaching the Krsna consciousness movement in an organized way within the past hundred years. The disciples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Maharaja are all Godbrothers, and although there are some differences of opinion, and although we are not acting conjointly, every one of us is spreading this Krsna consciousness movement according to his own capacity and producing many disciples to spread it all over the world."
(Bhag. 4.28.31)
Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Goswami, Srila Prabhupada's senior Godbrother explains in his classic "Heart of Krsna":
"The difference of opinion between Vaisnavas are inspired by Sri Chaitanya in order to instruct us. If anyone foolishly takes sides in such a debate, he becomes an aparadhi by contradicting and criticizing the other Vaisnava, and the results are most harmful to him. It's like someone serving Krsna with one hand slapping him with the other. When a person understands that Vaisnavas are the different limbs of Krsna's transcendental body, he understands that the Lord and his devotees are inseparable".
So because we are taking sides we are committing aparads against other acharyas and their followers, therefore everything is in a mess nowadays. With regards to Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers our position should be:
"One should respect one's spiritual master's Godbrothers as one respects one's spiritual master".
(Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-Lila 5-147 purport)
So we must not discriminate between Srila Prabhupada's and his Godbrothers and respect those who are preaching with exemplary conduct equally. The moment we discriminate, than this movement would be like a battlefield.
I'm only urging devotees to understand the guru-tattva, preferably under the guidance of somebody from that plane. We should see everything from the absolute plane. These fightings, and mis-representation is the result of perceiving issues from the relative point. Please give this up. Thank you Hare Krsna.
Yours in service,
Sankarshan dasa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
-001.jpg)
-001.jpg)
-001.jpg)
-001.jpg)
-001.jpg)
-001.jpg)
