> On 29 Oct 1998, Gauranga Prema Dasa wrote:
> > It appears that you have offended both the Lord and His
> > pure devotee, Srila Prabhupada, because you have
> > contended with what has been written by the Lord through
> > the transcendental hands of His pure devotee (Srila
> > Prabhupada) who is His present instrument in the fight.
> > Therefore I feel the following passages are appropriate
> > in this connection. According to the Nectar of devotion
> > it is our duty to become as angry as fire when the Lord
> > and/or His devotee is offended.
> Dear Gauranga Prema Prabhu,
> Why do feel compelled to be so contentious? Put down down
> your weapons (sastra/saastra) and take up the lotus and
> conch. We are among friends.
A Transcendental Diary by Hari-sauri pg. 532:
Prabhupada: Nobody was crying for this edition of Bhagavat but we are forcing, You must read. You must take. We are printing and forcing everyone.
> It was nice to hear a few words from your genuine voice
> instead of simply a puppet miming Prabhupada quotes.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION Pg. 264:
O Lord, I am just like a puppet in Your hands.
Signed - the most unfortunate, insignificant beggar A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION
His Divine Grace
A.C. BHAKTIVEDANTA SWAMI PRABHUPADA
Founder-Acarya of the International Society for Krsna Consciousness
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 364:
Glossary
Acarya - a spiritual master who teaches by example.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 61, 62:
The Vedas enjoin us to seek out a guru; actually, they say to seek out the guru, not just a guru. The guru is one because he comes in disciplic succession. What Vyasadeva and Krsna taught five thousand years ago is also being taught now. There is no difference between the two instructions. Although hundreds and thousands of acaryas have come and gone, the message is one. The real guru cannot be two, for the real guru does not speak differently from his predecessors.
Whatever Vyasadeva wrote was originally spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Srila Vyasadeva did not give his own opinion. Consequently, Srila Vyasadeva is a guru. He does not misinterpret the words of Krsna, but transmits them exactly as they were spoken. If we send a telegram, the person who delivers the telegram does not have to correct it, edit it, or add to it. He simply presents it. That is the guru's business. The guru may be this person or that, but the message is the same; therefore it is said that guru is one. In disciplic succession we simply find repetition of the same subject.
> I am sorry to have responded so harshly to you; but, like
> many of us, I am tired of hearing condescending tirades
> from persons who imply that their views are cent percent
> sanctioned by higher authorities as if their ideas were
> the latest and sole revelation of the gospel.
Fortunate Souls pg. 477:
"But if we accept the principle of varna and asrama as they are recommended in the sastra, and if we push on the Krsna consciousness movement, and if we push on the Krsna consciousness movement, surely everyone will be engaged in his occupation. In Delhi, Nandaji said that immediately these things cannot be introduced, but I think it can be introduced immediately without any loss of time, provided you are serious about it." (*** SRILA PRABHUPADA LETTER *** to Prabhakar, May 31, 1975)
> We all hold strong opinions and we must certainly try to
> support them with saastric evidence. However, "evidence"
> must also be examined in terms of its relevance and
> applied meaning. Saastra should not be wielded around for
> motivated purposes as if it were a weapon (sastra) or to
> advance subjective readings.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 61, 62:
Some spiritual teachers say, "In my opinion you should do this," but this is not a guru. Such so-called gurus are simply rascals. The genuine guru has only one opinion, and that is the opinion expressed by Krsna, Vyasadeva, Narada, Arjuna, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and the Goswamis. Five thousand years ago Lord Sri Krsna spoke the Bhagavad-gita, and Vyasadeva recorded it. Srila Vyasadeva did not say, "This is my opinion." Rather, he wrote, sri-bhagavan uvaca, that is, "The Supreme Personality of Godhead says." Whatever Vyasadeva wrote was originally spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Srila Vyasadeva did not give his own opinion.
Consequently, Srila Vyasadeva is a guru. He does not misinterpret the words of Krsna, but transmits them exactly as they were spoken. If we send a telegram, the person who delivers the telegram does not have to correct it, edit it, or add to it. He simply presents it.
The six Goswamis also transmitted the same message, and we are simply following in their footsteps. There is no difference. We do not interpret the words of Krsna by saying, "In my opinion, the Battlefield of Kuruksetra represents the human body." Such interpretations are set forth by rascals. In the world there are many rascal gurus who give their own opinion, but we can challenge any rascal.
Srimad-Bhagavatam [Canto 1, Ch. 2 Text 18]
PURPORT
There are two types of Bhagavatas, namely the book Bhagavata and the devotee Bhagavata. Both the Bhagavatas are competent remedies, and both of them or either of them can be good enough to eliminate the obstacles. A devotee Bhagavata is as good as the book Bhagavata because the devotee Bhagavata leads his life in terms of the book Bhagavata, and the book Bhagavata is full of information about the Personality of Godhead and His pure devotees, who are also Bhagavatas. Bhagavata book and person are identical.
Srimad-Bhagavatam [Canto 6, Ch. 16 TEXT 41]
PURPORT
Bhagavat-dharma has no contradictions.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta [Madhya-lila, Ch. 6]
TEXT 130
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu then revealed His mind, saying: "I can understand the meaning of each sutra very clearly, but your explanations have simply agitated My mind.
Text 131
"The meaning of the verses in the Vedanta-sutra contain clear purports in themselves, but other purports you presented simply covered the meaning of the sutra like a cloud.
TEXT 132
"You do not explain the direct meaning of the Brahma-sutras. Indeed, it appears that your business is to cover the real meaning."
TEXT 133
Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued: "Vedanta-sutra is the summary of all the Upanisads; therefore whatever direct meaning is there in the Upanisads is also recorded in the Vedanta-sutra or Vyasa-sutra.
TEXT 134
"For each verse the direct meaning must be accepted without interpretation. However, you simply abandon the direct meaning and proceed with your imaginative interpretation.
TEXT 135
"Although there is other evidence, the evidence given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first class evidence."
TEXT 136
Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued: "Conchshells and cow dung are nothing but the bones and the stool of some living entities, but according to the Vedic version they are both considered very pure.
PURPORT
Even though such statements appear contradictory, we still accept the fact that conchshells and cow dung are pure and sanctified on the basis of the Vedic version.
TEXT 137
svatah-pramana veda satya yei kaya 'laksana' karile svatah-pramanya-hani hayaSYNONYMS
svatah-pramana - self evidence; veda - Vedic literature; satya - truth; yei - whatever; kaya - say; laksana - interpretation; karile - by making; svatah-pramanya - self-evidential proof; hani - lost; haya - becomes.
Translation
"The Vedic statements are self evident. Whatever is stated there must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost."
PURPORT
Out of four main types of evidence - direct perception, hypothesis, historical reference and the Vedas - Vedic evidence is accepted as the foremost. If we want to interpret the Vedic version, we must imagine an interpretation according to what we want to do. First of all, we set forth such an interpretation as a suggestion or hypothesis. As such, it is not actually true, and the self-evident proof is lost. Srila Madhvacarya, commenting on the aphorism drsyate tu (Vedanta-sutra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhavisya Purana as follows:
rg-yajuh-samatharvas ca bharatam panca-ratrakam mula-ramayanam caiva veda ity eva sabditah puranani ca yaniha vaisnavani vido viduh svatah-pramanyam etesam natra kincid vicaryateThe Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahabharata, Pancaratra and original Ramayana are all considered Vedic literature. The Puranas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Naradiya Purana, Visnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana) are especially meant for Vaisnavas and are also Vedic literature. As such, whatever is stated within the Puranas, the Mahabharata and Ramayana is self evident. There is no need for interpretation. Bhagavad-gita is also within the Mahabharata; therefore all the statements of Bhagavad-gita are self evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of Vedic literature is lost.
TEXT 138
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued: "The Brahma-sutra, compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, is as radiant as the sun. One who tries to interpret its meaning simply covers that sunshine with a cloud.
Back To Godhead Seattle Washington, October 10, 1968:
Srila Prabhupada Speaks Out
Srila Prabhupada: There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, there is no authority. . . . . Unnecessary interpretation is not required, and that is not bona fide. And those who are interpreting unnecessarily, they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without consideration.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 228, 229, 230:
Srila Prabhupada: Now, the Vedic statement is that as soon as you touch the stool of any animal - even if you touch your own stool - you are impure and have to purify yourself by taking a bath. According to the Hindu system, after evacuating one has to take a bath.
Prof. Kotovsky: That is quite understandable hygienic knowledge.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, that is right.
Srila Prabhupada: But in another place it is stated that cow dung, although the stool of an animal, is pure. Even if you apply it to an impure place, that place becomes purified. This is superficially contradictory. In one place it is said that the stool of an animal is impure and as soon as you touch it you have to be purified, and in another place it says that cow dung is pure. According to our knowledge, it is contradictory - but still it is accepted by those who are followers of the Vedas. And the fact is that if you analyze cow dung, you will find that it contains all antiseptic properties.
Prof. Kotovsky: This I don't know.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, one professor in a medical college analyzed it, and he found it full of antiseptic properties. So Vedic statements, even if found contradictory, if analyzed scrutinizingly will prove correct. There may be an exception. But it is accepted, and when scientifically analyzed and examined, it is found to be correct.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, if you analyze from the scientific point of view, that is right.
Srila Prabhupada: There are other instances - for example, the conchshell. The conchshell is the bone of an animal, and according to Vedic instruction if you touch the bone of an animal you become impure and have to take a bath. But this conchshell is kept in the Deity room, because it is accepted as pure by the Vedas. My point is that we accept Vedic laws without argument. That is the principle followed by scholars. If you can substantiate your statements by quotations from the Vedas, then they are accepted. You are not required to substantiate them in other ways. There are different kinds of pramanas, or evidences. Proof by Vedic quotation is called sruti-pramana. As in the legal court if you can give statements from the law book your statement is accepted, so all statements you give, if supported by sruti-pramanas, are accepted by scholars. I think you know the Vedas are known as srutis.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.
Srila Prabhupada:
sruti-smrti-puranadi-
pancaratra-vidhim vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir
utpatayaiva kalpate
[Brahma-yamala]
Any system we accept must be supported by evidences of sruti, smrti, the Puranas, and Pancaratra. That which is not proved by these pramanas is a disturbance.Prof. Kotovsky: Could I just say one thing? What is in the Vedas could also have been proved in a scientific way. Today, suppose there is a scientific laboratory. What is said by that lab is true. That is true you accept, without going into the propriety of it. Suppose you have a scientific workshop or institution; if this workshop or scientific institution says, "This is not good," the general body will take it for granted: "Yes. The scientific body has said so, so it is understood."
Srila Prabhupada: Similarly, Vedic authoritative statements are accepted by the acaryas [great teachers]. India is governed by the acaryas - Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Sankaracarya. They accept the Vedas, and their followers accept them. The benefit is that I do not waste my time to research whether cow dung is pure or impure; rather, because it is stated in the Vedas to be pure, I accept it. I save my time by accepting the sruti-pramana. In that way there are different statements in the Vedas for sociology and politics or anything, for veda means "knowledge."
sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto
mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca
vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham
[Bg. 15.15]
BHAGAVAD-GITA INTRODUCTIONAll Vedic knowledge is infallible, and Hindus accept Vedic knowledge to be complete and infallible. For example, cow dung is the stool of an animal, and according to smrti, or Vedic injunction, if one touches the stool of an animal he has to take a bath to purify himself. But in the Vedic scriptures cow dung is considered to be a purifying agent. One might consider this to be contradictory, but it is accepted because it is Vedic injunction, and indeed by accepting this, one will not commit a mistake; subsequently it has been proved by modern science that cow dung contains all antiseptic properties. So Vedic knowledge is complete because it is above all doubts and mistakes,
Vedic knowledge is not a question of research. Our research work is imperfect because we are researching things with our imperfect senses. We have to accept perfect knowledge which comes down, as is stated in Bhagavad-gita, by the parampara (disciplic succession). We have to receive knowledge from the proper source in disciplic succession beginning with the supreme spiritual master, the Lord Himself, and handed down to a succession of spiritual masters. Arjuna, the student who took lessons from Lord Sri Krsna, accepts everything that He says without contradicting Him. One is not allowed to accept one portion of Bhagavad-gita and not another. No. We must accept Bhagavad-gita without interpretation, without deletion and without our own whimsical participation in the matter.
Sri Isopanisad Mantra 1, Copyright 1972
PURPORT
The Vedic knowledge is infallible because it comes down through the perfect disciplic succession of spiritual masters beginning with the Lord Himself. The Vedic knowledge is received from the transcendental sources and the first word was spoken by the Lord Himself. The words spoken by the Lord are called apauruseya, not delivered by any person of the mundane world. A living being of the mundane world has four defects, which are 1. that he must commit mistakes. 2. he must sometimes be illusioned. 3. he must try to cheat others and 4. he is endowed with imperfect senses. With these four principles of imperfection one cannot deliver perfect information in the matter of all-pervading knowledge. The Vedas are not known like that. The Vedic knowledge was originally imparted into the heart of Brahma, the first created living being, and Brahma in his turn disseminated the knowledge to his sons and disciples, who have continued the process down through history.
In the Prabhupada Nectar Books by Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami, we see that Srila Prabhupada compares arguing, on the basis of sastra, to spiritual karate. In this connection, we learn from his example and words, or precept if you will, that he basically instructs us to consistently focus on the weak spots of an opponent's (false) arguments. Nothing personal, of course.
> The more we approach one another with respect and
> tolerance, the farther our discussions will proceed
> and the real purport of varnasram can be served.
> Varnasram is characterized by cultured, civilized and
> cooperative dealings, not by point and counterpoint.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 228:
Prof. Kotovsky: The difficulty is that our approach is that we do not believe in anything without argument. We can believe only things based on argument.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that is allowed. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gita 4.34: Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya. Pariprasna, argument is allowed - but not in the challenging spirit, but rather with the spirit to understand. Argument is not denied.
Narada Bhakti Sutra 5.74
PURPORT
A sincere student should not neglect the discussion of such conclusions (concerning the philosophy of Krsna-consciousness), considering them controversial, for such discussion strengthens the mind. Thus one's mind becomes attached to Krsna.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta [Adi-lila 8.15]
PURPORT
Those who are actually inquisitive to understand the philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu through logic and argument are welcome. Please put Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mercy to your crucial test.
Srila Prabhupada Lecture tape:
Srila Prabhupada: You have go power of argument and reason. . . . . Don't argue falsely. . . . . You must have the intelligence. . . . . You must know how the intellectual nonsense can be found out. That is also explained in the sastra. Don't accept blindly.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
PURPORT
It is our duty to seek out bogus propagandists, challenge them and defeat them.
> Discussion implies there accrues some mutual benefit for
> all participants and it moves towards some form of
> consensual conclusion.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Introduction pg. 23:
"The Vedic injunctions are self authorized, and if some mundane creature adjusts the interpretations of the Vedas, he defies their authority. It is foolish to think of oneself as more intelligent than Srila Vyasadeva. He has already expressed himself in his sutras, and there is no need of help from personalities of lesser importance.
> I want to thank you for your participation, regardless
> of whatever else I have objected to.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 228:
Srila Prabhupada: Argument is not denied. But as far as Vedic statements are concerned, they are infallible, and the scholars of the Vedas accept them in that way.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Introduction pg. 23:
The example of the conchshell and that of the cowdung given by the Lord are very much appropriate in this connection. If one argues that since cowdung is pure, the stool of a learned brahmana is still more pure, his argument will not be accepted. Cowdung is accepted, and the stool of a highly posted brahmana is rejected.
THE SCIENCE OF SELF REALIZATION pg. 228:
Srila Prabhupada: We accept such a statement without argument. That is the way of Vedic understanding.
> The nature of a bona fide VAD society is that EVERYONE
> SHOULD FEEL WELCOME and encouraged to contribute and take
> part. But there is also a mood and a decorum to follow.
> In two words, it's called humility and respect.
A Transcendental Diary by Hari-sauri pg. 539:
Prabhupada: Devotees always humbly offer respect to everyone, but when there is a discussion on a point if sastra they do not observe the usual etiquette (Satyam bruyat priyam bruyat: that in the material world only palatable truths should be spoken and unpalatable truths should be carefully avoided). They speak only the satyam (truth) although it may not necessarily be priyam (palatable).
BHAGAVAD-GITA 10.4-5
PURPORT
Satyam- Truthfulness means the facts should be presented as they are, for the benefit of others. Facts should not be misrepresented. According to social convention, it is said that one can speak the truth only when it is palatable to others. But that is not truthfulness. The truth should be spoken in a straight-forward way, so that others will understand actually what the facts are. If a man is a thief and people are warned that he is a thief, that is truth. Although the truth is sometimes unpalatable, one should not refrain from speaking it.
> Let's move forward in a proper Vaisnava spirit.
On 7 Oct 1998, Srila dasa wrote:
> Another consideration is an individual's quality of
> consciousness: Canakya defines a *brahmana* as one who
> has sex only once in a month at the most fertile time
> with the purpose of conceiving children. Such a lifelong
> standard of restriction is clearly IMPOSSIBLE for the vast
> majority of couples, even for "devotees." Let's get real.
> We are not all *pucca* brahmanas, nor can we expect
> everyone to be.
BHAGAVAD-GITA 2.5
PURPORT
According to scriptural codes a teacher who engages in an abominable action and has lost his sense of discrimination is fit to be abandoned.
Siksamrta pg. 2455:
"That the devotees refuse to follow those who do not keep strictly to the regulative principles is very nice." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Jayatirtha, December 17, 1976)
BHAGAVAD-GITA 16.1-3
PURPORT
Apaisunam means that one should not find fault with others or correct them unnecessarily. Of course to call a thief a thief is not faultfinding, but to call an honest person a thief is very much offensive for one who is making advancement in spiritual life.
---------------------------------------------
Dear Prabhus
Please accept my respectful obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Have I committed any offenses,
made any mistakes, and/or
done anything I shouldn't have?
If so, I'm sorry.
Aspiring to be the sincere
servant of the servant,
Yours Truly,
Gauranga Prema Dasa
Hare Krsna