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

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

well put prabhu. I agree. your servant, Priya

PARIPRASHNENA IS A WASTE OF TIME

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

Kula-pavana:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ccd:

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

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

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

ccd:

Pandu:

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

Perhaps you can direct me to where in Srila Prabhupada's books I can read about it, if that's where you got your view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing wrong with one Ācārya and many regular gurus. That is the system of both Madhva and Śrī Rāmānuja lines. In this case Gurus - Ācāryas - śāstra is a correct triangle, as long as you do not consider guru God, but see that he and sādhu and śāstra are representatives of Kṛṣṇa, that is fine (for my overly inflated false ego:)

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

Sorry for the little tangent. Hare Krishna.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ccd:

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

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

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

Pandu:

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

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

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

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

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

So, by expecting from ritviks to be "super vedic bonafide", don't you think it would be fair to confront GBC guru system with same high expectations?

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

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

ccd:

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

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

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

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

And, btw, I know you haven't completed Bhaktivedanta; but neither did your guru SDG. Or anyone else from ISKCON gurus. Although Srila Prabhupada wanted Bhaktivedanta exam for gurus.

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

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

Srila Prabhupada didn't stress diksa much, but he stressed siksa greatly. He wanted all his disciples to be gurus. His system is something else than what nowadays both GBC's or ritviks are proposing. And it is also something else than traditional vedic guru-disciple relationship. ISKCON will go on through siksa, diksa will become just "that external step". Time will show, but as I see it, both GBC and ritvik guru systems are transitory phase.

Giri-nayaka das:

Time will show, but as I see it, both GBC and ritvik guru systems are transitory phase.

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

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

I wonder does anyone disagree with it?

Kula-pavana:

[quote]

Giri-nayaka das:

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

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

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

Pandu das:

[quote]

Kula-pavana:

[quote]

Giri-nayaka das:

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

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

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

In this case Prabhupada was just presenting the sastra.

ccd:

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

I wonder does anyone disagree with it?

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

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

Pandu das:

"I should call it d-guru-tilt..." Again, you've lost me. Am I supposed to know what you're talking about here?

....

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

Pandu das:

[quote]

ccd:

[quote]

Pandu das:

[quote]

Kula-pavana:

[quote]

Giri-nayaka das:

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

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

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

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

What I'm saying is that we cannot directly understand sastra. We have to understand it through the acarya's orders and instructions.[/quote]

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

ccd:

[quote]

Pandu das:

"I should call it d-guru-tilt..." Again, you've lost me. Am I supposed to know what you're talking about here?

....

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

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