Regarding Female Diksha Gurus – Part 2: Damodar Das responds to Pancharatna Das ACBSP (Mayapur)

Read also: Regarding Female Diksha Gurus: Damodar Das responds to Pancharatna Das ACBSP (Mayapur)

---

Respected Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances,
Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah.

vancha kalpatarubhyasca krpa-sindubhya eva ca
patitanam pavenebhyo vaisnavebhyo namo namah.

Sorry for any offenses, but this is sastra discussion and we need to make things clear. Hope this reply will create more light than heat.

>> And, as I said in my letter it is my personal preference…

This was exactly my point. We may have right to our preferences, however, in judging what is right and wrong, our preference is the evidence of least authority. This is because our preferences come from defective platform unless we are liberated. Sastra is to be given the highest preference. Then comes sadhu or tradition evidence.

Interpretation is needed when things are not clear. So in case of FDG, there are opposing statements and thus things are not clear even among teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Thus, one of the statements need to be interpreted. Thus, those statements which are inline with majority of other teachings of Prabhupada, with sastra and with tradition have to be kept intact and not interpreted.

Instead, if we want to keep the other statements intact then we will have to interpret all other statements of Prabhupada, sastras and tradition and thus it will be prone to much error, because the number of times interpretations would be done is much high and also because the authoritative sources are not sought. Technically this is called Kalpana Gaurava by Jiva Gosvami.

Regarding your quotation where Prabhupada said that we can understand sastras only through him, yes, that is correct. But that doesn’t mean we should not approach sastras after his departure. It means that we have to see sastras as he himself sees it. He has taught us procedure to do so in his books, for instance in CC Madhya 20.352, purport. and has practically done it so many times to train us. For instance, when Purusottama Prabhu went away because of Prabhupada not accepting that US went to moon, Prabhupada said that Purusottama may not have believe him but how could Purusottama disbelive sastras; because sastras say you cannot go to moon.

If you say that SP taught us to interpret sastras in favor of his speech then you are saying that he is directly contradicting his so many statements where he tirelessly taught us to judge who is guru through the medium of sastras and tradition. Then we are seeing Prabhupada as some guru like Vivekananda, Sai Baba, Asaram Bapu, or any other new-age Indian so called gurus. All these guru do so, their followers interpret sastras in favor of their guru.

Then a question may be that why we don’t just have faith in Prabhupada, he was pure devotee for sure? Yes, that is correct. But so is Lord Krishna. He is Supremely pure always. Still Prabhupada wanted us (and so do all acaryas) to firmly know this based on guru-sadhu-sastra with sastra in center. Such a faith is called “sastriya sraddha” or faith based on sastra. The other type of sraddha or faith is called “laukika sraddha” or faith based on vox populi or society. Laukika sraddha is there of kanistha adhikari and is called komala sraddha or soft and pliable faith. Those having laukika sraddha are recommended not to preach, it is only madhyama adhikaris who should preach because their faith doesn’t get shaken if some strong opposing argument comes and he is not able to defend.

This is also reflected by the fact that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his disciples to write more books and translate more scriptures. He made his disciples compile Pancaratra pradipa or deity worship manual from Hari Bhakti Vilasa and other sastras, which is now the basis of ISKCON’s current Deity worship standards. Also Prabhupada wanted that Vedanta Sutra, Mahabharata, etc. literatures be translated.

So certainly this one statement of Srila Prabhupada cannot be misused to mean that he wanted his disciples not to touch any sastras.

Now what about repeated statement of Prabhupada as in CC Madhya 22.118, where he limits us to study only four books. Does this not mean we should not study sastras?

We should look at full purport. He says, “If one studies a particular book, he must do so thoroughly. That is the principle.” So this is actually warning against trying to “partially study a book just to pose oneself as a great scholar by being able to refer to scriptures.” This is not a blanket prohibition for next 10,000 years to touch any sastras than Prabhupada books.

However, majority of devotees don’t need to read other sastras and should limit their study to these four books as they “are adequate for the understanding of the philosophy and the spreading of missionary activities all over the world.”

However, there are devotees in position who need to establish what is right and what is wrong, need to make time place circumstance adjustments, need to fight opposing elements both within and without ISKCON, and guide their followers in dynamic material world. These devotees need to know all things as they are from the point of view of guru-sadhu-sastra in order to do their function.

Hope things are somewhat clear.

Thank you,
Your servant,
damodara das