Regarding Female Diksha Gurus – Part 3: Damodar Das responds to Pancharatna Das ACBSP (Mayapur)

Pranam Prabhus.
Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah.

>> My reasoning is that we want to understand Srila Prabhupada’s intentions and desires on how to apply shastra.

Yes, this is right intention: we want to understand what is Srila Prabhupada’s intention.

However, we should also understand that the procedure by which we may be trying to know his intention may be faulty.

I am not intending here to say that I understand Parbhupada’s intention better than others; that is not my point. My understanding is also subjected to same faults as everyone else’s. I am just representing some senior Prabhupada disciples who think the different from what your grace has presented. So I am just trying to use harmonization process that I have learnt from Guru-sadhu-sastra, if that could be of some use solving our issues in serving Srila Prabhupada.

The procedure to understand anything as correct has been repeatedly taught by Srila Prabhupada to us which is also reflected in Cc Madhya 20.352, purport. Here is another similar quote:

####Cc 2.20.100-108, Bombay, Nov 9, 1975

If you want to know something, then it must be confirmed by sadhu, sastra and guru. Then it is complete. And if you speculate, if you establish something under speculation, then it is not right. It is wrong. (Cc 2.20.100-108, Bombay, Nov 9, 1975)

####

For more such quotes:
https://guru-sadhu-sastra.blogspot.com/p/seminar-2019-02-18-gss.html

For a detailed seminar on the hermeneutic process:
https://guru-sadhu-sastra.blogspot.com/p/seminar-2019-02-18gss.html

There are hindi as well as English videos. For English speaking audience, just scroll down and there is a 3-session seminar with all handouts.

It is worth noting that there is a technical difference between Shakespeare’s writings and Srila Prabhupada’s writings, besides them being transcendental. This point also touches and guides in the very important issue of posthumus editing of Srila Prabhupada’s books.

(this explanation is from vedic hermeneutic literature, which all of our acaryas have followed, including Srila Prabhupada) =========================================

* When an author says or writes something, he has an intention behind it.

* His writings are to be understood in the light of his intentions. (Note: Srila Prabhupada seems to have written his purports to Bhagavad-gita based on this rule and thus he is highlighting Krsna’s intention behind speaking such words as buddhi-yoga, that of saying bhakti-yoga)

* In case of authors who write by his experience or intelligence only, the only person who knows author’s intention best, is the author himself. Others can guess from his writings and in case of doubt directly ask the author. But when the author is no more, his intentions can only be guessed based on readers’ anumana (inference). Thus, posthumus editing of such works should be considered lesser close to the original intentions.

* However, in case of an author who is representing sastras and tradition who is strictly representing those sastras, and so on… this is parampara system. In this case the author’s intentions cannot be different from those of the sastras and tradition and thus even in the author’s absence we can know what author intended by knowing the instructions, followings and understandings of sastras and tradition (parampara etc).

* Thus, in case of Srila Prabhupada, we have to resort to tradition and sastras in order to know his real intention behind what he did or instructed in specific instances.
====================

* This is what Srila Prabhupada himself time and again emphasizes that we have to learn from three sources guru and sadhu and sastra; not just one. He has repeatedly said that he is not bringing anything new but is strict representative of guru-sadhu-sastras. If any credit he took it was for this (preface to BG). Thousands of times he said that we do not adulterate the teachings (if you count it must be atleast a hundred times more than his statements on adjustment, TPC, compromise, etc.)

* We all think that we can make no mistake in understanding Prabhupada, but that is not a fact. We are all vulnerable to make mistake in understanding from Prabhupada, sastras, or sadhu, if we take them alone. But if we combine them all – aikya- then we will be able to understand the real picture. (I have elaborately dealt with this point with examples in the seminar, link I mentioned above)

####Quest for Enlightenment, 4c###

In the scriptures we hear how one can come to this perfection: sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. Spiritual realization can be perfected by following three parallel lines: sadhu (saintly persons who are realized souls), sastra (authoritative Vedic scriptures), and guru (the spiritual master). In the railway yard you see two parallel tracks, and if they’re in order the railway carriages go very smoothly to their destination. In Krsna consciousness there are three parallel lines: association with saintly persons (sadhus), faith in the scriptures (sastra), and acceptance of a bona fide spiritual master (guru). If you place your vehicle on these three parallel lines, it will go directly to Krsna, without any disturbance.

#####

Besides this, the idea that we should consider what Prabhupada replied when asked with specific question as topmost evidence, has some logical flaws. Even logically it cannot be always applied. Here are instances:

* It is well known that Srila Prabhupada gave different answers to the same question when asked by different persons; this is due to the eligibility of the person asking. This is also exactly as per the rules of sastras, a guru must instruct seeing the eligibility of the disciple (adhikara). Indra and Virocana both asked same questions to Brahmaji — “what is atma?,” but while Brahma instructed about full atma tattva to Indra, he instructed Virocana only that atma means the body, mind and intelligence. More could be elaborated on this, but not in this email.

* Also, the way in which a specific question is asked affects the answer that is given.

* Also, the answer given is based on the time; that answer may be applicable for that time and not for next 10,000 years to come. The answer would be based on the then eligibility of either the questioner or the ISKCON society. This is a very important consideration because Srila Prabhupada has repeatedly articulated his desire to change the whole world and re-establish varnasrama, which means he was in a mission and he wanted to implement many things but he could not do so and hoped to do so in future. So his direct answers to some questions would necessarily be affected by the then circumstances and the overall eligibility of his disciples and ISKCON. Famous for this is Cc 1.7.31-32, purport and read it combined with Cc 1.7.37 purport — “First they should become Krsna conscious, and all the prescribed rules and regulations may later gradually be introduced.”

Hope I have not offended anyone.

vancha kalpatarubhyasca krpasindhubhya eva ca
patitanam pavanebhyo vaisnavebhyo namo namah

Thankyou,
Your servant,
damodara das