Tattva-viveka
Pranam Mantras for the uninitiated
Nitai Joseph - March 19, 2007 11:21 pm
Being in ISKCON, to whatever extent I am, I have been trained of course to speak Srila Prabhupada's pranam mantra when I offer my obeisances. Also when offering food. I am just wondering if this is the common practice within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, to offer obeisances to those whom left the world before you entered? It's a little foreign to me, I feel like my connection to Prabhupada is a passive one, where I can connect with the books to the extent that I am actually endeavoring. If our relationship is dependent on my endeavor, then we don't have much, which makes it a little hard for me maybe? please help me clarify.
Madangopal - March 20, 2007 1:02 am
You are an intelligent young man Nitai! Many don't think about this awkwardness of Prabhupada becoming their everything; guru, grandfather... when they don't even have a father yet! It is sometimes customary within ISKCON to introduce the saint before the siddhanta, or the siddhanta through the saint sometimes to the point of the movement becoming a personality cult. All reverence and respect should be given to Prabhupada, or whomever the param-guru is, but our generation (grand-disciples of Prabhupada) does not have a relationship with him but through our guru. As this is the case, I would suggest you offer your pranam to whomever currently inspires your bhakti. If at the present time you don't feel particularly inspired by one person, then offer your pranam to the philosophy and to Krsna himself. Krsna will guide you to guru.
Respect can be offered to Prabhupada as you relate to him through his books, but that is not complete guidance. He is a previous acarya to us. A great teacher to be respected, but not for guiding us on a daily basis.
It goes without saying that as you establish a relationship with a living vaishnava, you will naturally offer proper respect and appreciation to that person who has inspired him/her - their guru, your param guru.
For practical purposes like offering food, etc. you could chant the more general om ajnana timirandasya prayer, and as I have said, think of the vaishnava that inspires you.
Vrindavandas - March 20, 2007 3:04 pm
I would have to disagree here, because I feel that Srila Prabhupada is too important to ignore or just brush aside as a great teacher. I do my offerings to both Guru Maharaja and Prabhupada. To say that we don't have a relationship with Srila Prabhupada except through our guru, to me is not true. I believe you can feel Srila Prabhupada through his books, association, etc. When I used to go on book distribution, I felt Srila Prabhupada was with me. When people talk about their experiences with Srila Prabhupada, I feel like I am right there with them. I think that just offering the pranam mantra to the philosophy itself is very impersonal and that everyone who has been touched by Srila Prabhupada should offer their pranams to Srila Prabhupada. It is evident to me that Srila Prabhupada guides us on a daily basis through his books, disciples, videos, audio, temples, etc. It is especially important when someone does not have a diksa guru or prospective diksa guru to focus their attention on Srila Prabhupada. I have seen through my own life, that Srila Prabhupada is very much alive and he is the one who connected me to Guru Maharaja.
Jason - March 20, 2007 6:25 pm
Why not say both?
Citta Hari Dasa - March 20, 2007 6:42 pm
My faith in Gaudiya Vaisnavism in a general way was solidified by reading Srila Prabhupada's Gita commentary. But it was not until I met Guru Maharaja--a living, accessible embodiment of bhakti--that I found a place to focus that faith and offer myself in surrender.
So there is no harm in saying Prabhupada's pranama mantra or praying to him, in the same way one would offer pranama or prayers to any of the previous acaryas, which means we would pray to them, whether it be Prabhupada or Rupa Goswami, to "Please help me find a guru." Bhakti really begins there: adau guru-padasraya.
Madangopal - March 20, 2007 6:48 pm
I feel that Srila Prabhupada is too important to ignore or just brush aside as a great teacher.
Brush aside is much too strong of language for what I am saying. I believe that Prabhupada holds a unique position, in particular because of his bringing Gaudiya Vaishnavism west. Everyone in the west is indebted to him for that pioneering work. We are also close in time to his presence. However, I don't agree with ISKCON's practice (as Nitai is bringing up) of introducing a departed acarya as a new person's primary learning source, to the point of declaring that he must be your primary siksa guru, you must say his pranam for 6 months or whatever it is, etc.
I also felt Prabhupada's presence doing years of distribution of his books. Yet that presence is undoubtedly filtered through the experience of his disciples, the people who sent me out on sankirtan. For example, I can hear of Prabhupada from GM and I can hear of Prabhupada from Rocana. Will it be the same Prabhupada? No. That's why I think philosophy is more important to learn first, then relationship with the living representative of the tattva will come. If you are introduced to Prabhupada right off the bat as representing tattva, but cannot do your own research apart from the account of his followers, your are left to the dogs so to speak. It just kind of depends upon your luck whether or not the living representatives of Prabhupada you happen to be "growing up" around understand him well. If not, it is a recipe for ritvik at worst, and at best, a minimization of one's diksa guru in deference to Prabhupada. I saw that a lot in ISKCON. Because of abuse of power, ISKCON has developed a way of taking the power from the living guru and placing it all on Prabhupada, who is departed, and his institution, which is represented by the GBC. If diksa guru crosses certain institutionalized norms then he must be checked by the leadership. Disciples then learn that Prabhupada (departed) and the institution (impersonal) are the real authority. This is not the proper understanding.
I stress again that relationship with the grandfather develops in accordance with the father. I can appreciate grandfather so much more with a father who takes charge of my spiritual life and guides me as he was guided. I have developed a relationship with Srila Sridhar Maharaj because of my guru's relationship with him. I honor him now as I never did before, because I can see that he has shaped my life through his disciple. I am very wary of the artificiality of honoring someone that I have not personally developed appreciation for through my own experience. That just becomes empty glorification. On the other hand, by honoring the disciple, I can see what wonderful activities my param guru has done and therefore deeply and genuinely glorify him.
Jason - March 20, 2007 6:53 pm
For example, I can hear of Prabhupada from GM and I can hear of Prabhupada from Rocana. Will it be the same Prabhupada? No. That's why I think philosophy is more important to learn first, then relationship with the living representative of the tattva will come.
This is true; very nice...thank you.
Nitai Joseph - March 20, 2007 7:56 pm
Thank you all for the thoughts.
I certainly don't think there is any harm in saying Prabhupada's Pranam Mantra or in praying to him, both of which I have done and will continue to do to some extent. After reading Madan's first post, which really resonated with me, I think I will adopt maybe saying om ajnana.... Its not that I don't think I have relationship with Srila Prabhupada, but that relationship is wholly dependent upon his followers(direct disciples or otherwise). I heard one lecture once where it was said that in CC there is a verse that in Kali-yuga there are only 2 good things. Sastra and sadhu. The speaker then said, "really what this is saying is there is only sadhu." Because if we somehow came in contact with sastra without a sadhu(unlikely), still we would not be able to understand without a sadhu.
I feel like Srila Prabhupada's teachings, after he dissapeared from the world, fall into the category of sastra, because they are now passive. Without the active medium, I am nowhere but deluded in my own speculation, even of purports or classes. So it feels more genuine to offer myself to the medium or the prospect of such a medium(meaning guru in the sense of a position). They are more tangible to me in my current conditioned state.
Someone recently was reading me a few pages of a fairly current (2002 or so) book by a prominent Prabhupada disciple where he was saying, (paraphrasing) that ISKCON needs to establish the practice where the new bhaktas first develop a relationship with prabupada, that they should know that he is there siksha guru. This seems impersonal to me. My understanding, which could very well be incorrect, is that siksha guru is all about inquiry and guidance on person-to-person, circumstance-to-circumstance level. Granted we can inquire to the books and search the Vedabase, but who is going to insure that statement we perceived as the solution is actually right for our circumstance, are we to trust our assessment? Especially considering we all know so much of what Prabupada said was according to time place and circumstance. I think alot of my daily guidance from Prabupada is guiding me to take shelter of someone who can, as swami says, ask me "did you understand that, what did you understand?" The "untainted", so to speak, rtvik philosophy, absolves everyone of responsibility for the progress of those equal to or dependent on them. In varying degrees I think this is still quite present amongst "non-rtviks". I hear so often that "If we are chanting 16 rounds, following 4 regulative principles, and reading Prabhupada's books" then success is guaranteed. I don't disagree but they don't stipulate how many lifetimes away that success might be. Just as we can "Give some interpretation on the Holy Name of the Lord", we can give some interpretation on the holy word of the departed Acharya, and we might even come out with the right interpretation, but then again gambling is against the principles 
.This is why I like the idea of offering Pranams to some closer to me.
I feel a degree of discomfort in general with the way Prabhupada is spoken about in the current circle I'm in. Where the entirety of bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnavism is synonymous with Prabhupada and Prabhupada is synonymous with ISKCON. This equation equals societal sectarianism.
I do think that in my adversity to this mentality, I have to be careful to separate Prabhupada out before I wrinkle my nose. Otherwise I will make offenses.
Again, thanks for the advice!
Jason - March 20, 2007 8:14 pm
I feel a degree of discomfort in general with the way Prabhupada is spoken about in the current circle I'm in. Where the entirety of bona fide Gaudiya Vaishnavism is synonymous with Prabhupada and Prabhupada is synonymous with ISKCON. This equation equals societal sectarianism.
Gaudiya Vaisnavism = Prabhupada (and only his presentation of it), and Prabhupada = ISKCON (ISKCON is his body), therefore, ISKCON's presentation of our philosophy = real Gaudiya Vaisnavism
If A = B, and B=C, then A=C. That's true, but in the above instance, it's just bad math.