Tattva-viveka
Guru-tattva
Bhrigu - April 2, 2005 2:58 pm
One idea that I have is that we should have the same lesson thing going on on Guru-Tattva, as we had on Rasa-Tattva.
Inspired by this, I thought that we should start a thread on this topic. The disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur compiled a verse book (Gaudiya Kathahara) on seventeen different topics (tattvas), the first of which is that of the guru. Similarly, the Hari-bhakti-vilasa begins by discussing the guru. In other words, understanding the principle of Sri Guru should be the very first thing a Gaudiya Vaishnava learns.
The first point of the Gaudiya Kathahara is that it is mandatory to accept a spiritual master. Many quotes can be given, and in my opinion, some should be learned by heart, but in this context, it may be more fruitful to discuss the question why. As Guru Maharaja has pointed out, the very idea of surrendering to authority, and especially so in spiritual matters, go very much against the grain of Western society.
The first reason given in the verses of the Gaudiya Kanthahara concerns knowledge. (Let's keep to this reason for the moment, we'll come to others in due course of time).
"Carrying firewood in one's hands, one who desires otherworldly knowledge should turn to a guru who is learned and fixed in brahman."
-Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12
Now, for the purvapaksa (opposing argument, "the devil's advocate): "Yes, that was true in vedic times, when the sacred texts were transmitted orally. Nowadays we have inexpensive, printed books. It is easier to read a book than to listen to a person, and not only that, the book will also never fall down, treat you rudely or ignore you. In other words, there is no need for living gurus today."
Does everybody agree?
Guru-nistha Das - April 2, 2005 5:32 pm
Very nice, Bhrigu!
Ok, here's my answer to the devil's advocate:
You can always put the book down or skip the parts that bash your false identity too hard, but you can't do the same to your guru. A living representative is more effective in showing us our falsity and ego because we are not in charge of him/her, like we are of our reading.
The guru treating you rudely or ignoring you can in fact be more beneficial to you than thousand slokas from the scripture. Chastisement if anything hits our pride and the false sense of "I" and if we are humble, it helps us detect our false ego that's hurt in the process and see our false motives better for what they are.
Unfortunately I can't cite scripture to back this up, it's all pratyaksa pramana 
Mikko - April 2, 2005 5:53 pm
Would it ever be possible to realize one´s true self without a living example, only by reading a book? Without an example who reflects the goal we´re striving for we´d have no idea of what is the reality behind the scriptures.
I don´t think our hearts will realize anything unless we surrender, and we can only surrender to another person, not a book.
Mikko
Mathura-natha Das - April 2, 2005 7:26 pm
A book may be useful, but at the same time a book can be 2000 years old, and some of the contents in it may reflect a particular context it was written in. A living guru can take the essence of the scripures and apply it to this day and age.
Swami - April 2, 2005 7:47 pm
I agree with Brghu's proposal. We learned in the nistha thread that according to the Bhagavatam one can serve the book Bhagavatam or the person Bhagavatam and attain perfection. So I choose the book. Although others have argued that the person has value over the book, the book does not say that. Indded, all gurus must follow the book. It is the standard of knowledge. So the book is superior in spite of the mental speculation that has ben offered in favor of the "living guru," as if the book were dead! It is the SUPREME pramana. Srimad Bhagavatam ki jaya!
NrsinghaDas - April 2, 2005 7:54 pm
The book rules in favor of love of Krsna over Krsna Himself. If someone sincerely wants to claim to follow the book then then they must persue love of Krsna. One who wants love and devotion will naturally take every available step to envelop them self in affection.
Swami - April 2, 2005 8:07 pm
The book rules in favor of love of Krsna over Krsna Himself. If someone sincerely wants to claim to follow the book then then they must persue love of Krsna. One who wants love and devotion will naturally take every available step to envelop them self in affection.
Yes, I want love of Krsna. That is why I avoid the living guru trip. Hey, if you need that, I have no problem with you, but don't try to force it on me. I go with the book. This is the 21st century and the tradition needs updating to stay alive. We Western poeple are leading the world, and we are rugged educated individuals. God helps one who helps oneself.
Shyam Gopal Das - April 2, 2005 9:59 pm
If a book is mightier than a person, who needs lawyers and doctors?
Guru-nistha Das - April 2, 2005 10:18 pm
Guru Maharaja... or should I say THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE!!!
You wrote:
"We learned in the nistha thread that according to the Bhagavatam one can serve the book Bhagavatam or the person Bhagavatam and attain perfection. So I choose the book."
Here's the verse you are talking about (SB 1.2.18):
By regular attendance in classes on the Bhägavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.
The verse says "AND", not "OR" as you put it. The implication is that we have to serve both the person and the book bhagavata.
In the purport of the same verse Srila Prabhupada writes:
"The messages of the book Bhägavata, therefore, have to be received from the devotee Bhägavata, and the combination of these two Bhägavatas will help the neophyte devotee to make progress on and on."
I don't know if you accept the latter evidence though since you are "avoiding the living guru trip".
Swami - April 2, 2005 11:33 pm
If a book is mightier than a person, who needs lawyers and doctors?
In the case of SB, yes. This book is greater than the person/devotee because the devotee derives his or her credibility from the book. Sastra is the standard of knowledge. If the so called guru speaks without support form sastra we don't listen to him or her. So who is more important?
Swami - April 2, 2005 11:39 pm
By regular attendance in classes on the Bhägavatam and by rendering of service to the pure devotee, all that is troublesome to the heart is almost completely destroyed, and loving service unto the Personality of Godhead, who is praised with transcendental songs, is established as an irrevocable fact.
The verse says "AND", not "OR" as you put it. The implication is that we have to serve both the person and the book bhagavata.
In the purport of the same verse Srila Prabhupada writes:
"The messages of the book Bhägavata, therefore, have to be received from the devotee Bhägavata, and the combination of these two Bhägavatas will help the neophyte devotee to make progress on and on."
Actually the verse says nasta prayesu abhadresu nityam bhagavata sevaya, "By regularly serving the Bhagavata inauspiciousness is practically destroyed. It says nothing about two bhagavatas, only one: the book! So much for your living guru's interpretation, or should I say his addition, perhaps adulteration.
Guru-nistha Das - April 3, 2005 12:19 am
"Actually the verse says nasta prayesu abhadresu nityam bhagavata sevaya, "By regularly serving the Bhagavata inauspiciousness is practically destroyed. It says nothing about two bhagavatas, only one: the book! So much for your living guru's interpretation, or should I say his addition, perhaps adulteration."
If a living guru would've not brought the book to the west, you wouldn't know a thing about the book Bhagavata, what to speak of being able to cite it in sanskrit!
Madangopal - April 3, 2005 2:08 am
Sastra is the standard of knowledge.
The sastra is the ultimate pramana and it says to serve the person...
Dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam mahajano yena gatah sa panthah
Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated self realized person. Consequently, as the sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahajanas advocate.
Take that Srila purvapaksa-pada!
Citta Hari Dasa - April 3, 2005 4:58 am
Dear Purvapaksin:
The guru is not an ordinary person whom we can decide to ignore in favor of the book. In SB 11.26.28 Sri Krsna says: "My devotees fix their minds on me and do not depend upon anything material. They are always peaceful, endowed with equal vision, and free from possessiveness, false ego, duality, and greed."
Furthermore, Krsna says acaryam mam vijaniyan. . . "One should know the acarya as myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods." (SB 11.17.27)
The guru is the very embodiment of the teachings found in the Bhagavatam, thus there is no meaning to following the Bhagavatam without following the guru.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 3, 2005 6:35 am
So the book is superior in spite of the mental speculation that has been offered in favor of the "living guru," as if the book were dead!
My Guru Maharaja states "Scripture is the passive agent of divinity, and the sadhu and guru are active agents who bring the true meaning of scripture to light." Sanga, Volume III, No. 39.
You need a guru to explain intricacies of the book otherwise you have an illusion of understanding, not the real thing. Besides not everything is written down anyway (iksater na asabdam).
We Western poeple are leading the world, and we are rugged educated individuals.
SB 7.5.32 Purport: In the Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.3) it is said, nayam atma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya na bahuna srutena: one cannot become self-realized simply by having an academic education, by presenting lectures in an erudite way (pravacanena labhyah), or by being an intelligent scientist who discovers many wonderful things. One cannot understand Krsna unless one is graced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only one who has surrendered to a pure devotee of Krsna and taken the dust of his lotus feet can understand Krsna.
Shyam Gopal Das - April 3, 2005 7:53 am
In the case of SB, yes. This book is greater than the person/devotee because the devotee derives his or her credibility from the book. Sastra is the standard of knowledge. If the so called guru speaks without support form sastra we don't listen to him or her. So who is more important?
There is no question of who is more important, because they are interdependent. The book does not exist without the guide and the guide does not exist without the book. They both point towards each other and bring each other to life. The book describes the theoretical framework of a life of eternity and the guide examplifies this. It is not that the guide gained this life from merely reading the book, but he was practically instructed from his own guide as well. Both are currents from the same source fueling each other.
Bhrigu - April 3, 2005 8:20 am
Dear Purvapaksin,
you say that you choose to follow the book instead of a living guru, but how can you do that when the book commands you to seek out a guru? tasmat gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreyah uttamam -- one who desires the ultimate good must turn to a guru (Bhag. 11.3.21).
[bhag. 1.2.18] says nothing about two bhagavatas, only one: the book! So much for your living guru's interpretation, or should I say his addition, perhaps adulteration.
The idea of "the Bhagavata" meaning both the person and the book Bhagavata is found in CC 1.1.99. Nobody has understood the Srimad-bhagavatam as the Gaudiya Vaishavas, so if you love the Bhagavatam, the CC should also hold some stock for you.
Shyam Gopal Das - April 3, 2005 8:31 am
It could be said that ultimately the book is a person too, springing from the mouth of a person though captured in a static form.
Bhrigu - April 3, 2005 11:38 am
Another thing one could ask is this: How much in the book do you follow? All or just some things? If all, you should also accept a living guru, if something, you are not really following the book, but your own mind (which determines what to follow and what not).
Swami - April 3, 2005 12:59 pm
The point here is that gurus were needed in the past but in our modern times they are not. The instrution about seeking a guru is relative to times gone by. We need to update the tradition. Previously books were kept by a few and the masses neeed to go to them to get the teachings. Thus the masses deified these few. Now this has changed. We need people to think for themselves. The book is pure. Read it and you will get purified.
NrsinghaDas - April 3, 2005 2:07 pm
Previously books were kept by a few and the masses neeed to go to them to get the teachings. Thus the masses deified these few.
Yes, that is called Kali-yuga.
Madangopal - April 3, 2005 3:05 pm
The point here is that gurus were needed in the past but in our modern times they are not. We need to update the tradition. We need people to think for themselves. The book is pure.
Actually, the book is the compilation of words and instructions of teachers. It is not independent. Our tradition is based primarily on smrti sastras which have developed from the instructions of gurus teaching their students. That is all the book is. In modern times those instructions go on by the continuation of parampara. As you believe in updating the tradition, the vehicle for updating tradition is parampara. In the name of faith in sastra, you have chosen to omit the primary injunction of sastra - acceptance of guru. The speakers of the sastra including Krsna accepted guru!
Modern knowledgeable people like yourself all accept teachers for anything they want to learn. When is the last time you got a job by teaching yourself the trade? You learn from books AND practice under someone more experienced.
Swami - April 3, 2005 4:58 pm
The point here is that gurus were needed in the past but in our modern times they are not. We need to update the tradition. We need people to think for themselves. The book is pure.Actually, the book is the compilation of words and instructions of teachers. It is not independent. Our tradition is based primarily on smrti sastras which have developed from the instructions of gurus teaching their students. That is all the book is. In modern times those instructions go on by the continuation of parampara. As you believe in updating the tradition, the vehicle for updating tradition is parampara. In the name of faith in sastra, you have chosen to omit the primary injunction of sastra - acceptance of guru. The speakers of the sastra including Krsna accepted guru!
Modern knowledgeable people like yourself all accept teachers for anything they want to learn. When is the last time you got a job by teaching yourself the trade? You learn from books AND practice under someone more experienced.
Your point about the smriti tradition is good, but remember that smriti is rooted in sruti, and sruti is divine without the touch of human authorship.
At any rate, let me make myself more clear. I agree that teachers are important. What I am against is the deification of teachers--the guru figure with all of its hype, suprestition, and fear of offense, blah blah, blah. In the past teachers taught the books and they were the only ones who had the books. People were less educated and superstitious and thus they tended to deify these teachers, attribute miracles to them, and so on. This resulted in the idea of someone doing it for you--the guru. No! you have to do it yourself. You have to study the book yourself. Lets be done with this nonsense. Let there be good teachers and let us offer them the respect due to a teacher, nothing more. If we are to worship, as we should, let us worship the book!
Swami - April 3, 2005 5:14 pm
So the book is superior in spite of the mental speculation that has been offered in favor of the "living guru," as if the book were dead!My Guru Maharaja states "Scripture is the passive agent of divinity, and the sadhu and guru are active agents who bring the true meaning of scripture to light." Sanga, Volume III, No. 39.
You need a guru to explain intricacies of the book otherwise you have an illusion of understanding, not the real thing. Besides not everything is written down anyway (iksater na asabdam).
We Western poeple are leading the world, and we are rugged educated individuals.SB 7.5.32 Purport: In the Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.3) it is said, nayam atma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya na bahuna srutena: one cannot become self-realized simply by having an academic education, by presenting lectures in an erudite way (pravacanena labhyah), or by being an intelligent scientist who discovers many wonderful things. One cannot understand Krsna unless one is graced by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only one who has surrendered to a pure devotee of Krsna and taken the dust of his lotus feet can understand Krsna.
First of all you quote your guru as evidence. I do not accept this kind of evidence, onlythe scripture itself and not just anyhting that you Guadiya people call scripture. You cite the Vedanta-sutra iksater na asabdam to establish that not everything is written down, but this sutra says that even though words are not capalable of fully describing the Absolute, it is not that one cannot talk about it. Indeed there is not enough that one can say about it. That which cannot be talked about can only be learned by going there. Even gurus cannot talk about it!
As for the Mundaka Upanisad verse you cited, this is of course a well known and important verse. However, the verse it self merely says that one needs god's grace to understand the truth. It says nothing about thenecessity of a guru. What you have given is merely your param guru's purport. Even if the verse did mandate a guru, again, this would be merely a time and place instruction that no longer applies in our times. Why, because we no longer need the hype and superstition that uneducated people of the past did.
Swami - April 3, 2005 5:17 pm
In the case of SB, yes. This book is greater than the person/devotee because the devotee derives his or her credibility from the book. Sastra is the standard of knowledge. If the so called guru speaks without support form sastra we don't listen to him or her. So who is more important?There is no question of who is more important, because they are interdependent. The book does not exist without the guide and the guide does not exist without the book. They both point towards each other and bring each other to life. The book describes the theoretical framework of a life of eternity and the guide examplifies this. It is not that the guide gained this life from merely reading the book, but he was practically instructed from his own guide as well. Both are currents from the same source fueling each other.
This is well reasoned and intelligible, but, again, teachers and books go together well today, but putting teachers up on a pedastal is a recipe for disaster and delusion.
Swami - April 3, 2005 5:28 pm
Dear Purvapaksin,
you say that you choose to follow the book instead of a living guru, but how can you do that when the book commands you to seek out a guru? tasmat gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreyah uttamam -- one who desires the ultimate good must turn to a guru (Bhag. 11.3.21).
[bhag. 1.2.18] says nothing about two bhagavatas, only one: the book! So much for your living guru's interpretation, or should I say his addition, perhaps adulteration.
The idea of "the Bhagavata" meaning both the person and the book Bhagavata is found in CC 1.1.99. Nobody has understood the Srimad-bhagavatam as the Gaudiya Vaishavas, so if you love the Bhagavatam, the CC should also hold some stock for you.
The order to turn to a guru is a time and place order. Please try and catch the spirit the essence of the text and stop giving me these literal meanings. I do appreciate your referene to the Cc about the two bhagavatas. It is not a bad book, but neither is it a universally accepted pramana. At any rate, what it is saying it that one needs the book and the teacher. So I can go that far with you no more. No guru hype please!
Madangopal - April 3, 2005 5:28 pm
Your point about the smriti tradition is good, but remember that smriti is rooted in sruti, and sruti is divine without the touch of human authorship.
One cannot only study sruti though. #1 It is not all available. #2 Gita should be accepted as sruti for it is straight from the lips of Bhagavan. #3 Bhagavata purana is the commentary on Vedanta Sutra given by the sutra's author and such a qualified rsi who extracted the meaning of all sruti! Bhagavata and Gita both promote the worship of guru.
This resulted in the idea of someone doing it for you--the guru. No! you have to do it yourself.
In the past or modernity, the guru instructs one how to do "it" for oneself. Guru is the keeper of knowledge whether in the past by having the access to the books or in present when the book is available to all. Guru has realized knowledge and one must approach guru to realize knowledge oneself. That is Krsna's system.
Let there be good teachers and let us offer them the respect due to a teacher, nothing more. If we are to worship, as we should, let us worship the book!
Whether less educated and superstitious or modern and scientific, the book that should be worshipped teaches that the guru must be served and inquired from with submission. In the book bhagavata Krsna Himself says "one should worship the acarya as Myself". So, sastra, God, parampara, tradition, any pramana you can think of all point out that divine knowledge is transmitted through service, inquiry and yes worship of the teacher. The spiritual teacher is a teacher, but imagine a teacher who taught you how to solve every problem imaginable. Wouldn't that teacher be deserving of a little more than just respect?
NrsinghaDas - April 3, 2005 6:29 pm
Your point about the smriti tradition is good, but remember that smriti is rooted in sruti, and sruti is divine without the touch of human authorship.
rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah
"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)
asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina
"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)
If you actually have faith in the sruti, you are under obligation to take the statements of the smrti as divine.
Citta Hari Dasa - April 3, 2005 9:28 pm
Please try and catch the spirit the essence of the text and stop giving me these literal meanings.
The Bhagavatam is about one thing: love of Krsna; that is its essence. The guru is not just a teacher, the guru is the embodiment of a specific flavor of love of Krsna. Krsna is revealed by his devotees, thus they, the embodiments of love, are more important to us than he is himself, as we see when Krsna replies to the gopis in SB 10.32 22: na paraye 'ham... "The debt incurred [for what you have done out of love for me] I cannot pay in a life of Brahma's time, more than this, what can I say? Your love for me itself is more than I in a mystic way." As the gopis are worshippable by Krsna (and thus by everyone else) so is the guru worshippable in the same way. So it is no mere hype to worship the guru; it is in fact the essence of bhakti itself.
Bhrigu - April 4, 2005 7:01 am
Since our purvapaksin does not seem to be fully convinced yet (perhaps we should save your argument for later, Cittahari!), I think it is time to move on to another reason for accepting a guru. This subject (visaya) is closely related to the previous one. If the first one was concerned with getting a teacher, this one is about getting a guide. The most important verse concerning the guru is Bhag. 11.3.21:
tasmat gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreyah uttamam
sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany upasamasrayam
Therefore, one who desired the ultimate good should turn to a guru who knows the scripture and the Highest, and who is fixed in Brahman.
Sanatana Goswami explains "knows the scriptures" as being able to explain its meaning so as to remove doubts, and "knows the Highest" as having direct experience of Krishna, so as to be able to communicate also that. "Fixed (upasamasrayam) in Brahman" he explains as sheltered (samasrayam) in that which is above (upa) Brahman, i.e. Krishna. In other words, the guru is not only a theoretical teacher, he or she also has practical knowledge of the subject. The Katha Upanishad likens spiritual life to walking on razor's edge: it is difficult and dangerous, so a guide is definately needed.
Now the following doubt (samsaya) arises. Does the guide need to be physically present or not? Bhaktivinoda for example said that there are many siddha-purusas walking around in invisible bodies, secretly helping sadhakas advance.
Purvapaksa (opposing argument): It is true that the guru need not be present in his physical body. "He reasons ill who says that Vaishnavas die when thou art living still in sound!" Worldly people may not understand this, but spiritualists should. And anyway, where will you find qualified gurus today? There is nobody even remotely on the same platform as Srila Prabhupada, and since he very clearly has said that he wants a system of rtviks to initiate on his behalf, we should take shelter of him even today. Accepting a so-called living guru is not only foolish (that person will fall down sooner or later anyway), but directly offensive towards Srila Prabhupada, the acarya for the Golden Age.
NrsinghaDas - April 4, 2005 2:25 pm
That is a bold statement to make. If you say that there are unembodied siddha-purushas helping sadhakas, and you will fully depend on them, why should they not be able to lead you to a qualified sadhu who can offer you unambiguous assitance? After all Srila Bhaktivinoda also said that there are always pure devotees in the world, otherwise it could not exist. But because people are so materialistic they do not recognize them, therefore it is said that sadhu sanga is rarely achieved.
If you have an actuall desire to come in contact with the Lord, you would whole heartedly welcome the assotiation of someone who already has. Even if you refuse to believe that anyone on the planet at present is able to help you what about Dhruva Maharaj? His guru practically "fell out of the sky" 
!! So it is a question of the Lord recipricating with your sincerety, thats all. You should investigate your own heart to find out why you feel the compulsion to banish your gurus to the etherial plane and imprision them in the shackles of time.
Babhru Das - April 4, 2005 5:50 pm
I was also going to make the point about teachers. It's a common-sense argument. We naturally need teachers to understand complex subjects. They may present some background, guide our reading, answer any questions we may have, correct any misunderstandings, and challenge us in ways that draw us more deeply into the subject.
However, you have already accepted this as a helpful, though not essential, point. You seem intransigient in your insistence on Vedic pramana, something from sruti. Svetasvatara Upanishad says, " yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau/
tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah": the real import of Vedic knowledge is revealed only to those great souls whose faith in the guru is identical with their faith in God." In the Bhagavatam itself, Krishna tells Uddhava, "acaryam mam vijaniyam navamanyeta karhicit/ na martya buddhyasuyeta sarva-deva mayo gurum: "Know the acarya as My Self. I am the acarya . . . . Because the acarya channels the infinite, He is greater than the sum total of all the finite. Thus, he is more important than all the gods." Even Krishna insists that a guru in whom we have complete faith is necessary for understanding the infinite because He (the infinite, Krishna) is adhokshaja, beyond the purview of the mind and senses.
Swami - April 4, 2005 7:08 pm
I accept your arguments and will search for a guru. I don't believe in the ritvik notions. So I won't debate that with you. I am now in search of a bonafide unbroken guru parampara and will let you know my findings later in the discussion, which should prove interesting.
Srila Pruvapaksin.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 4, 2005 7:18 pm
As for the Mundaka Upanisad verse you cited, this is of course a well known and important verse. However, the verse it self merely says that one needs god's grace to understand the truth. It says nothing about thenecessity of a guru.
To teach us by example Krsna went to learn the Vedas from a bonafide guru. We should follow His lead.
SB 10.45.30-31
Concealing Their (Krsna and Balarama) innately perfect knowledge by Their humanlike activities, those two omniscient Lords of the universe, Themselves the origin of all branches of knowledge, next desired to reside at the school of a spiritual master. Thus They approached Sandipani Muni, a native of Kasi living in the city of Avanti.
SB 3.3.2
The Lord learned all the Vedas with their different branches simply by hearing them once from His teacher, Sandipani Muni, whom He rewarded by bringing back his dead son from the region of Yamaloka.
Another good statement from Svetasvatara Upanisad (6.23):
yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
prakasante mahatmanah
Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed.
Babhru Das - April 4, 2005 11:17 pm
I am now in search of a bonafide unbroken guru parampara and will let you know my findings later in the discussion, which should prove interesting.
Oh, boy--now we're in for it! Fasten your seat belts!
Bhrigu - April 6, 2005 4:51 pm
I accept your arguments and will search for a guru. I don't believe in the ritvik notions. So I won't debate that with you. I am now in search of a bonafide unbroken guru parampara and will let you know my findings later in the discussion, which should prove interesting.
All right, let us then discuss what the guru should be like. The verse from the eleventh canto quoted above says that s/he should be deeply learned in the scriptures and have practical realisation of Krishna, and be absorbed in Krishna consciousness. These are, according to Gopala Bhatta and Jiva Goswamis, the main qualifications. Gopala Bhatta Goswami adds a long list of other qualifications. HBV 1.38-44 (sorry for the clunky English, this translation is yet unedited):
In the Mantra-muktavali:
38“Of pure descent, clean, devoted to conduct suitable for him, situated in his asrama, anger free, knowing the Vedas and the Sastras, 39faithful and non-envious, well spoken, of nice appearance, pure, beautifully clothed, young, pleased by the happiness of all beings, 40thoughtful, humble minded, complete, non-violent, reflecting, with good qualities, determined in worship, grateful, affectionate to his disciples, able to give both criticism and kindness, devoted to sacrifices and mantras, 41expert in logic and debate, pure in heart and a receptacle of mercy. A guru with such qualities is an ocean of venerability (guruness).”
--
From the commentary of Sanatana Goswami:
Having concisely stated the generic characteristics of the guru separately in verse 1.32, the author now elaborates upon the specifics. Alternatively, having earlier described them secondarily in connection with taking shelter of a guru, he now focuses on them in verses 1.38-58.
Of pure descent: that his family line is free from faults such as loss of caste. The meaning is that he is born in a pure family. Clean means that he himself is without faults such as loss of caste. Non-violent (ahanta) means that he does not kill, or that he is one who self-consciously (ahamta) deliberates, reflects on the truth. With good qualities refers to his having qualities such as being parentally affectionate. In worship: in worship of the Bhagavat. Another reading has “of the one with good qualities”, that is of the one situated in sattva-guna, or in the worship of the form of the Bhagavat endowed with good qualities such as mercifulness. Determined means that he is determined in his worship.
--
And in the Agastya-samhita:
42“One who is a worshiper of the gods, who is calm, not touched by the sense objects, who knows the inner self, who speaks on Brahman, who is learned in the meaning of the Vedas and the Sastras, 43who is competent to deliver and indeed to destroy, who is the best of the Brahmins, who is a knower of the truth, a cutter of doubts in sacred amulets (yantras) and mantras, a knower of secrets, 44a performer of introductory rites, who is perfected in fire-sacrifices and mantras, a knower of ritual procedures (prayogas), who is austere, truthful and a householder, is called a guru.”
--
Commentary:
Speaks on Brahman means a teacher of the Vedas. Cutter of doubts means that he cuts the knot of hesitation.
--
Now, the question arises whether the true guru (sadguru) needs to possess all of the above-mentioned qualities. For example, a Western guru is most certainly not from a "pure family". Or what if the pure Brahmin guru is ugly?
Babhru Das - April 6, 2005 8:22 pm
My understanding of Hari-bhakti-vilasa is that Sanatan and Gopala Bhatta compiled it to help establish that the sampradayas coming from Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are authentic. It's a comprehensive catalogue of all the yama and niyama applicable to vaishnava life. A great many of these instructions are meant for the elevation of those in karma-kandiya families whose traditions are to worship foms of Vishnu.
After all, Skanda Purana asserts, "kalau sudra sambhavah": in Kali yuga, everyone is born a sudra. And Padma Purana says,
sat-karma-nipuno vipro
mantra-tantra-visaradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad
vaisnavah sva-paco guruh
"A scholarly brahmana, expert in all subjects of Vedic knowledge, is unfit to become a spiritual master without being a Vaisnava, or expert in the science of Krsna consciousness. But a person born in a family of a lower caste can become a spiritual master if he is a Vaisnava, or Krsna conscious." So perhaps the emphasis in the texts cited in Hbv should be on essential qualities, such as the teacher's character, rather than on purity of caste.
What essential qualities should we consider? Bhrigupada has pointed out the verse from the 11th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam in which Antariska, one of the nine yogendras, tells Maharaja Nimi that those who are serious about attaining life's highest goal should take shelter of a spiritual master who is sabde pare ca nisnatam brahmany upasamasrayam: someone who has practical realization of the essential meaning of the Vedic scriptures, expert in shastra, and completely fixed in spiritual life. Mundaka Upanishad also describes a genuine spiritual master as being srotriyam brahma-nistham, fixed in the absolute truth, having understood it in disciplic succession. These, then, are essential characteristics of a spiritual master.
More recently, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, when he sought out Ramananda Raya and inquired from him about the highest goal of life, asserted that regardless of one's station in life, those who actually understand the science of bhakti are fit to serve as guru:
kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene nayayei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru' haya
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 6, 2005 11:21 pm
For example, a Western guru is most certainly not from a "pure family".
According to Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.34:
vipram- pradhvasta-kama-prabhrti-ripu-ghatam- nirmalangam garistham
bhaktim krsnanghri-pankeruha-yugala-rajo-raginum udvahantam
vettaram veda-sastragama-vimala-patham sammatam satsu dantam
vidyam yah samvivitsuh pravana-tanu-mana desikam samsrayeta
One should take shelter of a bona-fide spiritual master, who is a qualified brahmana who has conquered lust and all other enemies, who is pure, exalted, devoted to the dust of Lord Krsna's lotus feet, fully aware of the pure path of the Vedas and Agamas, convinced of the conclusions reached by the great devotees, self-controlled, eager to learn about the Supreme Lord, and humble at heart.
Which means that spiritual master must be a qualified brahmana. In another hand according to Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.12:
yatha kancanatam yati
kamsyam rasa-vidhanatah
tatha diksa-vidhanena
dvijatvam jayate nrnam
As one can transform kamsa, or bell metal, into gold by treating it with mercury, one can also turn a lowborn man into a brahmana by initiating him properly into Vaisnava activities.
Which means that bona-fide spiritual master not necessarily should be a brahmana by birth, but a brahmana by initiation and activities. Mahabharata‚ Anusasana Parva 143.50 confirms this:
na yonir napi samskaro
na srutam na ca santatih
karanani dvijatvasya
vrttam eva tu karanam
Neither birth, purificatory ceremonies, nor learning, nor progeny are qualifications for brahminical status. Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status.
Bhrigu - April 7, 2005 6:44 am
Which means that bona-fide spiritual master not necessarily should be a brahmana by birth, but a brahmana by initiation and activities.
This is not how the HBV interprets brahmin-hood. If it did, why would the commentator say that the guru should himself by free from faults, but also his family?
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 4:13 pm
This is not how the HBV interprets brahmin-hood. If it did, why would the commentator say that the guru should himself by free from faults, but also his family
Since there isn’t a version of HBV in English, most of us can’t argue from HBV itself. However, Srila Prabhupada said that the portions of Hari-bhakti-vilasa that you are mentioning are “meant for those who are overly dependent on the mundane social order and is suitable for those who want to remain in mundane life.” Additionally, Srila Prabhupada said the following about HBV:
“According to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the regulative principles of devotional service compiled by Gopala Bhatta Gosvami do not strictly follow our Vaisnava principles. Actually, Gopala Bhatta Gosvami collected only a summary of the elaborate descriptions of Vaisnava regulative principles from the Hari-bhakti-vilasa… He [bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati] claims that the smarta-samaja, which is strictly followed by caste brahmanas, has influenced portions that Gopala Bhatta Gosvami collected from the original Hari-bhakti-vilasa [of Sanatana Prabhu]. It is therefore very difficult to find out Vaisnava directions from the book of Gopala Bhatta Gosvami.” (CC. 2.1.35)
Therefore, better to follow the Caitanya-caritamrta about who to accept as Guru:
kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya
yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei 'guru' haya
"Whether one is a brahmana, a sannyasi or a sudra -- regardless of what he is -- he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Krishna." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 8.128)
Note: Some Gaudiya Vaisnavas believe that Gopala Bhatta Goswami wrote the HBV with the help of an outline or with the Dig-darsini commentary of Sanatana Prabhu. Others believe Sanatana wrote it, but attributed it to Gopala Bhatta to lend it greater authority because of Gopala Bhatta's orthodox standing. Additionally, some say that the Dig-darsini commentary was written by a disciple of Gopala Bhatta, not Sanatana Goswami.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 8, 2005 5:33 pm
Therefore, better to follow the Caitanya-caritamrta about who to accept as Guru.
According to Srila Pruvapaksin, he doesn't accept this scripture as pramana:
I do not accept this kind of evidence, onlythe scripture itself and not just anyhting that you Guadiya people call scripture.
Please provide other evidence.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 5:56 pm
If Caitanya-caritamrta isn't accepted, then the premise of Purvapaksin Brighuji, drawn from HBV, wouldn't be accepted either and there would no reason to answer the question.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 6:06 pm
Here is an excerpt from the Amrta-pravaha Bhasya of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura that gives further illumination of the statements of HBV under question:
"When it is mentioned in the Hari Bhakti-vilasa that if there is a fit person of a high caste present then it is improper to accept Krsna-mantra from a person of a lower caste, then this should be understood to be vaisnavism relative to society. In other words, it is for those who practice family life by the customary rules and who have somewhat of a desire for spirituality. But for those people who know the import of vaidhi and raganuga bhakti and who wish to get pure devotion for Krsna, the rule for them is that in whatever caste or stage of life the suitable knower of the truth of Krsna may be in, he should be respectfully accepted as guru. In the words of the Padma Purana quoted in the Sri Hari Bhakti-vilasa:
na sudrah bhagavad bhaktasthe'pi bhagavatottamah
sarva varnesu te sudra ye na bhaktah janardane
sat karma nipuno vipro mantra tantra visradah
avaisnavo gurur na syad vaisnavah svapaco guruh
maha kulaprasuto'pi sarva yajnesu diksitah
sahasra sakha dhyayi ca na guruh syada vaisnavah
vipra ksatriya vaisyas ca guravah sudra janmanam
sudras ca guravas tesam trayanam bhagavat priyah
"Those who have taken recourse to the devotion of Krsna are never to be considered as sudras but they are to be glorified as bhagavatas. Amongst all castes, those people who are devoid of devotion to Lord Janardana are sudras. A brahmana who is expert in the six works and also in mantras and the tantra should not be selected as a guru if he is a non-vaisnava. If someone from a dog-eater family is a vaisnava he may be accepted as a guru. Even if one is born in the best of families, even if one is initiated in all the sacrifices and is learned in all the branches of the Vedas, if he is a non-vaisnava he is unable to become a guru. Generally, brahmanas, ksatriyas and vaisyas should be the gurus of sudras but even sudras can be the gurus of these three castes if they are dear to God."
So there we have it, Padma Purana saying that even sudras can be gurus if they are dear to God.
It seems that our dear Purvapaksin is giving us a slanted take on HBV, but without an English version of the book, we cannot be sure. 
Babhru Das - April 8, 2005 6:07 pm
I believe that in his purport to the kiba vipra, kiba nyasi verse in Cc., Srila Prabhbupada gives evidence from sruti that Mahaprabhu's assertion is not contrary to vedic instructions. I haven't been able to install VedaBase on my computer here at work (something about needing to get permission from our IT administrator), so I can't check that now. Maybe someone with VedaBase available could post that. I thought to do so in my previous post, but I guess I didn't want it to run too long.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 8, 2005 6:08 pm
the premise of Purvapaksin Brighuji, drawn from HBV, wouldn't be accepted either
I do not agree. Hari-bhakti-vilasa is a compilation of smriti/sruti thus accepted.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 6:23 pm
OK, then take the quote of Padma Purana I gave above.
Babhru Das - April 8, 2005 6:35 pm
I think the purport I mentioned cites those Padma Purana verses.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 8, 2005 6:37 pm
why would the commentator say that the guru should himself by free from faults, but also his family?
This is very cool question. Any takers? I would like to know the answer.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 6:39 pm
Does our Purvapaksin accept Mahaprabhu as God? If so, he will accept the kiba vipra verse as sruti.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 8, 2005 6:59 pm
Not neccessarily - since it is Krsna dasa kaviraja who wrote the C.C. not Mahaprabhu. Due to this we have the scenario of 'according to Krsna dasa kaviraja Mahaprabhu said......' So not only does the purvapaksin have to accept Mahaprabhu as God but he must also accept Krsna dasa kaviraja as a transparent medium through which he spoke.
Swami - April 8, 2005 9:20 pm
Not neccessarily - since it is Krsna dasa kaviraja who wrote the C.C. not Mahaprabhu. Due to this we have the scenario of 'according to Krsna dasa kaviraja Mahaprabhu said......' So not only does the purvapaksin have to accept Mahaprabhu as God but he must also accept Krsna dasa kaviraja as a transparent medium through which he spoke.
The truth here is that we would not know of anything Mahaprabhu spoke without his devotees telling us he spoke this or that. As far as I know other than the paraphrasing/vision of Sri Krsnadasa Kaviraja, they have attributed 10 verses to him, siksastakam and two others—aham vipra na ca nara patir . . . , and srutam api upanisadam dure hari kathamrtat. . . . . When they site them they refer to them as the words of Bhagavan.
The same goes for the verses said to be about Mahaprabhu. We can see them in this light through the eyes of his devotees. So there is a good argument (not fully developed here) as to why others should accept Sriman Mahaprabhu as Bhagavan and why those that do should accept the authors of his precepts as accurately representing him.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 9:53 pm
why would the commentator say that the guru should himself by free from faults, but also his family?This is very cool question. Any takers? I would like to know the answer.
As Babhru said, for the purpose of establishing Gaudiya Vaisnavism at a time when the thinking of the smarta brahmanas was prominent.
Swami - April 8, 2005 9:59 pm
I am not sure I made my point clearly. It is this: As far as I know, the only basis on which someone would accept Mahaprabhu as Bhagavan is that of the interpretation of sastra on the part of his devotees who find him in those verses. So to say that I accept Mahaprabhu as Bhagavan but do not accept what Krsnadasa Kaviraja says he said is not the best argument, given that Sri Krsnadasa was blessed by the Goswamis to accurately represent what Mahaprabhu did and said.
Swami - April 8, 2005 10:04 pm
There is an interesting hetrodox book compiled by one of Prabhupada's disciples, Krsna Balarama Swami, in which he tries to establish that only one born in a Brahmin family can be guru. I used to have a copy. Is anyone familiar with his book? He of course was born in a Brahmin family.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 10:07 pm
Not neccessarily - since it is Krsna dasa kaviraja who wrote the C.C. not Mahaprabhu. Due to this we have the scenario of 'according to Krsna dasa kaviraja Mahaprabhu said......' So not only does the purvapaksin have to accept Mahaprabhu as God but he must also accept Krsna dasa kaviraja as a transparent medium through which he spoke.
Interestingly, this is true of all scripture since it manifests from devotees. To accept that God spoke (sruti) you must take the word of the devotee.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 8, 2005 10:11 pm
There is an interesting hetrodox book compiled by one of Prabhupada's disciples, Krsna Balarama Swami, in which he tries to establish that only one born in a Brahmin family can be guru. I used to have a copy. Is anyone familiar with his book? He of course was born in a Brahmin family.
There is refutation of this book by Narasingha Maharaja's Giri Maharaja. The article has many good points that relate to the issues we are discussing. The idea of "pure lineages" is dealt a lethal blow, along with many other misconceptions. I highly recommend reading the article:
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 8, 2005 10:11 pm
Is anyone familiar with his book?
You can get it here. It's in PDF format.
Madangopal - April 9, 2005 12:53 am
Krsna Balarama Swami, in which he tries to establish that only one born in a Brahmin family can be guru. He of course was born in a Brahmin family.
Interestingly he also was born in Vrndavana. So there you have it - vrajavasi and brahmin MUST be a qualified guru right?!! You can't get much better than that!
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 9, 2005 2:14 am
why would the commentator say that the guru should himself by free from faults, but also his family?This is very cool question. Any takers? I would like to know the answer.
As Babhru said, for the purpose of establishing Gaudiya Vaisnavism at a time when the thinking of the smarta brahmanas was prominent.
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that answer. The point of the exercise was to convince Srila Pruvapaksin that our way is the right way by using shastric evidence. So you cannot defeat the statement by just saying "Oh well, they did it long time ago to confirm to the established tradition thus to make sampradaya authentic. We are modern people with modern thinking and we can ignore that book altogether".
Haridas.bts - April 9, 2005 10:35 am
book knowledge is not enough-there must be PRACTICAL applications of
the book. Say for example, one buys a book on building a house-one cannot expect the book to do the building can one? Also, if we were to try to follow the
instructions on how to build the house then we may or may not do it perfectly.
The AUTHOR of the book would have the practical know how on how to apply the book to get the job done-in the case of sastra- especially Bhagavatam- the author is represented by a sucessor who has APPLIED the knowledge contained in the book and got results- so this is parampara and one should indeed hear and learn how to apply the book from someone who has got the results.
Also, one should read the book carefully themselves to see wether the representative of the author is actually doing the job properly themselves-this is why many have chosen bogus unqualified Gurus because they have not done the
homework- Guru cannot do the homework for you.
So, in my humble opinion-there has to be a balance between the book Bhagavata and the person BHagavata-they go hand in hand and not one is superior to the other.
Sadhu/sastra/Guru
ys
hari das
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 9, 2005 4:21 pm
I'm not sure I'm satisfied with that answer. The point of the exercise was to convince Srila Pruvapaksin that our way is the right way by using shastric evidence. So you cannot defeat the statement by just saying "Oh well, they did it long time ago to confirm to the established tradition thus to make sampradaya authentic. We are modern people with modern thinking and we can ignore that book altogether".
I would like to again underscore the difficulty that arises in debating a point from a book we don’t have access to. We can’t ascertain the emphasis the Mantra Muktavali verse is given in the HBV. Therefore, how can we answer the question, “whether the true guru (sadguru) needs to possess all of the above-mentioned qualities” from the point of view of the HBV? In other words, we can’t even verify that the HBV asserts this. Therefore, we have to assume that the Purvapaksin’s premise that HBV unequivocally supports the idea that a guru’s family must be “pure.” We are thus facing a fully equipped opponent with one hand tied behind our back.
Given this handicap, we nonetheless take up the challenge. The purvapaksin’s premise “This [qualification, not birth] is not how the HBV interprets brahmin-hood” seems shaky, given that the quotes from HBV given by Nanda-tanuja earlier contradict the idea that the family must be pure:
According to Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.34:
vipram- pradhvasta-kama-prabhrti-ripu-ghatam- nirmalangam garistham
bhaktim krsnanghri-pankeruha-yugala-rajo-raginum udvahantam
vettaram veda-sastragama-vimala-patham sammatam satsu dantam
vidyam yah samvivitsuh pravana-tanu-mana desikam samsrayeta
One should take shelter of a bona-fide spiritual master, who is a qualified brahmana who has conquered lust and all other enemies, who is pure, exalted, devoted to the dust of Lord Krsna's lotus feet, fully aware of the pure path of the Vedas and Agamas, convinced of the conclusions reached by the great devotees, self-controlled, eager to learn about the Supreme Lord, and humble at heart.
Which means that spiritual master must be a qualified brahmana. In another hand according to Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.12:
yatha kancanatam yati
kamsyam rasa-vidhanatah
tatha diksa-vidhanena
dvijatvam jayate nrnam
As one can transform kamsa, or bell metal, into gold by treating it with mercury, one can also turn a lowborn man into a brahmana by initiating him properly into Vaisnava activities.
Which means that bona-fide spiritual master not necessarily should be a brahmana by birth, but a brahmana by initiation and activities. Mahabharata‚ Anusasana Parva 143.50 confirms this:
na yonir napi samskaro
na srutam na ca santatih
karanani dvijatvasya
vrttam eva tu karanam
Neither birth, purificatory ceremonies, nor learning, nor progeny are qualifications for brahminical status. Only brahminical conduct is the basis for brahminical status.
These quotes cast serious doubt that HBV interprets brahmanhood as birth. The evidence given as support for this, “why would the commentator say that the guru should himself by free from faults, but also his family” is insufficient. The comment refers not to the HBV as a whole, but merely to one verse. So we can agree that one verse in HBV interprets brahmanhood by birth, but not that the whole HBV does so.
What is the conclusive viewpoint then? On weighing evidence from the scripture, we cannot consider all scriptures equal. Why should weigh the verse from Mantra-muktavali above the verses from Mahabharata given in HBV? What is the Mantra-muktavali? Is it even smriti?
Furthermore, Jiva Goswami has argued conclusively in Tattva-sardarbha that Srimad-Bhagavatam is the crest jewel of scriptures, the ultimate pranama, and Srimad-Bhagavatam says, “If one shows the symptoms of being a brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya or sudra, as described above, even if he has appeared in a different class, he should be accepted according to those symptoms of classification.” (SB 7.11.35) Therefore, the scripture around which all others should be understood has established that brahmanhood is established by quality, not birth. If one does not accept the evidence of Srimad-Bhagavatam as conclusive, please read Tattva-sandarbha and give your argument. The conclusion of Srimad-Bhagavatam has also been corroborated with Mahabharata and the Puranas and can be established according the lives of great sages and devotees.
Bhrigu - April 11, 2005 12:59 pm
Aah, a great challenge from Srila Purvapaksipada! But first back to Vrindaranya:
Sorry for not replying earlier. I have been out of town since Thursday, and returned only last night. Yes, I realise that it is quite difficult to debate the relative weight of different verses of the HBV without having access to the text itself. Still, I think that different devotees did a good job in showing how some qualities are more essential than others.
As for brahmanism by qualities vs. by birth, I wasn't playing the part of purvapaksin when I said the HBV stresses birth. Yes, the yatha kancanatam yati... verse does keep the back door open, but in general, stressing such an interpretation would have been all too much in the social setting of the text. I realise that you'll more or less have to take it on my authority, but it is quite obvious that the author of the HBV considers a brahmin someone who is born in a brahmin family *and* who has undergone the necessary samskaras. There are a few examples of persons from other backgrounds becoming brahmanas in the scriptures, but they are quite rare exceptions. In the CC, I don't remember anyone "becoming" a brahmana, either they are or they aren't. You can also see this from how Jiva Goswami, while agreeing to how Harinama purifies everyone, still thinks non-brahmins shouldn't perform brahminical actions in this life.
Still, the theory is there, and it was Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati who took the logical step to say that anyone can become a brahmin by exibiting the proper qualities. (Just to make it clear, I think it was a great thing to do). It was a radical step in his time. Maybe the Goswamis would have wanted to take it but were unable because of social pressure (not so much from Smartas, but other Vaishnavas); then again, maybe not. They had their hands full with other tasks. Mahaprabhu also does not seem to have been that concerned with social issues.
In other words, I just wanted to point out that our stance on the varna of an individual is not the same as that of the HBV. Now, that doesn't mean that it is enough for a guru to be born in the right family: the HBV never says that such a person can dispense with the other qualities mentioned. Not only that, after a discussion on how ksatriyas can initiate ksatriyas or lower varnas, vaishyas vaishyas and lower, etc, even though the brahmana guru is the best, the text itself says (1.54):
“But a non-Vashnava who is born in a great family, initiated into all sacrifices, and a student of a thousand branches of knowledge can not be a guru.”
Commentary: Even if someone is a Brahmin, famous by his good birth, study of the Vedas and so forth, but a non-Vaisnava, he cannot be a guru. With this verse he states the exception to all the above cases. About this it is said in the Pañcaratra [PaP 6.226.1,2]: “By a mantra given by a non-Vashnava one will go to hell. According to the rules one should again properly take it from a Vaishnava guru”. [...]
(My emphasis). In other words, the HBV itself considers the varna (whether inborn or aquired) of the guru to be a relative thing.
Bhrigu - April 11, 2005 1:23 pm
The article has many good points that relate to the issues we are discussing. The idea of "pure lineages" is dealt a lethal blow, along with many other misconceptions.
Yes, he does a good job with Krishna Balaram Swami's book (after all, if you say that the guru must be born a brahmana while your own isn't, you're bound to make a fool out of yourself!), but I wish to add a small caveat to the above. There is an idea of "pure lineages" in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The commentator to the HBV glosses traditional guru (amnayagata) in 4.363 with one coming in a family line or in a disciplic line. Within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, both types of paramparas have always been there. Gopala Bhatta Goswami himself was an example of the second, but the first has been more common. Visvanatha Cakravarti, Baladeva Vidyabhusana and so many others took initiation from gurus in family lines.
The system with family lines of gurus can be found as well in the Sri, Nimbarka and Vallabha sampradayas. I don't see any problem with it -- if one remembers that there are other qualifications that have to be there, and which are more essential. As Swami has pointed out, at one point, birth was the only qualification required, and it was against this obvious fault that Saraswati Thakura acted.
In fact, and this ties in with Srila Purvapaksipada's last challenge, the same mistake can happen in the case of disciplic successions. Sometimes persons are put on the seat just because they are the disciples of a famous guru, and someone has to take up the position. "So-and-so has been a disciple for the longest time, he has never fallen down and knows some shastra, all right, let's make him the guru." Such persons are more of placeholders than gurus in their own right. This is not a problem exclusive to ISKCON; we can see it almost everywhere.
Swami - April 11, 2005 1:46 pm
Still, the theory is there, and it was Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati who took the logical step to say that anyone can become a brahmin by exibiting the proper qualities.
While Sri Jiva Goswami comments that although chanting the holy name one must first be born as a brahmana before doing deity worship, I believe that it was Visvanatha Cakravati, who came much later, that disagreed, giving more stress to the efficacy of bhakti. Again, I do not have Brs with me. Perhaps someone could look this up. I bleive it is in the commentary on the aho bata svapaco verse from SB.
Also, before Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura's preaching it was common for those born in brahman family to remove their sacred thread upon accepting Gaudiya Vaisnava diksa. Which implies that one so connected has at least the potential to rise beyond varnasrama and brahmanism. .
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 11, 2005 2:23 pm
Still, the theory is there, and it was Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati who took the logical step to say that anyone can become a brahmin by exibiting the proper qualities.
Do you mean who practically applied this concept? Otherwise, there are so many scriptural quotes that say this.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 11, 2005 4:24 pm
Here is the verse and commentary Guru Maharaja requested:
To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him. (Brs. 1.1.21, SB 3.33.6)
From commentary of Bon Maharaja:
It is the contention of the author that even when one is born so low as a candala, an occasional practice of the rudiments of bhakti will undo the effects of his past misdeed and raise him to the status of a brahmana eligible for performing the ceremony on soma and other Vedic sacrifices. Here is a difference between the two commentators Sri Jiva Goswami and Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti. According to Sri Jiva Goswami, though this rudimentary bhakti in a born candala will remove the effects of his past misdeeds, yet he must wait for the next birth in a higher social status to qualify himself for the performance of the Vedic sacrifices. Jiva Goswami, it is obvious, is reluctant to disturb the social order and tries to conform, as far as possible, to the extant practices and ideas of the Hindu society of his time. Visvanatha Cakravarti, however, considers Jiva Goswami's view to give away the whole case for the quality of the prarabdha-papaharatva that is claimed for bhakti. Sri Visvanatha's view is that bhakti, however slight, will at once remove all taints from the fallen human being and qualify him for the highest social duties of the Hindus.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 11, 2005 4:33 pm
You can also see this from how Jiva Goswami, while agreeing to how Harinama purifies everyone, still thinks non-brahmins shouldn't perform brahminical actions in this life.
There is a difference between what Jiva Goswami or Gopala Bhatta Goswami might have written and what they personally think. Acaryas have pointed out that both Jiva Goswami and Gopala Bhatta Goswami preached in a particular way because of the social climate. "Preaching and siddhanta are not always one," as our Guru Maharaja points out. After all, how could Jiva Goswami differ from the Bhagavatam? And did he really believe that parakiya is only for the prakata lila?
Bhrigu - April 11, 2005 4:54 pm
There is a difference between what Jiva Goswami or Gopala Bhatta Goswami might have written and what they personally think.
Well, personally I am not always so comfortable with the above kind of reasoning. I mean, I realise that people sometimes say one thing while they think another, but when they write down books explictly intended to explain the siddhanta?
Let's take a hypothetical example. Imagine if social norms after a hundred years again change so that homosexuality becomes frowned on in progressive social circles. I would not be surprised if some follower of Swami (BV Bhavisya Maharaja) would then explain Swami's statements on homosexuality in the beginning of the 20th century as simply a preaching tactic. "He knew that it was actually obnoxious, but he spoke like that to attract the intellectuals of that age". Don't you think that would be belittling Swami's statements?
Anyway, I agree with you, Vrindaranya, on the Goswamis being careful with what they said for various reasons. My point is simply that it can be dangerous to try to second-guess what they "personally think". How could we know that? Personally, I have no problem with acharyas having different opinions on different things.
Vrindaranya Dasi - April 11, 2005 5:12 pm
My point is simply that it can be dangerous to try to second-guess what they "personally think".
I agree with you in principle, but when so many of the previous acaryas concur, I don't think there is any real danger. Additionally, there is the question of what the siddhanta is. As for acaryas differing in opinions, I also have no problem in many areas, but this can't be used in all cases, particularly when an opinion goes against our standard of pramana, Srimad Bhagavatam. In these cases, acaryas explain the difference as a matter of preaching over siddhanta, and I don't really see how it could be anything else.
Purvapaksin - April 20, 2005 12:38 am
It is said in Caitanya Caritamrta, one of your main books that I now accept, that initiation is not necessary. All one has to do is chant the holy name.
diksa-purascarya-vidhi apeksa na kare
jihva-sparse a-candala sabare uddhare
“One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class can be delivered.” Srila Prabhupada’s translation
I believe that this says it all. There is no need to be initiated. 
Radhanama Dasa - April 20, 2005 2:01 am
Purvapaksin-
I believe if you read a little further in the Purport, of the verse you cited, given by Srila Prabhupada you will find he a very nice explination of this verse. My understanding of this verse is that the holy name can be chanted by those who have not recieved diksa (initiation) and some progress will be there. However as noted in the purport to make further steps towards the ultimate goal, initaition from Guru is a neccesity.
From CC Madhya Lila 15.108 Purport:
In other words, the chanting of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra is so powerful that it does not depend on official initiation, but if one is initiated and engages in pancaratra-vidhi (Deity worship), his Krishna consciousness will awaken very soon, and his identification with the material world will be vanquished. The more one is freed from material identification, the more one can realize that the spirit soul is qualitatively as good as the Supreme Soul.
maybe, hopefully, i've been of some help.
Chris
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 20, 2005 4:15 am
There is no need to be initiated.
I will assume that you are talking about harinama initiation not the gayatri-mantra one, because you didn't specify. Krsna and His name as bhagavata-svarupa are absolute and therefore independent of the initiation, but, according to our tradition, sadaka cannot reach suddha-nama stage unless one has obtained the shelter of sri gurudeva and chant the holy name under his guidance, so only after diksa-samskara you can achieve pure chanting. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu for example received harinama with instructions from his spiritual master Sri Isvara Puri: krsna-mantra’ japa sada, -- ei mantra-sara. Young Nimai even refused to drink milk from his mother Saci's breast until Sri Advaita Acharya gave her harinama initiation.
Babhru Das - April 20, 2005 6:41 am
Purvapakshin, there are a couple of things here to take into consideration in addition to the points Chris and Nanda-tanuja have made.
One is that there are different levels of efficacy in chanting: nama-aparadha, nama-abhasa, and shuddha nama. Nama-aparadha is chanting what sounds like the holy names with a heart contaminated with all sorts of desires other than service to the holy names. This is certainly a purifying activity, more purifying than any other spiritual practice, but it is far from perfect chanting because there's no personal effort to improve one's spiritual situation. Nama-abhasa, the "semblance of the name," is when one begins to chant with an attitude of service to the name, guided by elevated vaishnavas, trying actively to avoid all things that interfere with spiritual progress and seeking those things that are conducive. Suddha nama, the "pure name," is the holy name proper to which Mahaprabhu refers in the verse you cited. In the previous verses he asserts that simply chanting the holy name of Krishna only once relieves us of the reactions to all sins, and that someone who chants the hooly name once is the best of all humans. I think it is most likely the case here that he's referring to the pure holy name. Since the holy mane of Krishna is identical with Krishna, it is svarat, independent, and appears at its own will. That pure name dances on the tongues of those whose lives are surrendered to his service.
Chanting is the core of a life dedicated to pursuing pure love of Krishna, and, as Chris mentioned, certain activities are particularly conducive to attaining that goal. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu explains the sytematic process of cultivating pure bhakti to Sanatan Goswami in Chapter 22 of Madhya-lila. The first five items all focus on the spiritual master: (1) One must accept a bona fide spiritual master. (2) One must accept initiation from him. (3) One must serve him. (4) One must receive instructions from the spiritual master and make inquiries in order to learn devotional service. (5) One must follow in the footsteps of the previous acaryas and follow the directions given by the spiritual master.
On the other hand, you're quite right. Most people have no need for initiation. It's just not for everyone. I cited earlier a verse in which the sage Prabuddha tells King Nimi that taking shelter of a spiritual master is really for those interested in attaining life's ultimate necessity: tasmad gurum prapadyeta jijnasuh sreya uttamam. So it's probably best for those who have doubts to wait until this desire is strong enough to retire those doubts, or at least move them into the background. In the meantime, they should by all means keep chanting, associating with devotees, hearing about the science of devotional vedanta, and asking whatever relevant questions may arise. They'll know when it's time for initiation, even if that means the guru suggests it.
Purvapaksin - April 21, 2005 2:06 pm
Hmmm. You all have raised some interesting points. You seem to be saying that Hari Nama comes to anyone independent of mantra diska and then delivers them systematically. Mantra diska is then part of this systematic aproach to Hari Nama. What exactly is the relationship between Hari Nama and the Krsna diksa mantra? After all, the mantra as I understand it is basically made of of name of Krsna. So What's the difference?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 21, 2005 3:35 pm
What exactly is the relationship between Hari Nama and the Krsna diksa mantra?
krsna-mantra haite habe samsara mocana krsna-nama haite pabe krsnera carana
Simply by chanting the holy name of Krsna one can obtain freedom from material existence. Indeed, simply by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra one will be able to see the lotus feet of the Lord (CC Adi 7.73)
As you can see, Krsna Mantra gives liberation (svarupa siddhi) and Name of Krsna delivers. Everyone can have the Name, but Mantra requires eligibility. So, the relationship between Hari Nama and the Krsna diksa mantra is this: krsna-nama -> krsna-mantra -> krsna-nama. Krsna-nama gives us eligibility for krsna-mantra, after one realizes his svarupa, mantra retires and Krsna nama then takes him to the lotus feet of Krsna. So we need krsna-mantra to take full advantage of the holy name.
Citta Hari Dasa - April 21, 2005 4:58 pm
We need sambandha-jnana in order to chant Harinama purely. The Krsna-mantra contains within it our relationship (sambandha) with Krsna that, once awakened, allows us to chant with no other desire than to cultivate that relationship. So while Harinama is full and complete in himself, he does not give access to what he has to offer (the lotus feet of Krsna) so easily; we need to be purified by the Pancaratrika mantra in order to realize our inherent relationship with Krsna.
Bhrigu - April 23, 2005 11:36 am
Sri Jiva Goswami adds another point why some need initiation (Bhaktisandarbha 283):
"Although in the opinion of the sacred Bhagavata the image worship of the Pancaratrins and others in not compulsory, and even though one may attain the goal of life by engaging in any one of the nine processes of devotion without it, still, in the opinion of those who follow the reverend Narada and others, those who strive for a specific relationship with the Lord, established through the feet of the reverend guru through the method of initiation, when thus initiated, must certainly perform image worship."
In other words, if we wish to attain a specific relationship with Krishna, we need to follow a guru who embodies just that relationship.
Vivek - April 4, 2008 8:48 pm
Well, personally I am not always so comfortable with the above kind of reasoning. I mean, I realise that people sometimes say one thing while they think another, but when they write down books explictly intended to explain the siddhanta?
Let's take a hypothetical example. Imagine if social norms after a hundred years again change so that homosexuality becomes frowned on in progressive social circles. I would not be surprised if some follower of Swami (BV Bhavisya Maharaja) would then explain Swami's statements on homosexuality in the beginning of the 20th century as simply a preaching tactic. "He knew that it was actually obnoxious, but he spoke like that to attract the intellectuals of that age". Don't you think that would be belittling Swami's statements?
IS there any resolution to this argument of Bhrigu? I cannot answer his argument above with clarity. For instance people have stopped using BVT's krsna samhita saying it was just written for baddha loka people of that time. It was an appeasement for intellectuals. Haridas Shastri though has made pertinent argument of how SB is a rasa sastra and lot of poetic license is indeed taken there but most 'strict' prabhupada disciples will consider it to be blasphemy.
Vivek - April 4, 2008 11:17 pm
I think the sambandha, abhideya and prayojana jnana is essential tattva and hence the fundamentals there are important and very axiomatic but other things moving according to interaction of 3 gunas have to be adjusted according to man's position in history or else we become obsolete. I hope that the understand I have is reasonably accurate.
Swami - April 5, 2008 1:22 am
It is hard to get away form the idea of some disparity between preaching and siddhanta. Preaching takes into consideration time and circumstance, audience, etc. Everyone cannot be told everything at the same time, and the idea of preaching is not as much to tell everyone everything as it is to encourage them and engage them such that they will realize everything. So preaching is quite an art. Sri Jiva has written in TS that the revered Sridhara Swami used advatin bait to reel in the advaitins to bhakti in his famous Bhgavata commentary! By hook or by crook he tried to sell the bhakti in his book. Jiva Goswami doesn't seem to have a problem with this idea. But again, preaching is an art and not for the novice.
Vivek - April 5, 2008 1:47 am
Thank you very much GM for your answer. Yes, preaching is quite an art but most people in a particular organization believe that everyone has to preach and that is the only way for our purification. This approach has become counter-productive in today's times for most part. Debates between different schools were anyway more cordial before till the ugly turn of events in south India when Ramanuja was prosecuted by the Saivite king and battle lines have been drawn henceforth. So with a more pluralistic society in place today, it is hard to take one-sided stands especially when most people are still not beyond basic anarthas.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 12, 2008 2:39 pm
Actually in one forum a respected swami criticized the fact that the disciples of a Guru in ISKCON seem to have more faith in their guru than SP. I really cannot understand this logic. In ISKCON you are required to have more faith in SP than your guru-- this is just too strange for me and there is no siddhantic support for this.
Atmananda Dasa - April 12, 2008 8:31 pm
Actually in one forum a respected swami criticized the fact that the disciples of a Guru in ISKCON seem to have more faith in their guru than SP. I really cannot understand this logic. In ISKCON you are required to have more faith in SP than your guru-- this is just too strange for me and there is no siddhantic support for this.
Because I actually told Gaura Vijaya about this statement. I will post the statement here so if can be seen for what it is.
"It appears that in the absence of a strong GBC body, the devotees who join ISKCON are trained to have more loyalty to their initiating guru than to the management of ISKCON. We have seen big temples such as in Bangalore leave ISKCON, and without learning from our mistakes, we build other big temples based on collectors who receive salaries or percentages of the collection. In some places such as Chopatty in Mumbai, the stategy of a charismatic leader and experienced managers has encouraged many devotees to join and take initiation. The stability of such projects would increase if the devotees were as conscious of their commitment to a greater ISKCON as they are to their initiating spiritual master. The future of such projects after the initiating guru departs would be clearer if the devotees were more integrated into broader society." http://www.dandavats.com/?p=1902
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 12, 2008 10:47 pm
What a scary thought! There is definitely no sastric evidence for this statement, only politics.
Yamuna Dasi - July 29, 2008 8:55 am
Hari bol to everybody! 
Being a newcomer into this forum and feeling attracted to read first this topic "Guru-tattva, Towards a proper understanding", I remembered the nice way in which our siddhanta regarding Guru-tattva was expressed in... "Star Wars" :He He:
When Master Yoda came into the hall hobbling and bending on a stick, but when he had to fight he was fighting flying in the air and the stick turned into his jeday sward... I've heard many people questioning either the divine or the human aspect of a Guru or how these two aspects of human and divine can possible be manifested simultaneously in a person, but I never heard even one asking why Master Yoda had to bend on a stick while walking, or to be more precise why should he at all walk if he could fly Obviously the film was so well made and was able to put somehow the audience into the right mood so that they could not even think of putting such a question but were just watching and enjoying it... being thus completely merged into the "lila".
This is how I would like to be able to understand Guru-tattva - as a child happily watching "Star Wars"... dreaming that Master Yoda could mysticaly see me through the screen and accept me as well as his disciple... imagining the pleasure of having Luk Skywalker as my dear friend and godbrother and what great miracles and adventures in service to our Master and the Bright side of the Force we could perform together...
Citta Hari Dasa - July 29, 2008 3:08 pm
"It appears that in the absence of a strong GBC body, the devotees who join ISKCON are trained to have more loyalty to their initiating guru than to the management of ISKCON."
This is as it should be; ironically, the management sees that as a problem when it is the solution. To put guru under the thumb of management can only result in a skewed understanding of guru and his or her role in the life of the disciple, since the devotee is taught to have more devotion to the institution than to his or her guru. But what if the institution has an improper understanding of siddhanta and one's guru does not? There will inevitably be conflict, and the devotee must ultimately make a choice between following the guru or the institution. Not a happy situation.
Atmananda Dasa - July 29, 2008 4:00 pm
This is as it should be; ironically, the management sees that as a problem when it is the solution. To put guru under the thumb of management can only result in a skewed understanding of guru and his or her role in the life of the disciple, since the devotee is taught to have more devotion to the institution than to his or her guru. But what if the institution has an improper understanding of siddhanta and one's guru does not? There will inevitably be conflict, and the devotee must ultimately make a choice between following the guru or the institution. Not a happy situation.
se la vi...
We will happily follow our Gurus! An institution depends on the submission of its members. If they choose to follow their Guru(s), there is really nothing that can hinder that devotion. Sri Guru Parampara Ki Jay!
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 7:24 am
We learned in the nistha thread that according to the Bhagavatam one can serve the book Bhagavatam or the person Bhagavatam and attain perfection. So I choose the book...Srimad Bhagavatam ki jaya!
Maharaj, can I also try to argue with devil's advocate please? I don't have so much scriptural knowledge as most of the devotees here, but having chosen a living guru, I would like also to try to defend my own choice.
To devil's advocate:
None of the participating personages in Bhagavatam who serve to set an example had made a choise like yours. By making such a choice you would be the only exception. If you chose the book you would contradict the very message of the book which is the same as Gita's "tad viddhi pranipatena, pariprashnena sevaya" - find a viddhi (living guru), ask him questions and serve him. All of them had prefered a living guru, even Shudadeva Goswami, who had spoken it had hear it from a living guru - his father Vyasadev. Parikshit had hear it from Shuka. If you would chose the book, you would position yourself as an exception and living contradiction to the book, not as its follower. The best way to say “Srimad Bhagavatam ki jaya!” would be by following the example set in it – hearing from a living guru and asking. You cannot ask a book.
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 8:36 am
Although others have argued that the person has value over the book, the book does not say that.
1. Yes it does - by the example it sets. None of the sages in Bhagavatam who serves as an example had reached his level by reading a book. All of them did so by listening from a living guru.
2. The very Scriptures say that one should not read them, but hear them from a self realized person, so in this way the very book DOES practically say that the person has value over the book.
3. BG 2.46:
“All purposes that are fulfilled by a well and more can be served by a reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the scripture can be served by a brahmana who knows their purpose.”
In the previous 2 verses Krishna speaks about those who follow the book (the Vedas) and in this verse he clearly says that person who knows the purpose of the book is more important than the book itself.
4. The very Bhagavatam is a record of what had been spoken by living gurus. So is Gita. Living guru first – the record comes after. What comes after is depending on what comes first. No living guru’s speech –> no record –> no Scripture. This proves that “the person has value over the book” since the book would have not even existed without the person.
5. The book is just a written record of what had been said by a living guru and as such has many limitations. By reading it we cannot hear the intonation, see the gestures, know the complete context of the relation between the one who speaks and the audience, the time, place and the circumstances. Thus we cannot get the complete message, because it is deprived of these additionally helping aspects which make the message much clearer. Shridhara Maharaj didn’t want to go to preach to the West even by the order of his Gurudeva and one of the 3 arguments he gave to Bhakti Siddhanta was not knowing English well enough to be able to “feel the intonation of this language”. Bhakti Siddhanta accepted his 3 arguments and let him stay. So my argument is that we have no chance to feel the “intonation” of the Sanskrit language to be able to get the complete message if a living guru would not give it to us in our contemporary language. To each of us, personally.
6. Any translation is at least slightly changing the meaning (due to the very nature of translation from one language to another) so every translation is a kind of interpretation. (For example as far as a I know the word “atma” in Sanskrit can mean body, mind and soul depending on the context and at some places it could mean all the 3 together. Normally this cannot be translated.) Here we come again to the point – living person. We need first a living guru to translate for us the book, and then a living guru to give it the right “intonation” by first tuning our “ears” in order to be able to hear it. This tuning is an individual process which needs an personal tuner – living guru.
7. First is shravanam (hearing), which as I know cannot be translated as "reading". So no shravanam without a living sourse from whom to hear i.e. living guru. And if shravanam is the first step of the nine-fold path of bhakti, so if no hearing, no bhakti attained. According to Bhagavatm if we don’t attain bhakti, we have missed the point.
8. If a living saint had not orally transmitted the message, it would have not been written by someone else and thus take the form of a Scripture. Usually those whose words Scriptures depict do not write, they just speak. There are others who write their words and compile the Scripture. So no guru - no Scripture. This proves that "the person has value over the book" a holy person had spoken and another holy person had written what the first had spoken - this is the way in which the Scripture was born. So the Scripture is a by product of living guru. It's a media.
9. Written scripture as a kind of media was necessary only for Kali yuga and was not necessary for the previous 3 yugas which were much longer. But living gurus are necessary in all the yugas. This proves that “the person has value over the book”.
10. When Bhakti Siddhanta was leaving this world he asked a specific song to be sung to him by a specific person – Shridhara Maharaj. When the devotees changed the singer, Bhakti Siddhanta didn’t accept the change, even though the song to be sung was kept the same. This is one more proof that the sound vibration contains much more “information” than the words themselves. And this pure sound vibration can be given only by a self-realised living person, not by a book. Proves again that "the person has value over the book".
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 8:58 am
Indded, all gurus must follow the book. It is the standard of knowledge.
Not all. The manjaris, the gopies and Radha Rani did not follow the Scriptural injunctions, they broke them in order to please Krishna and thus they certainly did.
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 9:58 am
First of all you quote your guru as evidence. I do not accept this kind of evidence, onlythe scripture itself
So do I. Can you give scriptural evidence for your claim that "gurus were needed in the past but in our modern times they are not."?
Swami - August 4, 2008 1:59 pm
Yamuna,
You are quoting me selectively and at least at times when I have cited the arguments of others whose opinion I oppose. Then you want to play the devils advocate. This is confusing to me. Is your position on guru tattva different from mine? If so, how?
Swami - August 4, 2008 2:04 pm
Not all. The manjaris, the gopies and Radha Rani did not follow the Scriptural injunctions, they broke them in order to please Krishna and thus they certainly did.
This is not a valid argument. The gopis represent the ideal of following the book. No one follows the book better than them. Morality has a purpose that lies beyond itself.
Swami - August 4, 2008 2:08 pm
Perhaps I was playing he devil's advocate earlier on this thread years ago and you are citing those passages and refuting them with arguments that other have not raised? A little clarity would be helpful.
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 5:44 pm
Yamuna,
You are quoting me selectively and at least at times when I have cited the arguments of others whose opinion I oppose. Then you want to play the devils advocate. This is confusing to me. Is your position on guru tattva different from mine? If so, how?
I was quoting your thesis (which consists of more than one claims) and giving opposing arguments to it by following the line of the claims. Also your thesis was contained in few different messages of yours so I was following them one by one.
I think that you gave sellective responces, not addressing all my proofs against your thesis.
If this is for you a "sellective quoting" can you please give me all your thesis in one single message so that I can address it in my argument in one single message as well.
My position on guru tattva is different from the one exposed by you in these thesises of yours in which you have played the role of "devil's advocate". My position on guru tattva is different from the one expressed by you since it's different from the siddhanta of the shastra and what I've learned from my Gurudeva. But since you mentioned that you don't accept Guru quotes as evidence, but only scripture, this is why I was avoiding quoting from Guru and trying to stick only to shastra.
My opinion on guru tattva differs from yours since I find yours differing from that of shastra itself.
How do I play devil's advocate if I am opposing his thesis by arguments?
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 5:47 pm
This is not a valid argument. The gopis represent the ideal of following the book. No one follows the book better than them. Morality has a purpose that lies beyond itself.
Did they learn to follow the ideal of the book by reading the book?
Yamuna Dasi - August 4, 2008 5:58 pm
Perhaps I was playing he devil's advocate earlier on this thread years ago and you are citing those passages and refuting them with arguments that other have not raised? A little clarity would be helpful.
Yes, you were playing devil's advocate and I tried to raise arguments against his claim. Prabhu Bhrigu had started this philosophical discussion by stating a purvapaksa on which you elaborated taking he role of devil’s advocate. So I was trying to refute it. Am I too late to try? Do you consider this line of the topic closed?
Swami - August 4, 2008 9:23 pm
Did they learn to follow the ideal of the book by reading the book?
Sadhana siddha gopis did, and when the nitya siddha gopis came here in gaura lila they did as well.
.