Proper Deliberations on the Acarya's Teachings
BY: ISVARA DASA
Mar 19, INDIA (SUN) — Dear Mahavidya Prabhu, Thanks for your queries to me. I always admire your candid and often humorous postings on the Sampradaya sun. You are certainly a faithful disciple and follower of Srila Prabhupada.
I do not want this to be a back and forth debate on this issue, as no matter what you say, there will always be those who agree with us, and those who don't. You had written:
"Please clarify why we should not consider Srila Prabhupada's lectures, conversations, or letters to carry the same authority. After all... Srila Prabhupada is the exact same person throughout. Your argument of time, place and circumstance could also be used with reference to Srila Prabhupada's books. "Srila Prabhupada's books are only for the next 10,000 years, so in 10,001 years they have no authority."
So…
what exactly are you saying?"
This is my opinion on your above query.
Srila Prabhupada's writings, lectures, conversations, letters, etc., are certainly authorities. As the scriptures declares, acaryavan puruso vedah, that only through an acarya can one understand the Vedic scriptures. Whatever we understood from the scriptures are all due to Srila Prabhupada. He opened our eyes, and by following his teachings, we shall obtain the highest goal of life, which is to develop love of Krishna. Therefore none of his writings, lectures and conversations are less authoritative than the others.
However there are various areas of scriptural teachings that need to be taken into consideration and I shall try to cite some examples. As I hinted in my previous postings, Srila Prabhupada's commentaries on the scriptures such as Srimad Bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita, Caitanya-caritamrta and other books are somehow different from lectures, conversations, letters, etc. The lectures, conversations, letters were all given at various times to various audiences. It is a normal thing that the acarya's teachings on a subject will often differ from their earlier teachings or writings. This is so because a big acarya like Srila Prabhupada who had vast followings worldwide would have various types of followers that are suited to a certain teachings from the scriptures. For example, Srila Jiva Goswami taught parakiya rasa as the topmost to certain sections of his followers, whereas in his writings in the sandarbhas etc., the superiority of parakiya rasa were fully elaborated upon. So when there are often conflicting teachings from the acaryas, it is up to serious student to harmonise the two.
Another example, Srila Prabhupada had written in a letter that he wanted all his disciples to be spiritual masters. Then when some disciples asked Srila Prabhupada if they could initiate disciple, Srila Prabhupada instructed them that it is etiquette that when a guru is present, a disciple should not initiate, but rather should bring a prospective disciple to the guru. Now, how absolute is this instruction of Srila Prabhupada? If look deeper into this instruction, we know disciples have always been initiating their own disciples when their gurus are present. Srila Srinivasa Acarya, Srila Narottama dasa Thakur, etc., were all initiating disciples when their gurus were all present. Even there were generations of great-grand-disciples in the presence of the initial guru. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada was initiating disciple when his guru was present on the planet. Knowing all these factors, ISKCON is now allowing disciples to initiate their own disciples even in the presence of their gurus. Does that mean ISKCON is disobeying this order of Srila Prabhupada, that a disciple should not initiate when his guru is present? Now it may appear so, if we strictly adhere to all aspects of Srila Prabhupada's instructions. But the reality is, we have to separate writings of the scriptures and lectures, conversations, letters, etc. Knowing the mentalities of his followers, Srila Prabhupada lectured, had conversations, and wrote letters accordingly.
Another point, Srila Prabhupada had written a letter to a disciple stating that none of his godbrothers was qualified to be a spiritual master. An ordinary observer might inquire why Srila Prabhupada wrote that? Is that an absolute statement or a writing that was done on a particular circumstance to a particular devotee? Whereas in some purports in his books, Srila Prabhupada had glorified his godbrothers saying they were all trying their best to advance the movement of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. So if we as followers simply going on repeating the letter Srila Prabhupada wrote that his godbrothers were not qualified to be spiritual masters, then are we not causing disharmony in the world?
One thing, it requires maturity in understanding the fine tenets of the acarya's teachings. Acarya's teachings must be properly deliberated upon before coming out with our own conclusions. To me, saying that we fell from the spiritual world because Srila Prabhupada had written some letters or said in some conversations does not reflect proper deliberations on the teachings of the acarya.
My simple reply to your query to me is this: Srila Prabhupada is always an authority whether the purports in his books, his lectures, conversations or letters. But everything must fully deliberated upon and applied accordingly.
Your humble servant,
Isvara dasa
