video: Bhagavatam Lecture by Srila Prabhupada part 5
(by Mathura Pati das)
“In a meeting of learned men, when there are congratulations or addresses for the speaker, the qualifications of the congratulator should be as follows. He must be the leader of the house and an elderly man. He must be vastly learned also. Śrī Śaunaka Ṛṣi had all these qualifications, and thus he stood up to congratulate Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī when he expressed his desire to present Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam exactly as he heard it from Śukadeva Gosvāmī and also realized it personally.
Personal realization does not mean that one should, out of vanity, attempt to show one’s own learning by trying to surpass the previous ācārya. He must have full confidence in the previous ācārya, and at the same time he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner.
The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization. The leader of the assembly, Śaunaka, could estimate the value of the speaker, Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī, simply by his uttering yathādhītam and yathā-mati, and therefore he was very glad to congratulate him in ecstasy. No learned man should be willing to hear a person who does not represent the original ācārya. So the speaker and the audience were bona fide in this meeting where Bhāgavatam was being recited for the second time. That should be the standard of recitation of Bhāgavatam, so that the real purpose can be served without difficulty. Unless this situation is created, Bhāgavatam recitation for extraneous purposes is useless labor both for the speaker and for the audience.”
(SB 1.4.1 purport)
Śaunaka said: O Sūta Gosvāmī, you are the most fortunate and respected of all those who can speak and recite. Please relate the pious message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which was spoken by the great and powerful sage Śukadeva Gosvāmī.
purport:
Sūta Gosvāmī is twice addressed herein by Śaunaka Gosvāmī out of great joy because he and the members of the assembly were eager to hear the text of Bhāgavatam uttered by Śukadeva Gosvāmī. They were not interested in hearing it from a bogus person who would interpret in his own way to suit his own purpose (….) Only one who is prepared to present Bhāgavatam in the light of Śukadeva Gosvāmī and only those who are prepared to hear Śukadeva Gosvāmī and his representative are bona fide participants in the transcendental discussion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
(SB 1.4.2 )
All transcendental messages are received properly in the chain of disciplic succession. This disciplic succession is called paramparā. Unless therefore Bhāgavatam or any other Vedic literatures are received through the paramparā system, the reception of knowledge is not bona fide. Vyāsadeva delivered the message to Śukadeva Gosvāmī, and from Śukadeva Gosvāmī, Sūta Gosvāmī received the message. One should therefore receive the message of Bhāgavatam from Sūta Gosvāmī or from his representative and not from any irrelevant interpreter.
(SB 1.3.43)
NOTE:
The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization(….)
No learned man should be willing to hear a person who does not represent the original ācārya. So the speaker and the audience were bona fide in this meeting where Bhāgavatam was being recited for the second time. That should be the standard of recitation of Bhāgavatam, so that the real purpose can be served without difficulty. Unless this situation is created, Bhāgavatam recitation for extraneous purposes is useless labor both for the speaker and for the audience.”
(SB 1.4.1 purport)
Iskcon-GBC says: A spiritual master may sometimes fall down and become demoniac.(MYTH)
Example:
GBC Resolution 67 says :
That if the Spiritual Master takes on demoniac qualities and becomes inimical to ISKCON he should be rejected and the disciple may take re-initiation.
NOTE: This is a COMPLETE DEMONIAC SPECULATION OF THE GBC THAT A REAL DIKSA-GURU CAN HAVE A FALLDOWN OR TAKES ON DEMONIAC QUALITIES OR THE CASE OF SO CALLED “RE-INITIATION”, BECAUSE A REAL DIKSA-GURU CAN NEVER HAVE A FALLDOWN, WHAT TO SPEAK THAT HE CAN TAKE ON DEMONIAC QUALITIES AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SO CALLED “RE-INITIATION”, NOBODY CAN FIND OUT SUCH A WORD IN SANSKRIT OR IN PRABHUPADA’S BOOKS AND PRABHUPADA AND SASTRA SAYS THE OPPOSITE:
“In this connection the Padma Purana states, arcye visnau sila-dhir gurusu nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhih: “One who considers the arca-murti, the worshipable Deity of Lord Vishnu, to be stone, THE SPIRITUAL MASTER TO BE AN ORDINARY HUMAN BEING (my add: who can have a falldown or takes on demoniac qualities and act in perverted activities), and a Vaishnava to belong to a particular caste or creed, is possessed of HELLISH INTELLIGENCE.” One who follows such conclusions is doomed.”
(CC Adi-lila 7.115)
Those deviant “gurus” being described could never, by definition, have been members of the eternal disciplic succession. Rather, they were non-liberated, self-authorised or GBC rubberstamped 2/3 voted-in gurus and priests posing as initiating acaryas. Bona fide members of the disciplic succession never deviate:
But Prabhupada says:
“God is always God, Guru is always Guru.”
(The Science of Self Realisation, chapter 2)
“The pure devotee is always free from the clutches of Maya and her influence.”
(SB 5.3.14)
“A spiritual master is always liberated.”
(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamal Krishna, 21/6/70)
NOTE:
“No learned man should be willing to hear a person who does not represent the original ācārya.”!!!!
(SB 1.4.1 purport)
NOTE: How is it with such book changes:
Changed edition of Caitanya-caritamrta:
“Even if one thinks that there are many pseudo devotees or non-devotees in the Krishna Consciousness Society, still one should stick to the Society; if one thinks the Society’s members are not pure devotees, one can keep direct company with the spiritual master, and if there is any doubt, one should consult the spiritual master.
(Changed CC Madhya-lila 19.157)
Here the original first edition:
“If one thinks that there are many pseudo devotees or non-devotees in the Krsna Consciousness Society, one can keep direct company with the spiritual master, and if there is any doubt, one should consult the spiritual master.”
(Original CC Madhya-lila 19.157)
Mukunda dasa: NO STICK TO THE SOCIETY!!! The following sentence was added “still one should stick to the Society; if one thinks the Society’s members are not pure devotees” !!!
It is very interesting to note that they add the word even at the beginning of the paragraph. This gives strength to their cheating suggestions:
“Even if you have sussed us out that we are not pure or that we are actually the envious non devotees in the Krishna Consciousness Society STILL YOU HAVE TO STICK TO THE [OUR] SOCIETY… Prabhupada says so!!!”
Next example :
Some time back many devotees had noticed that the new 9 Volume edition of the Caitanya-caritamrta had made a deliberate change from Srila Prabhupada’s original version, not unlike the one made by Bhakti Caru Swami mentioned earlier. Srila Prabhupada’s Caitanya-caritamrta states the following:
“Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, who *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn initiated Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji”
(CC Adi-lila 1 Chapter 1)
In the new BBTi doctored 9-volume edition, the same passage reads:
“Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura accepted Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, the spiritual master of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who in turn accepted Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji”
In other words it has been decided that contrary to what Srila Prabhupada states, Jagannatha Das Babaji did not really INITIATE Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura after all. Now the reason for the BBTi changing Srila Prabhupada’s teaching here is very significant since the GBC maintain that the relationship between Jagannatha Das Babaji and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was based not on ‘formal initiation’ but rather only on the transmission of transcendental knowledge’. Once it is accepted that the transmission of divine transcendental knowledge ALONE constitutes INITIATION – then the objections made by the GBC to the Ritvik system of initiation crumble, since Srila Prabhupada could also *initiate* us with transcendental knowledge.
Thus the BBTi could not allow Srila Prabhupada to teach that Jagannatha Dasa Babaji actually *initiated* Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for that would indirectly sanction Srila Prabhupada *initiating* for many generations to come simply via his transcendental knowledge, with the ‘formal initiation’ administered via the Ritvik system that he set up. In any case the teaching given by Srila Prabhupada above is totally consistent with what Srila Prabhupada has taught about Diksa and initiation in the Caitanya-caritamrta itself:
“Diksa actually means *initiating* a disciple *with transcendental knowledge* by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.”
(CC Madhya-lila, 4.112, purport)
“The spiritual master by his words, can penetrate into the heart of the suffering person and inject knowledge transcendental which alone can extinguish the fire of material existence.”
(SB 1.7.22, purport)
Of course just the very fact that the BBTi is deliberately changing the main legacy left by Srila Prabhupada – his teachings – is horrendous enough. However the fact that it was done specifically to keep the positions of the GBC within the crumbling Guru system intact, is totally shameful.
But just when you though it could not get any worse, it does. For the BBTi have now become so arrogant in their campaign against Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, that they have even tried to JUSTIFY this change. Dravida Das, the BBTi editor, upon being asked by Dhira Govinda Prabhu to justify the change, first sums up the reason for NOT changing Srila Prabhupada’s teachings as follows:
“On the side of not changing the “initiated” phrases we have the strong bias against changing the books unless absolutely necessary and the fact that Srila Prabhupada did indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode.”
(BBTi Editor, Dravida Das)
Please note that Dravida clearly ADMITS that Srila Prabhupada “DID indeed say that Jagannatha das Babaji initiated Bhaktivinode”.
To any sane person, this would be the ONLY reason required to NOT tamper with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings in any manner whatsoever. But hold on.
Dravida Das has a reason that far outweighs a mere detail such as what Srila Prabhupada himself actually taught. Rather he states we must change Srila Prabhupada’s teachings to ensure they conform with what is currently understood within ISKCON in regards to initiation:
“Leaving one or both ‘initiated’s will strongly imply that the use of the phrases ‘direct disciple’ and even ‘accepted [as his disciple]’ indicate formal initiation as we know it in ISKCON, which is far from the truth.”
(BBTi Editor, Dravida Das)
Dravida then adds that this reason was paramount in justifying the change:
“This last was the weightiest argument, in my view, for changing the passage.”
(BBTi Editor, Dravida Das)
Thus to summarize, what Dravida is saying is this:
That whenever Srila Prabhupada’s teachings differ from the way ‘we know it in ISKCON’, then they must be changed to conform with the way we DO ‘know it in ISKCON’. And of course the way ‘we know it in ISKCON’ is dictated by whatever ridiculous philosophy the GBC happens to be preaching at the time.
So the fact that we have had a bogus Guru system imposed on us in ISKCON by the GBC means that even though we may find that Srila Prabhupada teaches something else, we must modify Srila Prabhupada’s teachings to agree with the way things are understood in ISKCON. Instead of changing the practices and understanding of ISKCON to conform with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings – which of course is what a spiritual society based on following Srila Prabhupada would do. Not only is it bad enough that ISKCON is NOT run according to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, but now Srila Prabhupada’s teachings must also be changed to fit in with the way we happen to be doing things in ISKCON.
What makes this shocking state of affairs even more ludicrous is that the way things are ‘known in ISKCON’ are themselves constantly changing anyway.
1. Thus from 1978-onwards, in ISKCON we ‘knew’ one thing in regards to the process of initiation – that you could ONLY take it from 11 people, and then ONLY whichever of the 11 people ‘owned’ your geographical area.
2. Then from 1986 we ‘knew’ something else about initiation – that you could take it from many others providing they had received the necessary number of votes.
3. Now we ‘know’ something else – that whoever you get initiated from, do not forget that you must not worship him too much and that Srila Prabhupada is also doing some important things, and indeed maybe even more important than the person who does initiate us.
4. And what’s the betting that this ‘understanding’ will also change in the next year or so?
5. And just because we happen to ‘know’ at the moment that initiation must mean the ‘formal ceremony’, therefore any teaching in Srila Prabhupada’s books that imply otherwise must be doctored.
And this is a very sinister development for yet another reason. For this justification is laying the ground for making ANY further change to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings that the GBC deems fit.
Thus in the future if it is ‘known in ISKCON’ that ‘women are as intelligent as men’ say, then we will be able to alter all of Srila Prabhupada’s statements where he says that women are less intelligent, since then it would not conform with the way things are ‘known in ISKCON’. Or if in the future we begin to ‘know in ISKCON’ that Lord Siva is just as worshipable as Krishna say, then whenever we encounter the word ‘Demi-God’ in Srila Prabhupada’s books, then all those instances must be changed. And so on.
Of course someone may argue that the philosophy as ‘we know it in ISKCON’ will never change and will always be faithful to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and the above fear is unfounded. (Of course Pigs May Also Fly).
If the last 34 years is anything to go by, the only thing we can say with certainty is that the GBC will ALWAYS be deviating from Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and the ONLY SAFEGUARD WE HAVE IS SRILA PRABHUPADA’S TEACHINGS.
And once we change Srila Prabhupada’s teachings to fit in with whatever nonsense we happen to believe, then all will be lost – as seems to be happening now.
AGAIN-SAME-NOTE:
“The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization(….)
No learned man should be willing to hear a person who does not represent the original ācārya. So the speaker and the audience were bona fide in this meeting where Bhāgavatam was being recited for the second time. That should be the standard of recitation of Bhāgavatam, so that the real purpose can be served without difficulty. Unless this situation is created, Bhāgavatam recitation for extraneous purposes is useless labor both for the speaker and for the audience.”
(SB 1.4.1 purport)
“The whole situation has been spoiled by these so-called rascal gurus who gives his own opinion. This is our plain declaration: Let any rascal guru come. We can convince him that he is not guru, because he is speaking DIFFERENTLY ….So guru is one. Guru cannot be two. As soon as you find two opinions of guru, either both of them are rascals, or one is still at least rascal.”
(SP Lecture: What is a Guru? London, August 22, 1973)
“These are not ordinary books. It is recorded chanting. Anyone who reads, he is hearing.”
(Letter to Rupanuga Das, 19/10/74)
NOTE:
“They were not interested in hearing it from a bogus person who would interpret in his own way to suit his own purpose (….) Only one who is prepared to present Bhāgavatam in the light of Śukadeva Gosvāmī and only those who are prepared to hear Śukadeva Gosvāmī and his representative are bona fide participants in the transcendental discussion of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.”
(SB 1.4.2 )
“Devotee:
Srila Prabhupada when you’re not present with us, how is it possible to receive instructions? For example in questions that may arise…
Srila Prabhupada:
Well the questions are answ…answers are there in my books.”
(SP Morning Walk, Los Angeles, 13/5/73)
“Eternal bond between disciple and Spiritual Master begins from the day he hears.”
(SP Letter to Jadurani, 4/9/72)
“Srila Prabhupada:
Even a moments association with a pure devotee – all success!
Revatinanda:
Does that apply to reading the words of a pure devotee?
Srila Prabhupada:
Yes
Revatinanda:
Even a little association with your books has the same effect?
Srila Prabhupada:
Effect. Of course it requires both things. One must be very eager to take it.”
(SP Room Conversation, 13/12/70)
“Paramahamsa:
My question is, a pure devotee, when he comments on Bhagavad-Gita, someone who never sees him physically, but he just comes in contact with the commentary, explanation, is this the same thing?
Srila Prabhupada:
Yes. You can associate with Krishna by reading Bhagavad-Gita. And these saintly persons, they have given their explanations, comments. So where is the difficulty?”
(SP Morning Walk, Paris 11/6/74)
“All transcendental messages are received properly in the chain of disciplic succession. This disciplic succession is called paramparā. Unless therefore Bhāgavatam or any other Vedic literatures are received through the paramparā system, the reception of knowledge is not bona fide. Vyāsadeva delivered the message to Śukadeva Gosvāmī, and from Śukadeva Gosvāmī, Sūta Gosvāmī received the message. One should therefore receive the message of Bhāgavatam from Sūta Gosvāmī or from his representative and not from any irrelevant interpreter.”
(SB 1.3.43)
NOTE:
All transcendental messages are received properly in the chain of disciplic succession. This disciplic succession is called paramparā. Unless therefore Bhāgavatam or any other Vedic literatures are received through the paramparā system, the reception of knowledge is not bona fide !!!
“Actually Prabhupada never appointed any gurus, he appointed eleven ritviks. He never appointed them gurus. Myself and the other GBC have done the greatest disservice to this movement for the last three years because we interpreted the appointment of ritviks as the appointment of gurus. […] Srila Prabhupada said: ‘All right. I will appoint so many …’ and he started to name them. He made it very clear that they are his disciples. At that point it was very clear in my mind that he were his disciples. […] You cannot show me anything on tape or in writing were Prabhupada says: ‘I appoint these eleven as gurus’ it does not exist. Because he never appointed any gurus. This is a myth.”
(Tamala Krishna Goswami: Pyramid House Confession December 3rd 1980)
“Srila Prabhupada indicated that soon He would appoint some of His senior disciples to act as “ritvik”-representative of the acarya, for the purpose of performing initiations, both first initiation and second initiation. His Divine Grace has so far given a list of eleven disciples who will act in that capacity (…..)
In the past Temple Presidents have written to Srila Prabhupada recommending a particular devotee’s initiation. Now that Srila Prabhupada has named these representatives, Temple Presidents may henceforward send recommendation for first and second initiation to whichever of these eleven representatives are nearest their temple. After considering the recommendation, these representatives may accept the devotee as an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada by giving a spiritual name, or in the case of second initiation, by chanting on the Gayatri thread, just as Srila Prabhupada has done. The newly initiated devotees are disciples of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, the above eleven senior devotees acting as His representative(……)”
(July 9, 1977 worldwide order to all GBC and Temple Presidents – excerpt)
“Now you have a very good field. Now organize it and it will be a great credit. No one will disturb you there. Make your own field and continue to become ritvik and act on my behalf.”
(Śrīla Prabhupāda to Hansadutta : July 31, 1977)
”And the rascal, blind leaders are leading everyone to hell. They are simply misleaders. People do not like to accept any authority. Still, they have accepted these rascals as leaders and are being misled. In this way both the rascal leaders and their unfortunate followers remain bound up by the stringent laws of material nature.”
(The Laws of Nature, chapter 1)
Last Conclusion:
When we want to understand the deep meanings of Srimad-Bhagavatam, then we cannot hear SB classes from such cheaters in the dress of so called Diksa-gurus!
Please read only the original Prabhupada books and dont hear classes of such Kali-Chelas. In this way we can see Krishna in the Bhagavatam pages.
“The whole situation has been spoiled by these so-called rascal gurus who gives his own opinion. This is our plain declaration: Let any rascal guru come. We can convince him that he is not guru, because he is speaking DIFFERENTLY ….So guru is one. Guru cannot be two. As soon as you find two opinions of guru, either both of them are rascals, or one is still at least rascal.”
(Lecture: What is a Guru? London, August 22, 1973)
“In this sloka, it is definitely stated that spiritual rasa, which is relished even in the liberated stage, can be experienced in the literature of the Srimad-Bhagavatam due to its being the ripened fruit of all Vedic knowledge. By submissively hearing this transcendental literature, one can attain the full pleasure of his heart’s desire.
But one must be very careful to hear the message from the right source. Srimad-Bhagavatam is exactly received from the right source. It was brought by Narada Muni from the spiritual world and given to his disciple Sri Vyasadeva. The latter in turn delivered the message to his son Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, and Srila Sukadeva Gosvami delivered the message to Maharaja Pariksit just seven days before the King’s death. Srila Sukadeva Gosvami was a liberated soul from his very birth.
He was liberated even in the womb of his mother, and he did not undergo any sort of spiritual training after his birth. At birth no one is qualified, neither in the mundane nor in the spiritual sense. But Sri Sukadeva Gosvami, due to his being a perfectly liberated soul, did not have to undergo an evolutionary process for spiritual realization.
Yet despite his being a completely liberated person situated in the transcendental position above the three material modes, he was attracted to this transcendental rasa of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is adored by liberated souls who sing Vedic hymns. The Supreme Lord’s pastimes are more attractive to liberated souls than to mundane people. He is of necessity not impersonal because it is only possible to carry on transcendental rasa with a person.
In the Srimad-Bhagavatam the transcendental pastimes of the Lord are narrated, and the narration is systematically depicted by Srila Sukadeva Gosvami. Thus the subject matter is appealing to all classes of persons, including those who seek liberation and those who seek to become one with the supreme whole.
In Sanskrit the parrot is also known as suka. When a ripened fruit is cut by the red beaks of such birds, its sweet flavor is enhanced. The Vedic fruit which is mature and ripe in knowledge is spoken through the lips of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, who is compared to the parrot not for his ability to recite the Bhagavatam exactly as he heard it from his learned father, but for his ability to present the work in a manner that would appeal to all classes of men.
The subject matter is so presented through the lips of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami that any sincere listener that hears submissively can at once relish transcendental tastes which are distinct from the perverted tastes of the material world. The ripened fruit is not dropped all of a sudden from the highest planet of Krsnaloka. Rather, it has come down carefully through the chain of disciplic succession without change or disturbance.
Foolish people who are not in the transcendental disciplic succession commit great blunders by trying to understand the highest transcendental rasa known as the rasa dance without following in the footsteps of Sukadeva Gosvami, who presents this fruit very carefully by stages of transcendental realization. One should be intelligent enough to know the position of Srimad-Bhagavatam by considering personalities like Sukadeva Gosvami, who deals with the subject so carefully. This process of disciplic succession of the Bhagavata school suggests that in the future also Srimad-Bhagavatam has to be understood from a person who is factually a representative of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami.
A professional man who makes a business out of reciting the Bhagavatam illegally is certainly not a representative of Sukadeva Gosvami. Such a man’s business is only to earn his livelihood. Therefore one should refrain from hearing the lectures of such professional men. Such men usually go to the most confidential part of the literature without undergoing the gradual process of understanding this grave subject. They usually plunge into the subject matter of the rasa dance, which is misunderstood by the foolish class of men. Some of them take this to be immoral, while others try to cover it up by their own stupid interpretations. They have no desire to follow in the footsteps of Srila Sukadeva Gosvami.
One should conclude, therefore, that the serious student of the rasa should receive the message of Bhagavatam in the chain of disciplic succession from Srila Sukadeva Gosvami, who describes the Bhagavatam from its very beginning and not whimsically to satisfy the mundaner who has very little knowledge in transcendental science. Srimad-Bhagavatam is so carefully presented that a sincere and serious person can at once enjoy the ripened fruit of Vedic knowledge simply by drinking the nectarean juice through the mouth of Sukadeva Gosvami or his bona fide representative.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.1.3)
NOTE:
“Srimad-Bhagavatam is so carefully presented that a sincere and serious person can at once enjoy the ripened fruit of Vedic knowledge simply by drinking the nectarean juice through the mouth of Sukadeva Gosvami or his bona fide representative.”
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.1.3)
OR HIS BONA FIDE REPRESENTATIVE !!!
That is Srila Prabhupada and not the so called authorized F-Iskcon GBC 2/3 hand vote Diksa-Gurus!
Speak Your Mind