Harmonizing Guru-sādhu-śāstra
How to Harmonize Guru-sādhu-śāstra without undermining Prabhupada
Śrīla Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura says, sādhu-śāstra-guru-vākya, cittete kariyā aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the śāstra. The actual center is the śāstra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the śāstra, he is not a saintly person. The śāstra is the center for all. Unfortunately, at the present moment, people do not refer to the śāstras (—— Cc 2.20.352, purport)
It is--
Guru AND Sadhu AND Sastra
NOT--
Guru OR Sadhu OR Sastra
Seeing the above quote, a genuine devotee may become uncomfortable and think, “now they are going to bring something from sastra and try to prove what they think right, minimizing or even rejecting the authority of Srila Prabhupada.” The opposing party will also do the same thing and fight will go on with quotes supporting each party and no conclusions at all. (Eg. Hrdayananda Maharaja’s case)
Unfortunately, same is the case in ISKCON for the statements of Srila Prabhupada. Devotees subscribe to one opinion, search for instructions of Srila Prabhupada supporting it and then compile them to present his case minimizing the sastras’ and sadhus’ instructions. The opposing party does the same thing, and again, no conclusion. (Eg. Hrtvik movement)
Similarly we find this problem even in sticking only to the sadhu evidence. (Eg. “Jiva’s falling down or not” issue)
Above three are actually the cases of rejecting the quote of Prabhupada we opened with. In all these cases devotees failed to do “aikya” or harmonization of evidences from all the three sources; they chose to stick with only one or at the max two. Neither do they know any genuine procedure to be able to harmonize save and except their logic, which is not trained as per vedic standards.
How to go about Harmonization?
So our process is that: sādhu-guru-śāstra. We have to accept everything through saintly person, confirmed by the scripture, and described or explained by guru. Then it is perfect. The scriptures are already there, and we have to see how the scriptures are being followed by saintly persons. And if there is any difficulty, they should be explained by the spiritual master. Then it is perfect. Sādhu-guru-śāstra-vākya, tinete kariyā aikya. Scriptures you cannot understand directly. Then you have to see how the scriptural injunctions are being followed by saintly persons.Even if you cannot understand, then the spiritual master will explain to you.
—— Philosophy discussions / Discussions with Syamasundara dasa, The Evolutionists
Guru = Srila Prabhupada (at least for the his disciples)
Sadhu = Acharyas of our sampradaya, other sampradayas, and good people of varnasrama tradition [good people are strictly defined and we may not discuss it here]
Sastra = Whole vedic body starting with Sruti, Smriti (Dharma-sastras like Manu samhita), itahasa, purana, pancaratras, etc.
Sastras are already there. Say we are reading them.
Any statement has
Mukhya-vṛtti (a direct meaning) and
Lakṣaṇā vṛttis (indirect meanings).
First step would be to fully try to see if the contradiction can be removed without resorting to any kind of lakṣaṇā vṛtti (inference, interpretation or anumāna). This can be done if we get some direct statement from sādhu or śāstra that solves the matter [see one example of SP doing it at the end of session]. In case of failure to do that a genuine contradiction is generated and then:
There are only 3 possibilites:
c) Our understanding of Srila Prabhupada is wrong
Possibility of ‘a’ is zero; We cannot be in ISKCON if we accept it; He is undoubtedly above 4-defects.
Thus we are left with the possibilities b & c.
Let’s investigate ‘b’:
SP—“Then you have to see how the scriptural injunctions are being followed by saintly persons.”
>> SB 11.28.18, Siddhanta Pradipa, Sukadeva Acharya (Look at sadachara for understanding sastras)
See whether what we understand from instruction of sastra is also the understanding of sadhus?
If yes, then it is proved that our understanding of Srila Prabhupada was wrong
If no, then it is proved that our understanding of sastra was wrong
The problem is that although SP is above 4-defects we are not, and thus many times we may misunderstand his instrcutions and go off the track. The very fact that there are controversies in ISKCON and that both the sides base themselves on the instructions of SP, shows that one of them has misunderstood SP. Thus Prabhupada says—
Just like in the railway line you see two parallel lines. If they are in order, the railway carriages are carried very smoothly to the destination. Here also, there are three parallel lines—sādhu, śāstra, guru: saintly person, association of saintly person; acceptance of bona fide spiritual master, and faith in the scriptures. That's all. Then your carriage will be going nicely, without any disturbance.
——Oct 18, 1968, Seattle, Lecture:
Thus the system of guru-sādhu-śāstra is a check and balance to be on track.
No. We don’t reject it. But we understand that the purpose of sadhus and gurus cannot be different from that of sastras. Thus we have to resort to lakṣaṇā vṛtti or interpretation of that particular statement according to the laws of interpretation mentioned in mīmāṁsā śāstras; for instance, to depend on least possible number of assumptions in the hypothesis we frame. Anyway, that is a detailed topic.
[Note: In case guru is not liberated person free from 4-defects then his statement is to be rejected as faulty if it clashes with that from the other two. Same is the case for the evidences of sense perception and inference—if they clash with any of guru-sādhu- or śāstra, they are to be rejected as faulty.]
The logic behind this is that—
· All instructions of guru, sādhu, and śāstras present the same truth and thus there is a continuum in the whole body of information. This is technically called ekavākyatā, which Śrīla Prabhupāda calls here “aikya.” Thus harmonization is must.
· Now, in case of genuine contradiction between instrcutions, it is imperative to interprete one statement or others, if we want to harmonize
· The only question left is that which statement is to be interpreted.
· So the quote from SP we mentioned in the beginning, gives us direction in this matter—śāstras always have to be taken in their direct meaning while other statements need to be interpreted in case of controversy.
· How SP comes to this conclusion, we will see in our next session: The science of Evidence
END for now. This was the first dose. Step-by-step we will carefully try to understand.
Session 1: Summary
· Only by following the trio of guru-sadhu-sastra can one know things surely
· Sastra is the center of trio
· Clinging to only one of three will just end in quote fights without conclusion
- Only śāstra (Eg. Hrdayananda Maharaja’s issue)
- Only SP (Eg. Rtvik issue)
- Only sādhu (Eg. “Jīva fell down or not” issue)
· Reason is that we failed to do “aikya” or harmonization in want of proper hermeneutic procedures as well as trained logic according to Vedic standards
· How to go about doing harmonization?
Sastras = Sruti, Smriti (Dharma-sastras like Manu samhita), Puranas, Itihasas, pancaratras, etc.
Sadhu = All Sampradaya acaryas and good men of Varnasrama tradition.
Guru = Srila Prabhupada (at least for his disciples);
Mukhya-vṛtti = direct meaning of statement;
Lakṣaṇā vṛtti = indirect or interpreted meanings of statement
First of all, try to solve without resorting to lakṣaṇā of any statement, by trying to get some direct references from sadhu or sastra that directly (in its mukhya-vṛtti) solves the contradiction.
· In case of failure to do that there is genuine contradiction and thus there are 3 possibilities—
a) Srila Prabhupada is Wrong
b) Our understanding of Sastras is Wrong
c) Our understanding of Srila Prabhupada is Wrong
· Option ‘a’ is not acceptable lest we must be out of ISKCON. We are left with b & c
· Then we have to see whether our understanding of sastric statement is same as what sadhus understand in this regard?
If Yes, then our understanding of Srila Prabhupada is Wrong
If No, then our understanding of Sastras is Wrong
Although Prabhupada is free from 4-defects we are not and thus we may misunderstand him and go off the track. Thus, guru-sadhu-sastra is the check and balance system which, as Srila Prabhupada explains, are like parallel lines of a railway track which keep our train on the track.
We have to interprete it (do lakṣaṇā vṛtti with) applying the standard rules of interpretation given in mīmāṁsā śāstras. It is a detailed topic we won’t deal with at this moment
· Why resort to lakṣaṇā?
- When there is a genuine contradiction, it cannot be solved without interpreting either one statement or other.
- The only question remains is which one to interprete?
- Prabhupada gives answer that sastra is to be always taken in its direct meaning and others are to be interpreted accordingly
- How Prabhupada comes to this conclusion from sastras itself, we will see in our next session
· It is well known and well documented in sastras that Varṇa is decided by janma or birth
· Deciding Varṇa by birth (as almost the sole condition) was an established norm in varnasrama society of both vaisnavas and non-vaisnavas
· But there were also examples whose varṇas were decided from qualities although they were not qualified by birth. Eg. Satyakama Jabala was made brahmana
· Thus a doubt is generated even in the minds of great souls like Yudhisthira and thus he asks on a few ocassions the true criteria for judging one’s varna. The answers given were qualities and work.
· But sruti itself says that birth is the qualification and sadhus or tradition follows that from time immemorial and great sages like Vyasadeva support it
· At very few places it is said that varna is to be judged by qualities (like Bg 4.13 and SB 7.11.35)
· What to do?
· Here comes statements from sastras which clarify this—
· By Strictly following the process of saṁskāras that are enjoined for one’s varṇa and by strictly follwing one’s own dharma, a soul that is of similar quality to father’s will take shelter of that house and thus varṇa of that progeny can be fixed from that of his father.
· Thus both types of statements found in sastras as well as tradition (sadhu) are justified
· Please note that in trying to solve this contradiction mukhya vṛtti of the statements of sastras have been kept intact including that of the statement that solves the contradiction. This is the best harmonization as no lakṣaṇā vṛtti is sought.
Addendum to Session 1:
· In cases where Srila Prabhupada directly says “sastras say like this,” while by our reading sastras we find an opposite understanding, then the only option left is that we have not understood sastra proeprly. We cannot say—
a) I have not understood Prabhupada, or
b) Prabhupada has not understood sastra
Reason is that we receive sastras through guru and sadhu and thus we keep our understanding of sastras below that of guru’s and sadhu’s understanding of sastra.
· Same is the case with Srila Prabhupada’s direct statements explaining sadhu.
· Example: in purport to SB 1.19.6, SP says that according Jiva Gosvami, Praiksit Maharaja sat on the bank of Yamuna that passes from Delhi. He also explains logic of Jiva Gosvami saying that in those times Yamuna, that passes from Delhi was also known as Ganga and only after she reaches Mathura she was known as Yamuna.
Now if you see the commentary of Jiva Gosvami, he quotes a verse from Varaha Puran—gaṅgā śata-guṇā punyā māthure mama maṇḍale, yamunā viśrutā devī atra kāryā na vicāraṇā—“Gaṅgā, when flows through mathura, becomes hundred times more sanctified and is known as Yamunā. Of this there should be no doubt.”
But if you go to original Varaha Purana, then there verses, although read the same, are combined differently; the first line of this verese is last line of previous verse there and second line of this verse is first line of next verse there. Thus another meaning that comes out of it is—“Yamuna is a river that flows through Mathura mandala and is hundred times more sanctified than ganga. Of this there should be no doubt.”
Now, as the followers of guru-parampara, we accept the first explanation as SP and Jiva Gosvami has explicitly subscribed to that understanding of sastra.
[Attached is the researched article on this topic]
·
No comments:
Post a Comment