Date: 12/21/22
Dear Srimati Govinda Nandini Devi.
Please accept my blessings and well-wishes in remembrance of my Divine Masters.
I received your email dated 12/9/22 and expect to respond further as time allows. I will respond in part herewith.
I told you I try to reply to correspondence in the order I receive it and that’s generally true, but there are exceptions. Our correspondence is one such exception because, while I attempt to ”dissect like frogs” your earlier emails, new points of interest arise which I may feel the need to respond to before returning to earlier ones. I also received an email from someone else (“the real guru parampara”) I thought should be handled immediately and I did so. I have included that response after my signature.
Before going further I will note that in our sampradaya effective persuasion on the acceptance of any point is based on the following criteria.
Prabhupāda: [Hindi] Muhammad, he also did not believe in the Vedic literature. But according to Vedic literature, anyone who does not believe in the Vedic literature, he is nāstika. Just like the Muhammadans, they say, “Anyone who does not believe in Koran, he is kafir.” The Christians say, “Anyone who does not believe in the Bible, they are heathens.” That is there everywhere. Similarly, Lord Caitanya said that veda na manīyā bauddha haila nāstika.
He is giving the definition, because we have to follow the great personalities, great ācāryas. That is our process. We do not make any research, or we do not make any statement made by us. We simply accept the injunctions given by great ācāryas. Ācāryopāsanam. That is the process of Vedic system. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12].
One must approach a spiritual master and learn from him. So whatever spiritual master says, that is accepted. Sādhu guru śāstra vākya. Real evidence is, it must be stated in the scriptures, it must be explained by the spiritual master or saintly persons. That is evidence.
Guest (3): Śastra-vākya-pramāṇa.
Prabhupāda: Śāstra-vākya-pramāṇa. And it should be known through the spiritual master. Just like nowadays Bhagavad-gītā is being interpreted in so many foolish ways, because they do not accept explanation from the authority. They become themselves authorities. Therefore misused. That is not explanation. Somebody is explaining that Kurukṣetra means this body, pañca-pāṇḍava means the senses. These are all nonsense. You have to accept Bhagavad-gītā as it is.
When you cannot understand, you should get it explained by your spiritual master. Therefore one has to accept a spiritual master to understand. Tad-vijnanārtham. In order to understand that transcendental science one must approach the bona fide spiritual master. That is injunction.
—Sri A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Date: Dec. 12, 1970,
“All scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by śruti, smṛti and a sound logical basis.”
—BVS, CC Ādi 7.106, Purport
“[W]e accept Vedic laws without argument. That is the principle followed by scholars. If you can substantiate your statements by quotations from the Vedas, then they are accepted. You are not required to substantiate them in other ways. There are different kinds of pramāṇas, or evidences. Proof by Vedic quotation is called śruti-pramāṇa. As in the legal court if you can give statements from the law book your statement is accepted, so all statements you give, if supported by śruti-pramāṇas, are accepted by scholars.”
—BVS, The Science of Self-Realization, Chap. Six
Arguments based on personal opinion are irrelevant. Everyone has an opinion and thinks his opinion is supreme. It may be supreme, but only if it can be proven on the basis of strong evidence from sādhu guru śāstra vākya.
Feelings, sentiment, expressions of ”the heart” and so forth, being most personal, do not lend themselves to the external and objective verification needed to judge their validity. The same is true for ”I believe”, ”I think”, ”I feel” and so on.
To a large extent devotees tend to think “they are proceeding very happily and practicing very happily, but they are not seeing themselves through my eyes.” You have indicated more than once that you know what is what and “are proceeding very happily and practicing very happily.” But you are not seeing through my eyes.
Srila Govinda Maharaja: I have seen many in our line who think they are proceeding very happily and practicing very happily, but they are not seeing themselves through my eyes. Once, I said, “What is devotion and what is emotion?” Are you under emotion or are you under devotion? You cannot see.” Hearing this Sripad Janardana Maharaja said, “Oh Maharaja, you are chastising me.” Actually it is not to chastise anyone, I want to be serious for everyone and for myself also.
Already sixty four years of my life have passed and how much longer I shall live I do not know. If we are under emotion, then we must leave that and try to go to devotion. Heart and soul I am trying. Guru Maharaja gave me some service. Previously in the time of Guru Maharaja whatever service I did he would digest. If I did right or if I did wrong, he is digesting that and my service is getting some position, but now all my good and bad is coming to me, and so I must be even more serious. And all the devotees are really very good, otherwise why are they coming in the line of Krishna Consciousness? Then I must be serious for them also. I must teach them, “Please come this way, don’t go that way.” That is my duty given by Srila Guru Maharaja, and if I can do that seriously and with all sincerity, then they will get the result, I will get the result and visvam purnam sukhayate – the whole world will be benefited.
—”Emotion or Devotion”, From an informal talk at the London Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math – 26 October 1993
In your email to me dated 12/9/22 you wrote.
And now I will allow myself to joke: you dissect my letters like frogs 😉 There’s no need for that. In our Vaishnava tradition, it is customary to give the help that is asked of you. If they ask for a glass of water, then do not give a bag of rice.
Srila Govinda Maharaja ordered me to serve the chair of acharya. In doing so I see what he described in the paragraph just above from “Emotion or Devotion” (“I have seen many in our line who think they are proceeding very happily and practicing very happily, but they are not seeing themselves through my eyes.”) and feel compelled to respond in a similar fashion. Of course I see him as a perfect pure devotee and myself as an imperfect fallen soul. But even an imperfect doctor is expected to serve humanity to the best of his capacity, rather than ignore the symptoms of disease and allow them to spread untreated. I follow that idea, as Srila Sridhara Maharaja advised us to do.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: . . . Tamal Kṛṣṇa asked, “That I do not consider myself quite fit to do this work. Then should I go on?” And what did I answer?
. . .
Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: . . .
And Jīva Goswāmī says jñāna śāthya vittha śāthya. “I have got some money. Another person is suffering, can’t pay. If I keep tight that money and he dies fasting without food, then I will be responsible for that, vittha śāthya. So jñāna śāthya is there. I have got some knowledge. I can help my neighbour but I don’t do that, then I’ll be responsible, I shall commit some offence against the society and against the cause.”
You see, in this world this also came to me. I asked one doctor, “What do you know? Do you know about the disease perfectly? How do you venture to cure, to treat a patient? You have got meagre knowledge. You don’t know his body fully. You venture, you are wrong.”
The doctor submitted to me, but the reaction came in my mind. Then the whole method of treatment will vanish? All half-knowing, not anyone to be found with full, perfect knowledge, then this curing process should be abolished? It is not possible.
So in the case of all culture one should help others in good faith. In good faith whatever knowledge he has got he must help others with that knowledge and guidance, sincerely. So in that spirit we may take it. Otherwise we’ll be blamed.
— 81.03.02.C_81.03.03.A
In addition, Srila Govinda Maharaja, during his time with us, told his disciples to see me (and my peers, disciples of Srila Swami Maharaja and Srila Sridhara Maharaja) as a spiritual uncle, Godbrother of their guru.
What is an uncle? He is loved by his brother, older and more experienced than his brother’s children and feels some responsibility to help them in the void left after his brother’s passing. He is not the same as the children’s father and the relationship with his nieces and nephews can vary widely.
Children are expected to obey their father. Their relationship with an uncle is not so well defined. While an uncle should be respected, he does not necessarily have to be obeyed. His nieces and nephews have some latitude in deciding if his advice and direction are in line with their father’s, or not. There is a lot of room for negotiation in this relationship. An uncle may be seen as more like a father or more like an older friend. The relationship may be very close, or rather distant. Generally, the nieces and nephews are free to decide how the relationship will best serve their interests. For example, ISKCON’s gurus and GBC at first welcomed Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s guidance as their spiritual uncle, then they rejected it. When they welcomed it, they did so based on the direction of sādhu guru śāstra vākya. They resorted to other criteria (“the dollar, diplomacy, and despotism, in the name of devotion, dedication, and divinity”) in deciding to reject it.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: So I told, the dollar, diplomacy, and despotism, in the name of devotion, dedication, and divinity. It is going on like that. This is my conception. The play of dollar, and diplomacy, and despotism, in the name of devotion, dedication, and divinity.
. . .
Bhāratī Mahārāja: So Mahārāja, these persons are our God-brothers, but personally I don’t feel any necessity in the future to even associate with them in any way.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: I think sincere men will not associate. That is a dangerous, heinous attempt in humanity. What to speak of in the religious world.
— 82.05.18.B
In my capacity as acharya I have only one recourse for helping others, it is to rely on our predecessor acharyas for their methods of diagnosis and treatment of the disease known as forgetfulness of God. The prescription is always the same: follow the instructions of Sri Guru and the previous acharyas. These instructions are not widely known and many who think they know them harbor some misunderstanding about them. When I detect this I do what those before me have done, try to remove the misunderstanding.
My diagnosis is, most often, rejected. When it is accepted the treatment process is inevitably distasteful or even painful and in time that is also rejected. I cannot force anyone to accept my diagnosis or prescription, or adopt my treatment. After I have given them they are generally rejected and a second opinion is sought from someone whose treatment is thought to be more tasteful and/or less painful. The question will then arise ”Why do you not adopt the practices of the others who are sought out after rejecting you.” The answer is: I do not believe their treatments are effective. They are offered due to ignorance or, at worst, as a way of cheating others in order to gain for themselves one or more of the following: kanak, kāminī, pratiṣṭhā.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: Kanak, kāminī, pratiṣṭhā. Generally, those undesirable activities will come under these three groups. Pratiṣṭhā is fine, but wants to take the whole credit within his clutches. Just as you say about Tamal Kṛṣṇa. Tamal Kṛṣṇa says, “I am the person who has received the maximum grace of Guru Mahārāja, and confidence.” That is pratiṣṭhā, may come in the category of pratiṣṭhā. Another is kanak, which means money, men and money, the power. He’s got unquenchable thirst to acquire money and men and power; master of power. Another is kāminī; that he’s falling prey to the women charm and mixing beyond the limit. These three classes of complaint may come. And the highest is pratiṣṭhā, and there also it may include that he’s even excluding Guru Mahārāja, and he’s trying to take his position, that he’s greater than him.
— 80.08.19.B
You, or anyone, may reject my assessment that the leaders of ISKCON fell victim to the influence of kanak, kāminī and pratiṣṭhā. You may say it is only my opinion, which is subject to the flaws mentioned previously. I also had some self-doubt and wondered if it was they who were subject to the influence of the triad of material diseases or me. I did not accept my vision as correct until I heard Srila Sridhara Maharaja draw the same conclusion. Later on Srila Govinda Maharaja spoke of it also. This, among others, was Srila Sridhara Maharaja’s assessment.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja: And you have got appreciation that the higher conception of Mahāprabhu’s theology may be taken from door to door. Began by Swāmī Mahārāja. Your sincere heart is making more progress than the general ISKCON body towards the truth. This is my conception. So how that sort of realisation, how others may take a share of that. That sort of responsibility what you feel within you, I don’t know how far. The true conception, proper conception, I am interested that my Guru Mahārāja came out with the high standard, and that was begun by Swāmī Mahārāja in a very extensive, wonderful extensive way. But the proper realisation of the truth should be distributed to the people. Rādhā-Govinda sevā.
The ISKCON, according to me, are busy with dollar, diplomacy, and very daring action in the name of devotion and dedication. But the brāhmaṇaic way of approaching the truth, that is of higher conception. This dollar and diplomacy, this maybe utilised for the purpose, but the more higher basis must be on brāhmaṇaic, on character, realisation, truthfulness, all these things. That will have real hold over the other theological conceptions. There are so many theological conceptions in the world and we are to deal with them, and that cannot be purchased only by money and grandeur.
A comparative study of theology, the ontological aspect, that must be cultivated, and that must be preached throughout the world. That can stand for long time. By bribing, by bribe, we cannot capture persons for long time, but by distributing satisfaction of their inner hankering in the theological and ontological way.
So that sort of high literature, and reply, answers to their demands, all these things there must be on paper. Some literature and character backing, and the preachers also will be there. Jayatīrtha Mahārāja has proved his capacity as a preacher. But only his weakness for the truth has banished him. Rāmacandra was banished, though He was the real heir of the throne. But something came between and Rāmacandra was banished. So Jayatīrtha Mahārāja he’s banished from his throne.
— 82.05.01.C_82.05.02.A
After my assessment of the ISKCON leaders was verified by Srila Sridhara Maharaja and Srila Govinda Maharaja I accepted it to be true for I believe they fully represent the siddhanta coming in our line of sādhu guru śāstra vākya.
Their opinion was arrived at through careful dissection and examination of the words and behavior of the ISKCON gurus and GBC. Since their conclusions were derived by examining various parts of these entities we know there is a legitimate need for dissection (analysis) which you made reference to — and objected to — in your most recent (12/9/22) email to me.
And now I will allow myself to joke: you dissect my letters like frogs 😉 There’s no need for that. In our Vaishnava tradition, it is customary to give the help that is asked of you. If they ask for a glass of water, then do not give a bag of rice.
Yes, I dissect statements to examine their validity. That is the method of preaching shown by the acharyas in our sampradaya.
“I am a proof reader. I always see what is right and what is wrong. My father trained me in proofreading, but I am not only a proofreader of the press. I am a proofreader of the world. I proofread men: I see their faults and try to correct them.”
— Srila Saraswati Thakura, Lecture, 1926
Dissection is a means of examination used to find a broken part (in a machine) or a diseased or problematic organ in a body. Biopsy is also used for this purpose. A small sample may be removed and examined under a microscope or in a culture in order to diagnose a malady that may cause further injury if not treated. These are scientific methods used to find what is true, what is false, what is real and unreal, and so on, in order to do good for everyone. It is mentioned in the Bhagavatam.
dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo ’tra paramo nirmatsarāṇāṁ satāṁ
vedyaṁ vāstavam atra vastu śivadaṁ tāpa-trayonmūlanam
Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhāgavata Purāṇa propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart. The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all. Such truth uproots the threefold miseries.
—ŚB 1.1.2
Dissection of various ideas, philosophies, religious and spiritual conceptions and practices enables us to ascertain what should be rejected and what should be accepted. Those who reject this method of examination are lazy or misguided and do so at their peril for, without the ability to distinguish between reality and illusion one will remain steeped in the suffering caused by the illusion.
There’s no need for that.
Then why are you doing it with me? I didn’t ask you anything about the subject of dissection. Neither did I ask for any comments from you on the subject.
When you write to me “There’s no need for that [dissection].”, it is your way of dissecting my words. It also violates your position: “In our Vaishnava tradition, it is customary to give the help that is asked of you [and nothing more]. . . . .”
If there’s no need for dissection then, ”Physician heal thyself.”, don’t dissect my words. Show by your example ”There’s no need for that.” That will help substantiate your points ”There’s no need for that [dissection].” and “In our Vaishnava tradition, it is customary to give the help that is asked of you [and nothing more]. . . . .”
In our Vaishnava tradition, it is customary to give the help that is asked of you.
Yes. I am trying to do that.
But when a doctor is called to see a patient for one set of symptoms, if he sees other symptoms not detected by the patient, shall he not address them in order to prevent additional suffering?
Is it ”customary” “in our Vaishnava tradition” to chastise the person who is trying to supply the help that has been asked for, as you are doing in repremanding me?
You asked for my help in different ways, but I see you need help in other ways and I am trying to give that help. Apparently you are doing the same with me. I did not ask for your instruction about dissection but you feel I need some help understanding the subject so you are offering it to me, even though I did not ask for it. Isn’t that true? This is an admission against interest. In other words, while you tell me one should not give help that is not asked for you are doing that very thing. This is, thereby, your admission that you believe giving unasked for help is desirable behavior, behavior you exhibit yourself.
If they ask for a glass of water, then do not give a bag of rice.
This is partially correct. It is not fully correct. It only applies when there is a binary choice about what to give. When we are asked by a vaishnava to give him water, we should not (on our own) decide to give him milk instead (milk versus water is the analogy I’ve heard used). The binary choice here is water vs one’s arbitrary choice of milk.
What has happened in the transaction between you and me is that you asked for my help on certain matters and I am offering additional help, which you did not ask for and do not appreciate.
For perspective, examining your analogy of water vs bag of rice, consider this: a devotee asks for a glass of water. Therefore, you supply a glass of water. While doing so you notice his store of rice is completely depleted. Being attentive to serving this devotee you return and offer him a bag of rice. I don’t believe you would be chastised by him for doing this, neither have you done anything wrong.
Actually I believe the vaishnava will think something along this line: ”I asked Govinda Nandini Devi for a glass of water and she brought it to me. Then, being very affectionate to me and attentive to my needs she also gave me a bag of rice. Krishna is so kind upon me (as in the example of Krishna delivering sweet rice to Sripada Madhavendra Puri, although he had not asked for it) and He is showing His kindness through His agent, Srimati Govinda Nandini Devi.”
And now I will allow myself to joke: you dissect my letters like frogs 😉 There’s no need for that.
There is a need. The purpose of dissection is the expansion and propagation of knowledge. These are duties assigned to us by Sri Sri Guru Gauranga:
CC Madhya 7.128
yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa
āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa
“Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.”
That is Their instruction for all of us and it is further emphasized for sannyasis. To go forth and persuade others to accept Krishna Consciousness, to do relief work, as conceived by our gurus, lies at the very heart of ”Gurudeva’s Mission” and is the foundation of it.
When conversing with a sannyasi you should expect he will try to persuade you to accept his conception of Krishna Consciousness. Careful examination (dissection) of your statements to see how closely they allign with our siddhanta is the process for doing that. It is a feature, not a bug, of such discussions.
CC Madhya 25 Text 20:
“When people came to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu to discuss the principles of various scriptures, the Lord defeated their false conclusions and established the predominance of devotional service to the Lord. With logic and argument He very politely changed their minds.”
The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna is one, a complete whole. But He has many parts. To know these parts requires a dissection, in the form of a critical examination, of the whole. He has done this Himself and, for our benefit, He has empowered others to do this as well.
In his Adi Lila of Sri Chaitanya-charitamrta Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami spent a great deal of time doing what you might call dissecting Sri Krishna, Sri Krishna Chaitanya, Their devotees, Their abode and many other things such as Their siddhanta.
Understanding the parts of the Supreme Whole enables us to understand He has form, qualities, pastimes, energies (cit, taṭasthā and maya shaktis), parts and parcels (such as ourselves, jivas), expansions, incarnations and so on. If you object to this dissection, if you disallow it, what remains will be an impersonal conception of God that leads one towards the mayavadi conception.
Originally there was one word, Om, by which Vedic knowledge was communicated by Lord Vishnu to Lord Brahma. Lord Brahma dissected, (divided into smaller parts and expanded) some of that knowledge derived from his meditation on the single word (Om) and gave it to his first disciple, Sri Narada as śruti (aka: Veda). Sri Narada, in turn, explained that knowledge to his disciple Vyasadeva who explained (dissected/expanded) it further as Brahma-sūtra (aka: Vedānta-sūtra).
CC Madhya 25
Text 87:
After saying this, Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī sat down with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and began to question the Lord as follows.
Text 88:
Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī said, “We can understand the faults You have pointed out in the Māyāvāda philosophy. All the explanations given by Śaṅkarācārya are imaginary.
Text 89:
“My dear Lord, whatever direct meaning You have given when explaining the Brahma-sūtra is certainly very wonderful to all of us.
Text 90:
“You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and therefore You have inconceivable energies. I wish to hear from You briefly about the Brahma-sūtra.”
Text 91:
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “I am an ordinary living being, and therefore My knowledge is very insignificant. However, the meaning of the Brahma-sūtra is very grave because its author, Vyāsadeva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.
Text 92:
“The purport of the Vedānta-sūtra is very difficult for an ordinary person to understand, but Vyāsadeva, out of his causeless mercy, has personally explained the meaning.
Text 93:
“If the Vedānta-sūtra is explained by Vyāsadeva himself, who has written it, its original meaning can be understood by the people in general.
Text 94:
“The meaning of the sound vibration oṁkāra is present in the Gāyatrī mantra. The same is elaborately explained in the four ślokas of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam known as the catuḥ-ślokī.
Text 95:
“Whatever was spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead to Lord Brahmā in those four verses of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was also explained to Nārada by Lord Brahmā.
Text 96:
“Whatever Lord Brahmā told Nārada Muni was again explained by Nārada Muni to Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva later considered these instructions in his mind.
Text 97:
“Śrīla Vyāsadeva considered that whatever he had received from Nārada Muni as an explanation of oṁkāra he would elaborately explain in his book Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as a commentary on the Brahma-sūtra.
Without the dissection of Brahma-sūtra (Vedānta-sūtra) in the form of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, it cannot be properly understood.
CC Madhya 25.153
ataeva bhāgavata karaha vicāra
ihā haite pābe sūtra-śrutira artha-sāra
Synonyms
ataeva — therefore; bhāgavata — Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam; karaha vicāra — try to understand scrutinizingly; ihā haite — from this; pābe — you will get; sūtra-śrutira — of the Vedic philosophy, the Brahma-sūtra; artha-sāra — the actual meaning.
Translation
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu advised Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī, “Study Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam very scrutinizingly. Then you will understand the actual meaning of the Brahma-sūtra.”
Purport
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura states that without studying Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam one cannot understand the purport of the Brahma-sūtra (Vedānta-sūtra) or the Upaniṣads. If one tries to understand Vedānta philosophy and the Upaniṣads without studying Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, one will be bewildered and, construing a different meaning, will gradually become an atheist or an impersonalist.
This dissection of Brahma-sūtra is taken even further in the text of Sri Chaitanya-charitamrta.
Dissection of spiritual conceptions may be invited or forced upon us. Both means have been accepted by our sampradaya.
In the very beginning of Vedānta-sūtra no question was asked. Vyasa began instead with this directive: athāto brahma jijñāsā, “Now is the time to inquire about the Absolute Truth.” With his words, he forced us to consider the topic of Absolute Truth.
Santana Goswami’s approach was different, for our enlightenment he took it upon himself to inquire about his ultimate good. Thus he approached Sri Chaitanya with some questions.
CC Madhya 20.102
‘ke āmi’, ‘kene āmāya jāre tāpa-traya’
ihā nāhi jāni — ‘kemane hita haya’
“Who am I? Why do the threefold miseries always give me trouble? If I do not know this, how can I be benefited?
CC Madhya 20.103
‘sādhya’-‘sādhana’-tattva puchite nā jāni
kṛpā kari’ saba tattva kaha ta’ āpani”
“Actually I do not know how to inquire about the goal of life and the process for obtaining it. Being merciful upon me, please explain all these truths.”
Mahaprabhu then carefully dissected them and, in doing so, provided us with very important explanations we might otherwise not received.
When you go out to the street for kirtana is it because the people there invited you? I’m sure they did not. But you go there anyway because you know it is something they need. They need to hear the chanting of the holy names of Krishna. They don’t know this. But you know it to be their most urgent need, for it is the only means they’ll be delivered from the influence of Kali to the position of servant of Sri Sri Guru Gauranga. It is the starting point by which they will gain eternal knowledge and bliss, the things everyone wants whether they know it or not. Some may refuse the help you are trying to give, some may even tell you to go away. You don’t stop; because you are like me, you believe you know something that is for the good of others and you will try to give it to them even if it seems they do not like it or appreciate it.
That’s my excursus on dissection.
you dissect my letters like frogs 😉 There’s no need for that.
You may want to confine me inside a box that does not allow me the freedom to dissect your remarks. That’s your prerogative, but I doubt you can support that idea of yours on the basis of authoritative references. ISKCON’s GBC and SCS Math’s International Acharya Board (”IAB”) tried and failed.
If you think you can surpass them and offer references that are more persuasive, I will look forward to seeing them.
Until then I will proceed with these remarks as my guide.
Srila Govinda Maharaja: I have seen many in our line who think they are proceeding very happily and practicing very happily, but they are not seeing themselves through my eyes. Once, I said, “What is devotion and what is emotion?” Are you under emotion or are you under devotion? You cannot see.” Hearing this Sripad Janardana Maharaja said, “Oh Maharaja, you are chastising me.” Actually it is not to chastise anyone, I want to be serious for everyone and for myself also.
I hope all is well with you and look forward to any arguments to the above you may put forth on the basis of sādhu guru śāstra vākya.
Affectionately yours,
Swami B.K. Giri
The email that got inserted between our ongoing correspondence.
“Is ‘the real guru parampara’ Real?”