Citta

quote: How do we know what is risky experimentation and what is valid innovation? ---------------- True innovation is the prerogative of realized souls. If we look at the changes made in the Gaudiya tradition that worked, and we look at who made those changes, we will no doubt see that the adhikara required for true innovation is great. Mahatmas like Bhaktivinoda Thakura and BSST don't come along every day, and when they do, they often shake the faith of those who can't recognize the essence of the teachings. Thus real innovation is often not recognized as such by those whose sraddha is tender. Time tells all, and we should "judge by the fruits." Some experiments work and some don't. It is unrealistic to think that the external and nonessential aspects of any traditon will not change over time. Prabhupada said "Do not change," but we see from his actions that he was changing things constantly, adjusting to new information and the increasing understanding of his disciples. He also said "I am simply repeating the words of my spiritual master." He was, yes, but in spirit, not in form. And If we are to follow the guru-parampara in spirit and not merely literally, then our first duty is to love Krsna. Once we do that, if details pertaining to preaching need to be changed, we will know how and to what extent to do so. Again, it all rests on adhikara. If we don't have it, we shouldn't change anything. But we should realize that there are those who do have it, and are qualified to make valid innovations. With sadhu-sanga, in time we may learn how to recognize an innovator from a deviator. -Citta Hari dasa

Prabhupada: "Then you do not understand. Acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya." Jndas "Perhaps Srila Prabhupada did not know the meaning of the word omniscient." ........................ The omniscience of a liberated devotee is mentioned in Bhagavad-gita 15.19. Krsna describes this devotee as sarva vit: ' sa sarva-vid bhajante mam.' He is sarva vit (all knowing) and thus he worships Krsna (bhajante mam). "O descendant of Bharata, one who is undeluded knows me as the Supreme Person. He knows everything and thus worships me with his entire being." Bg. 15.19 Baladeva comments that Krsna says in this verse, "One who knows me as I have described myself in the previous three verses, as the Supreme Person, is all-knowing (sarva-vit)." Visvanatha Cakravarti clearly explains that such souls are all-knowing in the sense that they know the actual meaning and tattva of all the scriptures. They are not omniscient in every respect. Baladeva Vidyabhusana says further that those who do not know Krsna in this way, even if they worship him, are not his devotees. And if they know everything else in the Vedas but do not understand this point they gain nothing. Advaitin Madhusudana Saraswati comments that the undeluded are those who know that Krsna is not merely a human being. They know that he is the Supreme Person himself. Such undeluded persons are all-knowing (sarva-vit) because they know Krsna, who is all-pervasive and thus all-knowing. The ninth Adhikarana of the fourth pada of the fourth adhyaya of Vedanta Sutra discusses the omniscience of the liberated soul over two sutras (15-16). There it is declared that the liberated soul is omniscient. However, the context reveals that this refers to one who has attained videha mukti, or liberation involving release from the body, as opposed to the condition of jivanmukti, in which one, while liberated, remains in this world pending final release. The liberated soul who has attained vastu- siddhi and has thus gone 'back to Godhead' is all knowing through his aura. He can hear the prayers of his disciples even while absorbed in Krsna lila. -------------------- Prabhupada has also said that anything said by Bhaktivinoda Thakura is as good as the Vedas. Here is what the Thakura has said about the relative/absolute issue: SB 12.1.19 states that the kings of the Kanva dynasty will rule for 345 years. Through logical analysis and in conjunction with other Puranic texts, Bhaktivinoda concludes that the correct fugure is 45 years and not 345 years. Bhaktivinoda even says that Sridhara Swami, the original commentator of the Bhagavata, is mistaken in accepting the defective reading of 345 years. A more traditional way to reconcile a discrepancy of this type would have been to show how the number of years given in the Bhagavata is actually correct and not to state outright that the Bhagavata's text is corrupt or that the original commentator was in error. For Bhaktivinoda those parts of the sastra that are are artha-prada, i.e., in relation to this world, are subject to human scrutiny. There are two points here. 1) the sastra itself has a relative aspect which deals with the world (artha-prada), and an absolute aspect that deals with transcendent reality (paramartha-prada). 2) According to Bhaktivinoda, even jivanmuktas like Sridhara Svami can be mistaken about artha-prada--the details pertaining to the relative plane of existence. JN dasa has also attempted to refute my previous statement that the guru is influenced by the culture in which he appears. On this Bhaktivinoda Thakura has said: "There is no doubt that the Visnu-purana was written by a southern pandita because there it is stated that a man should eat bitter things at the end of a meal. This is a southern practice which shows that the author has inserted the flavor of his own country into the text. There is no doubt. It is an obvious fact that a man is greatly devoted to his homeland and even the great sages were somewhat influenced by this tendency." --Citta Hari dasa

I suppose Srila Sridhara Maharaja's words weren't good enough for you. How about this? Here Prabhupada mistakes a building for Rockefeller Center twice in four days. July 10 1976 Prabhupada: This is Rockefeller? Devotee: No, Prabhupada, now everything looks like the Rockefeller Plaza. July 14, 1976 Prabhupada: And this is Rockefeller Center? Devotee: No, Prabhupada. ................... Devotee: For instance, sometimes the acarya may seem to forget something or not to know something, so from our point of view, if someone has forgotten, that is (a mistake)... Prabhupada: Then you do not understand. Acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya. Devotee: And that is the perfection. Prabhupada: That is the perfection. Hare Krsna. Devotee: So we have a misunderstanding about what perfection is? Prabhupada: Yes. Perfection here is how he is preaching bhakti cult. That's all. Here Prabhupada gives a short lesson in common sense. Thus we have to harmonize the two statements: Guru is perfect (absolute), and Guru is not perfect in terms of various details (relative). The harmony: Guru is perfect because he because he is preaching Krsna consciousness purely, because he knows Krsna, yei krsna tattva vettti sei guru hay. JNdas has a misunderstanding about what it means to be perfect according to Prabhupada. --Citta

One thing we must understand if we are to progress and bhakti is that preaching and the siddhanta are not always the same. Prabhupada often spoke to his disciples in such a way that they would listen to him and have faith in him so as not to be distracted. Thus he emphasized the absolute aspect of guru--it was necessary at the time to speak in that way to secure the faith of his fledgling disciples. After Prabhupada left the world, the big issue in Iskcon was guru-tattva. Before Prabhupada left he instructed his disciples to go to Sridhara Maharaja for siksa, which the GBC did. The necessity of Iskcon at that time was to gain a deeper understanding of guru-tattva, and so Sridhara Maharaja spoke on the subject extensively. The result is a book called Sri Guru and His Grace. While Prabhupada emphasized the absolute side of guru, Sridhara Maharaja introduced the concept of a plurality of gurus to those who came to hear him from Iskcon. As the plurality of gurus becomes apparent, so too does the relative side of Sri Guru, which before was not so obvious. In this regard, Sridhara Maharaja said: Devotee: Can you explain this concept of the absolute and relative position of the spiritual master? Srila Sridhara Maharaja: "By the special will of Krsna, gurudeva is a delegated power. If we look closely within the spiritual master, we will see the delegation of Krsna, and accordingly, we should accept him in that way. The spiritual master is a devotee of Krsna, and at the same time, the inspiration of Krsna is within him. These are the two aspects of gurudeva. He has his aspect as a Vaishnava, and the inspired side of the Vaishnava is the guru. On a fast day like ekadasi, he himself does not take any grains. He conducts himself as a Vaishnava, but his disciples offer grains to the picture of their guru on the altar. The disciples offer their spirtual master grains even on a fast day. The disciple is concerned with the delegation of the Lord, the guru's inner self, his inspired side. The inspired side of a Vaishnava is acarya, or guru. The disciple marks only the special, inspired portion within the guru. He is more concerned with that part of his character. But gurudeva himself generally poses as a Vaishnava. So, his dealings towards his disciples and his dealings with other Vaishnavas will be different. This is acintya-bhedabheda, inconceivable unity in diversity. " And this: "The position of the acarya is very intricate. It is very difficult to bring an acarya under rule. You see, that is our practical experience. You please hear and note this. The position of acarya is a relative thing and the positon of the disciple is also relative, just like the relationship between mother and child, father and son, wife and husband. Although to his godbrothers the guru will be seen in a relative position, to his disciple, the guru is absolute. So to adjust betwen the relative and the absolute is a difficult thing; it is an eternal problem. Even in krsna-lila there is enmity between madhurya-rasa and vatsalya-rasa, but when the absolute consideration comes, both rasas must be included within the fold." --Citta Hari dasa

There are two aspects to an acarya: the devotee aspect, and the guru aspect. One is relative, the other absolute. Guru is Krsna--saksad hari, and the devotee is dear to Krsna--prabhor yah priya.The Vaishnava (devotee) aspect is relative--he does not know everything at all times. The devotee side is the human side, the sweet side, the side with individual likes and dislikes, tastes, and proclivities. The Vaishnava appears in a particular time and circumstance, and is influenced to some extent by the culture in which he appears.The guru aspect is the side that is absolute, the side that puts forth the siddhanta and is possessed of aisvarya. It is not that every word that comes out of the acarya's mouth is absolute. He can make suggestions, based on what he thinkswith his spiritual mind, of what a specific disciple would be inclined to do. It's not that every utterance by the guru is made with full knowledge of how it will play out--vyaso vetti na vetti va. This is the inconceiveable nature of Sri Guru--acintya bhedabheda. --Citta Hari dasa

JN dasa: In the name of glorifying and defending Prabhupada, it is apparent that you minimize both the previous acaryas and the ones after Prabhupada. There is no question that some of the men Prabhupada gave the post of acarya to have not lived up to that. You lump my Guru Maharaja in with them, due to your experience with others who fell away. I have asked this before, and you did not answer it, so I will ask again: where has Swami B.V. Tripurari altered the Gaudiya siddhanta? Don't speak in generalities, get specific. You don't have a philosophical leg to stand on, and any objective reader here can see that. It is clear that since Prabhupada left you have not availed yourself of the company of realized sadhus. You may say that the self-effulgent acarya has not appeared yet, but that is not the case. Srila Sridhara Maharaja was a self-effulgent acarya, but you could not see him as such. This is your mistake, and it shows now. Why did you disobey Prabhupada's direct order to hear from Sridhara Maharaja? The ironic thing is that now you have appointed yourself as the protector of Prabhupada's teachings, while accusing other acaryas in good standing of being self-appointed cheaters. Look in the mirror. --Citta Hari dasa

Gauracandra: As a matter of fact, Swami Tripurari has written a commentary on the Bhagavad-gita, which is due to go to press any day now. You can find out more about his present projects at <audarya.org> and <dailysang.com> Thanks for your interest. -Citta