Divine Governance and the Omniscience of Guru

[Shakti-Fan 0]

Syamarani dasi: One of your disciples asked me to ask you something. He is hoping you will kindly reconcile something regarding the omniscience of Guru. He says that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wrote this in his scripture called Divine Governance:

 

"But it is not for us or anyone to fully know the ways of God. We are only aware of that much of the divine activity as is helpful to us for His service. The least particle of such knowledge is more than sufficient for all the purposes of our pure souls. The person who knows God does not understand His ways in the sense in which Godhead understands them. He understands them in the measure that is necessary for having his conscious share in those activities as a subservient of His subservients"

 

"On this mundane plane, in the conditioned state, we are anxious to know all things in the fullest measure, even as God Himself knows them. This bad ambition, properly enough, is impossible of realization. If it were possible for us to know everything, the distinction between God and ourselves would cease. Such ambition is the outcome of our attitude of disloyalty towards God. It proves that we are not willing to tolerate the domination of God. We are anxious to become God. This unnatural delusion is kept up by our experiences of this world." (Divine Governance, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura)

 

It seems from this that the pure devotee is not omniscient, though you often say he is omniscient.

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] I have told this so many times.

 

[syamarani dasi:] The devotee is asking why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura wrote this. "But it is not for us or anyone to fully know the ways of God. We are only aware of that much of the divine activity as is helpful to us for His service." We can only understand him in a measure...

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] What is there to reconcile. What Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura is telling is okay.

 

[syamarani dasi:] This seems to say that the soul cannot be omniscient, even in its pure state.

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] Then why did Srila Suta Gosvami say that his Guru, Srila Sukadeva Gosvami can enter everyone's hearts?

 

suta uvaca

yam pravrajantam anupetam apeta-krtyam

dvaipayano viraha-katara ajuhava

putreti tan-mayataya taravo 'bhinedus

tam sarva-bhuta-hrdayam munim anato ’smi

 

[srila Suta Gosvami said: Let me offer my respectful obeisances unto that great sage who can enter the hearts of all. When he went away to take up the renounced order of life , leaving home without undergoing reformation by the sacred thread or the ceremonies observed by the higher castes, his father, Vyasadeva, fearing separation from him, cried out, "O my son!" Indeed, only the trees, which were absorbed in the same feelings of separation, echoed in response to the begrieved father.

What Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saravati Thakura has told is right, and in the same time it is okay to say that the Guru is omniscient. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.2)]

 

[syamarani dasi:] How do we reconcile the two statements?

 

[sripad Madhava Maharaja:] Srila Sarasvati Thakura said that Krsna is omniscient and the jiva in his perfect stage is omniscient, but not like Krsna.

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] Yes, only like that. He is not like Krsna.

 

[sripad Madhava Maharaja:] There must be some distinction between God and the jiva.

 

na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate

na tat-samas cabhyadhikas ca drsyate

parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate

svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca

 

[“The Supreme Lord has nothing to do, and no one is found to be equal to or greater than Him, for everything is done naturally and systematically by His multifarious energies." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8)]

 

[Krsna-priya dasi:] I am helping with the preparation of your Gopi-gita lectures for publication. In the commentaries of Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura and also in your lectures, it states: "If Krsna says" or "Krsna may say" or "Krsna says." In these instances, are the gopis seeing Krsna directly? Or are they seeing a sphurti (vision)? Or are they just thinking of Him and imagining what He is saying or might say? After all, they are searching for Him in that chapter.

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] It is very difficult to understand the gopis' mood without their mercy. When they are absorbed in meditation on Krsna, they see Him and converse with Him.

 

Through meditation, the gopis hear and realize all these things. The gopis meditate and think, "if Krsna would hear what we say, He may reply like this or like that." They know: "He will say that."

 

[sripad Madhava Maharaja:] Srila Jiva Gosvami and Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura have said that Krsna manifested in their hearts.

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] Srila Sanatana Gosvami has told us in his commentary that we must pray to the gopis, "Please manifest the meanings of your words."

[Guest guest]

 

[syamarani dasi:] How do we reconcile the two statements?

 

[sripad Madhava Maharaja:] Srila Sarasvati Thakura said that Krsna is omniscient and the jiva in his perfect stage is omniscient, but not like Krsna.

 

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] Yes, only like that. He is not like Krsna.

 

[sripad Madhava Maharaja:] There must be some distinction between God and the jiva.

 

na tasya karyam karanam ca vidyate

na tat-samas cabhyadhikas ca drsyate

parasya saktir vividhaiva sruyate

svabhaviki jnana-bala-kriya ca

 

[“The Supreme Lord has nothing to do, and no one is found to be equal to or greater than Him, for everything is done naturally and systematically by His multifarious energies." (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.8)]

 

[

Sometimes we hear about what one acharya says piecemeal, out of context.

So a few months ago it seemed that the Narayana Maharaja followers were saying that the guru is omniscient just like Lord Krsna, but here we see the qualifier. I think that there were some big debates over the issue but now we can see that it is a mute point.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

Sometimes we hear about what one acharya says piecemeal, out of context.

So a few months ago it seemed that the Narayana Maharaja followers were saying that the guru is omniscient just like Lord Krsna, but here we see the qualifier. I think that there were some big debates over the issue but now we can see that it is a mute point.

Exactly that's why I posted this thread. The same thing is true of Srila Prabhupada's books; If we take certain statements out of context it will not only sound like he is contradicting previous acharyas but that he is contradicting himself. Here is where so many devotees become confused.

Then others will take a statement from acharya A to show how he differs from acharya B not knowing that in another place acharya A is saying the same thing that acharya B is saying, and visa versa. Then we are quoting "our" acharya to blaspheme another acharya but in turn we are also blaspheming "our" acharya, and some even have web sites set up just for such a purpose.

[vijay 0]

The quote that from narayan mahraja before definately seemed like omnicient.

Im also not sure how the verse in bhagvatam that says he can enter the hearts of all means all-knowing, it may mean in the context of things that through the knowledge of bhagvatam he can enter the hearts of all, or through his attractive features enter the heart of all. Anyway need other devotees or/and past acaryas to verify that.

 

Narayana Maharaja Germany: Dec 12, 2001:

“Nowadays there are so many devotees who were personally following your Prabhupada, and by that they came in contact with this transcendental life. But now they are thinking that he was not sarvajna, not all-knowing or omniscient. What was he? Foolish? Ignorant? You know in His boyhood, that Krishna performed so many pastimes in which he appeared like a totally ignorant boy. But that does not mean He is ignorant or that He is not omniscient. And, if He is omniscient, why should His associates not be so? They must be. (Jadurani devi dasi brings up the point about child abuse in the gurukula. How could it have gone on if Prabhupada was omniscient, or all knowing?) Narayana Maharaja explains about Prabhupada being omniscient and child abuse occurring in ISKCON:

“If those in the gurukula are not offensive they will get some good impressions, samskaras, in the heart—by sadhu-sanga. Srila Swami Maharaja knowingly did something like this for the gain of the whole world—the whole universe. He has given krpa, mercy, to all. Prabhupada did not do anything improper. He was sarvajna (all knowing), and he wanted to do good for all. It was not the fault of Prabhupada; it was fault of their bad karma of past births and also this birth. We should realize this.

Although some are not realizing this, still he will help them. If those who attended gurukulas, who performed bad activities in past lives, had not come in contact with Srila Swami Maharaja—and instead of going to gurukula they had gone to any other school—the same karmic reaction would have come to them because of their past impressions. In fact, much, much worse things would have happened to them, and they would not have had the good opportunity to associate with a pure devotee—to receive prasada from his hand, to receive so much mercy from him, and to have the chance to take up devotional activities later on.”

 

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Letter to Rupanuga Dasa, 3 July 1968:

“Yes, those twelve symptoms of the spiritual soul are correct, except for “all-knowing.” All-knowing it cannot be, but full of knowledge.”

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Mayapur morning walk, April 8, 1975: Jayadvaita: Because we see… 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…

Prabhupada: No, no, no. Then…

Jayadvaita: …an imperfection.

Prabhupada: That is not the… 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.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

Prabhupada: That is not the… 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.

Many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples who had personal association will tell stories illustrating how he knew things that he could not possibly have known from a physical, material viewpoint. Of course there are psychics and mystics who can also do these things, so our faith should not be based on these experiences although such experiences can enhance our faith. Perhaps to stress this general point Srila Prabhupada would say, "acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya". Anyway the way I understand it is that the acarya's "qualified omniscience" is that he knows whatever Krsna wants him to know. So it is based on Krsna's Divine Will and carried out by Krsna's yoga maya potency.

[gHari 0]

So we've invented a new word 'omniscient' which doesn't mean the same as 'omniscient"? The new word seems to mean 'potentially omniscient' or 'finitely omniscient' or 'localized omniscience'. I sure wish that 'specialized omniscience' could be directed toward the explanation of the Bhu-Mandala and the 5th canto.

 

To say that the pure devotee receives buddhi-yogam to the extent that Krsna desires certainly seems reasonable. Krsna is omniscient and can make that full knowledge available to the devotee if it pleases Him. But why are we using the word 'omniscient'?

 

My master is rich, but although he dresses me well and favours me sometimes with opulent gifts, I do not say that I am rich. I am the servant. Perhaps we are to understand that this potency of God's omniscience serves the service of the guru, therefore for all intents and purposes, the guru possesses the quality since the guru is his service.

[Guest guest]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

 

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known about a character/s including thoughts, feelings, etc.

 

-----

Narayana Maharaja explains about Prabhupada being omniscient and child abuse occurring in ISKCON:

“If those in the gurukula are not offensive they will get some good impressions, samskaras, in the heart—by sadhu-sanga. Srila Swami Maharaja knowingly did something like this for the gain of the whole world—the whole universe. He has given krpa, mercy, to all. Prabhupada did not do anything improper. <b>He was sarvajna (all knowing)</b>, and he wanted to do good for all. It was not the fault of Prabhupada; it was fault of their bad karma of past births and also this birth. We should realize this.

Although some are not realizing this, still he will help them. If those who attended gurukulas, who performed bad activities in past lives, had not come in contact with Srila Swami Maharaja—and instead of going to gurukula they had gone to any other school—the same karmic reaction would have come to them because of their past impressions. In fact, much, much worse things would have happened to them, and they would not have had the good opportunity to associate with a pure devotee—to receive prasada from his hand, to receive so much mercy from him, and to have the chance to take up devotional activities later on.”

[gHari 0]

http://education./reference/dictionary/entry/omniscient

 

ADJECTIVE:

<dl><dd> Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator. </dd></dl> NOUN:

1. One having total knowledge.
   
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.

ETYMOLOGY:

Medieval Latin <tt>omniscins</tt> <tt>, omniscient-</tt> : Latin <tt>omni-</tt>, omni- + Latin <tt>scins</tt> <tt>, scient-</tt> present participle of <tt>scre</tt>, to know; see <tt>skei-</tt> in Indo-European roots

[Guest guest]

It would seem that omniscience for a devotee would be a form of jnana-misra bhakti, which is devotion mixed with knowledge.

 

Suddha-bhakti is oblivious to this material omniscience.

 

Pure devotion blocks out all this material omniscience.

 

The pure devotee is spiritually omniscient, not materially omniscient.

 

Just as it is said that sins are on the back side of Paramatma, the pure devotee is not omniscient of material sins and the dirty things.

 

The omniscience of the pure devotee is spiritual not material.

 

The pure devotee is not omniscient of all the nasty things in this world.

 

It's even ludicrous to propose that he is.

[vijay 0]

 

Anyway the way I understand it is that the acarya's "qualified omniscience" is that he knows whatever Krsna wants him to know. So it is based on Krsna's Divine Will and carried out by Krsna's yoga maya potency.

 

This is also how I understood it to be, if Krsna wants that the devotee know something he will, if he doesnt he wont, not that every sitution like the abuse he has to know of it. Krsna's plan and his devotee are tricky to figure out in our state.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

(Jadurani devi dasi brings up the point about child abuse in the gurukula. How could it have gone on if Prabhupada was omniscient, or all knowing?) Narayana Maharaja explains about Prabhupada being omniscient and child abuse occurring in ISKCON:

“If those in the gurukula are not offensive they will get some good impressions, samskaras, in the heart—by sadhu-sanga. Srila Swami Maharaja knowingly did something like this for the gain of the whole world—the whole universe. He has given krpa, mercy, to all. Prabhupada did not do anything improper. He was sarvajna (all knowing), and he wanted to do good for all. It was not the fault of Prabhupada; it was fault of their bad karma of past births and also this birth. We should realize this.

 

Are we to understand from this that NM says more or less: SP knew everything that was going on in the gurukulas he established in his institution and allowed it to happen because these kids deserved it?

 

How do you then explain situations when SP was actually notified of the particular abuse cases and he got very angry, condemning the perpertrator of the abuse and calling for the punishment of the abuser in very strong terms? Not once did he say: Oh, I know about it... it's OK. It was their karma to be abused by my disciples...

 

A king who allows robbers to harass citizens and claims "it's OK, it was their karma to be robbed" is not a king but a pretender.

 

It may be their karma to be robbed, but it is his duty to protect them.

 

I find the entire explanation of "guru omniscience" without real shastric or logical merit. Partial omniscience is an oxymoron - both in terms of language and in terms of logic.

[Guest guest]

 

Are we to understand from this that NM says more or less: SP knew everything that was going on in the gurukulas he established in his institution and allowed it to happen because these kids deserved it?

 

How do you then explain situations when SP was actually notified of the particular abuse cases and he got very angry, condemning the perpertrator of the abuse and calling for the punishment of the abuser in very strong terms? Not once did he say: Oh, I know about it... it's OK. It was their karma to be abused by my disciples...

 

A king who allows robbers to harass citizens and claims "it's OK, it was their karma to be robbed" is not a king but a pretender.

 

It may be their karma to be robbed, but it is his duty to protect them.

 

I find the entire explanation of "guru omniscience" without real shastric or logical merit. Partial omniscience is an oxymoron - both in terms of language and in terms of logic.

The real acarya is Krsna's representative. Narada Muni essentially encouraged the greatest child abuser of all times, Kamsa. How do you guys explain this? Do you think Krsna's manifestation of Paramatma knew about the child abuse in ISKCON?; of course. Who were Kamsa's victims in their past lives and why did those events unfold? Who were the Gurukula child abuse victims in their last life? Of course Srila Prabhupada in the form that we saw him always tried to stop such things as abuse. But he also manifests on different levels, such as caitya guru. Do you think, "you are not this body" is just some slogan? Why do you want to view these events from the bodily conception of life tinged with Western mundane morality?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Of course Srila Prabhupada in the form that we saw him always tried to stop such things as abuse. But he also manifests on different levels, such as caitya guru.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, prabhu, but I always read that it is Krsna who is caitya guru, not Srila Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, prabhu, but I always read that it is Krsna who is caitya guru, not Srila Prabhupada.

Yes, Bhagavan guides us within as caitya guru. If we are in the Krsna conception of godhead then it will be Krsna calling us back home from within. But guru is the representative of Krsna, or he represents Krsna. So guru is one, guru tattva. That's why the guru is never considered a jiva soul. Siksa guru jani krsnera swaupa... C.C. It is said that the siksa guru is krsna's swarup. It is also said that the diksa guru is the rupa of Krsna. Gaudiya siddhanta is acintya bheda-abheda tattva. That is why so many devotees are whining about how these kids were abused under divine sanction. You think its one way or the other but in Mahaprabhu's reality it is both. Everthing happens under divine sanction. "Not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord". This all goes back to the theological question, "why do bad things happen to good people?" The omniscience of guru tattva is a side issue hear, concerning the guru kula abuse. For so many years we preached that "Not a blade of grass moves...", transmigration of soul and "your not this body". But when the bad things happen to us or especially our kids, we can't take it because we were not realised and only paying lip service to these things.

[theist 1]

 

Why do you want to view these events from the bodily conception of life tinged with Western mundane morality?

 

I would think any sane section of society would understand that abusing children, sexually or otherwise, was immoral. Why only give credit to the west?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

That is why so many devotees are whining about how these kids were abused under divine sanction.

 

devotees are not "whining" about it! it was an abhorrent, despicable behavior of people placed in charge of the future of our movement. it was people like YOU that made this abuse possible, because so many devotees knew about it and did NOTHING to stop it, paralyzed by bogus contortions of the Vaishnava philosophy, like the one you are presenting above.

 

do you have the slightest understanding of what dharma is? the most important part of being an acharya is teaching by example, not playing God. when Narada Muni spoke to Kamsa, it was a part of the Krsna leela, where many dharmic rules are bent. Dont confuse that with child abuse that happened in our gurukulas.

 

Yes, Krsna sanctions many horrible things happening to people, but He is not causing them to happen. how do you know whether someone is experiencing a reaction to their past karma or an action of someone creating a new karma? and does it even matter from the dharmic point of view? when it comes to your responsibilities - no, it does not - illigal, adharmic actions must be stopped.

 

the attempts to present their guru as God by overzealous disciples are dime a dozen in India. dont cheapen Prabhupada with such thinly disguised attempts. when it comes to "guru is one" principle, it is Krsna who is the Sri Guru, the ONE in innumerable manifestations of gurus, like our Srila Prabhupada, not the other way round like you are suggesting.

[Guest guest]

 

because so many devotees knew about it and did NOTHING to stop it, paralyzed by bogus contortions of the Vaishnava philosophy, like the one you are presenting above..

Of course it is our duty as bhaktas, brahmanas or ksatriyas to anyone to stop things like child abuse if we can. But if its out of our sphere of influence and we have no control, we can only deal with it by understanding that it took place because of the karma of the persons involved and it was ultimately sactioned by the Lord

 

 

...do you have the slightest understanding of what dharma is? the most important part of being an acharya is teaching by example, not playing God. when Narada Muni spoke to Kamsa, it was a part of the Krsna leela, where many dharmic rules are bent. Dont confuse that with child abuse that happened in our gurukulas.

Yes but only sanatana dharma otherwise why does Krsna say sarva dharman parityaja, give up all dharmas and just surrender unto me?

 

 

Yes, Krsna sanctions many horrible things happening to people, but He is not causing them to happen. how do you know whether someone is experiencing a reaction to their past karma or an action of someone creating a new karma? and does it even matter from the dharmic point of view? when it comes to your responsibilities - no, it does not - illigal, adharmic actions must be stopped..

I completely agree

 

 

the attempts to present their guru as God by overzealous disciples are dime a dozen in India. dont cheapen Prabhupada with such thinly disguised attempts. when it comes to "guru is one" principle, it is Krsna who is the Sri Guru, the ONE in innumerable manifestations of gurus, like our Srila Prabhupada, not the other way round like you are suggesting.

This sounds like a rather confused and not well thought out statement. Part of the problem is that we all want to glorify Srila Prabhupada (except maybe some of the babaji camps). If A equals B and B equals C then A equals C

[Guest guest]

P.S. I just had a technical glitch so I couldn't finish writing and just had to post what I had. In reference to what Kulapavana said about my post attempting to establish Srila Prabhupada as God in an unqualified way, like a mayavadi; I think that is a rather absurd claim based on what I previously posted. I was merely quoting Srila Krsna das Kaviraja in Caitanya Caritamrta where in several places he states that the bonafide guru is a manifestion of Krsna. If you look closely at the first chapter of Adi lila you will see that the concept of Krsna as shakitman or powerful and his multifareous shaktis or powers are explained. So ultimately the guru in the higher levels of consciousness can be percieved as Srimati Radharani. I'm sure that you have read Srila Sridhar Maharaja's "Sri Guru and His Grace"; so I suggest that you go back and carefully read it again. Then it would be good to try to discuss these topics with a devotee who you believe has a higher realisation than your good self.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Yes but only sanatana dharma otherwise why does Krsna say sarva dharman parityaja, give up all dharmas and just surrender unto me?

 

 

sanatana dharma is FULLY based on dharmic action when it comes to practical activities. If and when Krsna will tell you face to face to abandon dharmic activities it is safe for you to do so, otherwise you MUST adhere to dharma.

 

 

 

This sounds like a rather confused and not well thought out statement. Part of the problem is that we all want to glorify Srila Prabhupada (except maybe some of the babaji camps). If A equals B and B equals C then A equals C

 

speaking of confused statements: "If A equals B and B equals C then A equals C" - in case of guru tattva A (individual guru) does not fully equal B (Krsna) so even if B equals C (Sri Guru), A does not fully equal C. it is a qualitative oneness and quantitative difference when it comes to the realm of divine knowledge.

 

Once again: when it comes to "guru is one" principle, it is Krsna who is the Sri Guru, the ONE in innumerable manifestations of gurus, like our Srila Prabhupada, not the other way round.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

So ultimately the guru in the higher levels of consciousness can be percieved as Srimati Radharani. I'm sure that you have read Srila Sridhar Maharaja's "Sri Guru and His Grace"; so I suggest that you go back and carefully read it again. Then it would be good to try to discuss these topics with a devotee who you believe has a higher realisation than your good self.

 

Apologies for my impertinence and dandabat pranams to you, prabhu.

 

Some realizations are best kept for private meetings. Too many devotees misunderstand esoteric concepts and confuse themselves and others. That is why I'm convinced in preaching we must stress the differences between the guru and Krsna. Let alone the fact that so many pseudo gurus deluded themselves and others with the emphasis on oneness and engaged in materialistic exploitation of their position. That cheating is still going on here and there so we must not forget where it finds it's contorted justification.

[Guest guest]

 

sanatana dharma is FULLY based on dharmic action when it comes to practical activities. If and when Krsna will tell you face to face to abandon dharmic activities it is safe for you to do so, otherwise you MUST adhere to dharma.

Excelant point and full agreement.

 

speaking of confused statements: "If A equals B and B equals C then A equals C" - in case of guru tattva A (individual guru) does not fully equal B (Krsna) so even if B equals C (Sri Guru), A does not fully equal C. it is a qualitative oneness and quantitative difference when it comes to the realm of divine knowledge.

 

Once again: when it comes to "guru is one" principle, it is Krsna who is the Sri Guru, the ONE in innumerable manifestations of gurus, like our Srila Prabhupada, not the other way round.

So you have clarified your point as I did previously. Now there doesn't appear to be any substantial disagreement. We just have different ways of trying to explain the same philosopy according to our level of attainment. But I must say that I perceive an underlying agenda and hostility in many of your posts and I apologize if I came off as hostile in my last few posts.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

But I must say that I perceive an underlying agenda and hostility in many of your posts and I apologize if I came off as hostile in my last few posts.

 

there is no hostility or agenda in my posts directed at any Vaishnavas if that is what you have in mind. for example, I have only deepest respect for NM while I may not share some of the concepts he is using in his preaching, especially as presented by some of his disciples. It is not "all or nothing". At the same time I do not see my understanding as very deep, or worse yet: perfect. I am just trying to navigate my way past quite a few obstacles on a complicated river and deepen my understanding of reality.