Is Acharya Authority Equal to Shastra Or Tradition?

[Guruvani 0]

In Sri Krishna Samhita, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur writes:

 

ch. 1. text 34.

 

 

Kanistha-adhikaris who consider scriptures as the only authority and logicians who consider themselves liberated are both unable to advance.

 

So, is it that the acharya is at least equal to scriptural authority?

Is scripture above the acharya, or parallel to the acharya?

 

If the acharya gives something that is not found is shastra, does that make it bogus?

Does the acharya have the authority to say anything that is not found in shastra?

 

What is Bhaktivinode saying in this verse?

[Guruvani 0]

 

Sutra 42

For they who are not yet self realised, scripture is very important. For they who are self realised this is not so, for such great souls have already attained the perfect spiritual knowledge that is the root from which the scriptures have grown.

Commentary by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura

Here someone may protest: In Bhagavad-gita (16.23), the Supreme Personality of Godhead declares: "But he who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whim attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."* After all, the word 'sastra; comes from the word 'sasana' which means 'restriction'. Therefore the individual spirit souls are always obliged to follow the restrictions enunciated in the scriptures. How can any good result come from not following the scriptures' rules?

Fearing that someone would voice this protest, the author has spoken this sutra. Here the word "aksamesu" means "they who are not yet self-realised". Such persons cannot act independently. They are governed by the rules of scripture. However, for self-realised souls, who of their own desire to what is right and proper in spiritual life, this is not so. These great souls are not bound by the rules of scripture because they have already attained the perfect spiritual knowledge that is the root from which the scriptures have grown. This means that the self-realised souls have already attained the perfect spiritual knowledge that is the root from which the scriptures have grown. All the scriptures, as well as the Sariraka and Mimamsa commentaries, are meant for the souls who are not yet self-realised, who still dwell in the world of ignorance. Therefore the words of the Lord in Bhagavad-gita (16.23) mean that for their own good the unenlightened souls, who if given independence would perform forbidden actions, the rules of scriptures are given. The rules of scriptures are thus given to bring under control the uncontrolled, independent conditioned souls. For the liberated souls a different instruction is given. Lord Krsna explains (Bhagavad-gita 2.52):

"When your intelligence has passed out of the dense forest of delusion, you shall become indifferent to all that has been heard and all that is to be heard."*

 

[Guest guest]

St. Augustine said "Love and do what you like".

[theist 1]

 

St. Augustine said "Love and do what you like".

IF your love is genuine meaning God centered then this is alright. But up to that point it is very poor advice because what people in this world take for love is actually lust and sentiment at best.

 

There are people who think they love everyone equally but only consider humans as 'anyone' and feel free to go about being cruel to animals.

 

This is known as sentiment without philosophy and is extremely dangerous. Therefore there are scriptures and acaryas to regulate human life towards a progressive flow back to such a genuine love. To act whimsically ignoring such advisors spells ruination to spiritual life.

 

As to the larger question of the thread if we see the Lord in the heart as the only source of the acaryas sages and scripture and the only revealer of their actual message of transcendence then there is no question of which is superior sastra or acarya.

 

When one learns to genuinely hear Caitya-guru's voice then nature itself becomes scripture as well as all other human experiences. The Absolute Truth is written everywhere the trouble is we are illterate to the language it is transcribed in.

[Guruvani 0]

from Gosai.com I found this quote:

 

 

"Devotees of the Supreme Lord are not controlled by the scriptures since their activities are congenial to the Divine Wisdom.

"Therefore, when the self-realized devotees ordain any new arrangement, they should be agreed with as a religious code, even if such new arrangements are not found in the scriptural dictums of the previous sages." (All of the above quotes are from Sri Tattva- Sutra by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, pages 191-204)

 

[Guruvani 0]

Considering the statement of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur above, we have to ask the question of why then do devotees and "gurus" try to put limits and restraints on the self-realized acharyas who appeared in the modern age to make the proper adjustments with the aim of making Sanatan Dharma relevant to modern people in the modern world?

 

Are self-realized acharyas shackled to tradition and custom or do they have the right and authority to update and rennovate the process of parampara in proper context to the modern forms of communication and transmission of knowledge and information?

 

Is the system of parampara still bound and shackled to the same customs and practices of ancient civilizations, or is it possible that the system of parampara can be served by modern techonology and communication systems?

 

Isn't the true essence of the parampara the transmission of the spiritual conception from the spiritual master to the worshiper by some means of communication.

 

If we actually insist to follow the letter of the law of the Vaishnava smriti governing initiation, then practically nobody in the Saraswata Gaudiya sampradaya is properly initiated.

 

So, what to do?

 

What to do is to follow the modern self-realized, empowered acharyas who have made the necessary adjustments to time, place and circumstance and let go of our preconceived notions about tradition, parampara and diksha.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Without Gurudev, I don't know my asana from a hole in the wall!!

 

Without Gurudev, I don't know if the edition of scripture I'm reading has been corrupted by "interpolation," over-eager editing, or what-have you.

 

Gurudev is revealing the inner meaning of the scriptures. Meanings that would escape me after millenia of solo endeavor.

 

Without Gurudev, I'm just walking alone in the desert with a road-map in a language I don't understand.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Without Gurudev, I don't know my asana from a hole in the wall!!

 

Without Gurudev, I don't know if the edition of scripture I'm reading has been corrupted by "interpolation," over-eager editing, or what-have you.

 

Gurudev is revealing the inner meaning of the scriptures. Meanings that would escape me after millenia of solo endeavor.

 

Without Gurudev, I'm just walking alone in the desert with a road-map in a language I don't understand.

 

Does "guru" manifest only in one form?

Is "guru" only the diksha guru?

How do you know that your Gurudeva is absolutely correct in every way?

 

Are you the judge to confirm that your guru has got everything perfect?

 

It's just faith.

You have faith in your "guru".

Others have faith in their guru.

 

But, none of us can prove that our guru knows everything perfectly.

 

Does the guru not instruct us to perform sadhana bhakti?

If so, why?

 

Can we live our whole lives on mercy without ever practicing sadhana?

 

Is that the message of Mahaprabhu and how he taught Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatan?

 

If the acharyas say that purascharya-vidhi is the life-force of chanting, then shouldn't we be interested in this "life-force" of Nama Bhajan?

 

Are we going to live our whole lives just expecting that we will get causeless mercy or should be practice the regulations of sadhana bhakti and treat Bhakti as a yoga system?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

I can't prove Dharmadhyaksa Prabhu is my birth father. Even DNA testing can only prove it to a certain less than 100% certainty.

 

But does it matter to me in the least whether his seed gave me a body or not? Is my attachment for him (however mundane) so shallow?

 

Gurudev is far beyond having to prove anything to me. When I am in my right mind, I trust him implicitly. He has earned my trust simply by being who he is. If I cannot accept something he says (which has not yet happened in my experience) then I must trust that it is my own perception or reasoning which is faulty.

 

For the record, I've taken Hari Nama, but not Diksha from Gurudev. Considering my many anarthas, I feel I would be a hypocrite to pretend to be a brahmana.

 

I'm curious as to what you would consider an appropriate sadhana for a person in my position. Being the sole provider (legally-speaking) for two young children--I'm clearly not in the Brahmachari Ashram.

 

Certainly, I should not be letting my beads fast as I do. I spend far more time chanting on the guitar

 

What sadhana can I do?

 

As for mercy--this time of year, I walk into my backyard and find an apricot or two lying on the ground underneath the tree.

 

These apricots are the sweetest, most vital foods I've encountered. How can I not offer them to the Lord in my mind and give thanks for his inconceivable mercy? If I have any sincerity whatsoever, how can I not see that this mercy of the Lord's is coming via Gurudev?

 

Back to Guru. Of course Guru doesn't manifest in only one form!! Guru has limitless foms.

 

Yet, why should I settle for an abstract guru, when I have the shelter of Guru personified? Why should I look for a wrinkle on his beautiful face? Why should I compare him to my spiritual grandfather and spiritual uncles when all are luminous in their own rights?

 

Yes, I can have a formal relationship with him if I want. I have been too shy and ashamed to have anything beyond reverential dealings with him, but, no doubt that is, at this point, for my own benefit.

 

Why would I wish, under the pretense of familiarity, to cause some offense to him?

 

Still, if I can become truly shameless in my approach to his lotus feet, perhaps I have some hope of being corrected by him directly.

 

"It's just faith" you say. "Faith is all" I say.

 

 

Does "guru" manifest only in one form?

Is "guru" only the diksha guru?

How do you know that your Gurudeva is absolutely correct in every way?

 

Are you the judge to confirm that your guru has got everything perfect?

 

It's just faith.

You have faith in your "guru".

Others have faith in their guru.

 

But, none of us can prove that our guru knows everything perfectly.

 

Does the guru not instruct us to perform sadhana bhakti?

If so, why?

 

Can we live our whole lives on mercy without ever practicing sadhana?

 

Is that the message of Mahaprabhu and how he taught Sri Rupa and Sri Sanatan?

 

If the acharyas say that purascharya-vidhi is the life-force of chanting, then shouldn't we be interested in this "life-force" of Nama Bhajan?

 

Are we going to live our whole lives just expecting that we will get causeless mercy or should be practice the regulations of sadhana bhakti and treat Bhakti as a yoga system?