Role of Acharya vs. Role of Rishi

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

While on vacation (I will never again willingly fly AirTran Airways!) I meditated a bit on this fascinating thread (which is now closed):

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/443935-did-we-enter-body-conception-we-were-already-sperm-before-13.html

 

 

Srila Prabhupada's very cautious responses to his disciples' earnest questions highlights the role of the Acharya. In many places (forgive me for not immediately citing references) it is made clear that the role of the Acharya is to present what has been previously given by sadhu and shastra in as clear and unadulterated manner as possible, i.e. without any additions, deletions or modifications.

 

This is what we see Srila Prabhupada doing to the best of his immense ability. He almost exclusively answers any question based on sadhu and shastra and not based on speculation or even new divine revelation.

 

Srila Prabhupada is perfectly playing the role of Acharya.

 

The rishi, on the other hand, is in a different position. The rishi is in contact with the Divine Current of all knowledge and wisdom and can present "new" aspects of Reality that were previously unrevealed. One could say that somebody like Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur is taking the role of rishi in his more "audacious" works like Sri Krishna Samhita, which present previously unknown conceptions.

 

The question of whether each cell in the body has a soul can be (and has been) debated, but, as participants in the debate noted, there is not a lot on the topic in the revealed scriptures. Participants on both sides of the debate have strong opinions based on conclusive but relatively scant evidence.

 

However, I will never claim that the rishi cannot have direct knowledge of so many things which are beyond the range of our senses (naked or even scientifically-"enhanced"). If the rishi can see the macroscopic structure of the universe, why can't the rishi see the individual cells and the jiva-souls contained therein?

 

Any thoughts on this, dear friends?

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

"previously unknown conceptions" is a bit of an audacious statement for me to make here!

 

I haven't read the book I comment on, only snippets posted here. I can't say that they were previously unknown, but, what can certainly be said without qualification is that Thakur Bhaktivinoda made many "revolutionary" statements.

 

 

The rishi, on the other hand, is in a different position. The rishi is in contact with the Divine Current of all knowledge and wisdom and can present "new" aspects of Reality that were previously unrevealed. One could say that somebody like Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur is taking the role of rishi in his more "audacious" works like Sri Krishna Samhita, which present previously unknown conceptions.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Also, I don't want to get sued by AirTran Airways, so let me say, it was adhi-daivic!!

 

The weather caused the cancellation of my flight from Newark.

 

I'll spare you the rest of the sordid tale for now.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The rishi, on the other hand, is in a different position. The rishi is in contact with the Divine Current of all knowledge and wisdom and can present "new" aspects of Reality that were previously unrevealed. One could say that somebody like Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur is taking the role of rishi in his more "audacious" works like Sri Krishna Samhita, which present previously unknown conceptions.

 

It is easy to make such claims for the followers of a rishi. Proving them is however much harder. What is a PROOF that the novel concepts presented by the rishi are true? If it is merely taken on faith then we are wasting our time. Unprovable theories may be nice but I would rather stick with tried and true system of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

[theist 1]

I'm going with the descriptions for rishi and acarya given by Murali for the moment(which sound good but I haven't considered the idea before) I'll not reject acarya but my heart and mind want to hear the rishi, not blindly, but with an eye to new revelations. Afterall isn't what the acarya is now presenting in the form of sastra the past revelations of the rishis?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Afterall isn't what the acarya is now presenting in the form of sastra the past revelations of the rishis?

 

If we are to believe the shastra itself, these are more than just past revelations of the rishis. Rishis of the past accepted Vedas (at least the sruti scriptures) as Breath of God (nihsvasitam brahma). When Gita says: sri bhagavan uvaca... that is no mere revelation, but the very words Sri Krsna uttered.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

If the shastra are more than "just past revelations of the rishis", then what are they? This is not just a rhetorical question. Are the shastras the research papers of scientists using scientific instruments?

 

"Just past revelations of the rishis" is more than enough for me.

 

Before Mahaprabhu brought back Srimad Bhagavatam from his travels in the South of India, that scripture was unknown in the North, was it not?

 

It is the sadhu that recognizes the divinely-inspired nature of the particular written revelation of the rishi.

 

I'll try to find some relevant quotes.

 

 

If we are to believe the shastra itself, these are more than just past revelations of the rishis. Rishis of the past accepted Vedas (at least the sruti scriptures) as Breath of God (nihsvasitam brahma). When Gita says: sri bhagavan uvaca... that is no mere revelation, but the very words Sri Krsna uttered.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Before Mahaprabhu brought back Srimad Bhagavatam from his travels in the South of India, that scripture was unknown in the North, was it not?

 

 

You meant to say Brahma-samhita not Srimad Bhagavatam.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

You meant to say Brahma-samhita not Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Ah, thanks for the correction (part of my brain in still in New Jersey).

 

Still, same point, different facts.

 

Guruvani-ji, do you accept my analysis of Srila Prabhupada's reaction to Sripad Bhakti Swarup Damodara's questions as being within the realm of reason?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

If the shastra are more than "just past revelations of the rishis", then what are they? This is not just a rhetorical question. Are the shastras the research papers of scientists using scientific instruments?

 

"Just past revelations of the rishis" is more than enough for me.

 

Before Mahaprabhu brought back Srimad Bhagavatam from his travels in the South of India, that scripture was unknown in the North, was it not?

 

It is the sadhu that recognizes the divinely-inspired nature of the particular written revelation of the rishi.

 

These are interesting topics. What constitutes a shastra varies according to the sampradaya. In our sampradaya shastra includes works such as CC which only Gaudiyas (and not even all of them) consider a shastra for example.

 

As to Brahma-samhita, it's origins are indeed obscure, and no other older source ever speaks about it. We see it as shastra because Mahaprabhu gave it that status.

 

However, in order to establish our tradition as authoritative one must always refer to the standard set of shastras accepted by all Vaishnavas - this is what Goswamis did in their presentations.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Guruvani-ji, do you accept my analysis of Srila Prabhupada's reaction to Sripad Bhakti Swarup Damodara's questions as being within the realm of reason?

Sounds like it could fit within the broader scope of human reason.

I personally have never seen the full transcript of the dialogue between Srila Prabhupada and BSD, so I have reservations about coming to any agreement with what the ISKCON scientists have postulated.

 

Without a full transcript of the dialogue we might get misled.

 

For example, BSD told Srila Prabhupada that scientists could culture human tissue in a petri dish which seemed to demonstrate that each cell has a soul.

 

He presented his theory to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Srila Prabhupada might have been responding to the particular case of cells growing in a petri dish.

Srila Prabhupada has said before that if you create a situation where a soul can exist then some soul will move in.

 

So, if scientists take humans cells and inject them with fetal calf serum, antiobiotics and assorted other chemicals and get a culture to take in a petri dish, then as far as that goes some living entity like a deceased microbioligist might take birth in that petri dish.

 

So, anyway, you see that I tend to think out of the box.

 

Science certainly doesn't attribute the growth of cells in a petri dish as coming from a soul in each cell.

 

Even science does not classify human cells as a living organism.

 

 

A microorganism (also spelt as microrganism) or microbe is an organism that is microscopic (too small to be seen by the human eye). The study of microorganisms is called microbiology. Microorganisms can be bacteria, fungi, archaea or protists, but not viruses and prions, which are generally classified as non-living. Micro-organisms are generally single-celled, or unicellular organisms; however, there are exceptions as some unicellular protists are visible to the average human, and some multicellular species are microscopic.

Microorganisms live almost everywhere on earth where there is liquid water, including hot springs on the ocean floor and deep inside rocks within the earth's crust. Microorganisms are critical to nutrient recycling in ecosystems as they act as decomposers. As some microorganisms can also fix nitrogen, they are an important part of the nitrogen cycle. However, pathogenic microbes can invade other organisms and cause diseases that kill millions of people every year.<sup id="_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup>

 

I didn't see any human tissue cells here in the list of microbial life.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

This is all very good.

 

Specifically, my question deals with Srila Prabhupada's role of Acharya.

 

Because he is Acharya, Srila Prabhupada seems very unwilling to speculate--despite his great qualifications both spiritually and materially (being a materially well-educated person). Rather, he gives examples (worms in stool) that can be verified by scripture.

 

 

Sounds like it could fit within the broader scope of human reason.

I personally have never seen the full transcript of the dialogue between Srila Prabhupada and BSD, so I have reservations about coming to any agreement with what the ISKCON scientists have postulated.

 

Without a full transcript of the dialogue we might get misled.

 

For example, BSD told Srila Prabhupada that scientists could culture human tissue in a petri dish which seemed to demonstrate that each cell has a soul.

 

He presented his theory to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Srila Prabhupada might have been responding to the particular case of cells growing in a petri dish.

Srila Prabhupada has said before that if you create a situation where a soul can exist then some soul will move in.

 

So, if scientists take humans cells and inject them with fetal calf serum, antiobiotics and assorted other chemicals and get a culture to take in a perti dish, then as far as that goes some living entity like a deceased microbioligist might take birth in that petri dish.

 

So, anyway, you see that I tend to think out of the box.

 

Science certainly doesn't attribute the growth of cells in a petri dish as coming from a soul in each cell.

 

Even science does not classify human cells as a living organism.

 

 

I didn't see any human tissue cells here in the list of microbial life.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Because he is Acharya, Srila Prabhupada seems very unwilling to speculate--

 

I would have to agree with that.

 

But, I think Srila Prabhupada did occasionally resort to the paroksha method of teaching by using allegory as a preaching device.

That is NOT speculation, though its a little tricky when allegory is presented as literal.

 

I think the "fall from Vaikuntha" theory is the perfect example of how Srila Prabhupada used allegory in a literal sense to avoid complicated explanations that will be be learned by those who are expert in studying the shastra.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

 

But, I think Srila Prabhupada did occasionally resort to the paroksha method of teaching by using allegory as a preaching device.

That is NOT speculation, though its a little tricky when allegory is presented as literal.

 

He also at times resorted to the "educated guess" method, and he even admitted to that in his Srimad Bhagavatam (5.20.13)

 

"From the descriptions in this verse, we can make an educated guess about the nature of the flames on the moon. Like the sun, the moon must also be full of flames because without flames there cannot be illumination. The flames on the moon, however, unlike those on the sun, must be mild and pleasing. This is our conviction."

[theist 1]

 

It is easy to make such claims for the followers of a rishi. Proving them is however much harder. What is a PROOF that the novel concepts presented by the rishi are true? If it is merely taken on faith then we are wasting our time. Unprovable theories may be nice but I would rather stick with tried and true system of guru, sadhu, and shastra.

 

You haven't solved the problem only relocated it. How do you know your guru is really guru, your sadhu an authentic sadhu or sastra genuine sastra. Mayavadi's may say the same thing and feel secure in thinking God to be simply impersonal.

 

It always comes back to the Lord in the heart directing us to hear from a particular source based on our desire and qualification and our receicing the same confirmation of what is said by receiving divine revelation also.

 

One can spend 50 years as a disciple of a guru or hearing from an rishi but he still needs the divine revelation or quickening of the spirit from Caitya guru before he truly KNOWS as in vijnana or realized knowledge which is the only knowing I really accept. Since we are not the intelligence simple intellectual knowing will never satisfy us.

[theist 1]

 

If we are to believe the shastra itself, these are more than just past revelations of the rishis. Rishis of the past accepted Vedas (at least the sruti scriptures) as Breath of God (nihsvasitam brahma). When Gita says: sri bhagavan uvaca... that is no mere revelation, but the very words Sri Krsna uttered.

So what does that mean Breath of God? Something impersonal? I see the rishis as being receptacles of that Breath of God who then use their human forms as vehicles for passing on that breath of God and giving form to the language that encodes the Breath of God.

 

Another point is that Breath of God is ever present and accessable. It is not subject to the age of Kali's deterioration. That deterioration is in the nature of the receptacles.

 

And when you say "mere revelation" you lose me. How can the Divine revelation be "mere" anything. The way I see it it is either Divine revelation or at most philosopical speaculation. "Mere revelation" is a misnomer is it not?

[Guruvani 0]

[suchandra 1]

 

 

Somehow the ink of your text isnt visible...or some software mistake of the board? Please re-write your post, guruvani prabhu!

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It always comes back to the Lord in the heart directing us to hear from a particular source based on our desire and qualification and our receicing the same confirmation of what is said by receiving divine revelation also.

 

I have always been very leery of people claiming they have something nobody else does. I found them all to be liars. High sounding claims are dime a dozen in the realm of transcendentalism. What counts to me is the words of many who traversed a particular path and achieved it's promised result. That is at least a good start. The Lord in my heart seems to be directing me to be cautious...

[Guruvani 0]

 

Somehow the ink of your text isnt visible...or some software mistake of the board? Please re-write your post, guruvani prabhu!

 

I was trying to correct a mis-spelling of a previous post but it came back as a new post because the moderator has the edit function turned-off.

 

He wants to make sure nobody can change their words after they post.

 

the moderator also does not allow anyone to delete a post.

 

They like to make sure that whatever you say cannot be retracted.

I don't mind that, but I do like to be able to correct typos in previous posts.

 

So, I just posted a smiley because I couldn't delete the post.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Sure. The Acharya, however, is being very cautious to state clearly that the "educated guess" is exactly that and not something he has found in shastra or heard directly from his Guru Maharaj or siksha gurus.

 

One definition of Uttama-Adhikari is that they have full mastery of shastra, is it not? The Madhyama-Adhikari has a firm grasp of the philosophy, but cannot always recall specific shastra to illustrate particular philosophical points.

 

 

He also at times resorted to the "educated guess" method, and he even admitted to that in his Srimad Bhagavatam (5.20.13)

 

"From the descriptions in this verse, we can make an educated guess about the nature of the flames on the moon. Like the sun, the moon must also be full of flames because without flames there cannot be illumination. The flames on the moon, however, unlike those on the sun, must be mild and pleasing. This is our conviction."

[Kulapavana 0]

 

So what does that mean Breath of God? Something impersonal? I see the rishis as being receptacles of that Breath of God who then use their human forms as vehicles for passing on that breath of God and giving form to the language that encodes the Breath of God.

 

Even if we use that definition, it is almost universally understood that this related only to the divine rishis shastras speak about, and not even to everything they said. However, there is much more to the nihsvasitam brahma issue but it is rarely addressed in our tradition.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Sure. The Acharya, however, is being very cautious to state clearly that the "educated guess" is exactly that and not something he has found in shastra or heard directly from his Guru Maharaj or siksha gurus.

 

That "educated guess" is also based on spiritual education and not some academic speculations of the mundane scientists.

 

"Educated guess" means that it is based on an education in shastric siddhanta.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

But, of course, mon frere!!

 

Anything "new" must be examined to determine whether it is consistent with previous Divine Revelation.

 

This why pronouncements such as Mohammed's (peace be unto him) that there will be no further prophets after him tend to be viewed with a bit of skepticism.

 

Of course, as with almost all rules, there will be cases of exceptions.

 

 

That "educated guess" is also based on spiritual education and not some academic speculations of the mundane scientists.

 

"Educated guess" means that it is based on an education in shastric siddhanta.

[theist 1]

 

Even if we use that definition, it is almost universally understood that this related only to the divine rishis shastras speak about, and not even to everything they said. However, there is much more to the nihsvasitam brahma issue but it is rarely addressed in our tradition.

 

Ok so you accept the point that it came to rishis then to us via Divine revelation. Is there some statement from the rishis that the Breath Of God would no longer be accessable to any new rishis? That it is a closed book?

 

 

"it is almost universally understood that this related only to the divine rishis shastras speak about,..."

 

And it will remain ALMOST universal because I will never accept this. The atma of those rishis is not superior to the atma of anyone living today in any form. I believe the scriptures are exhorting us to not just recite them and repeat them to others but too also enter in to that very land of living revelation ourselves.

 

No argument that we are presently far from being qualified for that but we are told we can occupy the post of Brahma if we want even though we are far from being qualified. It is my strong belief that only time and spiritual experience separates us as everyone here and beyond from the same revelations that so inspired those rishis mentioned in the scriptures.

 

Otherwise why bother to tell us about such nectarean truth if we can never know it vs. knowing of it?