Bhaktisiddhanta ordered Srila Prabhupada to preach...

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Srila Prabhupada was ordered by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati to preach in the western world. It was not a suggestion as some want us to believe. Why they say it was a suggestion? Because they want to minimize the prominece of Prabhupada, "Oh, Bhaktisiddhanta suggested to everyone to do this." No, Srila Prabhupada was ordered by his spiritual master to preach in the west. This is the direct statement of Srila Prabhupada:

 

Just like in our case. Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that "You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English." So we have tried it. That's all. It is not that I am very much qualified. The only qualification is that I have tried to execute the order of superior authority. That's all. This is the secret of success.

[Dayal_Govinda 0]

jndas, you clearly do not do your research.

 

About 2 weeks before Bhaktisiddhanta's passing Prabhupada wrote to him and asked if there was any service he could do for the mission. Bhaktisiddhanta replied that "I think that it would be good for you to preach in English".

This is what was said, and this is what Prabhupada took as his life and soul.

Prabhupada's guru nistha was such that the suggestion of his guru, he took to be an order. By dedicating himself fully to this suggestion/order he was undeniably successful in his mission.

 

This is the glory of Prabhupada.

If he had simply followed an order then he would be a good disciple no doubt, one of many. But by following a suggestion as if it was an order he proved himself to be unique.

 

I hope that people reading this can understand this simple point.

 

Dayal Govinda dasa

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The simple point is that our guru, Srila Prabhupada, says he was ordered, not suggested, by Bhaktisiddhanta to preach in the west. You want to use your mundane analysis to determine Bhaktisiddhanta's mind, whereas I want to accept the direct statement of Srila Prabhupada.

 

This is a simple point that the readers will be able to understand.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Here is Srila Prabhupada's own words, which you continuously refuse to accept, whether it be on homosexuality or anything else. Why must you deviate from your guru's instructions. You have become so intelligent that you now can see that certain instructions are only external and others are internal? Throw your pride aside and just be a disciple, a follower of Srila Prabhupada.

 

I have actual experience in this connection. I do not wish to narrate this whole story, but it is a fact that I received Krsna's special favor in this way. When I was twenty-five years old, my Guru Maharaja, my spiritual master, ordered me to go preach. But I thought, "First of all I shall become a rich man, and then I shall use my money to finance the preaching work."

 

 

Srila Prabhupada: My life is simple. I was a householder with a wife and children--now I have grandsons--when my spiritual master ordered me to go to the Western countries and preach the cult of Krsna consciousness. So I left everything on the order of my spiritual master, and now I am trying to execute his order and the orders of Krsna.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada: At our first meeting, he ordered me to preach Krsna consciousness in the West.

 

The spark of love for Krsna is struck by the spiritual master, the pure devotee. As for myself, my spiritual master, His Divine Grace Om Visnupada Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada, ordered me to take up the responsibility of spreading Krsna consciousness in the Western world.

 

se karja je koribare ajna jadi dilo more

jogya nahi an dina hina

tai se tomara krpa magitechi anurupa

aji numi sabar pravina

 

"Although my Guru Maharaja ordered me to accomplish this mission, I am not worthy or fit to do it. I am very fallen and insignificant. Therefore, O Lord, now I am begging for Your mercy so that I may become worthy, for You are the wisest and most experienced of all.

The word Srila Prabhupada uses is "ajna", which means "order".

 

Prabhupada: My Guru Maharaja ordered me that "You go and preach this cult amongst the English-speaking public and specially in the Western countries."

 

 

That is Krsna's special favor. I do not wish to narrate, but it is a fact. It is a fact. My Guru Maharaja ordered me when I was twenty-five years old that: "You go and preach."

 

The simple point becomes simpler. Srila Prabhupada tells us that he was "ordered" by his guru to preach in the western world. You refuse to accept the Acharya's words. You want to deviate and speculate and accept anything other than what he says. Do as you wish. Like I said, people like you are the cause of the problems in ISKCON. You stand outside and point fingers, while constantly deviating from the orders of the acharya.

[stonehearted 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

Srila Prabhupada was ordered by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati to preach in the western world. It was not a suggestion as some want us to believe. Why they say it was a suggestion? Because they want to minimize the prominece of Prabhupada, "Oh, Bhaktisiddhanta suggested to everyone to do this." No, Srila Prabhupada was ordered by his spiritual master to preach in the west. This is the direct statement of Srila Prabhupada:

 

Considering the tone of some of the discussions I've reviewed on this site, I hesitate to jump in here. But, since fools rush in where angels fear to tread, here I go:

There's really no dispute that SBSST told Srila Prabhupada to preach in English--at their first meeting as well as the letter written just before the end of his pastimes. Quibbling over whether calling it a suggestion that Srila Prabhupada took so seriously that he came to save us is evidence of a proclivity for picking quarrels. In fact, there's no reason to assume that SBSST didn't make such suggestions to any educated men he met (remember that he made the 1922 suggestion to the group with which Srila Prabhupada came--"You are all educated young men. Why don't you take this movement seriously and preach it widely."). We know that he sent disciples to the west. We have heard that he sometimes said that if he had another 10 years, he would go to New York to preach. And we know that at the end he repeatedly exhorted all his disciples to be willing to give 200 gallons of blood to relieve the fallen souls' suffering. To say, then, that preaching in the west was a suggestion,and that our guru-maharaja's guru-nistha was so strong that he took it as an order is not denigrating to Srila Prabhupada, but glorifying his example of taking the word of the spritual master as our life and soul.

 

However, to try to "defend" Srila Prabhupada by denigrating other vaishnavas--including SBSST(I find it hard to express how shocked I was by some of jndas's remarks in this regard; I can't imagine that Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them in any way)--glorifies no one.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

However, to try to "defend" Srila Prabhupada by denigrating other vaishnavas--including SBSST(I find it hard to express how shocked I was by some of jndas's remarks in this regard; I can't imagine that Srila Prabhupada would have approved of them in any way)--glorifies no one.

It just goes to show that if you want to see an offense you will see one. I said that Bhaktisiddhanta never personally left India. You take that as an offense? It is a fact. Otherwise you can provide your evidence that he left India and preached throughout the world. The fact that he never left India does not minimize him in anyway. As Srila Prabhupada has said when asked why Lord Chaitanya didn't spread Krishna consciousness throughout the world, "Lord Chaitanya left it for me," as did all the other acharyas.

 

My point is that when Srila Prabhupada tells us directly that he was ordered by his guru, and then someone else say, no that's not correct, he was only suggested by his guru, I will choose to accept the words of Srila Prabhupada:

 

se karja je koribare ajna jadi dilo more

jogya nahi an dina hina

tai se tomara krpa magitechi anurupa

aji numi sabar pravina

 

"Although my Guru Maharaja ordered (ajna) me to accomplish this mission, I am not worthy or fit to do it. I am very fallen and insignificant. Therefore, O Lord, now I am begging for Your mercy so that I may become worthy, for You are the wisest and most experienced of all."

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta knew exactly who Srila Prabhupada was. He knew what he would accomplish. Knowing this, he ordered him to go to the west and preach.

 

[Janus 0]

Hmmm. so it appears that Srila Bhaktisiddhana was on the mental platform, speculating "thinking" that it would be a good idea for Srila Prabhupada to preach in English, and that Srila Prabhupada; in order to honor his guru, or to appear to be authorized, or specifically instructed rather than just suggested to chose to consider Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's suggestion to be an order. Both these persons appear then to be normal men, what don't we see?

 

 

>>>About 2 weeks before Bhaktisiddhanta's passing Prabhupada wrote to him and asked if there was any service he could do for the mission. Bhaktisiddhanta replied that "I think that it would be good for you to preach in English".

This is what was said, and this is what Prabhupada took as his life and soul.

Prabhupada's guru nistha was such that the suggestion of his guru, he took to be an order. By dedicating himself fully to this suggestion/order he was undeniably successful in his mission.

 

This is the glory of Prabhupada.

If he had simply followed an order then he would be a good disciple no doubt, one of many. But by following a suggestion as if it was an order he proved himself to be unique.

 

I hope that people reading this can understand this simple point.

 

 

[leyh 0]

I feel that arguing over whether or not Srila Prabhupada was ordered by his Guru Maharaja to preach in the West or not will not benefit our spiritual lives at all. He came, he chanted, he conquered, and today, the whole human society is still enjoying the fruits of his victory.Why don't we just enjoy the feast that His Divine Grace has laid out for us and stop quabbling over how the prasadam was prepared.

[Janus 0]

All that is, is metaphor. Therefore we, you and I speak with uncertanty, using words to describe only how something seems to us to be, but yet forgetting that we do not see, do not hear, do not scent, taste or touch save with material contaminated senses.

How much different it must be for them, for those who in theor actuality are beyond our ability to see them as well? When the word for a thing when it is spoken is the thing, when the name of God is God, and when a suggestion, or an order, or a thought is only to us an appearance, but has another existence, a transcendental meaning, substance, and has no cause of Maya for it's uttering what can we deduce through our ability to measure the meaning, the precision of a word. Are the activities, words, actions of a pure devotee always transcendental or are they sometimes, ever anything that we can discern anything other than a relative truth from? In the material world it seems to us that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur merely suggested that Srila Prabhupada preach in English, but do not Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta have an eternal liberated realtionship in Krsna consciousness, are they not always transcendental, or do they take pause, time out from their liberated positions and fall under the spell of Maya when they become apparent to us?

 

[Citta 0]

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The spiritual master is always free from material contamination, which includes the mundane environment he is brought up in. He has perfect spiritual vision, and sees everything through the divine eyes of spiritual realization. He is factually seeing Krishna face to face; there is no way for us to comprehend his absolute position through our mundane analysis.

 

The liberated soul is sarva-jna (all conscious), tri-kala-jna (knower of past, present and future), satya-sankalpa (one whose desire becomes truth), satya-vak (one whose words never fail), etc., as described in Chandogya Upanishad.

 

Whether acting as a devotee or guru, the liberated soul is always situated on this absolute platform.

 

The following is a nice article by Yashodanandana prabhu that illustrates the flaw in perceiving the liberated soul with mundane vision.

 

http://www.harekrsna.com/vada/nugas/lilamrta.htm

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

It is not that every word that comes out of the acarya's mouth is absolute. He can make suggestions, based on what he thinks...

Interesting philosophy. Here is what Srila Prabhupada says on the matter.

 

Interviewer: In the same way I'm curious with respect to the way Krsna communicates with you, whether it's in a similar kind of way that he gives you your necessities.

Bali Mardana: In other words, when you decide that someone is to be in charge of a particular temple does Krsna tell you that this person should be in charge?

Interviewer: or do you by judging him say this person is qualified?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, because a devotee always consults Krsna and he gives order.

Interviewer: It's more of a direct communication.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, because a devotee always consults Krsna and he gives order.

Ramesvara: Because intelligence, our philosophy is that intelligence comes from Krsna. So if I have some...

Interviewer: And your philosophy is that your daily necessities come from Krsna as well.

Ramesvara: Yes, try to understand. Suppose my intelligence has told me.

Srila Prabhupada: No, not necessarily. Krsna will tell him directly. A devotee always consults Krsna and Krsna tells him. “Do like this." Not figuratively.

 

 

Krishna directly tells the pure devotee what to do at all times ("always"). It is not figurative.

 

A pure devotee such as Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati does not speculate. He receives direct instructions from Lord Krishna.

 

[Citta 0]

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

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.

That's a very interesting concoction. The funny thing is that Srila Prabhupada never says anything remotely similar, and neither do the scriptures. In the shastra, we always find the absolute position of the acharya established, not a relative one.

 

People's vision of the acharya may be relative, but the actual position of the acharya is always absolute.

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 09-09-2001).]

[Citta 0]

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I suppose Srila Sridhara Maharaja's words weren't good enough for you.

Actually its your misunderstanding of his statements that aren't good enough for me. You couldn't understand Srila Prabhupada's statements straight without distorting them to suit your mind, why should I believe you have understood what Srila Sridhara Maharaja has said?

 

Here Prabhupada mistakes a building for Rockefeller Center twice in four days.

Both Krishna and the liberated souls play the part of ordinary men to bewilder the atheists. After Lord Krishna departed, his "material body" was even cremated. When Lord Krishna ran from the battle field, foolish materialists thought he was a cowardly man. Mundaners cannot understand the actions of the Lord and his devotees. They act as though ordinary to give materialists the freedom to criticize their transcendental nature.

 

In regards to this topic, I had written to someone else as follows:

 

We find in Sri Baladeva Vidybhushana's commentary on the Vedanta Sutra, (4th Adhyaya, 4th Pada, 9th Adhikarana), it is stated that the mukta (liberated soul) is omniscient. And this siddhanta is established in sutra 4.4.15. As evidence he cites the following verse from the Chandogya Upanishad (7.26.2):

 

"The realized soul does not see death, nor disease, nor suffering. The realized soul sees everything and obtains everything in every way."

 

In the 10th Adhikarana of the same section, it is established that the mukta has all the powers of the Lord with the exception of the power to create, maintain and annihilate the material world. Sri Baladeva Vidhyabhushana states that the mukta can create planets such as pitriloka and matriloka, but that these are localized creations.

 

The commentary further states: "With the exception of jagatvyapara, the power to create the universe, the liberated soul possesses all other powers."

 

Also we find in Sri Ramanujacharya's commentary to the this sutra (4.4.15) the same conclusion - that the mukta is omniscient.

 

Elsewhere, in the 5th Adhikarana of the same section it is established that the liberated soul (mukta) is satya-sankalpa - "His every wish spontaneously manifests as truth."

 

In the third chapter of Patanjali's Yoga sutras we find a list of mystical powers (siddhis) which can be obtained by a yogi (not a liberated soul), some of which are clairvoyance, the ability to see events occuring far away, and the ability to hear conversations occuring in distant places.

 

Patanjali states how one attains such siddhis:

 

janmaushadhi-mantra-tapah-samadhijah siddhayah

 

"These mystical perfections may be obtained either by birth, by elixir, by the chanting of mantras, by austerities, of by attainment of samadhi."

 

But elsewhere he mentions one more method by which these siddhis may be manifested

 

pratibhadva sarvam

 

"All these powers will come spontaneously to one whose mind is enlightened through purity."

 

A liberated soul will spontaneously possess these siddhis without needing to undergo a mechanical process of yoga.

 

The list of siddhis given by Patanjali in the third chapter of the yoga sutra are quite long, but I have mentioned only three which seem more relevant to the present debate.

 

Accepting that Srila Prabhupada was a mukta (liberated soul), or accepting that his mind was at least "enlightened through purity", one must accept the fact that Srila Prabhupada was omniscient.

 

One must understand the difference between 'sarva-jna', which is undeniably a quality of the liberated soul, and 'abhijna' which is the unique position of the Lord. Knowledge of past, present and future is included within the definition of sarva-jna, whereas abhijna includes direct conscious perception through the senses of all living entities - to be precisely conscious of what they are conscious of (first-person experience).

 

In Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur's Jaiva Dharma we find the following statement:

 

"Excluding these nine [the last 9 qualities of the Lord] the remaining fifty-five attributes are partially existing in the gods like Sri Shiva and others. The first mentioned fifty attributes are to be found in all the jivas in small quantities like drops."

 

We should note the plural used in describing those possessing 55 qualities (including omniscience). The words "gods like Sri Shiva and others" clearly indicate a plurality of personalities possessing these qualities.

 

In the scriptures we find many other living entities, belonging to the jiva tattva, who are omniscient. For example in the Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada states:

 

"Varuna is omniscient, and since he punishes sins, he is prayed to for forgiveness."

 

And elsewhere:

 

"King Pariksit then told Sukadeva Gosvami: My dear lord, O great devotee sage, you are omniscient."

 

Here Srila Prabhupada chooses to use the word "omniscient", when the sanskrit word used is bahu-vida. A literal translation would be "knowing many things" Perhaps Srila Prabhupada did not know the meaning of the word omniscient, or perhaps he saw a deeper meaning to the words bahu-vida.

 

In the Chaitanya-charitamrita we find Sri Chaitanya described as sarvajna-shiromani, or the "head jewel of the omniscient personalities". Thus there are multiple personalities who are sarvajna. If these multiple personalities referred only to the vishnu-tattva, we would expect similar descriptions of the Lord's other unique qualities: "topmost among the all-pervading personalities", etc. But we do not find such descriptions. Yet we do find in the earlier quote from Jaiva Dharma that there are a plurality of living entities possessing the qualities including omniscience. Thus the meaning of the name sarvajna-shiromani is clear. We should note that "sarvajna" is the exact word used in Bhakti-rasamrita Sindu 2.1.38 in the description of Lord Krishna's unique qualities.

 

Elsewhere, Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"Our process is to receive knowledge from a person who knows past, present and future. Just like Krishna and the acharyas. They know."

 

"Therefore we accept sastra. Tri-kala-jna. The sastrakara, or the compiler of the sastra, must be liberated person so that he can describe past, present and

future."

 

Srila Prabhupada does not say the compiler of the sastra must be vishnu-tattva, he says he must be a liberated person who can describe past, present and future. There is no question of vishnu-tattva being liberated, for they are situated beyond the fallible and infallible:

 

dvav imau purusau loke

ksaras caksara eva ca

ksarah sarvani bhutani

kuta-stho ’ksara ucyate

 

"There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every living entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every living entity is called infallible."

 

yasmat ksaram atito ’ham

aksarad api cottamah

ato ’smi loke vede ca

prathitah purusottamah

 

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person."

 

Great personalities and saintly people are tri-kala-jna, they know the past, present and future, as confirmed by Srila Prabhupada:

 

"This is called tri-kala-jna: past, present and future. So Yamaraja or Lord Brahma or great personalities, they, even great sages, saintly persons, they know the three features of time."

 

We should take note of the words "even great sages, saintly persons". It is not that knowledge of past, present and future is limited to a select few specially empowered personalities. All liberated souls are omniscient by the mercy of the Lord, as stated directly in Vedanta Sutra 4.4.15.

 

In the Srimad Bhagavatam Vidura says to the omniscient saint Maitreya the following:

 

visvam vicaksate dhira

yoga-raddhena caksusa

 

"Because you are a self-realized person, you can see everything by the power of mystic vision."

 

Vidura literally says that Maitreya can see everything in the entire universe. And it is because he is "dhira", which Srila Prabhupada chooses to translate here as self-realized. This is in line with the Vedanta Sutras (4.4.15) statement that the mukta is omniscient. In the Purport Srila Prabhupada states:

 

"Those who have reached the highest perfectional stage of mystic power and can see everything in the past, present and future are called tri-kala-jnas."

 

We should note that Srila Prabhupada has said many times that the pure devotee possesses all mystic perfections (asta-siddhi) in full. These mystic opulences include the knowledge of past, present and future. In this connection Srila Prabhupada states:

 

"Another place Krsna says, vedaham samatitani. Atitani, atitani means past. Vartamanani ca, 'and present.' So that is yogic power. One can know past, present, and future."

 

Thus the pure devotee, who naturally possesses all yogic perfections, is tri-kala-jna.

 

Srila Prabhupada describes this in more detail as follows:

 

"So the point is that five thousand years ago the things which were written for this age, how they are coming to be true in our experience. That is the point: how they could see past, present, and future so nicely. The sages were known as tri-kala-jna. [...] Tri means three, and kala means time. Time is experienced by three ways: past, present and future. Time limitation, past, present and... Whenever you speak of time, it is past, present or future. So the sages in those days were tri-kala-jna. Tri-kala-jna means they could understand, they could know what was in the past, what there shall be in the future, and what is at present."

 

Srila Prabhupada, being a pure devotee of the Lord, possessed all the eight mystic perfections; he was tri-kala-jna, one who knew past, present and future; he was satya-sankalpa, his very desire spontaneously manifested as the reality; and he was satya-vak, his every word became truth. These are the qualities of the muktatma as described in the Vedanta-sutras.

 

JNdas has a misunderstanding about what it means to be perfect according to Prabhupada.

That the liberated soul is omniscient is also the conclusion of Sripada Narayana Maharaja, as well as Srila Prabhupada.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Is the acharya absolute or relative? Here is Srila Prabhupada's answer:

 

"A pure devotee of the Lord does not live on any planet of the material sky, nor does he feel any contact with the material elements. His so-called material body does not exist, being surcharged with the spiritual current of the Lord's identical interest, and thus he is permanently freed from all contaminations of the sum total of the mahat-tattva." - Srimad Bhagavatam 1.13.55

 

[amanpeter 0]

jndas prabhu, please clarify whether guru conciousness and God conciousness are identical according to your understanding, from the perspective of an ordinary jiva soul. In other words, are Prabhupada conciousness and Krsna conciousness the same and leading to the same end or possibly an end in themselves? Would Prabhupada katha be equivalent to Radha-Krsna katha? Sorry for my inability to express these questions better.

 

[This message has been edited by amanpeter (edited 09-09-2001).]

[Guest guest]

 

Jndas has made a nice comment on mukta’s omniscience following Vedanta-sutra’s (4.4.15) conclusions.

 

Now one may raise a question: “Is the mukta also permanent consciousness, or in other words omnipresent?”

 

Vedanta-sutras (2.3.30 & 35) clarify this question, by stating that a soul is never omnipresent, for if it would be so, a soul would have a common possession with all souls, all actions would result in producing experiences in all souls, or in not producing experiences in any soul. Only Hari is absolutely all-pervading and omnipresent, as He is the soul of all souls, and therefore He can experience all souls, but muktas cannot do that.

 

[Citta 0]

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

[Guest guest]

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. (Citta)

 

So, you are inferring the condition of omnipresence of a mukta, that is clear denied by Badarayana Rsi in Vedanta-sutra (2.3.30 & 35). You also had said that according to Vedanta -sutra (4.4.15) a liberated soul is omniscient only after videha-mukti, while jivanmuktas, in spite of their condition of muktas, remain in this world pending final release and are not omniscient.

 

Therefore, according to your statements, it seems to be impossible for a mukta to hear whatever someone says in this material world after his moksa, and while in this material world he is not omniscient, and he may be under the spell of maya. So, what is the use of his instructions if he is not omniscient? Aren’t they all artha-prada?

 

[Audarya lila 0]

Here is the URL to a nice article written by Sripad Narasingha Maharaja regarding whether or not the guru is omniscient.

 

http://www.gosai.com/krishna-talk/omniscience.html

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

[stonehearted 0]

 

Originally posted by jndas:

It just goes to show that if you want to see an offense you will see one. I said that Bhaktisiddhanta never personally left India. You take that as an offense? It is a fact.

 

The fact is that you implied that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta cannot be considered the senapati vaishnava predicted by Bhaktivinoda becuase he never left India, even when invited. I was responding to the tone of your message. Please pardon me, as it's a habit: I'm a writing teacher by profession, trained in rhetoric.

 

Otherwise you can provide your evidence that he left India and preached throughout the world. The fact that he never left India does not minimize him in anyway. As Srila Prabhupada has said when asked why Lord Chaitanya didn't spread Krishna consciousness throughout the world, "Lord Chaitanya left it for me," as did all the other acharyas.

 

Can you provide a specific quotation and citation. My guess is that you're paraphrasing based on your best memory and/or your own biases. This is language rather uncharacteristic of His Divine Grace. What he said was most likely closer to "left it for us." You may, of course choose to either read that as the "royal we" or as an inclusive term indicating the Lord's devotees, including Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and their followers. For 32 years, I have always understood the latter as more consistent with Srila Prabhupada's character.

 

 

My point is that when Srila Prabhupada tells us directly that he was ordered by his guru, and then someone else say, no that's not correct, he was only suggested by his guru, I will choose to accept the words of Srila Prabhupada:

 

se karja je koribare ajna jadi dilo more

jogya nahi an dina hina

tai se tomara krpa magitechi anurupa

aji numi sabar pravina

 

"Although my Guru Maharaja ordered (ajna) me to accomplish this mission, I am not worthy or fit to do it. I am very fallen and insignificant. Therefore, O Lord, now I am begging for Your mercy so that I may become worthy, for You are the wisest and most experienced of all."

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta knew exactly who Srila Prabhupada was. He knew what he would accomplish. Knowing this, he ordered him to go to the west and preach.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but it frankly seems as though your real point is that you know better than the rest of us who Srila Prabhupada is. If I'm wrong, I beg your pardon. Again, I have inferred this from the tone of your messages.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I don't mean to be rude, but it frankly seems as though your real point is that you know better than the rest of us who Srila Prabhupada is.

The real point is that the word 'ajna' means order in virtually all indic languages. This is undesputable. Srila Prabhupada has chosen to use this exact word when explaining that his guru 'ordered' him to preach in the west.

 

I choose to accept his direct statement, where as others choose to reject it.

[stonehearted 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

The real point is that the word 'ajna' means order in virtually all indic languages. This is undesputable. Srila Prabhupada has chosen to use this exact word when explaining that his guru 'ordered' him to preach in the west.

 

Stonehearted: No one disputes this (note the spelling--there is a spelling checker that works with this message software).

 

jndas: I choose to accept his direct statement, where as others choose to reject it.

Stonehearted: Here's where the dispute is: your contention that others whose perspective is different from yours must necessarily be deviants. In the process, you'll not only say any damned thing, but publish it. (There's an old Prabhupada says: "You may say any damned thing, but don't write it.")

 

Caveat interlocutor.