Krsna Talk: Is a pure devotee, the guru or an acharya, omniscient?

[Guest guest]

>"Krsna Talk" <KrsnaTalk

>"Vrindavana dasa " <vedic108

>Krsna Talk: Is a pure devotee, the guru or an acharya,

>omniscient?

>Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:43:24 +0530

>

>8/30/00

>

>

> "All-cognizant means to know everything or to be omniscient

> (possess omniscience). According to Srila Rupa Goswami this

> is a quality that even the perfected jiva souls do not have."

 

>

>Krsna Talk: Omniscience

>

>Question: Is a pure devotee, the guru or an acharya, omniscient?

>

>Answer: There are two aspects of the guru namely absolute and relative. On

>the inspired side the guru is absolute and within his own thinking he is a

>devotee of Krsna. Our siksa-guru Srila B.R. Sridhara Deva Goswami Maharaja

>explained this topic as follows.

>

>"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 a 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 disciple offers the spiritual 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 acharya,

>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 and diversity." (Sri Guru and His

>Grace, Guru-Absolute and Relative, page 15)

>

>So from the standpoint of a disciple he should consider the guru as

>absolute, as non-different from Krsna.

>

>acaryam mam vijaniyan, navamanyeta karhicit

>na martya-buddhyasuyeta, sarva-deva-mayo guruh

>

>"One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way.

>One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the

>representative of all the demigods."

>

>The disciple says that, because my guru knows Krsna, he knows everything.

>But that is a different thing. We do not find 'omniscience' listed among

>the twenty-six qualities of a pure devotee, nor is 'omniscience' one of the

>fifty qualities of a jiva soul.

>

>A certain section of devotees like to think that the guru is omniscient,

>that he knows everything, because he knows Krsna. This section of devotees

>will think that the guru's omniscience means that he may be sitting in his

>institution and in a nearby place one of the children in his school is

>being harmed and he knows that such a cruel thing is taking place. They

>will say that because the guru is omniscient he knows everything and when

>asked why the guru did not do anything to save the poor child from physical

>harm they will say that the guru does not want to interfere with that

>child's parabdha-karma. The neophyte devotee may carry on thinking in this

>way for lifetimes together, but there is no evidence in either sastra or

>history to support such a misconception.

>

>Some devotees will say that the guru and all other great sages are

>tri-kala-jna, that they know the past present and future. But that is only

>their conjecture. Tri-kala-jna means that the liberated soul is not under

>the laws of material time, which has three phases of existence; past,

>present, and future. The liberated souls are not under the illusion of

>time. A liberated soul knows that he existed in the past, he exists at

>present and he will exist in the future. Because the guru knows Krsna,

>means that he is free from the illusion of the effacement of the self

>(soul). But those who are under the bodily concept of life (conditioned

>souls) are simultaneously under the influence and illusion of time. Such

>persons have no knowledge of the eternal existence of the soul, or

>knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna.

>

>The guru's 'knowing Krsna' does not mean that he knows everything that is

>going on in Maya's kingdom. Of course, in a general way, the guru knows

>that Maya's kingdom is a place of birth, death, old age, and disease. But

>even at that, he wants to save the living entity from the clutches of Maya,

>so why would he simply tolerate an assault against a defenseless child who

>is under his care and shelter in the guru kula? Such thinking is only

>palatable in the lowest section of devotees who have no proper

>understanding of guru-tattva (philosophical understanding of the guru's

>position).

>

>The higher thinking devotees and great authorities in the devotional line

>think in a completely different way than that of the neophytes. Lord Siva,

>one of the twelve Mahajanas (great devotees), says:

>

>aham vedmi suko vetti, vyaso vetti na vetti va

>

>"I know the true purpose of Bhagavatam; Sukadeva, the son and disciple of

>Vyasadeva, knows it throughly, and the author of the Bhagavatam, Srila

>Vyasadeva, may or may not know the meaning."

>

>Vyasadeva may or may not know, vyaso vetti na vetti va. This is the

>thinking of the higher class of devotees. By the will of the Supreme Lord a

>flow of knowledge may come down in the Vaishnava, but even he may not be

>aware of its meaning. Such is possible ‹ he may or may not know, vyaso

>vetti na vetti va.

>

>Srila Sridhara Maharaja has related an incident in this regard that once

>while Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was delivering a lecture, an

>especially high flow of Gaudiya conception came down in him. While speaking

>very intensely Saraswati Thakura gestured to Srila Sridhara Maharaja, who

>was sitting nearby, to write it down. Saraswati Thakura continued to speak

>for some time but there was no pencil or pen available. When Saraswati

>Thakura stopped speaking he turned to Srila Sridhara Maharaja and eagerly

>inquired, "Did you get it, did you get it?!" Sridhara Maharaja replied that

>there was no pen or pencil available to which Saraswati Thakura replied,

>"Just see, gober-Ganesh."

>

>Sridhara Maharaja relates this incident in his own words. "What I told you,

>it is not under my command. It is coming from above me. I also once heard

>Prabhupada say such. From Vrindavana he came to Prayaga. I also went with

>him, and we were invited, and went to a big man's place there, and such

>beautiful, new things came out, that I was feeling very much disturbance

>that I cannot note them. So much so, that I could not attend his lectures

>also deeply. Only I felt much disturbance to get pen and paper. Then, I

>felt very much uneasiness, because I could not mark those words. Then I

>came out, and Guru Maharaja told, his word was to me ‹ he was gober-Ganesh.

>That is Ganesh made of gober. Gober means cow dung. Ganesh composed of

>gober. He could not know these things, these thoughts that came. Even I

>felt the necessity of going through these things, these ideas afterwards.'

>

>"That person to whose house he (Bhaktisiddhanta) went to visit, was

>technically known as that section who worship satyam. Then what is the

>conception of satya? Mahaprabhu, and Radha-Govinda, Navadwip, that is the

>highest conception of satya. Satya is not an abstract conception of rules

>of some transcendental type. Satya is not such. What is the relation of

>Krsna and this satya? That he was to explain. And he told us that the

>thoughts that came at that time, he also wants to see it, what an

>inspiration, what was revealed in his heart at that time. He wanted to see.

>That was unknown to him. He said like that. He told us like that. That they

>are stranger to me, but they passed through me, and I want to see.'

>

>"I (Sridhar Maharaja) was very much mortified that I could not know them,

>and at the same time, I had some inner satisfaction that I could appreciate

>those finer points. Those extraordinary higher points that were delivered

>then, I was very much disturbed that I could not know them. So, I had the

>capacity of appreciating the highness, of those higher sentiments, that was

>my satisfaction. There is some inner element in me that can appreciate so

>much high ideas, our Guru Maharaja also wants to have them to consult a

>second time. That was my satisfaction, and at the same time, I was mourning

>all through, that I could not keep it for the public. And what our Guru

>Maharaja wanted to do, I also wanted to keep them again, to pass through

>me. So, we are instruments. It is the higher property. It my not stay in a

>particular plane always. By our negotiation, it may care to come down and

>to particular persons. This is very rarely to be found, few and far

>between. Gaura Hari bol. That is, in other words, it is the wealth, it is

>the property of our Gurudev, and not ours. That should be our

>understanding, pujala ragapata gaurava bhange."

>

>We find a similar narration by Srila Sridhara Maharaja, describing another

>such incident to Pradyumna Prabhu on November 11,1978 as follows:

>

>"Sometimes the agent may not know what things are passing through this

>arrangement. Vyaso etti na vetti va. But it is passing through Vyasa. It is

>tatastha-vicara. That is Absolute. From the Absolute standpoint, this has

>been told like that, even Vyasa may not know, but things may come through

>Vyasa to grace others. This is possible sometimes. But still we must not

>admit so easily that Vyasa does not know. We don't admit. I told it once to

>my guru maharaja.'

>

>"I had composed a Sanskrit sloka about Bhaktivinoda Thakura, guru maharaja

>was very much pleased with that. In Darjeeling I just showed him, that I

>have written this poem about Bhaktivinode. He saw it. At that time one

>Maharaja was like his clerk. He, Prabhupada, dictated and the Maharaja

>used to write letters. The Maharaja was attendant for letter writing. But

>one letter came from Bon Maharaja from England with something. Then

>Prabhupada told who has supplied this to Bon Maharaja? The Maharaja said

>Prabhupada you yourself have written this news to him. No, no, no. I did

>never write this thing to Bon Maharaja replied Prabhupada. Then Maharaja

>humbly took it, I wrote and you dictated, I remember. You were giving this

>news to him. No, I don't remember Prabhupada replied. Then I spoke, vyaso

>vetti na vetti va. I just remarked at the time, that vyaso vetti na vetti

>va."

>

>So the narratives above certainly give us an intimate look into the higher

>conception of guru-tattva via the life and teachings of such an exulted

>personality such as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura and his

>disciples. The pure devotee is always attentive to the will of the Supreme

>Lord, but everything that can be known is not always knowable to the

>devotee. Krsna is an autocrat and according to His wish something may come

>down to the heart of a devotee in the form of divine revelation, that which

>even the devotee is not aware of. This is what is shown to us by the higher

>thinking devotees.

>

>While commenting on the tenth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, Sripad Madhva

>Acarya did not like to comment on the portion known as Brahma-vimohana-lila

>(the illusion of Brahma). In the conception of Madhva Acarya he could not

>accommodate that Brahma, the original guru of our sampradaya, could be in

>illusion. Madhva Acarya could not accommodate the conception that Brahma

>did not know everything ‹ that he was in illusion. But Sri Caitanya

>Mahaprabhu accepted everything in Bhagavatam in toto.

>

>The following is stated in this regard by Srila Sridhara Maharaja in the

>Loving Search for the Lost Servant, page 50:

>

>"So although Brahma and the other gods and gurus and the givers of many

>sastras may have given some description of His pastimes, we shall have to

>realize that Krsna's pastimes are not bound by their descriptions. Krsna is

>not confined within a cage.'

>

>"So for this reason, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu did not hesitate to give a

>description of the bewilderment of Brahma (brahma-vimohana-lila). Brahma

>was bewildered in Krsna-lila in Vrndavana, and again when Brahma went to

>have an interview with Krsna in Dwaraka, we find the same condition. The

>boundary of the sweet will of the infinite is such that anything can be

>accommodated there, and even Lord Brahma, the creator of the universe, can

>be perplexed by Krsna.'

>

>"All these pastimes are like so many lighthouses showing us which way to

>go. Brahma is our guru, but he was bewildered by Krsna. And Vedavyasa, the

>universal guru, was also chastised by Narada. Narada was put to the test

>many times. All these examples are showing us the way. They are pointing

>out the direction.'"

>

>Omniscience is a quality of the Supreme Lord and not the quality of the

>jiva soul or even of the guru. The Supreme Lord has a total of sixty-four

>transcendental qualities. The jiva souls, however, have only fifty of those

>qualities found in the Supreme Lord and only manifest those qualities in a

>minute quantity (omniscience is not listed among these fifty qualities).

>

>Above these fifty qualities the Supreme Lord has five more qualities which

>sometimes partially manifest in personalities like Lord Siva. These

>transcendental qualities are: (1) changeless; (2) all-cognizant; (3)

>ever-fresh; (4) sac-cid-ananda (possessing an eternal blissful body); and

>(5) possessing all mystic perfection.

>

>All-cognizant means to know everything or to be omniscient (omniscience).

>According to Srila Rupa Goswami this is a quality that even the perfected

>jiva souls do not have. Only Krsna is fully omniscient. Only Krsna or God

>knows 'everything'.

>

>Additionally it may be mentioned that according to Webster's Thesaurus some

>synonyms for 'omniscience' are as follows: God; the Creator; the Almighty;

>the Supreme Being; our Heavenly Father; the Lord; and Allah. None of these

>synonyms however are applicable to a pure devotee, the guru, or the

>acharya. So our conclusion is obvious ‹ 'omniscience' is a quality of the

>Supreme Lord and not a quality of the pure devotee, the guru, or the

>acharya.

>

>---------------------

>

>Our Ashrama online: http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/

>Previous issues: http://www.gosai.com/krsnatalk/

>

>1-A Particle of Dust

>2-Meditation and the Holy Name

>3-Hearing From A Rasika Acarya (or not?)

>4-Does God Exist?

>5-Is a pure devotee, the guru or an acharya, omniscient?

>

>---------------------

>

>KRSNA TALK - EMAIL QUESTION & ANSWER FORUM by Subscription only

>

>---------------------

>You may or anytime by sending an email

>to KrsnaTalk with the word "" or ""

>in the subject line.

>

>Your questions relating to Krsna consciousness may be sent to

>Sripad Narasingha Maharaja at KrsnaTalk

>

>

>Please forward to an interested friend.

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.