Two Kinds of Shaktyavesha Avatar

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada writes:

 

When the Lord Himself comes, He is called sakshat, or a direct shaktyavesha avatar, and when he empowers some living entity to represent him that living entity is called an indirect avesha incarnation.

 

Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakur writes:

 

sakshad hari vena samastra shastrair

 

The spiritual master is a sakshad avatar of Lord Hari according to shastra.

 

From this we can conclude from the revelations of Sridhar Maharaja that Srila Prabhupada was a shaktyavesha incarnation of Lord Nityananda, that Srila Prabhupada was a sakshad or a direct shaktyavesha avatar of Lord Nityananda.

 

As such he was not simply an empowered soul but a direct direct incarnation of Lord Nityananda?

[Guest guest]

One time a devotee asked Sridhar Maharaja how a jiva soul can become a spiritual master.

Sridhar Maharaja replied that the spiritual master is not a jiva soul.

 

so, from this we can understand that a genuine spiritual master is not an ordinary jiva soul but is sakshad Hari - directly an incarnation of the Lord.

 

As such, the qualifications for accepting the position of guru are very great.

 

A devotee must be so absorbed in Lord Hari that he has in essence become non-different from Lord Hari and becomes a medium through which Lord Hari conducts his affairs.

[Guest guest]

The guru in the true sense is Krishna.

 

The spiritual master as we know him is the transparent via-medium through which the Lord channels his words and instructions.

 

so, the spiritual master is a medium through which Krishna can work his own will.

 

Jiva souls that have not become an actual medium of the Lord are actually false gurus and cannot represent the actual will of God.

[Guest guest]

So, what we call "guru-tattva" is when Krishna has found a suitable soul to work his own will and instructions through.

 

Guru-tattva in essence is a sakshad avatar of Lord Hari.

 

When a Vaishnava has become wholly dedicated to Krishna he can actually function as a medium through which Krishna himself can speak.

 

When Krishna himself comes to manifest himself through a particular saint, then that is what is called shaktyavesha avatar.

 

The guru is Krishna.

Jiva souls are not the guru.

 

Guru is Krishna.

Sometimes Krishna works through his devotee and that is called shaktyavesha.

[Guest guest]

I don't think yo're correct about that one ... 'The guru is Krishna'. Using your logic, Srila Prabhupada must not have been a genuine Guru because he emphatically declared that he was not Krsna.

 

The Spiritual Master is as good as Krishna because he is very dear to Krishna but he is not Krishna Himself. This is my understanding.

 

 

So, what we call "guru-tattva" is when Krishna has found a suitable soul to work his own will and instructions through.

 

Guru-tattva in essence is a sakshad avatar of Lord Hari.

 

When a Vaishnava has become wholly dedicated to Krishna he can actually function as a medium through which Krishna himself can speak.

 

When Krishna himself comes to manifest himself through a particular saint, then that is what is called shaktyavesha avatar.

 

The guru is Krishna.

Jiva souls are not the guru.

 

Guru is Krishna.

Sometimes Krishna works through his devotee and that is called shaktyavesha.

[Kulapavana]

 

Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakur writes:

 

sakshad hari vena samastra shastrair

 

 

The spiritual master is a sakshad avatar of Lord Hari according to shastra.

 

 

1. it is a line from a poem gloryfying a spiritual master, not from shastra in a typical definition in Vaishnava tradition.

 

2. you are implanting the avatar notion which is not in the text.

 

3. this is not an understanding of our tradition with respect to Guru-tattva. essentially you are saying that guru is God.

 

 

another attempt to make an apa-sampradaya to paralel Swami Narayan people. what's next? the Swami Prabhupad Narayan temple?

[theist]

The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead.

 

One and different simultaneously remember, not either or.

[Guest guest]

The Guru is simultaneously God and not God? I havent' heard that before. Can you elaborate more please or provide reference?

 

Thanks.

 

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead.

 

One and different simultaneously remember, not either or.

[Guest guest]

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead.

 

One and different simultaneously remember, not either or.

 

Lord Balarama/Lord Nityananda is the supreme personality of servitor Godhead and yet he is Vishnu-tattva, so making a distinction here does not really change the concept any.

[Guest guest]

 

1. it is a line from a poem gloryfying a spiritual master, not from shastra in a typical definition in Vaishnava tradition.

 

2. you are implanting the avatar notion which is not in the text.

 

3. this is not an understanding of our tradition with respect to Guru-tattva. essentially you are saying that guru is God.

 

 

another attempt to make an apa-sampradaya to paralel Swami Narayan people. what's next? the Swami Prabhupad Narayan temple?

 

Wrong.

Vishvanatha says in his verses that the guru is delcared by the shastra to be a sakshad avatar of Krishna.

 

So, anyway, what Vishvanatha says is exactly corresponding to the version of shastra.

 

You are definitely talking out your posterior on this one.

 

Maybe your guru is a jiva.

 

My guru is sakshad Hari.

[Guest guest]

Let me ask you respectfully ... what do you think of the Swami Narayans? If Guru=God, I'd think they're doing nothing wrong.

 

 

Wrong.

Vishvanatha says in his verses that the guru is delcared by the shastra to be a sakshad avatar of Krishna.

 

So, anyway, what Vishvanatha says is exactly corresponding to the version of shastra.

 

You are definitely talking out your posterior on this one.

 

Maybe your guru is a jiva.

 

My guru is sakshad Hari.

[theist]

 

The Guru is simultaneously God and not God? I havent' heard that before. Can you elaborate more please or provide reference?

 

Thanks.

 

I can't find the exact spot where Srila Prabhupada used the term "Supreme Personality of Servitor Godhead." Others may know.

 

The simultaneous oneness and difference between the Lord and all other living beings is a bascic tenet of Sri Caitanya's teachings. All wii not try to elaborate as others here could do a much better job.

 

The simplest example I can offer is from words of Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." People cite this as proof that Jesus is God. I accept that.

 

However later in the same chapter Jesus says, "The Father is Greater than I." Ohers will cite this to prove Jesus is the servitor of the Father. I accept that also.

 

Both statments although appearing contradictory as true at the same time. This is identical to Lord Caitanya's philosophy.

[Guest guest]

 

Let me ask you respectfully ... what do you think of the Swami Narayans? If Guru=God, I'd think they're doing nothing wrong.

 

I don't know anything about Swami Narayana and his religion.

 

He might be a shaktyavesha avatar. I don't know.

 

Shaktyavesha avatars are described in the shastra as unlimited.

 

There are many such shaktyavesha avatars.

 

Maybe some other devotee can tell you if Swami Narayana is God or not.

I don't know.

[theist]

 

Lord Balarama/Lord Nityananda is the supreme personality of servitor Godhead and yet he is Vishnu-tattva, so making a distinction here does not really change the concept any.

 

The referrence was not in regard to Lord Nityananda. However since I can't remeber where it was found I certainly don't expect you to just accept it from me.

 

Just deal the basic truth of acintya bhedabheda tattva.

[Kulapavana]

 

Maybe your guru is a jiva.

 

My guru is sakshad Hari.

 

the term jiva usually refers to a conditioned living entity in the samsara cycle. my guru was not a jiva. but my guru was FURIOUS when some of his disciples started to spread the kind of philosophy you are spreading here, trying to present him as God. thank God he was still with us to clear that misconception. too bad some of his disciples have not learned much from that incident.

[AncientMariner]

Hare Krishna,

 

I could be wrong but Prabhupada did belong to the jiva-tattva category of beings didn't he? As far as I know he never claimed to be visnu-tattva? I remember reading that a jiva can become a brahma which is about 78% of the qualities of Godhead and that is the maximum a jiva can get. Brahma was imparted all the vedic knowledge by the Supreme Lord so even though Brahma is a jiva doesn't mean he is not a guru does it? Forgive my ignorance if I am wrong.

[Kulapavana]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

I could be wrong but Prabhupada did belong to the jiva-tattva category of beings didn't he? As far as I know he never claimed to be visnu-tattva?

 

"Although the guru is in most cases a jiva (jiva-tattva) he is not to be considered as such. His position is two-fold. As a Vaishnava he is considered a jiva but the disciple is not so much concerned with that position. The disciple is mainly concerned with the delegation of Krishna manifest in Gurudeva and that is the guru-tattva. So the guru's position is two fold – he is jiva-tattva and he is guru-tattva. We do not say that Gurudeva is 'jiva-tattva', rather we say that Gurudeva is 'guru-tattva' or 'acarya-tattva'. In this way the disciple always keeps the conception of Sri Gurudeva above that of the ordinary human being." Sripad Swami B. G. Narasingha

[Guest guest]

This is a very nice explanation. I think it describes the Guru very well.

 

 

"Although the guru is in most cases a jiva (jiva-tattva) he is not to be considered as such. His position is two-fold. As a Vaishnava he is considered a jiva but the disciple is not so much concerned with that position. The disciple is mainly concerned with the delegation of Krishna manifest in Gurudeva and that is the guru-tattva. So the guru's position is two fold – he is jiva-tattva and he is guru-tattva. We do not say that Gurudeva is 'jiva-tattva', rather we say that Gurudeva is 'guru-tattva' or 'acarya-tattva'. In this way the disciple always keeps the conception of Sri Gurudeva above that of the ordinary human being." Sripad Swami B. G. Narasingha

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

I could be wrong but Prabhupada did belong to the jiva-tattva category of beings didn't he? As far as I know he never claimed to be visnu-tattva? I remember reading that a jiva can become a brahma which is about 78% of the qualities of Godhead and that is the maximum a jiva can get. Brahma was imparted all the vedic knowledge by the Supreme Lord so even though Brahma is a jiva doesn't mean he is not a guru does it? Forgive my ignorance if I am wrong.

 

It says that devotees belong to the Marginal potency (when we're here). With all the Maha-maya. Then when it's lifted, we come under Yoga-maya (shes the good guy). Then we can forget about being scared.

 

Prabhupada said He was always the servant of His Gurudeva, just like Shankracharya was (jiva-tattva). Even though He was Shambu.

 

A Vishnu-tattva incarnation, (enjoyer). Enjoys.

[Guest guest]

From Teachings of Self Realization, Srila Prabhupada clears up the misconception of the topic starter here.

 

Srila Prabhupada:

 

"In the Bhagavad-gita (18.66) Krsna instructs:

 

 

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

 

mam ekam saranam vraja

 

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

 

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

 

 

"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." Someone may argue, "Where is Krsna? I shall surrender to Him." But no, the process is that we first surrender to Krsna's representative; then we surrender to Krsna. Therefore it is said, saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih: the guru is as good as God. When we offer respects to the guru, we are offering respects to God. Because we are trying to be God conscious, it is required that we learn how to offer respects to God through God's representative. In all the sastras the guru is described to be as good as God, but the guru never says, "I am God." The disciple's duty is to offer respect to the guru just as he offers respect to God, but the guru never thinks, "My disciples are offering me the same respect they offer to God; therefore I have become God." As soon as he thinks like this, he becomes a dog instead of God. Therefore Visvanatha Cakravarti says, kintu prabhor yah priya eva tasya. Because he is the most confidential servitor of God, the guru is offered the same respect that we offer God. God is always God, guru is always guru. As a matter of etiquette, God is the worshipable God, and guru is the worshiper God (sevaka-bhagavan). Therefore the guru is addressed as prabhupada. The word prabhu means "lord," and pada means "position." Thus prabhupada means "he who has taken the position of the Lord." This is the same as saksad-dharitvena samasta-sastraih.

 

mahaksadasa: To imagine Srila Prabhupada is of the visnu tattwa catagory, we, in effect, nullify all of his teachings on the subject. He always teaches us to be like him, to accept a guru means to ultimately achieve the level of guru ourselves. If he is Visnu Tattwa, then this teaching is a bald faced lie, because we are never visnu tattwa, nor can we ever be.

 

This is the same tattwa destroyer as happened to the christians via constantine and the demoniac sylvester, who made Jesus the father, thus nullifying all vaisnavism from christianity. Without understanding the servasnt status of Lord Jesus and the enjoyer of the service position of whom jesus declared as the one who has sent him, we have an impossible and bogus religion of no value.

 

We certainly prasie Srila Prabhupada, and never minimize him as an ordinary being, however, to make him Lord Nityananda means that he was not sent by Lord Nityananda, there is no chaita guru who led us to Prabhupada, etc. Many have made this mistake, and the religion they build upon this fallacy is perforated throughout because of this false foundation.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

[quote name='Guest (mahaksadasa) the misconception of the topic starter here.

[/quote']

 

Well, let me clear up the misconceptions of the author of this quote.

 

Maybe you missed what I said on another thread that was closed but which inspired me to start this thread.

 

If you look back to the closed thread about "Books and Living Sadhus", you will see that I stated clearly that I WAS NOT saying that Srila Prabhupada was Vishnu-tattva.

 

What I said there and what I said in this topic was that he was a shaktyavesha avatar.

 

There are 2 kinds of shaktyavesha avatar.

 

So, as much as you enjoy putting words in my mouth that I have not said, I must correct you that I have NEVER that that Srila Prabhupada was Vishnu-tattva.

 

Besides that, since when is guru-tattva a jiva?

 

Jiva is marginal energy.

 

The guru is endowed with hladini-shakti and is thus more akin to shakti-tattva than jiva tattva.

 

The guru is not a jiva.

A jiva is not the guru.

 

The guru is Krishna.

 

As much as a living entity can be a medium for Krishna, then he is guru.

 

Actually, the jiva never becomes guru.

 

The jiva becomes a medium for Krishna and Krishna is the guru.

 

Jiva means imcomplete entity.

 

When a jiva becomes embued with hladini-shakti he graduates the jiva status and becomes shakti-tattva.

 

The gopis aren't jivas.

 

Jivas inhabit the material world and are marginal energy.

[Guest guest]

 

Guest (mahaksadasa) the misconception of the topic starter here.

 

 

Well, let me clear up the misconceptions of the author of this quote.

 

Maybe you missed what I said on another thread that was closed but which inspired me to start this thread.

 

If you look back to the closed thread about "Books and Living Sadhus", you will see that I stated clearly that I WAS NOT saying that Srila Prabhupada was Vishnu-tattva.

 

What I said there and what I said in this topic was that he was a shaktyavesha avatar.

 

There are 2 kinds of shaktyavesha avatar.

 

So, as much as you enjoy putting words in my mouth that I have not said, I must correct you that I have NEVER that that Srila Prabhupada was Vishnu-tattva.

 

Besides that, since when is guru-tattva a jiva?

 

Jiva is marginal energy.

 

The guru is endowed with hladini-shakti and is thus more akin to shakti-tattva than jiva tattva.

 

The guru is not a jiva.

A jiva is not the guru.

 

The guru is Krishna.

 

As much as a living entity can be a medium for Krishna, then he is guru.

 

Actually, the jiva never becomes guru.

 

The jiva becomes a medium for Krishna and Krishna is the guru.

 

Jiva means imcomplete entity.

 

When a jiva becomes embued with hladini-shakti he graduates the jiva status and becomes shakti-tattva.

 

The gopis aren't jivas.

 

Jivas inhabit the material world and are marginal energy.

[Guest guest]

 

 

Prabhupada said He was always the servant of His Gurudeva,

 

Even Lord Balarama considers himself as the servant of Krishna.

 

He would also be disturbed if referred to as The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.

 

So, Srila Prabhupada taking exception to being called God is no surprise since even Nityananda would take exception to that as weill.

[Guest guest]

I can't believe that so many devotees around the movement still think that a jiva can be guru.

 

A jiva can only be the medium for Krishna, who is the guru.

[Guest guest]

If there is some jiva setting on a vyasasan somewhere thinking that he is guru, instead of thinking that Krishna is guru and he is only a medium, then that jiva is totally unfit to be guru for anyone.

 

"I AM GURU" is the biggest maya that a living entity can be it.