Can an Acharya be wrong?!

[Gaea]

Hari Bol, All!

 

My question is based on recent posts where it seems that the word of the Teacher is absolutely final, even in subjects where the Teacher may not be an expert..... moon is further than sun, no such thing as evolution etc etc (i've picked the scientific ones because they've been most recent on this forum).

 

Be he Prabhupada, or other Gaudiya saints, the Pope or Advaitins - this phenomenon can be seen across the board. Is there any blasphemy in saying that "ok, he may have been wrong about this..." - the reason might be that all the information may not have been available to him etc.

 

Personally i don't think there is anything wrong/offensive in this. We have inherited a fraction of intelligence from God and therefore we should use it sum things up and decide for ourselves. That is my opinioin anyway.... what do you think?

[gHari]

The acarya is right even when he's wrong.

 

You should read the Moon-Thing honestly. http://geocities.com/caitanyamahaprabhu/moonthing1.htm

[Gaea]

 

The acarya is right even when he's wrong.

 

You should read the Moon-Thing honestly. http://geocities.com/caitanyamahaprabhu/moonthing1.htm

 

That very nice, gHari, thanks!

 

I think that these scientific issues and their relation to vedic litertaure, as it alludes to in the link you sent, are basically trivial. So what if there is a discrepency? The real thing we are all after is bhakti. So do those things matter in the face of bhakti - i think the answer is no.

 

Ok then, let's get out of the topic of science and move into spiritiality... is it possible for any bona fide acharya to be "wrong" (i use that term lightly) in any subsection of spiritual science? Again, of course, the nuances don't matter following the same arguments from the last paragraph, but i think it is worth discussing.

 

Thanks!

 

G.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Whats the doubt?

[Gaea]

 

Whats the doubt?

 

That an acharya might be wrong about things, albeit trivial things. Like i said, overall it doesnt really matter but it does seem to generate arguments.

[gHari]

 

That an acharya might be wrong about things, albeit trivial things. Like i said, overall it doesnt really matter but it does seem to generate arguments.

By the way, there were six moon-packed links on that Moon-Thing page - a good hour of reading. I studied astronomy and even worked part-time in the university observatory in the late sixties. The Moon-Thing pages put me right.

 

What do we learn from the flack? Well, first I learned that it was more complicated than I thought. Then I learned that it is really quite beyond my clever mind. Devotees learned to not give Prabhupada advice, (as though they were ever qualified to give him advice), speaking as experts when they really knew nothing. In various places, Prabhupada passed on a half dozen of their conspiracy theories.

 

All these controversies generate all kinds of interest. Some people even left. Imagine the depth of their faith. When guru stutters or uses the wrong word or grammatical construct, will we leave too?

[Gaea]

 

By the way, there were six moon-packed links on that Moon-Thing page - a good hour of reading. I studied astronomy and even worked part-time in the university observatory in the late sixties. The Moon-Thing pages put me right.

 

What do we learn from the flack? Well, first I learned that it was more complicated than I thought. Then I learned that it is really quite beyond my clever mind. Devotees learned to not give Prabhupada advice, (as though they were ever qualified to give him advice), speaking as experts when they really knew nothing. In various places, Prabhupada passed on a half dozen of their conspiracy theories.

 

All these controversies generate all kinds of interest. Some people even left. Imagine the depth of their faith. When guru stutters or uses the wrong word or grammatical construct, will we leave too?

 

thanks i'll have a look at those links... haha, i think i'm so clever too but i missed the great big orange underlined links on that page

[theist]

 

That an acharya might be wrong about things, albeit trivial things. Like i said, overall it doesnt really matter but it does seem to generate arguments.

 

Why approach a spiritualy enlightened being? We should approach such a person to learn about the world of spiritual reality. If someone needs a neurosurgeon to operate on his brain he does not seek out a Krsna Conscious guru. That is not his field. Any more than if I need my car worked on I would not approach a guru to do it, I would go to a mechanic.

 

I am curious about the science of God so I read books by those I consider qualified to answer my questions about God, the self and the relationship. I don't go to an astronomer to learn about Bhakti-yoga.

 

What separates the material scientist from the self realized person. The material scientist by definition knows nothing of the self as a particle of Life distinct from matter whereas the self realized knows the self quite well.

 

The question is what do I require to know? What is most pressing for me to know? When that is identified then I should choose accordingly.

[Guest guest]

However, before we go to pass judgement on whether or not the acharya is right or wrong, we have to understand that we ourselves are like blind bats living in a cave in a mountain on a deserted island in the midde of the ocean of ignorance.

 

the universe is full of mysteries, illusions, mirages and IGNORANCE.

We are victims of all those things.

 

We can never really have the qualifications to pass judgement on what the great self-realized masters have taught.

 

The more we put our faith in what they say and try to find the truth in it, the more that truth will become revealed.

 

The more we try to refute what the great Vedic sages have revealed by taking shelter of the Ronald McDonald section of scientists, the more we become victims of the illusions, mirages and ignorance of the dark material universe.

 

The magic and mystery of the universe has always and will always baffle the minds of the faithless and the scenical who want to know everything through the perception of dull material senses.

 

We have to see the universe throught he eyes of shastra or we will simply be blind to the magic and mystery of the universe.

[Gaea]

 

Why approach a spiritualy enlightened being? We should approach such a person to learn about the world of spiritual reality. If someone needs a neurosurgeon to operate on his brain he does not seek out a Krsna Conscious guru. That is not his field. Any more than if I need my car worked on I would not approach a guru to do it, I would go to a mechanic.

 

I am curious about the science of God so I read books by those I consider qualified to answer my questions about God, the self and the relationship. I don't go to an astronomer to learn about Bhakti-yoga.

 

What separates the material scientist from the self realized person. The material scientist by definition knows nothing of the self as a particle of Life distinct from matter whereas the self realized knows the self quite well.

 

The question is what do I require to know? What is most pressing for me to know? When that is identified then I should choose accordingly.

 

That is an excellent explanation, thanks, Theist!

[Gaea]

 

We have to see the universe throught he eyes of shastra or we will simply be blind to the magic and mystery of the universe.

 

what about the things in the universe that are not in shastra?

[Guest guest]

 

what about the things in the universe that are not in shastra?

 

that's a little vague.

what specifically are you referring to?

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna. The most enlightening ideas concerning the acarya are fully covered here:

 

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.5.11: On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest.

 

mahak: "Even though imperfectly composed" means just that. The mistakes are not pertenant at all, because the motive behing the teaching is to describe "the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord". Such perfection in this act removes all seemingly imperfect framework, spelling, accuracy of analogies, etc. The acaryas motive is "bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization".

 

So, the dovotee, who is thoroughly honest, HEARS, SINGS, AND ACCEPTS all of the teachings, the spellings the analogies.

 

The moon thing is quite revealing, and perhaps later, I will cite Lord Jesus Christ's similar points on the honesty described above.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

BY THE GRACE OF GOD......(John 5: 60-65)

 

A certain teaching of Lord Jesus Christ caused some of the followers to question the content. Some grumbled that the teachings were offensive. The Lord knew who the grumblers were, and pointed out this fact: "This is why I told you. People cannot come to Me unless My Father has granted this."

 

mahaksadasa: This clear description of the fact, "By the grace of God, one gets guru", indicates that the sincerity of the disciple is absolutely necessary in the equasion called guru-tattwa. After this event, many of those who were pretending to follow, attracted by populist notions, left Him for good. He then asked His apostles, "Do you want to leave Me too?" Their response was evidence that their attraction to guru was based on the prerequisite sincerity, that the Supreme Father Himself empowered not only His Son to be Guru, but also empowered the disciples to hear from Him.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

I think the question is: is an acharya all-knowing while in the body? can I ask an acharya absolutely anything (such as how many grains of sand are in the beach), and will he automatically know the answer?

[Guest guest]

 

I think the question is: is an acharya all-knowing while in the body? can I ask an acharya absolutely anything (such as how many grains of sand are in the beach), and will he automatically know the answer?

 

Since Krishna is the complete whole, the knower of Krishna knows everything that is worth knowing.

 

Krishna is prophylactic and antiseptic.

Knowing Krishna actually protects one from material omniscience which would be a great contamination and burden on the pure devotee.

 

If the guru is omniscient in the material world then he would know mow many maggots are on any given pile of rubbish anywhere in the universe.

 

That is not what omniscient means.

 

Omniscient means that he knows all about spiritual knowledge.

[Guest guest]

See, I should have said John 6 instead of five. But here is another depiction of that which I have referred to.

 

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

John 6.60-68

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

 

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.

 

Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

 

mahaksadasa: Point is, if he cannot give me the number of stars or the grains of sand, and his talks of political prognostication turns out inaccurate, swo what. "To whom shall we go?"

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

Sunday bible school is over. Chant Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

 

Omniscient means that he knows all about spiritual knowledge.

 

ahh, so it can be clearly said the Guru does not know every thing about material knowledge then, and therefore does not know everything about such things as mechanics, or astronomy.

[Guest guest]

There is a famous story where Adi Shankara was confronted in debate with a subject he knew nothing about (sex life).

 

Adi Shankara had a famous debate with Mandana Mishra in which the wife of Mandana Mishra, Ubhaya Bhāratī, was the referee. After debating for over fifteen days, Mandana Mishra accepted defeat.

 

Ubhaya Bhāratī then challenged Adi Shankara to have a debate with her in order to 'complete' the victory. This debate was to be on the subject of kāmaśāstra (science of sex-love). Now, Adi Shankara, being a sannyasi, had no knowledge of this subject. After requesting for some time before entering into this fresh debate, he entered the body of a king by his yogic powers and acquired the knowledge of kāmaśāstra.

[Guest guest]

 

ahh, so it can be clearly said the Guru does not know every thing about material knowledge then, and therefore does not know everything about such things as mechanics, or astronomy.

the moon topics etc. are not inventions of Srila Prabhupada.

What he has given in his books is the same thing that all the great acharyas have been saying thoughout time.

 

Madhvacharya

Vijayadvaja

Bhaktisiddhanta etc. etc.

 

The idea that the Moon is further than the Sun is not something newly manufactured by Srila Prabhupada.

 

It is the same knowledge that has been coming down through the parampara since the beginning.

 

If you want to prove that the Moon subject is wrong, then you have to discredit the whole parampara and quit trying to make Srila Prabhupada your scapegoat because you have more faith in NASA than you in the Vaishnava acharyas.

[Guest guest]

 

the moon topics etc. are not inventions of Srila Prabhupada.

What he has given in his books is the same thing that all the great acharyas have been saying thoughout time.

 

Madhvacharya

Vijayadvaja

Bhaktisiddhanta etc. etc.

 

The idea that the Moon is further than the Sun is not something newly manufactured by Srila Prabhupada.

 

It is the same knowledge that has been coming down through the parampara since the beginning.

 

If you want to prove that the Moon subject is wrong, then you have to discredit the whole parampara and quit trying to make Srila Prabhupada your scapegoat because you have more faith in NASA than you in the Vaishnava acharyas.

 

 

none of these Gurus had been to space that we know of. so how could they have infallibly known that the moon was farther, they only went by what they read or understood from SB.

[Guest guest]

If Acharyas are 100% infallible, how come Vaishnava acharayas of different sampradayas have disagreements on doctrine. Srivaisnavas, Gaudiyas, and Madhva acharyas do not all teach the exact same thing on every issue. They have different understanding or teachings on some of the finer points. So how can they all be said to be infallible on spiritual teaching?

[Guest guest]

Buddha said:

 

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

 

Since Gaudiya Vaishnavas regard Buddha as an incarnation of God, they would do well to heed this quote from his.

[Guest guest]

 

none of these Gurus had been to space that we know of. so how could they have infallibly known that the moon was farther, they only went by what they read or understood from SB.

 

Sure, Srila Prabhupada wrote a book Easy Journey to Other Planets, yet he has never been to other planets?

 

The title of this topic should better read "Can all the Acharyas be wrong?", because any acharya that accepts Srimad Bhagavatam has to accept what the Bhagavatam says that the Moon is further than the Sun.

 

If you don't accept the mystery and esoteric secrets of the Bhagavatam then you will never achieve the goal of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

it's not something you can confirm with your dull material senses.

there is an esoteric mystery here that only faith can reveal the answer to.

 

doubting the shastra and the acharyas will never help anyone understand the great esoteric mysteries of the Bhagavat.

 

Putting faith in Ronald McDonald's followers will not help anyone to attain spiritual perfection.

[Guest guest]

 

Buddha said:

 

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

 

 

So, Buddha said that we should put our faith in what we can verify with our impefect and contaminated material senses?

 

Buddha came to cheat atheists.

If you want to be cheated, then you can follow Buddha.

 

If you rely on your physical senses to verify spiritual knowledge, then you will live in a dark closet for eternity.