Role of Acharya vs. Role of Rishi

[Kulapavana]

 

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

 

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

 

I am not sure what constitutes a "full mastery of shastra" in our tradition. Did Srila Gaurakishora have a mastery of the shastra? Tradition says he was illiterate, yet he is certainly an uttama adhikari devotee. Did Srila Prabhupada study all the Vedas, Upanishads, Aranyakas, etc,? Still no one would deny he is also an uttama adhikari devotee. While translating Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada would sometimes make comments to devotees working with him on the books regarding a "discovery" of something really interesting in that text, as if he was reading the text and related tikas for the first time. Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit from one of his first disciples in Jhansi, Acaya Prabhakar in the early 1950's, later working mostly on his Bhagavad Gita and first part of SB. I believe some of the things he wrote are very educated guesses, with no pretense to divine revelation or absolute knowledge. That needs to be understood as well.

[Kulapavana]

 

Is there some statement from the rishis that the Breath Of God would no longer be accessable to any new rishis? That it is a closed book?

 

The Breath of God is there, but very few dare to claim it flows through them in a pure form. Divine rishis of old were truly not of this Earth. Last earthly sadhu to claim visiting Vyasadeva in Badarikashram was Acharya Madhva. Our stream of revelation flows through Lord Caitanya but even He made no claims to replace shastras with His revelations.

[theist]

 

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

 

Well it is apparent you don't have the slightest idea what I am talking about. I am not talking about something special to a few I am talking about a universal reality. ONLY KRSNA REVEALS KRSNA. You want to trust in your intellect? It was our intellect and minds that got us into the material mess we now find ourselves.

 

There is one guru who comes in infinite forms as guru shastra sadhu to guide the lost soul home. If anyone is accepting a guru apart from Supersoul then that means they have no idea who guru is and so their so-called acceptance means nothing beyond maybe accumulating sukriti.

 

Have we not been told that Guru is th external manifestation of Supersoul? I take the direct meaning of that.

[theist]

 

The Breath of God is there, but very few dare to claim it flows through them in a pure form. Divine rishis of old were truly not of this Earth. Last earthly sadhu to claim visiting Vyasadeva in Badarikashram was Acharya Madhva. Our stream of revelation flows through Lord Caitanya but even He made no claims to replace shastras with His revelations.

Ah here we go. The ever morphing argument. No one said anything about replacing anything.

 

Anyway I have made my point on this topic as best I can. No need to drag it out.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guruvani]

 

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit from one of his first disciples in Jhansi, Acaya Prabhakar in the early 1950's,

 

[Guruvani]

 

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit from one of his first disciples in Jhansi, Acaya Prabhakar in the early 1950's, later working mostly on his Bhagavad Gita and first part of SB. I believe some of the things he wrote are very educated guesses, with no pretense to divine revelation or absolute knowledge. That needs to be understood as well.

Well, I have solid evidence that Srila Prabhupada is an incarnation of Lord Nityananda Balarama, so we must be careful not to put petty limitations on him based upon our puny understandings.

[stonehearted]

 

While translating Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada would sometimes make comments to devotees working with him on the books regarding a "discovery" of something really interesting in that text, as if he was reading the text and related tikas for the first time.

I haven't heard this; however, it's more likely that he, as so many of us have, discovered something new whenever he read these texts and related tikas.

 

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit from one of his first disciples in Jhansi, Acaya Prabhakar in the early 1950's, later working mostly on his Bhagavad Gita and first part of SB.

His knowledge of Sanskrit certainly predates his days in Jhansi with Acharya Prabhakar prabhu. I've heard several things over the years that indicate this, but the one that stands out most is a comment about studying Kalidasa's Kumara Sambhava at Scottish Churches College.

[stonehearted]

Here's one example (and probably the one I had in mind) of Srila Prabhupada's mentioning that he studied Sanskrit at college:

 

The dhira example is given by Kalidasa Pandita, a great poet in India, Sanskrit poet, long, long ago. He has written one book: Kumara-sambhava. Kumara-sambhava. In our college we read that book in Sanskrit class. Kumara-sambhava. So he has given one example of dhira about Lord Siva, Mahadeva. He was meditating and the demigods, they had a plan, that "The demons are fighting with us. We are being defeated. We want a commander in chief, who must be born out of the semina of Lord Siva." But he was in meditation. So how to do it? So Parvati, she was sent. She was young girl. And she was worshiping the genital of Lord Siva. So a young girl, touching the genital, and she's present, but still Lord Siva was in meditation. So Kalidasa -- here is the example of dhira. He's called dhira. In spite of presence of a young girl touching the genital, he's not, I mean to say, disturbed.

 

[Bhakta Devarsi]

Hmmm, I wonder if Srila Prabhupada could wrap his little brain around Sanskrit. LOL.

 

let us not let our puny intellects incite envy for the Mahabhagavat Acharya.

 

Gour Govinda Maharaj, an advanced disciple of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, once went on a mission to prove the Sanskrit scholarship of his Guru's major shastric works in order to defeat detractors in his local area. He eventually met with a older man who was considered to be the highest authority in Sanskrit and English language in the area. I forget which of the books he was commissioned to read and examine, but he reported to Gour Govinda Maharaj in sublime ecstasy that A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami had blown his mind.

 

In all his life he had never seen anyone exhibit such mastery at invoking the most relevant of definitions in every case, even using the most esoteric in some cases but always enhancing the meaning of the sloka. In awe he explained that his translations were flawless and masterfully arranged in such a unique way that will never be exceeded.

 

I beg you. Just read the Translations and the Bhaktivedanta Purports to the Bhagavad Gita as it is (1972), and the Srimad Bhagavatam 1st and 2nd Cantos at least. The original unchanged books. Reading with faith and appreciation this will place you eternally at the lotus feet of Sri Krsna. This was my Srila Prabhupada's gift to us all.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guruvani]

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit from one of his first disciples in Jhansi, Acaya Prabhakar in the early 1950's, later working mostly on his Bhagavad Gita and first part of SB. I believe some of the things he wrote are very educated guesses, with no pretense to divine revelation or absolute knowledge. That needs to be understood as well.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

 

Here's one example (and probably the one I had in mind) of Srila Prabhupada's mentioning that he studied Sanskrit at college:

The dhira example is given by Kalidasa Pandita, a great poet in India, Sanskrit poet, long, long ago. He has written one book: Kumara-sambhava. Kumara-sambhava. In our college we read that book in Sanskrit class. Kumara-sambhava. So he has given one example of dhira about Lord Siva, Mahadeva. He was meditating and the demigods, they had a plan, that "The demons are fighting with us. We are being defeated. We want a commander in chief, who must be born out of the semina of Lord Siva." But he was in meditation. So how to do it? So Parvati, she was sent. She was young girl. And she was worshiping the genital of Lord Siva. So a young girl, touching the genital, and she's present, but still Lord Siva was in meditation. So Kalidasa -- here is the example of dhira. He's called dhira. In spite of presence of a young girl touching the genital, he's not, I mean to say, disturbed.

 

 

I guess the message here is that you can't believe everything you hear from ISKCON gurus?

The "authorized" biography is the biography that Srila Prabhupada told Satsvarupa twice not to write, but was "authorized" by the GBC after the passing of Srila Prabhupada.(in disobediance to his explicit instructions that Satsvarupa NOT write his biography.)

[Guruvani]

My guess would be that if Srila Prabhupada's father had heard from the astrologer that Srila Prabhupada would be a great world preacher of Bhagavat Dharma and establish 108 temples all over the world that he surely encouraged him to learn Sanskrit in college if not before.

 

Srila Prabhupada's father had him tutored in mridanga playing and singing bhajan and did what he could to prepare his son for a life of devotion and preaching. The playing Rathayatra is another example.

 

I would GUESS that Srila Prabhupada's first lessons in Sanskrit came even before he was in college.

My guess is that he had some basic understanding of Sanskrit even before his college days, but then again it is just my guess.

Srila Prabhupada's youth before marriage was a period when his father tried his best to prepare him for his life's mission that was predicted by the astrologer at his birth.

[theist]

 

[...]While translating Bhagavatam Srila Prabhupada would sometimes make comments to devotees working with him on the books regarding a "discovery" of something really interesting in that text, as if he was reading the text and related tikas for the first time.[...]

 

This may well be the case but it doesn't speak to ignorance on the part of Srila Prabhupada as it really marks the living nature of the Srimad Bhagavatam. What possibility is there of completely mastering Krsna in the Bhagavatam. One who is seeing from the Krsna conscious perspective must surely be discovering more about Krsna and His ways at every moment.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

I am not sure what constitutes a "full mastery of shastra" in our tradition. Did Srila Gaurakishora have a mastery of the shastra? Tradition says he was illiterate, yet he is certainly an uttama adhikari devotee.

 

Good points!! If you'll note, I said "one definition" of Uttama-Adhikari, not the only definition was a mastery of the shastra.

 

Certainly, it is not for any of us to say who has full mastery.

 

While Srila Prabhupada seemed interested in a formal course of study and examination (the various degrees, e.g. "bhakti-shastri"), and such examinations can be used to guarantee a basic level of familiarity with the scriptures, there is no standardized test that can measure the quality or depth of a Vaishnava's devotion.

 

While the aspirant may have so many questions to ask the Acharya, the Acharya brings our attention back to the true questions of life, which, all told are not so numerous or complicated.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Did Srila Gaurakishora have a mastery of the shastra? Tradition says he was illiterate, yet he is certainly an uttama adhikari devotee.

 

The role of the Babaji and the role of Acharya are distinct.

 

Both may be uttama-adhikari, but their behavior may differ.

 

From page 178 of "The Golden Volcano of Divine Love" by Srila Sridhar Maharaj:

 

 

In the higher stages of devotion, of course, humility

may have to be adjusted in another way for the

paramahamsa babajis, the topmost swanlike saints who

have given up all connection with this material

world. But in the preaching stage, the second class

devotee must accept things differently. As our guru

maharaja said, “Had I been in the role of a babaji, a

nonassertive, reclusive saint, I would have walked

away from the place without offering any opposition.

But when we are preaching and have taken the

responsibility of leading so many souls to the domain

of the Lord, our adjustment must be made accordingly.”

Generally, we may be indifferent to those who are

personally inimical to us, but when we preach on

behalf of the Lord in an organized way, our duty

changes: we cannot be indifferent to antagonists.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Here is Srila Gurudeva's very sweet definition of Uttama Adhikari. Note that it is independent of book learning and applies to both the acharya as well as the babaji (though the acharya may choose to "honor" some individuals in a manner which we might find peculiar):

 

http://www.mandala.com.au/gurudev/alwaysgivinghonour.htm

 

 

The uttama adhikari Vaishnava, they are always seeing Krishna everywhere, everything is flowing by the will of Krishna. He is living with all the entities and he is giving honor to everyone. This is uttama adhikari Vaishnava. He is always seeing everywhere the will of Krishna working, and Krishna living everywhere. Then good or bad anything that comes in his life he can harmonized very happily with that situation. Our practitioners' difficulty is that, we cannot differentiate who is a higher Vaishnava and who is a lower standard Vaishnava, and who is the highest standard of Vaishnava. And also some ego is coming to us, "I am also Vaishnava, I know better than others." This type of ego is disturbing our situation, practicing life disturbing. We must be careful about that. Fortunately what we are getting by the grace of Krishna, that is association of good Vaishnava, and we will choose some, as my mental situation allows, a good Vaishnava and try to understand what is my situation and what is good for me. If that way we will try to proceed in our practicing life then a safe position we will get. Otherwise we will be disturbed with our situation and sometimes we must make some offense to the Vaishnava and that is a very great obstacle in our spiritual life. About this matter it is necessary to discuss more and more. Details also, if we go into details that will be more good. Anything we will try to discuss, try to discuss with an expert Vaishnava. Until that, we must be careful for our situation and give honor to everyone. That will be very good. And where we will see some light there we will give our respect as madhyam adhikari Vaishnava. Then our position will be safe and we can practice happily with others.

 

 

 

Good points!! If you'll note, I said "one definition" of Uttama-Adhikari, not the only definition was a mastery of the shastra.

 

Certainly, it is not for any of us to say who has full mastery.

 

While Srila Prabhupada seemed interested in a formal course of study and examination (the various degrees, e.g. "bhakti-shastri"), and such examinations can be used to guarantee a basic level of familiarity with the scriptures, there is no standardized test that can measure the quality or depth of a Vaishnava's devotion.

 

While the aspirant may have so many questions to ask the Acharya, the Acharya brings our attention back to the true questions of life, which, all told are not so numerous or complicated.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit from one of his first disciples in Jhansi, Acaya Prabhakar in the early 1950's

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit as a child, which isn't uncommon even today. For example in Orissa sanskrit is taught in most schools, up until a certain age.

 

Srila Prabhupada was also able to converse in sanskrit, which is less common amongst scholars today.

[Shobhana]

 

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

Haribol Muralimohan Prabhu,

 

This is my first ever post on Audarya. What have I gotten myself into?

 

Thanks for drawing my attention to that thread. I'm kinda sorry that it is closed, because I actually had an answer to one of Muralidhara's questions (at the end).

 

Murali Mohan Prabhu, I've been thinking about how you're contrasting a Rishi with an Acarya and I'm wondering whether the sharp distinction is correct. Scriptural knowledge is a living thing, and what is revealed to a commenting acarya may or may not have been revealed to the scripture's author.

 

An acarya is said to be one who "not only confers the sacred thread... He trains his disciples in sacrifice and teaches them the confidential meaning of the Vedas. Such a spiritual master is an acarya, according to saintly authorities. [Cited in Gaudiya Kantahara, Chapter 1, from Manu Samhita]"

 

And then there is the more famous verse that states: "An acarya is one who understands the conclusions of the scriptures and whose behavior is in accordance with them. He teaches by word and deed." [Cited from the Vayu Purana, also in Gaudiya Kantahara, Chapter 1].

 

If the literal words of the sastra were all that was to be gleaned from them, you wouldn't need an acarya to explain the "rahasyam" or the hidden meaning. Indeed, Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura's comments on the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam sometimes go way way way beyond the literal meaning of the verse, sometimes to the extent that when Krishna is saying one thing to the gopis ("go home, good ladies"), Srila Chakravarti Thakura is saying, "actually Krishna means the exact opposite". As an extreme "insider", he's qualified to do that.

 

So the Acarya is expected to have some realization, or to at least have heard something relevant from his gurus in the parampara, and this may appear in the world as something "new". Srila Sridhar Maharaj's commentary on Brahma Gayatri is as original as it gets; it is totally in line with scripture, but nowhere else to be seen.

 

By using the word "electricity" in rendering the Bhagavad Gita verse na tad bhasayate suryo..., Srila Prabhupada was adding something new, but that doesn't mean it was wrong or speculation.

 

A rishi is supposed to be one who first "saw" the verse. So when we're doing a fire sacrifice and we must recite a vedic mantra, we're reading/saying things like "om prajapati visnu rishi, gayatri chhandah, janardano devatah etc." -- that the seer of the following mantra is Prajapati Vishnu, that the meter is gayatri, and that the devata is Sri Janardana, etc. One can argue that even the rishi only knows what was revealed to him regarding the verse, and that there may be things that the rishi doesn't know and perhaps cannot know.

 

Lord Shiva's statement comes to mind: aham vedmi suko vetti vyasa vetti na vetti va sridharah sakalam vetti narasimha prasadatah: "I know the meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam, Sukadeva knows the meaning of Srimad Bhagavatam, and Vyasa (the writer) may or may not know. [but] Sridhara knows everything, by the mercy of Sri Nrisimhadeva." And Vyasa most definitely had a direct experience of the Absolute Truth, as described in the first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Regarding the closed thread, when I joined ISKCON in 1984, Life Comes from Life was one of the first books that I ever read, and I came away from the book with the understanding that there was an individual jivatma in every cell. So, I'm inclined to agree with Jahnava Nitai Prabhu and I think his different quotes from Srila Prabhupada bear that out, that there are jivas in various states of covered consciousness in all of the cells of living beings.

 

Nevertheless, I understand Ksamabuddhi's (he probably remembers me as 'Sulochan' back in San Jose 1986) doubts and concerns that Srila Prabhupada would often refer to worms and germs when the devotees would mention cells, but regardless, I think he did understand what his disciples were asking him. But here is something unusual: after answering in the affirmative on several occasions (based on my Vedabase Searches), Srila Prabhupada seems to back away from the question for whatever divine reason:

 

 

Ravindra-svarupa: But is each cell an individual living entity?

Prabhupada: That I do not know. What do you mean by cell? But there are many living entities within this body. That we know. -- Morning Walk July 14 1975

At the same time, I also agree with Muralidhara Prabhu that devatas pervade the the species and that devatas may preside over diseases. I'm not sure which quotes from Srila Sridhara Maharaj he's referring to when he says that SSM clearly supports the view that there is only one jiva in every body. The quote from the Gita 13.34 is an analogy that doesn't prove that there are no other souls in the body. That there are presiding deities of the senses, the elements, the directions, and time is a well known feature of the Vedic world view. Along those lines, I can accept that there are presiding deities of species, trees, and even diseases. But can't a CEO preside over a company and direct its affairs while still having conscious individual people as employees?

 

One more thing,

 

Could you please show me some evidence that bacteria and blood cells show signs of being conscious individual souls? The capacities of a living being that we associate with "consciousness" namely thinking, willing and feeling, please demonstrate how bacteria exhibit these capacities.

Actually, there is such evidence, at least with regard to bacteria, and by extension, individual cells. I have an article by one Neurophysiologist, Dr. Daniel Murphy (Dayadhar Gauranga Dasa) from the June 1980 Bhaktivedanta Institute Bulletin entitled "Beyond the Mind-Brain Dilemma: Aneural Organisms". His basic point is that, while there are scientists who spend their lives struggling to reduce consciousness to the brain, what about when aneural (without a brain or nervous system) organisms such as bacteria display complex behavior generally associated with brains, such as memory and irritability?

 

Along these lines, Alfred Binet, one of the pioneers of todays intelligence and aptitude tests, wrote a book as far back as 1889, titled "The Psychic Life of Micro-organisms". I can't post links yet on Audarya, but you can search Google Books for the book by that title.

 

Haribol,

Shobhana Krishna Dasa

[Guruvani]

I put the question to a highly respected and senior ISKCON sannyasi on this issue of a jiva in every cell.

As I had described before, back in the Prabhupada-era this kind of preaching was not going on. It gained popularity after this theory was being advocated by some of the ISKCON scientists.

 

So, to test my theory I put the question to a highly regarded senior sannyasi of ISKCON who was a direct disciple of Srila Prabhupada and who is well conversant with the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

 

I am not going to mention his name as he replied to me in a personal e-mail, so I don't feel it proper to mention his name at this point.

 

To show my point that the "jiva in every cell" theory was not an established theory in the time of Srila Prabhupada, I put the question to one of the most respected of all the senior ISKCON sannyasis who is an ISKCON guru with disciples of his own,

 

Here is his reply:

 

 

There's a jiva in the heart of every human body. And there are all

sorts of other jivas floating around inside the body--germs, bacteria,

and so on. Is there a jiva within every cell? I don't know. It's

enough for me to know that I'm trapped inside the body and my business

is to chant Hare Krsna and go back to Godhead.</pre>

[Kulapavana]

Thank you all for additional information regarding Srila Prabhupada's early sanskrit education.

 

My point was actually related to the definition of full mastery of shastra. Srila Prabhupada was certainly very well versed in the shastras and he had truly monumental plans to translate the Vedic shastras into English. He wanted to translate many Puranas and Upanishads as evident from his early advertising in India anouncing subscriptions for the upcoming Srimad Bhagavatam volumes. Yet even in his case full mastery of shastra has a particular angle of vision. Who can really say they have a full mastery of the shastra in the broad sense? An does it even matter? vedesu durlabham adurlabham atma-bhaktau...

[Bhakta Devarsi]

 

Thank you all for additional information regarding Srila Prabhupada's early sanskrit education.

 

My point was actually related to the definition of full mastery of shastra. Srila Prabhupada was certainly very well versed in the shastras and he had truly monumental plans to translate the Vedic shastras into English. He wanted to translate many Puranas and Upanishads as evident from his early advertising in India anouncing subscriptions for the upcoming Srimad Bhagavatam volumes. Yet even in his case full mastery of shastra has a particular angle of vision. Who can really say they have a full mastery of the shastra in the broad sense? An does it even matter? vedesu durlabham adurlabham atma-bhaktau...

 

SB 4.28.48 : Purport :

 

Whenever an äcärya comes, following the superior orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or His representative, he establishes the principles of religion, as enunciated in Bhagavad-gitä. Religion means abiding by the orders of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Religious principles begin from the time one surrenders to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is the äcärya’s duty to spread a bona fide religious system and induce everyone to bow down before the Supreme Lord. One executes the religious principles by rendering devotional service, specifically the nine items like hearing, chanting and remembering.

 

Krishna Book, 2-32 :

 

The Vedic injunction is that no one can have full knowledge without being under the guidance of an acarya. Acaryavan puruso veda: one who has accepted an acarya knows what is what. The Absolute Truth cannot be understood by arguments. One who has attained the perfect brahminical stage naturally becomes renounced; he does not strive for material gain because by spiritual knowledge he has come to the conclusion that in this world there is no insufficiency. Everything is sufficiently provided by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. A real brahmana, therefore, does not endeavor for material perfection; rather, he approaches a bona fide spiritual master to accept orders from him. A spiritual master's qualification is that he is brahmanistham, which means that he has given up all other activities and has dedicated his life to working only for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna.

 

For the uttama-adhikari, who may accept the role of acharya, mastery of shastra is equivalent to being able to convey the essential goal of reading shastra to any individual who comes in his path as a sincere inquirer, and also to be able to convey in instructional form the sadhana that person might use to reach the goal of realizing the essence of the sastra, Sri Krsna, for himself. Diksa and Siksa.

 

So ultimately, it is the Lord's Yoga Maya who decides exactly what facts that acharya will need to convey along his sojourn, exactly what will be revealed to whom and when, and the acharya relys on the spontenaity of memory governed by supersoul to respond to all situations.

 

 

 

 

SB 3.11.18 Purport

 

 

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. Similarly, the devotees of the Lord can see everything clearly that is in the revealed scriptures. The devotees of Lord Sri Krsna can very easily understand the science of Krsna, as well as the situation of the material and spiritual creations, without difficulty. Devotees do not have to endeavor for any yoga-siddhi, or perfection in mystic powers. They are competent to understand everything by the grace of the Lord, who is sitting in everyone’s heart.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada knew sanskrit and probably alot of sastra, as well as their essence, way before his birth in his recent acharya lifetime.

 

And it seems obvious that his previously initiated relationship to Sri Krsna continued to unfold in a fresh and revelatory way since his ratha-yatra worship as a toddler.

 

He was preaching his whole life, and was so surrendered that in his later years, whatever confidential understanding of any single sanskrit word or sloka the Lord wanted to convey through him, consider it was done, perfectly, through divine dictation.

 

Blessed and most fortunate are those who can rest assured in the divine expertise of a mahabhagavat acharya.

 

Jaya Nitai!

[theist]

 

This is my first ever post on Audarya. What have I gotten myself into?

Ha! Yes,you have done it, you made the plunge and now we have you. You must now make many more posts in quality like this one. There is no escape for you now.

 

Sorry you came late to the jiva in the cell thread. That thread may be closed but the topic is not and can be revived with a new thread anytime. I sense you have much to share with us on that subject.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I too am very grateful for the scholarly addition to this discussion by Shobana Krishna Prabhu.

 

Shobana is one of the most humble and sincere--as well as scholarly and dilligent--Vaishnavas with whom I have had the fortune of associating.

 

I know he has many responsibilities and demands on his time, but I too hope he will grace us here with occasional (or more frequent) pearls of wisdom.

 

Unlike myself, I feel strongly that Shobana can illuminate us while avoiding making any Vaishnava aparadha.

 

Certainly, the point is well taken that Gurudev is not limited in the role he/she may play. Gurudev is the perfect acharya and the perfect rishi as well as being the perfect servant and devotee of Param-Gurudev and the entire Rupanuga Guru-Varga.

 

 

Ha! Yes,you have done it, you made the plunge and now we have you. You must now make many more posts in quality like this one. There is no escape for you now.

 

Sorry you came late to the jiva in the cell thread. That thread may be closed but the topic is not and can be revived with a new thread anytime. I sense you have much to share with us on that subject.