Infallible uttama-bhagavats or errors allowed?

Nemi Maharaja have put out a new note with the same content as before in regards to KBMs answer to the question “Where is there any un-interpreted (as-it-is) statement from Srila Gurudeva declaring our Srila Prabhupada to be a Sakha of any kind?” The statement KBM has provided seem to reference Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura (not SP), so therefore those who favor madhurya-rasa see this as a proof that KBM has provided false information. This makes KBM fallible which in turn makes the whole argument of KBM false in their view.

Balabhadra Prabhu further pointed out that, if we accept the KBM logic in this conversation, it means that they have proved that Srila Sarasvati Prabhupada is a priya-narma-sakha. However, we know that Srila Sarasvati Prabhupada is a manjari called Nayana-mani Manjari. Hence, the logic in the KBM argument must be fallacious.

The incident shows that the KBM party’s arguments are not always reliable and conclusive.

Nemi Maharaja

Those who are close to the preachers of KBM seem to view Srimati Krishna Priya didi and Madhusudhana Maharaja as uttama bhagavats (or at least very close to it).

Which makes this question so very interesting: How fallible are uttama maha-bhagavats? Can they make mistakes?

acaryavan purusho veda

Only one person whose Guru is an acarya can know the truth; only one who follows the acarya (and learns directly from his acara – behaviour) can know things in truth.
Candogya Upanisad 6.14.2

I leave a lot of room for mistakes in my life – my own mistakes as well as others. This is mercy in my mind. Sure, we have to use judgment when evaluating people, but mistakes are allowed. Mistakes are fine, they are just the beginning of a journey.

You make a mistake, you have to realize it, then you make course adjustments. Those who are only able to see the mistake and not the rest of the journey is in my eyes the ones who misses out.

But in terms of uttama maha-bhagavats though, we have a view that they represent Krishna who is the Absolute Truth. Therefore, the Gurus represent the Absolute truth and can make no mistakes.

So how feasible is this? Do uttama maha-bhagavats never make any mistakes?

 

13 thoughts on “Infallible uttama-bhagavats or errors allowed?

  1. Since your Gurudeva said that “they can do no wrong”, it means they are at least in ruci, which is rare in itself. But I have faith that there is even more than that. When it gets up there in those levels it’s very easy to through around all these terms like uttama-parama-this-and-that. The term “high class”, seems sufficient.

    KBM has not admitted the quotation to be a mistake, and there are different ways to think about that. High class devotees don’t make mistakes even when they make mistakes, which especially holds true when the siddhanta is correct.

  2. This is another variety of the topic discussed earlier on how to digest when sadhus are harsh, or when they use preaching tactics etc.

    When someone has become fixed they are blessed with the jewel of independence, and can do whatever the hell they like. Not only do they do what Krishna likes, but Krishna likes everything that they do.

    In the Kuruksetra war Krishna cheats right and left and encourages his devotees to do the same. Na me bhakta pranasyati.

  3. It’s said that pure devotees do not suffer from imperfect senses. But some of them wear glasses. Are they just testing us? Should we think that actually they don’t need glasses, but wear them out of humility? No. Their freedom from imperfect senses mean that they don’t rely on their senses to understand the meaning of life.

  4. The “they can do no wrong” statement is certainly convenient in this regard (but then I have the tendency to question the easy path anyway).

    “High class devotees don’t make mistakes even when they make mistakes”
    I do understand that if high class devotees make mistakes, its beneficial for all concerned. But then we also admit – that they do make mistakes. Therefore, how should we approach these mistakes?

    I’m not such a big fan of the word “high class devotees”, because to me that is a watered down definition. Any sannyasi who have practiced for some years (but may not have come far realization wise), can be called high class. I don’t really see it as a definition of devotees that have attained ruci and higher. Or is the practice of the words different from my understanding?

    • All terms have their narrow and broad applications. But it’s only when you’ve attained ruci that you can extend blessings to others independently, with Krishna-given independence. Devotees who are not yet there can of course ask Krishna to bless someone and he probably will.

      Someone who has ruci can still make ordinary errors, like spelling mistakes and whatnot.

      From Srila Prabhupada’s purport to SB 1.5.11:

      “We know that our honest attempt to present this great literature conveying transcendental messages for reviving the God consciousness of the people in general and respiritualizing the world atmosphere is fraught with many difficulties. Our presenting this matter in adequate language, especially a foreign language, will certainly fail, and there will be so many literary discrepancies despite our honest attempt to present it in the proper way. But we are sure that with all our faults in this connection the seriousness of the subject matter will be taken into consideration, and the leaders of society will still accept this due to its being an honest attempt to glorify the almighty God. When there is fire in a house, the inmates of the house go out to get help from the neighbors who may be foreigners, and yet without knowing the language the victims of the fire express themselves, and the neighbors understand the need, even though not expressed in the same language.”

      If “They can do no wrong” and “Krishna will have to create a special hell for anyone who criticizes them” are too convenient, I believe I saw in a comment on a thread somewhere in the beginning of the debate that it was Krishna Priya didi who revealed your Gurudeva’s manjari name, and he confirmed it. Also look at the way Srila Janardana Maharaja related to her. She is also not attached to having people agree with her, as we can draw from her statement that “It doesn’t matter if our preaching gets ruined”. That is another symptom of ruci.

      Sripad Nemi Maharaja knows this and has said he does not wish to debate with Sripad Madhusudana Maharaja or Krishna Priya didi as they are too advanced. That’s why he only addresses Sripad Damodara Maharaja or simply “KBM”. It’s nice that he dishonors his signature on the petition, and the further discussion is just more nectar.

    • I read the information on Gurudevas manjari name etc in Madhava Maharajas books, so it’s new information for me that Srimati Krishna priya didi was the one who revealed it.

      That Nemi Maharaja also have stated that he don’t wishes to debate didi and Madhusudhana Maharaja is also news to me (would love links to this if you find it again).

      I’m also happy that Nemi Maharaja continues to discuss these issues. He argues using siddhanta which is the proper way to do this, and he uses siddhanta further than just quoting Gurudeva. I also like that he seem to understand that Gurudevas words are ambiguous, so there is a gradual understanding involved in debate.

  5. Thank you!

    I feel I need to clarify my usage of the word convenient. The statement from Gurudeva that KBM can do no wrong, kind of trumphs all arguments (and therefore render all statements in regards to fallability false).

    My focus is usually to ask questions that drops into my head which in this case was whether high class devotees can do mistakes. I like the philosophical viewpoints of the discussion, and the devotees of KBM is beyond this subject (at least for me).

  6. Oh, I see. That’s not how I understood their quoting those statements. I understood it to mean that you shouldn’t dismiss KBM too quickly or think that they are ill intended.

    Btw, I wonder if your Gurudeva’s samadhi was finalized as a result of the debate. There used to be disagreements about it, and suddenly it just happened.

  7. Do you mean recently, or that the construction suddenly took a 180? I have written about the turning point here: http://devotionalconfluence.klungvik.com/2014/08/24/same-old-same-old/

    When Premananda Prabhu published his letter, it seemed like he got a lot of support. So then the responsibility to construct the samadhi was transferred to him. Actually, I should have a timeline of events after Gurudeva’s disappearance as well.

    I’m beginning to wonder whether this debate is one of the ways Gurudeva shows who we should take siksa from. That it’s a way to probe our sincerity.

  8. Ok, so the 180 turn happened back then already. Seems that the debate boosted it though.

    I like to think of the point that Krishna accomplishes many things at once, and your insight about siksa appears to be one of them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *