Guru Tattva: God and Devotee Combined

January 16, 2002, Vol. IV, No. 1

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

“Of course it is God in the devotee who is guru, but God is also a devotee of his devotees. Actually the position of the devotee is higher than that of God.”

Q. Can you explain the term saktyavesa avatara? Does it refer to God himself or to an empowered living being? If it refers to the latter, is this empowerment permanent? I ask this because I have heard Srila

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada referred to as a saktyavesa avatara.

A. Regarding saktyavesa, avesa means empowerment and sakti means potency. A saktyavesa avatara is one in whom a particular potency (sakti) of Godhead descends (avatara) to empower (avesa) a devotee for a specific purpose.

Prthu Maharaja was empowered by the ruling potency (palanavesa), Vyasa by knowledge (jnanavesa), etc. This empowerment can be temporary, as in the case of Parasurama, who was an empowered being but lost in battle with Ramacandra when the Lord's avesa was withdrawn. We consider that Srila

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, my Gurudeva, was empowered by Nityananda Prabhu, Nityanandavesa, for the work of widescale preaching the glories of Lord Chaitanya. Srila Sridhara Maharaja said this empowerment came while Prabhupada was on the ship Jaladutta, bound for America. Such empowerment can be understood through the guidance of those who have eyes to see. It comes by the grace of God for his own purpose.

Q. In a previous Sanga you mentioned Jiva Goswami states that there are three classes of mahabhagavatas qualified to act as guru: 1) bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapt: one who has two feet in the spiritual world and extends one here, 2) nirdhuta-kasaya, one who has one foot in the material world and who extends his other foot to the spiritual world, and 3) murcchita-kasaya, one who has two feet in the material world but who fixes his eyes on the spiritual world. Although this mahabhagavata may have the seeds of material desire within his heart, they cannot fructify due to his full engagement in Krsna Consciousness.

About this I have some questions: Can one initiate disciples if he is below these three classes of siddhas?

A. Not with much success.

Q. If not, then when one becomes an initiating spiritual master, is he not proclaiming himself to be a siddha?

A. Only the first (bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapt), a guru who has both feet in the spiritual world is a siddha in all respects.

Q. Can gurus in any of these categories fall down?

A. The first two can if they offend a Vaisnava.

Q. As souls cannot fall from the spiritual world, can we conclude that a guru who is vulnerable to falling down is not actually a siddha (assuming siddha means spiritually perfected)?

A. Of course.

Q. Concerning the murcchita-kasaya guru, although his material desires are lying dormant, can't they (like weeds) be watered and reawakened? Isn't the worship of such a guru dangerous for the guru and consequently for the disciple if the guru falls down?

A. By definition this class of guru is engaged such that the seed for material desire cannot fructify, although it is still in place. The flood of his bhakti does not allow the seed of material desire to germinate.

Q. How about this proposal: If the diksa guru is vulnerable to falling down, then let the disciples worship him through service, submission, and inquiry but let them save worship in the form of vyasa-puja or guru-puja for their siksa guru who can't fall down (like Srila Prabhupada).

A. It is a silly idea to think that worship is the cause of falldown. You cannot legislate how much a disciple can worship his or her guru. Let the guru regulate this according to his own sensibilities.

Q. On a taped lecture a prominent sannyasi uttered the opinion that the suffix “deva” in the name Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva Goswami is not acceptable because it was never used by his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, or any of our previous acharyas. He further said that this suffix is actually an insult when used in relationship to an acharya who has passed away “nitya-lila-pravista,” because it would mean “we drag him down from Goloka (the spiritual world) to Svargaloka (the heavenly planets).” He then said that this word “deva” was not used during Sridhara Maharaja's earthly presence but was later introduced by some of his disciples.

A. The suffix/prefix “deva” is an honorific that distinguishes Sridhara Maharaja from other sannyasis. It was used during his presence with his full knowledge. It is printed on the cover of his edition of Bhagavad-gita with his approval, as well as on his Bengali edition of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. It is true that Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura did not address him with this title. However, neither did he address him as Visnupada, etc., which is left for his disciples to do. There is no limit to which the disciple can glorify his guru.

With regard to the grammar involved, Sridhara Maharaja was himself very competent in Sanskrit composition. Deva is derived from the Sanskrit root “div.” It is used to indicate either earthly things of extraordinary excellence, that which is heavenly, or that which is divine. When connected with “Sridhara” (Sridharadeva) in Sridhara Maharaja's name, it means “The divine carrier of Radha.” When connected with “Goswami” (Deva Goswami) it means “Divine controller of the senses.” The idea that the honorific “deva” is an insult is not well thought out. The pseudo logic given to support this conclusion does not help. With this logic we are left to conclude that Baladeva, Gaurangadeva, Gurudeva, etc. are offensive as well.

Q. I have heard it said that we should not be very interested in devotees like Brahma, Narada, and Prahlada because they are not directly involved in Vraja bhakti. What is your opinion on this?

A. In general we should be careful to present the whole picture and not to disrespect great devotees in the name of preaching the glories of Vraja bhakti. The whole picture reveals that persons like Prahlada, Brahma, and Narada are paradigmatic persons who represent the ontology of spiritual attainment. Thus in the literature they serve to illustrate the spiritual hierarchy for us as points on the spiritual map. However, this is not all there is to know about them, and their personal position is not limited to how they are depicted most commonly. For example, Narada is not typically portrayed as a Vraja bhakta, however, we hear that he developed a desire to taste gopi bhava and was successful in attaining a gopi deha after bathing in what is now known as Narada Kunda in Vraja. In Gaura lila Srivasa Thakura has been identified with Narada. Can we then say that Srivasa has no connection whatsoever with Vraja bhakti? The ista devata (worshipable deity) of Brahma, Narada, and Prahlada was Krsna and not anyone else. The Pandavas are not typically portrayed as Vraja bhaktas, yet during the excavation of Syama kunda Yudhistira appeared before the Goswamis and told them not to cut down five trees on the banks of Syama kunda because they were the Pandavas who were residing there eternally doing bhajana. Furthermore, in a general sense, dasya bhakti in Gaura lila is also said to correspond with attainment in Vraja lila. So we should have a broad outlook when discussing worshipable personalities like these.

Q. Why did Gargamuni, a pure devotee of the Lord, make a sacrifice to create Kalayavana and avenge the defeated Jarasandha?

A. Within Krsna lila great devotees often do things that seem inappropriate to sadhakas. Sadhana (the practice) and sadhya (the goal), while related, are like the difference between a caterpillar and a butterfly. Although some siddhas act like ideal sadhakas, they do this because they are teaching others by example in the realm of sadhana. This is not what devotees within Krsna lila are directly concerned with.

Otherwise, Kalayavana was the negative impetus for Krsna's establishing the city of Dvaraka. He teamed up with Jarasandha to attack Krsna, and thus created a dilemma for Krsna as to how to protect his devotees. If Krsna was occupied with fighting Kalayavana, Jarasandha might attack Krsna's family. Thus Krsna decided to build the fortress of Dvaraka. So Gargamuni, who fathered Kalayavana, was instrumental in establishing Dvaraka.

Furthermore, Mucukunda killed Kalayavana, and within the lila it appeared that Krsna was unable to do so. Thus Kalayavana gave Krsna the chance to showcase the prowess of his devotee, and he takes great pleasure in seeing his devotees outdo himself.

Q. Is the guru God or a devotee of God?

A. In the following verse from the Upanisads the guru is described as distinct from God:

yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau/

tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah//

“Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed.” (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.23)

However, the Guruvastakam of Visvanatha Cakravarti tells us that guru is the power of god and devotee combined. There the guru is described as the energy of God: saksad hari, but (kintu) prabhor ya priya eva tasya, he is dear (priya) to God as well. So the guru is an empowered devotee who is dear to God, and as God's representative he should be treated as such. Of course it is God in the devotee who is guru, but God is also a devotee of his devotees. Actually the position of the devotee is higher than that of God.

In Chaitanya-caritamrta the guru, God, and Vaisnava are differentiated from one another, but there also guru is described as God and devotee combined. Krsnadasa Kaviraja says yadyapi amara guru—caitanyera dasa tathapi janiye ami tanhara prakasa:

“Although I know my guru as a devotee of Sri Caitanya, I also know my guru to be a manifestation of him as well.”


	ask a question current Sanga Sanga archives subscribe	January 16, 2002, Vol. IV, No. 1 Guru Tattva: God and Devotee Combined Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari “Of course it is God in the devotee who is guru, but God is also a devotee of his devotees. Actually the position of the devotee is higher than that of God.” Q. Can you explain the term saktyavesa avatara? Does it refer to God himself or to an empowered living being? If it refers to the latter, is this empowerment permanent? I ask this because I have heard Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada referred to as a saktyavesa avatara. A. Regarding saktyavesa, avesa means empowerment and sakti means potency. A saktyavesa avatara is one in whom a particular potency (sakti) of Godhead descends (avatara) to empower (avesa) a devotee for a specific purpose. Prthu Maharaja was empowered by the ruling potency (palanavesa), Vyasa by knowledge (jnanavesa), etc. This empowerment can be temporary, as in the case of Parasurama, who was an empowered being but lost in battle with Ramacandra when the Lord's avesa was withdrawn. We consider that Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, my Gurudeva, was empowered by Nityananda Prabhu, Nityanandavesa, for the work of widescale preaching the glories of Lord Chaitanya. Srila Sridhara Maharaja said this empowerment came while Prabhupada was on the ship Jaladutta, bound for America. Such empowerment can be understood through the guidance of those who have eyes to see. It comes by the grace of God for his own purpose. Q. In a previous Sanga you mentioned Jiva Goswami states that there are three classes of mahabhagavatas qualified to act as guru: 1) bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapt: one who has two feet in the spiritual world and extends one here, 2) nirdhuta-kasaya, one who has one foot in the material world and who extends his other foot to the spiritual world, and 3) murcchita-kasaya, one who has two feet in the material world but who fixes his eyes on the spiritual world. Although this mahabhagavata may have the seeds of material desire within his heart, they cannot fructify due to his full engagement in Krsna Consciousness. About this I have some questions: Can one initiate disciples if he is below these three classes of siddhas? A. Not with much success. Q. If not, then when one becomes an initiating spiritual master, is he not proclaiming himself to be a siddha? A. Only the first (bhagavat-parsada-deha-prapt), a guru who has both feet in the spiritual world is a siddha in all respects. Q. Can gurus in any of these categories fall down? A. The first two can if they offend a Vaisnava. Q. As souls cannot fall from the spiritual world, can we conclude that a guru who is vulnerable to falling down is not actually a siddha (assuming siddha means spiritually perfected)? A. Of course. Q. Concerning the murcchita-kasaya guru, although his material desires are lying dormant, can't they (like weeds) be watered and reawakened? Isn't the worship of such a guru dangerous for the guru and consequently for the disciple if the guru falls down? A. By definition this class of guru is engaged such that the seed for material desire cannot fructify, although it is still in place. The flood of his bhakti does not allow the seed of material desire to germinate. Q. How about this proposal: If the diksa guru is vulnerable to falling down, then let the disciples worship him through service, submission, and inquiry but let them save worship in the form of vyasa-puja or guru-puja for their siksa guru who can't fall down (like Srila Prabhupada). A. It is a silly idea to think that worship is the cause of falldown. You cannot legislate how much a disciple can worship his or her guru. Let the guru regulate this according to his own sensibilities. Q. On a taped lecture a prominent sannyasi uttered the opinion that the suffix “deva” in the name Bhakti Raksaka Sridhara Deva Goswami is not acceptable because it was never used by his guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, or any of our previous acharyas. He further said that this suffix is actually an insult when used in relationship to an acharya who has passed away “nitya-lila-pravista,” because it would mean “we drag him down from Goloka (the spiritual world) to Svargaloka (the heavenly planets).” He then said that this word “deva” was not used during Sridhara Maharaja's earthly presence but was later introduced by some of his disciples. A. The suffix/prefix “deva” is an honorific that distinguishes Sridhara Maharaja from other sannyasis. It was used during his presence with his full knowledge. It is printed on the cover of his edition of Bhagavad-gita with his approval, as well as on his Bengali edition of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. It is true that Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura did not address him with this title. However, neither did he address him as Visnupada, etc., which is left for his disciples to do. There is no limit to which the disciple can glorify his guru. With regard to the grammar involved, Sridhara Maharaja was himself very competent in Sanskrit composition. Deva is derived from the Sanskrit root “div.” It is used to indicate either earthly things of extraordinary excellence, that which is heavenly, or that which is divine. When connected with “Sridhara” (Sridharadeva) in Sridhara Maharaja's name, it means “The divine carrier of Radha.” When connected with “Goswami” (Deva Goswami) it means “Divine controller of the senses.” The idea that the honorific “deva” is an insult is not well thought out. The pseudo logic given to support this conclusion does not help. With this logic we are left to conclude that Baladeva, Gaurangadeva, Gurudeva, etc. are offensive as well. Q. I have heard it said that we should not be very interested in devotees like Brahma, Narada, and Prahlada because they are not directly involved in Vraja bhakti. What is your opinion on this? A. In general we should be careful to present the whole picture and not to disrespect great devotees in the name of preaching the glories of Vraja bhakti. The whole picture reveals that persons like Prahlada, Brahma, and Narada are paradigmatic persons who represent the ontology of spiritual attainment. Thus in the literature they serve to illustrate the spiritual hierarchy for us as points on the spiritual map. However, this is not all there is to know about them, and their personal position is not limited to how they are depicted most commonly. For example, Narada is not typically portrayed as a Vraja bhakta, however, we hear that he developed a desire to taste gopi bhava and was successful in attaining a gopi deha after bathing in what is now known as Narada Kunda in Vraja. In Gaura lila Srivasa Thakura has been identified with Narada. Can we then say that Srivasa has no connection whatsoever with Vraja bhakti? The ista devata (worshipable deity) of Brahma, Narada, and Prahlada was Krsna and not anyone else. The Pandavas are not typically portrayed as Vraja bhaktas, yet during the excavation of Syama kunda Yudhistira appeared before the Goswamis and told them not to cut down five trees on the banks of Syama kunda because they were the Pandavas who were residing there eternally doing bhajana. Furthermore, in a general sense, dasya bhakti in Gaura lila is also said to correspond with attainment in Vraja lila. So we should have a broad outlook when discussing worshipable personalities like these. Q. Why did Gargamuni, a pure devotee of the Lord, make a sacrifice to create Kalayavana and avenge the defeated Jarasandha? A. Within Krsna lila great devotees often do things that seem inappropriate to sadhakas. Sadhana (the practice) and sadhya (the goal), while related, are like the difference between a caterpillar and a butterfly. Although some siddhas act like ideal sadhakas, they do this because they are teaching others by example in the realm of sadhana. This is not what devotees within Krsna lila are directly concerned with. Otherwise, Kalayavana was the negative impetus for Krsna's establishing the city of Dvaraka. He teamed up with Jarasandha to attack Krsna, and thus created a dilemma for Krsna as to how to protect his devotees. If Krsna was occupied with fighting Kalayavana, Jarasandha might attack Krsna's family. Thus Krsna decided to build the fortress of Dvaraka. So Gargamuni, who fathered Kalayavana, was instrumental in establishing Dvaraka. Furthermore, Mucukunda killed Kalayavana, and within the lila it appeared that Krsna was unable to do so. Thus Kalayavana gave Krsna the chance to showcase the prowess of his devotee, and he takes great pleasure in seeing his devotees outdo himself. Q. Is the guru God or a devotee of God? A. In the following verse from the Upanisads the guru is described as distinct from God: yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau/ tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakasante mahatmanah// “Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed.” (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.23) However, the Guruvastakam of Visvanatha Cakravarti tells us that guru is the power of god and devotee combined. There the guru is described as the energy of God: saksad hari, but (kintu) prabhor ya priya eva tasya, he is dear (priya) to God as well. So the guru is an empowered devotee who is dear to God, and as God's representative he should be treated as such. Of course it is God in the devotee who is guru, but God is also a devotee of his devotees. Actually the position of the devotee is higher than that of God. In Chaitanya-caritamrta the guru, God, and Vaisnava are differentiated from one another, but there also guru is described as God and devotee combined. Krsnadasa Kaviraja says yadyapi amara guru—caitanyera dasa tathapi janiye ami tanhara prakasa: “Although I know my guru as a devotee of Sri Caitanya, I also know my guru to be a manifestation of him as well.” Previous Issue \| Next Issue