Does the guru always speak the will of God perfectly?
Thank you. Does the spiritual master, the Shiksha and Viksha group speak the absolute truth always? There is, firstly, the principle and there is the purpose. The principle is that Krishna guides us in various ways.
Krishna is present in our heart as a Paramatma to guide us. However, at the present, our consciousness is not tuned to the Paramatma. It is, let's say, there is a child who is watching TV and the mother is sitting next to the child.
And the child is watching a horror movie and is feeling horrified. Trembling, shivering, crying. The mother tells him, you know, there is nothing wrong.
Don't watch that TV. You are comfortable. I am next to you.
The child is not hearing only. So, like that, we are caught in the material world. Our consciousness is trapped.
Krishna is right next to us, but we can't perceive Him. That same Krishna who is inside our heart, manifests outside. Ācārya Caitanya Gosvāmī says that your āntar-bhaya devatam aśubhaṁ vidhunman, removing inauspiciousness from inside and outside, the same Supreme Lord manifests in the Caitanya Guru internally and ācārya externally.
Now, when we say that Krishna is manifesting as the spiritual master, the spiritual master is still an individual. The spiritual master is an individual. That means it is not that when Krishna speaks to the spiritual master, the spiritual master is no longer a distinct individual.
No. So, because the spiritual master is an individual, Krishna gives the message, but the spiritual master speaks the message according to one's own culture, one's own nature. So, for example, to illustrate what this means, Prabhupāda told us that he did not write his books.
Krishna wrote his books. Now, that's true. Prabhupāda told that.
But then Prabhupāda still put his name on the books. Prabhupāda did not put Krishna's name on the books. If we say Krishna wrote the books, does that mean Prabhupāda did not write the books? No.
Krishna gave the idea to Prabhupāda, gave the thoughts to Prabhupāda and Prabhupāda put them in his words. So, Prabhupāda put them in his words means that sometimes Prabhupāda's English was not perfect and the devotees edited it. That one time Prabhupāda had used a word that was not there in the English dictionary itself.
So, then Jai Gurukul Mahārāja and the other devotees who were editing Prabhupāda's books, they started discussing what to do. They said if a pure devotee has used the word, then we should not try to change that word. We should change the dictionary so that we include that word.
They said, yes, this is good in spirit, but they said better ask Prabhupāda. When they asked Prabhupāda, Prabhupāda said, change the word. But still Prabhupāda was not very finicky about these things.
Another time Jai Gurukul Mahārāja asked Prabhupāda, Prabhupāda, what do you do and how should disciples see when the spiritual master commits mistakes? Prabhupāda said the spiritual master never commits any mistakes. But he said, no, Prabhupāda, sometimes the spiritual master may sometimes forget a verse while quoting or sometimes may quote a verse wrong. So then Prabhupāda said, that is material nature.
Since Satsvarūpa Mahārāja was there in the same book, he said, so Prabhupāda, that means we have a wrong conception of perfection? Prabhupāda said, yes, exactly. Wrong conception of perfection means that it is not that when Kṛṣṇa speaks to the spiritual master, that does not necessarily mean that everything, every single thing that the spiritual master is going to say is going to be an absolutely perfect statement. No, yes, so it is not that the spiritual master gets a message from Kṛṣṇa and the spiritual master speaks that message.
The spiritual master may use circumstantial examples, the current language, the current culture's understandings and present that message accordingly. So we have to understand that Kṛṣṇa is speaking, but Kṛṣṇa is speaking through the medium and the medium is also an individual. And what applies to Śrīla Prabhupāda also applies to his followers.
So it is not that we are meant to not use our intelligence when we understand the spiritual master's message. So for example, Śrīla Prabhupāda said certain things. For example, the Līlāṁ vṛttu.
It is said that Prabhupāda said that by 2000, no one will be able to walk on the surface of the earth because there is so much pollution that everyone will have to live under the ground like rats. Now when they say 2000 has come and gone, they still live on the surface of the earth. Now if you look back, what has happened is, Prabhupāda had this conversation in 1974 or something.
If you go back to the Veda base and look at Prabhupāda's conversation in Veda base, at that time we find that a couple of days before that, a devotee had given Prabhupāda a meteorological society's report. And that meteorological society was like a doomsday meteorological society, which was giving very negative predictions of what are going to happen. And they had predicted based on their own ideas that this pollution is going to be so much that nobody is going to live on the surface of the earth.
And Prabhupāda was quoting them. So now Prabhupāda, if you see, he never claimed that his authority came because Kṛṣṇa was speaking to him. Prabhupāda said my authority is because I am repeating what is told in śāstra, what is told by my spiritual master.
So our epistemology, our method of acquiring knowledge is guru-sādhu-śāstra. So guru-sādhu-śāstra means that even when the spiritual master speaks something, we should check whether that is said in śāstra or that is said by the other sādhus. So Prabhupāda may speak certain things which are circumstantial and they are not eternal.
Prabhupāda never claimed that he was in the prophecy-making business. He said I am going to make prophecy of what is going to happen in the future. That was not his authority.
So Prabhupāda is quoting some authority, some circumstantial meteorological authority. That is not Prabhupāda speaking Kṛṣṇa's words over there. So even when a guru speaks, the guru essentially gets his authority not just because Kṛṣṇa is speaking through them.
Guru's authority also comes because guru is repeating the words of their guru and the guru is repeating the words which are given in śāstra. That is why to isolate any one person from the tradition is the characteristic of a personality cult. If I say my spiritual master or whatever they speak is perfect and I don't care for your authority.
No, that will lead to our becoming a personality cult. We accept our spiritual master's authority because they are repeating śāstra and as an individual they have come up from particular backgrounds, they have come from particular situations and they may give some circumstantial examples and they don't have the authority which śāstra has because they are circumstantial. Bhāgavatam also recognizes that even the Bhāgavatam itself has said that यस्विन्प्रतिष्लोकम्पद्रत्यति नामानन्तसेशोन्कितानियति चुनन्ति गायन्ति जुनन्ति साद्धा। That bad literature is meant to glorify the Supreme Lord even if it is filled with defects.
Still that literature is considered as written, is accepted by saintly people because it is glorifying the Supreme Lord. The perfection of the words of a devotee is that a devotee guides us to serving Krishna. So in terms of śraddhānta, in terms of philosophical understanding and in terms of practice, the spiritual master gives the perfect guidance.
But it is not that the spiritual master is Krishna and the spiritual master is omniscient like Krishna. Spiritual master authority comes not just because Krishna is speaking to them but because they are repeating what is taught in their tradition. And that is why rather than emphasizing, rather than worrying too much, you know, it is not that every time we hear a class from some devotee, is this Krishna speaking or is this not Krishna speaking? No, if you start getting into a hypercritical mode like that, we unnecessarily deprive ourselves of the nourishment that Krishna is providing to us.
So we use our intimidates and rather than judging whether somebody Krishna is speaking through them or not, we focus on what is ungood for our bhakti. And whatever instruction we get, which we find inspiring our bhakti, from whichever source it comes, we take that and move forward. Does it answer your question?