Tattva-viveka
omniscience
Shyam Gopal Das - July 16, 2005 7:33 pm
I'm having a discussion on the internet that raises more questions. I hope somebody can help me. I understand the principle of the Guru not being omniscient, it being a quality of the Supreme Personality. But now somebody raises the question of how will my Guru know about my prayers, how will he help me offer food to Krishna if he is not all-knowing? etc..
anybody?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 17, 2005 12:35 am
Supreme Personality is omniscient thus He knows that you are going through established by Him system – going through the Guru. Because of that, although Guru might not know what you are praying about, your prayer being accepted by the Addressee none the less. Otherwise it’s rejected. Another point is that Guru might not know specifics of your prayer, but because of his deep affection for the disciple he knows the sentiment of it and that’s what is important. The Guru-disciple bond is extremely strong and works on many levels, I wouldn’t be surprised that it works on a psychic level as well. He might not be omniscient, but he knows about you more then you might think. 
Swami - July 17, 2005 3:23 am
First of all, Syama Gopala, the question is not "How can the guru can hear the prayers of his disciples if he is not omniscient?" but rather "Where in sastra does it say that the guru must be omniscient?" If your opponent cannot support his position from sastra, he or she is defeated. Then to his question you can simply answer that you do not know how the guru can hear his disciples' prayers Better still, it is not implict that one be omniscient in order to hear the prayers of those who love him.
Furthermore, there are both physical and metaphysical forms of omniscience. Knowing every detail of material exisistence is physical omniscience, whereas knowing the self and God is metaphysical omniscience, or all knowing. Metaphysically spekaing, one who knows God knows everything, but he or she does not necessarily know what you ate last night.
Then again in Gaudiya Vaisnavism we say as Kant does, that God is ultimately unknown and unknowable. Is Yasodamayi omniscient, and if so, in what sense. She certainly does not know what Krsna did last night under the stars!
For your information, Vedanta-sutra does say that fully liberated souls (videha muktas/prema bhaktas) can have prevasive knowledge by way of their aura, which extends like the light of a lamp into other things, presumably things that they choose to extend themselves into—pradipavat avesah tatha hi darsayati (Vs 4.4.15)
Shyam Gopal Das - July 17, 2005 3:33 pm
okay, he has given me some quotes, a few of them:
"Yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati. Anyone who is a devotee of the Lord knows about the Lord to some extent, and devotional service to the Lord makes him able to know everything by the grace of the Lord. ALTHOUGH A DEVOTEE MAY APPARENTLY EXPRESS HIMSELF TO BE IGNORANT, he is full of knowledge in every intricate matter."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 3: Chapter Seven, Text 8)
"The Vedic mantras say: yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati. When the devotee sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead by his meditation, or when he sees the Lord personally, face to face, he becomes aware of everything within this universe. Indeed, nothing is unknown to him. Everything within this material world is fully manifested to a devotee who has seen the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 8: Chapter Six, Text 9)
"When Dhruva Maharaja was talking with his mother, Suniti, of all the incidents that had taken place in the palace, Narada was not present. Thus the question may be raised how Narada overheard all these topics. The answer is that Narada is trikala jna; he is so powerful that he can understand the past, future and present of everyone's heart, just like the Supersoul, the Supreme personality of Godhead."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 4: Chapter Eight, Text 25)
I read this to mean that a devotee knows everything on the metaphysical level. But he reads them to mean that they are physical. eg he says that if one's Guru is not aware of one's prayers, then these prayers are just a waste of time. He also says that from personal experience he feels it is true, eg his Guru writing to him about events in his life he hadn't mentioned to his Guru.
I've quoted Rupa Goswami who writes that sarvajna/omniscience is not a quality of great personalities, but only of Krishna fully. He writes back that if Sri Guru is unaware of his life than the concept of Guru becomes a physical one based upon matter and physical contact...
I'm also tempted to quote Brahma's illusion, but I think he will reply with referring to the first quote here : "although a devotee may express himself to be ignorant...."
Robertnewman - July 17, 2005 5:22 pm
...he says that if one's Guru is not aware of one's prayers, then these prayers are just a waste of time.
He seems to be equating the guru with God in every respect, crossing the line of our siddhanta into dangerous territory. For even if the guru doesn't hear our prayers, God certainly does, and it's far from a waste of time!
He also says that from personal experience he feels it is true, e.g. his Guru writing to him about events in his life he hadn't mentioned to his Guru.
And he takes that as evidence that his guru is omniscient? Anybody could come up with several alternative explanations. But I wouldn't bother trying to disillusion this fellow. He has a style of literalistic sraddha that's impervious to reason.
Swami - July 17, 2005 7:47 pm
okay, he has given me some quotes, a few of them:
"Yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati. Anyone who is a devotee of the Lord knows about the Lord to some extent, and devotional service to the Lord makes him able to know everything by the grace of the Lord. ALTHOUGH A DEVOTEE MAY APPARENTLY EXPRESS HIMSELF TO BE IGNORANT, he is full of knowledge in every intricate matter."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 3: Chapter Seven, Text 8)
"The Vedic mantras say: yasmin vijnate sarvam evam vijnatam bhavati. When the devotee sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead by his meditation, or when he sees the Lord personally, face to face, he becomes aware of everything within this universe. Indeed, nothing is unknown to him. Everything within this material world is fully manifested to a devotee who has seen the Supreme Personality of Godhead."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 8: Chapter Six, Text 9)
"When Dhruva Maharaja was talking with his mother, Suniti, of all the incidents that had taken place in the palace, Narada was not present. Thus the question may be raised how Narada overheard all these topics. The answer is that Narada is trikala jna; he is so powerful that he can understand the past, future and present of everyone's heart, just like the Supersoul, the Supreme personality of Godhead."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 4: Chapter Eight, Text 25)
I read this to mean that a devotee knows everything on the metaphysical level. But he reads them to mean that they are physical. eg he says that if one's Guru is not aware of one's prayers, then these prayers are just a waste of time. He also says that from personal experience he feels it is true, eg his Guru writing to him about events in his life he hadn't mentioned to his Guru.
I've quoted Rupa Goswami who writes that sarvajna/omniscience is not a quality of great personalities, but only of Krishna fully. He writes back that if Sri Guru is unaware of his life than the concept of Guru becomes a physical one based upon matter and physical contact...
I'm also tempted to quote Brahma's illusion, but I think he will reply with referring to the first quote here : "although a devotee may express himself to be ignorant...."
All that he has cited in the name of sastra pramana is not sastra pramana. It is the words of a sadhu or guru. In this case Srila Prabhupada's purports. This is not to say that his purposrts are not evidence, but what he means in these instances must be balanced with waht sastra says when addressing this point directly, which is not what SP is doing in the purports cited. Intricate knowledge and knowledge of everything in the universe could easily be construded to mean that one who has such knowledge knows that the world is but the modes of nature. This conforms with the metaphysical notion of omniscience.
You have cited Rupa Goswami directly addressing the issue, whose words for all Gaudiya Vaisnavas are sastra. There for your evidence is superior in two ways. Furthermore, when directly addressing this issue, SP said that he was not omniscient. It has also been pointed out that knowing about a disciple's past or hearing his or her prayers does not indicate omniscience in the full sense of the term by any means.
What was the quote of Rupa Goswami that you cited?
Shyam Gopal Das - July 18, 2005 3:05 pm
I've cited from Sri Bhakti-Rasamrta Sindhu, southern division, first wave, where Krishna's qualities are listed and where it is said that only the first 50 qualities can show up in pure devotees to a minute extent. Omniscience, the 52nd, is only partially present in Shiva, while it fully exhibits in Krishna.
Bhrigu - July 18, 2005 3:47 pm
So Shiva is partially omniscient?
Swami - July 18, 2005 3:59 pm
I've cited from Sri Bhakti-Rasamrta Sindhu, southern division, first wave, where Krishna's qualities are listed and where it is said that only the first 50 qualities can show up in pure devotees to a minute extent. Omniscience, the 52nd, is only partially present in Shiva, while it fully exhibits in Krishna.
Good.
Brighupada, do you have Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary on this verse? Sri Jiva has no comments. Otherwise it seems clear form this statement of Sri Rupa that great personalities who have received the mercy of Bhagavan partially posess only the first 50 qulities of Krsna, which do not include omniscience (sarvajna).
Shyam Gopal Das - July 18, 2005 4:02 pm
by partially, I meant that omniscience can sometimes manifest in Shiva.
Bhrigu - July 19, 2005 7:49 am
Brighupada, do you have Visvanatha Cakravarti's commentary on this verse?
Unfortunately not, I only have Jiva's. Haberman is also silent on this. I also don't know what it means that Siva "partially" has a form made out of sac-cid-ananda. Omniscient (sarvajña) is defined later (BRS 2.1.182) as "One who knows everything in the minds of others, even when separated by time and space, is called 'omniscient'". The example given is SB 1.15.11, where Kunti (?) mentions how Krishna, even though far away, knew the danger the Pandavas were placed in when Durvasa and his disciples came to see them just after they had eaten, and how Krishna then suddenly appeared and saved them.
Haberman's translation of the BRS is a great and very useful work, but it is by no means perfect. Much more explanation would be needed.
Bhakta Ivar - July 19, 2005 1:24 pm
> He also says that from personal experience he feels it is true, eg his Guru writing to him about events in his life he hadn't mentioned to his Guru.
Perhaps his temple president did. It would be interesting to hear what the Guru had actually written, namely if it was something very unique, or something very common like controlling sex desire etc.
There are certain Gurus whose disciples attribute psychic powers to. Jayapataka Maharaja is an example. Suhotra (prabhu?) is another, although he, being a relative of Aleistar Crowley, is known for practicing black magic. I’m not sure about Indradyumna Maharaja, but he always tells amazing stories of miracles. We may appreciate supernatural manifestations, but they shouldn’t become the standard. That includes sleeping less than four hours a day etc.
Narada Muni being trikala jna is kind of irrelevant, because Narada is not a human being. He’s either the direct grandchild of Narayana Himself, or he’s a Puranic character (like Hermes).
If the Guru must be aware of our offerings, then everyone in the Parampara should be aware of it. Many thousands of offerings are made throughout every day (different time zones!), so Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and all the Acaryas must be busy all day with our small offerings. It becomes absurd when you think about it. Perhaps those believing it prefer not to think too deeply about things.
The idea that a Guru is omniscient has some serious ramifications. When something goes wrong, the Guru becomes responsible for not doing anything about it. For example child abuse (a crime) was going on in the days Srila Prabhupada was the Guru for every ISKCON member. But Prabhupada never did anything about it until he was told about what was going on. A disciple committed suicide, which he found out later. Sometimes Prabhupada became very angry when he found out about some “nonsense” of his disciples, such as philosophical deviations or not keeping a temple clean or offering something unsuitable, even if it had already been going on for months.
I do believe that a Guru will generally be at the right place at the right time, and receive the right information from the right persons. It’s not an absolute rule, but this is a level of guidance (not omniscience) that can be acquired by those who desire to serve God.
Otherwise, perhaps we should add another verse to the glorification of Sri Guru:
“The Guru is always engaged in remembering his disciples private lives. Reading their minds and witnessing their daily activities, he’s engaged twenty-four hours a day. I worship the lotus feet of such a bonafide spiritual master, who possesses all psychic abilities.”
Ivar
Swami - July 19, 2005 3:06 pm
It is not uncommon for a guru to have hightened psychic abilities. Omniscience is another thing. Baladeva does attribute omniscience to the mukta in the sutra I cited earlier, but it is not entirely clear what definition of the word he is using. furthermore he is referring to the videha mukta not the jivan mukta.
Shyam Gopal Das - July 19, 2005 4:20 pm
what's the difference between a videha mukta and a jivan mukta? Are all Gurus jivan muktas?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 19, 2005 5:16 pm
Swami - July 19, 2005 6:35 pm
jivan mukti --liberated in this body
videha mukti --final liberation after the body ceases
For the jnani who is liberated while still "in" the body, prarabdha karma, or the karma that is already bearing fruit in the form of the physical body, is still winding down. When he or she attains videha mukti, the prarabdha has ended as he or she enters Brahman.
For the bhakta all karma is finished and liberation in this life is attained in the stage of asakti, at which time Bhagavan takes over the devotee's body through his svarupa sakti, giving his devotee the facility to develop prema.
Not all gurus are jivan muktas.
Shyam Gopal Das - July 19, 2005 6:59 pm
but what for those who may argue that "my spiritual master has a spiritual body, and is therefore a videha mukti?"
Swami - July 19, 2005 7:55 pm
In the case of the devotee videha mukta refers to one who has joined Sri Krsna in his nitya lila. Furhtermore, the nature of the mukta's omniscinece is still a point of contention.
Bhrigu - July 21, 2005 8:14 am
Isn't the simplest way to understand the question of the guru's omniscience and other similar questions to first understand what the guru is. The guru is a particular manifestation of Krishna come to the disciple, and also a Vaishnava. The divine guru (the samasti, "aggregate" guru), naturally is omniscient, while the specific guru (the vyasti, "individual" guru) most probably isn't. If we pray to the guru, the divine guru hears, and may or may not channel those prayers to the individual guru. There are many stories both ancient and modern about gurus knowing things they shouldn't ordinarily have been able to do, but countless instances as well about gurus forgetting, mixing up things, etc.
Ivar had some good points about the ramifications of thinking that the vyasti guru would be omniscent. (BTW, Suhotra Prabhu is a relative of Crowley, and he certainly has his weaknesses, but I seriously doubt that he ever practiced black magic. That's hearsay of the worst Pada-standard)
Bhakta Ivar - July 21, 2005 9:34 am
You most probably are one that has. An exact trine between natal Mercury and Uranus gives an original way of thinking with regular flashes of insight (intuition). Considering Ketu too, it’s a grand trine, i.e. Mercury, Ketu and Uranus are all separated by 120 degrees, describing one whose words and thoughts are focused on progressive and genuine spiritual realization. I wish I knew where your natal Moon is situated. It could be in Cancer, connected to the exact Pluto-Neptune sextile (birth in the early morning). Or it could be in Leo, connected with the Mercury-Uranus-Ketu trine (birth in the evening).
Ivar