The mistake of jumping over the ācārya

It’s not uncommon to see religious movements changing over time and adopting views that are different or even contrary to the original teachings of the founder. We also have this tendency.

Subscribe to receive new articles by e-mail. It’s free, but if you like, you can pledge a donation:

It’s not uncommon to see religious movements changing over time and adopting views that are different or even contrary to the original teachings of the founder. We can see the case of Christianity, for example, that went all the way from the idea of renunciation, simplicity, and non-violence from early Christians to the idea of economic development and domination in Protestantism.

Our movement is better protected than others in this sense, because of the context of paramparā. The teachings are not just transmitted in books, but also through a succession of teachers who personally learned from their predecessors. The system is not completely free from change, because a spiritual teacher can deviate from the predecessor, be it intentionally or by accident, and over time, many of the links do deviate. However, the divine intervention of the Lord guarantees that at least some of the links remain connected to the original teachings, allowing sincere seekers to find the pure path.

We can see, for example, that after the disappearance of Mahāprabhu, the saṅkīrtana movement He started gradually degenerated into 13 apa-sampradāyas, each claiming to have the essence of Mahāprabhu’s teachings, but none of them factually connected to Him. The original teachings were almost lost, but were still preserved in teachers like Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa and Jagannātha Dāsa Babaji, and were later brought back to prominence with the advent of Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Thākura, and Śrīla Prabhupāda.

We are all supposed to be following the teachings of Prabhupāda, but this, of course, depends on our understanding and sincerity. Some may not agree with what he teaches and intentionally go in other directions, while others may do so involuntarily, due to accident or misunderstanding. Just like in the case of the 13 apa-sampradāyas after Mahāprabhu, each one will advocate that the vision of his group is correct, that they are the ones who have the correct understanding, and often accuse others of deviating, even if they are the ones who are mistaken. There is no need to judge anyone, but it’s important to understand these changes, so we can avoid committing the same mistakes.

One of these trends is a hard-line version of Vedic culture that is now propagated by different groups. This trend is especially noticeable amongst groups of devotees in India, but is also present in other places. This is something that has been causing much division.

In some senses, Śrīla Prabhupāda was very Vedic. He denounced feminism, capitalism, communism, and many other misguided philosophies. He taught his disciples to follow many aspects of Vedic culture, including symbols like tilaka, clothes, food, standards of behaviour, etc. He insisted that society should gradually be divided into four social classes and, in this context, tried to establish gurukulas, seeing the training of the new generations as the very essence of the system. These are just a few examples of many ideas that sounded radical or even revolutionary at the time.

Many of us, observing all the faults of the so-called modern civilization, deeply desire a perfect society based on Vedic values, but we should be aware that much harm was done in the past in the name of Vedic culture, including the caste system that polluted India for several centuries. Vedic culture is good, but so-called implementations of Vedic culture that are actually based on caste Brahmanism are actually worse than the disease it promises to cure.

Śrīla Prabhupāda combined a lot of common sense and spiritual vision in his presentation of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. He presented the real essence of Vedic culture, but adjusted it to modern times.

Instead of some stereotyped impractical version that fails to consider people’s individuality, he presented a spiritual system capable of elevating ordinary people to the platform of love of Godhead, which is the ultimate goal of the Varnāśrama system.

In other words, he understood that mechanically implementing the rules and regulations of the Varnāśrama system would offer little benefit, and thus created a system that allowed people to be directly elevated to the goal of the system, something that became possible due to the chanting of the holy names introduced by Mahāprabhu. To the extent one achieves love of Godhead, one becomes a perfect brāhmana and a perfect gentleman.

Kṛṣṇa says in the gītā that even those of lower births can attain perfection by surrendering unto Him:

māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya, ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ
striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās, te ’pi yānti parāṁ gatim

“O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination.” (Bg 9.32)

Many men who hear this verse get the impression that they are the brāhmanas, and that the ladies are lower, being counted amongst the śūdras, but this is a basic misunderstanding. In Kali-yuga, everyone is a sūdra; therefore, the verse describes how everyone, both the sūdra men and sūdra women, as well as the rare people who may have the higher qualification of a Vaiśyas, may achieve perfection by practicing Kṛṣṇa Consciousness.

Considering that both men and women in Kali-yuga are so low, there is not much point in discussing whether one is lower than the other. The point is how to progress and how to help others to advance.

With this broader vision, Prabhupāda encouraged ladies to write and give classes, serve as pujaris, distribute books, and, in the cases of specially qualified ladies, even serve as initiating gurus.

Some, however, miss these nuances and claim to be representing Prabhupāda by promoting Varnāśrama and Vedic culture, but at the same time, they selectively disregard and dismiss the points that don’t fit their beliefs. This is similar to what many other groups do to attract followers, by claiming to be followers of Prabhupāda while simultaneously disqualifying him.

One example that I already mentioned a few times in the past: A few years ago, I was present in a seminar in Māyāpur about how to understand contradictions in Prabhupāda’s teachings. The example of apparent contradictory instructions of Śrīla Prabhupāda regarding the consumption of chocolate was given, amongst other examples of apparent contradictions in his teachings.

This is, of course, a problem in our society because devotees like to enter into battles of quotes, and if there are quotes on both sides of the question, it’s difficult to find a conclusion. The difficulty was that the message given in the class was that to understand the correct siddhanta about certain important points, we need to go beyond Prabhupāda and study the scriptures directly.

It may appear well-intentioned and reasonable at first, but there is something seriously wrong with this argument. It boils down to it being a subtle way of telling that Śrīla Prabhupāda did not really know what he was speaking about, that he contradicted himself, and that thus we should move into higher levels of knowledge in order to understand the topic.

This is an argument that is behind much of the discussions we are seeing now. People use quotes by Śrīla Prabhupāda when they support their philosophy, but at the same time disregard other quotes that disagree with their beliefs. In this way, they use Śrīla Prabhupāda to support their philosophy, but at the same time disqualify him when it doesn’t suit their goals.

One of the most basic points about spiritual life is that we can’t jump the ācārya. We can’t presume that we know the scriptures better than the guru. Rather, our mentality should be that “I’m a fool, and therefore I need that my guru teaches me“. When one starts to believe he understands better than Śrīla Prabhupāda, who is our Sampradāya ācārya (the current prominent link in the disciplic succession for us), it is a sign of serious trouble.

Prabhupāda studied all the relevant sastras and the writings of previous ācāryas much deeper than we do (and, apart from being a self-realized soul, he had the advantage of understanding both Bengali and Sanskrit, instead of depending on imperfect translations, as we do). After all this study, at the peak of his realization, he was teaching the way he was teaching, so we must understand that his conclusions are the result of a superior understanding.

One difficulty with spiritual knowledge is that it can be easily misunderstood. All the numerous apa-sampradayas that appeared in the past started with someone misunderstanding some important point. The scriptures are written in enigmatic language that can be interpreted in limitless ways (this is something I show in detail in my commentary on the Govinda Bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, so if this is your cup of tea, you can check there).

One can just see how many commentaries on the Bhagavad-Gita were written by mundane personalities just in the past century, and how diverse their conclusions are. In fact, Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote that the thousands of different commentaries of the Gita in English failed to bring even one soul to the path of Kṛṣṇa Consciousness. Even when we go to the works of our previous ācāryas, it is still possible to misunderstand due to our lack of familiarity with the context and the language.

That’s why Śrīla Prabhupāda is so important: he gives us the correct understanding of the apparent contradictions in the scriptures, allowing us to understand the correct siddhanta. If one wants to jump over Prabhupāda and go directly to the scriptures, he may actually get the wrong conclusions and end up starting his own apa-sampradāya. Not only that, but by his actions, he will teach his followers that it’s acceptable to jump over authorities, which will create further problems.

Instead of rejecting Prabhupāda’s teachings when one finds apparent contradictions, one should try to harmonize the different statements. As stated in the Laghu Bhāgavatāmṛta (5.327):

“When contradictions are found in the Vedic scripture, it is not that one statement is wrong. Rather both statements should be seen in such a way that there is no contradiction.”

There are different statements from Śrīla Prabhupāda spoken in different contexts, and even cases of statements that may appear contradictory. If one goes deeper, however, it will be revealed that they are just applications of different principles in different contexts. This is the secret of going deep into the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda, instead of being stuck in superficial and stereotyped versions of it.

For example, there was a case when Śrīla Prabhupāda authorized a disciple to divorce, answering a letter. The secretary typing the letter became confused. How could Śrīla Prabhupāda give him an instruction that contradicts his general stance? He voiced his question, and Prabhupāda answered that he would divorce anyway; therefore, he was authorizing him, so he would, at least, not be guilty of disobeying his spiritual master.

We can see that in this example, there was a conflict of two principles:

a. To not divorce,
b. To not disobey the orders of the spiritual master.

Śrīla Prabhupāda adjusted and gave the instruction that was more beneficial to the disciple, according to the situation. One who would try to apply this letter in a different situation, using it to sustain that Śrīla Prabhupāda told everyone should divorce, would commit a grievous mistake.

The solution is not to jump over Śrīla Prabhupāda, but to better study his teachings, so we can better understand Prabhupāda’s teachings and solve apparent contradictions. By doing so, we reinforce our position as bona fide links of the paramparā and become qualified to also connect others. If we reject his teachings, claiming that we should discard his teachings and go directly to the scriptures, we risk starting our own apa-sampradāya.

We must understand different quotes in the proper context and must study with an open mind, being ready to change our beliefs or conclusions if it is proved that they diverge from Śrīla Prabhupāda.

It may sound incredible, but there were many disciples of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī who rejected his teachings by considering them superficial or wrong and accepting other interpretations as superior. Some of these disciples later became very offensive to him. This happened because they started to accept the opinions of people from outside on certain philosophical points, and due to a lack of higher understanding, started to accept such teachings as superior to the teachings of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta. History, however, shows that such disciples ended up falling down.

Similarly, others criticized Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Thākura and every other prominent ācārya before him. Even Nityānanda Prabhu was considered a deviant by some, without even mentioning Kṛṣṇa Himself, who is still criticized by certain groups.

We must study and properly understand the philosophy through the conclusions of Śrīla Prabhupāda. From this base, one may later go to the teachings of previous ācāryas and to different scriptures, and also understand them properly. If one tries to jump, however, he or she may commit serious mistakes.

You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!