Statement of an acarya

Expressions researched:
"statement of an acarya" |"statement of the acaryas" |"statements of the sastras and acaryas" |"statements of authorized acaryas" |"statements from the scriptures and from the great acaryas" |"statements of the acaryas"

SB Canto 3

Unless received by this bona fide process of hearing from a spiritual master, the statement of an ācārya or preceptor cannot be valid

SB 3.19.32, Tanslation and Purport: Maitreya continued: My dear Vidura, I have explained to you the Personality of Godhead's coming down as the first boar incarnation and killing in a great fight a demon of unprecedented prowess as if he were just a plaything. This has been narrated by me as I heard it from my predecessor spiritual master.

Here the sage Maitreya admits that he explained the incident of the killing of Hiranyaksa by the Supreme Personality of Godhead as a straight narration; he did not manufacture anything or add interpretation, but explained whatever he had heard from his spiritual master. Thus he accepted as bona fide the system of parampara, or receiving the transcendental message in disciplic succession. Unless received by this bona fide process of hearing from a spiritual master, the statement of an acarya or preceptor cannot be valid.

It is also stated here that although the demon Hiranyaksa was unlimited in prowess, he was just like a doll for the Lord. A child breaks so many dolls without real endeavor. Similarly, although a demon may be very powerful and extraordinary in the eyes of an ordinary man in the material world, to the Lord, killing such a demon is no difficulty. He can kill millions of demons as simply as a child plays with dolls and breaks them.

SB Canto 4

Nor should an ordinary man not supported by authorized statements of the śāstras and ācāryas be accepted as an incarnation or devotee.

SB 4.21.11, Purport: The Supreme Godhead, His incarnations or His devotees may pose themselves as ordinary men, but they are never to be considered as such. Nor should an ordinary man not supported by authorized statements of the śāstras and ācāryas be accepted as an incarnation or devotee. By the evidence of śāstra, Sanātana Gosvāmī detected Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu to be a direct incarnation of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although Lord Caitanya never disclosed the fact. It is therefore generally recommended that the ācārya, or guru, should not be accepted as an ordinary man.

CC Madhya-lila

The statements of authorized ācāryas who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead are proof.

CC Madhya 6.80, Translation: The disciples of Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya retaliated, “By what evidence do you conclude that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the Supreme Lord?” Gopīnātha Ācārya replied, “The statements of authorized ācāryas who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead are proof.”

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

All the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, before that other ācāryas also, they accept. They never say that "This was not in the original scripture. It has been changed." You don't find any such statement of the ācāryas.

Room Conversation with Carol Cameron -- May 9, 1975, Perth:

Paramahaṁsa: That's the problem. That's why there are so many hundreds of branches of Christianity, literally hundreds. So many divisions of Christianity. Some people accept this, some people accept this.

Prabhupāda: Therefore we should advocate that Bhagavad-gītā is not like that. It is coming in the same form as it was taught to Arjuna. If you challenge that "How you know that it has not been changed?" the ācāryas are there. The ācāryas are there, and they are accepting. Therefore it is correct. We have to follow the ācāryas. So when we see the ācāryas have accepted, then we accept. All the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, before that other ācāryas also, they accept. They never say that "This was not in the original scripture. It has been changed." You don't find any such statement of the ācāryas. The best thing, therefore, if you want a religious system, Bhagavad-gītā is coming without any contradiction, change, for the last five thousand years. You accept it. Other scriptures are (unclear), and there are so many doubts, so many interpretations. So, if you want real religious system, this is the scripture spoken directly by God, and accepted by all the ācāryas, so take it. If you are really after God, so you take enlightenment from this perfect scripture. If you want truth, it doesn't matter wherefrom it is coming. I must accept the truth.

1974 Correspondence

One who studies scrutinizingly all the Vedic literature and who accepts the statements of the acaryas who guide the destiny of Vedic culture of India who all accept Visnu as the Supreme Person, then he will also have the same conclusion.

Letter to Satsvarupa -- Bombay 3 November, 1974: Regarding those professors who say that Siva is the Supreme, in the Rg Veda it is stated: "om tad visnoh paramam padam." The lotus feet of Visnu are the supreme devotional platform. There Visnu is accepted as the Supreme. So there are 18 Puranas. Six of them are for persons in the modes of ignorance, some for those in passion, and the topmost are for those in goodness, the sattvic puranas. If one intelligently reads the Puranas and Vedas, then he can understand that Visnu is the Supreme Person. But, for those on the stage of ignorance and passion, sometimes such statements are there. So it depends on the quality of the nature of the person that one accepts Lord Siva or Lord Visnu as the Supreme, but one who studies scrutinizingly all the Vedic literature and who accepts the statements of the acaryas who guide the destiny of Vedic culture of India who all accept Visnu as the Supreme Person, then he will also have the same conclusion.

1975 Correspondence

Actual spiritual knowledge is to take the authoritative statements from the scriptures and from the great acaryas, spiritual masters in disciplic succession.

Letter to Trista Hubbarth -- Bombay 3 May, 1975: You have very thoughtfully asked me what do I think of the Self Realization yoga and meditation. We are not concerned with other religions or yogas in terms of competition or sectarian spirit. Actual spiritual knowledge is to take the authoritative statements from the scriptures and from the great acaryas, spiritual masters in disciplic succession. Other's opinions are not important. For example, in the Bhagavad gita, Lord Krsna gives His opinion, but He is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead by all the great sages of the Vedic philosophy including Vyasadeva the compiler of all the scriptures, as well as Narada, Brahma, Siva and in the modern time, Ramanuja, Sankaracarya, Lord Caitanya, etc. They all confirm that Krsna is the supreme truth, the Personality of Godhead. Although this is plainly described throughout the Vedas, you will not find it in the teachings of the so called swamis and yogis who are teaching nowadays. Therefore you have intelligently discovered that in my Bhagavad-gita the approach is very different from what you have found elsewhere. That is because I am not trying to avoid Krsna or give some misinterpretation, but I have accepted the actual Bhagavad-gita, wherein Krsna says, Mattah parataram nanyat [Bg. 7.7], there is no higher than Me. Nowadays so called gurus are promising us that we ourselves can become equal to God or that God is impersonal, or that everyone is God, but nowhere is this stated in the Bhagavad-gita or any other Vedic literature, nor is it taught by any of the great spiritual masters above mentioned.