Pūrva-pakṣa — We should take guidance from multiple people. We should hear from different speakers daily which gives us strength. This is the way to get realized knowledge and to advance as stated in SB 11.9.31. If the guru is preventing one from hearing multiple sources, offer obeisances from a distance according to Bhakti Sandarbha Anu 238. If you go near them, they will pull you in their control net.
Reply —
This is a misinterpretation of SB 11.9.31. To understand what SB 11.9.31 is really saying, I will translate the commentaries of Śrīdhara Swami and Śrī Jīva Goswami. The verse is as follows:
na hy ekasmād guror jñānaṁ su-sthiraṁ syāt su-puṣkalam |
brahmaitad advitīyaṁ vai gīyate bahudhā rṣibhiḥ || SB 11.9.31
This verse is spoken by Śrī Dattātreya, who is a teacher of the jñāna-mārga. He lists 24 different gurus that he learned from. These include insentient elements like earth, water, fire etc., birds like the pigeon, animals like the elephant, deer and snake, and humans like the prostitute Pingalā.
Śrīdhara Swami ‘s commentary explains that the knowledge-giving guru is ONLY ONE
I will translate this verse after first examining the commentaries. As we will see, using SB 11.9.31 to justify hearing from multiple śikṣā gurus and not from one guru alone, is a misuse of the verse. First, I start with Śrīdhara swami’s commentary —
śrīdharaḥ : nanu kiṁ bahubhir gurubhiḥ ? na hi śvetaketu-bhṛgu-pramukhair bahavo gurava āśritāḥ | tatrāha—na hy ekasmād iti |
Objection: Why [accept so] many gurus? Many gurus were certainly not accepted by [students] headed by Śvetaketu and Bhṛgu. The reply is in the first line of the verse.
Śvetaketu is the famous student to whom the instruction was given in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad: tat tvam asi! Bhṛgu is the student of the Taittirya Upaniṣad. The meaning is clear- the śāstras clearly depict that a student accepts only one guru and learns from that guru. Therefore, the idea of accepting many gurus goes against the śāstras. Śrīdhar swami explains the overall sense as follows.
bahudhā sa-prapañca-niṣprapañca-bhedādibhiḥ | ayaṁ bhāvaḥ—naite paramārthopadeśa-guravaḥ, kintv anvaya-vyatirekābhyām ātmany asambhāvanādi-mātra-nivartakāḥ, teṣāṁ bahutvaṁ yuktam eveti |
The word bahudhā [in the verse] means ‘[Brahman is sung about] differently as having the attribute of the world, or being devoid of the attribute of the world. The sense is as follows. These are not gurus who instruct about paramārtha or the supreme goal. Instead, these gurus remove the feeling that it is impossible, in one’s own case [to attain paramārtha], by anvaya (positive affirmation) and vyatireka (negative affirmation). Therefore, their being many is indeed appropriate.
The words ‘anvaya’ and ‘vyatireka’ need some explanation here. In Nyāya, a statement can be proven in two ways: by anvaya or by vyatireka. In this context, an example of anvaya could be that by giving up hope for a customer, Pingalā attained peace. An example of vyatireka is the fish, who unable to give up hope for food, becomes trapped by the bait. These examples act as inspiration – if it is possible for Pingalā, it is possible for oneself. And if the fish is trapped, we can also become similarly trapped, and therefore hope for material things must be avoided. Many such examples can be observed in nature, and therefore many gurus are appropriate only in this limited sense.
Thus the verse does not prescribe many gurus. It speaks narrowly of observation-based manana that reinforces what one has already learned from one’s guru; bees, elephants, or earth do not teach śāstra. Śrīdhara swami emphasizes that the student is not learning about paramārtha here – that is already learned from his actual guru. He closes by stressing that the guru who imparts knowledge is one:
jñāna-pradaṁ gurum ekam eva vakṣyati, mad-abhijñaṁ guruṁ śāntam upāsīta [bhā.pu. 11.10.5] iti | uktaṁ ca, tasmād guruṁ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam [bhā.pu. 11.3.22] iti ||31||
[Śrī Kṣṇa] will state that the guru who gives knowledge is only one in SB 11.10.5: the guru, who knows Me and is peaceful [by experience of Me] should be worshipped, and this has been stated by Him in SB 11.3.22: therefore, a person who is profoundly inquisitive about the ultimate good should take shelter of a guru.
The cited Sanskrit verses recommend taking shelter of one guru, as evident from the word ‘gurum’ (acc. sg.), being the object of the optative verb forms upāsīta and prapadyeta. The plural would have been gurūn which is not in these verses. So Śrīdhara Swami therefore concludes that the guru who teaches knowledge is intended to be only one. There is no prescription whatsoever in the verse to accept many śīkṣā gurus.
To summarize, Śrīdhara Swami has taught the following points:
1. The knowledge-imparting guru is one.
2. That knowledge can be reinforced by a student of the jñāna mārga, through observation. This, however, is a process of manana, or contemplation, about the truth of the guru’s teachings. It is not a process of learning through many daily speakers who are different from one’s guru. Thus, the central claim in the pūrva-pakṣa is refuted.
Śrī Jīva Goswami ‘s commentary confirms and expands upon Śrīdhara Swami’s explanation
I will now translate Śrī Jīva Goswami’s rather interesting commentary on this verse (Krama Sandarbha). He first raises an objection:
krama-sandarbhaḥ : nanv eka eva yogyo guruḥ kartavyaḥ | tasmād eva sa-parikaraṁ jñānaṁ setsyati | kiṁ vā, matāntara-jñā evānye praṣṭavyāḥ | kiṁ gurv-ābhāsair vyāvahārika-padārthair ity āśaṅkyāha—na hīti |
Objection: Only one qualified guru should be accepted. Only from that [acceptance], will knowledge along with its attendants attain completion. Or, others who are knowledgeable about differing opinions [from one’s guru] only should be questioned. Why accept ordinary items which are mere semblances of the guru? Raising this doubt, the verse replies.
Thus knowledge must only be obtained from a singular, qualified guru. If one consults others, it is to inquire about differing views, and not to adopt several śikṣā gurus.
The above opening statement from Śrī Jīva establishes the siddhānta. Now, the verse a) first affirms the siddhānta, and b) based on the siddhānta, chooses the approach of accepting vyāvhārika gurus. We shall see this below.
ekasmān mukhyād guror labdhaṁ supuṣkalaṁ susthiraṁ yaj jñānaṁ tad api na syāt na sampadyate |
Even that knowledge, comprehensive and unshakeable, which has been received from one, primary guru, does not yield its fruit (na syāt).
The verse affirms the siddhānta: accepting many gurus with differing opinions leads to confusion, preventing the knowledge received from one’s own guru from bearing fruit. Śrī Jīva Goswami introduces the past participle labdham to show that this knowledge has already been received from the primary guru, yet will not yield results if one continues to hear from others who differ from him. He interprets the second line as giving this very reason.
kutaḥ ? tatrāha—brahmeti | tat-tan-matena mati-bhaṅgād ity arthaḥ |
Why so? The second line replies: because one’s intelligence becomes disrupted by the various views [of the sages].
Far from encouraging many gurus, the verse warns against them.
And now, he will provide the reason why Śrī Dattātreya chose so many different ordinary objects as his guru —
tasmān mahā-gurūpadiṣṭa-mata-poṣāya tad-viruddha-mata-nirasanāya ca sva-buddhyā mananārthaṁ vyāvahārika-padārthā eva gurutvena sambhāvitāḥ, na tu kāpilādi-matāntara-sthāpakā iti bhāvaḥ ||31||
Therefore, for the purpose of refuting opposing opinions, and to nourish the opinion instructed by his own great guru, ordinary items alone (eva) were considered as gurus, by his own intelligence, for the purpose of contemplation. The sense is that these gurus would not establish alternative views like those of Kapila.
Śrī Dattātreya created the teachings from each individual guru, such as the pigeon, or the fish, on his own. In other words, he projected what he already knew on them. This is the process of contemplation.
What Bhakti Sandarbha 238 actually teaches
Bhakti-sandarbha 238 likewise does not license daily learning from others. It first mandates the dīkṣā-guru’s permission for serving (and, by extension, hearing from) other Vaiṣṇavas:
śrī-gurv-ājñayā tat-sevanāvirodhena cānyeṣām api vaiṣṇavānāṁ sevanaṁ śreyaḥ |anyathā doṣaḥ syāt | yathā śrī-nāradoktau—
With the permission of one’s guru, it is beneficial (śreya) to render service to other Vaiṣṇavas as well, provided it doesn’t conflict with the service to one’s own guru. Otherwise [if undertaken without the consent of one’s guru], such service will be flawed, as confirmed by Śrī Nārada:
gurau sannihite yas tu pūjayed anyam agrataḥ |sa durgatim avāpnoti pūjanaṁ tasya niṣphalam || iti |
A person who worships someone else first in the presence of his guru attains an unfavorable result and his worship of Bhagavān is rendered futile.
Learning śāstra by attentive listening and hearing from one’s guru is a type of service. Clearly, one should not make attempts to hear from others without explicit permission from one’s guru. In this way, the pūrva-pakṣa that one must hear from many gurus and disregard one’s own guru if he or she is opposed, is refuted.
Now let us examine what instruction Śrī Jīva is really giving in terms of distancing oneself from one’s guru.
yaḥ prathamaṁ śābde pare ca niṣṇātaṁ [bhā.pu. 11.3.21] ity-ādy-ukta-lakṣaṇaṁ guruṁ nāśritavān,tādṛśa-guroś ca matsarādito mahābhāgavata-satkārādāv anumatiṁ na labhate, sa prathamata eva tyakta-śāstro na vicāryate | ubhaya-saṅkaṭa-pāto hi tasmin bhavaty eva |evam-ādikābhiprāyeṇaiva—
The characteristics of an authentic guru have already been discussed [in Anuccheda 202] in verses such as this:
Therefore, a person who is profoundly inquisitive about the ultimate good should take shelter of a preceptor who is deeply versed in the sound form of Brahman [the Vedas], who has directly realized the transcendental Brahman, and who has thus become a veritable abode of inner tranquility. (sb 11.3.21)A person who, in the beginning, fails to accept a guru of this caliber and whose guru, out of envy, does not permit him to honor and serve highly realized devotees of Bhagavān, has disregarded śāstra from the very outset [by accepting an unqualified guru], and hence śāstra doesn’t even consider his case. Calamity certainly befalls such a person on both accounts [because if he follows the order of his guru, he fails to honor the great devotees, and if he honors the devotees, he disobeys his guru]. With this in mind, the Nārada Pañcarātra states:
Śrī Jīva’s caution targets the case of accepting an unqualified guru contrary to śāstra (11.3.21). Such a guru may discourage honoring mahā-bhāgavatas out of jealousy toward them, creating a no-win situation. Note that this passage has *nothing whatsoever* to do with hearing others’ lectures. As such, the claim that Anuchheda 238 warns us to ignore one’s own guru’s preference and take instructions from many gurus is refuted.
Śrī Jīva Goswami cites a verse to support his point —
yo vakti nyāya-rahitam anyāyena śṛṇoti yaḥ | tāv ubhau narakaṁ ghoraṁ vrajataḥ kālam akṣayam || iti nārada-pañcarātre |
Both the person whose instructions are not in resonance with scripture and the one who hears such illegitimate teachings proceed to a dreadful hell for an unlimited period of time. (Nārada Pañcarātra)³
Hence the injunction is to avoid aśāstrīya teachers; it is not permission to abandon an authentic guru and roam among “hundreds of śikṣā-gurus”.
ata eva dūrata evārādhyas tādṛśo guruḥ |
Therefore, such a guru should be respected only from a distance.
Summary
- I can now translate the verse based on Śrī Jīva Goswami’s commentary:
na hy ekasmād guror jñānaṁ su-sthiraṁ syāt su-puṣkalam |
brahmaitad advitīyaṁ vai gīyate bahudhā rṣibhiḥ || SB 11.9.31Even that knowledge, comprehensive and unshakeable, [which has been received] from one, primary guru, does not yield its fruit [because] the non-dual Brahman is verily sung of in different ways by the rṣis.
2. The verse does not instruct learning from many gurus; Dattātreya’s “gurus” are observational aids for manana, not actual teachers.
3. Both Śrīdhara Svāmī and Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī teach a single knowledge-imparting guru, aligning with Kṛṣṇa’s instruction in the Eleventh Canto.
Leave a Reply