From vraja@planet.netSun Aug 20 18:04:24 1995 Date: Sun, 20 Aug 1995 18:03:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Vraja Kishor Towaco To: Vraja Kishor Towaco Subject: Uttama-adhikari / Uttama Bhagavata and the qualification of guru Dear Vaishnav Thakur, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. You asked for me to share the understanding that I have recieved regarding the matter of *uttama-adhikari* and *uttama-bhagavata*. Before doing so, I again offer my humble obeisances to your lotus feet, and beg for your blessings to present the knowledge nicely for your pleasure. The term "uttama-adhikari" was coined by His Divine Grace Srila Rupa Gosvami Prabhupada, in his eternally glorious Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. It is found in the first division, second wave of that book. This, in itself, is extremely important in understanding what the terms uttama- madhyama- and kanistha- *adhikari* actually are describing. The second wave of the first division is entitled "Sadhana-bhakti" - and, as one could easily guess, the subject matter of this wave is exclusively the topic of sadhana bhakti. The second wave of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu has two main subdivisions, Vaidhi-sadhana & Raganuga-Sadhana. The first, Vaidhi-sadhana is treated in texts 6 through 269. The second, Raganuga-sadhana, is treated in texts 270 through 309. Srila Rupa Gosvami presents the subject of the Three Adhikaris in texts 14 through 21. From this, we must clearly understand that the subject of Three Adhikaris is in reference to Vaidhi-sadhana bhakti. There can not be a doubt about this, because anyone who has surveyed the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu even cursorily, must be struck with wonder at how extremely systematic Srila Rupa Gosvami's presentation is. Everything is clearly divided into categories and subcategories. Thus, finding the topic of Three Adhikaris described in texts 14 through 21 of the second wave, one can immediately understand that they pertain to the preliminary discussion of Vaidhi-sadhana. Liguistically, all the terms used by Srila Rupa Gosvami are quite simple. UTTAMA simply means "Top." MADHYAMA simply means "Middle." And KANISTHA simply means "Low." ADHIKARI, according to Monier Williams Sanskrit Dictionary, means one who is authorized for, entitled to, or is a rightful claimant for something. As always, Srila Pranhupada is much more expert in translating terminology without clouding the meaning. In the titles he gave to the chapters in Nectar of Devotion which concern the verses in question from Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, Srila Prabhupada translated adhikari as "Candidate" or "Eligibility." So, the simple meaning of ADHIKARI is CANDIDATE - one who is eligible to receive or take up something. And, there are three grades of people who are more or less qualified - the Uttama, Madhyama, and Kanistha (Top qualified, Middle Qualified, and Lowest Qualified). At this point, the question naturally arises: "Qualified FOR WHAT??" The answer is derived from philosophically understanding the verses, as well as from simply understanding the compositional position of the subject in Sri Rupa Goswami's text. As the topic of Adhikari is being discussed under the heading of Vaidhi-Sadhana. We answer the question thus - "Uttama, madhyama and kanistha adhikaris describe three grades of people who are qualified candidates for BEGINNING THE PROCESS OF DEVOTIONAL SERVICE AT THE PLATFORM OF VAIDHI-SADHANA. This conclusion is borne out by a philosophical understanding of the texts. For example, in Text 14, Srila Rupa Goswami explains that the Adhikari, or qualification, for taking up the process of devotional service is twofold: (1) FAITH in the conclusion of the scriptures (that to serve Krishna is the exclusive goal of life), and (2) KNOWLEDGE of the philosophy presented in the bhakti-sastras. These qualification become quite logical when one understands that they are qualifications (adhikari) for Vaidhi-sadhana. It is logical that the qualification for taking up and advancing in Vaidhi-sadhana - which is sadhana impelled by the injunction of sastra - is graded according to one's faith in and knowledge of the sastra. Thus we see the clear import: The terms uttama-adhikari, madhyama-adhikari, and kanistha-adhikari refer to three types of people who are qualified to take up and make advancement in the process of Vaidhi-sadhana. The uttama adhikari, as explained in text 17 (See Cc. Mad. 22.66), is most qualified for vaidhi-sadhana, because he has strong faith in the conclusion of sastra, and deep knowledge of the philosophy presented in sastra (so much so, that he can convince others who have philosophical doubts - and can answer their questions sufficiently, so that they too imbibe some faith and knowledge in the scriptures and thus become adhikaris themselves. Therefore, the Uttama Adhikari is one who is qualified to be a preacher or a spiritual master - and no lesser adhikari can perform the task properly). The Madhyama adhikari is less qualified, because he has decent faith in the scripture's conclusion, and strong enough knowledge of the philosophical reasons for that conclusion - sufficient so that *he* is not deterred by the opposing arguments presented by pasandis. However, his understanding is not deep enough that he can convince others consistently. The kanistha has a little faith and a little knowledge, but can be swayed by opposing arguments. In texts 20 and 21 Srila Rupa Gosvami describes those who have NO Adhikari, because they have no faith nor understanding that the service of Krishna is the ultimate goal of life. IN CONCLUSION, THE TERM UTTAMA-ADHIKARI DOES NOT REFER TO AN EXTREMELY ADVANCED VAISHNAVA. IT REFERS INSTEAD TO A FAIRLY STRONG DEVOTEE WHO IS A VAIDHI-SADHAKA. Next, a doubt naturally arises: "What about the descriptions we have heard of an uttama-adhikari as one who is the topmost devotee, who sees Krishna everywhere, etc.?" To answer this question, one must refer to Srimad-Bhagavatam's 11th canto, 2nd chapter, texts 45 onward. These texts again describe three varieties of devotees, but it is a different categorization altogether than that found in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu. In Bhakti-Rasamrta-Sindhu, Srila Rupa Gosvami describes three types of vaidhi-sadhakas. Thus he has used the term "adhikari" - or one who is eligible to advance. In Srimad Bhagavatam, the three types of devotees discussed are not "adhikaris." If one references the sanskrit for these texts, he will not find the word "adhikari" even once. Rather, this section of Bhagavatam is describing three types of devotees, and the sanskrit term used is "Bhagavata" or "Bhakta." Thus Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu describes Uttama, Madhyama, and Kanistha *adhikaris*; while Srimad Bhagavatam describes Uttama, madhyama, and kanistha *bhagavatas* or *bhaktas*. This section of Srimad-bhagavatam addresses the topic of different realizations possesed by different levels of devotees. Thus the kanistha is described as one who only realizes the Lord in the stereotyped ways - in the temple, etc. - because he has very little realization. The Madhyama is one who recognizes various degrees of the Lord's presence in various entities. And the Uttama is one who realizes the Lord's omnipresence. Thus when it is said that a spiritual master must be an uttama-adhikari, it does not mean that he or she must be a paramahamsa, it means that he or she must have firm faith and knowledge in the sastras so that he or she can impart that faith and knowledge to the hearts of others. The term for the paramahamsa is uttama-bhagavata, which entirely differs from an uttama adhikari. At this point, one final doubt arises. We find that devotees have often used these terms interchangeably. In fact even Srila Prabhupada seems to refer often to uttama-bhagavatas as "uttama-adhikaris." Why is that? In answer, we beg to remind that we have just engaged in the process of philosophical hair-splitting - in regard to a specific philosophical misunderstanding that no one can be a spiritual master unless he or she is a paramahamsa. In general conversation, however, it is not specifically necesarry to split hairs and prespire over nuances in Sanskrit terminology. Therefore we can use the terms uttama-adhikari and uttama-bhagavata interchangeably in general speech. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL DEVIATION AND DISPUTE, at that point we must become more exacting and split hairs. *At that point* one must distinguish uttama-adhikari from uttama-bhagavata. At that point one must say "uttama- adhikari" when he means uttama-adhikari, and say "uttama-bhagavata" when he means uttama-bhagavata. At other times, it is neither necesarry nor incorrect. Finally, one last doubt arises: "How can you be so sure that someone wasn't using the terms interchangeably when they said that a spiritual master must be an uttama-adhikari? Perhaps they meant that he must be an uttama-bhagavata, but were just speaking in common terms and thus not splitting philosophical hairs over terms." The answer can be conclusively reached by any sincere person. There are two ways to understand the answer: (1) Understanding the philosophical, logical reasoning why a spiritual master is required to be an uttama *adhikari*, and (2) understanding *where* the subject is mentioned in Srila Prabhupada's Books. The logical understanding has already been presented twice in this essay: The Uttama *adhikari* is one who's faith and knowledge of the sastras is strong enough that he can answer doubts and thus transmit the knowledge and faith to other people - without which they cannot begin on the path of Bhakti. As the spiritual master is one who initiates a person on the path of Bhakti - it is clear why he or she must logically be an uttama-adhikari. The question can also be answered by undertanding *where* the topic is discussed in Srila Prabhupada's books. First, one must understand tha when Srila Rupa Gosvami wrote his Sanskrit philosophical works such as Bhakti-rasamrta Sindhu, Ujjvala Nilamani, and Upadesamrta - he *was* philosophically spliting hairs to an extreme degree. Anyone who reads these works will not be able to avoid the conclusion of Srila Rupa Gosvami's extreme attention to precision and consistency in terminology. Thus it is significant that the subject of a spiritual master being an uttama adhikari is brought up in the Nectar of Instruction - which is Srila Rupa Gosvami's Upadesamrta. Therefore we must understand that, in Srila Rupa Gosvami's own book the terminology is being used according to the definitions that he himself set down in the gretest detail. CONCLUSION Herein, one insignificant person has attempted to describe the wealth of knowledge that he has received from his glorious spiritual master regarding the subject of uttama-adhikari/uttama-bhagavata and the qualifications of the guru. We hope that this presentation has pleased the Vaishnavas, and will implore their satisfaction and happy blessings upon me - a beggar in the true sense. Your servant, Vraja Kishor das