Why “there are no mistakes” is not the Vaiṣṇava position
By Ajit Krishna Dasa
A devotee may reason as follows: A pure devotee is free from the four defects of conditioned life. One of those defects is the tendency to commit mistakes. Therefore, a pure devotee cannot make mistakes, and consequently there can be no mistakes in the books of Śrīla Prabhupāda or the previous ācāryas.
This argument sounds loyal to the ācāryas, but it is based on an equivocation. The word “mistake” is being used in two different senses as though there were no difference between them.
The Vaiṣṇava ācāryas themselves repeatedly speak about grammatical defects, literary discrepancies, imperfect composition, apparent misquotation and other faults in transcendental literature. They do not solve the matter by denying that such things exist. They explain why such external faults do not constitute material defects in the pure devotee or compromise the transcendental nature and potency of his work.
The claim that there can be no mistakes of any kind does not really defend the ācāryas. It contradicts what the ācāryas themselves have said.
The contradiction exists only on the surface
A contradiction occurs when the same thing is both affirmed and denied in the same respect. “There are mistakes” and “there are no mistakes” would therefore be contradictory only if the word “mistake” meant exactly the same thing in both statements.
It does not.
When it is said that a pure devotee does not commit mistakes, the meaning is that he does not manufacture transcendental knowledge under the influence of illusion, speculation, deception and defective material senses. His presentation of the Absolute Truth is not a product of the four defects of conditioned existence.
When the ācāryas speak of mistakes, faults or discrepancies in devotional literature, however, they refer to such things as grammatical irregularities, awkward expressions, imperfect composition, slips of language, literary discrepancies, apparent misquotations or incidental historical and geographical errors. A text may therefore contain a conventionally incorrect grammatical form without being spiritually defective, and an expression may be imperfect according to ordinary literary standards while still being a perfect vehicle for transmitting transcendental realization.
There is no more contradiction here than when we say that Kṛṣṇa possesses qualities and that Kṛṣṇa is nirguṇa, without qualities. Kṛṣṇa possesses unlimited transcendental qualities, but He has no material qualities. Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is personal and impersonal. He is not impersonal in the sense that He lacks personality; His impersonal feature is subordinate to His unlimited transcendental personality.
In the same way, the writings of a pure devotee are free from material mistakes, although they may contain external or conventional discrepancies. The mistake is present in one sense and absent in another.
If the pure devotee is always right, he is also right about mistakes
There is an even more obvious problem with the claim that no mistake of any kind can appear in the work of a pure devotee.
The pure devotees themselves say that the writings of pure devotees and great authorities may contain mistakes, defects, discrepancies, imperfect expressions and apparent misquotations. Therefore, if the pure devotee is always correct and never wrong, then he must also be correct and never wrong when he says that such mistakes and imperfections can exist.
One cannot logically argue, “Śrīla Prabhupāda cannot be wrong; therefore, Śrīla Prabhupāda must be wrong when he says that an authority’s work may contain mistakes.” Nor can one argue, “The ācāryas cannot make incorrect statements; therefore, their statements about defects, discrepancies and imperfect language must be incorrect.”
That position refutes itself.
The argument can be expressed formally:
- The teachings of the pure devotee concerning transcendental literature are correct.
- Pure devotees teach that transcendental literature may contain conventional mistakes, faults, discrepancies and imperfections.
- Therefore, it is correct that transcendental literature may contain conventional mistakes, faults, discrepancies and imperfections.
The conclusion can be avoided only by denying one of the premises. If the first premise is rejected, the claim that the pure devotee is always correct has been abandoned. If the second premise is rejected, the plain statements of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Śrīla Prabhupāda have been denied. There is no third option.
The argument that “a pure devotee cannot make mistakes” can therefore not be used to invalidate the ācāryas’ statements that mistakes may exist. If those ācāryas are correct, then the mistakes they describe must be possible.
Why “transcendental mistake” is not an oxymoron
The expression “transcendental mistake” may at first sound contradictory, but again the contradiction disappears when the relevant distinctions are made.
The argument is simple:
- Everything a pure devotee does in pure devotional service is transcendental.
- The ācāryas acknowledge that conventional mistakes may sometimes occur in the literary service of pure devotees.
- Therefore, conventional mistakes may occur within transcendental service and within its transcendental literary product.
- Such mistakes may properly be called transcendental mistakes.
The phrase does not mean that falsehood becomes truth, that incorrect grammar becomes correct grammar or that two plus two becomes five. It means that the discrepancy occurs within a transcendental act of devotional service and does not arise from material speculation, deception, envy or defective spiritual realization.
A mistake of this kind may be called transcendental because of its source, context and purpose. It originates within the service of a pure devotee, it occurs in an act intended for the glorification of Kṛṣṇa, it is accepted by Kṛṣṇa on the strength of the devotee’s surrender and devotional intention, and it does not destroy the transcendental potency of the work. When the ācārya has authorized the work, the discrepancy becomes part of the presentation he has given.
The conventional mistake remains conventionally mistaken. What is denied is that it constitutes a material defect in the pure devotee’s realization, consciousness or transmission of siddhānta.
This is exactly the distinction illustrated by the example of viṣṇāya and viṣṇave. Viṣṇāya remains grammatically incorrect, but Kṛṣṇa accepts it when spoken with devotion. The grammatical defect remains external, while the service remains transcendental and the offering remains acceptable to Kṛṣṇa.
Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura openly acknowledged defects
Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura did not claim that the transcendental character of his work guaranteed perfect grammar and language. On the contrary, he explicitly requested that such defects be overlooked:
“We have discussed the Absolute Truth in this book, so please excuse any grammar or language defects. Swan-like persons should not waste any time in this way. Those who criticize such external defects while studying this book will obstruct its main purpose—accepting the essence of the Absolute Truth—and are not eligible to study this book. Arguments born of childish education are despicable in serious subject matters.”
—Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, Śrī Kṛṣṇa-saṁhitā, Chapter 10, Text 19
This statement would make no sense if a transcendental book could not contain grammatical or linguistic defects. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura does not say that the defects are grammatically correct; he calls them defects. His point is that concentrating on them while missing the transcendental substance obstructs the purpose of the book.
The swanlike reader separates milk from water. He does not deny that water is present. He takes the essential substance.
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī: the spirit may wear defective clothing
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura made the same distinction:
“The kind indulgence of the reader is solicited to overlook shortcomings inseparable from the employment of a foreign language and consider only the spirit irrespective of the defective garb in which she might be clothed.”
—Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, The Harmonist, June 1927, No. 1
Again, the language is unmistakable. There are “shortcomings,” and the “garb” may be “defective,” yet the spirit clothed in that language remains transcendental. The external form and the internal substance must therefore be distinguished. A defect in the garment is not a defect in the person wearing it.
The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes
Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura takes this principle much further in his article on Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura:
“The devotee is always right. The non-devotee in the shape of the empiric pedant is always and necessarily wrong. In the one case there is always present the Substantive Truth and nothing but the Substantive Truth. In the other case there is present the apparent or misleading hypothesis and nothing but un-truth. The wording may have the same external appearance in both cases.
“The identical verses of the Scriptures may be recited by the devotee and the non-devotee … The devotee is right even when he apparently misquotes, the non-devotee is wrong even when he quotes correctly the very words, chapter and verse of the Scriptures.”
—Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, “Thakur Bhaktivinode,” The Harmonist, Vol. XXIX, No. 6, December 1931, p. 169
This adds an essential spiritual layer to the discussion. The transcendental value of speech is not determined by its external verbal accuracy alone. The same verse may be spoken by a pure devotee and by an envious materialist. The syllables may be externally identical, yet the spiritual value of the two acts is categorically different.
Conversely, a devotee may apparently misquote a verse while actually communicating its transcendental substance, whereas a nondevotee may reproduce every syllable correctly while distorting or denying its meaning. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī does not deny that the devotee may apparently misquote. He explicitly says that this may happen, yet the devotee is “right” because the Substantive Truth is present in his speech.
This does not mean that every factual statement made by anyone who calls himself a devotee automatically becomes correct, nor does it give sentimentalists permission to manufacture philosophy. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī is speaking about transcendental sound manifest through genuine devotional realization. His point is that material philological correctness is neither a sufficient nor the ultimate criterion of spiritual truth.
The empiric scholar thinks that accuracy of vocabulary gives him possession of the truth. The ācārya explains that the Absolute Truth reveals Himself through submission and service, not through mechanical verbal expertise.
This quotation also reinforces the earlier logical argument. If “the devotee is always right,” then Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī must also be right when he says that a devotee may apparently misquote. One cannot use the first half of his statement to deny the second half of the very same teaching.
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu acknowledged poetic faults
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu did not teach that great spiritual literature is necessarily free from every literary fault. He stated:
“Even in the poetic compositions of such great poets as Bhavabhuti, Jayadeva and Kalidasa there are many examples of faults. Such mistakes should be considered negligible. One should see only how such poets have displayed their poetic power.”
—Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 16.101–102
The words are explicit: “There are many examples of faults,” and “such mistakes should be considered negligible.” Mahāprabhu does not say that the faults cease to be faults. He says how they should be evaluated.
Śrīla Prabhupāda explains the principle in his purport:
In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11 it is said:
tad-vāg-visargo janatāgha-viplavo
yasmin prati-ślokam abaddhavaty api
nāmāny anantasya yaśo ’ṅkitāni yat
śṛṇvanti gāyanti gṛṇanti sādhavaḥ
“In explaining the glories of the Lord, inexperienced men may compose poetry with many faults, but because it contains glorification of the Lord, great personalities read it, hear it and chant it.” Despite its minute literary discrepancies, one must study poetry on the merit of its subject matter. According to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, any literature that glorifies the Lord, whether properly written or not, is first class. There need be no other considerations.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s conclusion could hardly be clearer:
“According to Vaiṣṇava philosophy, any literature that glorifies the Lord, whether properly written or not, is first class. There need be no other considerations.”
“Whether properly written or not” necessarily admits the possibility that the literature is not properly written. It nevertheless remains first class because its spiritual status is determined by its subject matter and devotional purpose, not merely by external literary perfection.
Viṣṇāya and viṣṇave
The same principle appears in Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s response to Īśvara Purī. Īśvara Purī asked Mahāprabhu to point out mistakes in his book about Kṛṣṇa’s pastimes, but Mahāprabhu replied that one who finds fault with a devotee’s description of Kṛṣṇa is himself at fault. He then gave a specific example:
“An uneducated person may chant viṣṇāya, while a sober person will chant the proper form, viṣṇave, but the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa will accept both forms when they are chanted with devotion.”
The explanation explicitly identifies viṣṇāya namaḥ as improper according to grammar and viṣṇave namaḥ as correct. Yet Kṛṣṇa accepts the devotional offering in both cases because He accepts the devotee’s sentiment.
This example logically settles the matter. Viṣṇāya is grammatically incorrect, a devotee may nevertheless say viṣṇāya, and Kṛṣṇa accepts the devotee’s offering. Therefore, grammatical incorrectness can exist in a devotional expression without making that expression spiritually defective or unacceptable to Kṛṣṇa.
Mahāprabhu does not deny the grammatical mistake. In fact, the entire teaching depends upon recognizing it. If there were no grammatical difference between viṣṇāya and viṣṇave, the example would have no meaning.
The mistake is real according to grammar, while the offering is perfect according to devotion. That is precisely the distinction under discussion.
Śrīla Prabhupāda anticipated literary discrepancies in his own work
In his original commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11, Śrīla Prabhupāda frankly acknowledged the limitations of presenting transcendental knowledge in a foreign language:
“Our presenting this matter in adequate language, especially a foreign language, will certainly fail, and there will be so many literary discrepancies despite our honest attempt to present it in the proper way. But we are sure that with all our faults in this connection the seriousness of the subject matter will be taken into consideration, and the leaders of society will still accept this due to its being an honest attempt to glorify the Almighty God. […] After all, it is a technical science of spiritual values, and thus we are concerned with the techniques and not with the language. If the techniques of this great literature are understood by the people of the world, there will be success.”
Śrīla Prabhupāda himself says that adequate linguistic presentation “will certainly fail,” that there will be “so many literary discrepancies,” and that there will be “faults.” Success depends upon the spiritual science being understood, not upon literary perfection.
One cannot seriously maintain that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books contain no literary discrepancies while Śrīla Prabhupāda himself says that there will be many. If Śrīla Prabhupāda is never wrong, then he is not wrong here either. The only possible reconciliation is the obvious one: such discrepancies are not material defects in his transcendental message.
Ornamentation is not the ecstasy
Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote in a letter dated January 29, 1976:
“The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says if there is a real presentation of spiritual understanding, then, even if it is presented in broken language, it is accepted by high, saintly persons, because it glorifies the Supreme Person. On the other hand, if literature is highly metaphorically composed, if it does not glorify the Lord, it is compared to a place inhabited by the crows. Actually, if some literature doesn’t carry any real knowledge, what is the use of ornamental language? […] That sentiment is required. […] It is not the ornamentation, it is the ecstasy.”
—Śrīla Prabhupāda, letter to Dr. Wolf, January 29, 1976
The contrast is not merely between bad writing and good writing. It is between broken language containing spiritual realization and polished language devoid of spiritual substance. The first is accepted by saints; the second is a place for crows.
A grammatically perfect denial of Kṛṣṇa is spiritually false, while an imperfectly phrased glorification of Kṛṣṇa may be spiritually perfect.
“It is not the grammatical”
Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly explained that the potency of transcendental literature lies in its substance and effect:
“Such revolutionary literature, even they are not properly composed. Yasmin prati-ślokam abaddham. Not according to the grammatical rules and other rhetorical rules, but the, I mean to say, thoughts and the effects of such revolutionary literature is required. Not the grammatical. The so-called rascals, they are concerned with the grammatical. But those who are actually worker, they are concerned with the thoughts.”
—Room conversation discussing Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.5.11, Jaipur, January 19, 1972
He also wrote:
“There is a verse in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that a book or poetry in which the Holy Name of Kṛṣṇa is depicted, such language is revolutionary in the matter of purifying the material atmosphere. Even though such literature is presented in broken language or grammatical inconsistency or rhetorical irregularity, still, those who are saintly persons adore such literature. They hear such literature, and chant it and adore it, simply because the Supreme Lord is being glorified in this literature. In other words, we are not meant for presenting any literary masterpieces…”
—Letter to Kṛṣṇa Dāsa, February 13, 1969
Again, broken language, grammatical inconsistency and rhetorical irregularity are not denied. Their spiritual insignificance is explained.
“There may be discrepancies, but it is all right”
Śrīla Prabhupāda defined ārṣa-prayoga in precisely these terms:
“If one is too big, there is no mistake. Ārṣa-prayoga means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority.”
—Letter to Maṇḍalī Bhadra, January 20, 1972
He later stated:
“You’ll find, therefore, in the comments of Bhāgavatam by different ācāryas, even there are some discrepancies, they are accepted as ārṣa-prayoga. It should remain as it is.”
—Lecture on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.5.23–24, Vṛndāvana, March 31, 1976
Notice the exact structure. Śrīla Prabhupāda says, “There is no mistake,” and immediately afterward explains that “there may be discrepancies.” He then concludes, “It should remain as it is.”
He places these ideas together and therefore clearly did not regard them as contradictory. “There is no mistake” cannot mean that there is no external discrepancy, because he immediately says that discrepancies may exist. The natural meaning is that the discrepancy does not diminish the authority of the great ācārya and should not be treated as an ordinary conditioned defect.
Once again, if Śrīla Prabhupāda is always correct, he is also correct in saying that “there may be discrepancies.”
Ārṣa-prayoga would be meaningless if mistakes were impossible
Śrīla Prabhupāda stated:
“The system is: whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.”
He then identified this system as ārṣa-prayoga and warned that the disciple should not try to become more learned than the authority. He concluded, “Whatever is done is done. No more,” and finally, “No corrections.”
The expression “even there is mistake” presupposes that something may be recognized as a mistake. If no mistake of any kind could possibly appear in the work of an authority, the instruction would be empty.
Ārṣa-prayoga does not teach that the disciple must hypnotize himself into believing that every external detail is conventionally correct. It teaches the proper response when a discrepancy is perceived. The discrepancy may be acknowledged and explained, but the disciple does not therefore assume jurisdiction over the completed words of the authority.
“Transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself”
This distinction was understood within Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own publishing operation.
In a letter dated July 22, 1977, Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami reported that Rāmeśvara Mahārāja had divided discrepancies in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books into three categories:
- Typographical errors.
- Mistakes made by the English and Sanskrit editors.
- “Transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.”
The same report states that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted the mistakes rectified while warning the editors not to make unnecessary changes. These were the principles under which the editors were operating while Śrīla Prabhupāda was present.
According to Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami’s report, Śrīla Prabhupāda was dissatisfied that mistakes remained and wanted them corrected. The classification presented in connection with those instructions included “transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.”
We do not presently have a direct recording or written statement in which Śrīla Prabhupāda personally uses the exact expression “transcendental mistakes.” That should be admitted plainly. Nevertheless, it does not follow that the category is philosophically incoherent.
The existence of what may properly be called transcendental mistakes can be deduced logically from Vaiṣṇava philosophy and from the explicit statements of the ācāryas. Literary service performed by a pure devotee for Kṛṣṇa is transcendental, and the ācāryas explicitly acknowledge that mistakes, faults and discrepancies may occur within such literature. Therefore, mistakes may occur within transcendental literary service, and such mistakes may properly be described as transcendental mistakes.
A typographical mistake belongs to the printer. An editorial mistake belongs to the editor. A transcendental mistake belongs to the authorized expression of the ācārya and is therefore treated according to ārṣa-prayoga.
It may remain a mistake according to grammar, geography or another conventional standard, but it is transcendental in relation to its source, purpose, acceptance by Kṛṣṇa and position within the ācārya’s authorized work.
This does not prove that every disputed passage is a mistake dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda, nor does it prove that editors were authorized to continue correcting his books after his departure. It proves something more limited but decisive for the present discussion: the category of transcendental mistakes is neither logically contradictory nor foreign to the principles taught by our ācāryas.
Śrīla Prabhupāda demonstrated the principle in practice
In Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 9.74, Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī apparently identifies the wrong temple visited by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura points out the discrepancy.
Śrīla Prabhupāda did not rewrite Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja’s text. He preserved it and supplied the clarification later, in his purport to text 358.
This is precisely the proper distinction between preservation and annotation. The original remains original, the apparent discrepancy is not concealed, the reader is informed in a note, and the later commentator does not silently rewrite the departed ācārya.
That is also the proper answer to discrepancies in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. The original authorized edition should remain unchanged. Relevant questions, manuscript variants, grammatical observations and proposed corrections may be documented transparently in a separate annotated or critical edition.
The argument defeats itself
The claim that a pure devotee’s books cannot contain mistakes of any kind produces a series of impossible consequences.
It requires denying Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s reference to “grammar or language defects.” It requires denying Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s reference to “shortcomings” and “defective garb,” as well as his statement that a devotee may “apparently misquote.” It requires denying Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s statement that great poetry contains “many examples of faults,” and it requires denying the explicit distinction between the incorrect viṣṇāya and the correct viṣṇave.
It also requires denying Śrīla Prabhupāda’s prediction of “so many literary discrepancies,” his references to broken language, grammatical inconsistencies and rhetorical irregularities, and his statement that “whatever authority has done, even there is mistake, it should be accepted.” It renders the entire principle of ārṣa-prayoga meaningless and requires rejecting the 1977 editorial category of “transcendental mistakes dictated by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself.”
Most decisively, it requires claiming that the pure devotees are wrong when they say that the works of pure devotees may contain mistakes.
Thus, in an attempt to defend the pure devotee, the argument ends by contradicting the pure devotees. That is not fidelity. It is an unnecessary theory imposed upon their words.
The correct Vaiṣṇava conclusion
The correct conclusion preserves both sides of the teaching.
A pure devotee does not commit material mistakes in transmitting the transcendental conclusion. His work is not a product of illusion, cheating, speculation or defective material knowledge. Nevertheless, his literary presentation may contain external discrepancies judged according to grammar, rhetoric, chronology, geography or other conventional standards.
Such discrepancies may be recognized without reducing the transcendental status of the ācārya. They may be conventionally incorrect while remaining spiritually faultless, and they may be described as mistakes externally while being accepted as transcendental internally.
Kṛṣṇa accepts the devotion. Saintly persons accept the spiritual substance. The disciple accepts the authority. And the original work remains as the ācārya left it.
There are mistakes, and there are no mistakes—but not in the same respect. There are external discrepancies, but there are no material defects in the transcendental message, purpose and authority of the pure devotee.
That is not an oxymoron.
That is ārṣa-prayoga.
Arsa-Prayoga 
You must be logged in to post a comment.