Apparent contradictions between Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja provide us with a chance to more deeply scrutinize our understanding of Krsna consciousness and help us make progress towards our infinite Lord. Srila Prabhupada himself wrote in a letter to Upendra on 19 February 1972 that, "there is no reason why acaryas cannot differ on certain points." Generally speaking, apparent contradictions can be eventually understood to be either a difference based on rasa or preaching techniques-wherein preaching and siddhanta may not always be the same. An example of the former is the disagreement that eternally exists between vatsalya and madhurya rasas. Simply put, Yasodamayi very much wants her son Krsna to have a good nights sleep, while the gopis headed by Srimati Radharani want him to leave the house and dance with them in the Vrndavana night. In the case of the latter, preaching is surrounded by contradictions, as the preacher may say different things at different times to awaken divine faith in the hearts of the fallen jivas. Thus, preaching and siddhanta are apparently not always in concert. The highest truth is to give Krsna consciousness. In the field of preaching, at one time one instruction may be given; at a later stage we may be told the opposite.

In a Conversation on March 9, 1976, Srila Prabhupada clarified this idea:

Madhudvisa: In the eighteenth chapter of the Bhagavad-gita, in one of your purports, you say that a sannyasi should never discourage a young man from getting married. But on the other hand, we understand that a sannyasi should encourage young men to remain brahmacari. So it seems to me like there's some kind of contradiction.

Prabhupada: According to time and circumstance. Just like Krsna says, nityatam kuru karma tvam: "Always be engaged in your prescribed work." (Bg, 3.8) And at last he says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam varja. (Bg. 18.66) So now you adjust. That is not a contradiction. It is just suitable to the time and circumstance.

Madhudvisa: But is there some conclusion?

Prabhupada: The real aim is that you have to become the eternal servant of Krsna.

When apparent contradictions are not resolved by the advancing devotee, they give rise to real contradictions. Real contradictions deviate one from the pure devotional conclusions. These real contradictions are based on anarthas and they must be transcended. Rasam-anandam is the purest white, and material desire is the darkest black. In the transition from the dark black of material life to the pure white of our highest spiritual prospect, there are many shades of gray through which we must pass, resolving apparent contradictions along the way.

What follows is an example of an apparent contradiction in the writings of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja. Resolving this is a valuable exercise of our Krsna consciousness. In Srila Prabhupada's translation of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, he translates the following verse thus:

"Our strength is immeasurable, and we are perfectly protected by grandfather Bhisma whereas the strength of the Pandavas, carefully protected by Bhima is limited." (Bg. 1.10)

The same verse, however, is translated quite differently by Srila Sridhara Maharaja in his Bhagavad-gita (Hidden Treasure of the Sweet Absolute). Here, we find the verse reads as follows:

"Our army, headed by Bhisma, is inadequate, whereas the army of the Pandavas, protected by Bhima, is competent."

Which translation is correct? Could both of them be correct? Srila Prabhupada dedicated his Gita commentary to Baladeva Vidyabhusana (who gave the world Govinda bhasya) because his concern was to give the overall siddhanta of our sampradaya to the world, rather than focus on a few of the precious jewels of our devotional conclusions in his commentary. Many previous translations of the Gita had not produced a devotee, yet, Srila Prabhupada's Gita produced and continues to produce thousands of devotees. No doubt he had something specific in mind as he set out to translate and comment on the Gita.

The Gita is a deep book, from which even the highest truth of parakiya-bhava can be drawn directly from the text by those who are themselves deeply immersed in the mellows of pure devotion. Srila Prabhupada relished these finer points of siddhanta with Srila Sridhara Maharaja when they lived together at Sita Kanta Banerjee Lane in Calcutta. At that time, Srila Prabhupada was working on his Gita translation. Srila Prabhupada appreciated Sridhara Maharaja's perception of the catur-sloka of the Gita. When it was brought up to Srila Prabhupada for his opinion, he remarked to Sridhara Maharaja, "Yes, it must be." Yet, in his own treatise, Srila Prabhupada had something different in mind-wide-scale distribution of Krsna consciousness.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja however, preferred to keep close company with fewer devotees and examine and relish the finer points of Gaudiya siddhanta. He tended to discuss the mood of the circumstance rather than relate the circumstance itself, much like Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, the contemporary of Baladeva Vidyabhusana. Their differences are only apparent, and they are analogous to the differences in emphasis and style of Baladeva Vidyabhusana, who gave the siddhanta as it is, and his substantial guru Visvanatha Cakravarti, who consistently presented the hidden treasure in his commentaries. On this particular text, Baladeva Vidyabhusana translates aparyaptam as immeasurable; thus, giving the upper hand to Bhisma, and paryaptam as limited, while Visvanatha Cakravarti gives the upper hand to Bhima. The Sanskrit dictionary tells us that both these words, aparyaptam and paryaptam, can have opposite meanings, and can therefore be used to support either translation.

Bhisma was the greatest of ksatriyas; thus, he certainly strengthened Duryodhana's army, in accord with Srila Prabhupada's translation. Yet, Bhisma also was a weak element in the military arrangement of Duryodhana, for although outwardly the strongest to oppose the Pandavas, he was inwardly the weakest. Bhisma was formally on the side of Duryodhana, while at heart and in spirit he was a member of the Pandavas army. Bhisma loved the Pandava brothers and Sri Krsna with all of his heart. How could such a person, however strong militarily, be someone Duryodhana could count on?

The straight truth as it is, is that Bhisma was a formidable fighter and an asset to Duryodhana. The hidden treasure is that he was weakened in his support for Duryodhana because of his deep love for the Pandavas. This sweet truth is also alluded to in Srila Prabhupada's commentary on text eleven of the first chapter of the Gita. There Srila Prabhupada says, "Although he [Duryodhana] knew that the two generals [Bhisma and Dronacarya] had some sort of affection for the Pandavas, he hoped that all such affection would now be completely given up by them, as was customary during the gambling performances."

When discussing the lives and writings of the acaryas, we should enter into such discussion with a feeling for what Vaisnavism is all about, otherwise we may become victims of offenses to Vaisnavas (aparadha). Their lives are all about love, which resolves all contradictions. Love harmonizes all things as nothing else can. The lives of Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhara Maharaja and their relationship with one another are something from which we can learn about the spirit of love. To date, there has been considerable debate about the nature of their relationship. Be assured it is one of absolute love, which as Ujjvala-nilamani tells us, moves in a crooked way. Thus, it is not understood by all, and certainly not without looking beneath the surface. In love there must be differences, apparent differences. The higher harmony is that which we seek, beyond the material conceptions of friends and enemies.

In the Madhya-lila of the Chaitanya Bhagavat, Vrndavana dasa Thakura writes, "Sometimes there are differences of opinion among the Vaishnava devotees of the Lord which might appear like an argument, but in fact it is an amazing relationship between devotees. Foolish rascals, who do not understand this exchange, praise one Vaishnava and denounce the other. Such a mentality will lead to destruction of faith and knowledge." And in Antya-lila: "The Vaisnavas are extensions of the Lord's limbs, so how can one benefit by serving him with one hand and inflicting pain on Him with the other? One who hears, glorifies, and understands these transcendental subjects can always avoid vaisnava-aparadha."

return