Post by Admin on Jan 30, 2013 18:36:49 GMT -5
The following is directed at Uttamasloka, although replies are invited from anyone who can offer some guidance.
On pages 111-112 you quote Vishvanätha Cakravarti in Madhurya-kadambini, 3.5:
“Nor should one be of the mentality to think that the offense of sadhu ninda discriminates between types of Vaishnavas. It does not refer only to one who is fully and perfectly qualified with all the qualities mentioned in scripture. SB 11.11.29
“Even a person who is of very bad character, a cheater, devoid of proper behavior, malicious, devoid of saàskäras, and full of worldly desires, if he surrenders to the Lord, must be considered a sädhu. What to speak of a pure Vaiñëava.
“Sometimes a serious offense has been committed against a Vaiñëava, but the Vaiñëava does not become angry because of his exalted nature. Still the offender should fall at that devotee’s feet and seek ways of pleasing him to purify himself. Though the Vaiñëava may forgive offenses, the dust of his feet does not tolerate the offenses and delivers the fruits of the offense on the guilty person.”
And later on page 113 you ask: “Are we to simply overlook the bad behavior of a Vaiñëava, even criminal behavior, and not say anything ever – just turn a blind eye?”
And then answer on page 114: “Aparädha becomes a factor if Viçvanätha Cakravarté’s important qualifier is still part of the equation, i.e., “if he surrenders to the Lord”. In other words, if the perpetrator is genuinely trying to maintain their status as a practicing Vaiñëava, then it is an aparädha if one’s criticism is full of animosity and malice directed specifically towards that individual.”
But how is anyone to know “if he surrenders to the Lord”? That is not a qualifier that can be estimated externally by others.
And later in regard to individuals holding position within the institution (presumably here you mean ISKCON, although this will also apply to other sangas as well) you write:
“This also includes disagreeing with how Vaiñëavas manage their affairs within a spiritual
organization. If you criticize the methods and management decisions but not the persons, then there is no offense. If you vilify the persons, then you have committed Vaiñëava aparadha.”
Do you mean manage their affairs? Or manage the affairs of the institution? – two very different things.
This brings up a very sensitive point since there are many followers of Srila Prabhupada who feel very strongly that the very leadership that is supposed to be protecting the legacy of Srila Prabhupada are responsible for destroying it. Emotions run very high when they see how the Movement they have given their life and soul to, and which has (had?) the capacity to save the world, has been side-tracked and made impotent. Srila Prabhupada himself recognized that there were “sinister elements” within the society, and he has commented that there were envious devotees in the guise of Vaishnavas whom a serious devotee should reject and avoid.
In my experience there are many devotees, especially in America and Western Europe, the first followers of Srila Prabhupada who were ejected, rejected, or pushed out of the Movement, especially after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and many subjected to abuse (read “kulis”), who cannot get over the past. They live in the past in regard to Krishna Consciousness, constantly projecting their frustrations, anger and angst onto those in leadership positions, or former leaders, who destroyed their faith or that of others and thus did so much damage to Srila Prabhupada’s Movement.
How are these devotees supposed to overcome their pain and anger when there is no Maharaja Pariksit to chastise the offenders? These are devotees who suffered offense by their “leaders,” and they continue to harbor great resentment as another tight knot in their hearts. Further pain is added to their confusion and suffering when we see that some of these offenders are reinstated in prominent positions years later.
These are the very real circumstances for many, and in many cases need years of therapy simply to get to the point of leading a normal functioning life. You say that to criticize the management decisions but not the manager is no offense, but the decision is not something that happened independently of the manager, it was the action of the manager that so affected the devotee.
How is one supposed to be able to not have very great anger against those who have unjustly taken away from them or others the very means of performing service, or devotional sanga, which is the life and soul of a devotee? Or abused them emotionally, physically, or sexually? How are these devotees supposed to let all of that go so that they can continue their progressive march of Krishna Consciousness? One is just supposed to hate the sin but not the sinner? In many cases isn’t that really asking too much? Does the offense apply to those who were offended? Who, in all of this, is the offending party?
Comments welcomed
Dhanesvara Das
On pages 111-112 you quote Vishvanätha Cakravarti in Madhurya-kadambini, 3.5:
“Nor should one be of the mentality to think that the offense of sadhu ninda discriminates between types of Vaishnavas. It does not refer only to one who is fully and perfectly qualified with all the qualities mentioned in scripture. SB 11.11.29
“Even a person who is of very bad character, a cheater, devoid of proper behavior, malicious, devoid of saàskäras, and full of worldly desires, if he surrenders to the Lord, must be considered a sädhu. What to speak of a pure Vaiñëava.
“Sometimes a serious offense has been committed against a Vaiñëava, but the Vaiñëava does not become angry because of his exalted nature. Still the offender should fall at that devotee’s feet and seek ways of pleasing him to purify himself. Though the Vaiñëava may forgive offenses, the dust of his feet does not tolerate the offenses and delivers the fruits of the offense on the guilty person.”
And later on page 113 you ask: “Are we to simply overlook the bad behavior of a Vaiñëava, even criminal behavior, and not say anything ever – just turn a blind eye?”
And then answer on page 114: “Aparädha becomes a factor if Viçvanätha Cakravarté’s important qualifier is still part of the equation, i.e., “if he surrenders to the Lord”. In other words, if the perpetrator is genuinely trying to maintain their status as a practicing Vaiñëava, then it is an aparädha if one’s criticism is full of animosity and malice directed specifically towards that individual.”
But how is anyone to know “if he surrenders to the Lord”? That is not a qualifier that can be estimated externally by others.
And later in regard to individuals holding position within the institution (presumably here you mean ISKCON, although this will also apply to other sangas as well) you write:
“This also includes disagreeing with how Vaiñëavas manage their affairs within a spiritual
organization. If you criticize the methods and management decisions but not the persons, then there is no offense. If you vilify the persons, then you have committed Vaiñëava aparadha.”
Do you mean manage their affairs? Or manage the affairs of the institution? – two very different things.
This brings up a very sensitive point since there are many followers of Srila Prabhupada who feel very strongly that the very leadership that is supposed to be protecting the legacy of Srila Prabhupada are responsible for destroying it. Emotions run very high when they see how the Movement they have given their life and soul to, and which has (had?) the capacity to save the world, has been side-tracked and made impotent. Srila Prabhupada himself recognized that there were “sinister elements” within the society, and he has commented that there were envious devotees in the guise of Vaishnavas whom a serious devotee should reject and avoid.
In my experience there are many devotees, especially in America and Western Europe, the first followers of Srila Prabhupada who were ejected, rejected, or pushed out of the Movement, especially after Srila Prabhupada’s departure, and many subjected to abuse (read “kulis”), who cannot get over the past. They live in the past in regard to Krishna Consciousness, constantly projecting their frustrations, anger and angst onto those in leadership positions, or former leaders, who destroyed their faith or that of others and thus did so much damage to Srila Prabhupada’s Movement.
How are these devotees supposed to overcome their pain and anger when there is no Maharaja Pariksit to chastise the offenders? These are devotees who suffered offense by their “leaders,” and they continue to harbor great resentment as another tight knot in their hearts. Further pain is added to their confusion and suffering when we see that some of these offenders are reinstated in prominent positions years later.
These are the very real circumstances for many, and in many cases need years of therapy simply to get to the point of leading a normal functioning life. You say that to criticize the management decisions but not the manager is no offense, but the decision is not something that happened independently of the manager, it was the action of the manager that so affected the devotee.
How is one supposed to be able to not have very great anger against those who have unjustly taken away from them or others the very means of performing service, or devotional sanga, which is the life and soul of a devotee? Or abused them emotionally, physically, or sexually? How are these devotees supposed to let all of that go so that they can continue their progressive march of Krishna Consciousness? One is just supposed to hate the sin but not the sinner? In many cases isn’t that really asking too much? Does the offense apply to those who were offended? Who, in all of this, is the offending party?
Comments welcomed
Dhanesvara Das
