Post by Uttamasloka on Nov 28, 2013 15:40:54 GMT -5
Here is an excerpt from my book, Chapter 4: Vaisnava aparadha – the most devastating anartha
Among the four types of anarthas, nama aparadha is the most serious stumbling block for all Vaisnavas. Nama aparadha includes Vaisnava aparadha which is the single most devastating of all anarthas and aparadhas. Without a clear understanding and resolution of this issue, one’s progress could be severely impacted, possibly for many lifetimes, what to speak of in this life.
Unfortunately, Vaisnava aparadha is a malicious epidemic that is rampant throughout the contemporary worldwide Vaisnava community, as witnessed by the over abundance of blasphemous statements found online on numerous websites. The seriousness of these offenses cannot be over stated. Most Gauòiya Vaisnavas understand the potentially damaging effects of Vaisnava aparadha through Lord Caitanya’s description of the offense known as the, “mad elephant”, which runs wild through one’s devotional garden, obliterating the creeper of bhakti.
If the devotee commits an offense at the feet of a Vaisnava while cultivating the creeper of devotional service in the material world, his offense is compared to a mad elephant that uproots the creeper and breaks it. In this way the leaves of the creeper are dried up. CC, 2.19.156
It appears quite obvious that many Vaisnavas do not comprehend the factual ramifications of such offenses, so I will expand upon the basic understanding to make the point more explicitly and emphatically. Many offenders (aparadhis) try to justify their attacks by skewed philosophical word jugglery, which sadly does not conform to the standards set by the acaryas.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding that is prevalent in the Vaisnava aparadhas that are committed in many online diatribes against fellow Vaisnavas, and the rationale goes something like this: “A certain Vaisnava is not following this or that rule(s) and is not chanting sixteen rounds daily, and as such he is disobeying his spiritual master. Therefore, I (the offender) conclude and declare publicly that he is a reject disciple, completely condemned and rejected by his guru and thus, not a Vaisnava anymore, so it’s perfectly fine to severely trash him in any way I choose without fear of committing an offense.”
Unfortunately (for the offender) this perverted reasoning is fatally flawed and highly offensive in and of itself. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in these delicate matters. In light of the above typical offensive behavior, let’s examine some clarifying statements about Vaisnava aparadha made by Visvanatha Cakravarti in Madhurya-kadambini, 3.5. After describing methods of repentance and atonement he says:
By the divine power of nama kirtana, certainly in time that person will be delivered from his offense. However, he should not justify himself by arguing that sastra says, namaparadha yuktanam namanyeva harantyagham: The Holy Name alone is sufficient to deliver an offender. So what is the need of humbling himself by offering repeated respects and service to the Vaisnava that he has offended? This type of mentality makes him guilty of further offense.
Nor should one be of the mentality to think that the offense of sadhu ninda discriminates between types of Vaisnavas. It does not refer only to one who is fully and perfectly qualified with all the qualities mentioned in scripture, such as mercifulness, never harming others, and forgiving to all living entities: krpalur akrta-drohas titiksuh sarva dehinam. SB 11.11.29
A person cannot minimize his offense by pointing out some defect in the devotee. [read that sentence three times]
In answer the scriptures say: sarvacara vivarjitah sathadhiyo bratya jagadvancakah:
Even a person who is of very bad character, a cheater, devoid of proper behavior, malicious, devoid of saàskaras, and full of worldly desires, if he surrenders to the Lord, must be considered a sadhu. What to speak of a pure Vaisnava.
Sometimes a serious offense has been committed against a Vaisnava, but the Vaisnava 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 Vaisnava may forgive offenses, the dust of his feet does not tolerate the offenses and delivers the fruits of the offense on the guilty person. For it is said:
Those who envy exalted saints are certainly diminished by the dust of their lotus feet. SB 4.4.13
In Madhurya-kadambini, Third Shower, Visvanatha Cakravarti states:
Seeing the following verse from Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, another doubt arises:
Oh foremost of brahmanas, what are the offenses against the Name of the Lord which cancel the results of all one’s performances, and lead to a material conception even of transcendental topics?
In other words, repeatedly hearing and chanting the Lord’s name should give prema, serving the sacred tirthas should bestow perfection, tasting repeatedly the ghi, milk and betel prasadam should destroy all desires for sense enjoyment. So what are the grave offenses which cancel these results and cause all these spiritually potent activities to appear material?
This very startling and unnerving question is being raised. If this is so, does it follow that a person who commits a nama-aparadha becomes averse to the Lord and thus, cannot even take shelter of guru or perform devotional activities?
This is true. As during a serious fever, losing all taste for food, a person finds it impossible to eat, so a person who commits a serious offense, loses scope for hearing, chanting and performing devotional activities. There is no doubt about this. MK, 3.21
Thus, those who arbitrarily assign themselves the role of “bhakti enforcement police” and who then assume the position of judge, jury and executioner in relation to another Vaisnava’s status and behavior on the path of bhakti, have unwittingly condemned themselves by their unwarranted vitriol towards other practicing Vaisnavas. There is no escaping this conclusion by any amount of word jugglery or rationalizations. And once again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
As we learned in the previous section on anartha-nivrtti, even at the stage of bhava, where one finally perceives one’s eternal spiritual identity (siddha-svarupa) and even meets Krsna briefly (sphurti), there are still anarthas present, though they are more or less neutralized.
It is explained in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu how one can still fall down from the stage of bhava and destroy or diminish one’s bhava and possibly even one’s eternal rasa! This would only happen due to a severe offense against a Vaisnava or Krsna, but it can happen. Only when one reaches the platform of prema is one guaranteed never to fall down.
Rupa Gosvami explains:
Moreover, it should be stated: By an offense against the dearest devotee of the Lord, even real bhava will be destroyed, if the offense is grave. If the offense is medium, the bhava will turn to bhavabhasa. If the offense is slight, the bhava will become an inferior type. BRS, 1.3.54
Jiva Gosvami’s Commentary:
By two types of grave offenses – offense to the dearest devotee or to Krsna Himself – even real bhava is destroyed. By medium offense, bhava becomes bhavabhasa – a shadow of bhava. By slight offense, the bhava degrades in category. Becoming an inferior type means that there will be degradation in terms of the five rasas and the eight stages from mahabhava down to rati. Thus, change in bhava will take place according to the seriousness of the offense.
From Visvanatha Cakravarti’s Commentary:
If the aparadha is slight, the bhava changes type. Madhura-rati becomes dasya-rati. Dasya becomes santa-rati.
The main points above should be crystal clear and very sobering. Vaisnava aparadha is potentially devastating and should never be taken lightly by any serious devotees.
However, an important question still remains unanswered: “Are we to simply overlook the bad behavior of a Vaisnava, even criminal behavior, and not say anything ever – just turn a blind eye?” Absolutely not. There is a clear distinction between aparadha, valid criticism and justice.
If a Vaisnava is breaking the laws, either civil, criminal or moral, by stealing, corruption, molesting children, mental and physical abuse, and so on, and one is in a position to expose these crimes to the authorities, then one is obligated to do so, as well as doing whatever one is capable of to bring the offender to the justice system for conviction and punishment. No one, Vaisnava or not, should be allowed to get away with any criminal activities. The offender can still chant and read in jail while he is atoning for his crimes against society. Vaisnavas who engage in criminal behavior do not get a religious free pass.
If the crimes occur within an institution, both the institutional authorities and law enforcement should be notified. No cover ups should be allowed or tolerated and that should also be reported if discovered. There is no aparadha for reporting the criminal behavior of individuals or institutions, and seeking justice.
Aparadha becomes a factor if Visvanatha Cakravarti’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 Vaisnava, then it is an aparadha if one’s criticism is full of animosity and malice directed specifically towards that individual.
Furthermore, if you discuss the events and circumstances of that Vaisnava’s bad behavior, primarily for the edification and emotional resolution of all affected parties, then there is no offense. The same applies to a neutral discussion by outside parties, if meant to foster a better understanding of that particular undesirable behavior and its consequences. However, if the discussions include statements meant to denigrate and insult the offender, then an offense (aparadha) is committed. It’s a fine line, so it must be tread carefully. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Here’s another example to consider. If you don’t like a particular Vaisnava’s personality, behavior or attitude, and he or she is engaged in legitimate missionary work of spreading Vaisnavism, but not committing any crimes, it is Vaisnava aparadha to criticize or insult them simply based on disliking their demeanor or methods.
If you don’t agree with his or her philosophical presentation of Vaisnava philosophy because you believe it is based on a flawed understanding of sastra, you have every right to publicly present arguments with appropriate sastric substantiation to challenge the philosophical positions. In doing so, there is no aparadha. But your critique must focus on the philosophical issues and not the person, otherwise it would be aparadha.
This also includes disagreeing with how Vaisnavas 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 Vaisnava aparadha.
Let us all humbly beg forgiveness from any Vaisnavas we may have offended, knowingly or otherwise, and offer pardons to those who request forgiveness for having committed offenses against us.
Among the four types of anarthas, nama aparadha is the most serious stumbling block for all Vaisnavas. Nama aparadha includes Vaisnava aparadha which is the single most devastating of all anarthas and aparadhas. Without a clear understanding and resolution of this issue, one’s progress could be severely impacted, possibly for many lifetimes, what to speak of in this life.
Unfortunately, Vaisnava aparadha is a malicious epidemic that is rampant throughout the contemporary worldwide Vaisnava community, as witnessed by the over abundance of blasphemous statements found online on numerous websites. The seriousness of these offenses cannot be over stated. Most Gauòiya Vaisnavas understand the potentially damaging effects of Vaisnava aparadha through Lord Caitanya’s description of the offense known as the, “mad elephant”, which runs wild through one’s devotional garden, obliterating the creeper of bhakti.
If the devotee commits an offense at the feet of a Vaisnava while cultivating the creeper of devotional service in the material world, his offense is compared to a mad elephant that uproots the creeper and breaks it. In this way the leaves of the creeper are dried up. CC, 2.19.156
It appears quite obvious that many Vaisnavas do not comprehend the factual ramifications of such offenses, so I will expand upon the basic understanding to make the point more explicitly and emphatically. Many offenders (aparadhis) try to justify their attacks by skewed philosophical word jugglery, which sadly does not conform to the standards set by the acaryas.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding that is prevalent in the Vaisnava aparadhas that are committed in many online diatribes against fellow Vaisnavas, and the rationale goes something like this: “A certain Vaisnava is not following this or that rule(s) and is not chanting sixteen rounds daily, and as such he is disobeying his spiritual master. Therefore, I (the offender) conclude and declare publicly that he is a reject disciple, completely condemned and rejected by his guru and thus, not a Vaisnava anymore, so it’s perfectly fine to severely trash him in any way I choose without fear of committing an offense.”
Unfortunately (for the offender) this perverted reasoning is fatally flawed and highly offensive in and of itself. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in these delicate matters. In light of the above typical offensive behavior, let’s examine some clarifying statements about Vaisnava aparadha made by Visvanatha Cakravarti in Madhurya-kadambini, 3.5. After describing methods of repentance and atonement he says:
By the divine power of nama kirtana, certainly in time that person will be delivered from his offense. However, he should not justify himself by arguing that sastra says, namaparadha yuktanam namanyeva harantyagham: The Holy Name alone is sufficient to deliver an offender. So what is the need of humbling himself by offering repeated respects and service to the Vaisnava that he has offended? This type of mentality makes him guilty of further offense.
Nor should one be of the mentality to think that the offense of sadhu ninda discriminates between types of Vaisnavas. It does not refer only to one who is fully and perfectly qualified with all the qualities mentioned in scripture, such as mercifulness, never harming others, and forgiving to all living entities: krpalur akrta-drohas titiksuh sarva dehinam. SB 11.11.29
A person cannot minimize his offense by pointing out some defect in the devotee. [read that sentence three times]
In answer the scriptures say: sarvacara vivarjitah sathadhiyo bratya jagadvancakah:
Even a person who is of very bad character, a cheater, devoid of proper behavior, malicious, devoid of saàskaras, and full of worldly desires, if he surrenders to the Lord, must be considered a sadhu. What to speak of a pure Vaisnava.
Sometimes a serious offense has been committed against a Vaisnava, but the Vaisnava 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 Vaisnava may forgive offenses, the dust of his feet does not tolerate the offenses and delivers the fruits of the offense on the guilty person. For it is said:
Those who envy exalted saints are certainly diminished by the dust of their lotus feet. SB 4.4.13
In Madhurya-kadambini, Third Shower, Visvanatha Cakravarti states:
Seeing the following verse from Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, another doubt arises:
Oh foremost of brahmanas, what are the offenses against the Name of the Lord which cancel the results of all one’s performances, and lead to a material conception even of transcendental topics?
In other words, repeatedly hearing and chanting the Lord’s name should give prema, serving the sacred tirthas should bestow perfection, tasting repeatedly the ghi, milk and betel prasadam should destroy all desires for sense enjoyment. So what are the grave offenses which cancel these results and cause all these spiritually potent activities to appear material?
This very startling and unnerving question is being raised. If this is so, does it follow that a person who commits a nama-aparadha becomes averse to the Lord and thus, cannot even take shelter of guru or perform devotional activities?
This is true. As during a serious fever, losing all taste for food, a person finds it impossible to eat, so a person who commits a serious offense, loses scope for hearing, chanting and performing devotional activities. There is no doubt about this. MK, 3.21
Thus, those who arbitrarily assign themselves the role of “bhakti enforcement police” and who then assume the position of judge, jury and executioner in relation to another Vaisnava’s status and behavior on the path of bhakti, have unwittingly condemned themselves by their unwarranted vitriol towards other practicing Vaisnavas. There is no escaping this conclusion by any amount of word jugglery or rationalizations. And once again, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
As we learned in the previous section on anartha-nivrtti, even at the stage of bhava, where one finally perceives one’s eternal spiritual identity (siddha-svarupa) and even meets Krsna briefly (sphurti), there are still anarthas present, though they are more or less neutralized.
It is explained in Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu how one can still fall down from the stage of bhava and destroy or diminish one’s bhava and possibly even one’s eternal rasa! This would only happen due to a severe offense against a Vaisnava or Krsna, but it can happen. Only when one reaches the platform of prema is one guaranteed never to fall down.
Rupa Gosvami explains:
Moreover, it should be stated: By an offense against the dearest devotee of the Lord, even real bhava will be destroyed, if the offense is grave. If the offense is medium, the bhava will turn to bhavabhasa. If the offense is slight, the bhava will become an inferior type. BRS, 1.3.54
Jiva Gosvami’s Commentary:
By two types of grave offenses – offense to the dearest devotee or to Krsna Himself – even real bhava is destroyed. By medium offense, bhava becomes bhavabhasa – a shadow of bhava. By slight offense, the bhava degrades in category. Becoming an inferior type means that there will be degradation in terms of the five rasas and the eight stages from mahabhava down to rati. Thus, change in bhava will take place according to the seriousness of the offense.
From Visvanatha Cakravarti’s Commentary:
If the aparadha is slight, the bhava changes type. Madhura-rati becomes dasya-rati. Dasya becomes santa-rati.
The main points above should be crystal clear and very sobering. Vaisnava aparadha is potentially devastating and should never be taken lightly by any serious devotees.
However, an important question still remains unanswered: “Are we to simply overlook the bad behavior of a Vaisnava, even criminal behavior, and not say anything ever – just turn a blind eye?” Absolutely not. There is a clear distinction between aparadha, valid criticism and justice.
If a Vaisnava is breaking the laws, either civil, criminal or moral, by stealing, corruption, molesting children, mental and physical abuse, and so on, and one is in a position to expose these crimes to the authorities, then one is obligated to do so, as well as doing whatever one is capable of to bring the offender to the justice system for conviction and punishment. No one, Vaisnava or not, should be allowed to get away with any criminal activities. The offender can still chant and read in jail while he is atoning for his crimes against society. Vaisnavas who engage in criminal behavior do not get a religious free pass.
If the crimes occur within an institution, both the institutional authorities and law enforcement should be notified. No cover ups should be allowed or tolerated and that should also be reported if discovered. There is no aparadha for reporting the criminal behavior of individuals or institutions, and seeking justice.
Aparadha becomes a factor if Visvanatha Cakravarti’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 Vaisnava, then it is an aparadha if one’s criticism is full of animosity and malice directed specifically towards that individual.
Furthermore, if you discuss the events and circumstances of that Vaisnava’s bad behavior, primarily for the edification and emotional resolution of all affected parties, then there is no offense. The same applies to a neutral discussion by outside parties, if meant to foster a better understanding of that particular undesirable behavior and its consequences. However, if the discussions include statements meant to denigrate and insult the offender, then an offense (aparadha) is committed. It’s a fine line, so it must be tread carefully. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Here’s another example to consider. If you don’t like a particular Vaisnava’s personality, behavior or attitude, and he or she is engaged in legitimate missionary work of spreading Vaisnavism, but not committing any crimes, it is Vaisnava aparadha to criticize or insult them simply based on disliking their demeanor or methods.
If you don’t agree with his or her philosophical presentation of Vaisnava philosophy because you believe it is based on a flawed understanding of sastra, you have every right to publicly present arguments with appropriate sastric substantiation to challenge the philosophical positions. In doing so, there is no aparadha. But your critique must focus on the philosophical issues and not the person, otherwise it would be aparadha.
This also includes disagreeing with how Vaisnavas 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 Vaisnava aparadha.
Let us all humbly beg forgiveness from any Vaisnavas we may have offended, knowingly or otherwise, and offer pardons to those who request forgiveness for having committed offenses against us.
