BATASUR by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur

[Guest guest]

BATASUR

(The Harmonist, Vol. xxix, No. 8, February 1932)

Batasur is one of the demons slain by the Boy-Krishna. He represents

evils that are peculiar to boyhood. The neophyte is extremely

susceptible to such evils. They cannot be got rid of except by the

Mercy of Krishna. If one engages in the service of Krishna the

juvenile vices are completely eradicated at an early stage.

 

There is an English proverb that sowing of wild oats is inevitable

at a young age. The term 'Puritanism' was originally coined to

express the protest of boys and young men against any undue

curtailment of the scope of enjoyment that should be regarded as

permissible to them. Boys and young men claim the right to be merry

and frolicsome. There is nothing objectionable and much that is of

positive value in the display of these juvenile qualities. If the

attempt be made to stifle this innocent play of the boyish nature

under the impression that is an exhibition of sensuousness and for

that reason, as being as harmful as similar conduct on the part of

grown-up persons, the result is not assurance but discouragement, of

juvenile innocence.

 

There are, indeed, black sheep and these should not be allowed to

taint the whole flock, for this purpose caretakers with full sense

of their delicate responsibility are required to keep watch over

them for ensuring the innocence of boy-hood and youth without

killing their joys. But with every precaution it has been found

impossible to attain this double purpose.

 

The Scriptures say that it is not in the power of man to ensure the

immunity of boys and girls from the blight of precocious

sensuousness except by means of the service of Krishna. This is

declared to be the only effective and natural method. Let the boys

be exposed to the attraction of the Cow-Boy of Braja. They will soon

learn to pick up His Company. They will easily realise that the Boy-

Krishna can alone save them form every form of danger to which they

are exposed by the 'right' of their juvenile nature.

 

Why should this be so? There is a very simple reason. Krishna does

not limit His service only to the middle-aged and old people. The

Puritanical ideal of Godhead is a conception which owes its origin

to persons who are elderly although honestly enough anxious to

establish the 'Kingdom of God' on this earth. But if you scratch the

thin coating on the surface of their sage and sober scheme as

befitting their age you only detect the rotten arrangement for

securing the maximum of sensuous enjoyment even for those very

children who are brought up in this 'virtuous' way. If the child is

allowed to spoil his health in boyhood, think these righteous

people, he will not be in a position later on to enjoy the

legitimate pleasures of the grown up man. Unless the young man

husbands his resources of sense-capacity he will also be a victim to

premature old age. It is a policy of expediency of postponing a

small present enjoyment for reaping much larger measure of it

through the long tracts of the years to come.

 

The spurious Brahmacharya ideal as misconceived by its worldly

supporters embodies this Puritanical outlook. The Scriptures,

indeed, enjoin that every one should serve Godhead from the womb.

This is the real meaning of Brahmacharya. The ascetic practices that

have come to attach themselves to the conception were interpolated

into the Scriptures in order to ensure worldly values by this form

of the empiric method. The scheme requires that the laws of the

growth of the physical and mental bodies should be observed and

followed. Nature is regarded as the kind mother who favors only

those of her children who cultivate the filial habit of prying into

her secrets. Nature is supposed to be unable to avoid divulging her

secrets to her inquisitive children although she is well aware that

her children will exploit this knowledge for troubling herself by

harnessing her to their service. In other words it is also assumed

to be the duty of the kind mother to consent to put herself in

chains in order to minister to the sensuous appetites of her

worthier children. Nature is assumed to be able to do good to her

children only by submitting to be the victim of their lust.

 

The practices of asceticism are really conceived in the epicurean

spirit. The ascetic dreams of obtaining the mastery over Nature by

the method of controlling his senses. If the senses grow callous to

the temptations of the world the ascetic thinks that he will have

less chance of falling into the power of Nature. He has an idea that

when he will have perfected these defensive arrangements he will

have become the real master of the situation. The Brahmacharin,

according to the ascetic point of view, is to pass through a period

of training in severe abstinence with his guru in order to be fitted

to discharge the duties of citizenship, which will make a great

demand on his nerves and muscles with greater thoroughness. There is

no reference to the service of Godhead or to any spiritual issue.

 

We have had many occasions to explain that the spiritual is

transcendental. No mundane consideration can form any part of

spiritual training or conduct. It is not a spiritual affair to be

even able to control one's carnal desires. Such self-control itself

is, indeed, automatically produced by the awakening of the soul. But

self-control itself is not therefore a function of the soul. The

souls has nothing to do with the senses. The soul desires neither

sensual nor sexual purity. The soul is not a mere moral being. If

Brahmacharya means a method of gaining moral power it is wholly a

mundane affair and is as such not one of no concern to the soul but

is positively obstructive of spiritual well-being.

 

This is bound to be so because the point of view of the soul is all

embracing. The soul rejects nothing. He regards nothing as redundant

or useless. The soul has a use for everything. But the soul sees

everything as it is really related to himself and to other entities.

There is, therefore, no room for the temporary type of morality in

his relationships with the other entities. Everything is absolutely

good on the plane of the soul. The scriptural Brahmacharya

institution accordingly means service of the Brahman, i.e. the

Reality Who is always the Great and always the Help. The servant of

the Absolute is free from all delusion.

 

Morality is a valued commodity only on the plane of delusion. But it

has no locus standi on the plane where the conditions of existence

are perfect.

 

Till the service of Godhead is realised it is impossible to be

really moral in the sense of being needlessly and perfectly

virtuous. If a person is causelessly virtuous in the worldly sense

he or she will be a subject of easy exploitation for all the cunning

rascals of this world. This is so because morality, as conceived by

the empiricist, has reference to the physical body and the

changeable mind and is, therefore, liable to change so long as the

conditions are not radically altered.

 

The empiric contriver of juvenile welfare strives to produce

conditions that will favour the growth and continuance of the

empiric moral aptitude. These artificial conditions are confidently

enough expected to be likely to prove of permanent benefit to those

young persons who are brought up under those improvised conditions.

But the brand of morality that has to be produced by the artificial

manipulation of the natural environment is likely to prove of little

value when the props are withdrawn. The analogy of needed protection

for the growth of delicate plants does not apply, as such plants are

always exoterics. Hot-house morality is thus a misnomer and a

delusion in relation to the soul.

 

Brahmacharya fully embodies the substantive ideal of spiritual

purity distortedly reflected in the empiric ethical conception.

Brahmacharya means service of the Absolute. Juvenile innocence is

not the monopoly of young persons, any more than juvenile

naughtiness. They are the animal entities corresponding to analogous

spiritual qualities. The spiritual activities are perfectly

wholesome. They include all value and harmonise all disruptive

conflict both of which are so utterly wanting in their mundane

pervert reflections to be found in this world.

 

It is not to be supposed that everything is done by Krishna and

there is nothing to be done by ourselves in any matter. As a matter

of fact there is a division of parts to be played in functions that

relate even to ourselves, as between us and Krishna. Certain duties

are allotted to us. Certain other functions are reserved to Krishna.

Batasur cannot be killed by us. He is too strong for us. This is in

keeping with the experience of most educationists. Juvenile

innocence is a necessity for both young and old. One cannot acquire

it by any artificial process. No person can also ordinarily retain

it after boyhood and youth. This is a real tragedy of human life.

 

Juvenile innocence is desired on account of its enjoyability. But it

should properly be desired only for the service of Krishna. (The

parent can have no higher duty that to employ his boy in the service

of Krishna by putting him under the proper teacher viz., the pure

devotee of Krishna. No parent is entitled to undertake the charge of

the spiritual training of his own boy. He is unfitted for the task

by his mundane relationship. Once such relationship is grasped to be

an obstacle in the way of juvenile training the necessity of sending

the boy at the earliest opportunity to the proper teacher becomes

self-evident. If the parent continues to retain his paternal

interest in the boy after he has been put to school for the above

purpose he will be only standing in the way of his boy's progress.

The training is not for the boy only but it is a training for his

parents as well.

 

Boyish naughtiness is apt to be overlooked, nay encouraged, under

the impression that it is his nature to be naughty. This opinion

overlooks the all-important factor that the training is intended for

the welfare of the soul of the boy and not for the juvenile body or

mind. The soul does not require to be treated with indulgence. He is

neither young nor old in the worldly sense. The body and mind of the

boy have to be employed in the interest of the soul. Boyish

naughtiness and boyish virtue are alike unnecessary for the soul. It

is necessary for the soul to be freed from either from of

worldliness. The mundane nature of the boy is not less a clog to the

wheel of spiritual progress than the adult nature of the grown-up

worldling. The process of training is identical in the two cases as

the soul is neither young nor old.

 

Much irrational pity is wasted on boys who are employed from early

infancy in the wholetime service of Krishna, on exactly the same

terms as grown-up-persons. Persons who affect much kindness of

disposition towards juvenile frailties profess to be unable to

understand why juvenile offenses are taken as seriously in spiritual

training as those of adult persons.

 

But the teacher in charge of the spiritual training of boys can

perform his duty by them only as the special agent of Krishna. If

such a teacher chooses to confide in his own devices he is bound to

be undeceived at every step. What he has really to do is to use the

boy constantly in the service of Krishna. For this purpose it is

necessary for the teacher himself to be a whole time servant of

Krishna. It is only by abstaining to do anything that is not

distinctively commanded by Krishna or His real agent viz., the Sat-

Guru that the spiritual teacher of boys can hope to be of any help

to his pupils.

 

The so-called science of pedagogies requires to be thoroughly

overhauled in order to afford a free hand to the bonafide devotee of

Krishna in managing young persons. The present arrangements based on

the experience of this world and on the hypotheses of an absolute

causal relationship connecting each phenomenon with the rest, by

leaving out the reference to Krishna, can only realise the tragic

part of a quack lightly administering all the wrong drugs to a

patient smitten with a mortal illness.

 

The King of atheists Kansa is always setting the demon Batasur to

corrupt and destroy the boys. The teacher of the young employed by

the atheistical society is verily the agent of King Kansa. The

atheist is afraid lest the boys are employed in the service of

Krishna. He is naturally anxious to prevent any acquaintance of the

boys with Krishna. But if a boy has really found Krishna the

nefarious attempts of the empiric teacher are powerless to destroy

his innocence. If such a teacher perseveres in the fruitless attempt

he will thereby quickly bring about his own utter moral degradation

and his sorry trick will also be fully exposed. Because in this case

it is Krishna Himself Who opposes his wicked activities on behalf of

His protégé.

 

As a matter of fact the concern of empiric educationists for

ensuring immunity of boys from the blighting effects of precocity is

altogether hypocritical. The empiric pendant only wants the boy to

grow a body and mind that will ensure greater and longer scope for

their worldly use. He does not want that the worldly use of his body

and mind should be curtailed in any way. In other words he is on

principle opposed to the employment of the healthy body and sound

mind for any spiritual purpose. But why does he want a healthy body

for his nasty purpose? Is in only in order to be able to have the

pleasure of a more prolonged wastage and the rake's progress in

downright earnest? A sickly body is not really harmful to a person

who has no higher object in view than undiluted self-gratification.

http://www.vaisnava.com/sbp_batasur.html

 

 

 

(The text above is unedited by Sri Guru Vandana, except for minor

orthographical changes.)