Deviation

[Guest guest]

(Here are some thoughts I wrote about deviation. Others' insights on this

topic would be appreciated.)

 

The very concept of deviation entails implicit acceptance that there is an

absolutely correct standard. Such an understanding is not possible for moral

relativists or those who profess that "all paths are the same." Deviation

usually suggests the swerving of a once properly situated practitioner,

although it could also refer to those who were never on the path and thus

eternally deviated.

 

Vaisnavas define pure devotional service is as the absolute duty of every

living being, and deviation as non-performance of that duty. Deviation from

the path of pure devotional service is of two kinds: philosophical and

behavioral.

 

Behavioral deviation is of three kinds: gross falldown into sinful activity,

that concerning rituals and liturgy, and serious negligence in performing

prescribed devotional activities (such as failing to perform basic practices

of sadhana). Gross falldown means into sinful life, particularly into the

four main sinful activities; it may also refer to offenses towards devotees,

especially if virulent and obvious. Gross falldown is clearly recognizable

as deviation except by other clearly recognizable deviants. Speculation in

the matter of rituals and liturgy is less common, is usually undertaken by a

group under the tutelage of a deviant leader, and being directly based upon

philosophical deviation may be considered in the same category.

 

Philosophical deviation and behavioral deviation are often, but by no means

always, concomitant and intertwined. Philosophical deviation is generally

worse than behavioral deviation, for the latter is usually due to weakness,

but the former concerns how one views Krsna and His devotees; which if not

within the parameters of pure devotion (as defined in sastra and by pure

devotees), must be influenced by envy of Krsna.

 

What constitutes philosophical deviation needs to be carefully defined and

understood, for the absolutism of Vaisnavism nevertheless admits degrees of

latitude, and differences in outlook on certain issues do not necessarily

constitute a deviation. Indeed subtle differences in perspective may exist

even among recognized acaryas. What constitutes a deviation will be defined

differently by different devotees, according to their varying perspectives

on the one absolute truth. Defining philosophical correctness is often

hair-splitting and beyond the capacity of all but the most philosophically

astute to grasp. However spiritual insight is not based merely on

intelligence quotients but on understanding arising from genuine

realization. Notwithstanding, most devotees tend to accept whatever their

acarya professes, with faith that he is spiritually realized and competent;

although actually a true acarya must strive to enlighten his disciples as to

why he maintains a particular philosophical stance. Indeed it is the very

function of an acarya to dispel blindness (ajnana timirandhasyaI ), and

blind faith being hardly a step up from total blindness can easily revert

back to the same.

 

Philosophical deviation often but not always engenders behavioral deviation.

Behavioral deviation, if not accompanied by philosophical deviation, may

usually be corrected by good association. However when a devotee tries to

philosophically justify behavioral deviation, then he becomes also a

philosophical deviant and a hypocrite and thus very difficult to rectify.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami"

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote:

> (Here are some thoughts I wrote about deviation. Others' insights

on this

> topic would be appreciated.)

 

Defining philosophical correctness is often

> hair-splitting and beyond the capacity of all but the most

philosophically

> astute to grasp. However spiritual insight is not based merely on

> intelligence quotients but on understanding arising from genuine

> realization. Notwithstanding, most devotees tend to accept whatever

their

> acarya professes, with faith that he is spiritually realized and

competent;

> although actually a true acarya must strive to enlighten his

disciples as to

> why he maintains a particular philosophical stance. Indeed it is

the very

> function of an acarya to dispel blindness (ajnana timirandhasyaI ),

and

> blind faith being hardly a step up from total blindness can easily

revert

> back to the same.

 

I believe you have really hit the nail on the head here. It is the

tendency of many neophytes to simply accept what the guru says,

usually after a certain critical period of doubt. The problem

remains, however, that much new material may be taught without the

disciple grasping the scriptural basis behind it. The crisis then

arises when the disciple is challenged to substantiate what the guru

says with objective evidence, i.e. the shaastra. When the disciple

fails to do this, he gives the impression that his guru's words are

to be taken at face value, which gives opponents the incorrect view

that the guru is a sentimentalist. In other words, the neophyte

disciple's blind obedience simply disgraces the name of the guru.

This is unfortunate.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that, in spite of the pentration of

Gaudiiya Vaishnavism into the West, and the drive for creating

qualified braahmanas, that nevertheless there is a certain culture of

(and forgive me for saying this) intellectual mediocrity that seems

to have become accepted as standard. In previous yugas brahmins were

required to memorize and understand the entire body of the Vedas. As

time went by this later was changed to knowing only the shruti, then

only a fourth of the shruti, etc. Today, the requirements in Srila

Prabhupada's line are that the brahmin devotees should know four

books - Bhagavad Gita, Shriimad Bhaagavatam, Shrii Chaitanya

Charitamrita, and Nectar of Devotion. Although this is truly the

essence of the whole Veda, from the standpoint of volume it

represents less than a hundredth of one percent of the total Veda.

Not only that, but it is clear that these books were especially

compiled for those who lack brahminical qualification - i.e. women,

shuudras, brahma-bandhus, etc. In spite of all that, I rarely meet

brahmins who know all four books (or even any of the four books)

compared to to the total number of devotees who are initiated as

brahmins. Rather, it has become more acceptable to be complacent with

what one is taught, and simply label anyone who refers to such books

as an "intellectual."

 

How is it "intellectual" to know books which were compiled for the

benefit of the non-intellectual classes? This is truly becoming an

unfortunate situation. Brahmins are supposed to be intellectuals of

society who teach and guide us. Knowledge of texts such as Bhagavad-

giitaa should not be optional; it is a bare minimum, a must. Just

like fasting on Ekaadashii - from a shaastric standpoint one must

fast *completely,* yet in our line fasting from grains and beans is

recommended as an alternative. Knowing the standard, there is no

excuse not to at least fast from grains and beans. Similarly, there

is no excuse for one to become a brahmin in the Gaudiiya line and not

know Bhagavad-giitaa and Shriimad Bhaagavatam. If the role of

intellectual is not going to be taken up seriously, then the whole

ceremony of sacred thread initiation is simply a formality. One need

not be recognized as a brahmin if he is not going to officiate in

that role.

 

Why is this important? Because when we speak of deviation, we must

have an understanding of what it is one is deviating *from.* Vedas

(and I inclued itihaasas and puraanas in that term) really are the

objective evidence based upon which we scrutinize anything. If we

ignore that source of knowledge and just blindly follow what we are

taught, then how do we know that we aren't the ones who are

deviating? Many unqualified Hindu gurus also opened hundreds of

temples and initiated thousands of disciples. We can glorify Srila

Prabhupada like this, and in fact we should glorify him for this. But

we must not fall back on this argument to insist that our opponent

accept the correctness of his teachings. No bona fide Vaishnava

argues on the basis of spiritual superiority - only on the basis of

the revealed scriptures.

 

Many times I have seen people becoming attracted to a very

charismatic guru whose teachings are regarded as deviation. If the

culture of enquiring from shaastra had been present, it seems likely

that the deviation would not exist. Instead, people have a tendency

to refer to a guru's subjective appeal - his "potency,"

his "devotion," his "purity," and so on and so forth. There are

entire websites attacking ISKCON members for not accepting an outside

guru on the basis of such subjective qualities. Hardly do any of

these websites refer to shaastric arguments, and when they do, their

idea of shaastra is invariably anecdotal reports of a guru's words,

or excerpts of room conversations or interviews almost invariably

taken out of context. In the 21st century, it has become easier to do

a keyword search from Vedabase than to understand the flow of ideas

in Bhagavad-giitaa and quote from it with full regard to context.

 

In Nectar of Devotion, Srila Prabhupada writes that of the three

classes of devotees, the kanishtha adhikaari, the madhyama adhikaari,

and the utthama adhikaari, it is the two higher classes who are

distinguished from the lower class by, among other things, their

ability to offer arguments based on scripture. If Srila Prabhupada

were so anti-intellectual, why would he make such remarks about

uttama adhikaaris? Then of course comes the invariable argument

that, "but we are not uttama adhikaaris so it is wrong for us to

imitate them by quoting from shaastras." Believe it or not, I have

heard this argument used as an excuse to avoid reading books. To this

I reply that we are not supposed to be complacent with a lower level

of devotional service. We must constantly strive to be better, by

following the example of the uttama-adhikaaris. If Srila Prabhupada

had intended for us to simply worship his four books on an altar and

let them gather dust, it seems unlikely he would have taken such

great pains to translate them. We don't do justice to Srila

Prabhupada by simply glorifying him. "Don't simply glorify me, but do

as I do," he once said to a disciple who complimented him on his

punctuality while apologizing for his own tardiness. We have to

follow his example.

 

I am confident that it can be done. When I look at how much I have

learned, a mediocre part-time pseudo devotee with of average

intelligence and no sincerity, I can only imagine how much more a

full-time, cent-percent, initiated devotee can absorb who lives in

the temple and among pure devotees. I have seen people who were once

very fallen and low class become proper brahmins, and so I know it

can be done.

 

Now if you will forgive me for once again opening my big mouth and

writing so many opinions, I will leave it at that and start taking my

my own advice.

 

:-)

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna!

Pleas accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Thank you very much for this discussion and revealing thoughts. As a

disciple I'm trying to understand more the topic of guru-tattva,

relationship between guru and disciple and so on (everything

connected with that). I have seen many devotees who have a spiritual

master and no understanding of this. At least it looks like that. It

seems like they've taken initiation just to be accepted as a part of

community of devotees, with no clear understanding who is guru – what

are his qualities, what is guru (as a principle), what can we expect

from him and what we shouldn't expect and so on. I would be very

grateful if you could share some more thoughts and realizations on

this.

 

Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

>However spiritual insight is not based merely on intelligence

quotients but on understanding >arising from genuine realization.

Notwithstanding, most devotees tend to accept whatever >their acarya

professes, with faith that he is spiritually realized and competent;

although >actually a true acarya must strive to enlighten his

disciples as to why he maintains a >particular philosophical stance.

Indeed it is the very function of an acarya to dispel blindness >

(ajnana timirandhasya), and blind faith being hardly a step up from

total blindness can easily >revert back to the same.

 

And Krishna Susarla wrote:

>The problem remains, however, that much new material may be taught

without the disciple >grasping the scriptural basis behind it. The

crisis then arises when the disciple is challenged >to substantiate

what the guru says with objective evidence, i.e. the shaastra.

 

I think this is what devotees sometimes lack, (1) knowledge from the

holy scriptures, (2) understanding of it and (3) realization on it.

We tend when we come to process of Krsna consciousness to just accept

things enthusiastically as truth without actually understanding it

and also to not go further in our studies of scriptures knowing

theoretically few things, that we are not this body, Krsna is God and

we have our relationship with Him and that's all. I've seen this

principle repeating in few cases, person comes, he/she is very

enthusiastic of his/hers new-found way and then he/she jumps into the

menial service neglecting studying of sastra. But when it comes to

the doubts, they don't know how to handle them, they can see that

something is not well, but they don't know what. If the person is not

so sincere and humble, he tends to blame others, philosophy etc. for

their problems and misunderstandings. Or they leave because they

don't know the solution, they don't know what is happening thinking

that they didn't find the perfect philosophy. Similar thing happens

when devotees are faced with preachers propagating their own ideas

which are not in accordance with Srila Prabhupada, they don't have

knowledge and realization to see what is right and what isn't. Myself

also, I know that I don't actually have these three things either in

many aspects of Krsna consciousness and am very eager to find out

more.

Sorry if I mixed many thoughts together and if I said something

inappropriate or incorrect, I'm eager to be corrected and enlightened

on this topic, this was just an expression of my thoughts on your

very interesting discussion which I hope will continue. I like the

atmosphere on this forum of `investigating' various statements from

the different positions – guru, sadhu and sastra and discouraging

blind faith, as Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

 

>Indeed it is the very function of an acarya to dispel blindness

(ajnana timirandhasya), and >blind faith being hardly a step up from

total blindness can easily revert back to the same.

 

ys Nina