Discriminating between right and wrong vs causing offenses

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna.

 

I recently received the following e-mail from a devotee. He

understandably did not want to make this public, but his question

nevertheless deserves a thoughtful answer.

 

"Those notes on offenses are very interesting and helpful. I have

one thought that has been troubling me on this topic, and perhaps

some of the wise devotees here can help me with this.

 

The difficulty I have is that sometimes extremely contradictory

behavior can be seen. For instance, there are ******* ****** gurus

in relatively modern times who are known to have xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xx

xxxxx while occupying such exalted positions. Must one avoid

finding fault with them, be delighted upon seeing them, etc? What

is the proper response and understanding of such unspeakable

actions? I know this would not be nice to read, but I'm not saying

asking to be confrontational. I hope to resolve a dilemma that has

wreaked havoc in my spiritual life, and I beg the mercy of the

assembled Vaishnavas to help me."

 

The dilemma, when applied to our context, is this:

1) Finding faults with Vaishnavas is offensive, and a hindrance to

devotional service (SB 7.15.43-44),

2) Committing offenses is most destructive to the creeper of one's

developing devotional service (CC Madhya-lila 19.156).

3) There is an undeniable trend in many religious institutions for

devotees to accept as genuine a person or principle based on

convenience or social pressure (common experience)

4) Yet one may understand that some of these persons/principles are

not as pure or genuine as one may be made to believe (through

application of principles learned via study of scripture and/or

common sense)

5) This then leads to the doubt that one might be committing

offenses by failing to revere or appreciate persons or ideas which

one does not appreciate as genuine, though they are represented to

one as such. (often implied if not explicitly stated in many

religious organizations)

 

To me, the central problem is the way in which the sentiment

that "One should not find faults with a pure Vaishnava" is often

misrepresented. Is any deviation of behavior or teaching a "fault"

that can and should be excused?

 

To me, a "fault" is something that is extrinsic to one's position as

a Vaishnava and guru. For example, being born in a low-class family

is normally a "fault" in taking up the profession of the brahmana,

which was traditionally reserved for those who were born into

brahminical families. But in the Pancharatric system introduced by

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, this is not considered so much as

one's actual, spiritual merit.

 

Similarly, not being able to pronounce Sanskrit properly is also

a "fault," because brahmanas must normally be able to pronounce

Vedic mantras with very exacting and faithful pronunciation.

However, we do not consider this when the person is a devotee of the

Lord and engaged in His service.

 

Similarly, there may be other minor anomalies. One may be

translating a scripture into English, but not have the most rigid

appreciation of English grammar. Or else he may quote historical

examples to illustrate some principle of scripture, although he may

not be fully conversant with the exact details of contemporary

history. If I understand the point that the translator is making,

why must I consider these "faults?" The message is clearly what is

important.

 

One may be illiterate, and yet shed tears of ecstasy upon seeing a

picture of the Lord driving the chariot of Arjuna. In that case, his

illiteracy is a trivial fault that one need not consider.

 

These are examples of things I think we must be prepared to look

past in order to properly appreciate a Vaishnava guru.

 

On the other hand, when a so-called guru is violating the regulative

principles, these are not trivial "faults" which are to be excused.

They are evidence of deep-seated material attachments that one has

not yet overcome, and which disqualify one from being in the

position of a guru. Srila Rupa Gosvami explains in Sri Upadesamrta

that, "A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's

demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and

genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world." It is

implicitly understood that one who cannot tolerate such urges is

unqualified. The Mundaka Upanishad explains that the guru must be

brahma-nishtham - fixed in Krishna-consciousness. That is not

possible if one is engaged in nefarious activities to satisfy his

lower desires.

 

Similarly, if one is disagreeing with one's own guru, and yet

claiming authenticity by virtue of being in his disciplic

succession, then this is not merely a "fault." Instead, it is a

blatant deviation from orthodox doctrine. The Gita 4.34 directs one

to approach a seer of the truth (tattva-darshinaH) with service and

inquiries. A person who sees the truth should not be under illusion

as to what is and is not true.

 

We are never taught to accept things blindly. Our approach is to

learn through submissive inquiry as per BG 4.34. Must one have very

high regard for a so-called spiritual master, simply because peer

pressure requires that of us? Must we offer false respects simply to

avoid being ostracized? I must disagree. Having a proper sadhana and

teaching faithfully what is in scripture as revealed by one's own

guru are a very basic, minimum standard that one needs in order to

be a guru. We may have many imperfections ourselves, but we know at

least this much to be true.

 

I think the best approach would be to avoid the company of false

gurus and other undeserving individuals who demand respect out of

proportion to their actual status in spiritual life.

[Guest guest]

Pranams.

 

I personally see even certain abominable acts by acharyas can be ignored as per

apicet su durachar verse in BG.

 

In regard to this topic ,i thought i would post some of acharyas work in this

regard.

 

Krsna bhajanamrta by By Srila NARAHARI SARKARA THAKUR

 

Translated by Bhanu Swami

 

 

 

 

Verse 59

 

If the spiritual master commits a wrongful act breaking Vaisnava

relative principles then in that case one should in a solitary

place, confront him for his rectification using logic and appropriate

conclusions from sadhu, sastra and guru references, but one is not to

give him up.

 

 

 

Verse 60

 

 

One should not be hesitant or fearful because one is confronting or

challenging a spiritual master.

"For it has been prescribed that one must appropriately discipline

even a spiritual master who is:

 

*bewildered about what he should or shouldn't do;

*who is inexperienced or ignorant:

*who has deviated from the Krsna conscious path;

*or if he is bewildered by false pride."

 

 

However, if the spiritual master:

 

*acts envious towards 'isvarebrantah', that which is

connected with the Supreme;

*is bewildered regarding the Supreme Personality of

Godhead;

*is averse to expanding the fame of Lord Krsna;

*personally refuses to accept hearing or chanting about

the glorious pastimes of Lord Sri Krsna;

*has become totally bewildered, listening to the false

praise of ignorant persons and day by day is more

materially contaminated and fallen

___then the spiritual master must be renounced.

 

 

Verse 65

 

Under those circumstances one should not doubt, "How can I give up my

spiritual master?" With a strong desire for achieving spontaneous

devotional service and attaining the lotus feet of Lord Krsna, the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, a devotee accepts the shelter of a

spiritual master, if that spiritual master takes on "asuric" qualities

or a demoniac mentality then it is one's duty to reject such a demon

"asura" guru and in his place accept a Krsna conscious spiritual master

and worship him.

 

Thanx