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 timirandhasya… ), 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.