Punishment and Attonement - which category?

[Guest guest]

> >Now, we can understand that these principles are directly relevant to the

> >welfare of our vaisnava society in ISKCON. If this weren't a fact, there

> >would be no necessity for such inventions as the CPO (Child Protection

> >Office).

>

> I did not know that CPO was based on Manu Samhita, or some mundane moral

> principles. I was of the understanding that this office was also

devotional

> service like any other ISKCON's office.

>

 

Since devotional service is considered itself to be attonment, why not just

have the child molestors circumambulate Tulasi devi? That's sufficient to

relieve one of the sin of killing a brahmana, so why not just let them do

devotional service and forget about whatever happened?

 

We can do that, and that's bhagavata marga. However, that may not be

sufficient to reform the person. In which case, we have to employ

varnashrama-types of punishment if there is any hope of reform.

 

In the case of the CPO's punishments, without exception, it involves drastic

restrictions in the guilty party's opportunity to do devotional service.

Since this kind of punishment / attonement relies on a restriction of

devotional service, it cannot be said to be bhagavata marga (where

attonement relies specifically on the practice of devotional service). It

is therefore classified with the kind and purpose of punishment described in

Manu-samhita.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)