Amnesty for sannyasis

[Guest guest]

Mahanidhi Prabhu wrote:

 

> What I would like to see happening, is the demonstration of

> increased honesty among the leading men in this movement. In this

> case, honestly sticking to the sannyas asram as it ought to be

> according to the sannyas sva-dharma, or honestly disconnecting

> oneself from it in the case of its being against one's nature.

> Both would be worthy of the utmost respect. I belive many of

> ISCKON rank and file devotees aren't anymore that much concerned

> about someone's external appearances such as carrying danda or

> not, or about any other superficial "highness" anyway, but rather

> about the expression of a genuine humility and honesty. That's all

> what's left anyway, especially after everything that ISCKON has been

> going through.

 

The "shame" or "dishonor" of giving up saffron and wearing white is one of

the features of present day ISKCON which is based upon karmakandiya smriti

principles. Srila Prabhupada in his purports to the Gajendra Moksa story,

and also in his personal dealings with Rupanuga Prabhu, wrote and acted in a

way quite contrary to Manu Samhita and other similar literatures. Some

devotees have just made a mental adjustment that in these cases Srila

Prabhupada was dealing with an emergency situation, thus he had a reason to

"violate" the "sastric principles" of karmakandiya smritis. But no mental

adjustment is required. Srila Prabhupada did not violate any sastric

principles due to emergencies (neither in this case nor in any other case).

Rather, he often rejected the rules of karmakandiya smritis as being

inapplicable to devotees, and instead applied vaisnava principles.

 

Karmis who have no access to bhakti must accept sannyas in order to achieve

sayujya moksa. But Vaisnavas do not accept sannyas for any form of

liberation. Liberation is already there as a byproduct of bhakti. Karmis who

give up sannyas are called vantasi because they lose their moksa and return

to the path of karma. Vaisnavas who give up sannyas do not return to the

path of karma, thus the term "vantasi" cannot be factually applied to them.

(Think about it before you hit the folio button!) Sannyas is accepted by

Gaudiya Vaisnavas only for preaching. So later for preaching sannyas can

also be given up. Preaching is a higher principle than any of these social

considerations.

 

The gentle readers of this text should kindly not raise a hue and cry about

how if the above principles are accepted then more unqualified devotees will

rush to take sannyas "temporarily". In present day ISKCON society there is a

lot of well-placed caution about giving devotees sannyas. This should

continue unabated, since sannyasis giving up saffron and wearing white is

generally a stain on ISKCON's reputation (preaching considerations again).

But another consideration of the leaders must be dealing with individual

ISKCON members in a mood of compassion. Thus the above vaisnava principles

should be known by our leaders, who should not promote a mood of social

rejection upon those who take risks for preaching and accept sannyas

prematurely, later proving to be not up to the task. And, of course, they

should also be well-aware that a so-called vaisnava who either accepts

sannyas for personal aggrandizement or gives up sannyas for sense

gratification is a cheater.

 

And I am also writing this text fully aware that the promoters of Manu

Samhita in this conference will undoubtedly respond with waves of quotes

from the purports of Srila Prabhupada's books apparently disproving many of

my statements above. I am always prepared for such mercy from the vaisnavas.

However, I would like them to kindly first consider one point: If we accept

that Srila Prabhupada accepted Manu Samhita and its social rules as

applicable to devotees then we are forced to conclude that Srila Prabhupada

himself SANCTIONED the VIOLATION of those rules, albeit for emergencies.

Sanctioning the violation of a sastric rule in others is ITSELF a personal

violation of sastric rules. It is quite painful for me and many other

followers of Srila Prabhupada to hear that Srila Prabhupada, who was the

personification of sastric principles, could have violated any sastric rule,

regardless of the reason. Rather, all followers of Srila Prabhupada have a

strong obligation to prove to all in the world that Srila Prabhupada NEVER

violated sastric principles nor sanctioned anyone to violate sastric

principles. We CANNOT do this without referring to vaisnava smritis and

accepting their superior applicability to devotees over the karmakandiya

smritis.

 

Many of those who are attempting to drain ISKCON of its manpower use the

technique of attempting to show the "asastric writings and behavior" of

Srila Prabhupada. If we blithely accept our own mental conclusions that

Srila Prabhupada violated sastra then we are playing directly into the hands

of these outsiders. It is for this reason that I have been so strongly

protesting the promotion of karmakandiya smritis in this forum. Ultimately

such promotion will put Srila Prabhupada in a bad light and harm his

mission.

 

So my humble submission is that Mahanidhi Prabhu's point of declaring a

special amnesty is unnecessary. General amnesty has already been declared by

Srila Prabhupada in his 8th canto purports. But its exact applicability has

to be carefully studied.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

While I'm personally glad to see any devotee become rightly situated, I fear an

open-ended offer to step down from sannyasa "honorably" could have unhealthy

side effects.

 

When communists began losing power a decade ago, it became clear most

politicians and bureaucrats had little problem abondoning communism, if doing

so

kept them in power. They simply reincarnated as democrats, moderate socialists,

or free-market businessmen, often acquiring vast wealth in the process.

 

It would be a shame if sannyasis chose to give up the ashram for the wrong

reason. Additionally, the reform process might be perceived of as a sham if

there was any room for doubt as to motive.

 

I do agree an accomodation may be appropriate and useful. But I don't think

this

is the right one.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

Srirama (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

> While I'm personally glad to see any devotee become rightly situated, I

> fear an open-ended offer to step down from sannyasa "honorably" could have

> unhealthy side effects.

>

> When communists began losing power a decade ago, it became clear most

> politicians and bureaucrats had little problem abondoning communism, if

> doing so

> kept them in power. They simply reincarnated as democrats, moderate

> socialists, or free-market businessmen, often acquiring vast wealth in the

> process.

>

 

Certainly, the possibility of some unhealthy side effects are an

usual phenomena to virtually any reformatory attempt. There is

no perfection here.

 

As far as this particular one, it doesn't have to mean that simply

by stepping down from sannyas, one is automatically acquiring

the right to remain in the position of power. I would expect some

kind of unbiased process of determining which persons would be

occupying which positions. If simply hiding behind a particular

color of a doti (regardless on which way one has obtained it) is

good enough to enable wrong people into positions, then there would

be no much real use of any restructuring anyway. I mean, there is

already plenty of bad apples in grhsata basket that could easily

become "a shah instead of a shah", if there is no proper system of

selection in place.

 

 

> It would be a shame if sannyasis chose to give up the ashram for the wrong

> reason. Additionally, the reform process might be perceived of as a sham

> if there was any room for doubt as to motive.

>

 

Yes, it would be a shame to give up a sannyas for the wrong reason

(for the sake of remaining in the position of power), surely. Just

like it would be a shame to take a sannyas for the wrong reason

(for the sake of getting into the position of power). Just like

it would be a shame to go making this kind of proposals for the GBC

restructure (for the sake of getting oneself into the position

of power).

 

Only this simple fact that this proposal of sannaysis being replaced

by grhastas is coming from grhastas _and_ that the same grhastas

are already proposing the very same grhasthas as the candidates

for the replacement... What do you think, does this excludes any

room for doubt as to motive? Could this restructure attempt/proposal

be perceived as a sham? I can see no disciples of the present

sannyasi-guru-GBCs taking part here, did we think how they might

be perceiving this reforms in regard to motive?

 

 

I am just trying to make the point: once you start taking politics

and wrong motives of others (sannyasis, in this case) as the relevant

parameters, you are immediately -- in! It's the same game's rules.

 

(I do not mean anything personally, it's simply a straightforward

logic and reasoning, please nobody take any offence)

 

 

 

 

- mnd