Sin, Repentance, Forgiveness and Reconciliation - Their application in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition

Is there such a thing as a work dealing with sin, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation in the gauDIya vaiSNava community? I am thinking of both a theoretical and a practical treatment? Recently I have taken some interest in how these things are approached in Christianity and Judaism, and I am interested in an in-depth treatment of these in the gauDIya tradition.

Sounds like something O'Connell would have thought about. It's a good question.

You have all those stories of Chapala Gopal, Devananda Pandit, etc. I wonder if there was any public mechanism in the sampradaya post Narottam, let's say.

O'Connell talks about "mahotsavas" as an institution wherein problems disruptive to the community would be regulated, but I really can't answer that question of the top of my head.

Thank you, Jagadananda. It would surprise me if no gauDIya thinker would have considered the issues of sin, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation. In response to my previous posting in this thread, a devotee suggested that in the vaiSNava traditions the only repentance is chanting the names of Hari. But this is too simplistic. Sin rarely happens in a social vacuum, and forgiveness is a process that involves many layers of our being. Forgiveness can take time.

When I visited the ISKCON temple in Sydney in 1997, I saw Bhavananda. At first I did not know who he was. It was morning and there were only a few devotees assembled for the guru-pUjA. For some reason, nobody started to sing and a man suddenly yelled, "Sing! Sing for Prabhupada!" The tone was harsh and the man unpleasant. Later a devotee told me that it was Bhavananda. Being a relative newcomer, I exclaimed "Isn't he the one who ..." and we then had a talk about it. In the end, the devotee said, "Well, he never deviated from the philosophy, he just had some sensual problems." I remember wondering whether his adherence to the philosophy makes his victims feel better, but I did not say anything. Anyway, my point is that these issues can be complicated and I am sure some people must have thought about the dynamics involved here.

I've split this from the Kirtanananda-thread to give it the room it deserves. This thread is not under the ISKCON/GM area since the main point to be discussed is beyond the two, though examples from amidst them have been given. I would like to see discussions that focus specifically on those events be posted there, and save this thread for the global application of the principle all across the tradition, both present and past.

It really depends on who we include as 'gaudiya' thinkers.

If we include those who interacted with the British, who wrote in English, or who had western, even Xtian missionary education, then we might indeed expect to find some comments on these issues, which are after all very Xtian pre-occupations.

In pre-British Gaudiya writings however, the picture might be very different.

Look at Ramakrishna. What appealed to his contemporaries was how very authentic he was, how untouched by western ideas. That was the basis of his popularity. He taught that spiritual life was visionary, and that obstacles to gnostic vision were more a matter of alchemical refinement than religious sensibility.

A similar approach is found in pre-British Gaudiya writings (and contemporary Gaudiyas who have escaped western influence), it seems to me.

Ultimately, though, all our attempts to glimpse what Gaudiyas mean by their expositions must necessarily be approximations and, then, re-imaginings, just as Xtianity became something very different from its Judaic origins.

One apect which is evident in Hindu society is the lack of personal and social responsibility. Indians are growing up believing in objective shastric prescriptions rather than developing a subjective maturing conscience where responsibility is one aspect of the development. The nearly total lack of that innate sense of responsibility might be due to the type of early child-rearing which allows a child uptil five to do whatever they want, without giving the child an opportunity to learn naturally where the limits are and that there are consequences for each action.

Rules of purity and impurity lead to that separation of private and public space. Clean in private, the dirt into the public, integrity of the person in public, carelessness regarding the environment, respect toward other people, disrespect to nature. It seems largely to be a black and white kind of world. There are auspicious and inauspicious actions, this is good, that is bad. It is clear why modern Indians would consider this shastra-life-style as a backward type of living.

That absence of a dynamic process of moral adjustment to reality as a basis, shows us how lila-descriptions are also seen in this black-and-white kind of picture. On the other side there are the many threats of hell and damnation if you do this and do not do that, and how you gain liberation and bhakti if you do this or that. Responsibility is not possible with this setting. One cannot responsibly do what is threatened with hell. There is no subjective moral process involved, it is just ruled as absolute obedience or disobedience.

Good points.

It also occurred to me that 'sin' in traditional Hindu society is generally social, never personal:

One sins against one's jati by breaking the jati dharm, whatever that might be.

Therefore the importance of honour and saving face in some communities (which includes 'honour killing' and 'sati').

That is precisely why, as Advaitadas has pointed out in his recent paper on his website, 'Who is a Brahmana?', that is why Gaudiyas are socially conservative: 'sin' means falling from good standing amongst one's peers, going against the expectations of society, which can vary depending on who one is in that society. Eg., in what ways can a king sin? A brahmana? etc.

'forgiveness' then, is only possible after atonement.

Xtian atonement is personal, one's sin is between oneself and God, and no-one else need know. Hence the Catholic priciple of the secrecy of the confession.

In stark contrast, Hindu atonement should be public. Because one's sin is against all of society first, while God takes no interest in it (being more remote, and perhaps more impersonal?). A jati can be ostracised because of the behaviour of one member. It can also be elevated.
(see http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...t=0&#entry17829 )

And to come back to Elpis's question, atonement can be very harsh. Forgiveness may only be possible when the offender has been killed! As in old Sicily, when the family honour is restored, then there is 'forgiveness'.

Gaudiyaism stays right away from commenting on this (unlike the Catholic church in Sicily?) and strongly implies 'it is a matter for your own people to decide, bas'.

(I'll be very happy if one of our panditas can prove me wrong on this with shastra!)

I have just come upon this thread; what a fascinating question. Nabadip’s and Adiyen’s points about responsibility, morality and conscience touch upon something that can perhaps put into a broader context the difficulties ISKCON has had transplanting elements of the Hindu culture into the West.

Many of the differences between Hinduism and the West fit in the framework proposed by the French historian Louis Dumont, who divided cultures into individualistic and holistic. In the individualistic cultures, the social “atom” (the smallest subject with inner life, identity, and boundary between itself and the surrounding society) is the person. He has intrinsic rights, restricted only by the same rights of other individuals. In the “holistic” cultures, the smallest unit is not a single person but a greater whole (family/clan). One has no identity or value separate from that of the family, no own goal or destiny, no moral freedom. Individuals are the family’s parts-and-parcels. Their rights aren’t primary but follow from their execution of duties.

This looks like a sharp dichotomy but is rather a polarity, where each society at a given point in time occupies a place closer to one or the other pole. The Hindu culture is more holistic; the modern West is individualistic, but it has a holistic past. Adiyen has mentioned the public acts of punishment and atonement in Hinduism; but Europe also had flagellants, pillory, being run through the streets in tar and feathers, public recantations and executions of heretics.

In moral science, individualism/holism corresponds to what has been called “cultures of guilt” versus “cultures of shame”. Guilt is an internalized judgement by the significant others of what we have done; it is abstracted into principles, and we experience it as our own inner voice. Shame is an introjected (“swallowed”) judgment of ourselves by the people with real control, the elders. One feels guilt because of having done something wrong. One feels shame because of having displeased the elders by showing a poor quality of character (weakness, foolishness etc.).

Guilt cultures take into account the individual’s subjective processes (intention, did one see any choice, etc.). Shame cultures look at the action itself and put a “=” between the action and the person. (I remember reading in a book on the glories of Ekadasi an account of a person who got cursed to become a man-eating beast. As a man-eater, he was accruing further bad karma for his practices, even though, being under a curse, he had no freedom to stop.)

Guilt is private, shame is public. One loses face, reputation, honor. People spit on one. Just having done something despicable is not so bad as long as others don’t know. And conversely, even if one has done no wrong but given the others reason to gossip, it is just as bad. Like with the young Hindu girls -- once they have spent one night away from home, they aren’t marriageable even if no illicit connection took place.

Shame cultures assume a person has a fixed character, which develops in the first 5-6 years of life (compare notion of varna). Character explains and justifies how one acts. A mother will not try to analyze why her little son throws temper tantrums, or try to modify his behavior by changing her own. Rather she will say, “He does this because he IS like this” (aggressive; strong-willed; etc.). She may tell him to stop or shame him. Shame cultures have a belief that people can change their ways just by willing to and not in any other way. There is – from my subjective, individualistic standpoint – a lack of understanding of the complexity of the individual’s inner world.

On to Nabadip’s observation re: child-rearing. Individualistic cultures give young children little freedom but endeavor to teach them universal moral principles. Quite some indoctrination there. As the child grows and becomes more capable of moral judgment, s/he is given more freedom. The goal of family is to aid the children’s breaking free to live their own lives. In the holistic cultures, the goal is to socialize the child into a role in which s/he will become a useful part of the clan. Since the child won’t have to ever make independent moral judgments, there is no need for the child to internalize abstract principles. The locus of moral control remains outside. The youngest children get much freedom (boys, anyhow), but as they grow and become more useful, they have less and less.

What determines the type of culture? I believe it’s practical reasons—like the socioeconomical situation. In old agrarian societies a single individual had no chance of survival; one needs to be in a group, acting as one organism. I also believe that historically, cultures have been moving from holism to individualism. Erich Fromm sees a connection between the emergence of capitalism, with its focus on smaller families (one family head) being economically viable units thanks to the widespread use of money and trade, and the emergence of Protestantism, with its highly individualistic ethics and approach to God.

It would be fascinating to explore the role of religion. I think it can both introduce individualistic elements, and act to preserve the existing system. God of the Old Testament, a distant patriarch that endorses or punishes whole clans and generations, God who demands absolute loyalty, public sacrifices and performance – fits the holistic culture. Then comes Jesus who addresses this patriarch as Abba, “Daddy” and asks: “Why have you abandoned me?” Some individualistic elements are entering there.

I know much too little about the Vaisnava history to draw clear parallels. But there seems to be something similar going on. In the older Hinduism one way to pursue one’s own individual path was by becoming dead to the society – taking sannyasa. The bhakti movement allows this without severing all ties, by emphasizing one’s relationship with God, God’s emotions, our emotions for Him. A bhakta may be ontologically female (i.e. subservient, not much of one’s own person), but look at what kind of females the gopis are! Krishna enjoys the rebukes of His beloved more than opulent sacrifices in the mood of awe and reverence.

Then again, religious institutions reflect the mystic experiences of their founders but also, inevitably, the society they exist in. Bhaktas are acyuta-gotra – a gotra again, with all the demands on allegiance. Without a guru you are nobody. Discipleship demands absolute obedience. (But at least you choose your own guru.) Think of Syamananda’s conflict with Hrday Chaitanya over the rasa he worshiped Krsna in. As for the gopis, their following their own heart is praised not because it was their own heart but because their lover happens to be Krsna, the ultimate husband. But then again, they go to Krsna not because He is God!

There would be mines of ideas to dig here for someone with good knowledge of the background!

Regarding Hinduism’s notion of sin and falldown -- papa is conceived of as something external: papa-purusa attacking us, an infection, contamination, something that rubs off on us. The way to get rid of it is by “contacting the pure”, by exposing ourselves to good association, by getting mercy, eating mahaprasadam, or by pure actions such as hearing the Holy Name that will "push out" the impurity. I am making it very simplified here, but it is an existing aspect of the admittedly very complex picture.

Or take the jiva issue. Even to feel a need to explain how and why we have fallen down from the perfect state betrays individualistic thinking; trying to ascertain our guilt and how God was reasoning. A holistic culture might be likely to just accept: we are here because we have been put here and got contaminated by matter.

Srila Prabhupada seems to see desires, doubts, and falldowns of his disciples in a similar light. He is very lenient and forgiving to the person (as long as the person doesn’t insist on having his perspective acknowledged), but extremely dismissive of the problem itself. “Different desires means infection from different types of association.” I should put together a collection of quotes one day, all I have now is memory of incidents/statements that I found striking. He often dismisses people’s doubts as a contamination; he is incredulous (“It’s all explained in the Bhagavad-gita, what more do you want?”), concludes the person hasn’t been chanting properly, then basically says that this is just an external disturbance, not really important, and urges the disciple to give it up and take up the service “with fresh enthusiasm”. He often says one should be engaged 24 hours a day, so that there will be no time and space left for any impurity to creep in. It’s rare to find exchanges where he would try to mentally put himself in the doubting/fallen disciples’s shoes and find out his own perceptions and thoughts.

Another “holistic” feature of ACBS is his trust that a disciple will hold a promise regardless. He is appalled when disciples say they cannot keep the initiation vows or that married couples cannot stay together. For him this seems to be a question of character: making up one’s mind, being honorable. He will dismiss marital quarrels as “rumbling of the clouds,” their content as irrelevant.. Same with his approach to homosexuality. Or to mental disturbance. He believes he can pick a person raised in one culture, get this person to promise to adopt the ways of perceiving reality taken from another culture, and that this person will be able to function in his new role. In the individualistic culture, we see a person as a whole universe of his own, governed by laws that cannot be changed at will (Freud would be a gross example). For someone raised in a holistic culture, it’s perhaps a question of picking the person and plugging him like a small part into a new greater unit. The part has no own dynamics, it is defined by the greater unit. So why shouldn’t it work? If it doesn’t, maybe we can plug it into a different slot in the bigger machine (change ashrama, service etc.), but there it stops. One doesn’t look into the part.

Or ACBS’ views on child rearing. There is a famous letter about gurukula where he explains why it is so important to take the child away from the parents – because by association with the parents (implied: attached to each other and gratifying their senses) he would learn to desire sex. A child 4-5 years old! If he is in the gurukula he will become immune, because there are only brahmacaris. There is also a conversation where he emphasizes that children have no psychology, they imitate the adults and become like them. “Put them with demons, they will become demons. Put them with devotees and they will become demigods.”

One can find evidence of a more individualistic approach in ACBS’s collected teachings, too (for example, his instruction that children should not be forced). But he is certainly more “holistic” than his Western disciples. Maybe this is one way to look at why ISKCON still revolves around the issues of allegiance and still sees the cure in putting ACBS in the center. It’s still more about loyalty, keeping vows, public disgrace, shame etc., than about responsibility, subjective experience, conscience, distress caused to other people, etc. (thinking back to Elpis’ point about Bhavananda). Had more effort been put from the start into a two-way dialog with the Westerners’ inner worlds, ISKCON might have recruited fewer people but become a better environment for their spiritual life.

Dhyana

An excellent post, Dhyana, and I am glad that you point out that the shame/guilt polarity is meant to be a hermeneutical tool and not a full description.

I have been trying to understand the contrast between the social and individual aspects of religion for a long time and I find your insights helpful.

One of the things that I have felt needs to be taken into consideration is social and historical context. You are right to point out that the Rasa-lila story, for instance, or even the final instruction in the Gita, are ultimately subversive to the Hindu social doctrine and promote individuality. After all, it is the individual who seeks the various purusharthas, including liberation and/or prema.

The difference between the 16th century Indian context and the 21st century European one is so great that one wonders how one could possibly bridge it. The answer to this conundrum is that a "universal religion" contains within it a library of myths and an ongoing dialogue with those myths that make adaptation possible.

The individual is sometimes best served by conformity, sometimes by rebellion. But the dialectic between the two is going on constantly, and the possibilities for excess in either direction are always possible.

Look, for example, at that great bastion of individualism, the United States, where the most egregious examples of conformity in politics, the media, and society have been manifesting over the past couple of years.

I'll leave my speculations here for now.

(Jagat)

(Adiyen)