Vaishnava-aparadha - Examining what is offensive and what is not

Prajalpa
by Srila Saccidananada Bhaktivinoda Thakur

So, we should avoid the company of people who are excessively argumentative. No less a personage than Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya accepted this principle:

tarkika-srgala-sange bheu bheu kare
sei mukhe ebe sada kahi krisna hari

"Previously I used to howl with the other jackal logicians. Now I use the same mouth to always chant the names of Krishna"
( C.C 2.12.183 )

Those who are seeking to understand the Supreme goal of life should keep in mind the following statement by the great sannyasi devotee of Benares, Prakasananda Sarasvati:

paramartha vicara gela kari matra vada
kanha mui pabo kanha krsnera prasada

" I have made no real effort to understand the Supreme purpose of life, but have only engaged in argument. What have I ever done to seek Krishna's satisfaction ? "
( C.C. 2.25.42 )

Such arguments are ultimately nothing more than a forum for envy, if no pride. They are places where either enmity or sensual attachment, fooloshness or ambitions, are sought. Quarrelsome people love to get involved in arguments on any subjects. Devotees should be careful to avoid wasting their time in disputation when discussing the Bhagavata, whether it is metaphysics or the Lord's form and activities.

To discuss the character of other peolpe ( para-carca ) for no reason is very detrimental to one's devotional life. Many people engage in such discissions in order to ennhance their own prestige, while others do so purely out of spite. Those who are absorbed in such matters can never find room in their minds for thoughts of Krishna. Such criticism should by all means be avoided by aspirants on the devotional path.

On the other hand, there are many subjects of discussion that are favorable to devotional life. In such cases, even criticism of others ( para-carca ) is not unbeneficial. If one wishes to completly avoid discussion of others, he has to go and live in solitude in the forest. Practitioners of devotion may either be a householders or renuncinates. Since a renunciate makes no effort whatsoever to make a living, he should absolutely avoid all discussion of other peolpe. On the other hand, a householder engages in earning his livehood, collecting money, saving it, and maintaning his family. Since he is involved in such worldly activities, he cannot avoid judging the behavior of other people. Therefore, the only thing that such a person can do is to somehow dedicate his family life to Krishna. If all his family activities are related to Krishna, then his criticism of other peolpe will also be free of any siful implication and will help him to achieve a closer relationship with Krishna.

However, such a householder devotee should not engage in criticism of others in order to do them harm. He will only do as much as is necessary to insure that his household is maintained for the sake of Krishna. In the same way, a devotee may occasionally have to instruct his disciples or dependents; in order to do so, he somtimes has to call into question either thier behavior or that of others, otherwise his instructions remain unclear.

This is an excellent topic that needs to be examined in depth. Someone should post scriptural references to offenses of the mental, verbal and physical variety.

There will sometimes be situations where one makes judgments about those in the Vaishnava community, depending on the type of behavior exhibited or statements spoken or written. That could be treading on dangerous ground, if one is not careful. What tends to complicate matters is disputes over doctrinal or practical matters. If such debates are conducted in a civil manner, then there is far less possibility of any aparAdha. The other thing to consider is motivation. If someone is being critical because they have perceived something that is in some way heretical and simply want to point that out without getting hostile about it, then how is that outside the bounds of proper etiquette? I have witnessed time and again certain people in our community getting up in arms and perceiving malice in such circumstances, when in fact there is none. Accusing others of offenses might be offensive in itself, so that is something not to be taken lightly. Internet forums tend to be populated by a very diverse cross section of Vaishnava demographics. We should all bear that in mind at all times. Someone may have received instructions from a guru that are perfectly in accordance with shastra and the acharyas, but that might not match up with the teachings we ourselves have received. Others might have studied with two or more different schools and made a choice as to one being more suitable for them personally.

Someone acting as a Vaishnava in a leadership role that engages in questionable acts is hardly immune to criticism. Without peer pressure all hell might break loose. In all societies, honor is bestowed upon those that somehow merit it, unless they are getting it by force and threats, in which case it is not genuine respect that they command, just token respect from their unfortunate victims.

Just one last comment: We might inadvertantly commit Vaishnava aparAdha without even being aware of it. The best thing to do is play it safe and seek forgiveness at all opportunities. So, let me request it of everyone reading this post: Please forgive me if any of this has offended you, as well as any of my other posts.

There is also positive criticism.It serves to clarify mistakes, disputes, opinions and doubts.I think this is beneficial.

Let us now turn to a scriptural analysis of what is a Vaishnava-aparadha, the mad elephant we are told to keep away from the garden of our hearts. In the 265th anuccheda of his Bhakti-sandarbha, in explaining the ten offences against the holy name, Sri Jiva quotes a verse from the Skanda Purana, delineating varieties of unbefitting acts in relation with a Vaishnava.

satAM nindA ity anena hiMsAdInAM vacanAgocaratvaM darzitam | nindAdayas tu yathA skAnde zrI-mArkaNDeya-bhagIratha-saMvAde –

nindAM kurvanti ye mUDhA vaiSNavAnAM mahAtmanAm |
patanti pitRbhiH sArdhaM mahAraurava-saMjJite ||
hanti nindanti vai dveSTi vaiSNavAn nAbhinandati |
krudhyate yAti no harSaM darzane patanAni SaT || iti |
“Defamation of the saints, as violence and so forth, as well as verbal, is now presented. Blasphemy and so forth are presented in the Skanda in the discourse of Sri Markandeya and Bhagiratha:

‘The fools who defame Vaishnava-mahatmas fall into a place known as Maharaurava along with their ancestors. The six degrading acts against Vaishnava are (1) killing him, (2) blaspheming him, (3) being envious of, or hating him, (4) not glorifying him, (5) being angry at him, and (6) not being happy upon seeing him.’”

According to Jiva it is also not acceptable to witness one, or several among the aforementioned degrading acts of defamation. The place known as Maharaurava is described in the fifth skandha of the Bhagavata (5.26.12) as follows:

evam eva mahArauravo yatra nipatitaM puruSaM kravyAdA nAma ruravas taM kravyeNa ghAtayanti yaH kevalaM dehambharaH.

“Thus certainly a person who is exclusively absorbed in nourishing his body will be thrown to Maharaurava, where blood-thirsty hounds will devour his flesh and torment him.”

That being said, let us examine the six kinds of degrading deeds.

1.To kill. This is obviously a heinous act bound to destroy the creeper of devotion. Under this heading, any and all acts of physical violence are also included.

2. To blaspheme. All verbal acts of defamation come under this category. Calling a Vaishnava names, speaking harshly to him or about him, speaking lies of him and so forth are considered blasphemy.

3. To be envious or hateful. To be envious of a Vaishnava, to wish for his demise or suffering and to act towards this goal, and other thoughts, speech and deeds prompted by a feeling of malice towards a Vaishnava come under this heading.

4. To not glorify. All Vaishnavas are worthy of respect. To not respect a Vaishnava in accordance with his qualification, or to refuse from recognizing a particular good quality or deed of a Vaishnava, is unbefitting. Everyone is to be given all the respect they deserve, regardless of their having different opinions from ours.

5. To be angry. Whatever a Vaishnava does, we are not to display an outburst of anger towards him. It is permitted to display anger towards someone who is hateful towards the bhaktas, but this, too, is to be done in a civil, constructive way for the rectification of the wrong-doer.

6. To not be happy upon seeing. Whoever has accepted the holy names of Krishna is a blessing to the world. To not feel happiness upon meeting a soul who has chosen to approach the Lord, regardless of his defects, is inappropriate.

Now I would like to bring this down to a practical level and examine the implications of the above unbefitting acts or attitudes when we evaluate the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the doctrinal differences between various teachers, and so forth, in our discussions. Let me condense it into two sentences.

Regardless of what anyone has said or done, we should not (1) assault him or his followers, (2) call him names or speak of him harshly, or (3) wish anything bad for him. We should (4) justly give him all the credit he is due and praise his achievements, (5) avoid anger towards him as a person, and (6) be happy upon seeing or hearing of him or his followers, remembering that despite all differences, they also chant the all-auspicious names of Krishna.

I believe if we keep this in mind, we can live our devotional lives with a feeling of safety in the heart.

QUOTE

4. To not glorify. All Vaishnavas are worthy of respect. To not respect a Vaishnava in accordance with his qualification, or to refuse from recognizing a particular good quality or deed of a Vaishnava, is unbefitting for everyone. Everyone is to be given all the respect they are due, regardless of their having different opinions from ours.

QUOTE

6. To not be happy upon seeing. Whoever has taken the holy name of Krishna is a blessing to the world. To not feel happiness upon meeting a soul who has chosen to approach the Lord, regardless of his defects, is inappropriate.

This two verses ( in my opinion ) clarifies the path and gives the right perception of the proper behavior.

QUOTE

4. To not glorify. All Vaishnavas are worthy of respect. To not respect a Vaishnava in accordance with his qualification, or to refuse from recognizing a particular good quality or deed of a Vaishnava, is unbefitting for everyone. Everyone is to be given all the respect they are due, regardless of their having different opinions from ours.

I think there is a difference between giving respect to a Vaisnava for him being a Vaisnava and having to establish the truth because a certain Vaisnava's opinion is different from the sastric authority. I think people become confused that to point out a mistake in someone's preaching is a Vaisnava aparadha. I think opinion here refers not to opinion of the siddhanta, but opinion of the relative world.

There is history in Caitanya Caritamrta of Svarupa Damodara screening devotees who wanted to recite poems to Sri Caitanya. He would have to point out if it was appropriate or not.

There is another history in CC of Sarvabhauma Bhatta Acarya changing a word in a verse in Bhagavata and Mahaprabhu asked him why he did and so a discussion took place about it.

Mahaprabhu was disturbed that Adwaita Prabhu was preaching adwaitavada philosophy and so He approached him for the matter and even chastized him.

I one time asked Baba if you see something wrong that a devotee does is it an offense to tell him. He said no.

Any comments?

QUOTE

We have to give everyone the respect they are due, in other words, the respect they are to be given according to the merit they have. We do not have to respect something which does not exist or is wrong, at least not to the point of agreeing for the sake of being polite. It is not that we have to go and tell somebody, "Very good, sir, from the bottom of my heart I respect the wonderful parampara-philosophy of yours in which people of the guru-pranali don't have to even meet others." No, we say, "Excuse me, sir, but the philosophy in which people of one's guru-pranali have never met each other is rather absurd when examined with the eyes of the scripture and the tradition of saints." Nevertheless, we respect all that is good in that Vaishnava, namely his chanting the names of Sri Krishna, his enlightening others about the teachings of Sri Krishna in accordance with his eligibility, and so forth.

Although we obviously address errors in siddhanta, there is another realm in which differences exist aside heresy and opinions on worldly affairs. Devotees in different parivars have different approaches in upasana, their bhajan is different and accordingly some of their concepts will be different. There are great variations there, and this variety should never be made the object of critique. Variety in this realm is permissible. Of course it is expected that people will understand this principle and not propagate their own bhajan as the one and only method of bhajan for everyone.

From my current translation project, Bhajana-rahasya:

satAM nindA nAmnaH paramam aparAdhaM vitanute
yataH khyAtiM yAtaM katham u sahate tad-vigarhAm

"The first offence is the greatest of all: to blaspheme devotees who, through their attachment to the Holy Name, spread its glories throughout the world. How will the Lord who is manifest in the Holy Name ever tolerate such blasphemous activities?"

"By carefully giving up these ten offenses to the Holy Name, you will show that you have become clever in performing bhajan."

are cetaH prodyat-kapaTa-kuTinATI-bhara-khara-
kSaran-mUtre snAtvA dahasi katham AtmAnam api mAm
sadA tvaM gAndharvA-giridhara-pada-prema-vilasat-
sudhAmbhodhau snAtvA tvam api nitarAM mAM ca sukhaya

O my mind! The hypocritical tendency to fault-find and backbite are like an ass’s urine in which I have drenched myself, burning my entire being. Please bathe constantly in the ocean of nectar formed of the love flowing from the feet of the Divine Couple, Gandharvika and Giridhari. By so doing, you will bring joy to both yourself and to me. (ManaH-siksha 6)

pratiSThAzA dhRSTA zvapaca-ramaNI me hRdi naTet
kathaM sAdhu premA spRzati zucir etan nanu manaH
sadA tvaM sevasva prabhu-dayita-sAmantam atulaM
yathA tvAM niSkAzya tvaritam iha taM vezayati saH

The desire for worldly prestige wants to dance in my heart like a brazen, outcaste whore, making it impossible for the pure, holy love of Krishna to touch it. O mind! Serve the unparalleled devotees constantly, for since they are dear to the Lord, they will quickly drive that low-born creature from my heart and enthrone Krishna prema in it.

dRSTaiH svabhAva-janitair vapuSaz ca doSair
na prAkRtatvam iha bhakta-janasya pazyet
gaGgAmbhasAM na khalu budbuda-phena-paGkair
brahma-dravatvam apagacchati nIra-dharmaiH

Even if you observe flaws in a devotee’s body that are a result of natural processes, you should never think that his body is composed of the material energy. The Ganges River is liquid Brahma and does not lose this nature even if there are bubbles, mud or foam on its surface, as happens to all bodies of water.

Expanded translation: It is not wise to think that a devotee is an ordinary conditioned soul simply because one observes him experiencing misfortune or because his body has some defect like being lame. The devotee is comparable to the Ganges, which though it may sometimes be filled with bubbles, froth and mud, it never loses its divine nature, which comes of flowing from the transcendental lotus feet of the Lord.

vaiSNava caritra sarvadA pavitra
je ninde hiMsA kori'
bhakativinoda nA sambhASe tAre
thAke sadA mauna dhari

The character of the Vaishnava is always pure and holy. Bhaktivinoda promises that he will never speak to one who criticizes such a Vaishnava out of envy, but will remain silent whenever near him.