Respecting Seniority - (Posts separated from the schism thread)

For what it's worth, I think that the bias on mortal age is without foundation. It is rather incongruous with even the basic tenets of spiritual philosophy. Was not Dhruva and Prahlada Maharaja extremely young but extremely high authorities?

But it's a good one to throw in when you are running low on solid points to make otherwise.

Have you taken this up with Sri Bhaktivedanta Narayan Maharaj and his followers?

I once sat with him at an airport while he spoke at length about how his 50 years as a sannyasi made him more qualified than his critics (who had only 30 years of sannyas - no I don't understand his reasoning either).

As for me, I know that age brings experience and that younger people are impatient and want easy answers and instant results. But I also know that older people fear change and innovation while young people's energy and innovativeness opens up new opportunities for us all. In other words, age and youth are complementary, as are stability and energy. Drive without stability is directionless. Mere stability is like death. Both are needed.

Young people also need to tap the experience of the old. Otherwise they will keep making the same mistakes, among other things.

I'll let you in on a secret, Vaishnav Dasji. My Siksha-Guruji is about 30 years old. My Diksha-Gurudeva is about 60-70 yrs of age (hard to say), and he offers dandabat to the younger man, and instructs his disciples to also. When the young man visits Radhakunda he is highly respected by the senior devotees there, who listen respectfully to his Patha as to that of other qualified devotees of the same youthful age. The examples of the Bhagavatam are indeed a living experience for Gaudiyas (as they are for the Tattvavadis and others too).

It's a complex world. A simple dictum does not fit all cases.

It is undeniable that age brings about maturity and wisdom, at least for most people. I have no reservations over people knowing my age, it's visible in my profile for anyone who cares. Nevertheless, I am not fond of people trying to put me down because of my age, if my age is the only point they are trying to make, without considering what I may have to say. Such a priori dismissal falls little short of dismissing someone's views as inferior by pointing out that he is black, shudra, or whatever. I suggested removing that "Y" from the "your" of Kishalaya, particularly since he is not exactly 65 years old himself.

The example quoted by Brajamohan is not one of age-protocol, but caste protocol. The 30-year old gentleman is a scion of his diksa-guru’s vamsa-parampara, hence the respect his elderly diksa guru gives him. Otherwise, while the talents of the young must be appreciated by the elders, Sriman Mahaprabhu taught regular protocol to his followers. When He heard that Sanatana Gosvami had burned his footsoles to avoid touching Lord Jagannatha’s pujaris, He praised him, saying (Caitanya Caritamrta Antya 4, 129-132):

yadyapi tumi hao jagat pavan; toma sparse pavitra hoy deva muni-gana
tathapi bhakta svabhava - maryada raksana; maryada palana hoy sadhura bhusana
maryada langhane loka kore upahasa ; iha loka, para loka - dui hoy nasa
maryada rakhile, tusta hoy mora mana ; tumi aiche na korile kore kon jana?

"Although you are the purifier of the whole world and the demigods and sages are purified by your mere touch, still it is the nature of a devotee to follow the social protocol. Maintaining the social protocol is the ornament of a sadhu. When a Vaisnava violates the social protocol people will ridicule him and he will perish in this birth and in the next. By keeping the social standard you have pleased My mind. Who else but you could do such a thing?" By saying: ‘Although you are the purifier…’, Mahaprabhu acknowledges the spiritual superiority of a Vaisnava, but then He immediately warns that the external social protocol must be maintained. These are two separate worlds, one spiritual and the other material. The elders must be respected, right or wrong, more or less advanced than the young. This the minimum fulfilment of the trnad api sunicena taror iva sahishnuna amanina manadena principle.

How does this jive with a situation in which the elder is obviously wrong? I mean, for example disagreeing with an elderly Gaudiya Math sannyasi who dismisses your gurus as pseudo-Vaishnava, sahajiya-baba, mundane caste-gosain and so forth? If we disagree, is it in disharmony with the principles of Mahaprabhu?

I mean, respect, of course we should respect everyone, but what does respect include? Does it include the withdrawal of our right to disagree?

The social protocols (maryada) are an interesting theme, as they are bound to a certain age and culture. How much are they adjustable as the times and the culture change?

This is an exception, because GM is proven to be guilty of serious offences to both Vedic and Gaudiya Vaishnava culture. One can find ample condemnations of Vaishnava- and brahmin- aparadhis in shastra. Practically I would still treat such elderly persons with external respect during personal encounters, though in philosophical discussion, like in forums, comments and correspondence, i would make mince-meat / firewood out of them, as a Vaishnava/Vedic person defending his faith.



Most certainly not. Shastra and conscience must prevail.



In Western context, my generation (born in the 1950s) must take the blame for this. We have systematically eroded the principle of protocol in our western countries, so now we suffer the reactions by getting a big mouth from the youngsters. It is because we tought them this disrespectful attitude in the first place. If you throw a boomerang you can expect it to fly back into your face. Our young Vaishnavas, however, can make a clean break based on the trinad api principle and other lessons of maryada in our shastras.

We have to get out of the tit for tat mentality. Both play at the game, each saying, "You started it." This can lead nowhere.

The best thing in reacting to perceived "aparadhas" is to first of all honestly assess the criticism. This is a profound and difficult task and often calls into question the premises of both parties. That means both people claiming to be right may very well be wrong, to some degree or another.

The path to synthesis comes when one starts to break down one's own casing of self-righteousness and absolute certainty.

Of course, the problem remains when the other party remains intransigeance. This is the great test of ahimsa. Somehow self-righteous anger does not fit into this model. It may be politically expedient, but seems outside the scope of spiritual culture. "Krodha krishna dveshi jane" is an instruction that has to be treated with great care.

The idea of maryada has not been entirely lost in the West. There is in fact a very strong pressure to conform to certain standards, though of necessity, other important principles of individual freedom have been enshrined as human rights. People have the right to hold non-conformist opinions and this should be honored as well. Indeed, socially it is more efficient to allow heterodoxy rather than heteropraxy. Only when beliefs become disruptive are they repressed.

Maryada does not just mean that one should be on the receiving end. After all, who the hell are we? Amanina manadena means that maryada for the Vaishnava is a one-way street. It means that you earn respect by giving it not by demanding it.

In the situation Madhava described, one should refrain from creating unnecessary controversy. Where it is unavoidable, one should lay the blame elsewhere (e.g., "I have to respect my guru varga, who have told me otherwise. Please forgive me." "This particular shastra has more importance to me than the one you quote." "This reasoning seems more cogent than the other one. Please forgive me, with all due respect, I am unable to accept your point of view.")

On the whole, my feeling is that learning to get along is more important than being right. Unless you want to follow the Palestinian/Israeli model of problem solving.

As far as my personal stance goes, I have said from the beginning of this thread that there have always been divisions in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.



Yes, honestly speaking there was and is a lot of corruption among Babajis and caste gosvamis, but to call them all corrupt is undeniably a vaishnavaparadha and brahmin aparadha. Your good self has repeatedly acknowledged that in different essays.



The right quote is 'krodha bhakta dveshi jane'. That certainly doesnt mean slamming a jet airliner into a Gaudiya Math or Iskcon skyscraper. However I don't believe we should cover everything up with the mantle of 'forgiveness' either. One must show one's love and fidelity for the assaulted innocent Vaishnavas and brahmins and stand up to their defence. Does not silence make one an accomplice to such Vaishnava and Brahmin aparadha? Do their indoctrinated following not deserve to hear the objective truth, that not one single party is either wholly lily-white or wholly devil-black?



Quite personally spoken I owe you that one. I am certainly suffering disrespect from youngsters because of previously disrespecting superior Vaishnavas, your good self included. ksamasva.....



Is it really all so subjective? Arent the books of Rupa and Sanatana universally accepted by all branches of Gaudiya Vaishnavism? Should their statements not get priority?

Of course a lot of disrespectful statements can be avoided if one tackles the issues objectively and collectively. Like: "To those who say that all babajis have illicit sex with widows, it can be said...." Instead of "That rascal XYZ swami, who was born 82 years before me, is a great blasphemer #$%^&!" In this way, by speaking purely philosophically, one can avoid personal offences to the elders. Perhaps we may rephrase Jesus by saying: "Hate the aparadha, not the aparadhi"? Personally I am not so sure, because our philosophy is that sin can be readily erased by harinama but not so for aparadha.....

Not quite, Advaitaji. This implies that the respect shown is just formal. In fact, the young gentleman is appreciated for his special devotional and scholarly qualities, including his fine singing. I saw him mobbed like a popstar by younger devotees, while older devotees clearly found him inspiring, quite beyond any formal respect.

I am also thinking of Vaishnava-pada Das Babaji. No doubt he also comes from a respected family, but he is not just a passive recipient of worship. Rather he is one of the most inspiring devotees one can meet or hear Patha from.

It may be more difficult for someone from a less-known caste to be recognised by their devotional qualities, but surely this happens too. A brilliant scholar or singer would surely be respected regardless of caste or, indeed, age.

Oops, that post is from me. Forgot to log in.

I might add a good analogy. In Hollywood, most of the famous actors have family connections, being children of older famous actors or connected in some way. But they are not automatically accepted as stars. They must have ability in their own right. Outsiders also are accepted if they show exceptional ability, but one assumes those from 'actor families' had it easier.

It may be harder for someone from a 'lower' caste to be accepted as a great GV devotee. It may be necessary to perform a life-time of strong sadhana, or to sing exceptionally well, or to have unusual scholarly brilliance. But this is because these are the most obvious ways a devotee gets public recognition: austerity, singing, giving class. Others whose devotion is not so obvious are not dis-respected.

And the actual devotional qualities, such as humility, pridelessness, non-violence, simplicity, wisdom, compassion, absorption in bhajan... are what really counts, regardless of age, caste, race, etc.

I should add that both the young Gosvami I referred to and Sri Vaishnav-pada Das exhibit the above qualities to an exceptional degree, as well as more mundane talents like singing and scholarship.

There is a misunderstanding here, Vrajamohan Ji. I did not say that Prankrishnadas Babaji offered respect to Nitya Gopal ONLY because of his caste, it is obvious that he and Premagopala are highly qualified acaryas, but there is definitely the factor that he is the grandson of his diksa guru Yadugopal Gosvami. They have an elder brother who is not a devotee at all, and he would certainly not receive Prankrishnadas Baba's worship the way that Nityagopal or Premagopal would. I did not mean to say that any old person being born in a Vamsa Parampara would get the same worship, that is happening nowhere. But there is a special family/diksa link between your Gurudeva and Nityagopal and family ties simply matter a lot more in India than they do in the west. Mahaprabhu himself offered full respects to the Godbrothers of his Guru, that is amply shown in Caitanya Caritamrita. No one would doubt the spiritual superiority of Mahaprabhu over them......

Secondly, I do not believe that birth and quality are that much separate from each other. karanam guna sango'sya sad asad yoni janmasu (Gita ch.13) - "the cause of taking birth in a good or bad species is one's attachment to a certain guna, or quality of life, quality of pysche." You might find it interesting to know that Vaishnava Pada das babaji is a Cakravarti brahmin. Superiority by birth is twofold - the time of birth (age) and the class of birth (caste). Not that only brahmins can be great devotees, of course. In any case, Mahaprabhu said that adherence to protocol is the ornament of the sadhu. As one mahanta in Vrindavan told me: sammana is sammana - give honour where honour is due.

In my opinion, the increased maturity and wisdom of an older person should primarily be compared to the same person at a younger age. I am more mature and wise now, than I was when I was 30 years old. But that does not mean that I am more mature and wise than any 30 years old. There might be an external protocol based on age and social status, just because it is often hard for a person less wise and less mature to recognize and acknowledge someone more so. Someone who is more advanced and mature has no problem acknowledging someone who is "older" as etiquette.
For a bystander that can easily be mistaken.

Interestingly, my Psychology textbook questions this idea. How can age bring wisdom when it is a scientific fact that human beings lose 200,000 neurons a day on average?

Is neuron the unit in which you measure wisdom?

"Old age and treachery defeat youth and skill."

You must be referring to the theory that an adult's neurons cannot be regenerated. Otherwise, a newborn child would be the most intelligent being of the society, and grow more and more stupid over the years.

Even if this is what you meant, the theory that an adult's neurons cannot regenerate is outdated.


I'm sure someone better acquainted with the field could provide a dozen links more.

Dear devotees,

I was just trying to provide some light comic relief to an otherwise tense thread. No need to take it so seriously. Lighten up.