© 2002 VNN
|
EDITORIAL  About the AuthorOther Stories by this Author Sectarianism And Divine Faith BY SWAMI B.V. TRIPURARI  EDITORIAL, May 2 (VNN) — Q & A with Swami B.V. Tripurari"Let them preach the truth and live it such that even the guru who is lacking in knowledge will be drawn to the higher guru for siksa, what to speak of his disciples." Q. After Prabhupada's departure it seems the world of Vaisnavism became embroiled in sectarian controversy. But if we are objective we see there was sectarianism in the Krsna consciousness movement even during the time of Prabhupada. Some devotees say that Srila Prabhupada's genius was in converting sectarianism into a competition of dedication. So didn't Prabhupada show there was a kind of utility in sectarianism? A. Srila Prabhupada first tried for cooperation with his Godbrothers, and he stressed cooperation amongst his disciples as well. Prabhupada said that his disciples could prove their love for him by cooperating among themselves after he was gone. Considering this I think it bad enough to be sectarian after so many years, what to speak of championing it as if it were glorious and spiritual. The fact that it was present even in ISKCON years ago is hardly a valid justification for embracing it today in our circumstances. When you build a fence around a young tree to protect it, as it matures, it will naturally break the boundaries of the fence without any harmful repercussions. We may be taught at first that we can only find Krsna in one place, but if we are successful in that, we will see that he is everywhere. Sectarianism may have some utility for beginners, but creating dedication through sectarianism is only marginally effective as a means to inspire neophytes. It can have an overwhelming downside that eventually comes to crush the very creeper of devotion itself. God knows that we have seen this. If a sectarian policy is effective in creating dedication, then that dedication will eventually eradicate the sectarianism, or marginalize it such that it comes to represent merely the sweetness of spiritual variety in the realm of service. This is not what we see today in the current Gaudiya community. Something is not working. We are living in very different times than we were when we were under the direct guidance of Srila Prabhupada, and in my opinion these times call for a different approach (than sectarianism in the name of dedication). We no doubt need to acknowledge that we will have to live with some degree of sectarianism. In doing so, we should try to find harmony in the fact that everyone is moving in accordance with their faith. However, to do so in name is one thing, but to do this in reality requires the more difficult task of honoring that divine faith wherever it manifests and to whatever degree. Q. Didn't Prabhupada use the example of gopis in competition for the service of Krsna where each gopi was thinking that she was most loved by Krsna? A. There is no problem with each gopi thinking she is the most loved by Krsna. The problem arises if any gopi thinks the other gopis in her group are not loved by Krishna, and when that so-called gopi does not love the other gopis in the group. It is true that Sukadeva experienced that in the rasa lila each gopi felt that she was special, but this was a particular event. According to Sanatana Prabhu, the norm is for each gopi to doubt that Krsna loves her at all, whereas it is the norm for each gopa to think that Krsna loves him the most. Q. How can a devotee be said to be sectarian if he is simply "spiritually biased" and repeating the words of his guru and scripture? A. A sectarian agenda is not Krsna conscious merely because one repeats the words of one's guru and scripture. Krsna consciousness involves knowing what to say to whom, etc. Words of the guru or scripture misapplied may render them something other than Krsna consciousness. Spiritual bias is one thing. In this sense sectarianism is healthy. It will continue into eternity. But what we are talking about when we use the word sectarian is how we relate to other sects and our ability or inability to recognize spirituality outside of our own group and honor it appropriately. Particulars aside, this involves gaining insight into the non-sectarian nature of Krsna consciousness through genuine sadhu sanga. After all it was Bhaktivinoda who said that sectarianism and party spirit were the enemies of spiritual progress. Q. Must a person study scripture and logic in depth to make spiritual advancement? A. Persons who are unable to study scripture and logic, but who simply associate and practice can make as much spiritual advancement as one who studies sastra and logic. Sadhakas should use their intelligence and apply it to understanding the precepts, but those incapable of grasping all of the scriptural logic are not barred from spiritual progress. Moreover, those predisposed to logic run the risk of overestimating its utility. It is important to note that no system of logically articulating the nature of ultimate reality is "water tight." Such is the nature of that which lies beyond logic. More than its logic, we identify with Gaudiya Vaisnavism because we are predisposed to it as a result of bhakti sukrti. Those who are not so predisposed will find their own loopholes in Gaudiya logic and refrain from embracing it. Logic has its place and should be applied to understanding our precepts with the aim to practice based upon a better theoretical understanding, but spiritual progress results from exercising the heart. This is an exercise that transcends reason. It is not irrational, but rather picks up where logic leaves off. Q. If scripture can be wrong about empirically verifiable things, what then guarantees that it is right on spiritual things? How would you answer this challenge to a "liberal view" of the scriptures? A. It is not necessarily that the scripture is wrong about material details, it merely offers a different angle of vision on them or the view about them that was current at the time the scripture was written. Sukadeva Goswami makes it clear that his explanation of the universe in Srimad-Bhagavatam is based on what he heard from astronomers and historians of the times. The point is that scripture is not really concerned with these things. For example, if I want to make a philosophical point to someone, I might do so using an accepted example of how things work in this world. However, later it may come to pass that the example I used is proven wrong. But this does not in any way invalidate my point. One may not be able to empirically verify certain details of any particular lineage's explanation of scripture, but one is nonetheless bound by logic and personal experience to embrace much of what all lineages agree upon in scripture. Be kind to others, selfless, sense controlled, cultivate detachment from the fruit of your endeavors--be sure about these things and put them into practice. Everything else will follow and you will come to know things that otherwise you could not. Q. First I would like to say I really appreciate receiving Sanga, and reading what's going on at Audarya. I find it all very, very inspiring. My question is, are there some sastric references about respecting the disciples of other gurus? I ask because I have found that some gurus seem to teach their disciples otherwise. For example, Srila Prabhupada said that some of his Godbrothers were envious of him, but he never said such things to their disciples, nor tried to get their disciples to work with him independent of their gurus' wishes. A. Srila Sridhara Maharaja commented that he feared for the future of ISKCON when its leaders trampled on the faith of Jayatirtha's disciples at a time when Jayatirtha was trying to take shelter of Sridhara Maharaja. This is not to say that the disciples of Jayatirtha should not have eventually taken shelter of a proper guru. I mention this just to give you an idea of what kind of regard we should have for divine faith regardless of its medium. You ask for sastric quotes in a situation that calls for common sense and decency. Where these are lacking, what will be the value of sastra? If you quote something about respecting the disciple's faith in his or her guru, those opposing will simply say that only applies to bonafide gurus. If you claim you have bonafide gurus, the opposition will disagree with your standards, although they cannot prove that their own guru meets their standards because proof is in the hands of faith alone. These kinds of devotees want to rule by law. The law says the guru should be such and such, so high, so qualified. But where is such a guru? This will be determined by each and every disciple. Proof resides in the domain of the heart. That which validates the law is higher than the law itself. Thus first and foremost the free flow of faith must be honored. This is not to say that there is no objectivity as to who is who in the marketplace of gurus. A highly qualified Vaisnava guru will understand this principle and teach it to his disciples. In this way he will win the hearts of all, not by insisting on enforcement of the law, but by honoring that which validates the law. Other than the above, there are a number of statements found in Bhakti-sandarbha regarding one's obligation to a guru who is lacking in knowledge (if they argue that yours is so). This is also discussed in Jaiva Dharma. The gist of this discussion is that one should always honor such a guru, and should the disciple feel the need for taking siksa elsewhere he should do so with the permission of his initiating guru. It is not the business of others to unsettle the faith of such disciples. Rather let them preach the truth and live it such that even the guru who is lacking in knowledge will be drawn to the higher guru for siksa, what to speak of his disciples. I consider Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja to be an example of a highly qualified guru who was faced with circumstance similar to those just described. Here is a quote from His Divine Grace: "I was repeatedly requested by Swami Maharaja, 'Look after them. I have taken them to you. Please look after them.' I also have some affinity for the cause of Mahaprabhu. So if anyone is coming to seek Krsna consciousness but is going away frustrated, then naturally, some sympathy should come in my heart to help him to give him relief. With that idea, I give help, whatever help I can, although it is very meager. "I am simply sitting here. I am not running hither and thither to disturb the brains of the ISKCON followers... Let them capture the whole world. I'll be satisfied. I am not an enemy, because we have a common cause." Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor@swami.org. About the Author Other Stories by this AuthorContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
