Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

altogether discard or perhaps sideline the ineffective
community until (if and when) its half-slumbering constituents
eventually wake up, wise up, and actually take up and
powerfully preach the progressive path of beatified vraja-bhakti-
bhajana for the benefit of the world. Meanwhile, the pure broad-
minded souls adhering to the path illuminated by the expressed
ideals of the Gaudiya Acaryas, whether linked to this, that, or
any other branch of the Caitanya tree, institution or no
institution, will be selected and empowered by Lord Gauranga
to do the sampradaya’s real propagation work. They will be
credited with helping the Lord to fully expand His ten-thousand-
year golden era of maximum mercy within this darkest
nightmare Age of Kali, as the rest remain satisfied with an
ongoing mere semblance of the sampradaya’s legacy.

Sometimes the example is given that the Ganga, even
though filled with filthy debris (stool, corpses, factory waste,
and other assorted garbage), is still the Ganga. It is always pure,
no matter what. So in the same way, the acarya’s institution is
assumed to be always pure, even if it is burdened by many
impurities. But the stool floating in the Ganga is not the Ganga.
Neither are the dead bodies, the oodles of scattered plastic
bags, the laundry soap bubbles, the oil slicks, nor the other
abounding ungodly contaminants carried by the Ganga. The
Ganga is the Ganga. Whatever is impure or rejectable is brushed
aside or disregarded, and then we take our bath in the Ganga.
We don’t take our bath in the stool. We don’t take our bath in
the dead bodies. We take our bath in the Ganga. Ganga water
itself is pure. But if we were to make the mistake of thinking that
the corpses, stool, or other debris are identical with the Ganga,
are as venerable or as important as the Ganga, or are parts and
parcels of the Ganga, then our thinking would certainly be a
grand parade of sheer stupidity. The correct understanding of
the analogy should be as follows: The Ganga is analogous to the
sampradayic flow, not to the institution. The pure form of the
institution corresponds to an obstruction-free stretch of the
Ganga’s riverbed channeling the river’s (sampradaya’s)
powerful current. Superfluous stool, corpses, and garbage
represent various petty anarthas, while massive sand dunes,


crags, and dams correspond to more seriously obstructive
misconceptions, philosophical deviations, and exploitative
tendencies. The unalloyed sampradayic flow that is to be
channeled by an institution is certainly pure. The institution can
also be considered pure and wholesome to the extent that it
actually facilitates the free-flowing current of pure and powerful
sampradayic siddhanta. To that end, the various apasiddhantic
anomalies or non-devotional absurdities vexing an institution’s
state of affairs must be diligently circumvented or discarded by
a concerted institutional anartha-nivritti. At any rate, the bath is
not to be taken in the institution or in the various attending
anarthas. The bath is to be taken in the pure teachings of the
sampradaya obtained wherever we can fortunately gain the
association of genuine, highly enlightened sadhus. Then one will
make progress, becoming purified not by the institution per se
but by availing oneself of, adhering to, and serving the
progressive current of the sampradaya’s unalloyed devotional
teachings.

Another example: If there was no water in Radha-kunda,
who would be interested to go there for bath? A kunda without
water would hardly be considered a kunda. The steps leading
into the kunda facilitate our approach to the water, but if we
were to slip or trip on a loose stepping stone, we might fall on
our butt or break our head before having the chance to take a
dip. The idea is to take bath in the water, not in the steps.
Similarly, the institution is set up to facilitate our access to the
liquid mellows of the sampradayic truths. If we get hung up on
the institution to the point where we fail to honor the
sampradayic truths, then what would be the use of all the
gorgeous socio-institutional arrangements?

To further illustrate, a shower in a shower-room is called a
shower not because there is a nicely tiled shower stall with a
nice shower curtain and a first-class shower fixture, soap dish,
towel ring, and ingenious drainage system. Unless a shower of
water comes forcefully showering out of the shower’s shower
head, a “shower” would be a shower in name only. The
corresponding components of the analogy should be obvious. If
there is no water or just a trickle, who in their right mind would


sensibly accept it to be a shower? Similarly, regardless of
exhaustive institutional sophistication, if at the end of the day
we were to dejectedly notice a scarcity of high-level unalloyed
devotional instruction, or barely a dribble from the orifices of
the elegant institutional fixtures, how could we realistically infer
the presence of a full-force sampradayic flow?

It is not the institution that makes the sampradaya. The
sampradaya is not the institution. Sampradaya means school – a
school of thought, an angle of vision or approach to the
Absolute to be disseminated through the medium of an acarya-
parampara. If the institution preserves and aids endowment of
the pure teachings of the Acaryas to posterity, then the
institution, as a facilitator, is a viable instrument in the hands of
the sampradaya. It’s helping the sampradaya do its job. But if
the institution fails to recognize and responsibly fulfill the
ultimate purpose of the sampradaya’s very existence, the
institution becomes more or less worthless in that the
sampradaya’s true or ultimate legacy would be forbidden to flow
beyond the barrage of shoddy institutional cerebral
misconstructions and auxiliary convolutions thereof. Just as the
Ganga naturally seeks the path of least resistance, so also,
unsurprisingly, the sampradaya’s current flows wherever it finds
a channel unobstructed by the various categories of spiritual
inadequacy and mundane affinity.

Where lives the sampradaya? The sampradaya is not found
in the bricks and buttresses of a bunch of buildings. The
sampradaya is not recognizable simply by a blazing bodily tilaka
decoration or an institutionally standardized mode of attire. The
sampradaya is not the holding of a pompous board of baboons
expert at botching the business on behalf of the spiritual
master. The sampradaya is not a bluffing brigade. Actually, the
sampradaya remains with anyone who truly adheres to the
principles of unalloyed devotion and disseminates the esoteric
axioms of the Bhagavata in a way that powerfully transforms the
hearts of the conditioned souls so as to inspirationally bring
them to the path of unalloyed devotion. A person on the path of
unalloyed devotion has no purpose other than to attain the
spontaneous loving service of Radha and Krishna in the realm of


Vraja and help others do the same. Unless and until we wise up
and actually embrace this understanding of the purpose of Lord
Caitanya’s preaching movement and resolutely help to wholly
fulfill that purpose, there will be so much disturbance and
distress within the institutional fold.

Very often we hear dreadfully erroneous expositions of
abhidheya-vicara doggedly presented as if to preclude any
prospect of pursuing raganuga-bhajana, on the pretext of
protecting the praja from prying into places where the
presumed-to-be poor little fledglings shouldn’t venture –
explaining away the philosophy instead of explaining the
philosophy. Such may appear to be ecclesiastically expedient
but hardly satisfies the soul’s quest for truth. Of course, it may
temporarily serve to ward off inquiries beyond the “preacher’s”
explanatory power. However, by resorting to such impotent
dissertative travesty, one appears to be no better than a
blundering buffoon to individuals conversant with the shastric
conclusions. Preaching is the essence. There is no doubt about
that. Within the compass of any socially interrelating
institutional preaching complex, preaching in some way or
other, either by precept or by example, is virtually inescapable.
That is the significance of both good and bad association.
Atheists also ascend the lecterns to preach their conjectural
world view. It is not so much a question whether or not one is
preaching. Rather, it is more the matter of what is (or is not)
being preached. The intelligent relatively fixed-up disciples can
certainly glean the essence of the Acaryas’ teachings simply by
sincerely studying the shastras. Unfortunately, they then very
often become disappointed and discouraged by the well-
intended misguidance of some of their esteemed rather
neophyte “authorities” who, miserably misrepresenting the
conclusions of the Gaudiya Acaryas, confound the affairs,
thereby practically retarding the submissive disciples’ spiritual
growth by disallowing them to make the progress they really
need to make to actually achieve the ultimate goal of their
rarely attained human life. Time and tide linger for none, life
relentlessly slips through their fingers, and hundreds of


institutionally committed disciples devoid of any inkling of their
eternal constitutional vraja-svarupa clamor at death’s door.

Sometimes the sampradaya appears to broaden its
influence, manifesting many concurrent branches within or even
beyond the margins of any particular institutional milieu, as a
number of pure-hearted, spiritually empowered individuals
endeavor to propagate the correct, unadulterated bhagavata-
siddhanta. At other times, it appears that, due to a dearth of
qualified recipients, the sampradaya reposes its authority in a
singular individual who single-handedly preserves the
sampradaya’s pure spiritual legacy. Such an acarya may not be
at the helm of a huge institution supporting world-wide
missionary activities. Yet because he carries within his heart of
hearts the complete-whole manifestation of Lord Krishna along
with His antaranga-shaktis, he is quite fit to pass on the true
sampradayic tradition. Even though his pure teachings might be
rightly received by just a single qualified disciple, that one
disciple may in turn impress the same upon many. There is
ample precedence for this in the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.
Still, at other times, it may be seen that an acarya intentionally
establishes a nation-wide or world-wide institution to facilitate
large-scale propaganda work, but only a few or even only one
among his thousands of initiated disciples actually catch the
essential current of the sampradaya’s teachings and become
perfectly qualified to impart the pure esoteric sampradayic
principles to subsequent generations. That is also not unheard
of. It is understood from acarya-vani that upon contacting sad-
guru a disciple generally requires three lifetimes before coming
to the stage of ultimate perfection, vastu-siddhi. The spiritual
master’s different disciples are not on the same rung of bhakti’s
evolutionary ladder. Some of the disciples are in the course of
their first acquaintance with sad-guru. In this lifetime their
attempt to chant the Holy Name will be, more often than not,
fraught with offense. Owing to meager devotional fortitude, they
will not likely achieve the adhikara required to transcend
rudimentary devotional practices and so must intelligently
submit themselves to the force of stringent vaidhika rules and
regulations to have any devotional standing at all. Others are in


the course of their second attempt. Chanting namabhasa, they
will gradually gain steadiness and the eligibility to pursue the
path of raga. A few may progress to the terrace of bhava and
prema by chanting shuddha-nama, having come to their third
lifetime of service at the feet of sad-guru. After quitting the
present sadhaka-deha, they will be promoted to the prakata-lilas
of the Lord. The chronological sequence of initiation does not
necessarily correspond to the progressive levels of
advancement of the different disciples. Though the acarya’s
senior disciples might rightfully claim or demand the junior’s
customary respect, as per external protocol, the natural esteem
offered to first-class paramahamsas can be genuinely elicited
only when devotees of a discerning eye undoubtingly
acknowledge appreciable levels of practical renunciation
coupled with scripturally sound pure devotional expression.
Certainly, those who chant offensively, regardless of disciplic
seniority or institutional echelon, can hardly be accepted as
bona fide agents of the sampradayic flow. To be real, only an
elevated, spiritually endowed disciple, having achieved the
internal standing of a maha-bhagavata on the basis of shuddha-
nama-bhajana is substantially fit to act as an empowered agent
of the bhagavata-sampradaya. Such a spiritually qualified
individual, though not necessarily assuming any earth-
shattering external institutional hierarchical status, will, in fact,
timely and powerfully manifest the sampradaya’s profoundest
influence. In the interim, many others, institutionally “big” or
“small,” who are more or less preoccupied with varying degrees
of watered-down, exoterically intended philosophy that often
verily accommodate their own subtle or gross personal and
extended self-aggrandizing concerns and who maintain an
apathy toward unalloyed devotional absorption, though perhaps
very much institutionally involved, will effectively remain more
or less on the factual sampradaya’s periphery. When these
spiritually naive, siddhantically unapprised, or materially
ambitious “disciples” endeavor to climb the corporate
institutional ladder to access and occupy key administrative
positions for the purpose of pursuing their sundry ulterior
objectives, what institutional anomalous or farcical


consequences can we not expect? Would we deem sickly or
convalescing in-patients at a hospital to be part of the
established medical institution itself? Would it not be more
realistic to objectively regard them as clients having the good
opportunity to access the convenient medical facility offered by
the hospital? If an in-patient misinterprets or declines to follow
the doctor’s advice or if a patient without passable medical
training and experience decides to do quackery in the hospital’s
lobby, should we take such to be part of the hospital? Is an
attending student at a university to be taken as part of the
educational institution, or is the student simply the recipient of
the institution’s tutelage? Even if we posit the meaninglessness
of a university without students, would it be at all proper for an
upstart student bereft of adequate erudition and wisdom to
pompously profess to be a professor? If a psychiatric patient
having no clear recollection of his or her true identity
impersonates a psychiatrist, would we behold a pinnacle of
sanity? When money talks, everything walks. Bucks – the basis,
preaching – the excuse, futility – the principle, and, as one
might guess, purity (spiritual sanity) – a farce.

We can scarcely see among us deeply absorbed natural
paramahamsas possessed of markedly elevated transcendental
consciousness evinced by expressed mature spiritual insight
and discretion. Nor would we generally expect internally
immersed paramahamsa Vaishnavas to be very much attentive
to the nitty-gritty of direct hands-on institutional management.
Unsurprisingly, fate would often have it that by default various
less spiritually evolved individuals take the helm, even though
they may be unacquainted with – even virtually oblivious to –
the rasika culture of unalloyed devotion, as per the scientific,
systematic exposition of the vraja-bhakti paradigm seen in the
Acaryas’ writings. Still others, often owing to their assorted,
relatively handy material qualifications, are ceremoniously
taken on board as additional digits in the equation, though their
perceptions, conceptions, and judgments are relatively impure
in that they have yet to rise above the four defects of
conditional existence. We could hardly expect the majority of
an institution’s administrators to be on the highest perfectional


platform of Krishna consciousness. As such, canonical or
ecclesiastico-managerial decisions arrived at on the basis of
majority vote may often be fraught with material conception,
apasiddhanta, and compromise by dint of confusion, distortion,
mundane wrangling, or agnosticism devoid of sampradayic
authority, thus rendering the whole show relatively asara, or
useless. It is imperative, therefore, that the religio-institutional
administration have the integrity, willingness, and intelligence to
recognize and accept the salient advice of those impartial few
who are actually pure, spiritually elevated, free from false pride,
unenvious, and beyond the sway of material influences.

The idea that a body of executors dubbed the “ultimate
managing authority” of a societal organization be reckoned,
heralded, or broadly accepted as head of the socio-bodily
infrastructure of such a society is sheer misconstruction and a
flight of the imagination – a calamitous contravention of daivi-
varnashrama principia. Individuals displaying a passion for
administrative overlordship may brandish considerable
diplomatic dexterity in the matter of cleverly hoodwinking lay
practitioners into accepting the alleged legitimacy of various
covertly contrived ecclesiastical managerial maneuvers, but
mere spectacle of tactical proficiency hardly adds up to an air of
brahminical intelligence. Institutional governance is certainly
the prerogative of ksatriya-spirited devotees. In the scheme of
things, these devotees, who do far better when they comport
themselves as righteous rajarsis rather than as menacing
Mafiosi, basically serve as the arms of the institution. Their
function is to protect the society’s movable and immovable
assets, ensure economic stability, see that the various classes of
devotees are peacefully prosecuting their prescribed religious
duties, and curb the cheating propensity of the neophytes. A
rajarsi is considered a saintly administrator, however, on
account of his openness to respectfully abide by the good
counsel of truthful, qualified brahmarsis and advanced unalloyed
devotees of the Lord, who are not so managerially encumbered.
Any initiate acting in any social capacity may be regarded, on
one level or another, as some kind of Vaishnava. Even so, those
who are true brahmanas and paramahamsa Vaishnavas by


quality and work are undeniably the actual head of an
institution’s social set-up. A social body that either doesn’t have
or doesn’t recognize its head is like a ship adrift without its
rudder.

In an acarya’s physical presence, those acting as his zonal
secretaries, as well as diverse other executive representatives,
may easily receive guidance through his direct personal
instructions. An acarya himself acts as the society’s head,
directly approving or disapproving the actions of his society’s
managerial arms as he sees fit. An acarya may even see it
necessary to totally rescind the managerial authority personally
invested in his zonal representatives if the latter deviate from
his expressed will. Such a scenario is certainly not unheard-of.

But what happens after an acarya’s inopportune physical
demise? All his disciples may take refuge in his recorded vani to
gain inspiration and positive direction for advancing the cause
of Krishna consciousness. Still, it would be most unreasonable
to conclude that those somewhat managerially adept individuals
to whom the acarya had delegated certain arm-related
executive responsibilities should, in the acarya’s absence,
suddenly seek to assume the position of the society’s socio-
religious head. Likewise with the subsequently deputed new
generation of international, zonal, and local managers.

We could hardly think those possessed of supposed
executive-class intelligence tilting toward diplomacy,
compromise, duplicity, unjustifiable psychological coercion,
covert administrative wrangling, connivance, collusion, and
conspiracy for the forward march of various “Krishna
conscious” managerial agenda or political ambitions, to be
having a clearer, more advanced shastric perception of reality
than those who are impartial, managerially unencumbered, and,
in fact, to a much larger extent, brahminically occupied. The
attempt of managerially engrossed individuals lacking superior
brahminical transparency to administer institutional affairs
without respecting genuine brahminical counsel simply
perpetuates a socially imbalanced quasi-devotional society of
cheaters and cheated – bungling bhaktas who brainlessly buy
into the burgeoning business of bureaucratic befuddlement. To


show due deference to the spiritual needs of the individuals who
constitute the society, proper brahminical leadership must
always prevail over administrative concerns.

From the Vedic sociological standpoint, we might
mindfully deduce the following:

1) Brahmanas can be seen as spiritually and intellectually
qualified anarchists. To practically function in the capacity duly
prescribed for them in the shastras, they really require a
demilitarized ambience wherein they may peacefully and
creatively exercise their God-given right to be self-regulating,
independently thoughtful people. Naturally, the independence
afforded to them brings with it the highest constitutional
responsibility, namely selfless sacrifice in the direct service of
guru and Godhead.
2) Real ksatriyas are basically noble-minded God-
conscious monarchists. They are meant to rule their domains on
behalf of the brahmanas who in effect have factual dominion
over the world on behalf of Lord Krishna.
3) Vaishyas are theistic charitable capitalists.
4) Shudras are theocentric working-class socialists or
communists.


There is a place for anarchy in human society. There is a
place for monarchy in human society. So also is there a place for
capitalism and communism. The daivi-varnashrama cultural
paradigm scientifically accommodates these four dissimilar
social ideologies in perfect equilibrium under the one banner of
service to the Absolute. It is simply a matter of recognizing,
facilitating, and suitably balancing the needs of different kinds of
people. In view of social distinctions on the basis of diverse
individual psycho-physical dispositions, it would be
irresponsible on the part of any one section of society to
artificially impose a single ideology upon all. This would force a
state of stultification upon the social order. Similarly,
encroaching upon or crippling another’s God-given station
hinders the affected individual’s natural socio-constitutional
development. Members of an establishment erected to facilitate
the gradual progress of internal pure devotional absorption
(antaranga-bhakti) may in the beginning need to be externally or


conditionally engaged in light of various individual psycho-
physical requirements. To that end, many devotees, while
inwardly striving to cultivate pure devotional sentiments, may
outwardly appear to be socially stationed on the basis of
varnashrama considerations that naturally demand certain
prescribed social limitations. One who has achieved a profound
taste for pure devotional practices is in fact no longer obliged to
strictly abide by external varnashrama laws. Vidhi-dharma
chadi’ bhaje krisnera carana / nisiddha papacare tara kabhu
nahe mana. “Although the pure devotee does not follow all the
regulative principles of varnashrama, he worships the lotus feet
of Krishna. Therefore he naturally has no tendency to commit
sin.” (Cc. Madhya 22.142) For such a sadhaka, who is actually
beyond mundane designations and their concomitant
varnashrama obligations, adherence to varnashrama prescripts
is optional. However, as long as one has yet to achieve shuddha-
nama-ruci, as long as one is likely to pursue material desires, in
other words, as long as one’s engagement on the basis of
psycho-physical considerations is an issue, even though one
may pride oneself to be a Vaishnava having received
pancaratrika-diksa, or even if one happens to truly be a jata-ruci
Vaishnava but has preferred to mercifully profile as a social
exemplar, one must respectfully submit to the constraints upon
one’s external status to avoid an escalation of adverse
communal anomalies. Pure Vaishnavas doing the needful to
further the cause of Krishna consciousness may externally act
in any social capacity. Still, when acting as brahmanas, they
must externally adhere to brahminical codes of conduct; when
acting in the administrative capacity as ksatriyas, they must
honorably abide by the standard social etiquette prescribed for
ksatriyas; and when acting as vaishyas or shudras, they must
similarly follow appropriate social protocol. Noncompliance
would be rather roguish. Shri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself
declared, naham vipro na ca nara-patir napi vaishyo na shudro
naham varni na ca griha-patir no vana-stho yatir va . . . gopi-
bhartuh pada-kamalayor dasa-dasanudasah. “I am neither a
brahmana, nor a ksatriya . . . The only designation that I wish to
accept is that of a servant of the servant of the servant of