Overview

After last week’s article on loyalty to the guru versus loyalty to the institution, Gaura Gopāla reflects on some of the criticism he received — particularly the accusation that such ideas are somehow “offensive.” He argues that among many devotees, the word “offense” is often used simply to shut down disagreement, criticism, or even the acknowledgment that sincere devotees may exist outside one’s own institution.

“That’s an offense!”

You’ve heard it. Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself.

In contemporary Vaiṣṇava circles it has become the all-purpose response to anything that unsettles the comfortable boundaries of one’s own worldview. To question an institutional decision – aparādha! To disagree on a point of philosophy – aparādha! To acknowledge that sincere devotees might actually exist outside one’s immediate saṅga – aparādha! The charge has been inflated to cover everything and, in being inflated, has become cheapened beyond all recognition.

Following the recent publication of ‘Never Leave ISKCON?,’ most of the responses were favorable, but a number arrived carrying exactly this charge. The article’s argument – that loyalty to the guru and the siddhānta is not the same as loyalty to any particular institutional framework – was condemned by some as offensive, divisive, and even ‘anti-Prabhupāda.’

I generally make it a point not to respond to most critics unless they show some genuine character, free from prejudice (internet trolls don’t factor into that!) What I would like to address is what their reaction reveals – the culture of criticism and lack of maturity within the Vaiṣṇava world, the widely misunderstood concept of aparādha, and why plurality in the Vaiṣṇava world is not merely tolerable but necessary.

On Offense and the Offended

One of the most common weapons wielded in the Vaiṣṇava world is the charge of aparādha. In Sanskrit, aparādha means offense – specifically, an offense against the holy name, against the Vaiṣṇavas, against the spiritual master, or against the Lord Himself. From a deeper understanding, aparādha means that which is against Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī – the very embodiment of bhakti Herself. These are grave matters, and the śāstra treats them seriously. But something strange has happened to this concept in certain contemporary circles – it has become simultaneously inflated and cheapened.

Inflated, because everything is now an offense. The word has become a blunt instrument, used not out of genuine concern for others, but as a means of social control.

Cheapened, because those who deploy it most aggressively are often the least careful about committing real offenses themselves. There is something ironic in someone launching a vitriolic personal attack on a devotee and in the same breath accusing that devotee of aparādha.

My Guru Mahārāja, Swami B.G. Narasiṅgha, once said, “I don’t hate anyone. Hate is not a part of my life.” But for those who knew him, he was an intense personality, who guarded his gurus and the siddhānta with great care and attention. This was sometimes mistaken by others to be hatred or even envy. Energetic argument and disagreement free from envy and hatred is 100% justified in pursuit of the Truth and in pursuit of clarifying the siddhānta – what is real and what is not real, and what will help us in our progress on this path towards becoming conscious of the reality of Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

In answering a question on how to balance wishing everyone well and staying strict to the teachings of one’s guru, my Guru Mahārāja said:

We hate the sin, not the sinner. If we fall into the plane of hating the sinner then there is aparādha. We don’t hate the butcher we hate butchery. We don’t hate the pseudo-rāsikās, we hate the misrepresentation. If we allow ourselves to be consumed with hatred then even though we may be defending the conception of our gurus, that may be aparādha.

The misuse of the word aparādha reveals a deeper spiritual immaturity. A genuinely advanced devotee is kṛpā-sindhu – an ocean of mercy. Such a devotee does not run to condemn; they run to help and correct. The urge to pronounce that someone else is going to hell, that a fellow practitioner has condemned themselves to 10,000 koṭi kalpas in Kumbhīpāka, generally says more about the speaker’s own false ego than about the spiritual condition of the accused. The senior devotees, preachers, sannyāsīs, and especially gurus must approach spreading the word of Caitanya Mahāprabhu with energy, enthusiasm and a desire to help others through correction – not pass sentence as judge, jury and executioner.

**The Kaniṣṭha-adhikārī Mentality**

Underlying much of this criticism is what we might call the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī mentality – the worldview of the neophyte who has not yet matured beyond the boundaries of his own limited capacity. The kaniṣṭha devotee is described as one who worships the Deity in the temple, but does not yet know how to honor the Lord in the hearts of others. He is, by definition, immature – not condemned, but in need of further development. Frankly speaking, most of us are in the category of vaiṣṇava-prāya, trying to be Vaiṣṇavas. When reading about the qualities of real Vaiṣṇavas, it becomes clear how far away we really are from such an ideal.

The kaniṣṭha mentality says: “Kṛṣṇa is here, in our group, with our guru, in our temple. He is not there.” And yet Kṛṣṇa Himself declares in the Bhagavad-gītā that He pervades all of existence – every atom of every living being. Every sincere seeker is animated by Paramātmā within the heart. How can a devotee simultaneously believe in the omnipresence of Kṛṣṇa and insist that He is absent from sincere practitioners in other Vaiṣṇava communities?

The tragedy is not that kaniṣṭhas exist – the tragedy is when the kaniṣṭha mentality hardens into a permanent state. A devotee who has spent years in practice but never grown beyond “we are right and everyone else is wrong” has missed something essential about the magnanimity of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and misunderstood what proper discrimination is for.

This same mentality produces the strange phenomenon of devotees judging fellow practitioners more harshly than they judge non-devotees. A complete stranger who has never even heard of Kṛṣṇa is met with enthusiasm and compassion – “Come, chant, take prasādam!” But a devotee from a different community, or with a different guru, is immediately treated with suspicion and contempt.

Plurality Is Not a Problem to Be Solved

My original article argued that loyalty to the guru and the siddhānta is not the same as loyalty to a particular institutional framework. Some read this as an argument for abandoning structure, anarchy, or some form of spiritual relativism. It was none of those.

All this goes to reinforce the essential nature of the guru-disciple relationship. The guru is diagnosing the individual patient, and according to their necessity, he is giving them the medicine they need. The path of bhakti is highly personal and individualistic, and while there are many aspects that all devotees follow, there are always gradations within that. What is good for me may not be good for someone else. What is good for others may not be beneficial for me.

As the practitioner grows in their own spiritual awakening, they also begin to help others in the same way that their guru helped them. However, it is important to note that following in the footsteps of the guru is not the same as imitating the guru. To follow in the footsteps means to follow the example of the guru according to one’s capacity and adhikāra. Imitation of the guru, on the other hand, means that strong statements made by the guru to correct others may be taken by the immature disciple as a free pass to say whatever they want for ‘preaching.’

If we understand this material world and all of our activities to be a reflection of the spiritual reality, then we can see that plurality is not only a consequence of this material cosmos – it is part of our spiritual identity. Light has no meaning without darkness. Compassion has no meaning without a fit recipient, love without a lover, or service without an object of worship. Kṛṣṇa means infinite spiritual variety; He is an ocean of rasa – so many personalities are taking part according to their nature, and there is competition, disagreement, play, argument and service, all aimed at the origin of everything – the Sweet Absolute Truth, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. This is all free from envy, hatred, and the anarthas of this world.

What the original article argued – and what I wish to reinforce here – is that the Vaiṣṇava world is inherently plural, and that this plurality is not a deviation to be corrected. It is the natural expression of how Kṛṣṇa works in the world.

Where There Is Sincerity, There Is Kṛṣṇa

Kṛṣṇa is not static. He does not wait in one place to be found by only those who have chosen the correct organizational affiliation. He is dynamic, present, and responsive. Where there is sincerity of search, there is Kṛṣṇa. This is not a philosophical novelty. It is the testimony of every ācārya from Brahmā to the present.

The ‘foam at the mouth’ critic, the institutional zealot, the devotee who cannot disagree without descending into personal attacks – these are not enemies. They are, most often, souls who have found something precious in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and are trying, in their own limited way, to protect it. That impulse is understandable, but it is a sign of weakness and immaturity. When you don’t know how to deal with something or someone, the reaction is, “Ban it! Excommunicate them! Throw them out! Attack!”

There is a distinct lack of maturity in the broad Vaiṣṇava world. I am not so bold as to say that I know exactly why this is, but I would guess that the modern Vaiṣṇava world has brought in so many people in the last fifty years that the predominating voice is one of immaturity. In other words, the majority of devotees fall into the category of kaniṣṭha, not necessarily by how long they’ve been around, but by how they behave. My Guru Mahārāja was not an advocate of increasing the numbers of kaniṣṭha devotees in the world, but for “boiling the milk” as Śrīla Prabhupāda himself said. What does that mean? “Boiling the milk” means devotees becoming mature, diving deep into the understanding and feeling of Kṛṣṇa consciousness – it means the process of anartha-nivṛtti is happening. When the kaniṣṭha mentality petrifies into a rock, it is very difficult to break in this lifetime. Let us not allow our hearts to remain hard as stone and our heads even harder.

It gets so bad in the comments section of any slightly controversial social media post by devotees that it practically resembles medieval peasantry coming with pitchforks and torches to burn a heretic. It is shameful and embarrassing to see this type of mentality shown to the broader world – the pinnacle of theistic thought and practice coming from the most magnanimous personality of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu being misrepresented so badly.

I am not advocating for the kicarī principle of unity with everyone together harmonized on a superficial basis, nor am I advocating for division based on false ideas. Maturity means, “What I know is by the grace of my gurus; what is good in my life is the grace of Kṛṣṇa and His devotees; what is bad is my own fault, and I discriminate with sincerity of purpose for my own good and the good of others.”

Disagreement is not aparādha. Robust discussion is not aparādha. Kṛṣṇa is present in the heart and already knows who is sincere and who is not – we just need to understand what is most beneficial for ourselves and act on that.

About the Author: Gaura Gopāla Dāsa

Gaura Gopāla Dāsa Brahmacārī was born in 1987 to Dhīra Lalitā Dāsī and Jagadīśvara Dāsa, both disciples of Śrīla Prabhupāda. He first met his guru, Śrīlā B.G. Narasiṅgha Mahārāja in 1993 and took initiation from him in 1995. He joined his guru’s āśrama full time in 2000, serving in various capacities for over 20 years and recently moved to Vṛndāvana where he is serving at the Rupanuga Bhajan Ashram.