HARE KRISHNA HARE KRISHNA KRISHNA KRISHNA HARE HARE HARE RAMA HARE RAMA RAMA RAMA HARE HARE 11 страница
Why say that the institution is the body of the acarya? Given that the acarya is the representative of Lord Caitanya, we should be able to reasonably conclude that the institution is, in fact, the body of Lord Caitanya. Yet, it is seen that, in the course of His manifested earthly pastimes, Mahaprabhu uncompromisingly dismissed His own devotees who deviated from standard devotional proprieties. Similarly Advaita acarya openly rejected a few of His own sons due to their preaching erroneous conclusions. A son is considered an expansion of his father’s own body. They were His sons; still, He unhesitatingly disowned them. In the same way, if on account of sadly sensing a spiritual impotence, a disciplic incompetence amongst its membership, Mahaprabhu would deem an institution established by any eminent representative of His acarya- parampara effectually useless in the matter of practically advancing His intended missionary objectives, He may see fit to 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.
Дата добавления: 2019-11-25; просмотров: 137; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!