जयाद्वैत स्वामी (Jayadvaita Swami), “आकस्मिक पतन एक बात है, लेकिन. . .” (An accidental falldown is one thing, but. . .) — 8 जुलाई 2006 की ब्लॉग पोस्ट: नित्यानन्द राम (Nityananda Rama) का एक पत्र और उस पर उनका उत्तर; साथ में पाठकों की टिप्पणियाँ और 13 जुलाई 2006 (“Abuses and aparadhas”), 16 और 20 जुलाई 2006 के उनके उत्तर

Copy of http://www.jswami.info/how_much_sin_to_excuse as it stood on 2007-10-23. Saved for the record; page furniture
 (menus, ads, comment forms) removed.


Home » Philosophy and spirituality » Can One Who Has Sinned Be a Saint?


An accidental falldown is one thing, but. . .
Submitted by jswami on July 8, 2006 - 1:42pm.

Must there not be some limit on how much we can forgive and excuse?

(A letter and reply)



Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

Re: Can one who has sinned be a saint?

Throughout our books and their purports the word “accidentally” is often used to describe the event for the
“falldown” or “sin” of the devotee.

But what is written in purports about “intentionally” or the event where one says “I’m going to get out of this
chair and go over there and ..”? And they get out of that chair intentionally over and over again to do their
deeds. There must be some measured limit on the quality and quantity of sin for this “accidentally.”

I have forgiven my friends in the movement who “accidentally” have fallen down…

But I’m confused, as I am sure many others are, about the open door that is extended to “devotees” whose
repeated evil acts were not one of sleeping with the whores, but of murder, racketeering, rape, and the
intentional destruction of children’s minds and character.

These types of premeditated evil acts are very difficult for someone like me, who being in “the illusion”
himself, has an impossible time seeing these acts as being committed by a devotee “temporarily overwhelmed
by illusion.”

There must be some measured limit on the quality and quantity of sin for this “accidentally.”

Please illuminate me if you have time to respond. Thank you.

Regards,
Nityananda Rama


REPLY



Dear Nityananda Rama,

Thank you for your very pertinent question.

First of all, just to dispose of another issue before we get to the core philosophical question at hand:

We would benefit by reminding ourselves that the accounts we hear of evil deeds a devotee has performed are
often seriously unreliable or verifiably exaggerated or false.

Leaving deliberate lying and truth-stretching aside, the work of Elizabeth Loftus and other researchers
investigating how memory works has shown that memory can be notoriously bad. Even when people
sincerely intend to tell the truth their memory can be influenced by all sorts of variables—their complex inner
feelings, the way questions are worded, the expectations of authorities and peers—and this can put their
testimony at odds with objectively verifiable facts.

Sometimes we hear a deeply affecting story, unaware that others present at the time of the event have given a
very different picture, or that important features of the story—features likely to give us a very different
impression—have been left out.

Of course, what we hear may often be accurate and true. But lots of what we hear simply isn’t.

Now, on to your question.

Throughout our books and their purports the word “accidentally” is often used to describe the event for the
“falldown” or “sin” of the devotee.

But what is written in purports about “intentionally” or the event where one says “I´m going to get out of this
chair and go over there and ..”? And they get out of that chair intentionally over and over again to do their
deeds. There must be some measured limit on the quality and quantity of sin for this “accidentally”…

I’m confused, as I am sure many others are, about the open door that is extended to “devotees” whose
repeated evil acts were not one of sleeping with the whores, but of murder, racketeering, rape, and the
intentional destruction of children’s minds and character.

These types of premeditated evil acts are very difficult for someone like me, who being in “the illusion”
himself, has an impossible time seeing these acts as being committed by a devotee “temporarily overwhelmed
by illusion.”

There must be some measured limit on the quality and quantity of sin for this “accidentally.”

First, let’s look at “accidentally” and “intentionally.”

Sometimes we may commit a sin with no intention of doing so and without even knowing it. For example, we
might offer polluted food to a saint, not knowing that the food had been polluted. Or while serving as a
policeman we might accidentally shoot the wrong man. This is what we might call “purely accidental.”

Then again, there are sins we commit in the course of our profession. Srila Prabhupada gives the examples of
the brahmana who performs animal sacrifices, the merchant who lies, and the sudra who serves the orders of
a bad master.

Sometimes we do what we think is right—we are acting intentionally—but it later turns out wrong. In many
districts of West Bengal, international welfare workers dug wells that have now turned out to be the cause of a
huge epidemic of arsenic-induced disease. The work was intended, the harm was not. And yet the work has
caused terrible suffering for thousands of people.

Then there are sins we commit not because we don’t know what we’re doing but because, even though we
know, we lose control of ourselves. We know that drinking liquor is sinful, but someone invites us to have a
drink, and because of a past habit we go for it. Or we know that illicit sex is sinful, but still, dragged by lust,
we go visit a prostitute.

As mentioned by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita (3.36), anicchann api varsneya balad iva niyojitah: Even without
wishing to do so, one may commit a sin, as if forced. And Krsna tells Arjuna that this is due to the power of
lust.

Would you call this kind of sin “accidental” or “intentional”? From one point of view, it’s accidental. One
doesn’t *want* to sin, but somehow one feels overwhelmed. On the other hand, the sin is performed
knowingly, and with some features of intentionality also. One picks up the glass with the intention of drinking
it. One visits the prostitute with the intention of having sex with her.

And, by the power of lust, one may do this again and again, all the while knowing it’s wrong and all the while
wishing one were strong enough to overcome one’s sinful desires.

So sin is messy business. We know there is a difference between sins committed “accidentally” and those
committed “intentionally.” And we’d like to divide sin easily into neat categories of “intentional” and
“accidental.” But it may not divide so easily.

Nonetheless: Whatever sins one may have committed—accidentally or intentionally—can be nullified by
pure devotional service, and especially by the chanting of the holy name. Our scriptures declare this again
and again.

namno hi yavati saktih
papa-nirharane hareh
tavat kartum na saknoti
patakam pataki narah

“Simply by chanting one holy name of Hari, a sinful man can counteract the reactions to more sins than he is
able to commit.” (Brhad-visnu Purana)

As stated here, there is no limit to the sins that can be eradicated by the power of the holy name of the Lord.

Similarly, Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita (4.36):

api ced asi papebhyah
sarvebhyah papa-krt-tamah
sarvam jnana-plavenaiva
vrjinam santarisyasi

“Even if you are considered the most sinful of all sinners, when you are situated in the boat of transcendental
knowledge you will be able to cross over the ocean of miseries.”

Who can be delivered? Not just the somewhat sinful, or the occasionally sinful, or even the very sinful, but
“the most sinful of all sinners.”

      Valmiki, a murderer, became a pure devotee of the Lord.

      Mrgari, who had enjoyed half-killing animals and watching them writhe in pain, became a pure devotee
      of the Lord.
      The Caitanya-bhagavata says of Jagai and Madhai, “There is not a sin that they had not committed.
      Although born in brahmana families, they consumed liquor and beef, robbed, stole and burnt other
      person´s houses.” Yet they became pure devotees of the Lord.
      King Rahugana offended Jada Bharata, but later became a pure devotee of the Lord.
      Dhruva Maharaja, although already a pure devotee, needlessly slaughtered thousands of innocent
      Yaksas. Yet when he stopped he was forgiven, and he was still accepted as a pure devotee of the Lord.
      Although Akrura and Krtavarma were pure devotees, they became implicated in the plot to kill Satrajit.
      And still they are accepted as pure devotees of the Lord.

As Krsna says in Bhagavad-gita (9.30):

api cet su-duracaro
bhajate mam ananya-bhak
sadhur eva sa mantavyah
samyag vyavasito hi sah

“Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be
considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.”

ksipram bhavati dharmatma
sasvac-chantim nigacchati

kaunteya pratijanihi
na me bhaktah pranasyati

“He quickly becomes righteous and attains lasting peace. O son of Kunti, declare it boldly that My devotee
never perishes.”

But one point Srila Prabhupada stresses again and again: To commit sins with the notion that one can nullify
their reactions by chanting the holy name is the worst of offenses. The sinful person who thinks he can get
away with sinful life by chanting the holy name is entirely different from the person who commits sins,
regrets them, and finally becomes saintly in his behavior.

Even if a devotee has acted abominably, if he remains fixed in devotional service and does not try to use the
holy name of the Lord as an instrument for justifying his sins, he has to be regarded as a saintly person.

The scriptures say so.

    Jayadvaita Swami

»

      jswami's blog
      Printer-friendly version
      Login or register to post comments

Nityananda Rama replied:
Submitted by jswami on July 10, 2006 - 10:53pm.

Your answer is perfect in every way. Thank you so much. It’s so timely that I think you may publish this with
or without my name if you wish.

I’ve printed this off and will carry it around in my daily planner for a long time so I can read it again and
again.

Regards,
Nityananda Rama

»

      Login or register to post comments

Sin or aparadha?

Submitted by Pandu das on July 10, 2006 - 5:12pm.

Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for your clear analysis of this aspect of sinful behavior and the return to grace. However, I’m not
sure it is applicable to the problem that Nityananda Rama Prabhu is trying to understand.

Is it not true that the brutal abuse of the children of Vaishnavas in Srila Prabhupada’s gurukulas should be
classified as Vaishnava aparadha and guru aparadha rather than as mundane sinful activities?

It seems to me that those who were involved in the child abuse in the gurukulas committed aparadha against
the Vaishnava children, their parents, Srila Prabhupada, and ISKCON as a whole. If that is the case, then, as I

understand it, the perpetrators need to obtain forgiveness, and if unable to get it, need to fully surrender to the
Holy Name to obtain His mercy.

If I am incorrect in this assessment, can you please explain my error?

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

Sincerely,
Pandu das

»

      Login or register to post comments

Abuses and aparadhas
Submitted by jswami on July 13, 2006 - 11:36am.

Dear Pandu,

I agree with you that brutal abuse of Vaishnava children constitutes a Vaishnava aparadha.

We have the example of Suruci, the wife of King Uttanapada. She offended her stepson Dhruva Maharaja and
later had to suffer for it, not because Dhruva was a Vaishnava but because he later became a Vaishnava.
Aparadhas have their consequences.

I also agree with you about what an offender ought to do: obtain forgiveness and, if unable to get it, fully
surrender to the holy name.

Now, do you think it would be worthwhile to examine what we mean by “brutal child abuse”? These days the
term “child abuse” seems to cover a broad territory, encompassing everything from punishing a kid with a
smack to forcing children into repeated acts of sodomy.

Some distinctions might be worth observing.

Clearly, adults who try to satisfy their lust by sexually using children are at the most abominable depths of
degradation and offense.

What about adults who impose heavy discipline?

These days, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that one should never, ever strike a child. Yet that wisdom (if
that’s what it is) has prevailed (if in fact it has) only perhaps in the last decade or so.

If one visits historical sites re-creating colonial American villages (as I did when a child), one can still see in
the schoolrooms such pedagogical tools of discipline as the cat-o’-nine-tails, a small whip with nine leather
cords with knots on the end. If a child got too unruly, we are told, the teacher might well give him the cat.

These days, of course, we can hardly understand how a teacher could have been so cruel. Yet the children of
early America survived it. And whether their psyches and their later character turned out worse than those of
modern children raised with liberal permissiveness could perhaps, if we stop to think about it, be an open
question.

Let’s move on to the 1950’s, when I was a child. My father, I believe (comparing him with the fathers of my
cousins and friends), was an exceedingly mild disciplinarian. Exacting punishment was not, I think, a task he
looked forward to. Yet every now and then when I’d been terribly bad, creating havoc and defying all my
mother’s attempts to deal with me, her final recourse would be to say “Just wait till your father comes home.”
And that could mean, finally, that I’d find myself in my room on the bed with my pants down and my father
taking off his leather belt and giving my butt a few stinging whacks. (And my family, I should add, was on
the somewhat upper side of middle class.)

Was my dad a child abuser? If I’m now a Vaishnava, is he destined to suffer horrible reactions for his
“Vaishnava aparadhas”?

Moving from history to scripture, do our scriptures forbid that children be physically punished? Apparently
not. If our scriptures have any rules forbidding parents or teachers from getting tough with their kids, I’m not
aware of them.

Do I want to bring back the cat-o’-nine-tails? Of course not. But nor am I ready to insist on punishing
devotees for acting in the context of the times in which they acted, rather than the norms of twenty or thirty
years later.

I don’t want to trivialize what some of our children went through. The trauma of sexual abuse must be
unimaginable. And, sexual abuse aside, one could easily sympathize with the plight of a little kid sent out to a
boarding school in the middle of Uttar Pradesh (or Texas or West Bengal), with a makeshift curriculum, bad
or inept teachers, a mean principal, no parents, and a feeling of being trapped, with no one to turn to.

(I’m told the schools and their staff had their bright side too. But one dares speak of this only at the risk of
being labeled an apologist for “child abusers,” “perpetrators,” and “predators.”)

I think it’s useful to make a distinction between people who turned children into objects for their own warped
passions and people who tried to serve their spiritual master and the society of devotees by taking on a
difficult task they weren’t trained for and who, in the course of their service, made what they themselves later
admitted to be serious mistakes.

Let us regret our errors of the past and do our best to correct and make amends for them. And if we truly
believe we must avoid Vaishnava aparadhas, let us do our best to keep from adding new ones to those
already committed.

Sincerely,
Jayadvaita Swami

»

      Login or register to post comments

Satisfying everyone
Submitted by Pandu das on July 15, 2006 - 12:21am.

Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

Hare Krishna. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’m glad to see that I’m not totally off base with this.

I personally have never had any contact with the gurukulas, so all I know about them is what I’ve read. I first
came to a Hare Krishna temple in 1996 after I bought Bhagavad-gita As It Is (1983 edition, by the way) in a
used bookstore the year before. So my situation is somewhat different than many devotees. I’m trying to learn
about what happened in order to understand ISKCON’s history and discover how I can best serve Srila
Prabhupada’s mission.

I’m a father to four daughters; the oldest is 9 years old. I cannot guess what I would have done if I came to
ISKCON 20 or 30 years earlier, but my wife and I are happy to homeschool them now. I remember at one of
my first Sunday programs, at the Toronto Hare Krishna temple, you gave class and announced that no one
should become a father, a guru, et cetera, unless he can make sure his dependents shall not take birth again. I
had heard that before, but I’ll always remember when you said it because I felt it was somewhat of a
challenge to me. So I’m doing my best, and I pray that Krishna will make up the difference.

They’re good girls, but sometimes their behavior calls for extra discipline or punishment. I don’t mind it
because we know that whatever I do, I’m doing it to help them. I think that’s a key point. On rare occasions I

feel it’s necessary to give a spank, but I’ve never given more than one or two at a time, and never with any
chance of hurting them. Because they’re good kids, knowing I’m displeased is enough to impact them. After
the spank I give them a little time alone and then go talk with them until they understand what’s expected of
them and why.

I believe this works because my wife and I make sure they always know we love them. It makes all the
difference. Because they always know they’re loved, we’re able to really teach them to the limit of what
we’ve learned. It’s not just might makes right. It’s that love conquers all.

I’ve also worked in daycare (ages 5 to 14) and taught nature at day camps, so I know that not all kids are well
behaved; and sometimes being surrounded by a bunch of kids all the time can be quite disorienting. Still, that
doesn’t lessen the responsibility of the teachers, and I can’t remember ever wanting to hit someone’s child.
Especially when the teacher is representing Srila Prabhupada, and when the children are like Srila
Prabhupada’s grandchildren, I think we ought to expect a very high standard of conduct by the teachers. It’s
very important because not only are the children themselves the future, their care has many indirect impacts.
It’s hard to preach to people who’ve heard about what happened in ISKCON gurukulas. It’s disturbed my
own faith and my ability to participate in ISKCON at times.

Regarding what constitutes abuse, there is definitely some grey area, and I would have to draw the line based
on the motivation of the authority. Normally a responsible adult would act to control children for their own
good, and that should prevent any real violence. Sometimes adults lose their own self-control when dealing
with children and act to satisfy their own senses. That is when abuse happens. It’s simply the fluctuating
dominance of the modes of material nature acting the way they normally do, but when children are involved
the effect is magnified.

So now the question is what to do. A lot of devotees are calling for punishment of the teachers, and so now
the test is on us. We have to act in the mode of goodness, balancing the needs of everyone involved to make a
positive result. My karmi job is to determine appropriate punishment for polluters, giving the punishment,
and tracking the rectification. It’s somewhat different from this issue, but one thing I know is that it can be
tough to know just what degree of punishment is right. In my job the victims often aren’t aware of the
problem, but in ISKCON it seems like almost the whole society feels acutely victimized. This makes it all the
more difficult. We expect our leaders to somehow balance punishment, mercy, justice, and rectification. It’s
not easy, but our Vaishanva leaders have to do it.

The only way I can imagine a real solution is to find the root of the problem and correct that. Of course, it is
that we are not Krishna conscious, or at least not enough. (Or maybe it’s just me.) Ultimately that is what we
need of our leaders, to help each and every one of us to become Krishna conscious. I think Narada Muni gave
a good example in dealing with Nalakuvera and Manigriva. It’s the only way everyone can be satisfied, if
Krishna is satisfied. That was the task of the gurukula teachers, and it is the perennial responsibility of
ISKCON’s leaders. Just as Krishna’s punishment is transcendentally auspicious, His representatives’
punishment must bring us all closer to Krishna consciousness. We are all being punished by material nature,
as much as we have forgotten Krishna. Lets find a way to work together to fix that problem once and for all.
Hare Krishna.

Sincerely,
Pandu das

»

      Login or register to post comments

Thank you, Pandu
Submitted by jswami on July 20, 2006 - 10:50pm.

Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced reply.

Hare Krishna.

»

      Login or register to post comments

I Beg Your Pardon....
Submitted by chaitanyamangala on July 13, 2006 - 8:05pm.

Dear Jayadvaita Swami,

Hare Krishna.

You have been posting on your website a series titled, “Can One Who Has Sinned Be a Saint?” In this series
you highlight verses and purports that focus on how people who perform sinful acts can redeem themselves
by chanting the Holy Names. The premise is that sincere prayer to the Lord will burn up all negative
reactions. These quotes accurately convey what to do if one becomes polluted by sinful activities and wants
to become freed from them.

There is ample philosophical support that if in the course of doing their duties Vaishnavas transgress material
laws the mercy of the Lord may mitigate their reactions. Some scriptural references imply that under certain
circumstances devotees may not be subject to the same laws as nondevotees. However, scriptures also state
that devotees would not break these laws anyways because they understand the negative implications of
doing so. We have seen many examples in the history of ISKCON where devotees have not been exempt
from the reaction of breaking material laws.

I would like to broaden the discussion and consider how to remedy a situation when a Vaishnava commits
vaishnava-aparadha. I think this is closer to the heart of what devotees are asking to be addressed. For
example, Nityananda Rama’s question to you asks what the limitations are for forgiveness and at what point it
ceases to exonerate and becomes more a pretext used to rationalize the responsibility one devotee has to
another.

There is a difference between what one could do in the event of an accidental fall down and what one should
do in the case of vaishnava-aparadha. The practice of “chant away sins” and “not subject to the law” are
clearly not sufficient in this case. For instance, consider the stories of Jaya, Vijaya, and the four Kumaras;
Jagai, Madhai, and Lord Nityananda; as well as Durvasa Muni and Ambarish Maharaja. In all of these
situations the Supreme Lord says amnesty is not His to give. That has to come from the offended devotee.
While the offenders may still be considered Vaishnavas, they will not have properly atoned or be able to fully
revitalize their Krishna consciousness until they have pleased - and are forgiven by - the offended Vaishnava.

Who says so? Scriptures say so.

For example, in the purport of SB 4.26.24:

“The conclusion is that if Krsna consciousness is covered by material sins, one can eliminate the sins simply
by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra, but if one pollutes his Krsna consciousness by offending a brahmana or
Vaishnava, one cannot revive it until one properly atones for the sin by pleasing the offended Vaishnava or
brahmana.”

The concluding sentence for this purport is crystal clear:

“A vaishnava-aparadha cannot be atoned by any means other than by begging the pardon of the offended
Vaishnava.”

Seeking the essence,

Chaitanya Mangala dasa

»

      Login or register to post comments

Dear Chaitanya Mangala,
Submitted by jswami on July 16, 2006 - 11:10am.

Dear Chaitanya Mangala,

Thank you for your valuable, carefully considered letter. It seems you and Pandu Dasa have been thinking
along the same lines. I suppose, in fact, you must have written your letter before his came online.

I think my reply to his letter also responds to the main points you’ve raised in yours. On the essential teaching
you’ve highlighted, we all agree. So I don’t have much more to say.

I would, however, like to add one point. If a true Vaishnava offends another, by the grace of Krishna that
offender will soon realize his mistake, sincerely regret it, and beg forgiveness from the Vaishnava he has
offended. And the offended Vaishnava, by the grace of Krishna, will sincerely forgive the offender.

Having carried many grudges in my heart at various times in my life, I can testify that carrying such
resentments, however justifiable, is burdensome and painful. They anchor us to the pains of the past. And
when at last we are able to let go of those resentments and forgive whoever has offended us, the heart feels
lightened and cleansed, and now we are able to move forward

The offender purifies his heart by repentance, the offended by forgiveness.

Thank you again. Hare Krishna.

Jayadvaita Swami

»

      Login or register to post comments