By: Babhru Dasa
Sectarianism has always been rampant within the mundane world of duality. In many ways it comes to its climax in the face of social/religious designations. All over the world it can be seen that religious groups fight with each other and claim supremacy over one another. Unfortunately, this has been a cause of great disturbance and even violence in the world today.
Even within certain religious systems of belief, slight differences have arisen over time and as a result, more division and anger towards one another persues. Have such divisions manifested in the worldwide Gaudiya-vaishnava community as well? It seems that way. Have such differences led to much “mudslinging” and in severe cases, physical violence as well? Yes. Is harboring these negative thought patterns towards other vaishnavas healthy for a bhakti-sadhaka? The scriptures and spiritual preceptors say no.
Sri Caitanyadev gave this very bold teaching to Sri Rupa Goswami in the following way,
yadi vaiṣṇava-aparādha uṭhe hātī mātā
upāḍe vā chiṇḍe, tāra śukhi’ yāya pāta
“If the devotee commits an offense at the feet of a Vaiṣṇava while cultivating the creeper of devotional service in the material world, his offense is compared to a mad elephant that uproots the creeper and breaks it. In this way the leaves of the creeper are dried up. The gardener must defend the creeper by fencing it all around so that the powerful elephant of offenses may not enter.” – CC Madhya 19.156-157
So what can be done to protect ourselves from such dualistic and sectarian mentalities that will commonly lead one down the path of faultfinding, not having a favorable attitude towards vaishnavas, and most notably, full blown vaishnava-aparadha? Is it possible to have staunch faith in ones own practice and path while not cultivating malice or disrespect towards another’s? The material energy and false ego do not make it easy, yet certainly it is possible for the sincere spiritual adept.
First off, we must say that in some ways “sectarianism” is not actually bad. For it to turn from a negative thing to a positive thing, it actually just needs a little tweaking in most cases. Maybe some major tweaking in other cases.
Basically, the sectarian mindset is made up of faith (either strong or weak), and some semblance of superiority complex (ego.) But in many ways, both of these things are not bad! For instance, faith is needed in order to do anything in this world. We have faith that food will nourish us, therefore we eat it. Similarly, in the religious setting, we have faith that our spiritual path and teachers are the best and they will lead us to the desired result of prema-bhakti. Therefore we engage in the practices we have faith in under the guidance of people we have faith in. All of this is good! Deep conviction in these things is indeed one of the most powerful impetuses for an individual to perform bhakti-sadhana.
One of the most famous verses in the Srimad Bhagavad-Gita portrays this conclusion:
ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah
“All of them—as they surrender unto Me—I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.” – Bhagavad-Gita 4.11
That being said, these things truly are like a “razors edge.” If one isn’t extremely careful, they may find themselves in a rather messy situation. The first challenge comes when we are trying to interface our faith/path with gaudiya groups outside of our own. For instance, one Guru/Acharya (that’s in good standing) may give their students a set of directives and philosophical conceptions, but it may be either to a small or “large” extant different from instructions or conceptions we learned from our own Guru (who is in good standing.) Therefore, how to reconcile such a thing?
For starters, we have to understand that faith is a dynamic and living thing. You cannot catch faith in a box and label it. No. Its shape and movements change and appear differently for everyone. Faith is like the living force of the devotee. And seeing each individual’s adhikara, faith will bring them and drive them forward in certain directions in their bhakti path. We are all truly disciples of faith.
Another thing to understand is that every individual person is at a different place in their spiritual progression. Therefore different styles of preaching will attract different people. So many varieties of people are there in the world, so surely different styles of teaching will be there also. In this way and through the medium of His bonafide representatives, Sri Bhagavan is “casting different nets” to catch all the jivas in this world with bhakti for Him.
Furthermore, if we are happy in our own practice and others are happy in theirs, where is the problem? If we understand this point, then why is it so difficult to be respectful of others? Generally, it is just due to some blockage in ones ego. To meddle with another’s faith, this is a grave aparadha. Sri Paramatma is instructing each soul within their heart, and guiding them to find shelter under the right devotee for their current existential makeup. We should honor that and not try to convince ourselves that we know best for everyone. We should not try and usurp the indwelling supersoul’s superlative position.
In fact, not meddling with another’s faith is very much one of the core tenets of Chaitanya-vaishnavism. Do we remember the tenth offense against the holy name? “To not instruct a faithless person about the glories of the holy name.” At first it seems like this wouldn’t really fit into the discussion here. Yet, it really does. If somebody’s faith is different than our own, then we could technically say they are “faithless” to what we believe in. And since the holy name is the repository of all the bhakti-tattvas, we could take “the glories of the holy name” as meaning, “the glories of the Holy Name and all of its parts (bhakti-tattvas) and parcels (bhakti-sadhanas).” That being said, if a devotee does seem to appear to be preaching in a sectarian way, we can respect that also! It never hurts to be respectful and honor others moods, even if it vastly differs from our own.
So where is the line drawn in all of this? Basically, if somebody comes to another with humble submission in their heart and wants to earnestly hear their perspective on bhakti, then where is the harm in them speaking their truth ? Of course, the qualified devotee will still speak with much tactic according to the level of faith that the participants in the discussion have in the speaker’s words. This is not a black and white thing and the experienced devotee will always be very keen to this fact. That is the general idea. Similarly, the listener should also be qualified. That will be discussed in the next parapgraphs.
This whole issue of sectarianism becomes even messier when devotees fight over who is properly representing the predecessor acharya. In other words, due to having a fixed notion of what the previous acharya preached and acted like, they will often implant that onto the idea of the current acharya. Therefore when somebody speaks something or acts even the slightest degree “differently” than the previous acharya, it becomes a cause for “world war three.”
Yet objectively and historically speaking it is very common for the predecessor acharya to preach in a different style than their own Guru. The philosophy never changes, but sometimes the practical details have to be adjusted in light of social circumstances. If the acharya does not consider the time, place, and circumstance, and make practical adjustments accordingly, than the acceptance (by the audience) of their philosophical teachings may be hampered. In this regard, we must intelligently understand that some things are core to the gaudiya theistic conception, while other things are more periphery details.
Keeping this in mind, we should understand that as time goes on, we will surely come in contact with a variety of bhakti-sanghas. Each one is tailored for different types of people. And they are all benefitting the people who are involved with them. As mentioned before, Bhagavan is surely guiding those sadhakas in their hearts so they can learn all the lessons they need to in order to advance on the bhakti-marga.
As a concluding note, lets look at some of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura’s words on this subject,
“Lāhirī: Human beings have different natures and faiths according to their different levels of adhikāra. People who are impelled primarily by the mode of ignorance have natural faith in the tāmasika-śāstras. Those affected primarily by the mode of passion have natural faith in the rājasika-śāstras, and those in the mode of goodness naturally have faith in the sāttvika-śāstras. One’s belief in a particular conclusion of the śāstra is naturally in accordance with one’s faith. As one faithfully carries out the duties for which one has the adhikāra, he may come into contact with sādhus and develop a higher adhikāra through their association. As soon as a higher adhikāra is awakened, one’s nature is elevated, and one’s faith in a more elevated śāstra will follow accordingly. The authors of the śāstras were infallible in their wisdom and composed the śāstras in such a way that one will gradually develop higher adhikāra by carrying out the duties for which one is eligible and in which one naturally has faith. It is for this reason that different directives have been given in different śāstras. Faith in the śāstra is the root of all auspiciousness. Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā is the mīmāṁsā-śāstra of all the śāstras. This siddhānta is clearly stated there.
Devīdāsa: I have studied many śāstras since my childhood, but today, by your grace, I have understood their purpose in an entirely new light.
Lāhirī: It is written in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.8.10): aṇubhyaś ca mahadbhyaś ca śāstrebhyaḥ kuśalo naraḥ sarvataḥ sāram ādadyāt puṣpebhya iva ṣaṭpadaḥ An intelligent person will take the essence of all the śāstras, whether they are great or small, just as a bumblebee gathers honey from many different types of flowers. My dear son, I used to call you an atheist. Now I don’t criticize anyone, because faith depends on adhikāra. There is no question of criticism in this regard. Everyone is working according to their own adhikāra, and they will advance gradually when the time is appropriate. You are a scholar of the śāstras dealing with logic and fruitive action, and since your statements are in accordance with your adhikāra, there is no fault in them.” – Chapter 5 Jaiva-Dharma