IS SENSUAL DEVIATION AN OFFENSE TO THE HOLY NAME?
Prabhu: I would like to ask about this point you mentioned, philosophical deviation versus sensual deviation. My understanding is that in philosophical deviation one may reach a conclusion, right or wrong, that this is his conviction and act accordingly, thinking that he is doing the right thing, even though it may be sinful or off-track. Whereas in the sensual deviation one is clear philosophically about what is right and wrong, but sometimes he may, because of weak-heartedness find himself indulging and knowing very well that it is wrong, but not being able to help himself. In other words, this comes under the category of committing sinful activities on the strength of the Holy Name?
HH Bhaktividyā Pūrṇa Mahārāja: You could call it that, but you don’t necessarily. Committing sinful activities on the strength of the Holy Name means 'I am going to commit this sinful activity, but it doesn’t matter because I can chant Hare Kṛṣṇa and make it go away.'
Prabhu: Or the other offense, to maintain material attachments…
HH BVPS Mahārāja: That is there. But the point is, if you are not a paramahaṁsa right now, then you are committing that offense. If you are on the platform of bhāva, then you are not committing that offense.
MORE KNOWLEDGE MAKES DEVIATION WORSE
Prabhu: How is that sensual deviation less than philosophical deviation?
HH BVPS Mahārāja: Because you are carried away. What is more? The kid is hungry and goes into the kitchen and steals a cookie. The adult is working in a business, he knows what is going to happen, he manipulates the stock market and makes big profit. No one puts the kid in jail, the adult goes in jail. It is the element of knowledge that makes it worse. Both are stealing, one is stealing bigger one is… Now, if that adult went into the store and stole the cookie, then you might say something, and he will get into trouble.
Almviks Gård, Sweden, circa 2003. Author unknown. If you know, please let us know!
So it is the element of being under the influence of knowledge, but the other one is not under the influence of knowledge.They know it is wrong, but they are under the influence of the emotions and senses. The other one is under the influence of knowledge and he is thinking that my philosophy is correct. Because the point is, the senses are getting carried away - that is pretty standard. We sit down to take prasāda, and do we just eat that much we need? Or do we take those few extra-servings more? So those kind-of things go on. But it is still workable because you accept the senses and the sense objects. Those interactions have value, but the real point is that it has only value in connection with Kṛṣṇa. So that can be more easily converted.
But a person who has a philosophical deviation, that won’t bring him near to Kṛṣṇa at all. Even if he is controlled in his senses, he is very moral and outstanding and charitable, whatever it may be, the nice quality you are looking for, it won’t bring him any near Kṛṣṇa because it has nothing to do. Therefore like the sahajiyās, they are performing all the devotional activities, but because they don’t actually know how to properly connect them to Kṛṣṇa, therefore that is more dangerous. Or the smārtas, that is more dangerous. Or the Māyāvādīs, that is more dangerous. Because the point is, the living entity getting out of the material world.
EXAMPLES OF SENSUAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL DEVIATIONS IN THE BHĀGAVATAM
These other things - that happens. That is why the Bhāgavatam gives examples of that happening. You see examples in Bhāgavatam (because that is meant for Paramhaṁsas) of sensual deviation and then what happens from that. But philosophical deviation, like Durvāsā thinking that the yogī is higher than the devotee, he is chased around the universe by Sudarśana. Only when he understands that the devotees are the highest, then he is relieved from that and then he goes off with that commitment. He goes to Brahmaloka, to all these yogīs there and is explaining about Ambarīṣa Mahārāja’s glories. Those things will take people more away from Kṛṣṇa, that is your apasampradāyas and all that. So in the other class that will be discussed, all the kinds of deviations that can be there, and in the 6 systems [of philosophy], so more philosophical, more religious, all these different things.
The thing is, why this would naturally come in the mind is, because by nature people are religious, they have to have religion. So religion means there is going to be some regulated form of the lifestyle or ritual, social interaction, and from that we get our artha and kāma. Since that is important to us, anything going wrong there means everything else will be disturbed. But liberation is generally not so much of a common value. The element of the jñāna is generally not so much the common element.
SENSUAL IS EASY TO IDENTIFY
The other thing would be, to catch sensual deviation - that is pretty obvious. Because the situations and all that, so it is fairly easy to identify. Philosophical deviation you actually have to know the philosophy to actually identify it. So the emphasis in the society would be on the philosophy and the culture, rather than simply on the basic ritualistic forms. That would mean education, that would mean brahminical culture would have to be the prominent element. But if that is not then it will drop down.
KṢATRIYAS WILL PUNISH BREACHES OF DHARMA APPROPRIATELY
Then, if it is the kṣatriya element then it has to be religion, dharma, and people have to do their proper duties. They are not going to tolerate also sensual deviation, simply because it is irreligious. But it is for a higher principle that everybody must be engaged in the religious process. And then the sensual element will be dealt with actually according to how bad it is because there is a hierarchy of sensual deviation. According to śāstra, since śāstra is the point: śāstra gives religion, śāstra must be followed, therefore, in following śāstra, what is the appropriate correction for a particular kind of sensual deviation will be applied and that’s all.
VAIŚYAS OVEREMPHASIZE MORALITY
When you drop it down into prāṇa-maya, into the vaiśya environment, then because economics only happens if there is justice and ethics, then any break in ethics makes them insecure in the realm of economics. And therefore it becomes a very major thing. Because now morality is dealing with their occupation. Morality is not the occupation of brāhmanas and kṣatriyas, it is part of their occupation. But for vaiśyas it is a very major element of their occupation. Because if people aren’t moral, then how do I keep my money? I can’t show my money to people because then they will steal it. When there is lack of morality then all the justice breaks down. Because someone who wants more sense gratification, they do immoral things, and that means I lose. So for the vaiśya it becomes much more of a prominent element. That culture will over-emphasize the platform of morality and make it into the all in all.
But actually it is devotion that is the all in all. And morality is an important part of it because if one is distracted by immoral behavior, the tendency is not be aware of spiritual behavior. That is its main weakness, that it is so attractive that it takes one away from spiritual consciousness. And the immoral element generally is not very engagable in Kṛṣṇa’s service. But it can be, like the gopīs, it is the parakīya-rasa, it is technically immoral, but it is very nicely engaged in Kṛṣṇa’s service. It is not that it can’t be engaged. It is just generally for us who value sense gratification over everything else it becomes too much of a distraction. And so, we don’t take up the dharma and mokṣa aspects, we just take up the artha and kāma aspects. Or, we take up religion only because it gives artha, so in that case the morality also becomes more prominent because we see that the break in… The lack of morality will be break in dharma. But it is actually the break in relationship, that is the problem in dharma. There is a lack of discrimination there because of the mode of ignorance that is applied in the business culture then they become overwhelmed by this.
PEOPLE MISTAKE MORALITY FOR BHAKTI
That’s why in the Vedas there is such a strong judicial system it is because the common person can’t accommodate the necessary proper placement of moral turpitude. They can’t make a distinction. Therefore it is dealt with generally quite strongly. Not that it is necessarily that way, but the person who is absorbed in it and the other persons who are observing it, to them it means something. It is just like the man is forced into doing things he doesn’t want to do because of attachment to his family. And if he doesn’t do them something will happen to his family. But if you have a man and you say, 'Well, if you don’t do this we are going to shoot this person.' 'I don’t know who that person is, go ahead!' You are not going to get that person to do anything that way. Because morality is very important to the broad range of conditioned souls that that is the most important… They actually think that morality is religion, or is bhakti. They can’t distinguish. It is an important element of human society. But it is one of four. And of the four two are higher than it and only one is lower. But they can’t distinguish this. So they think it is the same. Morality is spiritual, morality is religious. No, morality is part of spiritual and religion. It is not itself religious. Because we see that for all non-Vedic religions it is actually not religion. It is sub-religion.
RELIGION AND SUB-RELIGION
Bhaviṣya Purāṇa mentions that Jesus, he will practice religion but he will preach sub-religion. He is not preaching one’s relationship with God and how to deal with that, that will be brought in a little bit. But he is preaching 'be good, be nice, turn the other cheek,' and all these things. Because the people are so engrossed in sense gratification, to bring them to the platform of prāṇa-maya, that is a big step up. But for someone who is acting on the platform of religion, to over-emphasize morality is a step down because it has to be balanced. Like in the meal, the whole meal actually has meaning if you get the proper balance. If I cook this much rice and this much dal, then we got a problem. Or the other way round. That’s why it has to be balanced. Then, morality is very important, but it has its place. And the general tendency is that most will overplace it because that is the view of the common person. But the devotional society is based on the brahminical culture, which is the Vedic paradigm. So it has to be brought more in line with the understanding of the devotional and the element of liberation and all that.
THE REAL PROBLEM IS MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELATIONSHIPS
Because the point is, it is not as much as the activity as the misunderstanding of relationships. Because the activity, if one is sensually deviated, the problem is let's say... The sensual deviation is, instead of eating prasāda he is eating some karmī food. So the problem is not actually that the senses are engaged with the sense objects. The problem is that it is the wrong sense object. That is the difficulty, that the principle may not be the problem, it is the application of the principle. The young boys and young girls are getting a little too close. But that kind of interaction isn’t the problem. The problem is that they don’t have the relationship that they should be in that position. But that closeness, that kind of interaction is not the problem. It is, they are not qualified for that, it is not appropriate for them, it is not their dharma, it is not their austerity.
ONLY BRĀHMANAS AND KṢATRIYAS SHOULD DEAL WITH JUSTICE
So that kind of dissection of the thing, that’s why only the brāhmanas and the kṣatriyas deal with justice. The vaiśyas and śūdras don’t deal with justice. If they do then they have to deal on their level, which is basically more economic or more sensual. In the village you have your group, your Panchayat, and they come to some understanding. But there will be some basic rules they will be following. But very serious justice, that only can be dealt with by brahmanas and ksatriyas.
Because the problem is, if you can’t analyze it to this degree then there is every chance that you will imbalance it. And just getting it done and establishing justice isn’t enough, it is how it is established. If you don’t do it right then you actually break something and then that reaction has got to go somewhere. And that will go to the person who applies the justice. So if the king improperly applies justice, that injustice, that improper application goes to him. And it affects him and his family and his kingdom. That is why the pragmatic element is not enough. One has to do real pragmatism, is one has to put it very much in the context and analyze exactly what is going on and then see what is actually the problem. Someone is sick, he has a fever, he has a cold, he has this and that. That is not the real problem, that is the symptoms. The problem is that he has got a certain bug that has come by a certain exposure or eating, so you get to remove that. That is Āyurveda, Āyurveda means [treating] what is actually wrong. There is something wrong in the diet, that causes all the… You change the diet and all the symptoms go away. That is the actual dealing with that. How to remove that problem and connect that situation to Kṛṣṇa. That’s why if it is done right it is there.
Photo author and place unknown. If you know, please let us know!
SINCERE SEARCH FOR TRUTH VERSUS FALSE EGO
But philosophical deviation, that is really hard to deal with. Because Prabhupāda mentions, previously if someone would actually be in search of the truth, if they had a wrong philosophical understanding if they were presented with the correct, they would accept it. But nowadays much of the time it is ego and all this, it is their identity, 'it is my philosophy.' And so if you defeat their philosophy you actually defeat their identity. While a real searcher, he is looking for his identity and he has found it through this. But if you can show him that there is something else then he will move up. Like you see in Madhva, Rāmānuja, so many examples, or Lord Caitanya. He preaches to Prakāśānanda Sarasvatī or Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya. As soon as He gives the clear understanding, they immediately accept because they are actually intelligent. But some people, you can say all you like, but they will never accept because of their ego. That’s why it is actually worse.
It is not a commonly understood thing because basically it is a brāhminical understanding. Kṣatriyas, if explained to properly can understand it. Though their tendency is also going to be, because they are looking at it from religion and dharma, that it is wrong. They are not looking at it from morality, they are looking at it from dharma, so it will look the same as the common person, but they do have the intelligence to dissect it. A common person, śūdras generally can’t discriminate. Vaiśyas could, but whether they will, whether it is good for them economically or this or that, the tendency is they don’t want it to get out of hand, so you squash it and then its business is good, remains good.
THE REAL REASON WHY SOMETHING IS WRONG (AND THE SOLUTION)
If you say this to them, they say 'No, no, it is wrong.' But why is it wrong? Explain why it is wrong! 'Oh, it is not good.' Why is it not good? 'It is sinful.' Why is it sinful? They can’t explain any of this. That is the whole point. Why is it wrong? What is actually wrong if the person had this kind of sensual deviation? They can’t, all they can do is they can explain it according to upadharma: Be good, be nice – that’s all. Why? Because that is their background. Because to be able to say exactly what is wrong with it, then that is something else. Then you have to get down to exactly what is wrong, that they can’t do. It is just be good, be nice. Why should you be good, be nice? Who said be good and be nice? That is where then the real problem comes: that is where the atheism comes in. Or at best they take it back to their own religion, their pre-devotional religion. That has got some religious sentiment. But it can be that it is just their own conviction. You have to be nice and if you behave like this and not nice therefore it is not good. But that is not good enough in the devotional community. It has to be it is not good because Kṛṣṇa doesn’t like it, because of this reason. It says here in śāstra, it is not done because of these reasons, because it doesn’t please Kṛṣṇa, that is the reason it is bad.
But if you don’t get that answer it is a non-devotional answer. It is atheism. It has nothing to do with us. And for most it is not even religious. Because then they should be able to explain from Manu what is wrong, that they can’t do either. So they have to take it back to their Judaic-Christian background and from that they are going. And even that they can’t explain, very few because they don’t know the history, so they can’t explain, for example, 'Ezekiel 53.22 then says this...' They can’t do that, therefore it doesn’t work. So it is just sentiment that they are saying this. And this is a seemingly more uplifting and more righteous sentiment than the other person’s sentiment which is more of a deviation. But technically, since they can’t explain it, so, therefore they won’t be able to connect it to Kṛṣṇa. Therefore their application of it, their justice on that will be wrong. Even if it is right it will be wrong. It won’t solve the problem. It will still go on in the community, it will still go on in the individuals because they can’t solve it because they actually don’t know what it is. That is the difficulty. That is why then certain things have to be compared back to the śāstric element of it.
(From Śrī Īśopaniṣad Lecture #28, Bhaktivedānta Academy, Śrīdhāma Māyāpura)