Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

Krishna.” He was transcendentally situated. Yet, externally as a
sannyasi, He very strictly followed the religious duties of the
sannyasa order so as not to effect a decline of social standards.
Harmonious social interdependence and cooperation within any
Vedic cultural institution can come into view only when the
different classes of individuals involved sensibly honor the
specialties and diverse social parameters of each and every
aspect of the daivi-varnashrama system.

Amalgamation of administrative and brahminical functions
is quite objectionable. Even if provisory modifications in the
social complex are justified by force of emergency
circumstances, they would hardly be deemed ideal. Division of
labor is actually required – and for a very good reason. It is not
that individuals functioning in the arms capacity, though they
may be Vaishnavas, should doggedly insist on also acting as the
head, as if there’s no need to acknowledge the presence of
distinguished brahminically qualified Vaishnavas. Nor should
they act as though there is no need for a social head. Nor should
they imagine that a governing body of flapping arm-like
managerially engaged individuals constitutes the highest religio-
institutional headship. If for no other reason than to set a proper
example to benefit others, Vaishnavas playing the part of
administrators (ksatriyas), though perhaps internally very
elevated, should nevertheless attune to their social role in toto
by externally paying due deference to the counsel of devotees
acting in the brahminical capacity. There is ample precedence
for this in the examples of great Vaishnava kings such as
Maharaja Janaka, Maharaja Ambarisa, Maharaja Yudhisthira,
and others. Celebrated saintly ksatriyas appearing in the solar
dynasty extending from Manu to Maharaja Iksvaku and others,
though highly competent to act as gurus in parampara, having
received through disciplic succession the highest conclusions of
the Gita, nonetheless paid humble homage to the brahmanas.
Even the Supreme Guru, Lord Krishna, and Lord Ramacandra,
playing the part of ksatriyas, in the course of Their lilas
deferentially honored and sought the good counsel of qualified
brahmanas to demonstrate the principle by Their own example.
Again, eligible individuals who intend to act in the brahminical


or head-like capacity should voluntarily relinquish arm-like
administrative designations and engagements to accept higher
social responsibilities and, within the context of the institutional
setting, independently situate themselves in such a way that
they can practically function as a clear-thinking head without
being swayed by the temptation to pursue diplomatic affairs
and the like. They should focus on purely brahminical activities
and as far as possible keep themselves aloof from managerial
entanglements and various political exploits so that they may
have the clear-sightedness and purity of heart needed for truth
to spotlessly manifest in their intelligence. Pathana pathana
yajana yajana dana pratigraha – these are the brahminical
engagements, and it is by observable degrees of proficiency in
the execution of these brahminical duties combined with
qualities such as those mentioned in the Gita (shamo damas
tapah shaucam . . .) that the measure of an individual’s
brahminical aptitude is to be appreciated. Brahminically
inclined devotees should be allowed to free themselves from
those activities which tend to deter them from their resolute
absorption in pure brahminical culture. By culture of
appropriate activities consistent with brahminical standards,
they may easily augment their personal purity, achieve
respectability as trustworthy representatives of pure spiritual
values, and gain the recognition and confidence of the
subordinate sections of society. With due respect to all the
prabhus, the current breakdown of love and trust in the society
of devotees is basically attributable to the recurring, unbridled,
Machiavellian dastardly hypocritical deeds of the (what is now
ceremoniously palmed off as) religio-institutional leadership.
The simple truth is that unless an independent, self-reliant
brahminical entity is established beyond the control of the
institutional governing body, there really is no viable, socially
operative, shastrically warranted religio-institutional headship or
armship.

A brahmana’s principal quality of truthfulness may easily
become compromised if he allows himself to come under the
control of the administrative class. His cooperation with an
institution’s administration does not at all require his


subjugation by executive authority, provided he adheres to the
brahminical codes of conduct. Mutual cooperation, as an
expression of love for the institutional founder-acarya, obliges
the executors to execute the will of the brahmanas under the
edicts and precepts of the acarya – not that frank and honest
brahmanas are minimized, affronted, and dominated by the
marshal-spirited managers who in turn flatteringly court the
easily corruptible, money-mad, business-brained, vaishya-like
neophytes and so forth. It is not that a contingency of
opportunistic so-called brahmanas shall be kept under the
thumb of the executors, like pets for interpretively screwing out
“shastric evidence” to momentously suit and justify purposely
perpetrated apasiddhantic, communally imbalanced “party-line”
miscomputations. Just as an acarya’s book trust, though
fashioned to fulfill certain institutional objectives, may be
constituted as an independent managerial authority beyond the
jurisdiction of the institution’s governing body – just as other
trusts such as M.V.T. may be similarly constituted in
collaboration with their mother institution – so in the same way,
a brahminical advisory entity to which a governing body must
be held accountable may also be established above and beyond
the jurisdiction of the institution’s governing body. If the head-
like brahminical council is subordinated by the arm-like
governing body, there is every likelihood that the former may
be headlocked or bullied by the latter into resignedly espousing
the administration’s often-half-baked discombobulated party-
line policies instead of being allowed to stand up independently
for truth, to which the administration must sensibly submit. In
accordance with the principles of varnashrama-dharma, the
governing body (an administrative entity) must be answerable
to the consensus of a brahminical council. The legs are intended
to carry the body under the direction of the head. The belly is to
nourish the entire body to help fulfill the purpose of the body’s
very existence, which is to be ascertained by the head. The
arms are to protect the body’s existence under the guidance of
the head. It is the head, not the arms, belly, or legs, that decides
the purpose and right direction of the socio-institutional body at
large. It is not that the governing-body bureaucrats should


misconstrue the term “ultimate managing authority” to mean
“ultimate authority,” erroneously posing themselves as the
ultimate indubitable institutional overlords. It is not that
devotees acting in an administrative or ruling capacity don’t
need to seek the approbation and blessings of those devotees
who are by and large brahminically occupied. Second-class
intelligent managers are not the ultimate authority in Vedic
society. First-class intellectual brahmana Vaishnavas are the
ultimate guiding authority as per the daivi-varnashrama
blueprint.

Just as an acarya during his physical presence checks the
behavior of his zonal secretaries, so too in the acarya’s absence,
an independently powerful purely brahminical intelligentsia
must be recognized and solidly established to advise, correct, or
even, when required, disband or dethrone the executive
oligarchy when the latter strays from the unequivocal directives
of guru, sadhu, and shastra. Our founder-acarya, seeing the
topsy-turvy Kali-yuga condition of the world, repeatedly
expressed the need to train up qualified brahmanas to assume
the role of social head in order to rectify the ills of a present-day
misdirected state of human affairs. To this end, it may be
assumed that he tried his level best. To advocate that the
establishment of an institution’s brahminical head is in any way
unfeasible is to suggest that either there really is no need for a
body to have a head after all, or that perhaps certain individuals
are attached to a scheme of unbridled institutional dominance,
erroneously thinking that Vaishnavas, who are above
varnashrama, need not conform to varnashrama protocol while
managerially “doing the needful,” or else that the acarya’s
attempt to create a class of spiritually intelligent brahmanas to
guide society was unsuccessful. However, considering his
probable success, they who would be capable of offering
guidance to the whole of greater humanity would certainly be
qualified to positively advise the administrative-class executors
of his relatively tiny institution. One might incisively question
the likelihood of reestablishing a head on a macrocosmic human
society if we ourselves could not even practicably implement
the principle on a microcosmic scale. If a religio-institutional


exemplar of daivi-varnashrama society could not be practically
established, then from what living example of the thing would
humanity at large have to draw? Moreover, if we were to
surmise that the acarya was unable to train up qualified
brahmanas, how could we ever think him successful in the
matter of creating self-effulgent paramahamsa Vaishnavas fit to
model as successor sampradayic Acaryas, transcendental to the
sattvic brahminical qualifications in every respect? It should not
be concluded, however, that “because I’m not very much
spiritually advanced or qualified, none other could possibly be
more advanced or qualified than me” – atmavan manyate jagat.

From the onset of Kali-yuga, brahmanas as a class lost
their headship credibility in the eyes of the subordinate social
divisions as a result of a general increase of religious hypocrisy
and crass, self-centered petty materialism abounding
particularly among those who laid claim to hereditary
brahmanism. Yet simply by sidelining the brahmanas with a
view to arbitrarily administer political affairs, the ksatriyas, who
were no less affected by Kali’s influences, could not sustain the
trust of the similarly dishonest and increasingly selfish Kali-yuga
vaishyas, who in turn sought by various capitalistic maneuvers
to overthrow the self-indulgent hegemonic so-called ksatriya
overlords. And, of course, as history would have it, the shudras
and sundry other humanoid social degenerates, unable to
tolerate the exploitative monkey business of the merchants and
money changers, revolted against their exploiters to uppishly
establish their own brand of hedonistic honesty among thieves.
That’s just the way the Kali-yuga cookie crumbled. However,
despite all that, it was not at all the acarya’s intention that the
Kali-yuga derangement of the varnashrama system should
persist – at least not in the context of a controlled socio-
religious institutional environment. If we are to accept that all
the acarya’s disciplic descendants are Vaishnavas simply by
dint of nama and mantra initiation, and that being a Vaishnava
transcendental to varnashrama considerations renders the call
to externally honor traditional daivi-varnashrama social protocol
null and void even while one advantageously occupies various
socio-religious incumbencies, then why waste our invaluable


time discussing and discussing the acarya’s presumably
insightful instructions concerning the apparently practical
institutional and trans-institutional inculcation of daivi-
varnashrama behavioral standards? Why pay lip-service to the
organization of society in terms of the varnashrama scheme of
societal divisions unless we are willing to exercise the humility,
discrimination, and appropriate determination needed to honor
and follow the attendant inter-class etiquette?

At the end of the day, unless one’s adherence to daivi-
varnashrama-dharma in some way promotes a fondness for
hearing, chanting, and remembering Radha-Krishna’s madhurya-
lila-guna-rupa-nama, unless it enables one to become cognizant
of one’s eternal constitutional relationship with the Lord of
Vraja, moreover, unless all such external psycho-physical bodily
regulation actually helps to bring one to the point of love of
Godhead on the fully self-realized platform, then shrama eva hi
kevalam – the whole affair is simply so much useless endeavor,
leading only to the formation of another material body. Let
everyone immediately get off the material platform and focus
exclusively on the internal culture of unalloyed devotion,
bearing very little if any concern for the rules and regulations of
varnashrama-dharma. Eta saba chadi’ ara varnashrama-dharma
akincana hana laya Krishnaika-sharana. “Without hesitation, one
should take exclusive shelter of Lord Krishna with full
confidence, giving up bad association and even neglecting the
regulative principles of the four varnas and four ashramas. That
is to say, one should abandon all material attachment.” (Cc.
Madhya 22.93) Sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam
vraja – the most basic ABCD’s of spiritual life. Reestablishment
of varnashrama principles in society, though organizationally
useful and important on one level as far as institutional progress
or Vedic social intercourse goes, is quite secondary and even
superfluous to the culture of unalloyed devotion. It is neither the
primary concern of the Acaryas nor the goal of the Gaudiya-
sampradaya’s teachings. The Acaryas’ primary objective is to
propagate love of Godhead, vraja-prema, via the process of
nama-sankirtana, and their secondary objective is to reestablish
varnashrama-dharma. Even if it is circumstantially found that an


institution’s bureaucracy deviates in various ways from the
pursuit of these primary and secondary sampradayic or
institutional objectives, even if Kali’s clerically cloaked secret
agents infiltrate various echelons of the institutional
establishment to subvert, hijack, or derail the Krishna
consciousness movement, that will not dissuade the faithful
sara-grahi Vaishnavas, however obscure or unassuming they
may be, from pursuing and, whenever required, overtly or even
covertly preaching the principles of raga-marganugamana-
prema-dharma. Perhaps only a very few who will be associated
with them will fortunately catch the real idea and become
adequately qualified to carry forth the progressive current of
the sampradaya’s rasa-imbued heritage.

Many will be pleased to prostitute the pure devotional
principles for affectedly dignified, institutionally
conventionalized substandard objectives which accommodate
conditional devotional, mixed devotional, quasi-devotional, or
non-devotional attachments. Some would be happy just to get
the hell out of this hellhole and go to Vaikuntha. Others would
be gratified to go to heaven. Some are more than happy to
hoard their collected guru-daksina in their secret Swiss bank
accounts. Others, keen on contractual so-called devotional
engagements, are rapaciously bent on bringing home their
monthly wage packets (Ooops! I mean their grihastha
“maintenance allowances”). Anyway, however we euphemize
the thing, they get their padded positions – their hearth and
home, their conveyances, and their promised pensions upon
retirement. The institution becomes practically like any other
materialistic corporate establishment. It may be pragmatically
convenient to contractually bind people in order to ensure an
externally impressive illusion of managerial success, but in
terms of generating an atmosphere of pure, unconditional
devotion, it does no more than increase our indigestion.
Nevertheless, it’s easier to pay people to do the jobs than to
engage them in acts of pure devotion. So it looks like the jobs
are getting done. The floors are getting swept; the Deities’ bhoga
offerings are getting cooked; the puja is being covered; the
funds are being raised. There is even a semblance of


institutional management. However, no one gets the benefit of
entering an atmosphere that is surcharged with unconditional
devotion, simply because the pure devotional energy is most
conspicuously lacking. Performing services with a view to
gaining material amenities hardly even constitutes karma-yoga,
what to speak of bhakti. Some individuals, making excuses for
themselves, are simply satisfied with short-term genital
infatuations on the plea of “Krishna conscious” home life. Still
others boldly campaign for the institutional ratification of
“Krishna conscious” homosexuality, and so on and so forth.

When an individual or the consensus or joint action of a
body of individuals accords with the principles of sampradaya
as per the decisions of guru, sadhus, and shastras, then only will
the words and deeds of such individuals elicit our
commendation and compliance. Conversely, it would be most
indecorous of an individual or body of individuals deviating in
various ways from standard sampradayic conclusions,
regardless of ecclesiastico-administrative bearing, to expect or
demand anyone’s unreserved avowed allegiance. Our fealty
shall be to the service of truth, not to the service of rationalized
philosophical misconstruction.

Everything is undoubtedly orchestrated by the Supreme
Controller to mete out the various circumstantial requirements
of every devotional candidate. It is not by chance or for no good
reason that one soul gets genuine sadhu-sanga and another has
to hear from an avowed institutional charlatan. We all have to
go through our various positive and negative learning
experiences. No one can avoid cooperating, in some way or
another, with the Lord’s greater cosmic arrangement. However,
it should be noted that one result is attained by directly
supporting the Lord’s unimpeded munificence and another by
indirectly serving as His cheating agent. It is not that, because
we have “joined” a maha-bhagavata’s promising spiritual
institution (society), we cannot become cheaters, we cannot
dull-headedly or mischievously mislead or under-edify people.
“Jaya Gurudeva! Jaya Gurudeva!” But are we actually guiding
them properly? Or are we cheating them by not allowing them
to see what the sampradaya actually intends to teach. Years and


years are wasted in misconception, both for the cheaters and
for the cheated. And then, maybe, if one is fortunate (bhagyavan
jiva), one miraculously stumbles upon someone who can
actually elucidate the essential import of the shastras and
mercifully offer proper internal devotional direction from the
realized platform. Regardless of the extent to which the prakrita-
bhaktas and other show-bottle miserly institutional ignoramuses
pride themselves to be satisfied that whatever they’re doing on
the basis of ulterior personal motives is in some way gratifying
to the ego, mind, senses, or whatever, the true fact is that they
will, in due course, eventually, in some lifetime or another,
dejectedly recognize that their soul has not been satisfied. They
have not become prasannatma. Watered-down philosophy
means watered-down result. Watered-down result means they
are cheated and cannot become fully joyful. Becoming
sufficiently frustrated, they may then, sooner or later,
fortunately come to the position of crying out to Krishna and
honestly begging for the real thing in all humility.

Wherever we will find a realized exemplar of the full array
of unalloyed devotional wisdom, there we will behold a perfectly
holistic representative of Lord Caitanya’s sankirtana movement.
It may be argued that “Well, we, on various levels, are all
representing the movement in the making.” “Movement in the
making” means to progressively move the bungling bhaktas
from the position of unaccomplishment to the position of
accomplishment, from imperfection to perfection, from impurity
to purity. The idea is that the movement is like a hospital
gradually moving everyone toward the healthy pure devotional
ideal – not that one should idealistically expect everyone in the
hospital to be perfectly healthy and pure. That’s all right. We
shouldn’t unjustly cast aspersions upon the sincere patients
(sadhakas), though they, with all their frailties, have yet to be
fully disinfected. The point, though, is that the doctor should be
healthy and pure. The movement’s Acaryas (leaders) coming in
the acarya-parampara should be pure and self-realized. It is not
that there shall be no subsequent generations of Acaryas. All the
disciples are instructed to come up to the decontaminated,
liberated standard of acarya. The offenseless shuddha-nama-