Human Society & Vaiṣṇava Dharma (Third Essay)

Overview

by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura

(translated by Swami B.V. Giri)

Read the First Part: 🔗 Human Relations and Vaiṣṇava Dharma

So far, we have published two articles on this subject. We have many points to present, which we shall explain gradually. Recently, some Saṁyogī Vaiṣṇavas (Vaiṣṇavas born from mixed castes) disagreed with our system and protested against it. Therefore, it is necessary to say a word or two regarding that matter.

We are not opposed to the practices of the Saṁyogī Vaiṣṇavas – our only concern is in relation to their deviations from dharma. In the First Canto of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata it is stated that for the supreme goal one should worship Bhagavān, but for other material results there are methods of worshiping other Devatās. Those who act in this way are saniṣṭha – followers of varṇāśrama, and are dependent on many Devatās and on karma. If, while remaining situated in household life, one can abandon other Devatās and become exclusively dependent upon Acyuta alone, then one receives the appellation of pariniṣṭhita. Their characteristics have been described there in the Bhāgavata itself, as follows:

akāmaḥ sarva-kāmo vā mokṣa-kāma udāra-dhiḥ tīvreṇa bhakti-yogena yajeta puruṣaṁ param

A person who has no desires, who has all desires, or who desires liberation, if he possesses broad intelligence, should intensely worship the Supreme Person through bhakti-yoga. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.3.10)

Indeed, householders in this world are sarva-kāma (possessed of all kinds of desires). Even though one is sarva-kāma, if, abandoning the worship of the many Devatās that fall within karma-kāṇḍa for the fulfilment of those respective desires, one only worships the Supreme Person, then one attains superiority over the saniṣṭha devotees – of this there is no doubt. However, for that class, a certain strict regulation is observed. Tīvreṇa bhakti-yogena (‘by intense bhakti-yoga*’*) – those who understand this phrase realise that without intense bhakti-yoga, eligibility for acyuta-gotra (the family of Lord Acyuta) is not possible. Human society remains free from fault if it abides with firm adherence to the varṇāśrama system sanctioned by the beginningless Vedas. However, if there is a lack of intense bhakti in attaining the acyuta-gotra, then both positions (both following varṇāśrama and not following varṇāśrama) are lost (cyuta). Intense bhakti alone is the very life of the acyuta-gotra. Our point is this – by the term gṛhastha-vaiṣṇava, both the Vaiṣṇava following varṇāśrama and the Saṁyogī Vaiṣṇava are included. However, the difficulty for the Saṁyogī is this – a Saṁyogī in whom intense bhakti is not seen is fallen from both lineages. There is absolutely no fault in abandoning varṇāśrama for the sake of kṛṣṇa-bhakti. But what can be said of someone who abandons varṇāśrama yet loses kṛṣṇa-bhakti? He will certainly be at fault for abandoning varṇāśrama and will suffer undesirable results. He cannot be respected as a Vaiṣṇava.

In regards to society, there are three kinds of Vaiṣṇavas – the saniṣṭḥa, meaning who follows varṇāśrama, yet is a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, the pariniṣṭhita, meaning those persons who have renounced karma-kāṇḍa, and have specifically taken shelter of Lord Acyuta. Both are householders. There is also the nirapekṣa, meaning one who has intrinsically abandoned material activities. Persons who are nirapekṣa are non-householders – they are Vaiṣṇavas possessing increasingly superior characteristics. However, kṛṣṇa-bhakti is the life of all three. Progressive advancement in kṛṣṇa-bhakti is necessary. In any place where the kṛṣṇa-bhakti of the pariniṣṭhita or nirapekṣa Vaiṣṇavas is weak, their fall-down should be acknowledged accordingly.

Acceptance of varṇāśrama, renunciation of varṇāśrama, or adopting the dress of a bābājī (bhek) etc. is not what constitutes Vaiṣṇavism. Exclusive kṛṣṇa-bhakti is the sole characteristic of Vaiṣṇavism. When one presents oneself as a Vaiṣṇava, attention must be paid to the degree of kṛṣṇa-bhakti that is present.

Another subtle point is this – both the saniṣṭha and the pariniṣṭhita are householders, therefore, they have no adhikāra (qualification) to adopt the kaupīna. That which is done without having proper adhikāra is not a virtue but a fault. For saniṣṭha Vaiṣṇavas, even the acceptance of kṛṣṇa-mantra itself is a sign of Vaiṣṇavism. The identity of a pariniṣṭhita is established through the acceptance of a different name within the varṇāśrama system at the time of pañca-saṁskāra. They cannot accept the kaupīna. For a nirapekṣa, the acceptance of the kaupīna itself is an external sign of Vaiṣṇavism. This alone is established by all the śāstra. It is considered an offence for a pariniṣṭhita to accept the kaupīna. One who has accepted the kaupīna can never again engage in association with a woman – there is abundant proof of this. Therefore, the rectification of deviations in dharma that are observed among the Saṁyogī Vaiṣṇavas is absolutely necessary. This much we have explained in brief today.

For the pariniṣṭhita, the accumulation of wealth is necessary for the maintenance of their families. In regard to that accumulation of wealth, there are also many considerations. At this point, if the characteristics of varṇāśrama as described in the Seventh Canto are not accepted, then their attempts to maintain household life through begging becomes objectionable. By this, they will become fallen, because no one has the eligibility to receive alms except the nirapekṣa. Thus, according to the nature of the pariniṣṭhita, each person should be assigned a particular varṇa and, based on that, conduct their life accordingly.

All these matters will be discussed in detail, step by step.

(‘‘Human Society and Vaiṣṇava Dharma – Third Essay’ was first published in Sajjana Toṣaṇī, Vol. 2 Issue 9, published in 1885 and translated into English by Swami B.V. Giri)