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.”
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