Why does advancement in knowledge seem to bring reduced accountability?
Philosophy · asked by user [] · 2007-07-05 · 4 answers
One issue which I have trouble understanding is that from the teachings Ive heard, it seems like advancement in knowledge brings reduced accountability for ones actions.
For example, an essay several weeks ago on Dandavats.com emphasized that "demons" get no help from Krishna to become devotees, and that He just punishes them just to make them suffer. (The quotes clearly indicated that punishment of demons is not meant to correct, only to hurt.) Demoniac mentality is characterized by the material mode of ignorance. So essentially the ignorant are severely punished for their actions, actions which seem appropriate to the unfortunate nondevotee. (For example, a mother gives her child a hamburger, thinking it a good thing to do, but later goes to hell for cow killing.)
Those who have some knowledge and thus begin devotional service get a break. A few verses in Bhagavad-gita indicate that beginning devotees may commit some sin but should not be criticized for it. So here the individual has some knowledge, which he or she contradicts by his or her sinful actions, but Krishnas instructions in Bhagavad-gita seem to suggest that there should be no accountability.
Eventually the devotee may gain a relatively high degree of knowledge and thereby reach an relatively important position, such as a guru. Sometimes a guru does something bad, but nobody can dare say anything because the followers will severely condemn the so-called faultfinder.
I personally experienced this, and it was so traumatic that I quit chanting Hare Krishna and associating with devotees for almost 2 years because of it. My crime was that I asked why the guru was glorifying an unrepentant child molester (found guilty by devotee juries for multiple serious crimes), especially considering how hard the community was working to raise money for the big child abuse settlement.
I know that material life and spiritual life are somewhat opposite (hence my blog oppositerule.naturama.us), but I have trouble understanding how this is at all fair. The ignorant act wrongly and get punished with hell. The somewhat knowledgeable misbehave and are forgiven. The guru does some bad thing and anyone who notices is condemned.
My employment involves assigning appropriate punishment for specific cases of breaking environmental regulations, and willfulness is a very important factor. Those who are assumed to not know the law (the ignorant) get the least punishment. Those who really ought to know but still do the wrong thing get double punishment. Those who definitely know the law but still disobey get triple punishment. Why is it the opposite of this in Hare Krishna life? In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna says that the public does what the leaders do. The leaders therefore have much more impact than the individuals in the general public. Therefore it seems sensible that they should be held to a high level of accountability. Instead the opposite is true. Why?
For example, an essay several weeks ago on Dandavats.com emphasized that "demons" get no help from Krishna to become devotees, and that He just punishes them just to make them suffer. (The quotes clearly indicated that punishment of demons is not meant to correct, only to hurt.) Demoniac mentality is characterized by the material mode of ignorance. So essentially the ignorant are severely punished for their actions, actions which seem appropriate to the unfortunate nondevotee. (For example, a mother gives her child a hamburger, thinking it a good thing to do, but later goes to hell for cow killing.)
Those who have some knowledge and thus begin devotional service get a break. A few verses in Bhagavad-gita indicate that beginning devotees may commit some sin but should not be criticized for it. So here the individual has some knowledge, which he or she contradicts by his or her sinful actions, but Krishnas instructions in Bhagavad-gita seem to suggest that there should be no accountability.
Eventually the devotee may gain a relatively high degree of knowledge and thereby reach an relatively important position, such as a guru. Sometimes a guru does something bad, but nobody can dare say anything because the followers will severely condemn the so-called faultfinder.
I personally experienced this, and it was so traumatic that I quit chanting Hare Krishna and associating with devotees for almost 2 years because of it. My crime was that I asked why the guru was glorifying an unrepentant child molester (found guilty by devotee juries for multiple serious crimes), especially considering how hard the community was working to raise money for the big child abuse settlement.
I know that material life and spiritual life are somewhat opposite (hence my blog oppositerule.naturama.us), but I have trouble understanding how this is at all fair. The ignorant act wrongly and get punished with hell. The somewhat knowledgeable misbehave and are forgiven. The guru does some bad thing and anyone who notices is condemned.
My employment involves assigning appropriate punishment for specific cases of breaking environmental regulations, and willfulness is a very important factor. Those who are assumed to not know the law (the ignorant) get the least punishment. Those who really ought to know but still do the wrong thing get double punishment. Those who definitely know the law but still disobey get triple punishment. Why is it the opposite of this in Hare Krishna life? In Bhagavad-gita, Krishna says that the public does what the leaders do. The leaders therefore have much more impact than the individuals in the general public. Therefore it seems sensible that they should be held to a high level of accountability. Instead the opposite is true. Why?
user [12] · 2007-07-06
Well the justice of this world and eternal justice need to by synchronized right? I suppose we need to have faith that the pious devotees will be rewarded and the sinful punished. Everything is in Krishnas hands. As for innocent people who sin, they will suffer but in a different way than someone who willfully or knowingly sins.
user [2] · 2007-07-07
Material world will always be a place of cheaters and cheated, and that affects us too.Not that a cheater is always an easy to detect guy with horns and a cigarette in mouth.
It is difficult to ascertain, advanced devotee is not measured by social status, dress, ashrama or leadership qualities.
Look for the few truly advanced devotees (and usually you do not find them in the "official" ranks).
Next question: How to recognize them? Look for the devotees that plan their lives to please the spiritual master in a practical way, devotees that have a true higuer taste and are plainly happy.
Flee from people that capitalizes on fame name or followers.
Do all this without disrespecting anyone, but be sure not to lose precious time with people that has the same degree or more material illnes as you.
user [19] · 2007-07-19
Download this, it may be of some use to you.Seminar by Hrdayananda Goswami:
Can you trust devotees and can devotees trust you
http://www.krishnamedia.org/podcasts/ATL/2007/February/ATL-070227-HDG-Seminar-Part-1.mp3
http://www.krishnamedia.org/podcasts/ATL/2007/February/ATL-070228-HDG-Seminar-Part-2.mp3
http://www.krishnamedia.org/podcasts/ATL/2007/March/ATL-070301-HDG-Seminar-Part-3.mp3
user [38] · 2007-07-25
> it seems like advancement in knowledge brings reduced accountability for ones actions.Do you mean verses like SB 11.5.41 (devarsi-bhutapta-nrnam-pitrnam)? Yes, but it cant be abused without reactions, it will backfire. Therefore even (and especially) those to whom it applies give a good example. (BG 3.21)
This is called antinomianism, one of the pitfalls on the spiritual path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism
Your example of harder punishments for more knowledgeable persons is taught by dharma sastras. See an overview of Manu:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/manusamhita.htm