With themes such as have been brought up in the last two blogs, the age-old issue of aparadha again raises its hoods. Let me clarify my position on this. First, I would like to acknowledge that I have read all the scriptural references on Vaisnava-aparadha as well as most, and have given due thought to them. When I write as I write, I write with knowledge of the said principles, making the choices that I believe are proper, truthful and righteous. I realize that not everyone may agree with my judgment calls.

You'll note that I have refrained from naming people. The one person I have named, a former teacher of mine, Sanatana Das Babaji, has nothing to do with the gross misdeeds mentioned in the previous blog. He is as dismayed and disillusioned as anyone, and therefore also generally avoids associating with the broader samaja. And should it not be clear from the earlier blog, even if I did try to indicate it, there is a class of good, law-abiding renunciates who are engaged in their bhajana. But alas, a minority they are.

There are times where none of the available options are particularly good. The knowledge I have gained over my time here is a cause for one such dilemma. If I am to present the unvarnished truth, as I have now been doing, I inevitably incur the displeasure of some sections of the society — evidently the section where the shoe fits — and there may be some aparadha there. On the other hand, if I remain silent, how many are the seekers who will have to be dismayed and disillusioned, and what will their destinies be? With my silence, I would incur the fault of being a co-effector of their grief, and I would consider that much graver an aparadha. Whether taking place now or in the future, a wrong is a wrong and will bear its results. Refraining from a small wrong (if that is indeed what it is) now while being instrumental in a greater future wrong betrays no sense of discrimination at all.

Weighing the two evils, the negative and positive effects of both courses of action and the potentials they have for causing grief for one or the other party, I cannot but deem that those guilty of the misdeeds are the more deserving recipients of possible repercussions. I cannot fathom the workings of the cosmic machinery of retributive justice since time beginningless, and to that I am certain many would refer in proposing that all is just in the end, no matter how bad it may seem. I do however have an ability to observe right and wrong, guilt and innocence, in the boundaries of this lifetime. On what other a standard could I base my ethics? Let those who demonstrate sincerity with their acts be the ones with the advantage.

There is yet one premise I wish to make clear. I do not believe in the law of the jungle, in a law where power and position define rights and justice, making for a world where the victors are right. Much like in the famous Indian traffic law where the bigger vehicle has the right of way, and the smaller becomes an offender for not moving out of the way. Might makes right. If there is a universal system of justice where people are not equal before the law, but where the "big" can revel as they please and where the "small" are convicted for objecting to the the same, then that system is fundamentally flawed.

In the context given, if the big Vaisnava of many years or of social power can be guilty of abuses of many degrees and enjoy near-perfect diplomatic immunity in the eyes of God, and if the small and insignificant Vaisnava is at fault and shall fall into his peril for daring to propose the presence of abuse, that system I consider fundamentally flawed. Come God, come two Gods, come a legion of Gods and endorse the same, in the world where I live the concept is fundamentally flawed. If by breaking against such a farce of a justice system I am to become an offender and to fall away from this God and his system, then I shall only consider it a fortunate happening.

On this basis, I have chosen to write as I am writing, and I sincerely believe it to be in the best interest of people seeking to perfect their lives via a spiritual quest. I believe in every man's right for a possibility of making well-informed choices. It should not be denied from anyone, and if one man is to become a casualty in the cause of truth, that price I consider small. Who sees my heart will know how to judge me for my acts and words, and no further solace do I need.