SB 7.15.38-39

gṛhasthasya kriyā-tyāgo
vrata-tyāgo vaṭorapi
tapasvino grāma-sevā
bhikṣor indriya-lolatā
āśramāpasadā hy ete
khalv āśrama-viḍambanāḥ
deva-māyā-vimūḍhāṁs tān
upekṣetānukampayā

TRANSLATION
It is abominable for a person living in the gṛhastha-āśrama to give up the regulative principles, for a brahmacārī not to follow the brahmacārī vows while living under the care of the guru, for a vānaprastha to live in the village and engage in so-called social activities, or for a sannyāsī to be addicted to sense gratification. One who acts in this way is to be considered the lowest renegade. Such a pretender is bewildered by the external energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and one should either reject him from any position, or taking compassion upon him, teach him, if possible, to resume his original position.

PURPORT
We have repeatedly stressed that human culture does not begin unless one takes to the principles of varṇāśrama-dharma. Although gṛhastha life is a concession for the enjoyment of sex, one cannot enjoy sex without following the rules and regulations of householder life. Furthermore, as already instructed, a brahmacārī must live under the care of the guru: brahmacārī guru-kule vasan dānto guror hitam [SB 7.12.1]. If a brahmacārī does not live under the care of the guru, if a vānaprastha engages in ordinary activities, or if a sannyāsī is greedy and eats meat, eggs and all kinds of nonsense for the satisfaction of his tongue, he is a cheater and should immediately be rejected as unimportant. Such persons should be shown compassion, and if one has sufficient strength one should teach them to stop them from following the wrong path in life. Otherwise one should reject them and pay them no attention.

------------------------------

My thoughts:

Here we are given the option to either reject the fallen sannyasi or, if we have sufficient strength, compassionately teach him to resume his original position. There isn't a singular directive for how to react to such an abomination - the principle is given and the onus is then upon us to apply discretion in its application.

I do think that this decision could be influenced by the cultural environment of the persons involved. We are sometimes taught that a wife should not reject her husband even if he is fallen. Yet in the west, dismantling families is a lot more convenient than in eastern cultures. Some leaders in ISKCON have even taken it upon themselves to separate husband and father from wife and kids when he didn't tow the party line (Sulocana). Some westerners take these relationships as practically disposable, whereas in India this isn't so common. Hopefully it stays that way.

Similarly, some view their connection to guru in a similar context as the marriage commitment. Once formally initiated in front of the fire, that's it for life through all the ups and downs. The idea of rejecting may be very difficult for someone with this cultural outlook.

Does sastra accommodate that view? In this verse it does seem to.

-------------------------------

Another example where we are given options is when we hear someone blaspheme the Lord or someone pure like Srila Prabhupada.

We can then:

- cut out their tongue
- convince them to retract their offensive remark by sound reasoning
- leave the place

Again, we are required to use discretion.

-------------------------------

In the situation where the guru is speaking nonsense philosophy it doesn't seem like we are given an option though.

Nārada-pancarātra, as cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, 1.62, states:

yo vyakti nyāya rahitam
anyāyena śṛṇoti yaḥ
tāv ubhau narakaṁ ghoraṁ
vrajataḥ kālam akṣayam

“‘Any person posing as an ācārya, but speaking unauthorized philosophy contrary to the teachings of the śāstra and any one who claims to be his disciple and hears such, thereby lending credibility to such nonsense, both of these are bound for Hell.’

---------------------------

So I'm interested to learn what our panel of sages thinks about these above pramanas. What do you think about how I understand them?