Guest guest Posted January 2, 1999 Report Share Posted January 2, 1999 > > Eeeesh! For every verse that says great things about women, there are > > others that women strongly oppose. Srila Prabhupada definitely > > considered it in a very high regard, and refers to it often. > > No, no, it's not against women. This part was descibing punishments for > sexual abuses and so on. Next verse is: Never said against women, prabhu! Better read my post again. :-) I do not oppose looking to Manu Samhita, but I have talked with many who do. This verse happened to be the first one I came across, but there are many others that are objected to for one reason or another, even the ones that aren't so bad. Like the one about women should not have independence. Many women see that as a reason to keep them down or to abuse them, due to past misdeeds by men, even though that is not the intention of the verse. > So for men there even more heavy punishments. I think the words > "the duty which she owes to her lord" refers to chastity of a wife. Of course it does. :-) I was posting it for the "devoured by dogs" thing, pretty intense. My initial point was that many oppose looking to Manu Samhita, and when we talk about it, sometimes people get agitated because of certain things in it. In addition, as Janesvara prabhu nicely pointed out, maybe when we can follow the beginners guides, like Bhagavad Gita, then we could give more consideration to the more complicated Manu Samhita. What do you think? your servant, Jayasri devi dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 1999 Report Share Posted January 3, 1999 On Sat, 2 Jan 1999, COM: Jayasri (dd) VMS (Crescent City, CA - USA) wrote: > [Text 1983257 from COM] > > > Of course it does. :-) I was posting it for the "devoured by dogs" thing, > pretty intense. My initial point was that many oppose looking to Manu > Samhita, and when we talk about it, sometimes people get agitated because of > certain things in it. In addition, as Janesvara prabhu nicely pointed out, > maybe when we can follow the beginners guides, like Bhagavad Gita, then we > could give more consideration to the more complicated Manu Samhita. What do > you think? > > your servant, > Jayasri devi dasi > As much as I appreciate Janesvara prabhu's contributions, in this instance I have to agree with the devotee who very eloquently pointed out that the Bhagavad-gita (Song of God) which is mostly directly quotes from the lotus mouth of Sri Krsna is higer than Manu Samhita, which does not mention Krsna at all, and only mentions Lord Visnu as one of several demigods. It's not that Manu Samhita is higher than Bhagavad-gita, it's simply that it cannot safely be applied in this age without the guidance of an advanced devotee on the caliber of Srila Prabhupada -- and so far, I haven't seen anyone on his caliber in my lifetime. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 1999 Report Share Posted January 4, 1999 On 03 Jan 1999, Hare Krsna dasi wrote: > As much as I appreciate Janesvara prabhu's contributions, in this instance > I have to agree with the devotee who very eloquently pointed out that the > Bhagavad-gita (Song of God) which is mostly directly quotes from the lotus > mouth of Sri Krsna is higer than Manu Samhita, I do not think what I said previously is contradictory to this. I said, "I did not say one scripture is "higher" than another in the Absolute spiritual sense. Only that we, as neophytes, cannot understand the higher principles and lessons taught in certain scriptures. To me scriptures are like a bag of sugar - no matter where you poke a hole and take a taste it is sweet! But still you are supposed to start at the beginning like starting at Krsna's feet and working your way up. Certainly Krsna's feet are not "lower" or "inferior" to His head, right? Srila Prabhupada was the person who stated that the Srimad-Bhagavatam was the "post-graduate" study of Bhagavad-gita." Also, Srila Prabhupada stated: "One should first, with all conviction, believe in the Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, and without making efforts to realize Him by speculative philosophy, one should prefer to hear about Him from the Bhagavad-gita and later on from the text of Srimad-Bhagavatam..."S.B. 2.9.18. Krsna spoke the Bhagavad-gita for a specific purpose; to start another parampara because it had been broken. He used Arjuna to start the new parampara. The gita is Krsna's Own words, but the Srimad Bhagavatam is the words of His pure devotees which Srila Prabhupada says are even higher and sweeter. Would this not also apply to Manu-samhita which was written by a Mahajana, pure devotee? > which does not mention > Krsna at all, and only mentions Lord Visnu as one of several demigods. Manu-samhita was written by a Mahajana, Svayambhuva Manu. The Mahajanas are the authorities on devotional service. I feel we should hold their works in the highest respect even if we cannot understand them or live them to the fullest capacity. One day perhaps when I take birth again in Satya-yuga I MAY be in a position to finally follow Manu-samhita. Until then I want to follow Srila Prabhupada's prescription for my elementary education: "The Krsna consciousness movement is based on Bhagavad-gita as it is, as spoken by Lord Krsna." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.24.42. > It's not that Manu Samhita is higher than Bhagavad-gita, it's simply that > it cannot safely be applied in this age without the guidance of an > advanced devotee on the caliber of Srila Prabhupada -- and so far, I > haven't seen anyone on his caliber in my lifetime. > > your servant, > > Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.