For your contemplation...

[Guest guest]

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Reference: Text COM:2428024 by Pancaratna (das) ACBSP (Mayapur - IN)

Manu's relevance to ISKCON

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

> Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

>

> > The problem here is quite simply ignorance of "dharma shastras"; i.e.

> > Manu Samhita (Manu Smriti), etc.

> >

> > Which indeed were accepted by Srila Prabhupada & our acharyas as

> > authoritative Vedic literatures...

> >

> > And I'm sure that there are a million "logical" arguments for not

> > accepting the injunctions given therein...

> >

> > By many of us!

>

> Srila Prabhupada warned us about the Manu SAmhita:

>

> "I discussed the contents of your letter with His Divine Grace Srila

> Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada stated that our grhastas should simply chant

> fifty rounds before conceiving a child. Prabhupada said, 'We do not want

> all these rituals. Chanting Hare Krsna is our only business. According to

> the Manu-samhita you are all mlecchas and yauvanas. You cannot touch the

> Manu-samhita, what to speak of translating it. So if you try to follow

> the Manu-samhita then you will become a mleccha and yauvana and your

> career will be finished.'"

>

> -- Letter of May 19, 1977 to Madhusudhana dasa (written by

> Prabhupada's secretary on his behalf)

 

I've seen this letter quoted in defense of another "-ism". So far, this is

the only quotation I have seen with regard to Manu-samhita where Srila

Prabhupada has said such a thing.

 

A couple more points about this reference: 1) it never made it into Srila

Prabhupada's published works, letters, etc. (it is in one of those little

Prabhupada Nectar books by Satsvarupa Maharaj); 2) elsewhere (and more

frequently than you will find quotes similar to the one above, if indeed

there are others) Prabhupada speaks of Manu-samhita as an authority for us

to follow:

 

> The smrti, the scriptures following the principles of Vedic knowledge, are

> considered the evidence of Vedic principles. There are twenty different

> types of scripture for following religious principles, and among them the

> scriptures of Manu and Yajnavalkya are considered to be all-pervading

> authorities. In the Yajnavalkya-smrti it is said:

>

> sruti-smrti-sadacarah

> svasya ca priyam atmanah

> samyak sankalpajah kamo

> dharma-mulam idam smrtam

>

> One should learn human behavior from sruti, the Vedas, and from smrti, the

> scriptures following the Vedic principles. Srila Rupa Gosvami in his

> Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu says:

>

> sruti-smrti-puranadi-

> pancaratra-vidhim vina

> aikantiki harer bhaktir

> utpatayaiva kalpate

> [brs. sruti-smrti-puranadi-

> pancaratra-vidhim vina

> aikantiki harer bhaktir

> utpatayaiva kalpate

>

> "Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic

> literatures like the Upanisads, Puranas and Narada-pancaratra is simply an

> unnecessary disturbance in society." Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu

> 1.2.1011.2.101]

>

> The purport is that to become a devotee one must follow the principles

> laid down in sruti and smrti. One must follow the codes of the puranas and

> the pancaratriki-vidhi. One cannot be a pure devotee without following the

> sruti and smrti, and the sruti and smrti without devotional service cannot

> lead one to the perfection of life.

(SB 7.11.7 purport)

 

Does the May 19th letter as quoted above still exist? If so, is it signed

by Srila Prabhupada? Are there any other letters written by Srila

Prabhupada that give similar instructions? If (1) there are no other

letters or instructions similar to the May 19th letter, and (2) the above

letter is not signed by Srila Prabhupada, and (3) because quotations to the

contrary exist, then it could be that this letter is not genuine, or that

what the secretary said was not actually what Srila Prabhupada had said (or

intended).

 

> My understanding is that Manu-Samhita standards must be applied very

> carefully, if at all, amongst people of Kali-yuga. In fact, I believe that

> as we implement daiva-varnashrama within the sankirtan movement that a new

> dharma-sastra could emerge from the work of qualified Vaishnava brahmanas.

 

Granted, everything must be applied carefully (razor's edge program), but I

would have reservations about creating a new "dharma-shastra". For example,

the various bhasyas on Vedanta-sutra, Bhagavatam, etc., by various Vaisnava

acharyas are authoritative, but they aren't shastra.

 

Also, if we carefully examine scriptures like Manu-samhita, we find that

there is detailed information with regards to how to organize a society.

Marriage, for example, being one such social aspect. For example, with

regard to marriage, Srila Prabhupada has often condemned divorce:

 

> Prabhupada: No. There is no question of. We do not know what is divorce.

> In our country there is no divorce, at least in Hindu law. Yes. Wife and

> husband, once combined, that is for life. There is no question of

> separation, in all circumstances. Either in distress or in happiness,

> there is no question of separation. Now our modern politicians, they have

> introduced this divorce law. Otherwise, according to Hindu, Manu-samhita,

> there is no divorce law.

(Arrival address, London, September 11, 1969)

 

But we also see that there is, in fact, separation of husband and wife under

certain conditions, on the authority of scripture. Prabhupada certainly

wasn't advocating "until death do us part".

 

There is legal separation prescribed within the Vedas. Divorce is also a

separation of husband and wife, but because divorce is based on whims and

not according to religious principles, it is therefore condemned. Hence

Srila Prabhupada condemned divorce (but not religious

separation)--Prabhupada's meaning of divorce, therefore, is "illicit

separation."

 

What is religious (permissible separation) and what is impermissible

separation is described in detail in Manu Samhita. Here are some quotes

from Manu Samhita, from an article titled "Manu Samhita and Other

Dharma-Shastras on Remarriage", by Jayatirtha Caran Prabhu (JPS):

 

> Though a man may have accepted a damsel in due form, he may abandon her if

> she be blemished, diseased, or deflowered, and if she have been given with

> fraud. [Manu 9;72]

> If anybody gives away a maiden possessing blemishes without declaring

> them, the bridegroom may annul that contract with the evil-minded giver.

> [Manu 9;73.]

>

> The bound of marriage can be dissolved if subsequent to the marriage

> either party is found to be blemished. The blemishes are; In both parties;

> 1. Affliction with a chronic or disgusting disease 2. deformity 3. madness

> 4. inability to have sexual relations and in a girl; 5. loss of virginity

> [that was not previously declared] and in a man; 6. committing of a crime

> for which loss of caste is the penalty. 7. if the groom has forsaken his

> family. [Manu 9;72.]

>

> When a faultless maiden has been married to a man who has a blemish

> unknown before the marriage, and does not take to another man after

> discovering it, shall be enjoined to do so by her relatives. If she has no

> relations living she may go to live with another man of her own accord.

> [Narada 12;96]

>

> If the husband went abroad for some sacred duty, the wife should wait for

> him eight years, if he went for acquiring learning or fame six years and

> if he went for pleasure three years.

> [Manu 9;76]

>

> Thereafter she may remarry with incuring any sin or guilt.

> For one year let a husband bear with a wife who hates him; but after that

> let him deprive her of her [share] of the property and cease to live with

> her. [Manu 9;77.]

 

> But he should still make arrangements for her clothing and food. She who

> drinks spiritous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased (with

> leperosy), violent, or wasteful of money, may at any time be superseded by

> another wife. [Manu 9;80]

>

> If a man is unable to have sexual relations with his wife then she may

> divorce him and take another husband. [Narada 12;18.]

>

> The five cases of legal remarriage for women are:

> Death of the husband [while the wife is still young, with very small

> children] The husband disappears.

> Husband abandones her and becomes a monk.

> The husband becomes impotent [while the wife is still young].

> The husband commits a crime deserving of loss of caste.

>

>

>

> If the husband is untraceable, dead, renounced the world, impotent or

> degraded - in these cases of emergency a woman CAN remarry. [Parasara 28]

>

> A woman should wait four years for the return of her husband, if he fails

> to return she may remarry.

> The five legal reasons for divorce by men:

> If the wife squanders his property.

> If she procures an abortion.

> If the wife makes an attempt on the husband's life.

> If the wife continually shows him malice.

> If the wife slanders her husband.

>

> The real issue is how can we abandon someone with whom we should have

> developed a deep and caring relationship? Separation allows for

> reconciliation. Divorce does not. And how does such divorce affect the

> morality of ISKCON as a whole?

(Source URL: http://www.ghqd.org/vedcultr/vedcultr12.htm)

 

[The above is only an excerpt from the entire article, which also often

quotes from Srila Prabhupada's books.]

 

The above references certainly seem to be definitive with regards to what is

legal and what is illegal separation, and most of them seem to cover

situations which happen all the time in our society, or even karmi society.

Most of the above quoted injunctions could be implemented with little

complaint from those who would be bound by such laws. And since it is

shastra, why not implement it?

 

> On the surface Manu -samhita seems to promote a very caste conscious

> society wherein sudras are seen and treated with minimal respect. I

> believe that proper application of Manu-Samhita must require a highly

> evolved and established set of traditions, training, and enlightened

> leaders if it is not to result in oppression and exploitation.

 

Isn't ISKCON meant to reestablish devotional traditions, train people in the

techniques of Krishna-consciousness, and create enlightened leaders (which

is a major bone of contention in the ritvik controversy)?

 

> That is why, I believe, Srila Prabhupada advised us to keep some distance

> from Manu-Samhita.

 

I'm not sure here what you mean by "keep our distance". Do you mean "stay

away from Manu-samhita"? (i.e. don't read it or refer to it)

 

Also, how could we possibly implement varnashram (daivi or otherwise)

without refering to Manu-samhita and other dharma-shastras, wherein

varnashram is described in detail? Of course, whenever there is a

disagreement between the Bhagavatam and Manu-samhita or other shastra, then

we follow Bhagavatam. But the Bhagavatam's emphasis is different than

Manu-samhita's emphasis, so we will not find so many details in Bhagavatam

with regards to all the aspects of society which is meant to elevate

devotees to the platform of Krishna consciousness.

 

> Visnu worship is the ultimate aim of human life. Those who take the

> license of married life for sense enjoyment must also take the

> responsibility to satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Visnu, and

> the first stepping-stone is the varnasrama-dharma system.

> Varnasrama-dharma is the systematic institution for advancing in worship

> of Visnu.

(SB 3.13.11 purport)

 

One point that the ritviks continually make is that we are not so

transcendental to material nature as we would like ourselves to be. Of

course, they emphasize this fact to the point of absurdity, but the fact

that we are not so transcendental to our environment is something we cannot

deny. Would, then, a serious, GSS implementation of varnashrama, based on

Srimad-bhagavatam, Bhagavad-gita, Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu,

Narada-pancharatra, Manu-samhita, Yajnavalkya-smriti, and other

dharmashastras, be part of a long term solution to prevent further

deviations like ritvik? Both the ritviks and us agree that there are

inebrities with regard to devotees in general and the leadership as well,

but the difference seems to be that in the various proposed solutions, the

ritviks reject shastra, but we do not--that is a fundamental difference

between the ritviks and (for lack of a better term) "the good guys".