narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

At 09:19 PM 11/20/00 +0100, you wrote:

>Bhatarupa (das) ACBSP wrote:

>

>> I would reword it to say that (my position is

>> that) those who are "realized" in the following of Manu and who are devoid

>> of the sentiments of bhakti, will practice asuri varnasrama. Asuri

>> varnasrama is sastric and fully in line with Manu-samhita, with the

>> distinguishing feature being that the practitioners are not concerned with

>> the pleasure of Lord Vishnu.

>

>

>Sorry, I can't see the logic here. How is it possible that

>the varnasrama dharma system that has been given by God can be

>asuric? If a practitioner happens to be devoid from the sentiment

>of bhakti, how does that make the very system to be asuric?

>The very *purpose* of VAD system is to gradually bring people

>in general into developing higher human sentiments, culminating

>into the sentiment of devotion to God. But if someone does not have

>this highest sentiment yet, it does not mean that the system he

>follows is asuric, does it? It's still the same, God's system.

 

Srila Prabhupada briefly explains what he calls "asuric varnasram" in a

lecture

givenin Vrindavan in Nov. '76:

My Guru Maharaja also wanted to establish daiva-varnasrama. Yes. There must be

the human society, not this, daiva-varnasrama, not this asuric varnasrama.

Asuric varnasrama... Just like Ravana. He was also son of a brahmana, but he

was rejected, that "You are not brahmana; you are raksasa because you do not

care for Bhagavan Ramacandra." So this is the verdict of the sastra. So

therefore daiva-varnasrama. Varnasrama should be established on the principles

of devata, to make people devata. Devata means visnu bhaktah bhaved daiva

asuras tad-viparyayah.

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.5.29 -- Vrndavana, November 16, 1976

 

So it seems that a varnashrama system not aimed at spiritually elevating

members of society is considerd asuric. Since Manu Samhita is presented for

all

society, we must be willing to accommodate and regulate those who are

averse to

Vishnu bhakti, that it may give instructions not specifically "established on

the principles of devata, to make people devata." If we can't stretch our

minds

that far, we may limit our ability to understand what Krishna consciousness

actually is and how superior it is to everything else presented in the many

scriptures. If everything in every sacred text were aimed straight at

elevating

all conditioned souls to Krishna consciousness, how would we explain Vyasa's

desponcency in the 5th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Srila Prabhupada also told us that "brahmana means liberal, broad-minded."

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

Babhru (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

 

>

> So it seems that a varnashrama system not aimed at spiritually elevating

> members of society is considerd asuric.

 

 

Agreed. Yes, this is the definition I can easily understand. What

you have done here is, you observed the *system*, and then you

discriminated in between, which one is and which one is not asuri.

The criteria being applied is, "is the system meant for spiritual

elevation of members". Great. Thank you very much.

 

Bhakratarupa prabhu, however, observed the *hearth of the

practitioner*. Not the system. And the criteria in use, "is there

love of God, or is there not". So, if there is love then it supposedly

daivi varnasrama, and if there is not, then it is supposedly asuri.

The aplication of this kind of discriminatory process, or deffinitions,

is what I do not agree with.

 

A simple example. A sudra may be faithful to his master, serving

him nicely, executing his duties. He may not have the sufficient

knowledge of Godhead (he is not even allowed to study Vedas). Not

having even the knowledge about Krsna, perhaps he got no love of

Godhead. But he executes his prescribed duties, properly. So he makes

the progress, next life time he is born as a brahmana (according to

what I red in the books). He makes big step forward on his spiritually

progressive path. So what varnasrama system is he following? Obviously,

he is within daivi varnasrama dharama, where by simply executing the

prescribed duties one makes the advancement, even without necessarily

knowing anything about Param Brahman, what to speak about attaining

love of Him. Of course, varnasrama system is design so that everybody

gets the chance to hear about God's existence, but wether the love

would manifest in hearth or not, is irrelevant to determine the

tupe of system one is performing in.

 

 

As far as Ravana, he *acted* against the injunctions of Vedas. Vedas

do not sanction that what he did, stealing Rama's wife. You steal

someone's wife, you deserved to be killed. Ravana openly defied God.

That is clearly asatric. He was supposedly a brahmana, but he was

acting against God and God's injuctions. So he didn't follow the

prescribed duties of his varna according to daivai varnasrama, as

we can see.

Hiranyakasipu, same. He defied God, too. He was a ksatriya. What

is the basic occupational duty for a ksatriya? To give the protection

to cows, brahamans, Vaisnavas,... Did he do it? No. He harassed

brahmanas and Vaisnavas. Thus he followed asuri "system". And how do

we know? Based on *sastric knowledge*. Wether it is according to

sastras, or it is not. So, how can we say "asuri varnasrama is

sastric"? It is not. It is *asastric*. This is indeed the definition

of "asuri". It is there, described in Bhagavad-gita. Asuras (or

shall we say, demons) do not follow sastric injuctions!

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

Babhru Prabhu wrote:

 

> If we can't stretch

> our minds

> that far, we may limit our ability to understand what Krishna

> consciousness actually is and how superior it is to everything else

> presented in the many scriptures. If everything in every sacred text were

> aimed straight at elevating

> all conditioned souls to Krishna consciousness, how would we explain

> Vyasa's desponcency in the 5th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

Sadhu! Sadhu!

[Guest guest]

>

> > If we can't stretch

> > our minds

> > that far, we may limit our ability to understand what Krishna

> > consciousness actually is and how superior it is to everything else

> > presented in the many scriptures. If everything in every sacred text

> > were aimed straight at elevating

> > all conditioned souls to Krishna consciousness, how would we explain

> > Vyasa's desponcency in the 5th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam?

>

> Sadhu! Sadhu!

 

 

 

Since you seam to be liking this particular "coin", why not turn it

and look another side of it also?

 

 

If everything in every sacred text (that was devoid from the

glorification of love of God) was aimed simply for straight sense

gratification, with no references to the higher human, as well as

spiritual, values of life, then why Srila Vyasadeva would be putting his

effort in compiling sacred Vedas on the first place? After all, even

pigs and dogs are able to get their sensy-graty without bothering to

read the sacred sanskrit slokas from the ancient vedic texts. Apparently,

even the Literally incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

considered that there is something more than "asuric" in what he was

compiling. So let's try to stretch our minds into that direction as

well. Of course, once we have finally and firmly established in our

minds the supremacy of bhakti, without any doubting it.

 

The supremacy of pure Krsna consciousness over everything else

has never been placed in dispute here, neither directly nor

by some implication. So why do we need these flashing alarms

and worning sirens? Narada Muni specifically instructed Srila

Vyasadeva to clearly outline the glories and the supremacy of the

pure devotional service. So, that has been done already, some 5000

years ago.

 

Besides, there was no claim maid that all other practices were aimed

"straight at elevating all conditioned souls to Krishna consciousness".

Indeed, I tried to preserve that unique feature for the process of

bhakti-yoga exclusively, while everything else being a step-by-step

advancement towards it, through gradual purification, by mean of

following the Vedic injunctions. Beginning from distancing oneself

from the animalistic life style. Animals don't follow Vedas when mating,

defending, sleeping, and eating, since one doesn't really require

Vedas for that exclusive purpose only. God must had known this before

starting to compile the Vedic "asuri" sastras as the mean to enable

"asuras" to their sense gratification, I suppose.

 

Even if some injunction may go for explicit way of obtaining the sense

gratification and nothing else (by judging it externally only), still,

it is meant not to supply the bare sense gratification only, but to

indicate at least, "Good boy, you listen to what sastras say, so now

you have become a human being, finally. Now, let's see what further we

have possibly gotten for you here..."

Vedic sastras are more than simply some stupid manual of how_to_get

_the_good_stuff_for_your_belly_and_genitals". I hope so, at least.

 

 

-

 

As far as Manu-samhita in particular, Srila Prabhupada demonstrated

highest sense of respect towards it. He has repeatedly stated

how this is the law-book for the human kind to be followed, the guide

for religious principles, meant for promoting higher human values

and how it is awakening God consciousness. But we keep insisting how

Manu-samhita is out-dated. We propose that it is "asuri" (because we

see no love of Godhead being directly promoted there).

 

But that we may not be following it, however, is neither due to its,

perhaps, "asuri" nature, nor it is due to our being above it. It is

due to our being creepy Kali-yuga products. Sorry, but that's the fact.

We can't follow it because we are so week and wishi-washi. We are not

qualified for those "asura" vedic injunctions. Hardly anybody can really

stick to even the oaths given to Guru and God, due to our being

so week and of no strong character. But then we say "Oh, because we

are Vaisnavas, we are above those low-class karmakandiya smrti principles.

That's for asuras". While the truth is -- we are *unable*. That God has

given us this exclusive mercy to make a grand slalom around all those

strict vedic injunctions, that is another issue. Previously, it was

not possible to jump directly from the animalistic life stile straight

into devotional practices. You had first to go through the execution

of the prescribed social duties and other prescribed processes for

your particular situation (that, yes, may be entirely deprived from

your love of God) before coming close to practicing the devotional

service to God. Gradually. That is the purpose of varnasrama system,

for those who aren't yet on the platform of bhakti, in spite of

being told all about it. That's why there is the need for this system

(at least, those principal parts of it that might be possible to follow),

or otherwise why do we bother to talk about it all together?

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

Commenting on the text of Mahanidhi Prabhu:

 

> > > If we can't stretch

> > > our minds

> > > that far, we may limit our ability to understand what Krishna

> > > consciousness actually is and how superior it is to everything else

> > > presented in the many scriptures. If everything in every sacred text

> > > were aimed straight at elevating

> > > all conditioned souls to Krishna consciousness, how would we explain

> > > Vyasa's desponcency in the 5th chapter of Srimad Bhagavatam?

> >

> > Sadhu! Sadhu!

>

> Since you seam to be liking this particular "coin", why not turn it

> and look another side of it also?

>

> If everything in every sacred text (that was devoid from the

> glorification of love of God) was aimed simply for straight sense

> gratification, with no references to the higher human, as well as

> spiritual, values of life, then why Srila Vyasadeva would be putting his

> effort in compiling sacred Vedas on the first place?

 

What is this mysterious middle ground which is higher than aspiration for

one's own pleasure, but which is not bhakti? The only middle ground that I

know the Vedas talk about is moksa, which is a higher value of life and

which is in some sense spiritual. But you don't seem to be referring to that

here. As far as I know there are only five human goals described in the

Vedas -- dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and prema. "Higher human values" may be

also described, but they are they are only subtler forms of the lower human

values that we normally associate with the term "sense gratification". Thus

they are also sense gratification in the sense we have been using it in this

discussion.

 

> After all, even

> pigs and dogs are able to get their sensy-graty without bothering to

> read the sacred sanskrit slokas from the ancient vedic texts. Apparently,

> even the Literally incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead

> considered that there is something more than "asuric" in what he was

> compiling.

 

Please try to understand that there is a broader definition of the word

"asura" than the normal impression that we have of that word in ISKCON.

 

> Besides, there was no claim maid that all other practices were aimed

> "straight at elevating all conditioned souls to Krishna consciousness".

 

>From reading some of the texts of Krishna Kirti Prabhu I was not sure that

there was no such claim being made. If not, then fine.

 

> Indeed, I tried to preserve that unique feature for the process of

> bhakti-yoga exclusively, while everything else being a step-by-step

> advancement towards it, through gradual purification, by mean of

> following the Vedic injunctions. Beginning from distancing oneself

> from the animalistic life style. Animals don't follow Vedas when mating,

> defending, sleeping, and eating, since one doesn't really require

> Vedas for that exclusive purpose only. God must had known this before

> starting to compile the Vedic "asuri" sastras as the mean to enable

> "asuras" to their sense gratification, I suppose.

>

> Even if some injunction may go for explicit way of obtaining the sense

> gratification and nothing else (by judging it externally only), still,

> it is meant not to supply the bare sense gratification only, but to

> indicate at least, "Good boy, you listen to what sastras say, so now

> you have become a human being, finally. Now, let's see what further we

> have possibly gotten for you here..."

> Vedic sastras are more than simply some stupid manual of how_to_get

> _the_good_stuff_for_your_belly_and_genitals". I hope so, at least.

 

They are, but only when taken in their entirety. Certain texts are

explicitly just how to get sense gratification without incurring sin. Those

who do not follow the procedures get the sense gratification also, but then

they suffer later from the reactions to the sin. And the animals are exempt

from accumulating more sinful reactions, thus they have no injunctions to

follow.

 

> As far as Manu-samhita in particular, Srila Prabhupada demonstrated

> highest sense of respect towards it. He has repeatedly stated

> how this is the law-book for the human kind to be followed, the guide

> for religious principles, meant for promoting higher human values

> and how it is awakening God consciousness. But we keep insisting how

> Manu-samhita is out-dated. We propose that it is "asuri" (because we

> see no love of Godhead being directly promoted there).

>

> But that we may not be following it, however, is neither due to its,

> perhaps, "asuri" nature, nor it is due to our being above it. It is

> due to our being creepy Kali-yuga products. Sorry, but that's the fact.

> We can't follow it because we are so week and wishi-washi. We are not

> qualified for those "asura" vedic injunctions. Hardly anybody can really

> stick to even the oaths given to Guru and God, due to our being

> so week and of no strong character. But then we say "Oh, because we

> are Vaisnavas, we are above those low-class karmakandiya smrti principles.

> That's for asuras". While the truth is -- we are *unable*. That God has

> given us this exclusive mercy to make a grand slalom around all those

> strict vedic injunctions, that is another issue. Previously, it was

> not possible to jump directly from the animalistic life stile straight

> into devotional practices.

 

It has always been possible. But the path was hidden until Sriman Mahaprabhu

revealed it.

 

> You had first to go through the execution

> of the prescribed social duties and other prescribed processes for

> your particular situation (that, yes, may be entirely deprived from

> your love of God) before coming close to practicing the devotional

> service to God. Gradually. That is the purpose of varnasrama system,

> for those who aren't yet on the platform of bhakti, in spite of

> being told all about it. That's why there is the need for this system

> (at least, those principal parts of it that might be possible to follow),

> or otherwise why do we bother to talk about it all together?

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

>

> What is this mysterious middle ground which is higher than aspiration for

> one's own pleasure, but which is not bhakti? The only middle ground that I

> know the Vedas talk about is moksa, which is a higher value of life and

> which is in some sense spiritual. But you don't seem to be referring to

> that here. As far as I know there are only five human goals described in

> the Vedas -- dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and prema. "Higher human values"

> may be also described, but they are they are only subtler forms of the

> lower human values that we normally associate with the term "sense

> gratification". Thus they are also sense gratification in the sense we

> have been using it in this discussion.

 

Why mysterious? Can't dharma, or the execution of religious principles,

already be good enough as an acceptable "middle ground" in term of

higher human values? On which base would you reject it as not such?

For example, Srila Prabhupada wrote in the purport to BG verse, 7.15:

 

"The ten processes of reformatory ceremonies, as enjoined in

Manu-smrti, which is guide to religious principles, are meant

for reviving the God consciousness in the system of varnasrama."

 

This above refers to the execution of reformatory ceremonies (dharma),

and it is still not moksa, is it? It is higher than aspiration for

one's own pleasure, yet not bhakti. So it must be some "mysterious

middle ground" that we are yet to discover to exist in te Vedic

scriptures, I suppose.

 

Bhakti-yoga, being compared to an elevator that brings us straight

to the top, does not exclude the existence of the stairways that

provide step-by-step advancement. If we aren't able to at least

acknowledge its existence and purpose, we run the risk of becoming

a type of fanatic Christian "Jesus_is_the_only_way" preachers.

ISCKON already shows quite some symptoms of such mentality (as

well as the reactions to it), to say it mildly.

 

 

>

> Please try to understand that there is a broader definition of the word

> "asura" than the normal impression that we have of that word in ISKCON.

 

I am trying. Apparently, it could mean simply "not a Vaisnava" or

"absence of devotion to Lord Visnu". So, be it a priest in a temple

or a complete nuts who murders children out of his sick pleasure.

A zero discrimination in this application of the word "asura", as

I can see.

 

BTW, the prefix "a" or "ab" may not necessarily simply mean "not

this", but it may refer specifically to that quality that is

diametrically opposite. In any case, if you are already aware

that your application of this word is out of normal impression

than we have in ISCKON, then I do not understand why are you

using it? As if it is not difficult enough to understand each

others. It's far easier to stick to the local language if you

already know it yourself perfectly, instead of trying to teach

everybody something else first. Here it does not go for the

broading of our understanding of philosophy really, but for the

use of common communication codes, and nothing more than that.

 

 

>

> From reading some of the texts of Krishna Kirti Prabhu I was not sure that

> there was no such claim being made. If not, then fine.

 

I don't know. The comment was made on my words, and I was replying

in my name only, explaining my position. Why not quote the relevant

text from the relevant person and then give the relevant comment on

it?

 

 

>

> They are, but only when taken in their entirety. Certain texts are

> explicitly just how to get sense gratification without incurring sin.

> Those who do not follow the procedures get the sense gratification also,

> but then they suffer later from the reactions to the sin.

 

"Without incurring sin" is already a significant difference here,

as far as I am concerned. "Sinful" and "not sinful"... anything of

importance for our sense of discrimination there?

 

It is the question of a perspective, isn't it? Someone might look on

that certain texts and see their meaning to be of a munual for a sense

gratification supply merely. While somebody else will see the real

meaning to be in providing the possibility to the conditioned people

to escape sin, having them to accept the higher authority of Vedas

(that represent the authority of God in this world), thus opening

the chance to make the further step up words, at some instance.

 

In any case, at least we can clearly can see that there is something

more to it there, wether we can agree on its relevance or not.

 

> And the animals

> are exempt from accumulating more sinful reactions, thus they have no

> injunctions to follow.

 

Good to know.

 

 

> > strict vedic injunctions, that is another issue. Previously, it was

> > not possible to jump directly from the animalistic life stile straight

> > into devotional practices.

>

> It has always been possible. But the path was hidden until Sriman

> Mahaprabhu revealed it.

 

"Not possible" wasn't perhaps the most happy choice of mine, as I

can see. It's a word found in the dictionary of a fool.

 

 

I rather meant, one had to *qualify* oneself first, through the

execution of various prescribed practices that were *not* the

direct devotional service, in order to come to the moment of

performing the same (devotional service). This has been just confirmed

by your own words, "the path [of bhakti] was hidden". Yes, indeed, how

do you think that any laymen, a sinful person of no character, fully

emerged in rajas and tammas, could possibly find that path of love to

Godhead that was hidden in the sacred Vedic texts written in Sanskrit?

It wasn't hidden among the bottles of vine, after all, so that it

"has always been possible", perhaps.

 

One had first to *gradually* elevate oneself up to the platform of

goodness, thus obtaining the realistic possibility of finding

out the hidden process of bhakti. That is why it is said to be

"hidden". Not that it was purposefully made so in order to play

some maze game with the conditioned souls. But unless one was a

sincere practitioner of self-realization and a purified soul

already, he was not able to reach it. For such person, it was

"hidden". Not possible.

 

A special mercy of God, of course, is always possible. By mentioning

Sri Mahaprabhu, you have again confirmed my point. Namely, it is

said that before Mahaprabhu, this great reservoir of bhakti, or

maha-nidhi, was firmly *locked*, and only those who knew where

to find the key could reach it. So it was not possible just like

that. Am I saying anything new, really?

 

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

> >

> > What is this mysterious middle ground which is higher than aspiration

> > for one's own pleasure, but which is not bhakti? The only middle ground

> > that I know the Vedas talk about is moksa, which is a higher value of

> > life and which is in some sense spiritual. But you don't seem to be

> > referring to that here. As far as I know there are only five human goals

> > described in the Vedas -- dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and prema. "Higher

> > human values" may be also described, but they are they are only subtler

> > forms of the lower human values that we normally associate with the term

> > "sense gratification". Thus they are also sense gratification in the

> > sense we have been using it in this discussion.

>

> Why mysterious? Can't dharma, or the execution of religious principles,

> already be good enough as an acceptable "middle ground" in term of

> higher human values? On which base would you reject it as not such?

> For example, Srila Prabhupada wrote in the purport to BG verse, 7.15:

>

> "The ten processes of reformatory ceremonies, as enjoined in

> Manu-smrti, which is guide to religious principles, are meant

> for reviving the God consciousness in the system of varnasrama."

>

> This above refers to the execution of reformatory ceremonies (dharma),

> and it is still not moksa, is it? It is higher than aspiration for

> one's own pleasure, yet not bhakti. So it must be some "mysterious

> middle ground" that we are yet to discover to exist in te Vedic

> scriptures, I suppose.

 

No. Dharma, artha, kama, and moksa are all rejected as being centered on

one's personal pleasure. The mode of goodness may be higher than the other

two modes, but it is still material and it is always mixed with the lower

modes. Srila Prabhupada compared it to dry stool:

 

"After all, whether it be moist or dry, stool is stool. Similarly, material

activities may be either pious or impious, but because they are all

material, they are compared to stool." (CC Madhya 198 purport)

 

> Bhakti-yoga, being compared to an elevator that brings us straight

> to the top, does not exclude the existence of the stairways that

> provide step-by-step advancement.

 

Not possible in Kali Yuga.

 

> If we aren't able to at least

> acknowledge its existence and purpose, we run the risk of becoming

> a type of fanatic Christian "Jesus_is_the_only_way" preachers.

> ISCKON already shows quite some symptoms of such mentality (as

> well as the reactions to it), to say it mildly.

 

The fanatical Christians are also preaching a kind of bhakti. But it is

sectarian. We are preaching non-sectarian bhakti. "Chant any bonafide name

of God."

 

> >

> > Please try to understand that there is a broader definition of the word

> > "asura" than the normal impression that we have of that word in ISKCON.

>

> I am trying. Apparently, it could mean simply "not a Vaisnava" or

> "absence of devotion to Lord Visnu". So, be it a priest in a temple

> or a complete nuts who murders children out of his sick pleasure.

> A zero discrimination in this application of the word "asura", as

> I can see.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur has used the word in this way and I have simply

tried to explain how it is possible to understand such a usage. I am sorry

if you don't like it.

 

> BTW, the prefix "a" or "ab" may not necessarily simply mean "not

> this", but it may refer specifically to that quality that is

> diametrically opposite. In any case, if you are already aware

> that your application of this word is out of normal impression

> than we have in ISCKON, then I do not understand why are you

> using it? As if it is not difficult enough to understand each

> others. It's far easier to stick to the local language if you

> already know it yourself perfectly, instead of trying to teach

> everybody something else first. Here it does not go for the

> broading of our understanding of philosophy really, but for the

> use of common communication codes, and nothing more than that.

 

OK. Let's burn all the books written more than 50 years ago so that we won't

become confused when we read them due to the slight variations in word usage

over the years.

 

> > They are, but only when taken in their entirety. Certain texts are

> > explicitly just how to get sense gratification without incurring sin.

> > Those who do not follow the procedures get the sense gratification also,

> > but then they suffer later from the reactions to the sin.

>

> "Without incurring sin" is already a significant difference here,

> as far as I am concerned. "Sinful" and "not sinful"... anything of

> importance for our sense of discrimination there?

>

> It is the question of a perspective, isn't it? Someone might look on

> that certain texts and see their meaning to be of a munual for a sense

> gratification supply merely. While somebody else will see the real

> meaning to be in providing the possibility to the conditioned people

> to escape sin, having them to accept the higher authority of Vedas

> (that represent the authority of God in this world), thus opening

> the chance to make the further step up words, at some instance.

>

> In any case, at least we can clearly can see that there is something

> more to it there, wether we can agree on its relevance or not.

>

> > And the animals

> > are exempt from accumulating more sinful reactions, thus they have no

> > injunctions to follow.

>

> Good to know.

>

>

> > > strict vedic injunctions, that is another issue. Previously, it was

> > > not possible to jump directly from the animalistic life stile straight

> > > into devotional practices.

> >

> > It has always been possible. But the path was hidden until Sriman

> > Mahaprabhu revealed it.

>

> "Not possible" wasn't perhaps the most happy choice of mine, as I

> can see. It's a word found in the dictionary of a fool.

>

>

> I rather meant, one had to *qualify* oneself first, through the

> execution of various prescribed practices that were *not* the

> direct devotional service, in order to come to the moment of

> performing the same (devotional service). This has been just confirmed

> by your own words, "the path [of bhakti] was hidden". Yes, indeed, how

> do you think that any laymen, a sinful person of no character, fully

> emerged in rajas and tammas, could possibly find that path of love to

> Godhead that was hidden in the sacred Vedic texts written in Sanskrit?

> It wasn't hidden among the bottles of vine, after all, so that it

> "has always been possible", perhaps.

>

> One had first to *gradually* elevate oneself up to the platform of

> goodness, thus obtaining the realistic possibility of finding

> out the hidden process of bhakti. That is why it is said to be

> "hidden". Not that it was purposefully made so in order to play

> some maze game with the conditioned souls. But unless one was a

> sincere practitioner of self-realization and a purified soul

> already, he was not able to reach it. For such person, it was

> "hidden". Not possible.

 

This is not how it is described. Being in the mode of goodness, or being a

sincere practitioner of self-realization, or being a purified soul are never

described as being means to obtain "the realistic possibility of finding out

the hidden process of bhakti". Bhakti is always described as something which

is the causeless gift of the bhakta, and that it can be given to either the

sinful or the sinless, the practitioner or the debauchee, the purified or

the unpurified.

 

And are you saying that following Manu-samhita will somehow guarantee that

we will eventually come to the stage of bhakti? I know of no such guarantee

given anywhere. Thus I see no reason to advocate its practice by anyone who

is convinced that prema is the supreme goal of life.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

>

> Those who may not be transcendentally situated but who have committed

> themselves to the path of bhakti through the process of initiation are

> advised to follow varnasrama principles as an aid to their progress. Such

> practice of varnasrama is called daivi.

 

That is not in dispute, please. "What kind of varnasrama a Krsna-bhakta

is adviced to practice" is NOT the question!

 

 

The dispute is, wether the practice of these **same** varnasrama

principles from the side of those who did not yet committed themselves

to the path of bhakti through the process of initiation, is to be

seen as some another, different varnasrama system (asuri, as you

call it). Where this concept is confirmed in Srila Prabhupada's books?

Unless you qualify it, it will remain as a speculation only. I am

really sorry, I tried my best not to call it a speculation, but by

your repeatedly ignoring to present the asked evidence, you leave no

choice anymore.

 

 

 

>

> > Varnasrma system is specifically meant for those who are still in

> > the *bodily* conception of life, so to eneble them to gradually rise

> > up to the platform of spirituality. VAD is *external*. So long

> > you do it according to the rules and regulation as per God's

> > instructions, you are following a godly system. Not perhaps

> > some atheistic. (And that's what "asuri" in essence should be

> > referring to - atheism, or godlessness.)

>

> This is not correct. There are so many examples of famous asuras

> performing Vedic sacrifices according to "the rules and regulation as per

> God's instructions" in order to achieve material benefits.

 

What particularly are you referring on with "this is not correct"?

I made few different points in the above text.

 

I can also give you so many examples of famous Suras performing

Vedic sacrifices **in order to achieve material benefits**. Like

Indra and Daksa, for example. They, demigods and demons, even took

the part in churning together the ocean of milk, for the sake of

material achievement (soma-rasa drink). So what is your point

exactly?

 

 

>

> The varnasrama system should be instituted everywhere. There are two

> brands of it which look very much the same and can go on quite nicely just

> next to each other provided there is some open mindedness and tolerance.

> It is very difficult for me to follow what is your specific objection. You

> seem to be reading too many things into my use of the term "asura". Other

> than that there doesn't seem to be very much at issue here.

 

I am being very specific in my objection. I want to know where in

Prabhupada's books there is given such a concept according to

which the state of an individual's hearth, i.e. the presence/absence

of love of Godhead, is the criteria for determining the type of social

system (varnasrama) that one is situated in. Is it really so difficult

to follow what my objection is? What this has to do with my "reading"

of your use of word "asura"?

 

You speak "open mindedness", while in the other text you call the

practice of Dharma to be "a dry stool" and you wonder how one

who is convinced about prema being the supreme goal could possibly

suggest the practice of Vedic religious principles of Manu-smrti.

 

 

 

 

- mnd