Misleading statements

[Guest guest]

> > (1)The details of varnasrama

> > as mentioned by Manu and Yajnavalkya in their dharma-sastras are

> > certainly based on broader principles, but any similarity between the

> > broader principles of asuri-varnasrama on which they are based and the

> > principles of daivi-varnasrama mentioned in the Bhagavatam is purely

> > coincidental;

>

> Manu Smriti teaches us asuri-varnasrama??? That's something new.

> Maybe it was invented by some nasty demon, to delude all devotees

> from moving into ISKCON temples?

 

Please try to restrict your comments to progressive statements. I have only

joined this discussion for my own purification, and am dependent on the

patience of other devotees to carefully explain to me exactly where my

points are incorrect. Making snide comments is not really much help to me.

 

> > and (2)The literatures of these two sages are completely lacking in any

> > reference whatsoever to pure devotional service. They are not at all

> > INTENDED to help people avoid behavior that will destroy their

> > devotional service, but are fully intended to help people make material

> > advancement through karma-kandiya processes of incremental purification.

>

> Then why for instance many devotees are implenting "7 Principles"

> of Stephen Covey, which are also meant for gaining material success?

> I don't believe that devotees will become gross materialists just

> by reading Manu smriti. Rather, they will accept all beneficial

> what they can find there and will greatly improve their devotional

> service by ajusting their lives with God's will.

 

I was discussing the intent of the authors of the literature, not the result

of reading it. I have never said reading Manu smriti is harmful for

devotees, that it would destroy their spiritual lives. But because the

intent of the authors was something different, a major portion of the work

is not applicable to devotees. This should be made very clear to all

devotees. It should not be read as if it is some "extension" of the

Bhagavatam which is filling in details the Bhagavatam omitted.

 

> > This Gita quote does not help your point. Krishna is saying that if one

> > is studying the sastras but does not know Him, then he has missed the

> > point of the sastras. Sure there is some indirect way in which Manu

> > Samhita will help one to know Krishna, but it is *most* indirect.

>

> Why? Because it says you what are you prescribed duties, which Krishna

> said should never be rejected?

 

Perhaps you have not been following the earlier parts of this discussion.

The Manu Samhita is telling the karmis what is their prescribed duty.

Someone who is regularly chanting Hare Krishna mantra and has accepted the

parampara of Caitanya Mahaprabhu has a different set of prescribed duties.

 

> Ignorance is a bliss, and of course

> it's better for pure conscience to not know anything, what reminds

> you of your conditioned life, much better to stay in 'transcendental'

> state.

>

> > > I therefore recommend that a group of senior devotees study these

> > > dharma-sastras, and that these devotees act as brahminical advisors in

> > > the matter of any sort of attempts to restructure our ISKCON society

> > > along the lines of varnashrama dharma.

> >

> > No harm, provided they understand things properly.

>

> Therefore we need a censure council of even more seniour devotees,

> which will check their understanding process, right?

 

More unnecessary snide comments. We are trying to have a serious discussion

here, and you should kindly put more thought into what you write.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> I have been away from computers for a while and could not respond promptly

> to your points. I am frankly quite shocked that you could possibly author

a

> text under the subject header, "The aim of Manu Samhita and

> Srimad-Bhagavatam are one and the same." It would take a highly qualified

> word-juggler to attempt to explain how such a statement might be in some

> limited sense true, but any such screwed-out meaning would certainly be

> irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. Srimad Bhagavatam itself

declares

> in its very second text, "dharma-projjhita kaitavo 'tra paramo

nirmatsaranam

> satam". This is nothing short of a bold and broad declaration that it's

aim

> is quite different from the aim of dharma sastras of all kinds. Regardless

> of the actual content of your text, the subject line was a great mistake

in

> itself and the readers of this conference should not be bewildered by it.

 

Even the phrase "dharma-projjhita kaitavo 'tra. . ." can be taken as a

similar demarcation between Bhagavatam and any other Vedic literature.

Narada Muni in his conversation with Vyasa, in fact, condemns Vyasa for

whatever else he had written because, says Narada, it would encourage people

to take up fruitive activity in the name of religion. But we do find

essential religious principles not found in Bhagavatam in other so-called

"less pure" literature.

 

For example, the 10 listed offenses against the holy name of the Lord are to

be found in Padma Purana, not Srimad-Bhagavatam (and we know that Padma

Purana does not have the distinction of being called the "amala-purana").

And of course, Srila Prabhupada opined otherwise about Manu-samhita:

 

"The spiritual master is also called acarya, or a transcendental professor

of

spiritual science. The Manu-samhita (2.140) explains the duties of an

acarya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of

disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and

gives them their second birth." (CC Adi 1.46 purport)

 

It should be noted that the above is spoken in regard to bonafide spiritual

master, not a "karmi" spiritual master. Srila Prabhupada aparently found it

quite fitting to include as a reference in the CC chapter on guru-tattva.

 

But no one here is arguing that Manu-samhita is a replacement or

substitution for Srimad-bhagavatam. It is not:

 

"There are twenty types of religious scriptures called dharma-sastras,

beginning with the Manu-samhita and parasara-samhita, but herein it is

stressed that although one may become free from the reactions of the most

sinful activities by following the religious principles of these scriptures,

this cannot promote a sinful man to the stage of loving service to the

Lord." (SB 6.2.11 purport)

 

The conclusion here is that other sastras besides Srimad-Bhagavatam do

contain instructions that relate particularly to bhakti, and

Srimad-Bhagavatam itself may not specifically contain those directives.

 

Besides Bhakti, Manu-samhita, however, is one of the foremost sastras on

varnasrama-dharma. A relevant discussion on VAD must therefore not exclude

Manu-samhita, and VAD is what we have been discussing.

 

> > We can see the details of varnasrama to be specific directives which are

> > based on broader principles which are mentioned in scriptures like

> > Srimad-Bhagavatam, NOI, etc., to help people avoid behavior that will

> > destroy their devotional service, in spite of their sincerity.

>

> Here you are speaking as if there is some great harmony between these

> different literatures -- "The Bhagavatam gives broad brush-strokes, and

Manu

> and Yajnavalkya kindly fill in the harmonious details for us." This is

again

> extremely misleading, in two ways: (1)The details of varnasrama as

mentioned

> by Manu and Yajnavalkya in their dharma-sastras are certainly based on

> broader principles, but any similarity between the broader principles of

> asuri-varnasrama on which they are based and the principles of

> daivi-varnasrama mentioned in the Bhagavatam is purely coincidental;

 

Manu-samhita does not advocate what you call "asuri-varnasrama". Be careful

Prabhu, your descriptions could be considered sruti-sastra-nindanam.

 

> (2)The literatures of these two sages are completely lacking in any

> reference whatsoever to pure devotional service. They are not at all

> INTENDED to help people avoid behavior that will destroy their devotional

> service, but are fully intended to help people make material advancement

> through karma-kandiya processes of incremental purification.

 

See above reference to Manu-samhita. Srila Prabhupada himself frequently

quoted or refered to Manu-samhita. If it's good enough for Srila

Prabhupada, its good enough for me.

 

> > Sri

> > Caitanya Mahaprabhu himself demonstrated this principle of utilizing

> > varnashrama in order to nurture devotional service in others. Lord

> > Caitanya reasoned that only if people somehow or other offer obeisances

to

> > Him, they can make spiritual advancement. He therefore accepted the

> > sannyasa order of life.[1] Sannyasa itself is a material affair (after

> > all, even a sannyasi is not a sannyasi forever), so we see practically

how

> > the Lord and his associates practically employed varnashrama in the

> > service of bhakti.

>

> More misleading statements. In this lila, Lord Caitanya is neither

> glorifying varnasrama nor instructing others to follow it. He was simply

> tricking those who were addicted to following it.

 

Can we say the same for Chota-haridas? Why didn't Lord Caitanya get him

married, as is so fashionable for our modern-day sannyasis? We see that

Lord Caitanya himself followed strictly the principles of Sannyasa, as did

Srila Prabhupada.

 

> > Since the aim and purpose of dharma-sastras like Manu-samhita and

> > transcendental literature like Srimad-Bhagavatam are ultimately one in

> > purpose (vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyah),

>

> This Gita quote does not help your point. Krishna is saying that if one is

> studying the sastras but does not know Him, then he has missed the point

of

> the sastras. Sure there is some indirect way in which Manu Samhita will

help

> one to know Krishna, but it is *most* indirect.

 

Prabhu, with all due respect, in the purport of this verse (vedais ca

sarvair. . . - Bg 15.15) Srila Prabhuapada does not at all say this, but

rather he confirms this unity of Vedic literature:

 

"Why does He present the Vedic knowledge for understanding? Because a living

entity individually needs to understand Krsna. Vedic literature confirms

this: yo 'sau sarvair vedair giyate. In all Vedic literature, beginning from

the four Vedas, Vedanta-sutra and the Upanisads and Puranas, the glories of

the Supreme Lord are celebrated. By performance of Vedic rituals, discussion

of the Vedic philosophy and worship of the Lord in devotional service, He is

attained. Therefore the purpose of the Vedas is to understand Krsna. The

Vedas give us direction by which to understand Krsna and the process of

realizing Him." (Bg 15.15 purport)

 

Your quote does, however, refer to the verse dharma-svanusthita pumsah. . .

srama-eva-hi kevalam. But that's not relevant to the point I made about the

unified purpose of Vedic literature.

 

> > properly understand how to

> > implement varnasrama in the mood of yukta vairagya, we have to know (1)

> > our core transcendental literature that Srila Prabhupada has given us;

and

> > (2) vedic literature that specifically deals with the theory and

practice

> > of varnasrama dharma (because you can't practice it if you don't know

it).

>

> OK, but whatever we see in (2) better be directly there in (1) or else it

> cannot be declared as an absolute principle of daivi varnasrama. We can

> accept or reject according to time, place, and circumstance, any statement

> in (2) that is not confirmed by our bhakti sastras.

 

First of all, it is acknowledged that varnasrama-dharma is not, in and of

itself, bhakti. Here your reference to dharma-svanusthita-pumsam. . . is

relevant. Since it is possible to perform VAD duties but not develop

Krishna-consciousness, it would not be reasonable to also insist that there

must be some corresponding principle of bhakti (besides yukta-vairagya) to

support following it.

 

This can be understood in the following way: devotees chant Hare Krishna,

read Srimad-bhagavatam, etc., but they also get married, take sannyasa,

etc., although neither sannyasa or marriage in the least can promote any of

the practitioners to the transcendental platform. Because institutions like

marriage and sannyasa are themselves material and transient situations, they

should be seen in the same light as we would see other transient material

objects, like telephones, computers, etc., in that both VAD and other

material objects can be used either for a spiritual purpose (yukta-vairagya)

or for material purposes. VAD used for spiritual purposes would be

daivi-varnasrama-dharma, VAD used for materialistic purposes would be

asuri-varnasrama-dharma.

 

> > I therefore recommend that a group of senior devotees study these

> > dharma-sastras, and that these devotees act as brahminical advisors in

the

> > matter of any sort of attempts to restructure our ISKCON society along

the

> > lines of varnashrama dharma.

>

> No harm, provided they understand things properly.

>

 

I hope this clarifies matters.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

 

p.s. More to come. . .