The Need for Manu Samhita

[Guest guest]

Again, Krishna Kirti Prabhu wrote:

 

> (3) Manu-samhita and other dharma-sastras go into extensive detail

> regarding the theory and practice of varnasrama-dharma. Srimad-Bhagavatam

> may give principles but does not give such extensive details about the

> practice of varnashrama-dharma. If you disagree, then where (for

> example), in Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, are there any specific details on

> how to perform a marriage? :-)

 

There are descriptions in other vaisnava smriti.

 

> In Srimad-Bhagavatam, Canto 7, Chapter 14,

> titled "Ideal Family Life", the word "marriage" is to be found only once

> in either the text or the purports (so much for details :-).

 

> Of course, we may say that principles are enough, and details, after all,

> are details, so we can do as we like as long as it is (somehow) based on

> principles. But then why speculate? If detailed information is there

> from an authoritative source, why should we speculate and not accept

> authority?

 

Our acaryas do not accept Manu Samhita as an authoritative source for

instructions on the behavior of devotees. They may accept it as a useful

source of information for preaching, but not for the conduct of our personal

lives.

 

> (5) If the process of bhakti "burns all sins", then there should be a

> practical demonstration of that. Some people do, but many do not. In

> fact, it could be argued that most do not. Does this prove that

> Bhakti-yoga does not work? No, but it means we have to refine our

> understanding of what it means to practice bhakti yoga with regard to

> *members of ISKCON*. Even if the books are there, and even if they are

> sincere, we see so many ISKCON devotees fall down.

>

> There is a relevant conversation I am reproducing here that discusses this

> point - if Bhakti is sufficient, why so many fall down?

 

It is interesting here that you have characterized the conversation like

this. Srila Prabhupada is not at all saying that bhakti is not sufficient.

He is saying that most will accept chanting and then later give it up. It is

a major philosophical point of ours that bhakti is sufficient. Varnasrama is

there to create a favorable situation for the continued conduct of bhakti.

It is not there as a necessary adjunct of bhakti itself. Can you please

clarify your views on this essential point?

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das