Guest guest Posted November 10, 2000 Report Share Posted November 10, 2000 > > Maybe the following quote is wherefrom he has got his understanding > > from: > > > > "The Manus compiled the Manu-samhita. The word samhita means Vedic > > knowledge, and manu indicates that this knowledge is given by Manu. The > > Manus are sometimes incarnations of the Supreme Lord and sometimes > > empowered living entities. Formerly, many long years ago, Lord Krsna > > instructed the sun-god. The Manus are generally sons of the sun-god. > > Therefore, while speaking to Arjuna about the importance of > > Bhagavad-gita, Krsna said, imam vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam > > vivasvan manave praha: 'This instruction was given to Vivasvan, the > > sun-god, who in turn instructed his son Manu.' Manu gave the law known > > as Manu-samhita, which is full of directions based on varna and asrama > > concerning how to live as a human being. These are very scientific ways > > of life, but under the rule of demons like Hiranyakasipu, human society > > breaks all these systems of law and order and gradually becomes lower > > and lower. Thus there is no peace in the world. The conclusion is that > > if we want real peace and order in the human society, we must follow the > > principles laid down by the Manu-samhita and confirmed by the Supreme > > Personality of Godhead, Krsna." (SB 7.8.48, Purport) > > Thank you for good quote. Looks like Bhaktarupa Prabhu, by reffering > to 'some Manu Rishi' is using unchecked information source. Yes, I would also like to thank him for the quote. Please note, though, that this was specifically mentioned by me as "an additional note" and "as far as I understand". I did not attempt to pass it off as gospel. And it is not at all an essential point for the matters at hand. I will check my sources again and report back. Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2000 Report Share Posted November 10, 2000 Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! Sorry for getting excited. And thanks for your balanced reply. We are making some progress. I am interested in your thoughts about the references to non-vaisnava smritis / vaisnava smritis by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in his book "Brahmana O Vaisnava", which I referred to here a couple of days back. Some detailed responses follow. Other points are being researched and I'll report back later. > 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. The other literatures are described as not being exclusively focused on the glorification of Krishna. Other Puranas are to some extent focused in this way, to some extent not. The passages which the acaryas quote as being relevant for practitioners of bhakti can be safely accepted. > 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 the acaryas have endorsed this section. > 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) Karmis also accept initiation wherein the spiritual master accepts charge, they learn Vedic knowledge intricately, and in this way they are twice born. Jnanis also. Srila Prabhupada is making no specific reference here to devotees of Vishnu. You would think that in all the times Srila Prabhupada mentioned Manu Samhita there would be ONE time that he would have said specifically that it is valid for devotees to follow. But each time he only makes general statements applicable to general vedic progressiveness. > 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. This is your conjecture. "Karmi" spiritual masters are also "transcendental professors of spiritual science" in some sense, and in some sense they can bonafidely teach the karma kandiya process. Thus I would say this quote is not conclusive. > 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. Yes, many other sastras do. But not Manu Samhita. > 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. For practice in my personal life and for ISKCON's internal policy, I am prepared to accept any quotation from Manu-samhita which is specifically mentioned in any vaisnava text according to the way it is being quoted in context. Accepting it any more than that I would consider to be dangerous to my bhakti and the bhakti of others in ISKCON. > > > 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. Does it make any reference to the superiority of the practice of pure bhakti, unmotivated devotion to the supreme Lord Visnu? If so, please give some quotations (with original Sanskrit also, please, if possible). Daivi varnasrama is directed at this point. Any literatures which neglect the glorification of pure bhakti cannot be concerned with daivi varnasrama, and are thus in the category of asuri-varnasrama. Or do you have another definition of asuri varnasrama? > > (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. But by reading out of context you are misunderstanding the way in which Srila Prabhupada is using his references. He never connects Manu samhita with pure devotion, which is the goal of initiated devotees. This lack of even a single statement like that from Srila Prabhupada should be the cause of some deep reflection. He could have easily made such a direct statement if he was thinking the way you are thinking. > > > 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. It is clear that the practice of varnasrama is favorable for the cultivation of bhakti. We don't disagree on that point. Thus the balance of the points in this particular text need not be further discussed. Our dispute is only over where we will take our instruction on the practice of varnasrama by initiated devotees who are chanting Hare Krishna. On to the next text. Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2000 Report Share Posted November 14, 2000 Dear Bhakta Rupa Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. > > I am interested in your thoughts about the references to > non-vaisnava smritis / vaisnava smritis by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in his book > "Brahmana O Vaisnava", which I referred to here a couple of days back. I have not read Brahmana O Vaisnava, and I cannot remember the quotes you posted, but I suspect it is much related to the famous sabha in which BSST soundly defeated the caste brahmana / goswami arguments regarding eligibility. If it is, very briefly, the caste goswamis / brahmanas would be classified as veda-vada-ratah, or persons who superficially understand the Vedas but are mistaken about its actual purpose. > Some detailed responses follow. Other points are being researched and I'll > report back later. > > > 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. > > The other literatures are described as not being exclusively focused on the > glorification of Krishna. Other Puranas are to some extent focused in this > way, to some extent not. The passages which the acaryas quote as being > relevant for practitioners of bhakti can be safely accepted. Of course. > > 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 the acaryas have endorsed this section. > > > 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) > > Karmis also accept initiation wherein the spiritual master accepts charge, > they learn Vedic knowledge intricately, and in this way they are twice born. > Jnanis also. Srila Prabhupada is making no specific reference here to > devotees of Vishnu. You would think that in all the times Srila Prabhupada > mentioned Manu Samhita there would be ONE time that he would have said > specifically that it is valid for devotees to follow. But each time he only > makes general statements applicable to general vedic progressiveness. Srila Prabhupada himself is using this quotation to support his points. Unless he specifically says that this is not relevant to his presentation, it should not be considered irrelevant. > > 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. > > This is your conjecture. "Karmi" spiritual masters are also "transcendental > professors of spiritual science" in some sense, and in some sense they can > bonafidely teach the karma kandiya process. Thus I would say this quote is > not conclusive. It also seems to be Srila Prabhupada's conjecture. Nothing in the purport to suggest that Srila Prabhupada is speaking about "karmi spiritual masters". Srila Prabhupada uses it as evidence to support his point, so it must be relevant. Simple. > > 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. > > Yes, many other sastras do. But not Manu Samhita. See comment on above SP reference. > > 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. > > For practice in my personal life and for ISKCON's internal policy, I am > prepared to accept any quotation from Manu-samhita which is specifically > mentioned in any vaisnava text according to the way it is being quoted in > context. Accepting it any more than that I would consider to be dangerous to > my bhakti and the bhakti of others in ISKCON. Would your book list also include Srila Prabhupada's commentaries? > > > > 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. > > Does it make any reference to the superiority of the practice of pure > bhakti, unmotivated devotion to the supreme Lord Visnu? If so, please give > some quotations (with original Sanskrit also, please, if possible). Daivi > varnasrama is directed at this point. Any literatures which neglect the > glorification of pure bhakti cannot be concerned with daivi varnasrama, and > are thus in the category of asuri-varnasrama. Or do you have another > definition of asuri varnasrama? Different definition. Could we say that Dhanur-veda represents asuri military science since it does not make reference to "the practice of pure bhakti"? Would vaisnavas have to use a special vaisnava dhanurveda? Remember that according to the Bhagavatam itself, Srila Vyasadava's works prior to the Bhagavatam would fit in this category--works like Vedanta-Sutra, the Upanisads, etc. My definitions have rested on the assumption that the entire body of Vedic literature indicates this ultimate goal. I've already quoted BG 15.15 in this regard. Also: mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH param.h "The chief import of all the Vedas is the supremacy of Lord Vishnu". Therefore, to speak of any Vedic literature as fundamentally advocating asuri-vanrashrama dharma would be inconsistent with the internal purpose of that very same Vedic literature. > > > (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. > > But by reading out of context you are misunderstanding the way in which > Srila Prabhupada is using his references. He never connects Manu samhita > with pure devotion, which is the goal of initiated devotees. This lack of > even a single statement like that from Srila Prabhupada should be the cause > of some deep reflection. He could have easily made such a direct statement > if he was thinking the way you are thinking. That's just you saying I'm reading it out of context. On taking a close look at paragraph in which we find this quote[1], the only thing Srila Prabhupada is talking about is the transcendental spiritual master, or one who is fully aware of the import of the Vedas. Srila Prabhupada in the same paragraph mentions that "A person born a sudra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brahmana if he finds him perfectly qualified." First point here is that Srila Prabhupada mentions that a sudra is not barred from spiritual initiation, and that "such spiritual initiation" is what Srila Prabhupada has been describing since the begining of the paragraph. Sudras are barred, on the other hand, from being initiated by a worldly spiritual master. Another point, refering to Vayu Purana, made in the same paragraph is that the acarya knows the import of Vedic literature. Because these two points indicate actions and qualities that are exclusively the property of a bonafide spiritual master (like Srila Prabhupada, for example), these points alone distinguish the context of this paragraph and purport as specifically refering to a bona fide (transcendental) spiritual master, not a materialist, or even a worldly professor of Vedic literature. > > > > 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. > > It is clear that the practice of varnasrama is favorable for the cultivation > of bhakti. We don't disagree on that point. Thus the balance of the points > in this particular text need not be further discussed. Our dispute is only > over where we will take our instruction on the practice of varnasrama by > initiated devotees who are chanting Hare Krishna. > Although we do agree superficially, we also have a more fundamental dispute, namely over the scope and purpose of the entire body of Vedic literature. I would be willing to publically continue a discussion on this because it seems to me that much of the disagreement that we experience is ultimately based on these differing fundamental presumptions. These fundamental differences will ultimately lead us to different conclusions and disagreements. Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG) ----------- FOOTNOTES ---------------- [1] "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. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upaniti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a sudra. The sacred thread on the body of a brahmana, ksatriya or vaisya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this samskara, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a sudra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brahmana if he finds him perfectly qualified. In the Vayu Purana an acarya is defined as one who knows the import of all Vedic literature, explains the purpose of the Vedas, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way." (CC Adi 1.46 purport) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2000 Report Share Posted November 14, 2000 Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! > I have not read Brahmana O Vaisnava, and I cannot remember the quotes you > posted, but I suspect it is much related to the famous sabha in which BSST > soundly defeated the caste brahmana / goswami arguments regarding > eligibility. The bulk of the book is from that sabha. The specific section from which I was quoting, though, was an excerpt from an article in Sajjana Toshani. This section is most relevant to our discussion. Here are some portions: >From page 176: All the endeavors of the devotees are meant for Krishna. Since the devotees do not have material desires like the inferior karmis and jnanis, their endeavors are not like those of the karmis and jnanis. The injunctions of the smritis meant for regulating the materialists are not INTENDED for the spiritualists (emphasis mine). >From page 180 of "Brahmanas and Vaisnavas": Alas, what a sorrowful condition! Today in Gaudiya Vaisnava society, the respect for the Vaisnava Smriti written by Sri Sanatana Goswami and instructed by Sriman Mahaprabhu is no longer present! Though we identify ourselves as servants of the Vaisnavas, we disgrace our line by uprooting the practice of Vaisnava smritis! And we consider those who are trying to revive the practice of Vaisnava smritis as enemies! > If it is, very briefly, the caste goswamis / brahmanas would be classified > as veda-vada-ratah, or persons who superficially understand the Vedas but > are mistaken about its actual purpose. In BG 2.42 (veda-vada-ratah) purport, Srila Prabhupada does not even suggest that the Vedic knowledge of veda-vada-rati's is superficial. He gives no information that they are not bonafide followers of the karmakandiya sections of the Vedas. Because they are attached to sense gratification they are not interested in other portions of the Vedas, but they clearly understand the material benefits of following the karmakandiya rituals, follow them strictly, and achieve the specified result. In order to say this you must either be thinking that the strict followers of Manu-samhita are higher than the veda-vada-rati's, or you have a different understanding of 2.42 than I have presented above. Please clarify your views. > > > 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) > > > > Karmis also accept initiation wherein the spiritual master accepts > > charge, they learn Vedic knowledge intricately, and in this way they are > > twice > born. > > Jnanis also. Srila Prabhupada is making no specific reference here to > > devotees of Vishnu. You would think that in all the times Srila > > Prabhupada mentioned Manu Samhita there would be ONE time that he would > > have said specifically that it is valid for devotees to follow. But each > > time he > only > > makes general statements applicable to general vedic progressiveness. > > Srila Prabhupada himself is using this quotation to support his > points. Unless he specifically says that this is not relevant to his > presentation, it should not be considered irrelevant. Of course it is relevant. There are many similarities between the function of a karmakandiya guru and a vaisnava guru. The Manu-samhita portion quoted (only one sentence) is definitely relevant for vaisnava gurus also. It was convenient background information to his general discussion, so he used it. It is really difficult to understand why you are insisting that just because Srila Prabhupada quoted occasionally from portions of Manu-samhita that the book must be applicable in general to vaisnavas. Like I said, Srila Prabhupada also quoted Charlie Chaplin. > > > 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. > > > > This is your conjecture. "Karmi" spiritual masters are also > "transcendental > > professors of spiritual science" in some sense, and in some sense they > > can bonafidely teach the karma kandiya process. Thus I would say this > > quote is not conclusive. > > It also seems to be Srila Prabhupada's conjecture. Nothing in the purport > to suggest that Srila Prabhupada is speaking about "karmi spiritual > masters". Srila Prabhupada uses it as evidence to support his point, so > it must be relevant. Simple. But in the rest of the purport there is nothing to indicate that Srila Prabhupada is talking at all about Manu-samhita. He only mentions it in the second sentence. Why are you thinking that the rest of the purport is also based upon Manu? > > > 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. > > > > Yes, many other sastras do. But not Manu Samhita. > > See comment on above SP reference. You are purely relying on quotes from Srila Prabhupada's purports. We all know that by selectively quoting from his purports one can prove almost anything. Why don't we look at the Manu-samhita itself and what the acaryas said specifically about its applicability to devotees? This would seem to be a much more productive line of discussion. > > > 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. > > > > For practice in my personal life and for ISKCON's internal policy, I am > > prepared to accept any quotation from Manu-samhita which is specifically > > mentioned in any vaisnava text according to the way it is being quoted > > in context. Accepting it any more than that I would consider to be > > dangerous > to > > my bhakti and the bhakti of others in ISKCON. > > Would your book list also include Srila Prabhupada's commentaries? Would you care to explain yourself a little better here? > > > > > 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. > > > > Does it make any reference to the superiority of the practice of pure > > bhakti, unmotivated devotion to the supreme Lord Visnu? If so, please > > give some quotations (with original Sanskrit also, please, if possible). > > Daivi varnasrama is directed at this point. Any literatures which > > neglect the glorification of pure bhakti cannot be concerned with daivi > > varnasrama, > and > > are thus in the category of asuri-varnasrama. Or do you have another > > definition of asuri varnasrama? > > Different definition. Please give it. > Could we say that Dhanur-veda represents asuri military science since it > does not make reference to "the practice of pure bhakti"? Would vaisnavas > have to use a special vaisnava dhanurveda? Is one available? Maybe by the time gaudiya vaisnavas become temporal rulers of countries and have to fight wars with atheist rulers there will have come along a qualified vaisnava who could write a commentary on dhanurveda for devotees, extracting relevant portions that are not contrary to vaisnava principles mentioned elsewhere. > Remember that according to the Bhagavatam itself, Srila Vyasadava's works > prior to the Bhagavatam would fit in this category--works like > Vedanta-Sutra, the Upanisads, etc. Yes. They do not exclusively glorify the Lord. > My definitions have rested on the assumption that the entire body of Vedic > literature indicates this ultimate goal. I've already quoted BG 15.15 in > this regard. Also: > > mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH param.h > > "The chief import of all the Vedas is the supremacy of Lord Vishnu". > > Therefore, to speak of any Vedic literature as fundamentally advocating > asuri-vanrashrama dharma would be inconsistent with the internal purpose > of that very same Vedic literature. This is your basic misunderstanding. There are five goals of human life advocated by the Vedic literature, dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and prema. For each of the five goals there are specific portions which have as their purpose the achievement of that particular goal. Certain portions advocate asuri varnasrama dharma as a means to achieve goals other than prema. Your quote just above is actually proving exactly the opposite to what you want it to prove!!!! Mukhyam ca sarva-vedanam directly implies that there are many vedic principles, of which one is mukhya, the chief, namely the supremacy of Lord Vishnu. > > > > (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. > > > > But by reading out of context you are misunderstanding the way in which > > Srila Prabhupada is using his references. He never connects Manu samhita > > with pure devotion, which is the goal of initiated devotees. This lack > > of even a single statement like that from Srila Prabhupada should be the > cause > > of some deep reflection. He could have easily made such a direct > > statement if he was thinking the way you are thinking. > > That's just you saying I'm reading it out of context. On taking a close > look at > paragraph in which we find this quote[1], the only thing Srila Prabhupada > is talking about is the transcendental spiritual master, or one who is > fully aware > of the import of the Vedas. Already answered above. Manu-samhita is only being referred to in the one sentence. > Srila Prabhupada in the same paragraph mentions that "A person born a > sudra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is > approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a > disciple the right to be a brahmana if he finds him perfectly qualified." > > First point here is that Srila Prabhupada mentions that a sudra is not > barred from > spiritual initiation, and that "such spiritual initiation" is what Srila > Prabhupada > has been describing since the begining of the paragraph. Sudras are > barred, on the other hand, from being initiated by a worldly spiritual > master. Please, Prabhu, listen to what you are saying! Is it mentioned anywhere in Manu Samhita that a sudra can be initiated? If not, then how is Srila Prabhupada's paragraph about Manu Samhita? > Another point, refering to Vayu Purana, made in the same paragraph is that > the acarya knows the import of Vedic literature. > > Because these two points indicate actions and qualities that are > exclusively the property of a bonafide spiritual master (like Srila > Prabhupada, for example), these points alone distinguish the context of > this paragraph and purport as specifically refering to a bona fide > (transcendental) spiritual master, not a materialist, or even a worldly > professor of Vedic literature. But Srila Prabhupada never says that all these points are from Manu Samhita. > Although we do agree superficially, we also have a more fundamental > dispute, namely over the scope and purpose of the entire body of Vedic > literature. I would be willing to publically continue a discussion on > this because it seems to me that much of the disagreement that we > experience is ultimately based on these differing fundamental > presumptions. These fundamental differences will ultimately lead us to > different conclusions and disagreements. Yes. Your analysis is correct. I hope I have adequately stated my position on this fundamental point of difference above. Looking forward to your response. Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2000 Report Share Posted November 14, 2000 > From page 176: > > All the endeavors of the devotees are meant for Krishna. Since the > devotees do not have material desires like the inferior karmis and jnanis, > their endeavors are not like those of the karmis and jnanis. The > injunctions of the smritis meant for regulating the materialists are not > INTENDED for the spiritualists (emphasis mine). Good quote. But since I have material desires, like inferior karmis and jnanis, I need a regulative life, based on vedic injuctions of the sastras and smritis, which will help me to become a better human and devotee. > From page 180 of "Brahmanas and Vaisnavas": > > Alas, what a sorrowful condition! Today in Gaudiya Vaisnava society, the > respect for the Vaisnava Smriti written by Sri Sanatana Goswami and > instructed by Sriman Mahaprabhu is no longer present! Though we identify > ourselves as servants of the Vaisnavas, we disgrace our line by uprooting > the practice of Vaisnava smritis! And we consider those who are trying to > revive the practice of Vaisnava smritis as enemies! This quote is totally irrelevant to the topic of Manu Samhita. > Of course it is relevant. There are many similarities between the function > of a karmakandiya guru and a vaisnava guru. The Manu-samhita portion > quoted (only one sentence) is definitely relevant for vaisnava gurus also. > It was convenient background information to his general discussion, so he > used it. It is really difficult to understand why you are insisting that > just because Srila Prabhupada quoted occasionally from portions of > Manu-samhita that the book must be applicable in general to vaisnavas. > Like I said, Srila Prabhupada also quoted Charlie Chaplin. Irrelevant comparison. Seems you have a prejudiced opinion about Manu-Samhita, why? > You are purely relying on quotes from Srila Prabhupada's purports. We all > know that by selectively quoting from his purports one can prove almost > anything. Why don't we look at the Manu-samhita itself and what the > acaryas said specifically about its applicability to devotees? This would > seem to be a much more productive line of discussion. Well, I can again refer you to SB 2.10.4. > > Could we say that Dhanur-veda represents asuri military science since it > > does not make reference to "the practice of pure bhakti"? Would > > vaisnavas have to use a special vaisnava dhanurveda? > > Is one available? Maybe by the time gaudiya vaisnavas become temporal > rulers of countries and have to fight wars with atheist rulers there will > have come along a qualified vaisnava who could write a commentary on > dhanurveda for devotees, extracting relevant portions that are not > contrary to vaisnava principles mentioned elsewhere. Reminds me "Children of Corn" (Stephen King). Maybe I'm stupid, but explain me, how can any part of Vedas be contrary to vaisnava principles? What I heard is a typical sectarian approach to knowledge. > > mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH param.h > > > > "The chief import of all the Vedas is the supremacy of Lord Vishnu". > > > > Therefore, to speak of any Vedic literature as fundamentally advocating > > asuri-vanrashrama dharma would be inconsistent with the internal purpose > > of that very same Vedic literature. > > This is your basic misunderstanding. There are five goals of human life > advocated by the Vedic literature, dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and prema. > For each of the five goals there are specific portions which have as their > purpose the achievement of that particular goal. Certain portions advocate > asuri varnasrama dharma as a means to achieve goals other than prema. > > Your quote just above is actually proving exactly the opposite to what you > want it to prove!!!! Mukhyam ca sarva-vedanam directly implies that there > are many vedic principles, of which one is mukhya, the chief, namely the > supremacy of Lord Vishnu. And you are speculating that other principles divert all living beings from the main purpose? What a nonsense. Even kama, if it's done properly, can bring living beings closer to principle of prema. > Already answered above. Manu-samhita is only being referred to in the one > sentence. Although I disagree with your statement about 'only one reference', it's quite interesting that for you it's not enough to accept it. You need, many, many quotes, but for me it's more important to understand the essense, which I think Srila Prabhupada provided in SB 2.10.4. > > Srila Prabhupada in the same paragraph mentions that "A person born a > > sudra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is > > approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a > > disciple the right to be a brahmana if he finds him perfectly > > qualified." > > > > First point here is that Srila Prabhupada mentions that a sudra is not > > barred from spiritual initiation, and that "such spiritual initiation" > > is what Srila Prabhupada has been describing since the begining of the > > paragraph. Sudras are barred, on the other hand, from being initiated > > by a worldly spiritual master. > > Please, Prabhu, listen to what you are saying! Is it mentioned anywhere in > Manu Samhita that a sudra can be initiated? If not, then how is Srila > Prabhupada's paragraph about Manu Samhita? Manu Samhita says that by serving brahmanas, sudra can become as good as brahmana. But initiation doesn't make sudra to be brahmana. Sudra first has to be qualified, and Srila Prabhupada mentions this. ys Oleg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2000 Report Share Posted November 15, 2000 Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya! > This is your basic misunderstanding. There are five goals of human life > advocated by the Vedic literature, dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and prema. > For each of the five goals there are specific portions which have as their > purpose the achievement of that particular goal. Certain portions advocate > asuri varnasrama dharma as a means to achieve goals other than prema. THe term "asuri varnasrama" has also been used by some to specify the caste by birth form of varnasrama while allowing for a karma-kandiya form of varnasrama which is not "asuric" but also not "daiva". Do you have any references for this term? Your servant, Pancaratna das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2000 Report Share Posted November 15, 2000 > > From page 176: > > > > All the endeavors of the devotees are meant for Krishna. Since the > > devotees do not have material desires like the inferior karmis and > > jnanis, their endeavors are not like those of the karmis and jnanis. The > > injunctions of the smritis meant for regulating the materialists are not > > INTENDED for the spiritualists (emphasis mine). > > Good quote. But since I have material desires, like inferior karmis and > jnanis, I need a regulative life, based on vedic injuctions of > the sastras and smritis, which will help me to become a better human > and devotee. In general, devotees' material desires are in a different category from the material desires of the karmis. There must certainly be regulative life based upon vedic injunctions to help a devotee become a better human and devotee, but the particular regulations to be followed should be those designed to deal with the particular category of material desires possessed. The above quote very clearly says that the regulations applicable for the karmis are not intended for the devotees. Other regulations are applicable and can help the devotees to improve their condition. > > From page 180 of "Brahmanas and Vaisnavas": > > > > Alas, what a sorrowful condition! Today in Gaudiya Vaisnava society, the > > respect for the Vaisnava Smriti written by Sri Sanatana Goswami and > > instructed by Sriman Mahaprabhu is no longer present! Though we identify > > ourselves as servants of the Vaisnavas, we disgrace our line by > > uprooting the practice of Vaisnava smritis! And we consider those who > > are trying to revive the practice of Vaisnava smritis as enemies! > > This quote is totally irrelevant to the topic of Manu Samhita. Not exactly. If devotees base their lives on Manu Samhita, ignoring Haribhakti Vilas, and criticize those who are trying to revive the practice of Haribhakti Vilas, then it is quite applicable. > > Of course it is relevant. There are many similarities between the > > function of a karmakandiya guru and a vaisnava guru. The Manu-samhita > > portion quoted (only one sentence) is definitely relevant for vaisnava > > gurus also. It was convenient background information to his general > > discussion, so he used it. It is really difficult to understand why you > > are insisting that just because Srila Prabhupada quoted occasionally > > from portions of Manu-samhita that the book must be applicable in > > general to vaisnavas. Like I said, Srila Prabhupada also quoted Charlie > > Chaplin. > > Irrelevant comparison. Seems you have a prejudiced opinion about > Manu-Samhita, why? It's a great book, really. The karmis should definitely follow it. But it was not written for devotees to follow. > > You are purely relying on quotes from Srila Prabhupada's purports. We > > all know that by selectively quoting from his purports one can prove > > almost anything. Why don't we look at the Manu-samhita itself and what > > the acaryas said specifically about its applicability to devotees? This > > would seem to be a much more productive line of discussion. > > Well, I can again refer you to SB 2.10.4. In this purport Srila Prabhupada is not specifically talking about the general applicability of Manu for devotees. He is only mentioning that a particular point from Manu Samhita is applicable to devotees. There is a big difference, which I sincerely hope you can try to think about and understand. > > > Could we say that Dhanur-veda represents asuri military science since > > > it does not make reference to "the practice of pure bhakti"? Would > > > vaisnavas have to use a special vaisnava dhanurveda? > > > > Is one available? Maybe by the time gaudiya vaisnavas become temporal > > rulers of countries and have to fight wars with atheist rulers there > > will have come along a qualified vaisnava who could write a commentary > > on dhanurveda for devotees, extracting relevant portions that are not > > contrary to vaisnava principles mentioned elsewhere. > > Reminds me "Children of Corn" (Stephen King). Maybe I'm stupid, but > explain me, how can any part of Vedas be contrary to vaisnava principles? > What I heard is a typical sectarian approach to knowledge. The fact that the karmakandiya sections of the Vedas are contrary to Vaisnava principles is the focal point of this entire discussion. You really need to try to understand how they are. > > > mukhyaM cha sarvavedAnAM tAtparyaM shrIpateH param.h > > > > > > "The chief import of all the Vedas is the supremacy of Lord Vishnu". > > > > > > Therefore, to speak of any Vedic literature as fundamentally > > > advocating asuri-vanrashrama dharma would be inconsistent with the > > > internal purpose of that very same Vedic literature. > > > > This is your basic misunderstanding. There are five goals of human life > > advocated by the Vedic literature, dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and > > prema. For each of the five goals there are specific portions which have > > as their purpose the achievement of that particular goal. Certain > > portions advocate asuri varnasrama dharma as a means to achieve goals > > other than prema. > > > > Your quote just above is actually proving exactly the opposite to what > > you want it to prove!!!! Mukhyam ca sarva-vedanam directly implies that > > there are many vedic principles, of which one is mukhya, the chief, > > namely the supremacy of Lord Vishnu. > > And you are speculating that other principles divert all living beings > from the main purpose? What a nonsense. I am certainly the greatest nonsense, but I must repeat what I have heard from my spiritual master. > Even kama, if it's done > properly, can bring living beings closer to principle of prema. Very nice that you have said this. It is a correct point. But *HOW* it brings them closer to the principle of prema is the issue: Doing "kama" properly means following sastric injunctions -- those particular portions of the sastras which regulate kama -- accepting a guru -- one who is expert in those sastric portions -- and accepting "sadhus" -- the examples of those who have perfected the following of those portions and are practicing properly. By following nicely, ultimately the desire will come in the heart for something higher. At this point one has to accept a different portion of the sastras, accept a different guru who is expert in the new branch of knowledge, and follow the practices of a different group of expert practitioners, sadhus. (This may happen in same life or in next life.) One is getting closer to prema in this way, undoubtedly. But if the practitioner who is initiated in this higher activity starts to again follow the kama sastras, then he commits an offense to his new guru. He is considered as fallen, a vantasi if you will. He is following sastra, but that sastra is inappropriate to the commitment he has made to follow a different path, thus his activity is offensive and he loses the benefit of following either path, he becomes an outcaste. This is why I have been stressing that Manu Samhita is not applicable to *INITIATED* devotees. By the process of initiation the devotees have accepted a new birth and a new set of sastric injunctions. If they follow again the injunctions of the sastra not meant for them then they offend their guru, the mantra received, and the Vedas. > > Already answered above. Manu-samhita is only being referred to in the > > one sentence. > > Although I disagree with your statement about 'only one reference', > it's quite interesting that for you it's not enough to accept it. > You need, many, many quotes, but for me it's more important > to understand the essense, which I think Srila Prabhupada > provided in SB 2.10.4. You may fix your mind on any statement of Srila Prabhupada in any purport and say it is the great and final conclusion, mahavakya. Some famous Christian wrote: "We both read the Bible day and night -- you see black and I see white." So no, I do not accept isolated references from Srila Prabhupada as the all in all. Our process is guru-sadhu-sastra, approached with intelligence and discrimination. The ritviks also accept Srila Prabhupada's statements as the all-in-all. So you say you think this one quote is the essence. That is only your opinion. Is it supported by sadhu? By sastra? > > > Srila Prabhupada in the same paragraph mentions that "A person born a > > > sudra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is > > > approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a > > > disciple the right to be a brahmana if he finds him perfectly > > > qualified." > > > > > > First point here is that Srila Prabhupada mentions that a sudra is not > > > barred from spiritual initiation, and that "such spiritual initiation" > > > is what Srila Prabhupada has been describing since the begining of the > > > paragraph. Sudras are barred, on the other hand, from being initiated > > > by a worldly spiritual master. > > > > Please, Prabhu, listen to what you are saying! Is it mentioned anywhere > > in Manu Samhita that a sudra can be initiated? If not, then how is Srila > > Prabhupada's paragraph about Manu Samhita? > > Manu Samhita says that by serving brahmanas, sudra can become as > good as brahmana. But initiation doesn't make sudra to be brahmana. > Sudra first has to be qualified, and Srila Prabhupada mentions this. But does it say that such a sudra who is as good as a brahmana can be initiated? Srila Prabhupada is saying that sudras can be initiated, which is not mentioned in Manu Samhita. This is a most basic difference. Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 2000 Report Share Posted November 15, 2000 Pancaratna Prabhu commented as follows: > > This is your basic misunderstanding. There are five goals of human life > > advocated by the Vedic literature, dharma, artha, kama, moksa, and > > prema. For each of the five goals there are specific portions which have > > as their purpose the achievement of that particular goal. Certain > > portions advocate asuri varnasrama dharma as a means to achieve goals > > other than prema. > > THe term "asuri varnasrama" has also been used by some to specify the > caste by birth form of varnasrama while allowing for a karma-kandiya form > of varnasrama which is not "asuric" but also not "daiva". Do you have any > references for this term? "Brahmana and Vaisnava" by SBSST, Vyavahara-kanda, pg 150: "There are two kinds of varnasrama -- demoniac and divine. The system of varnasrama that is based on fruitive activities meant for material enjoyment that is followed by those who are averse to Lord Hari is called demoniac varnasrama, and the other is the varnasrama of the community of those who want to serve Hari." Ibid. pg 142, BSST gives an expanded translation of SB 11.5.3: "If any of the members of the four varnas and four asramas fail to worship or intentionally disrespect the Personality of Godhead, who is the source of their own creation, they fall down from their position, in other words, they fall from daiva-varnasrama into the contrary situation of the demonic varnasrama." Ibid. pg 141: "In other words, varnasrama dharma is of two varieties. That which is established on the basis of devotional service to Lord Visnu is called daiva, and the opposite variety, meaning that kind of varnasrama in which there is no exclusive devotion to the Supreme Lord, which denies His eternal name, form, qualities, and pastimes, and which considers spiritual objects as illusory and thus recommends the worship of five gods is called material enjoyment-prone adaiva [varnasrama]." >From these passages it is clear that a division of varnasrama into two types (instead of three as you suggest above) is preferable. It is also clear that asuric varnasrama is not necessarily non-Vedic. Those who follow varnasrama strictly according to the vedic path, but who are not devoted to Lord Vishnu, are said to be following demonic varnasrama. Elsewhere in the same book there are passages which to a slight degree suggest a three-fold division, but they are not conclusive in this regard. It is assumed that your third category would be a non-vedic variety of superficial varnasrama. This would certainly be adaiva, but since it is non-vedic, "asuric" would not be a strictly appropriate term. The asuras are generally understood to be followers of the Vedas who are opposed to Lord Vishnu. Non-vedic peoples are termed as mlecchas and yavanas. Perhaps "pseudo-varnasrama" would be the most appropriate term for the third type (under my above assumption), since it has no sastric basis. Asuri varnasrama as I was using the term definitely has a sastric basis (Manu Samhita!!). Is this OK? Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2000 Report Share Posted November 16, 2000 > In general, devotees' material desires are in a different category from > the material desires of the karmis. There must certainly be regulative > life based upon vedic injunctions to help a devotee become a better human > and devotee, but the particular regulations to be followed should be those > designed to deal with the particular category of material desires > possessed. The above quote very clearly says that the regulations > applicable for the karmis are not intended for the devotees. Other > regulations are applicable and can help the devotees to improve their > condition. Ok, this is more rational explanation of your statements. But, let's go further: > Not exactly. If devotees base their lives on Manu Samhita, ignoring > Haribhakti Vilas, and criticize those who are trying to revive the > practice of Haribhakti Vilas, then it is quite applicable. That's your paradigm. I don't know why, but somehow you decided that somebody proposes to ignore Hari Bhakti Vilasa, and criticises it's followers. However, nobody, really, nobody is proposing to throw away our sastras or undermine their importance. But if you're going to make good preaching to karmis, you should show yourself a good example of high moral principles, and apply them in your life. And besides, as Krishna Kirti Prabhu mentioned, Manu Samhita contains many hints on functions of varnasrama society, so what a waste would be to trash such a treasure. > > Well, I can again refer you to SB 2.10.4. > > In this purport Srila Prabhupada is not specifically talking about the > general applicability of Manu for devotees. He is only mentioning that a > particular point from Manu Samhita is applicable to devotees. There is a > big difference, which I sincerely hope you can try to think about and > understand. No, Srila Prabhupada speaks there about devotees, having regulative life on the basis of laws, given by Manu. He doesn't speak about one paragraph or one quote from Manu laws, but speaks about laws in common. > > Reminds me "Children of Corn" (Stephen King). Maybe I'm stupid, but > > explain me, how can any part of Vedas be contrary to vaisnava > > principles? What I heard is a typical sectarian approach to knowledge. > > The fact that the karmakandiya sections of the Vedas are contrary to > Vaisnava principles is the focal point of this entire discussion. You > really need to try to understand how they are. The same karmakandiya section may be contrary to Vaisnava principles, and may be beneficial to Vaisnava principles. It is improper application of the knowledge makes it contrary to Vaisnava principles. > > And you are speculating that other principles divert all living beings > > from the main purpose? What a nonsense. > > I am certainly the greatest nonsense, but I must repeat what I have heard > from my spiritual master. As a matter of fact, by 'nonsense', I referred to above mentioned statement, not to you. I've offended you enough, so I don't need to call you like this. > Doing "kama" properly means following sastric injunctions -- those > particular portions of the sastras which regulate kama -- accepting a guru > -- one who is expert in those sastric portions -- and accepting "sadhus" > -- the examples of those who have perfected the following of those > portions and are practicing properly. By following nicely, ultimately the > desire will come in the heart for something higher. At this point one has > to accept a different portion of the sastras, accept a different guru who > is expert in the new branch of knowledge, and follow the practices of a > different group of expert practitioners, sadhus. (This may happen in same > life or in next life.) One is getting closer to prema in this way, > undoubtedly. But if the practitioner who is initiated in this higher > activity starts to again follow the kama sastras, then he commits an > offense to his new guru. He is considered as fallen, a vantasi if you > will. He is following sastra, but that sastra is inappropriate to the > commitment he has made to follow a different path, thus his activity is > offensive and he loses the benefit of following either path, he becomes an > outcaste. > > This is why I have been stressing that Manu Samhita is not applicable to > *INITIATED* devotees. By the process of initiation the devotees have > accepted a new birth and a new set of sastric injunctions. If they follow > again the injunctions of the sastra not meant for them then they offend > their guru, the mantra received, and the Vedas. But Prabhu, I'm not incouraging anyone, including myself, to accept everything in Manu Samhita literally and without consideration. If you are sure that some instruction from Manu Samhita will downgrade your spritual life, then you have to decide what is more important for you, however I personally think that many instructions from Manu Samhita will only help to my spiritual life. > You may fix your mind on any statement of Srila Prabhupada in any purport > and say it is the great and final conclusion, mahavakya. Some famous > Christian wrote: "We both read the Bible day and night -- you see black > and I see white." So no, I do not accept isolated references from Srila > Prabhupada as the all in all. Our process is guru-sadhu-sastra, approached > with intelligence and discrimination. The ritviks also accept Srila > Prabhupada's statements as the all-in-all. So you say you think this one > quote is the essence. That is only your opinion. Is it supported by sadhu? > By sastra? I can see that your statements are also based mainly on your opinion, and you've already made several mistakes by calling Manu Samhita a scripture for asuri-varnasrama, written by some Manu Rishi, not Svayambhuva Manu, accussing Krishna Kirti and me in statements, which we never claimed, and it makes me to conclude that you still have a prejudiced opinion, which blocks you to view on the issue from another angle. As I've said, my aim is to understand the essense, and I tried to view it from sadhu and sastras, and from your statements, and so far I think I understood it correctly. > > Manu Samhita says that by serving brahmanas, sudra can become as good as > > brahmana. But initiation doesn't make sudra to be brahmana. Sudra first > > has to be qualified, and Srila Prabhupada mentions this. > > But does it say that such a sudra who is as good as a brahmana can be > initiated? Srila Prabhupada is saying that sudras can be initiated, which > is not mentioned in Manu Samhita. This is a most basic difference. Yes, Manu Samhita does not mention initiation for sudras, Sri Isopanisad Bhagavad-gita (without purports) doesn't mention it also, so what? You're going out of track of discussion. You can be most exalted vaisnava, but if you're not qualified for math, you cannot be math teacher. your servant, Oleg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 16, 2000 Report Share Posted November 16, 2000 > > Not exactly. If devotees base their lives on Manu Samhita, ignoring > > Haribhakti Vilas, and criticize those who are trying to revive the > > practice of Haribhakti Vilas, then it is quite applicable. > > That's your paradigm. I don't know why, but somehow you decided > that somebody proposes to ignore Hari Bhakti Vilasa, and criticises > it's followers. However, nobody, really, nobody is proposing > to throw away our sastras or undermine their importance. You have ignored the context in which I made my above statement. Very unfair. If you want to comment on a discussion going back and forth between two individuals you can't just take what is on the screen at the present time as all in all. Naturally in such a discussion there will be nuances derived from previous texts in the exchange. First, be sure you understand both sides of the whole conversation before you jump in. > But > if you're going to make good preaching to karmis, you should > show yourself a good example of high moral principles, and > apply them in your life. And besides, as Krishna Kirti Prabhu > mentioned, Manu Samhita contains many hints on functions > of varnasrama society, so what a waste would be to trash > such a treasure. I never suggested trashing it. Again, very unfair, due to ignoring the background in which the statement was made. > > > Reminds me "Children of Corn" (Stephen King). Maybe I'm stupid, but > > > explain me, how can any part of Vedas be contrary to vaisnava > > > principles? What I heard is a typical sectarian approach to knowledge. > > > > The fact that the karmakandiya sections of the Vedas are contrary to > > Vaisnava principles is the focal point of this entire discussion. You > > really need to try to understand how they are. > > The same karmakandiya section may be contrary to Vaisnava principles, > and may be beneficial to Vaisnava principles. It is improper > application of the knowledge makes it contrary to Vaisnava principles. This is completely false. I have already answered this point at length elsewhere. The Vedas are not some cohesive encyclopedia of knowledge. The karmakandiya section discusses principles, and these principles are different from vaisnava principles. There may be some overlapping in the application of those principles due to similarities of details, but the principles are not compatible. > > Doing "kama" properly means following sastric injunctions -- those > > particular portions of the sastras which regulate kama -- accepting a > > guru -- one who is expert in those sastric portions -- and accepting > > "sadhus" -- the examples of those who have perfected the following of > > those portions and are practicing properly. By following nicely, > > ultimately the desire will come in the heart for something higher. At > > this point one has to accept a different portion of the sastras, accept > > a different guru who is expert in the new branch of knowledge, and > > follow the practices of a different group of expert practitioners, > > sadhus. (This may happen in same life or in next life.) One is getting > > closer to prema in this way, undoubtedly. But if the practitioner who is > > initiated in this higher activity starts to again follow the kama > > sastras, then he commits an offense to his new guru. He is considered as > > fallen, a vantasi if you will. He is following sastra, but that sastra > > is inappropriate to the commitment he has made to follow a different > > path, thus his activity is offensive and he loses the benefit of > > following either path, he becomes an outcaste. > > > > This is why I have been stressing that Manu Samhita is not applicable to > > *INITIATED* devotees. By the process of initiation the devotees have > > accepted a new birth and a new set of sastric injunctions. If they > > follow again the injunctions of the sastra not meant for them then they > > offend their guru, the mantra received, and the Vedas. > > But Prabhu, I'm not incouraging anyone, including myself, to accept > everything in Manu Samhita literally and without consideration. > If you are sure that some instruction from Manu Samhita will downgrade > your spritual life, then you have to decide what is more important > for you, however I personally think that many instructions from > Manu Samhita will only help to my spiritual life. Great. Go for it! But in case you have forgotten, the point which started the whole discussion in this conference is when a devotee stated that devotees must follow it like sastra. I am only objecting to that point. > > You may fix your mind on any statement of Srila Prabhupada in any > > purport and say it is the great and final conclusion, mahavakya. Some > > famous Christian wrote: "We both read the Bible day and night -- you see > > black and I see white." So no, I do not accept isolated references from > > Srila Prabhupada as the all in all. Our process is guru-sadhu-sastra, > > approached with intelligence and discrimination. The ritviks also accept > > Srila Prabhupada's statements as the all-in-all. So you say you think > > this one quote is the essence. That is only your opinion. Is it > > supported by sadhu? By sastra? > > I can see that your statements are also based mainly on your opinion, > and you've already made several mistakes by calling Manu Samhita > a scripture for asuri-varnasrama, This statement was fully supported by three quotes from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and I stand firmly by this usage of the term. I would like to know of any other authoritative definition. So far none has been proposed here. > written by some Manu Rishi, > not Svayambhuva Manu, I explained that there was a difference of opinion among vaisnava scholars on this point and that I am researching it further. Please allow some time. > accussing Krishna Kirti and me in statements, > which we never claimed, I sincerely apologize if I ever did this. > and it makes me to conclude that you still > have a prejudiced opinion, which blocks you to view on the issue > from another angle. Yes, I am a most prejudiced individual. That is why I associate with devotees and try to hear from them so that I can give up my prejudices. Perhaps you think I have some prejudice towards performing sinful activities in the name of bhakti, and that Manu can help me to avoid that. Is that why you are trying to help me with your instructions? > As I've said, my aim is to understand the essense, > and I tried to view it from sadhu and sastras, and from your > statements, and so far I think I understood it correctly. Fine. > > > Manu Samhita says that by serving brahmanas, sudra can become as good > > > as brahmana. But initiation doesn't make sudra to be brahmana. Sudra > > > first has to be qualified, and Srila Prabhupada mentions this. > > > > But does it say that such a sudra who is as good as a brahmana can be > > initiated? Srila Prabhupada is saying that sudras can be initiated, > > which is not mentioned in Manu Samhita. This is a most basic difference. > > Yes, Manu Samhita does not mention initiation for sudras, Sri Isopanisad > Bhagavad-gita (without purports) doesn't mention it also, so what? > You're going out of track of discussion. You can be most exalted > vaisnava, but if you're not qualified for math, you cannot be > math teacher. Again you have completely forgotten the context in which my statement was made. Since you have not taken the trouble to follow the discussion carefully and have proposed that I don't know what is two plus two, allow me to refresh your memory: Krishna Kirti Prabhu was trying to establish that an entire purport was based upon Manu Samhita, since it was mentioned in the second sentence. I made the point that only the one sentence was based on Manu. He objected. I stated as proof of the fact that the rest of the purport was not referring to Manu was the simple fact that there were things that Srila Prabhupada said in the purport which were opposed to Manu, such as giving initiation to sudras, which really seemed to me to be such an obvious point. He tried to obscure matters by stating that it says in Manu that sudras can become elevated by serving the brahmanas. I responded that this was beside the point, since Srila Prabhupada directly mentions initiation. Now you have come in halfway through the conversation we were having and are trying to say that I have lost the thread. How is this helpful? Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das 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.