Guest guest Posted November 17, 2000 Report Share Posted November 17, 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! This is OK, but it is irrelevant to whether or not Manu-samhita is fundamentally meant to lead people away from Krishna or whether it is meant to lead people to Krishna. > > 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. The synonyms listed in verse 2.42 translates veda-vAda-rataH as "supposed followers of the Vedas" A veda-vada-ratah by definition is someone who has only superficial knowledge of the Vedas. Again, our difference of opinion here is more fundamental, viz. it would seem you consider that the dharmasastras are fundamentally meant to mislead people from the path of bhakti, whereas my position has been that they advocate the supremacy and worshipability of Lord Vishnu. Under this definition those who practice "asuri-varnasrama" do so because they are mistaken as to the actual purpose of Manu-samhita. I will deal with this in more detail later. > > > > 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. There is a difference here between quoting Charlie Chaplin (who was a silent film actor for all but his least known movies) and quoting sastra. SP refered to Charlie Chaplin (CC) to illustrate certain points, like how to be enthusiastic in preaching, or how he represented a vibhuti of Krishna by being extrememly funny. It should be noted that these are incidental references. In otherwords, CC being extremely funny, in and of itself, doesn't prove anything about Krishna. CC's activities only take on a higher meaning when seen in relationship to authoritative statements about Krishna. In contrast to CC's incidental humor, the quote from Manu as SP uses it is a definitional statement; in other words, it doesn't depend on any other definition for its validity. The validity of a definitional statement relies on the authority of its source. For example, if someone asks us "How do you know Krishna is blue?", and we say, "Because President Clinton says Krishna is blue," we know that's not authoritative. President Clinton is not an authority on Krishna, even though he is an authority on many other things. So this means that for a definitional statement to be true, its source has to be authoritative. Therefore, for this reference from manu-samhita to be true and support Srila Prabhupada's point, its source, viz. Manu-samhita, must be authoritative. Srila Prabhupada often gave the example of the mother being the authority for knowledge of who is your father. This is the case w/ Manu-samhita. > > > > 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? Probably because, like me, you're a bad mind reader :-) The points here are that the statement is authoritative, and that there is only one class of spiritual master being spoken of throughout the para and purport, not two. > > > > 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. I suppose it depends on which side you're on, doesn't it? Someone on this conference recenetly remarked, "Wheeeeew! What a blow-away-all-the-rest quote." This is the real problem. Someone takes a "favorite quote" and then takes unauthorized liberty to disregard all other relevant quotes. It's no wonder we have people like the ritviks, who do just that. But anyway, Srila Prabhupada considered it authoritative and relevant, so he used it. If it's good enough for Srila Prabhupada, it's good enough, and applicable, for me. > > > > 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. There is no evidence that, for example, that Dronacarya taught a vaisnava military science to the Pandavas and an asuri military science to the Kauravas. It is a question of usage and purpose. > > 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. The point we're discussing is, in fact, what is the basic understanding. Since we are discussing definitional principles, this is something that can only be resolved in an authoritative way. More evidence: narayana-para veda deva narayanangajah narayana-para loka narayana-para makhah "The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord, the demigods are also meant for serving the Lord as parts of His body, the different planets are also meant for the sake of the Lord, and different sacrifices are performed just to please Him." (SB 2.5.15) Here it is clearly said that the Vedic literates are "made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord". > 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. Your suggested meaning is wrong. You've left out tAtparyam, which is semantically linked to sarva-vedanam (sasti vibhakti), not to mukhyam. Mukhyam and tAtparya together form the direct object (dvitiya). Therefore mukhyam ("chief") import (tAtparya) of all the vedas (sarvavedanam) is srIpateh paramah [prathama], the supremacy of the Lord of Sri. > > > > > > (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. Irrelevant. Otherwise, you have to demonstrate that SP is refering to more than one spiritual master in this passage. > > 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? It doesn't have to mention it. And for your information it does not say anywhere in Manu-samhita that a sudra cannot become a brahmana. As far as Manu-samhita is concerned, the rites and rituals are the vaidika process of initiation. That is also a bonafide initiation. "However, according to Vedic principles, only a brahmana who is fully engaged in his occupational duties can be initiated. Sudras and women are not admitted to a vaidika initiation. Unless one is fit according to the estimation of the spiritual master, one cannot accept a mantra from the pancaratrika-vidhi or the vaidika-vidhi. When one is fit to accept the mantra, one is initiated by the pancaratrika-vidhi or the vaidika-vidhi. In any case, the result is the same." (CC Madhya 24.331 purport) SP here says the result is the same. Of course, we follow the pancaratrika rituals w/ regard to initiation, as it is not possible to perform the vaidika process in Kali-yuga. And even according to Manu-samhita itself, the process and laws recommended in Manu-samhita are meant to be practiced in the Satya-yuga, not even in the Treta and Dvapara yugas. But there are principles in Manu-samhita which are also applicable even today, and as we have seen Srila Prabhupada himself has quoted Manu-samhita where applicable. SP's refernce to the definition of the acarya and other references w/ regard to protecting women are examples. I've already posted relevant examples. > > 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. They don't have to; Manu-samhita is a reference (with all the other points) establishing the authority of the spiritual master. The point is that the quote is authoritative, not incidental. Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG) 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.