narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Kirti Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> 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.

 

Yes, thank you for nicely summing up the fundamental difference in your

first sentence above. I am very happy that you have understood my point and

have stated it correctly: The dharmasastras are fundamentally meant to

mislead people from the path of bhakti and do not advocate the supremacy and

superior worshipability of Lord Vishnu. However, the second sentence above

does not make sense to me. I would reword it to say that (my position is

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

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

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

distinguishing feature being that the practitioners are not concerned with

the pleasure of Lord Vishnu.

 

Let's not discuss other points for the time being, as most other points are

dependent on this point. For example:

 

You say Manu Samhita is an authoritative book, thus Srila Prabhupada quoted

it. I agree that it is authoritative, and I also have no objection to it

being quoted. But what it is authoritative *FOR* will be clear from the

results of the basic point above.

 

So, as best I can understand, here is where we agree:

 

1. Manu Samhita is authoritative, and is a bonafide smriti.

2. Manu Samhita contains valuable instructions for the conduct of human

life.

3. Manu Samhita is not applicable in its entirety in the present age.

4. Many of the instructions of Manu Samhita are valuable for devotees of

Lord Vishnu to follow.

5. All Vedic literatures, including Manu Samhita, are coming from Lord

Vishnu and are meant for Him only.

6. By following Manu Samhita strictly one will progress toward eventual

liberation.

 

Where we differ is (please forgive if I have not stated correctly, and

correct me):

 

1. You seem to be seeing the Vedic process of elevation as a continuous

process wherein one simply builds on the rules accepted in the beginning and

adds other rules later on, without giving up the previous rules. Since we

are still human beings, Manu's rules should not be given up, even for one

who has accepted the path of bhakti. I have said that in order to progress

on the path of bhakti one must give up the social practices described by the

karmakandiya sastras such as Manu Samhita, and instead accept the social

practices given by the Gaudiya acaryas as being conducive to bhakti. The

social practices of Manu, in general, are designed for those who are

desirous of personal sense gratification through regulated life and who thus

see their satisfaction as more important that the satisfaction of Vishnu.

Out of His kindness the Lord wants to fulfill their desires, and thus He

keeps them away from the path of bhakti by inspiring them to follow strictly

the karmakandiya sastras such as Manu Samhita. In this sense we can say that

Manu Samhita is meant only for Lord Vishnu: It keeps its practitioners from

disturbing the path of bhakti.

 

2. You seem to be saying that asuri varnasrama is essentially non-Vedic. It

only superficially follows the Vedas. I say that the Vedas clearly

distinguish between the asuras, who are described as being within Vedic

society, and the mlecchas and yavanas, who are described as being not

included in Vedic society. It is very possible to follow certain portions of

the Vedas strictly and be averse to Lord Vishnu. This is the definition of

asura. Thus those who follow Manu Samhita but do not have devotion are

practicing asuri varnasrama.

 

Where we may differ is (Please correct me if I am wrong, and again accept my

apologies):

 

3. I have claimed that if we follow those precepts of Manu which are

accepted by our Gaudiya Vaishnava acaryas (only) then our bhakti is not at

risk, whereas you may be saying that by using our discriminating powers we

can select other portions of Manu to be followed as absolute principles in

our Gaudiya Vaisnava society if they are deemed to be valuable.

 

This point 3 is most important for the immediate issue in this conference,

and is the only issue which has kept this discussion going from my side: If

we are going to have discussions about the implementation of varnasrama in

this conference or in any forum of ISKCON devotees, I simply don't want

anyone to quote Manu Samhita with the implication that if it is not followed

then we will become sinful and immoral. Rather, Manu Samhita should only be

quoted as an additional source of information to the degree that it directly

supports the points raised from guru, sadhu, and vaisnava sastras.

 

Please try to understand this point and address it directly, as it will help

us to focus on our real goal here: having productive discussions on the

implementation of varnasrama in ISKCON.

 

> > > 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".

 

Please see discussion above.

 

> > 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.

 

I haven't left out tatparyam, but I would like you to focus on the word

mukhyam (chief). If the point of the verse is to establish that the import

of all Vedic literatures is the supremacy of Lord Vishnu, then there would

be no need at all for the word mukhyam to be there. The rest of the words in

the verse would very nicely state that the import of all Vedic literatures

is the supremacy of Lord Vishnu. So why is the word mukhyam there? The

purpose of mukhyam is to establish that since there are many imports in the

Vedic literature, we should want to know which of them is primary, and thus

the verse states that the supremacy of Lord Vishnu is that chief import. In

English, the same thing: In your translation, what is the need for the word

"chief" if there do not exist multiple imports?

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das