narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

Bhatarupa (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

> 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.

 

 

Sorry, I can't see the logic here. How is it possible that

the varnasrama dharma system that has been given by God can be

asuric? If a practitioner happens to be devoid from the sentiment

of bhakti, how does that make the very system to be asuric?

The very *purpose* of VAD system is to gradually bring people

in general into developing higher human sentiments, culminating

into the sentiment of devotion to God. But if someone does not have

this highest sentiment yet, it does not mean that the system he

follows is asuric, does it? It's still the same, God's system.

 

As I can't see how the absence of love in someone's heart can

determine wether Krsna's name is asuric or not, so I can't see

it in regard to Krsna's social system. Is it *Krisna's*

system, or is it not. That's all. If it is His, then it is

not asuri. If I came to your home, wether I love you or not,

I am still in *your* home (a home of a *devotee*), and not

perhaps in an "asuri home". My sentiment does not change the

facts about you and your home, does it?

 

 

You say "asuri varnasrama dharma is sastric". In which sastra

this is confirmed? According to Bhagavad-gita, indeed the

criteria of "asuric" is -- Not sastric! Not sanctioned by

sastra! How otherwise can we know anyway? We can't cut out a

person's hearth, put it under the microscope, search wether

there is some trace of love of God there or not, and then

conclude wether the principles (or system) that he followed

were asuri or not.

 

 

 

- mnd