narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

Bhaktarupa Prabhu commented:

 

> Conversely, if you follow

> strictly the rules designed for initiated devotees then even if you don't

> follow all the rules designed for human beings you are free from sin by

> the mercy of bhakti.

 

This I must say I have difficulties to understand. How is it compatiable to

strictly follow the rules designed for initiated devotees and at the same

time behave like an animal? I would tend to believe that the person is not

strictly following the rules designed for initiated devotees if he behaves

like an animal.

 

Of course I know that if a devotee accidently falls down and does something

stupid but later picks himself up again then he should be considered saintly

but if someone thinks it is not important to behave properly then why should

Krsna protect him?

 

> So it is only important to understand how to behave

> as a devotee, and it is not very important to understand the rules

> applicable for ordinary human beings.

 

I don't see why it is not important to understand how to behave as a human

being. A pure devotee is the person who knows best how to behave as a human

being and that he demonstrates in practical life. A pure devotee is a

gentleman. He knows for instance how to recieve guests in the most pleasing

way. He is a cultured person naturally because he knows the best how to

behave as a human being. So as long as one is not a pure devotee why should

one not care about those things?

 

"Therefore, without being fully in Krsna consciousness, one should not give

up his occupational duties. No one should suddenly give up his prescribed

duties and become a so-called yogi or transcendentalist artificially."

(Bg 3.33, Purport)

 

> But please don't think that the rules for devotees are too difficult or

> too high, thus better to just follow the ordinary human rules for the time

> being. Firstly, in many ways the rules are quite similar and are not

> impossible to follow (are the four regs impossible to follow?), and

> secondly, initiated devotees have already promised to follow them so there

> is no question of not doing it.

 

A devotee maybe refrains from gambling because he has taken a vow of no

gambling but he has not taken any vow of no stealing so then maybe he

engages in stealing instead. In my opinion I think it can be valuable for

devotees to learn about that one should not steal. One reason why some are

engaged in stealing could be that they simply have not recieved sufficient

education about the act of stealing.

 

I was even personally taught in the beginning that it is okey to steal for

Krsna and was together with some other devotees send out in the night to

steal flowers for the janmastami celebrations in the first years of my

carrier as a devotee.

 

I don't think it is good to teach devotees in such a way that they can break

human laws just because they have become devotees.

 

I really have difficulties to relate to your statement: "it is not very

important to understand the rules applicable for ordinary human beings".

 

Why is it not important? I think the simple reason why some so called

devotees in the past behaved as gangsters, animals, terrorists, criminals

etc. etc. is just because they thought that it is not very important if one

is a devotee to understand the rules applicable for ordinary human beings.

They did what they did because they thought that they suddenly where above

all human rules. That understanding often came from a missunderstanding of

this very point. They even used the very same frase to justify all their

nonsence. That is maybe why I am a little allergic against the frase.

 

> Knowledge is fine. And if you want to follow the Vedic injunctions of your

> choice, no one is stopping you. But please don't insist that ISKCON should

> make policies for the behavior of initiated devotees which are not based

> upon the bhakti sastras or that it should preach the glories of

> karmakandiya smritis to the devotees.

 

I think you are missing my point. I am not trying to propagate that ISKCON

devotees should now start to offer goats to Kali or something like that. I

am just trying to make a simple point but maybe it is too simple to be

understood.

 

> > The fourth offense against the holy name is to vilify scriptures or

> > Vedic knowledge.

>

> And the tenth offense is to not have complete faith in the chanting of the

> holy name. The holy name once chanted surpasses thousands of Vedic

> sacrifices performed perfectly.

 

This doesn't make the fourth offense less relevant. I mean, sorry...

 

> > Vilify according to websters means: to lower in estimation or

> > importance.

 

> The smarta brahmanas of Santipur also considered Haridas Thakur to be a

> vilifier of the Vedas because they said he was giving excessive

> glorification to the potency of the holy name, and they cursed him that if

> his statements were not correct that his nose would fall off. Glorifying

> bhakti's superiority over other Vedic processes is not vilification.

 

I have not argued on that the bhakti process is superior to other Vedic

processes. I agree with you on that point. That is not what I am discussing.

It is good that you want to glorify the bhakti process but that doesn't have

to mean that one have to vilify the scriptures or Vedic knowledge. Isn't it?

 

If you don't catch after this what I am trying to say then I would say we

leave it at that. I am not upset or anything with you. After all you are a

devotee and a nice disciple of Srila Prabhupada. You are worthy my respect.

And apart from that I am definitely not the best example myself in

devotional life so I should not speak so much.

 

Y.s.

Svarupa das