narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Those who may not be transcendentally situated but who have committed

> > themselves to the path of bhakti through the process of initiation are

> > advised to follow varnasrama principles as an aid to their progress.

> > Such practice of varnasrama is called daivi.

>

> That is not in dispute, please. "What kind of varnasrama a Krsna-bhakta

> is adviced to practice" is NOT the question!

>

> The dispute is, wether the practice of these **same** varnasrama

> principles from the side of those who did not yet committed themselves

> to the path of bhakti through the process of initiation, is to be

> seen as some another, different varnasrama system (asuri, as you

> call it). Where this concept is confirmed in Srila Prabhupada's books?

 

Why does it have to be confirmed by Srila Prabhupada's books according to

your taste? I gave ample quotes from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur as far as

the use of the term asuri. In the same section of Brahmana O Vaisnava he

talks extensively about how varnasrama systems may be distinguished based

upon not the external practices themselves but upon the intended goal. Are

these quotes something you would like to see?

 

> Unless you qualify it, it will remain as a speculation only. I am

> really sorry, I tried my best not to call it a speculation, but by

> your repeatedly ignoring to present the asked evidence, you leave no

> choice anymore.

 

You are quite free to challenge my statements here as speculations any time

you feel necessary. As a struggling sadhaka with a mind quite prone to

speculation I am quite dependent on the mercy of the vaisnavas to help drive

out this propensity. In the forum of email it is much easier to sometimes

make statements which are temporarily left unsupported by sastra, but when

the focus comes to the exact point of dispute, then sastra must be

presented.

 

> > > Varnasrma system is specifically meant for those who are still in

> > > the *bodily* conception of life, so to eneble them to gradually rise

> > > up to the platform of spirituality. VAD is *external*. So long

> > > you do it according to the rules and regulation as per God's

> > > instructions, you are following a godly system. Not perhaps

> > > some atheistic. (And that's what "asuri" in essence should be

> > > referring to - atheism, or godlessness.)

> >

> > This is not correct. There are so many examples of famous asuras

> > performing Vedic sacrifices according to "the rules and regulation as

> > per God's instructions" in order to achieve material benefits.

>

> What particularly are you referring on with "this is not correct"?

> I made few different points in the above text.

 

Sorry about that.

 

> I can also give you so many examples of famous Suras performing

> Vedic sacrifices **in order to achieve material benefits**. Like

> Indra and Daksa, for example. They, demigods and demons, even took

> the part in churning together the ocean of milk, for the sake of

> material achievement (soma-rasa drink). So what is your point

> exactly?

 

That asuras do follow religious principles. Godless religious principles.

Such terminology is not self-contradictory. The asuras agree that Vishnu

presented, through the Vedas, the religious principles by which they can

advance materially. But they think that Vishnu is under the control of those

religious principles and by executing the principles perfectly they can

conquer Vishnu. To some extent this mentality is shared by all who are

opposed or indifferent to God.

 

> > The varnasrama system should be instituted everywhere. There are two

> > brands of it which look very much the same and can go on quite nicely

> > just next to each other provided there is some open mindedness and

> > tolerance. It is very difficult for me to follow what is your specific

> > objection. You seem to be reading too many things into my use of the

> > term "asura". Other than that there doesn't seem to be very much at

> > issue here.

>

> I am being very specific in my objection. I want to know where in

> Prabhupada's books there is given such a concept according to

> which the state of an individual's hearth, i.e. the presence/absence

> of love of Godhead, is the criteria for determining the type of social

> system (varnasrama) that one is situated in. Is it really so difficult

> to follow what my objection is? What this has to do with my "reading"

> of your use of word "asura"?

 

Again, sorry. I understand your point better now and will be happy to supply

the above-mentioned quotes if asked.

 

> You speak "open mindedness", while in the other text you call the

> practice of Dharma to be "a dry stool" and you wonder how one

> who is convinced about prema being the supreme goal could possibly

> suggest the practice of Vedic religious principles of Manu-smrti.

 

I think you may have missed my point about open-mindedness. I was not

suggesting there was any lack anywhere. But living here in India I see that

there is a lot of open-mindedness built into the culture in that there are

so many different communities of religious-minded persons all freely

interacting on a daily basis in the same location. Their interaction is

full, up to the point of intermarriage, which is taboo. Thus so many

different systems of belief are there for each different community, but

since the practices are to a large extent the same externally, heavily based

on generic varnasrama concepts, there are no major problems in the social

interactions. (Of course I am speaking in very broad generalities here.) The

goals of each are quite different, though, and are called by different

names.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das