narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

Svarupa Prabhu commented as follows:

 

(Thank you for your nice text. The issues are becoming clearer now.)

 

> > 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?

 

It is not only accidental fall downs which are deviations. There may also be

gross bad habits. He may be heavily addicted to sinful life due to his

environment but may be crying in the heart for Krishna's protection. Thus

his behavior may be considered animalistic, but through bhakti he is

sinless.

 

And this scenario is exactly what Srila Prabhupada understood about

Westerners which many of his godbrothers, as well as the caste brahmanas and

other conservative types, could not understand. If someone is sinful but

ignorant of the rules, then he is still considered sinful, but that kind of

sin immediately goes away even through a dim reflection of bhakti. If

someone else is sinful but raised in a culture which has knowledge of the

rules, then he is an aparadhi and cannot be easily delivered through bhakti

(but will be later). This is the kind of protection I was referring to.

 

> > 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?

 

Gentle behavior is also there in vaisnava culture. These types of things are

most important for a practicing vaisnava to understand. But mundane Vedic

dharma contains many other things which are not at all required. Thus

speaking from the viewpoint of a strict Vedic caste brahmana a devotee may

appear subhuman in his behavior, whereas you may consider that same devotee

to be quite well-cultured.

 

> "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)

 

Yes, very nice point. At least one must be fully convinced of the potency of

bhakti to protect one from the sin of giving up one's duties. Without that

conviction the renunciation would be artificial.

 

> > 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 am not advocating this kind of behavior. But Srila Prabhupada did see fit

to explain the ideal that even one can steal for Krishna and not get any

reaction for it. He wasn't making it up. We really misunderstood the

application of the principle, but it is clear that Srila Prabhupada wanted

us to understand the existence of the principle at least theoretically lest

in the long run our movement become overconcerned with mundane morality. So

both things have to be there, the understanding of the principle and the

understanding of the application. After so much misapplication it is quite

understandable that discussion of the principle might need to be supressed

temporarily in some circumstances, but in the process the leaders at least

should not forget the principle. And this conference is about leadership.

 

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

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

 

I hope I have explained adequately above.

 

> 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.

 

Yes. Lord Buddha's mission was similar. Animal sacrifice is permitted in the

Vedas, but in due course of time the reason behind the sacrifices was lost.

It was not possible to preach the true understanding of Vedic sacrifice as

no one was prepared to understand it. Thus he had to preach against the

Vedas and both the principle and the misapplication were thrown out for

nearly 1000 years before Shankara could start the step-by-step rebuilding

process. So there is no harm in not explaining the glories of bhakti to

those who might misuse it.

 

> > 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.

 

Sorry about that. This whole discussion originated from someone quoting Manu

Samhita as an authorized source for how we should establish our social rules

in ISKCON. Perhaps the subject changed along the way without my notice.

 

> > > 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...

 

My point is that you have to reconcile the statements of the two offenses.

They should not be contradictory. If you interpret the fourth offense to

mean something opposed to the point of the tenth offense then the

interpretation should be reconsidered.

 

> > > 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?

 

I have tried to limit my comments to simply explaining the inapplicability

of some Vedic literature to devotees. As far as I understand this is not

vilification.

 

> 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.

 

I hope I have caught your point this time. I feel quite purified having your

association so you must be doing something right.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das