narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

Bhaktarupa Prabhu commented as follows:

 

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

 

Although I suggested to leave it at that I feel compelled to make a few

comments still. First I am happy that you are feeling that the issues are

becoming clearer. I am happy that at least to some degree I am getting

through.

 

> 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.

 

Yes and no. Srila Prabhupada states in the purport to B.g. 9.31:

 

"On the other hand, one should not misunderstand that a devotee in

transcendental devotional service can act in all kinds of abominable ways;

this verse only refers to an accident due to the strong power of material

connections. Devotional service is more or less a declaration of war against

the illusory energy. As long as one is not strong enough to fight the

illusory energy, there may be accidental falldowns. But when one is strong

enough, he is no longer subjected to such falldowns, as previously

explained. No one should take advantage of this verse and commit nonsense

and think that he is still a devotee. If he does not improve in his

character by devotional service, then it is to be understood that he is not

a high devotee."

(Bg 9.31, Purport)

 

It is also interesting what Srila Prabhupada states in the beginning of the

same purport:

 

"The word su-duracarah used in this verse is very significant, and we should

understand it properly. When a living entity is conditioned, he has two

kinds of activities: one is conditional, and the other is constitutional. As

for protecting the body or abiding by the rules of society and state,

certainly there are different activities, even for the devotees, in

connection with the conditional life, and such activities are called

conditional."

(Bg 9.31, Purport)

 

Here he states that conditional activities are different "even for the

devotees". In other words even if one is a devotee one have to consider the

conditional activities also.

 

If one studies Srila Prabhupadas purport to that verse then he is always

speaking about accidental falldown. In fact he uses the word 8 times in that

purport to stress his point.

 

> 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.

 

Personally I don't see any harm in introducing education about how to behave

as a human being in the community of devotees at least to the leadership (or

maybe especially to the leaders) even at the risk of having them coming to

the situation where they are situated in knowledge but not able to follow.

In that case they could take shelter of Krsna and pray for his protection

but at least they might refrein from engaging their subjegates in all kinds

of criminal activities on the plea that devotees are transcendental.

 

I mentioned stealing flowers in my last text as an example because that is

something one can write about in a public conference without having to risk

to much, but I can tell you that througout the years I have witnessed many

devotees being engaged in all kinds of far out activities which I can't even

bring up in a public conference. And it was all done under the authorisation

of ISKCON leaders. I allways hated it because I knew inside that it was

wrong but there was not much one could do if one wanted to stay in the

temple.

 

The devotees where taught by the local GBC that even if something wrong was

done one was free from reactions because one was acting under the authority

of GBC and thus one was acting under the authority structure set up by Srila

Prabhupada who is an representative of Krsna. We where taught that in case

of doing something wrong the reaction would go to the GBC not to the one who

where acting under the GBC. Of course our local GBC didn't consider that if

something went wrong the local lawsystem would not consider so much the law

of ISKCON but would apply their own state laws if they would catch someone

doing some criminal acts.

 

Because we are discussing about ISKCON leadership I thought it could be good

if the leaders of the ISKCON society would study a little how to behave as a

human beings so that they don't put their subjects in too many risks.

 

I can tell you that quite some devotees could easily be sitting in Russian

and other jails for quite some years in the future if they would have been

caught with what they where doing.

 

One devotee was once told when he came home from one mission by his guru and

GBC that he will be going back to Godhead for taking such risk that he had

done. The GBC was very pleased.

 

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

> are most important for a practicing vaisnava to understand.

 

You are getting at it.

 

> But mundane

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

 

Basically what is not required is practises designed explicitly meant for

spcific groups in society. Like for instance rules how to worship Kali etc.

 

What I am speaking about is rules mentioned in the vedas which are meant for

human beings in general. Stealing for instance is a criminal act which has

to be followed by all members of the society who are classified as human

beings. Such rules should be known and learned by all members of society

including the devotees.

 

> 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.

 

Unfortunately as I have seen during the 19 years I was living in the temple

the one's who especially didn't seem to understand how to apply the

understanding properly was especially the leaders. I am sorry to say this

but I am not the only one to have this impression. The rank and file

devotees often could sense just by the gut feeling or by using common sense

that something was wrong.

 

> 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.

 

Because I have seen this problem especially among the leaders of ISKCON I

would suggest that at least among the leaders there should be education in

how to behave as a human being and how to apply and not to apply spiritual

knowledge in relation to social and material laws.

 

> 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.

 

Well, I guess that was a statement by Srila Prabhupada:

 

"People in general always require a leader who can teach the public by

practical behavior. A leader cannot teach the public to stop smoking if he

himself smokes. Lord Caitanya said that a teacher should behave properly

before he begins teaching. One who teaches in that way is called acarya, or

the ideal teacher. Therefore, a teacher must follow the principles of sastra

(scripture) to teach the common man. The teacher cannot manufacture rules

against the principles of revealed scriptures. The revealed scriptures, like

Manu-samhita and similar others, are considered the standard books to be

followed by human society. Thus the leader’s teaching should be based on the

principles of such standard sastras. One who desires to improve himself must

follow the standard rules as they are practiced by the great teachers."

(Bg 3.21, Purport)

 

> 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.

 

Here I have to agree with you but I thought this was my point to you. It was

you who made the statement "it is not very important to understand the rules

applicable for ordinary human beings" not me. I don't see it as an oppsition

to the tenth offence if someone considers it important to learn about how to

behave as a human being. Rather if someone chants Hare Krishna then he is

supposed to develop a desire to behave properly in the society and not cause

anxiety and harm to other living entities (by for instance stealing or

something like that).

 

> 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.

 

I think it is a vilification if one kicks out a Vedic literature whole sale.

Obviously Manu-samhita for instance is a literature which Srila Prabhupada

considered a literature cosisting important information even for devotees.

Now I agree that in the Manu-samhita there is also information about things

which are neither applicably for devotees nor applicable to the present

situation of today but to say that Manu-samhita is not an important

literature is I would say a vilification. If one says that something is not

important whatever it may be then that is a vilification according to the

dictionary.

 

> I hope I have caught your point this time.

 

It is getting closer. Let's see what you think about what I have just

written. I hope we gradually can come to an agreement.

 

> I feel quite purified having

> your association so you must be doing something right.

 

Thank you for encouragement. I also hope that I am not completely off.

 

Y.s.

Svarupa das