narayana-para veda includes Manu-samhita

[Guest guest]

This was supposed to have been sent a couple of days ago with the other text

I sent to Mahanidhi Prabhu. Sorry.

 

Commenting on Mahanidhi Prabhu's text:

 

> > No. Dharma, artha, kama, and moksa are all rejected as being centered on

> > one's personal pleasure. The mode of goodness may be higher than the

> > other two modes, but it is still material and it is always mixed with

> > the lower modes. Srila Prabhupada compared it to dry stool:

>

> I presented Srila Prabhupada's words where he clearly speaks about

> the performance of the certain religious ceremonies as meant for

> reviving the God consciousness, and you say "No. It's material

> activities. It's a dry stool". What more is to be said?

 

What is meant by "reviving God consciousness"? This can be taken in many

different ways and you are just assuming that it is referring to reviving

suddha bhakti. But it may also mean reviving a momentary sense of

appreciation of God as one's order supplier.

 

> Aparently, it is meaningless to ask for your acknowledgment of

> anything that could be seen in terms of "higher human values". You

> reject even the mode of goodness as such, and even those religious

> practices that are meant for re-awaking Krsna consciousness.

>

> It is an absurd to speak about implementing varnasrama *dharma*

> (that is based on the classification according to material qualities

> of body and the marital status), wjile in the same time rejecting very

> Dharma.

 

I have repeatedly said that practicing vaisnavas should follow those

varnasrama dharma injunctions meant for them to follow. Other kinds of

dharma should be followed by those they are meant for. So in this sense we

don't reject them. But we should follow what we are meant to follow and we

have no obligation to follow strictures meant for others. So in this sense

we do reject their applicability to us.

 

> > "After all, whether it be moist or dry, stool is stool. Similarly,

> > material activities may be either pious or impious, but because they are

> > all material, they are compared to stool." (CC Madhya 198 purport)

>

> But where did you read in that Dharma is being rejected from varnasrama

> dharma as material activities, as a dry stool? Krsna comes Himself

> to this world to reestablish the religious principles. And He is

> also maintaining them, and He is **following** them. A dry stool?

 

Yes. And for this reason it is not svayam bhagavan Krishna who actually does

the dharma samsthapana, but rather his expansions do it. Krishna is actually

more famous for *not* following ordinary religious principles.

 

> In the Bhagavad-gita, Srila Prabhupada speaks about Krsna's practices:

>

> "Although such rules and regulations are for the conditioned

> souls and not for Lord Krsna, because He discended to establish

> the principles of religion, He followed the prescribed rules.

> Otherwise, common men would follow in His his footsteps because

> He is the greatest authority. From the Srimad Bhagavatam it is

> understood that Lord Krsna was performing all the religious

> duties at home and out of home, as required of a householder."

>

> But see, we are not common men, not conditioned souls. We are

> Krsna-bhaktas so we respect and accept bhakti only, else is stool.

> Even if it is meant for reviving the Krsna consciousness.

 

Yes. By the mercy of the spiritual master we need not accept anything other

than suddha bhakti.

 

> > > Bhakti-yoga, being compared to an elevator that brings us straight

> > > to the top, does not exclude the existence of the stairways that

> > > provide step-by-step advancement.

> >

> > Not possible in Kali Yuga.

>

> I don't want to argue "possible" or "not possible".

>

> "Not possible" may only tell us something about Kali yuga people being

> unqualified and fallen, lazy and not interested for self-realization.

> Invalids. This in no way indicates the nature of the entire Vedic

> "step-by-step" system as asuri or materialistic (and a "dry stool",

> consequently).

>

> Can you at least see the purpose of the elevator and the stairways

> to be one and same? That's all I am trying to accomplish at the moment.

 

But in this case the stairways you are describing don't go to the same place

as the elevator does. Maybe by climbing the stairs you may be fortunate and

be guided to the place where the elevator starts from, but you have taken

initiation and have a nice seat in the elevator. Why do you want to glorify

the staircase, like, "Actually I am not qualified for this elevator. Now let

me get out for a while. I feel more qualified to climb the stairs."

 

> > Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur has used the word in this way and I have

> > simply tried to explain how it is possible to understand such a usage. I

> > am sorry if you don't like it.

>

> I don't know even wether your way of application is exactly the same

> as the one of SBT. You say it is.

>

> Yes, it is possible to understand. Just please define the expressions

> before starting to use them there where you are aware such an usage

> is abnormal. You still did not do it. I can only guess. It could refer

> to Srila Prabhupada's "a conditioned soul", could it? Or "demon"?

> Or both "atheist" and "theist" simultaneously? What exactly?

> Even ISCKON is thus also the asuric organization, since not every member

> got bhakti in his/her hearth automatically by joining it. Not even

> everybody is yet initiated by some of current ISCKON gurus! (that's

> one of your precondition for considering the system "divine")

>

>

> >

> > OK. Let's burn all the books written more than 50 years ago so that we

> > won't become confused when we read them due to the slight variations in

> > word usage over the years.

>

> If you have noticed, we do not read those books right now right

> here. So what is it exactly that we are confused about it in regard

> to reading them so that you want to help us out now?

 

I am sorry, but I am having difficulty understanding your language.

 

> > This is not how it is described. Being in the mode of goodness, or being

> > a sincere practitioner of self-realization, or being a purified soul are

> > never described as being means to obtain "the realistic possibility of

> > finding out the hidden process of bhakti". Bhakti is always described as

> > something which is the causeless gift of the bhakta, and that it can be

> > given to either the sinful or the sinless, the practitioner or the

> > debauchee, the purified or the unpurified.

>

> Why are you arguing over that what has not been under discussion?

> Whether bhakti *can* be bestowed to anybody, is not in dispute. It

> can be, yes.

 

It can *only* be bestowed on someone. There is no other way to obtain it.

 

> As far as the way of coming to the acceptance of the process

> of devotional service, this is described in Bhagavd-gita. I am not

> speculating it. It is Krsna himself who clearly says what kind of

> people do, and what kind do not realisticly come to that process.

> Just even one verse should be enough, though:

>

> "Persons who were acting piously in previous lives and in this

> life, whose sinful actions are completely eradicated and who are

> freed from the duality of delusion, engage themselves in My

> service with determination". (BG. 7.28)

 

Are you saying that this BG verse means that through strictly performing

pious activities one will naturally and eventually come to the platform of

bhakti? That seems to be what you are implying. Please correct me if I am

wrong in this.

 

Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur in his purport to this very same BG verse

specifically warns against using the verse as a basis for making such a

conclusion. While the translation wording given by Srila Prabhupada may seem

to imply that conclusion, it is not explicitly stated by him. Srila

Prabhupada's translation is discussing some qualities that are found in

those who do engage in devotional service, but he is not explicitly stating

that there is a direct causative relationship between the pious acts and the

bhakti. Visvanatha says very clearly that there is no causative

relationship, and as proof he refers to SB 11.12.9:

 

"Even if one engages with great endeavor in the mystic yoga system,

philosophical speculation, charity, vows, penances, ritualistic sacrifices,

teaching of Vedic mantras to others, personal study of the Vedas, or the

renounced order of life, still one cannot achieve me."

 

> So why do you say "This is not how it is described", when this

> is *exactly* how it is described? Is Krsna perhaps saying,

> "A debaucher and sinful person of asuric practices is the one

> who finds out this hidden path of devotional service"? I think,

> He doesn't. Indeed, He clearly says:

>

> "na mam duskritino mudhah prapadyante naradhamah"

> maya apahrita-jnana asurim bhavam asritah"

 

Neither the debauchee nor the pious worker finds out the hidden path of

devotional service. Only one who is favored by a devotee finds it out.

 

> > And are you saying that following Manu-samhita will somehow guarantee

> > that we will eventually come to the stage of bhakti? I know of no such

> > guarantee given anywhere. Thus I see no reason to advocate its practice

> > by anyone who is convinced that prema is the supreme goal of life.

>

> At least I am saying, if Srila Prabhupada did not disregard the

> practice of the religious principles of Manu-smrti as a dry stool,

> so we do not do it either.

 

Well, he did write that Madhya lila purport. And Manu Samhita is about

material piety. Seems quite clear.

 

> One's personal conviction that prema is the supreme goal of

> life is in no way a hindrance to "advocate" the practice of

> the principles of Manu-smrti. Srila Prabhupada did this himself.

> He even didn't descourage people from practicing their respective

> religion, what to speak of practicing Vedic Dharma, whose following

> would produce Aryans, the best of human kind.

 

Of course, we should encourage the population in general to follow religious

principles. But for ourselves, we do not care to follow them except as they

are in agreement with our vaisnava sastras.

 

We should know for certain that although the general population will benefit

something from following religious principles, they could be benefitted

infinitely more by bhakti, even bhakti performed unknowingly. Since they are

unfortunate, they cannot accept bhakti directly. First they have to be made

fortunate by exposing them to our Harinam sankirtan parties, prasad

distribution programs, etc. Then when such good fortune acts upon their

heart they may give resolve to give up the dry stool of mundane piety and

take to the process of bhakti.

 

> The world will not care for ISCKON, so long so the people see

> ISCKON devotees behaving low-class and not following the moral

> codes and the religious principles, in the name of "prema". Say

> it's stool, but it's way above our head.

 

ISKCON devotees are mixing in the society to preach, so they should be very

exemplary. Otherwise the preaching will be hollow! But internally, we accept

only bhakti as our religious principle. That is the meaning of accepting

initiation in the line of Sriman Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> > 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?

 

No, it doesn't. If the confirmation from "The Law-books For the Next

10000 Years" by ISCKON Founder-acarya and the Spiritual Master HDG

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is not according to your taste.

Please feel free to disregard the request. I am not intending to ask

you for such in future.

 

 

> I gave ample quotes from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur as far as

> the use of the term asuri.

 

I saw no such "amply quotes", sorry. But mostly your referring to SBT.

The following is an example of a *quote*:

 

"In the Sixteenth Chapter of Bhagavad-gita, it is concluded

that one who does not follow the principles laid down in the

scriptures is called an asura, demon, and one who follows

scriptural injunctions faithfully is called a deva, demigod".

(BG, 17.1, purport)

 

>

> That asuras do follow religious principles.

 

Not according to Srila Prabhupada. See the above quote. His very

deffinition of asuras is based on their NOT following religious

principles. They don't follow, according to Sri Krsna as well:

 

"Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false

prestige, they sometimes perform sacrifice in name only without

following any rules and regulations." (BG, 16.17)

 

Purport:

"Thinking themselves all in all, not caring for any authority or

scriptures, the demoniac sometimes perform so-called religious

or sacrificial rites."

 

 

> Godless religious principles.

> Such terminology is not self-contradictory.

 

"Godless religious principles"? There is no such thing existing.

I don't think we have the real use of such oxymoron terminology.

"A lightless light". What is it? Playing with the words that can

only bring about more of confusion. If it is godless, then it is

not actually religious. If it is lightless, then it is not light.

 

"adharmam dharmam iti ya, manyate tamasavrta"

 

Let's not confuse adharma with dharma, and then trash everything

together into the same "stool container", with the only distinction

that the former one goes into the "wet" section and the later one

into the "dry" section.

 

 

> But they think that Vishnu is under the control of those

> religious principles and by executing the principles perfectly

 

"By executing the principles perfectly"? That is an imagination.

Please let's read Krsna's and Prabhupada's words once more - "without

following any rules and regulations", "not caring for any authority

or scriptures". That doesn't look to be very perfectly, in my conception

of the meaning of "perfectly".

 

 

-----------------------

 

I do not intend to argue any further on wether asuras do follow

(perfectly) the religious principles or not. Everybody can take his/her

pick. According to "taste", perhaps.

 

 

 

 

- mnd