Sb 11.08.10

[mark]

Hare Krsna. I'm looking for somebody who is knowledgable in Sanskrit or somebody who has a copy of the SB, Canto 11, chapter 8 , verse 10.

 

The translation is,

 

"Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an intelligent human being should take the essence from all religious scriptures."

 

Is this the correct Sanskrit text....

 

11080101 AN:?By:?: m:h??y:?: S:as*:?By:H k?S:l::? n:rH

11080103 s:v:?t:H s:arm:ad?atp:?\p:?By: Ev: \:X?p:dH

Thanks so much to anyone who has the answer for this!

 

[theist]

Don't know anything about sanskrit but I love this particular verse.

[sambya]

 

Don't know anything about sanskrit but I love this particular verse.

 

do you really ? and follow it too ? essence from vamamarga tantriks and osho as well ?

[stonehearted]

Whatever is essential, that is, whatever doesn't contradict the spirit of the Bhagavatam, may be accepted. Your question raises another issue: what constitutes shastra? You may have some burden, especially among followers of the Bhagavatam as taught by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to establish whatever is written by Osho or any vamamarga tantrikas must be accepted as shastra. But if there is something in there that supports the essence of the Bagavatam--that all materially motivated religion is completely rejected, as we see in the second verse, which essentially states it thesis--then someone may accept that. But that doesn't mean they eat the whole flower.

 

If you read that verse in context, you'll see it's not about indiscriminately accepting whatever someone who poses as a sadhu says, but about how saintly persons only accept what's necessary for their spiritual progress.

[theist]

 

do you really ? and follow it too ? essence from vamamarga tantriks and osho as well ?

Take gold where you find it even in a pool of mud. No need to search the mud pools though when Srimad Bhagavatam is like finding gold on the surface of the ground. And beyond that it is already formed into wonderful bracelets, necklaces, rings and many other fine pieces art just waiting for our appreciation.

[theist]

 

Whatever is essential, that is, whatever doesn't contradict the spirit of the Bhagavatam, may be accepted. Your question raises another issue: what constitutes shastra? You may have some burden, especially among followers of the Bhagavatam as taught by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, to establish whatever is written by Osho or any vamamarga tantrikas must be accepted as shastra. But if there is something in there that supports the essence of the Bagavatam--that all materially motivated religion is completely rejected, as we see in the second verse, which essentially states it thesis--then someone may accept that. But that doesn't mean they eat the whole flower.

 

If you read that verse in context, you'll see it's not about indiscriminately accepting whatever someone who poses as a sadhu says, but about how saintly persons only accept what's necessary for their spiritual progress.

 

Yes, in context.

[melvin]

 

Take gold where you find it even in a pool of mud. No need to search the mud pools though when Srimad Bhagavatam is like finding gold on the surface of the ground. And beyond that it is already formed into wonderful bracelets, necklaces, rings and many other fine pieces art just waiting for our appreciation.

 

 

I have yet to buy Og Mandino`s best selling book, The Greatest Salesman.

[theist]

 

I have yet to buy Og Mandino`s best selling book, The Greatest Salesman.

 

What for? Do you have something to sell melvin?

 

Krishna is the greatest commodity. He ever increases in value. You can give Him away to all you see and yet He always remains with you.

 

What worldly salesman can claim the same for his product?

[stonehearted]

 

Yes, in context.

That's the best way to understand any verse.

[theist]

 

That's the best way to understand any verse.

 

Perhaps the only way. I have often experienced that some verse I read I took it in one and remembered it like that until revisiting it and seeing it in context of all the surrounding verses.

 

My mind had seen it the way I was conditioned to see and thus I never saw it at all.

 

Considering this tendency of the mind I have become comfortable with only the bare facts when speaking to others about God and spiritual life. We are not the body,God is a person, we are part of the Supreme Being and are therefore personal and eternal also along with a handful of other basic concepts like avoiding Mayavad philosophy etc. Beyond this narrow perimeter I get much more cautious.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.8.10

 

aṇubhyaś ca mahadbhyaś ca

 

śāstrebhyaḥ kuśalo naraḥ

 

sarvataḥ sāram ādadyāt

 

puṣpebhya iva ṣaṭpadaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

aṇubhyaḥ — from the smallest; ca — and; mahadbhyaḥ — from the greatest; ca — also; śāstrebhyaḥ — from religious scriptures; kuśalaḥ — intelligent; naraḥ — a man; sarvataḥ — from all; sāram — the essence; ādadyāt — should take; puṣpebhyaḥ — from the flowers; iva — like; ṣaṭpadaḥ — the honeybee.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Just as the honeybee takes nectar from all flowers, big and small, an intelligent human being should take the essence from all religious scriptures.

 

PURPORT

 

In human society the original knowledge is called Veda, and the essential part of veda, or knowledge, is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (15.15), vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ. From the honeybee, an intelligent human being should learn to take the essence, or nectar, of all knowledge. A honeybee does not waste its time trying to carry away an entire bush or garden, but rather takes the essential nectar. We may thus study the difference between the honeybee and the ass, who carries heavy loads. Education does not mean to become an intellectual ass carrying heavy loads of useless knowledge; rather, one should accept the essential knowledge that leads to an eternal life of bliss and understanding.

 

At the present time people generally have a sectarian concept of religion, and yet there is no scientific understanding of the Absolute Truth. Such complacent, dogmatic, sectarian religionists can certainly learn something from the example of the honeybee given in this verse.

 

I think the purport was well spoken by Hridayananda Maharaja, whom I presume contributed this purport.

[Sonic Yogi]

I would also like to point out that the term sastra as referenced in the verse under discussion refers to Vedic scriptures compiled by the empowered incarnation Vyasadeva.

Sastra does not include the Christian Bible or the Muslim Quran.

 

Sastra is defined as "Śāstra is without the four principal defects that are visible in the conditioned soul: imperfect senses, the propensity for cheating, certainty of committing mistakes, and certainty of being illusioned".(Bhagavad-gita 16.24 purport).

 

So, the Holy Bible and the Quran cannot qualify as shastra in the Vedic context by the definiton of sastra as given by the acaryas, inasmuch as they are flawed with the defects as described above.

[theist]

Sorry Sonic. I think you are still missing the idea of taking the essence. This means so much of the vedas should also be set aside and only the essence should be accepted.

 

Further if some veda suggests we worship so & so demigod for elevation to heaven and a resulting good birth and so on and someone else's holy book from their land says to abandon the goal of heaven and the means to achieve it and just surrender to God, what are you going to do?

 

Myself I will without hesitation recognize and acknowledge the higher truth of surrendering to God in devotion vs. striving for heaven. It has the same conclusion as the Bhagavad-gita.

 

Not this "it's from India so it must be alright" sort of attitude.

 

I care not for the canon or origin of any holy book, only the conclusion. And it's the conclusion that separates poly-theism from mayavad from Vaisnavism.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

Sorry Sonic. I think you are still missing the idea of taking the essence. This means so much of the vedas should also be set aside and only the essence should be accepted.

 

Further if some veda suggests we worship so & so demigod for elevation to heaven and a resulting good birth and so on and someone else's holy book from their land says to abandon the goal of heaven and the means to achieve it and just surrender to God, what are you going to do?

 

Myself I will without hesitation recognize and acknowledge the higher truth of surrendering to God in devotion vs. striving for heaven. It has the same conclusion as the Bhagavad-gita.

 

Not this "it's from India so it must be alright" sort of attitude.

 

I care not for the canon or origin of any holy book, only the conclusion. And it's the conclusion that separates poly-theism from mayavad from Vaisnavism.

 

 

 

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.339

 

ei mantre dvāpare kare kṛṣṇārcana

 

'kṛṣṇa-nāma-sańkīrtana' — kali-yugera dharma

 

SYNONYMS

 

ei mantre — by this mantra; dvāpare — in the Age of Dvāpara; kare — perform; kṛṣṇa-arcana — the worship of Lord Kṛṣṇa; kṛṣṇa-nāma-sańkīrtana — chanting of the holy name of Lord Kṛṣṇa; kali-yugera dharma — the occupational duty in the Age of Kali.

 

TRANSLATION

 

"By this mantra, the people worship Lord Kṛṣṇa in Dvāpara-yuga. In Kali-yuga the occupational duty of the people is to chant congregationally the holy name of Kṛṣṇa.

 

PURPORT

 

As stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (12.3.51):

 

kaler doṣa-nidhe rājann asti hy eko mahān guṇaḥ

 

kīrtanād eva kṛṣṇasya mukta-bandhaḥ paraḿ vrajet

 

"My dear King, although Kali-yuga is full of faults, there is still one good quality about this age. It is that simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom." Thus in Kali-yuga one worships Lord Kṛṣṇa by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. To propagate this movement, Lord Kṛṣṇa personally appeared as Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu. That is described in the following verse.

 

Except for chanting the Holy Name of Krishna, there is no other religious process in the age of Kali that will deliver the soul from samsara.

 

If any religious book's essence does not teach that, then in fact that book is useless.

[theist]

And what if it does teach the chanting of the Holy Name?

[melvin]

 

What for? Do you have something to sell melvin?

 

Krishna is the greatest commodity. He ever increases in value. You can give Him away to all you see and yet He always remains with you.

 

What worldly salesman can claim the same for his product?

 

Selling is not my forte, Theist. That`s your specialty. You`re trying to sell Prabhupad`s books. That`s good. So, it`s obvious the moment you open a thread from a verse in Srimad Bhagavatam that one takes notice, " Here we go again.." I`m not against it. What the consumer demands is for you to open a thread say, a verse from Caitanya Caritamrta or Narada Pancaratra. That way, it would not be a monotony. You`ll be surprise, there`ll be an increase demand in Prabhupad`s books ( Srimad Bhagavatam). If direct selling won`t work try the indirect one. God bless!

[theist]

 

Selling is not my forte, Theist. That`s your specialty. You`re trying to sell Prabhupad`s books. That`s good. So, it`s obvious the moment you open a thread from a verse in Srimad Bhagavatam that one takes notice, " Here we go again.." I`m not against it. What the consumer demands is for you to open a thread say, a verse from Caitanya Caritamrta or Narada Pancaratra. That way, it would not be a monotony. You`ll be surprise, there`ll be an increase demand in Prabhupad`s books ( Srimad Bhagavatam). If direct selling won`t work try the indirect one. God bless!

 

Thanks but I am not trying anything so noble as promoting Prabhupada's books. When I notice something that catches my eye from the SB I sometimes immediately try to share it. In Krishna consciousness the best way to keep this knowledge is to share it.

 

I am really only here for myself melvin. Selfish but true. Rather entertaining or being monotonous is quite irrelevant. But we should worry about finding these verses monotonous. That just means we have no idea what the verse is saying.

[melvin]

 

Thanks but I am not trying anything so noble as promoting Prabhupada's books. When I notice something that catches my eye from the SB I sometimes immediately try to share it. In Krishna consciousness the best way to keep this knowledge is to share it.

 

I am really only here for myself melvin. Selfish but true. Rather entertaining or being monotonous is quite irrelevant. But we should worry about finding these verses monotonous. That just means we have no idea what the verse is saying.

 

Aren`t you satisfied, Theist, with Prabhupad`s purports he wrote for each verse in Srimad Bhagavatam? It becomes monotonous if it were to me. Then I move on. Having arrived at a conclusion myself. If I say something to your thread on the forum it`s the real me reacting to a comment on Srimad Bhagavatam not from Prabhupad`s purports. To do so is parroting.

[theist]

 

Aren`t you satisfied, Theist, with Prabhupad`s purports he wrote for each verse in Srimad Bhagavatam? It becomes monotonous if it were to me. Then I move on. Having arrived at a conclusion myself. If I say something to your thread on the forum it`s the real me reacting to a comment on Srimad Bhagavatam not from Prabhupad`s purports. To do so is parroting.

We are not hearing Prabhupada's purports properly.We are hearing through our contaminated minds. To think you have exhausted Prabhupada's purports is crazy talk.

 

At least for myself I have yet to properly comprehend one sentence of his descriptions of Krishna.

[melvin]

 

 

At least for myself I have yet to properly comprehend one sentence of his descriptions of Krishna.

 

WoW!!!

[theist]

In discussion religious works outside of the recognized vedic canon of India

Sonic Yogi wrote:

Except for chanting the Holy Name of Krishna, there is no other religious process in the age of Kali that will deliver the soul from samsara.

 

If any religious book's essence does not teach that, then in fact that book is useless.

 

And I responded:

And what if it does teach the chanting of the Holy Name?

 

I am still waiting for a response from Sonic Yogi.

[theist]

Bump for Sonic/Ksama

 

Not a small point because the difference is really between sectarian religiousness and transcendental realization per Lord Caitanya.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

In discussion religious works outside of the recognized vedic canon of India

Sonic Yogi wrote:

 

And I responded:

 

I am still waiting for a response from Sonic Yogi.

 

Show me the references and let's look at them.

If the "Holy Name" you are referring to is some imagined Hebrew god whose name is not any name mentioned in any Vedic text, then I would have to say that such a call to calling on the name of the god would not qualify as a genuine reference to the yuga-dharma.

 

In Hebrew religion, the name of God was only allowed to be spoken in the temple in Jerusalem by the priests.

 

So, anyone who says that the Hebrew religion or any product of that religion promotes the chanting of the names of God is confused.

 

In the Hebrew religion originally the "hallowed be thy name" concept never meant public chanting of the name.

 

"Hallowed" does not mean "chanted".

"Hallowed" means kept up as sacred, which in the Hebrew religion meant that it was not to be spoken or chanted, but kept secretive and the monopoly of the high priests in the temple of Jerusalem.

 

Pauline Christianity certainly has never advocated the chanting of God's name as any part of the process of salvation.

 

Paulinism is about accepting Christ as your personal savior and accepting in your heart that he died for your sins.

 

Chanting the names of God is no part of Christianity, though many Hare Krishna devotees try to extrapolate such a concept from Paulinism.

[bhaktajan]

Chanting the names of God is no part of Christianity? . . .

 

[raghu]

 

Chanting the names of God is no part of Christianity? . . .

 

 

No it is not. Gospel singing like much of church singing may only occasionally mention names of God but for the most part takes the form of a personal narrative of a seeker finding God. It is not like Hare Krishnas or most Vaishnavas who primarily sing the names of God.