Tripurari Maharaja

[transient]

Audarya-lila das said:

My own personal view is that until women are seen as men's equals with the same rights and privledges and the same ability to advance their own Krsna consciousness and help others in their march toward divinity, Krsna consciousness will be viewed not for what it is or can be, but for what it is not - a sexually bigoted religion that views women not only as subordinate but as inferior and incapable of fully representing God on earth. Of course, presently there is a lot of company in that particlar fold - for example the Catholic Church seems to hold dearly to similar views in terms of keeping the heirachy firmly in the hands of the 'good old boys'.

 

I think you're missing entirely the goal of life here. The goal of life is to love Krishna and by Krishna's grace, stop the cycle of birth and death and return back home back to Godhead. There is no need for women to attain equality with men to achieve this. In fact there is NO material qualification whatsover that is required to achieve this. Anyone can achieve love of God regardless of his or her material position.

 

Having said that, there is no neccessity whatsover to re-arrange the material situation to achieve this spiritual goal. Women doesn't need equality with men -- which by the way, is just not possible. They don't need to have "the same ability to advance their own Krsna consciousness and help others in their march toward divinity". As a housewife and mother, they can cultivate their love towards Krishna and they can bring up their children to love Krishna. It's quite simple. With all the noise and advances the women's lib movement had created, it ended up with women suffering more because of the so-called "freedom" they had achieved. Generations of unwanted children are now populating the world because of this "women's lib" influence and which largely contributed to the world's degradation.

 

As enjoined in the Bhagavad-Gita (1.40), I believe the protection of women is still the solution for the betterment of society. I can see that you want to give this up in the name of your so-called "progressive" philosophy.

 

If you are too worried about what other people will say against the Krishna consciousness movement, that is only you prabhu and others with the same mentality as you have. But in the context of the absolute, it doesn't matter very much. Because God always arranges for the sincere souls to come to Him no matter what the situation is. In other words, it is always God's ballgame, not ours.

 

[Guest guest]

"Of course, I don't think anyone will argue that a bhakta can give up a lower path of self-realization; the issue was whether or not a bhakta can give up the regulative principles of dharma-shAstras, and how elevated he had to be in order to do so"

 

I do not think you have a very good idea of what all the1000's and 1000's injunctions of dharma sastra entail. Dharma satra is karma kanda. Do you have any idea how many injunctions there are in dharma sastra for human society and how many of them Prabhupada dismissed replacing them with Harer nama harer nama harer nama eve kevalam . . . ? 1000's

 

After dharma jijnasu comes brahma jijnasu, then bhakti, unless of course one comes to bhakti immediately by the grace of a sadhu. But in either case dharma sastra has no bearing on those who are governed by bhakti sastra. Is this so hard to understand. sarva dharman parityaja. What could be more clear? This is the order of Krsna, the conclusion of the Gita. Rupa goswami puts it like this at the beginning of his book, anyabhilasita sunyam jnana karmady anavritam. To think that one must follow dharma sastra and if one does not one's bhakti will be imparied is to have one's bhakti covered by karma when it should be uncovered, karmady anavritam. "Oh if I do not perform the sraddha for my forefather's my pursuit of bhakti will be impaired." This is contrary to what Rupa Goswami teaches. BTW, have you done the sraddha yet this year for your deceased relatives? According to dharma sastra you should have.

 

sandhyä-vandana bhadram astu bhavato bhoh snäna tubhyam namo

bho deväh pitaras ca tarpana-vidhau näham ksamah ksamyatäm

yatra kväpi nisadya yädava-kulottamasya kamsa-dvisah

smäram smäram agham harämi tad alam manye kim anyena me

 

“O my prayers three times a day, all glory to you. O bathing, I offer my obeisances unto you. O demigods! O forefathers! Please excuse me for my inability to offer you my respects. Now wherever I sit, I can remember the great descendant of the Yadu dynasty, the enemy of Kamsa, and thereby I can free myself from all sinful bondage. I think this is sufficient for me.”

 

—Madhavandra Puri . . . givng up dharma sastra for bhakti

 

Have you offered oblations to the demigods yet today?

 

Now please don't continue to tell me that

 

1. only advanced devotees can give up dharma sastra.

 

2. advanced devotees cannot consider giving sannyas to women becasue they will be in violation of dharma sastra.

 

Still you have no verse from dharma sastra prohibiting women from taking sannyasa, but prefer to use your intelligence to reach the conclusion that it is prohibited. I can do the same thing to reach the oposite conclusion.

[Guest guest]

Prabhupada never had any problem getting women to join the movement without having to compromise the Vedic concept of male dominance and female inferiority. Many women came and none of them complained to Prabhupada about changing the Vedic standards to conform to the women's lib movement. Even today many women are still becoming devotees without having to compromise the tradition in favor of women's lib.

 

Tripurari Maharaja's efforts to garner a large following of females with his liberal teachings on the position of women has not succeeded as most women prefer Prabhupada's conservative version over his liberal compromises. Women can see through this facade of liberalism to see the underlying motives which are dubious at best. Despite Tripurari Maharaja's efforts to be the pied-piper of women and gays, he has not succeeded. Even women and gays can see when they are being fleeced in the "change-up" of Tripurari Maharaja's liberal propaganda.

[Guest guest]

"Tripurari Maharaja's efforts to garner a large following of females with his liberal teachings on the position of women has not succeeded as most women prefer Prabhupada's conservative version over his liberal compromises. Women can see through this facade of liberalism to see the underlying motives which are dubious at best. Despite Tripurari Maharaja's efforts to be the pied-piper of women and gays, he has not succeeded. Even women and gays can see when they are being fleeced in the "change-up" of Tripurari Maharaja's liberal propaganda."

 

When we judge a persons motives like this we become dubious ourselves. There is no evidence to support anything in the above paragraph. Is everyone who agrees with him also ill motivated? The fact is that he is on one side of the great divide on this and other social issues that cuts accross all sections of society both secular and religious. You are on the other side. Your comments are like the republicans calling the democrats unpatriotic becasue they did not support the war. Very unbecoming. In every section of society there are good points on either side of these kinds of arguments put forth by people who actually believe what they are saying. Then there are those who don't really make any good points but instead demonize the opposition.

[Guest guest]

its broken

[I_love_krishna_]

If a person wishes to do more for her lord. She should be given the privilege to do so, regardless of her gender.

 

This type of freedom can be only achieved when people are given access to their lord.

 

You should not force any body to be a house wife or a mother, just like we should not force any male to be a father or a husband.

 

It should be free choice. They should be able to choose between sanyassa and Varnashrama Dharma.

 

.......In my humble opinion..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Dharma satra is karma kanda.

 

 

This is not true. It is because of this incorrect and immature understanding of what is Karma-kanda and what is dharma that devotees end up rejecting regulative principles of bhakti. Karma-kanda is the worship of devatas for material results. The dharma-shastras are injunctions for civilized human life - a prerequisite for spiritual inquiry. Dharma-shastras, as with other Vedic scriptures, deal with the three modes and how to transcend them through a gradual process. Though there will be some aspects of karma-kanda, jnana-kanda and upasana-kanda found within them, the ultimate goal of all scriptures is to know Krishna (vedais ca sarvaih aham eve vedyah), and thus it is not wise to reject them without a solid reasoning.

 

What is dharma? Dharma is the direct injunctions of Bhagavan:

 

dharman tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam

 

Prahlad Maharaja instructs us to take to this dharma from the youngest age:

 

kaumara acaret prajno

dharman bhagavatan iha

 

"From the age of five one must learn the Dharma of Bhagavan."

 

Lord Krishna tells us of the effects of practicing even a little dharma in the Gita:

 

svalpam apy asya dharmasya

trayate mahato bhayat

 

Thus that dharma directed to Bhagavan (i.e. bhagavata-dharma) is essential for advancing spiritually and perfecting our lives. And those shastras that espouse this dharma to Bhagavan must be followed by sincere sadhakas.

 

 

But in either case dharma sastra has no bearing on those who are governed by bhakti sastra.

 

 

As shown before, Rupa Goswami has condemned false bhakti which is not performed according to the smriti, which includes the dharma-shastras. The idea that those who follow bhakti-marga are somehow exempted from performing their bhakti in line with scriptural injunctions is a sahajiya tendency. Raganuga sentiments spoken by elevated devotees do not set the standard for the rest of society to follow. Even Lord Krishna acts according to the dharma-shastras to set the proper example for others to follow.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

sandhyä-vandana bhadram astu bhavato bhoh snäna tubhyam namo

bho deväh pitaras ca tarpana-vidhau näham ksamah ksamyatäm

yatra kväpi nisadya yädava-kulottamasya kamsa-dvisah

smäram smäram agham harämi tad alam manye kim anyena me

 

“O my prayers three times a day, all glory to you. O bathing, I offer my obeisances unto you. O demigods! O forefathers! Please excuse me for my inability to offer you my respects. Now wherever I sit, I can remember the great descendant of the Yadu dynasty, the enemy of Kamsa, and thereby I can free myself from all sinful bondage. I think this is sufficient for me.”

 

 

Yet devotees in the Gaudiya line do perform Sandhya Vandanam, they do take bath, etc. If you are truly on this level, then let me see you go without your bathing and without performing your Sandhya Vandanam while claiming you are constantly remembering Krishna.

 

Basically this is just a hippy mentality. We will pick and choose to reject whatever is difficult to follow (i.e. what requires dedication and austerity), while not having attained the prerequisite for karma-tyagam. Add to this a disdain for scriptural study (i.e. the evil "jnana-marga"), and we have a perfect apasampradaya.

 

Why is Madhavendra Puri unable to perform his nitya-karmas? Because he is constantly thinking of Krishna, the enemy of Kamsa. What are we thinking of 24 hours a day? Are we constantly thinking of Krishna throughout the day, or are we thinking of sense gratification?

 

Thus it is necessary to seperate the paths of Raganuga bhakti and Vaidi bhakti clearly so we don't come to this hippy conclusion of rejecting our religious duties while not having attained absorption on the Lord's pastimes.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

A relevant quote from Srila Prabhupada:

 

That is the verdict of Srila Jiva Gosvami. Srila Jiva Gosvami is not prepared to accept any statement which does not refer to the Vedic literatures: Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, like that. Srila Rupa Gosvami also says in another place, sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhim vina [bRS 1.2.101]. So he has taken puranas also as evidences, Vedic evidences. So sruti, the Vedas, smriti, the Puranas and other literatures, dharma-shastra, smriti-shastra and Purana, pancarati-vidhi—without reference to all these authentic literature, any kind of devotional activities are not accepted by the Gosvamis. They say, “Without any reference to these all Vedic literatures, any kind of devotional service is simply disturbance.” Pancaratri-vidhim vina aikantiki harer bhaktir upatayaiva kalpate. Utpat, disturbance.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

I do not think you have a very good idea of what all the1000's and 1000's injunctions of dharma sastra entail.

 

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, I have access to the entire Manu Dharma ShAstra in both Sanskrit and English. We all do, actually, since they are available on the internet on the Sanskrit documents site.

 

What I am interested to know is, what *specifically* from dharma-shAstra do you find objectionable? You keep alluding to things in dharma-shAstra that are incompatble with devotees' lifestyle, but thus far I have not seen a single example.

 

 

 

Dharma satra is karma kanda.

 

 

 

As jndas pointed out, this is mistaken. Karma-kANDa refers to the regulated worship of anya-devatas for the purpose of obtaining some material benefit. Who says dharma-shAstra is karma-kANDa? Where is this stated? I cannot accept this as anything more than your unfounded opinion until you can provide evidence.

 

Srila Prabhupada mentioned dharma-shAstras several times in his Bhakivedanta Purports - each time in the context of a devotee. Manu himself is listed as one of the twelve mahAjanas. I therefore see no reason so far to consider Manu dharma-shAstra to be incompatible with bhakti.

 

 

 

Do you have any idea how many injunctions there are in dharma sastra for human society and how many of them Prabhupada dismissed replacing them with Harer nama harer nama harer nama eve kevalam . . . ? 1000's

 

 

 

 

I'm not aware that Srila Prabhupada "dismissed" any dharmic injunctions... only that he instituted the most important ones first. You can't change a culture overnight, after all. You shouldn't assume from his stance that he was "dismissive" of dharma-shAstra. Most authorized biographies of Srila Prabhupada record that, despite being of failing health and in his very last days, he voiced a desire to to return to the West and teach varnAshrama dharma. This is hardly the behavior of someone who was prepared to dismiss dharma-shAstra.

 

 

 

After dharma jijnasu comes brahma jijnasu, then bhakti, unless of course one comes to bhakti immediately by the grace of a sadhu. But in either case dharma sastra has no bearing on those who are governed by bhakti sastra.

 

 

 

 

Again, this is nothing more than an unfounded statement. You still have not shown this.

 

 

 

Is this so hard to understand. sarva dharman parityaja. What could be more clear? This is the order of Krsna, the conclusion of the Gita.

 

 

 

I respectfully submit that it is *you* who have misunderstood the verse in question.

 

"sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA |

aham tvAm sarva pApebhyo mokShayiShyAmi mAm suchaH ||"

 

This does not say that when one worships Krishna, he can give up his dharmas. Such a conclusion is nonsense. Arjuna was already a devotee of Krishna, but Krishna was instructing him to follow his kShatriya dharma as a service to Him.

 

What the above verse is saying is that, when one *surrenders* to Krishna, *then* one is no longer obligated to follow so many external dharmas. For example, after Krishna's disappearance from Earth and Arjuna's realizations in separation from the Lord, the bhAgavatam records that he and the PAndavas renounced their kingdom, leaving it to Parikshi MahArAja, and retired to perform austerities. This is an example of giving up dharmas and surrendering to Krishna.

 

Your misconception is in believing that anyone who chants Hare Krishna is "surrendered." This is not the case. Wearing gaudIya tilak and chanting Hare Krishna does not mean that one has attained sharaNAgati. Only when one has surrendered to Krishna can he give up the external dharmas. Srila Prabupada, in his purport to the above verse, explains what is meant by surrender. Please understand that "surrender" does not refer to something already attained by every rank and file devotee in ISKCON - it is an elevated stage of devotion attained by few, although theoretically accessible to all.

 

 

Rupa goswami puts it like this at the beginning of his book, anyabhilasita sunyam jnana karmady anavritam.

 

 

 

Again, I believe you have misunderstood the above verse. What Srila Rupa Gosvami has indicated by the above is that pure devotion is untinged by karma (fruitive activity) or jnAna (mental specluation). This has nothing to do with following or not following dharma-shAstra. True, one who has attained pure devotion probably does not concern himself so much with every regluation of dharma-shAstra, but he does not attain such a stage by ignoring dharma-shAstra during his conditioned life.

 

 

 

To think that one must follow dharma sastra and if one does not one's bhakti will be imparied

 

 

 

According to Lord Krishna in bhagavad-gItA, those who do not follow the regulative principles of scripture never attain the supreme goal:

 

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

 

yaH - anyone who; shaastra-vidhim - the regulations of the scriptures; utsR^ijya - giving up; vartate - remains; kaama-kaarataH - acting whimsically in lust; na - never; saH - he; siddhim - perfection; avaapnoti - achieves; na - never; sukham - happiness; na - never; paraam - the supreme; gatim - perfectional stage.

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

 

tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau |

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 ||

 

tasmaat - therefore; shaastram - the scriptures; pramaaNam - evidence; te - your; kaarya - duty; akaarya - and forbidden activities; vyava-sthitau - in determining; j~naatvaa - knowing; shaastra - of scripture; vidhaana - the regulations; uktam - as declared; karma - work; kartum - do; iha - in this world; arhasi - you should.

 

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24)

 

 

It is specifically stated in the above that he who discards scriptural injunctions, as you are proposing, fails to attain the supreme goal. Krishna is saying this to Arjuna, who is already a very advanced devotee. Hence, there is no logic whatsoever in suggesting that the instruction does not apply to us.

 

Now, how do we reconcile the above instructions with "sarva dharmAn parityajya?" Simple. The sAdhana-bhakta who has not yet attained surrender must follow the dharma-shAstras strictly. The one who has attained surrender does not need to follow so many external principles because he already has spontaneous loving devotion.

 

Please note that I am not proposing that one become a smArtha - one who follows the regulative principles very strictly without understanding the purpose behind them. What I am proposing is that those principles of dharma-shAstras are relevant and necessary (the latter is substantiated by Krishna), even if Srila Prabhupada could not, in his lifetime, institute all of them. The essential point - Krishna-conscoiusness, should not be forgotten, ofcourse. But then that is also Srila Prabhupada's genius. He instituted what regulations he could, along with the chanting of Lord's Holy Names, to give the movement the push it needed. The important principles are in place; my point is that dharma-shAstras are not irrelevant, and hence when inaugurating a new institution (like female gurus and so on) we should be mindful of dharma-shAstras and their position. I submit to you, in fact, that Srila Prabhupada was mindful of dharma-shAstra even if he did not explicitly mention it all the time. For example, did Srila Prabhupada appoint any ladies to become initiating gurus on his behalf? Did he ordain any ladies into sannyAsa? I think you can follow my drift.

 

is to have one's bhakti covered by karma when it should be uncovered, karmady anavritam.

 

 

 

Again, I submit to you that this misconception is based on the flawed premise that dharma-shAstra = karma-kANDa. Thus far, you have not shown why this is so. Have you ever even read Manu Dharma-ShAstra?

 

 

 

"Oh if I do not perform the sraddha for my forefather's my pursuit of bhakti will be impaired." This is contrary to what Rupa Goswami teaches. BTW, have you done the sraddha yet this year for your deceased relatives? According to dharma sastra you should have.

 

 

 

 

When the time comes for my mother and father to leave their bodies, I will most certainly perform the shraddha ceremony for them on the respective dates. I see no reason why I should not. I am not so foolish as to believe that because I worship Lord Krishna and Srlia Prabhupada, that this somehow makes me exempt from Vedic traditions.

 

 

 

sandhyä-vandana bhadram astu bhavato bhoh snäna tubhyam namo

bho deväh pitaras ca tarpana-vidhau näham ksamah ksamyatäm

yatra kväpi nisadya yädava-kulottamasya kamsa-dvisah

smäram smäram agham harämi tad alam manye kim anyena me

 

“O my prayers three times a day, all glory to you. O bathing, I offer my obeisances unto you. O demigods! O forefathers! Please excuse me for my inability to offer you my respects. Now wherever I sit, I can remember the great descendant of the Yadu dynasty, the enemy of Kamsa, and thereby I can free myself from all sinful bondage. I think this is sufficient for me.”

 

—Madhavandra Puri . . . givng up dharma sastra for bhakti

 

 

 

 

Ahem, but MAdhavendra Puri was on the highest stages of bhakti. This is not an instruction for every rank-and-file devotee. This is the behavior of one who has already surrendered to the Lord.

 

You are using wonderful examples, but unfortunately you are using them inappropriately. If every ISKCON devotee was on the level of a MAdhavendra PurI then I would agree with your position.

 

Keep in mind that even an uttama-adhikArI must come down to the level of a madhyama-adhikArI to preach. What makes more sense to you? Preaching to the masses without following any recognizable authority on dharma, or voluntarily following the dharmas to set a proper example for others?

 

Even GaudIya Vaishnavas practice sandhya-vandhanam and other practices given up by Srila MAdhavendra PurI.

 

 

 

Have you offered oblations to the demigods yet today?

 

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, I have. One who worships Lord Krishna has automatically worshipped the demigods, who are nothing but the limbs of that great virAt-puruSha. One need not worship the demigods separately provided that he worships Vishnu. This is not a case of "giving up dharmas" either - it follows from a very straightforward understanding of the Vedic monotheism.

 

 

 

Now please don't continue to tell me that

 

1. only advanced devotees can give up dharma sastra.

 

 

 

 

But that's what Krishna Himself says: sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA. The surrendered devotee can give up the dharma-shAstras.

 

 

 

2. advanced devotees cannot consider giving sannyas to women becasue they will be in violation of dharma sastra.

 

 

 

 

Whether a devotee is "advanced" or not cannot be known objectively by those who are conditioned. This is why advanced devotees behave according to principles laid out in shAstra. And that's why we honor them. As mentioned previously, even an uttama-adhikAri will come down to the madhyama level to preach, which means following so many dharmas and setting an example for others. The idea that one need not do this because he is "advanced" is certainly begging the question. It is the exact same logic used by prakRit-sahajIyas. This is not to say that I am accusing anyone of being a sahajiya. I am taking issue with the logic used to arrive at a particular, undesireable conclusion.

 

 

 

Still you have no verse from dharma sastra prohibiting women from taking sannyasa, but prefer to use your intelligence to reach the conclusion that it is prohibited. I can do the same thing to reach the oposite conclusion.

 

 

 

Have you not read the earlier postings in this thread? I will copy-cut-paste the evidence here:

 

baalye piturvashe tishhThet.h paaNigraahasya yauvane |

putraaNaaM bhartari prete na bhajet.h strii svatantrataam.h || manu 5.148 ||

 

In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent. (manu dharma shAstra 5.148)

 

 

This obviously is not compatible with a female getting sannyAsa. If it is not acceptable to you, and you want something more explicit, then please first find me a verse which forbids one from watching television, and then I will oblige you.

 

Warm regards,

 

Rascal_Number_One

[Guest guest]

Although it is true that not all of the dharma satra is considered karma kanada, most of it is. It deals primarily with religious life on earth, modes of conduct for the four orders, etc. Following it pleases God in a remote sense and is thus auspicious. But if as a result of following it perfectly one does not develop a taste for hearing and chanting, such adherence is considered a waste of time, srama eva hi kevalam. If on the other hand one somehow develops this taste in spite of not following dharma sastra (by sadhu sanga), adherence to dharma sastra is of little value.

 

 

The point is that to the extent one engages in bhakti marg (sravanam kirtanam) he has no other religious duty to perform. It is true that most devotees are not absorbed in hearing and chanting. Theefore Gaudiya Vaisnavas have their own smriti enshrined in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. It consists of that which the acaryas felt was relevant for the sampradaya abd is gleaned from the entirety of scripture. It differs significantly from the practices of the smartas who strictly follow dharma sastra. There is no question of hippy mentality here.

 

Your quotes form the Bhagavata and Gita ironically do not promote the dharma of dharma sastsra, but Bhagavata dharma. The Gita verse is spoken after Krsna has dispensed with Arjuna’s resistance based on considerations of dharma sastra. At this point in the Gita he is advocating bhakti. The Bhagavatam verse was spoken by Prahlada, who is teaching devotional service, not merely religious life.

 

You also quote dharmam to saksad bhagvata pranitam. Please read Prabhupada’s purport where he distinguishes between Bhagavata dharma and dharma in general. This is what this whole section of the Bhagavatam is about.

 

 

The two, dharma and Bhagavata dharma are not the same. Is there no difference between religious life governed by dharms sastra and those who have developed faith in Krsna nama and thus follow the bhakti marg? Come now.

 

 

Here is an example of the contrast between Bhagavat dharma and what we read in dharma sastra. Please note the difference. Manu says:

 

“A householder has five slaughter-houses (as it were, viz.) the hearth, the grinding-stone, the broom, the pestle and mortar, the water-vessel, by using which he is bound (with the fetters of sin).

 

“In order to successively expiate (the offences committed by means) of all these (five) the great sages have prescribed for householders the daily (performance of the five) great sacrifices.”

 

What does Prabhupada say? He says that we need not be concerned with this daily panca maha yajna if we simply offer our food to Krsna and take His prasadam.

 

I think you have to understand that Prabhupada extols the virtues of dharma in general for people in general. At the same time he teaches the glory of devotional service. The two are not to be confused.

 

Again, the sruti smriti . . . verse refers to bhakti that is not in accordance with sastra. The point is not to concoct a system of bhakti, not that bhaktas are to follow everything in dharma sastra, which none of them do.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

You said this when objecting to my understanding of Rupa Goswami's verse . . . . jnana karmady anavrtam:

 

“I believe you have misunderstood the above verse. What Srila Rupa Gosvami has indicated by the above is that pure devotion is untinged by karma (fruitive activity) or jnAna (mental specluation). This has nothing to do with following or not following dharma-shAstra.

 

“When the time comes for my mother and father to leave their bodies, I will most certainly perform the shraddha ceremony for them on the respective dates. I see no reason why I should not. I am not so foolish as to believe that because I worship Lord Krishna and Srlia Prabhupada, that this somehow makes me exempt from Vedic traditions.”

.................

 

Here is what Visvanatha Cakravati Thakura says about jnana karmady anavrtam.

 

“Karma here refers to both conditionally and unconditionally obligatory rituals as found in smriti sastra. How and when does such karma cover bhakti? When a devotee thinks that if he does not perform the various rituals according to Karma-mimmasa, dharma sastra, and smriti sastra, something will be lacking, and hence out of fear and excessive regard for these injunctions performs them, this covers the true nature of bhakti. Or if one performs these activities thinking that they are a means to attain bhakti—the idea that bhakti cannot be attained without them—then such karma is an obstacle to bhakti. But if a genuine devotee observes rites such as he sraddha for his relatives as a matter of social convention with no regard for them desiring only by such observance not to disturb the local social sentiments, this will not be an instance of bhakti obscured by karma.”

Your interpretation of sarva dharman parrityaja also differs from mine.

 

You said:

 

"sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA |

aham tvAm sarva pApebhyo mokShayiShyAmi mAm suchaH ||"

 

“This does not say that when one worships Krishna, he can give up his dharmas. Such a conclusion is nonsense. Arjuna was already a devotee of Krishna, but Krishna was instructing him to follow his kShatriya dharma as a service to Him.”

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

 

Wowh! Krsna was not instructing Arjuna to follow his ksatriya dharma as a service to him. Certainly not in this verse. He instructed him to become his devotee and forgo all other considerations of dharma. The conclusion of the Gita is not to follow one’s duty ordained by dharma sastra (varnasrama) and thereby please. It is to embrace devotional service consisting of hearing and chanting, etc., man mana bhava mad bhakto mad yaji man namaskuru. How then can following varnasrama dharma in order to please Krsna be the conclusion of the Gita? I cannot think of a more confused understanding of this verse!

 

You said further:

 

 

“What the above verse is saying is that, when one *surrenders* to Krishna, *then* one is no longer obligated to follow so many external dharmas. For example, after Krishna's disappearance from Earth and Arjuna's realizations in separation from the Lord, the bhAgavatam records that he and the PAndavas renounced their kingdom, leaving it to Parikshi MahArAja, and retired to perform austerities. This is an example of giving up dharmas and surrendering to Krishna. “

 

……………

 

It seems that what you want to say is that one should follow dharma sastra, etc. unless and until one can surrender. Are you a follower of Ramanuja? This sounds more like his interpretation. The Gaudiya acaryas teach that saranagati is a limb of vaiddhi bhakti. No. 52 of Rupa Goswami’s 64 to be explicit.

 

I am not saying that all devotees should just hear and chant. I am saying that they should embrace the limbs of sadhana bhakti and the smriti of our own sampradaya given in Hari-bhakti-vilasa as support until they can just hear and chant. They should also respect dharma satstra as it applies to the general public, but not confuse it with Bhagavata dharma as the Yamduttas did when interfering with Ajamila.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Here is what Visvanatha Cakravati Thakura says about jnana karmady anavrtam.

 

“Karma here refers to both conditionally and unconditionally obligatory rituals as found in smriti sastra. How and when does such karma cover bhakti? When a devotee thinks that if he does not perform the various rituals according to Karma-mimmasa, dharma sastra, and smriti sastra, something will be lacking, and hence out of fear and excessive regard for these injunctions performs them, this covers the true nature of bhakti. Or if one performs these activities thinking that they are a means to attain bhakti—the idea that bhakti cannot be attained without them—then such karma is an obstacle to bhakti. But if a genuine devotee observes rites such as he sraddha for his relatives as a matter of social convention with no regard for them desiring only by such observance not to disturb the local social sentiments, this will not be an instance of bhakti obscured by karma.”

 

 

Please note that there is absolutely nothing in the above which forbids the performance of the shraddha ceremony for one's deceased relatives. All Srila VishvanAtha is warning against is the incorrect consciousness by which the duties are performed by some.

 

I will perform the shraddha ceremony for my departed relatives when their times comes. I love them and it is my duty. And as Srila VishvanAtha indicates, there is a proper consciousness in which such ceremonies should be performed.

 

Absolutely nothing in the above which encourages me to give this up. Nothing at all.

 

 

Your interpretation of sarva dharman parrityaja also differs from mine.

 

 

 

I think what you mean to say is that your interpretation is different from Srila Prabhupada's and all other Vaishnava AchAryas. Theirs is the correct one. Yours does not make sense. More on this below:

 

 

You said:

"sarva dharmAn parityajya mAm ekam sharaNam vrajA |

aham tvAm sarva pApebhyo mokShayiShyAmi mAm suchaH ||"

 

“This does not say that when one worships Krishna, he can give up his dharmas. Such a conclusion is nonsense. Arjuna was already a devotee of Krishna, but Krishna was instructing him to follow his kShatriya dharma as a service to Him.”

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

 

Wowh! Krsna was not instructing Arjuna to follow his ksatriya dharma as a service to him. Certainly not in this verse.

 

 

 

First of all, your view is that a devotee of Krishna can give up dharmas. I quoted this verse to show that only a *surrendered* devotee can give up some dharmas.

 

The example of Arjuna is clear. He was already on such a high stage of devotion, yet even he was not allowed to give up his kshatriya dharma. If you read Bhagavad-gItA, you will note that Arjuna was prepared to leave the battlefield. Krishna forbade such an activity on the grounds that it was against his kshatriya dharma. But Arjuna was worried about the sin that would accrue to him through killing as a part of his duty. Then Krishna instructed him (among other things) that the war was desired by Him, the Kauruvas were already dead, and that Arjuna should perform his kshatriya dharma as a sevice to Him. Hence,

 

yat karoShi yad ashnAsi yaj juhoShi dadAsi yat |

yat tapasyasi kaunteya tat kuruShva mad-arpaNam || gItA 9.27 ||

 

Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform — do that, O son of KuntI, as an offering to Me. (bhagavad-gItA 9.27)

 

 

He instructed him to become his devotee and forgo all other considerations of dharma.

 

 

And yet, Arjuna went ahead and did his kshatriya dharma. Your arguments make no sense.

 

 

The conclusion of the Gita is not to follow one’s duty ordained by dharma sastra (varnasrama)

 

 

On the contrary, the conclusion is that one should follow one's dharmas - but in the proper consciousness - that of surrendering the fruits of such acts to Krishna. Only after one has surrendered can he give up dharmas that are not conducive to Krishna-consciousness.

 

 

and thereby please. It is to embrace devotional service consisting of hearing and chanting, etc., man mana bhava mad bhakto mad yaji man namaskuru. How then can following varnasrama dharma in order to please Krsna be the conclusion of the Gita? I cannot think of a more confused understanding of this verse!

 

 

Mostly it's your own understanding that is confused. Arjuna wanted to give up his kshatriya dharma. Krishna forbade this, and in the end Arjuna kept that dharma. Yet somehow you conclude that dharma-shAstra is not relevant to bhaktas?

 

Have you even read bhagavad-gItA in its entirety? I ask this, because, in all frankness, you don't seem to be entirely aware of the context of the verses you quote.

 

Arjuna, after being enlightened by Krishna, did not give up fighting in favor of hearing, chanting, etc. The nine processes of devotional services are explained in the bhAgavatam; they are only mentioned peripherally in the original text of the gItA (BG 9.14). Bhagavad-gItA is concerned with the duties of conditioned souls up to the point of surrender.

 

 

You said further:

 

 

“What the above verse is saying is that, when one *surrenders* to Krishna, *then* one is no longer obligated to follow so many external dharmas. For example, after Krishna's disappearance from Earth and Arjuna's realizations in separation from the Lord, the bhAgavatam records that he and the PAndavas renounced their kingdom, leaving it to Parikshi MahArAja, and retired to perform austerities. This is an example of giving up dharmas and surrendering to Krishna. “

 

……………

 

It seems that what you want to say is that one should follow dharma sastra, etc. unless and until one can surrender. Are you a follower of Ramanuja? This sounds more like his interpretation.

 

 

Here is a quote by Srila Prabhupada posted by jndas:

 

That is the verdict of Srila Jiva Gosvami. Srila Jiva Gosvami is not prepared to accept any statement which does not refer to the Vedic literatures: Vedas, Puranas, Upanishads, Mahabharata, Ramayana, like that. Srila Rupa Gosvami also says in another place, sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhim vina [bRS 1.2.101]. So he has taken puranas also as evidences, Vedic evidences. So sruti, the Vedas, smriti, the Puranas and other literatures, dharma-shastra, smriti-shastra and Purana, pancarati-vidhi—without reference to all these authentic literature, any kind of devotional activities are not accepted by the Gosvamis. They say, “Without any reference to these all Vedic literatures, any kind of devotional service is simply disturbance.” Pancaratri-vidhim vina aikantiki harer bhaktir upatayaiva kalpate. Utpat, disturbance.

 

This should serve as sufficient proof to show that GaudIya VaiShnavas do not accept something as bona fide bhakti if it ignores dharma-shAstra. Of course, we accept dharma-shAstra in the greater context of other shAstras too. But the point is that we do not ignore dharma-shAstra.

 

Lord Krishna gave no such instruction. Srila Prabhupada gave no such instruction.

 

 

The Gaudiya acaryas teach that saranagati is a limb of vaiddhi bhakti. No. 52 of Rupa Goswami’s 64 to be explicit.

 

 

 

And this proves your position, how?

 

 

I am not saying that all devotees should just hear and chant. I am saying that they should embrace the limbs of sadhana bhakti and the smriti of our own sampradaya given in Hari-bhakti-vilasa as support until they can just hear and chant.

 

 

As explained by Srila Prabhupada above, the smritis one should respect include Manu Dharma-shAstra. "Respect" does not mean ignoring a scripture, because of the false sense that one is somehow exempt from its instrutions.

 

 

They should also respect dharma satstra as it applies to the general public, but not confuse it with Bhagavata dharma as the Yamduttas did when interfering with Ajamila.

 

 

 

Now that is a change from what you previously stated. You stated earlier that: "Injunctions of dharma sastra... are not relevant for those who have attained eligibility for bhakti marg. "

 

(I conceeded the latter point that jnAna-mArg instructions are not necessarily relevant, but not the earlier point)

 

Now which is it? Is dharma-shAstra irrelevant to devotees, or simply distinct from bhAgavata-dharma? Are bhAgavatas exempt from rules and regulatoins of dharma-shAstra or are they not?

 

By the way, in spite of my repeated requests for scriptural evidence demonstrating that a devotee could ignore regulations of dharma-shAstra, you really have not provided any. "sarva dharmAn parityajya" refers only to a surrendered devotee, even according to the most liberal translations of the verse. The verse by Srila Rupa Gosvami only defines pure devotional service but does not forbid following of dharma-shAstras. The unreferenced quote by SanAtana GosvAmI only eschews "dharma-dhyAna" but not following of dharma-shAstra regulative principles specifically. The example of MAdhavendra PurI is not an instruction to every rank-and-file sAdhaka, but rather a description of the symptoms of perfection and the example of a surrendered devotee. On the other hand, bhagavad-gItA 16.23-24 as quoted previously stated clearly that those who give up scriptural injunctions do not attain the supreme goal - a sobering reminder to devotees who think they are above dharma-shAstras. And commenting on 'shruti-smRti purANAdi' Srlia Prabhpuada includes dharma-shAstras as among the scriptures which are to be followed by gaudIya vaiShNavas.

 

Nor have you really explained why you think dharma-shAstra is karma-kANDa. Initially you said it is karma-kANDa, but when challenged on this point you appear to have amended your position and say now that only most if it is. But regardless, you have not really quoted anything from dharma-shAstra to back up this point. Have you even read it?

 

The mere fact that it deals with "life on Earth" does not make it karma-kANDa. All of us live on Earth, and as such we need scriptures to tell us how to behave in this world so that we can achieve the Lord's Supreme Abode. Even ShrImad BhAgavatam contains extensive descriptions of the material universe and a chapter elucidating varnAshrama-dharma. That ordinary dharmas like varnAshrama dharma, etc can be performed by nondevotees does not make them irrelevant to devotees. On the contrary, until one has attained sharaNAgati, it is only the devotees' performance of varnAshrama that is the actual perfection of that institution.

 

yours,

 

Rascal Number One

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

We should also take note of two important verse fromthe Gita:

 

yad yad acarati sreshthas

tat tad evetaro janah

sa yat pramanam kurute

lokas tad anuvartate

 

"Whatever action is performed by a great man, common men follow in his footsteps. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues."

 

Prabhupada's purport considers this to refer to following dharma-shastras such as Manu-samhita:

 

"Caitanya said that a teacher should behave properly even before he begins teaching. One who teaches in that way is called äcärya, or the ideal teacher. Therefore, a teacher must follow the principles of shastra (scripture) to reach 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 the standard rules as they are practiced by the great teachers."

 

And the following verse:

 

na me parthasti kartavyam

trishu lokeshu kincana

nanavaptam avaptavyam

varta eva ca karmani

 

"O son of Pritha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I need to obtain anything—and yet I am engaged in work."

 

Even Lord Krishna is performing his duty according to the dharma-shastras to set an example for others. What then of devotees?

 

In Prabhupada's purport to this verse he concludes by stating "Although He [Krishna] is above all the regulations of the revealed scriptures, He does not do anything that violates the revealed scriptures."

 

Yet some people want to propose that those on the bhakti-marga are not required to act according to the scriptures regulatory codes since the act of chanting the names of the Lord delivers one from any sin. This is commiting sinful activity on the strength of chanting the holy name. It is far better to set a good example for all to follow by performing one's bhakti in line with scriptural regulations.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Prabhupada's purport to next verse:

 

 

In order to keep the balance of social tranquility for progress in spiritual life. there are traditional family usages meant for every civilized man. Although such rules and regulations are for the conditioned souls and not Lord Krishna, because He descended to establish the principles of religion, He followed the prescribed rules. Otherwise, common men would follow in His footsteps because He is the greatest authority. From the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is understood that Lord Krishna was performing all the religious duties at home and out of home, as required of a householder.

 

 

And the next verse tells us how devotees should perform thier duties:

 

saktah karmany avidvamso

yatha kurvanti bharata

kuryad vidvams tathasaktas

cikirshur loka-sangraham

 

"As the ignorant perform their duties with attachment to results, similarly the learned may also act, but without attachment, for the sake of leading people on the right path."

 

Following this Lord Krishna gives his instruction to Arjuna as to what he should do:

 

mayi sarvani karmani

sannyasyadhyatma-cetasa

nirasir nirmamo bhutva

yudhyasva vigata-jvarah

 

"Therefore, O Arjuna, surrendering all your works unto Me, with mind intent on Me, and without desire for gain and free from egoism and lethargy, fight."

 

With reference to the preceding 10 verse, Krishna's use of the word karmani and karma is specifically indicating prescribed duties, not simply "action". For Krishna says, "Though I am not bound to do anything, still I perform karma to guide others." If this karma referred simply to "action" then the statement becomes meaningless as simple action does not give guidance to anyone. Thus the correct understanding of this context as shown by Srila Prabhupada is that "karma" and "karmani" here refer to prescribed duties as mentioned in the dharma-shastras (i.e. Manu-samhita and others).

 

In light of this context "sarva karmani" in regards to Arjuna refers specifically to Arjuna's occupational duties, and not simply to "all action". This order to Arjuna to perform his prescribed duty as a kshatriya for Lord Krishna while remaining detached is made clear when Krishna adds yudhyasva vigata-jvarah, "Get up and fight without hesitation."

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Verse 3.31 becomes even more explicit where it refers directly to the nitya-karmas of Manu dharma-shastra, though this is only clear from the Sanskrit:

 

ye me matam idam nityam

anutishthanti manavah

shraddhavanto ’nasuyanto

mucyante te ’pi karmabhih

 

"One who executes his duties according to My injunctions and who follows this teaching faithfully, without envy, becomes free from the bondage of fruitive actions."

 

[Guest guest]

At the risk of repeating myself I again quote Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura. You are free to interpret is however you like in order to justify your stance that

 

1.devotees must observe the injunctions of dharma sastra.

2. devotees must hold the injunctions of dharma sastra in high regard.

3. bhakti can not be attained without observing the injunctions of dharma sastra.

 

 

"When a devotee thinks that if he does not perform the various rituals according to Karma-mimmasa, dharma sastra, and smriti sastra, something will be lacking, and hence out of fear and excessive regard for these injunctions performs them, this covers the true nature of bhakti. Or if one performs these activities thinking that they are a means to attain bhakti (the idea that bhakti cannot be attained without them) then such karma is an obstacle to bhakti."

 

Personally I do not think that if devotees forgo the injunctions of dharma sastra something will be lacking in their spritual practice. I have no fear that if I devotees do not follow them that these devotees will be faulty. Nor do I think that bhakti cannot be attained without following these injunctions. This is where we differ.

 

As for the Gita, let me go down in flames stating that it is a book about devotional service. This is its conclusion: one should forget about all other dharmas and simply take to devotional service. Of course if one does not have sufficient faith in devotional service to do this, other dharmas are recommended throughout. And for clarity (that I might burn swiftly), following the system of varnasram is not devotional service (bhakti yoga). It is not any kind of yoga at all. There is a difference between doing your socioreligious duty (even if you give the result to Krsna) and suddha bhakti.

[Guest guest]

It's really unfortunate that, despite stating the correct position clearly, and that too with explicit evidence from Srila Prabhupada himself, there are some who persist in their misconceptions about the position of dharma-shAstras vis-a-vis devotees and devotional service.

 

What's especially difficult is that these individuals continue to promote their conclusions in the name of GaudIya VaiShNavism. Thus, it is only to be expected that other Hindus and especially Vaishnavas will condemn us for the misconceptions being spread in our guru's name.

 

Anyone who has not surrenderd to Lord Krishna and artificially renounces dharma-shAstras is certainly a miscreant. But then, that is the standard these days in ISKCON, is it not? We have brahmacharis who go on dates, householders who marry, separate, divorce, have conjugal affairs out of wedlock, have children out of wedlock, etc, child abusers, drug-dealers, etc. But hey, they're devotees right? They have faith in devotional service, and so they don't need dharma-shAstras, unlike all those poor, unenlightened Hindus in India who do.

 

Or maybe what we need to do is emphasize to those poor, foolish mayavadis out there, that if only they join ISKCON, then they no longer have to trouble themselves with dharma-shAstras. Then ISKCON's ranks will swell with loyal followers. Just as many as Vivekananda Vedanta Society, Ramakrishna Math, Sai Baba, etc.

 

Rascal

 

[Guest guest]

“Yet some people want to propose that those on the bhakti-marga are not required to act according to the scriptures regulatory codes since the act of chanting the names of the Lord delivers one from any sin. This is commiting sinful activity on the strength of chanting the holy name. It is far better to set a good example for all to follow by performing one's bhakti in line with scriptural regulations.”

…………………………

 

No, what some people want to propose, people like Visvanatha Cakravarti, and Rupa Goswami, is that those who follow the bhakti marg are not obliged to follow the rules of other scriptural margs, such as karma marg, jnana marg, yoga marg, etc. Harer nama . . . eva kevalam . . . nasteva nasteva nasteva . . . . This is not committing sin on the strength of chanting the Holy Name.

 

However, what you are proposing, the idea that one following the bhakti marg must follow dharma sastra, borders on considering ritualistic sacrifices enjoined in dharma sastra to be equal to the chanting of he Holy Name. It definitely involves karma anavrtam and does not represent the doctrine of suddha bhakti. Nor does it even take into consideration the contradictory injunctions on these two paths. For example please consider the conversion of Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya after which he honored Prasad in violation of dharma sastra’s injunctions regarding the proper manner and time to eat.

 

Do you really believe that Prabhupada taught that we should all perform worship for our ancestors, observe the panca maha yajna, eat facing east and other directions dependent upon one’s caste, marry within our caste, etc., etc. In fact he did not observe these or many many other injunctions of dharma sastra. Was he a hippy, a sahajiya, a namaparadhi? At this point I really am starting to wonder why I even ask. How can one who you consider to be all three of these expect any serious attention in a discussion of Suddha Vaisnava panditas? Forgive me.

 

devarsi-bhütäpta-nrnam pitrnam

na kinkaro näyam rni ca räjan

sarvätmanä yah saranam saranyam

gato mukundam parihrtya kartam

 

“Anyone who has taken shelter of the lotus feet of Mukunda, the giver of liberation, giving up all kinds of obligation, and has taken to the path in all seriousness, owes neither duties nor obligations to the demigods, sages, general living entities, family members, humankind or forefathers.”

 

Prabhupada comments, “Such obligations are automatically fulfilled by performance of devotional service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.”

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Anyone who has not surrenderd to Lord Krishna and artificially renounces

You said:

 

"Anyone who has not surrenderd to Lord Krishna and artificially renounces dharma-shAstras is certainly a miscreant.. But then, that is the standard these days in ISKCON, is it not? We have brahmacharis who go on dates, householders who marry, separate, divorce, have conjugal affairs out of wedlock, have children out of wedlock, etc, child abusers, drug-dealers, etc. But hey, they're devotees right? They have faith in devotional service, and so they don't need dharma-shAstras, unlike all those poor, unenlightened Hindus in India who do."

 

...............

 

What you are doing here is flaunting either your stupidity or your lack of integrity. It has been made clear that engaging in devotional service and not being concerned with dharma sastra means strcitly following vaidhi bahakti and the smriti of Hari Bhakti Vilasa. Anyone who does so will not be doing the things you mention above. Have you ever read Bhaktirasamrta sindhu or HBV?

 

Following the Bhagavata dharma of devotional service is not about forgoing dharma, but at the same time it is not about following the dharma sastra. If I do not perform the sraddha for my forefathers, my bhakti will not be affected. I don't have to do this becasue my forfathers for several genrations will be liberated if I become a pure devotee. In order to become a pure devotee I have more important things to do in Krsna's service than perfom such ceremonies. This is what it means to "surrender" to Lord Krishna.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

It has been made clear that engaging in devotional service and not being concerned with dharma sastra means strcitly following vaidhi bahakti and the smriti of Hari Bhakti Vilasa.

 

 

Actually you have yet to establish this conclusion with reference to scripture. The fact that you say something and believe it does not make it a proven point.

 

It has been shown from the Gita that your conclusion is incorrect, and Gaudiya Acharya's such as Srila Prabhupada specifically reject your view.

 

What's there left to do? I guess you could attack someone's character. Yup, there it is:

 

 

What you are doing here is flaunting either your stupidity...

 

 

I don't see much point in continuing this line of discussion.

[Guest guest]

Let us go back tot he Gita for a moment. Some persons have quoted the Gita to support the idea that devotees must follow dharma sastra. However, they have quoted verses that do not represent the conclusion of the Gita. Everyone knows that the Gita speaks of many paths, varnasrama, karma yoga, jana yoga, karma misra bhakti, etc. What we are concerned with is the conclusion of the Gita. This conclusion is not synoymous with the highest stage of bhakti. It speaks about what it means to be a true sadhaka or one whose practice is fixed. Saranagati is not the goal of bhakti. It is what one does in order to engage in serious sadhana. Thus it is included and a limb of sadhana bhakti. For example, saranagati is about giving up that which is unfavorable to bhakti and accepting that which is favorable to bhakti. One must be a saranagata to engage in serious sadhana. One must, that is, not take shelter of anyone else other then Krsna or fear that obligations to others will not be fulifilled by serving only Krishna.

 

Now here is Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says about the Gita’s conclusion, sarva dharman parityaja.

 

Krnsa speaking to Arjuna:

 

“If you give up you nitya and naimittika duties (as enjoined in dharma sastra) in pursuance of My order, you will not have to face any reaction. I alone in the form of the Vedas have given the instruction to perform nitya karma and now I Myself am ordering you to give it up. By accepting My order, where is the possibility of of incurring sin as a consequence of abandoning your nitya karma? Rather if you choose to ignore My direct order and continue to perform nitya karma, then the result will be that you incur sin. You should know this to be a fact.”

 

Thus although Krishna indirectly enjoins human society to follow the dharma sastra, etc. He Himself personally has ordered those who can hear him to simply surrender to him and engage in devotional service. Abandoning all dharma does not imply engaging in adharma. It means abandoning adharma as well. Those who have faith in this are eligible to enter the bhakti marg.

 

[Guest guest]

I said:

 

 

It has been made clear that engaging in devotional service and not being concerned with dharma sastra means strcitly following vaidhi bahakti and the smriti of Hari Bhakti Vilasa.

 

You said:

 

 

Actually you have yet to establish this conclusion with reference to scripture. The fact that you say something and believe it does not make it a proven point.

............

 

What you have misunderstood here is that my statement represents what I am saying as opposed to the words you put in my my mouth. I say that engaging in devotional service and not being concerned with dharma sastra means strcitly following vaidhi bhakti and the smriti of Hari Bhakti Vilasa. But when I say it, you say I am advocating sahajiyaism, adharma, nama aparadha, and hippy mentality. You seem to say this becasue you think that not following dharma satra is tantamount to breaking the regulative pinciples, etc. But if you read BRS and HBV you will find that one who follows these books will not be adharmic at all, not will he have any time to follow dharma sastra.

 

You sad:

 

It has been shown from the Gita that your conclusion is incorrect, and Gaudiya Acharya's such as Srila Prabhupada specifically reject your view.

 

.............

 

All you have shown is that in sections of the Gita emhpasizing karma yoga or karma misra bhakti consideration of dharma satra comes into play.

 

 

You said i have succumbed to insult, but I have merely reacted strongly to the insults you hurled at me by calling me an advocate of hippy mentality, sahajiyaism, nama aparadha, and adharma. I would rather be stupid that guilty of these things.

 

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada speaks out on the necerssity of dharma satra.

 

 

 

"Manu is supposed to be the leader of giving all sästras. There are twenty kinds of sästras, dharma-sästra. Vimsati dharma-sästra. So what is the necessity of these dharma-sästras? Actually, there is no need of dharma-sästra. Krsna also says the same thing. Sarva-dharmän parityajya. . . . So from the conclusion of various Vedic literatures, there is no need of studying even the dharma-sästras. Otherwise, why Krsna says that sarva-dharman parityajya? Sarva-dharmän means the dharma-sästra also. Simply surrender. But people are so rigid and so, I mean to say, doggish, that they do not like to surrender to Krsna. For them only, so many different ways of convincing.

……………

 

 

“The great compiler of religious scripture, headed by Manu and others, without knowing the simple method, they prescribe gorgeous ritualistic ceremonies.So being bewildered by the material or external energy, they take to these gorgeous ceremonies or sacrificial performances. Actually there is no need. The whole thing is that Sridhara Svami is giving stress very strongly that you can simply chant Hare Krsna mantra without undergoing any ritualistic ceremonies.”

………….

 

 

“There are so many different opinions, different philosophers, different religious system, according to the modes of nature. But actually every system must be targeted towards realization of Krsna, or God. Vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyam. That is Bhägavata-dharma. Bhägavata-dharma means realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Prahläda Mahäräja recommended culture of this Bhägavata-dharma from the very beginning of life: kaumära äcaret präjno dharmän bhägavatän iha. That is the success of human form of life, to execute Bhägavata-dharma. The, the process... And dharma, as we have several times explained, dharma means the codes of Bhagavän. Dharmam tu säksäd bhagavat-pranitam. So this Krsna consciousness movement is directly touching the point. Not step by step. There is no time. In the Kali-yuga there is very little time to go step by step. Otherwise, there are twenty different types of religious scriptures, vimsati-prakäsa, dharma-sästra. So who will read, and who will try to understand? There is no time."

 

 

…………………………………………

 

“Atonement of various kinds is recommended in the Vedas for those who are not ready to take up the process of pure devotional service. These methods of atonement are proportional to the the severity of the sin they are meant to counteract. These are the prescriptions given by great sages like Paräçara Muni and Manu. The sages have composed twenty kinds of scriptures, constituting the dharma-sästra, and these scriptures are meant for atoning for one’s sins and elevating one to the heavenly planets. There are many such prescribed methods of atonement, but here the Visnudütas say, “Although these prescribed methods of atonement are authorized and true, they cannot purify the heart.”

 

I rest my case.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

"Manu is supposed to be the leader of giving all sästras. There are twenty kinds of sästras, dharma-sästra. Vimsati dharma-sästra. So what is the necessity of these dharma-sästras? Actually, there is no need of dharma-sästra. Krsna also says the same thing. Sarva-dharmän parityajya. . . . So from the conclusion of various Vedic literatures, there is no need of studying even the dharma-sästras. Otherwise, why Krsna says that sarva-dharman parityajya? Sarva-dharmän means the dharma-sästra also. Simply surrender. But people are so rigid and so, I mean to say, doggish, that they do not like to surrender to Krsna. For them only, so many different ways of convincing.

 

 

 

The above quote actually proves my point. When you surrender to Lord Krishna, *then* you can give up dharma-shAstras. Not before. This quote and others like it are referring to surrendered devotees, while criticizing those who refuse to surrender because of attachment to dharma-shAstra. There is nothing in them to contradict the idea that sAdhana-bhaktas should be obedient to dharma-shAstra. Only that bhaktas should not worship dharma-shAstra to the exclusion of bhakti!

 

I can't help but note that you are ever prepared to quote Srila Prabhupada when it *appears* he supports your position. But you have neglected all of the other "pro-dharma-shAstra" quotes by Srila Prabhupada. Not a very convincing position yours, I should think.

 

By the way, since you argue that dharma-shAstra is not relevant to devotees, may I ask of you the following: Where in the bhAgavata shAstras is illicit sex defined as sex outside procreation? Not in the BhAgavatam - there in the original text it is only stated that marriage is meant for renunciation of the sexual act. And not in bhagavad-gItA. In BG, Lord Krishna says that He is sexual life that is not contrary to religious principles. Commenting on this verse, Srila Prabupada says that illicit sex life means sex with one's lawfully wedded wife for the purpose of procreation ONLY.

 

But this idea of 'sex for procreation only' is not found in that verse! All Krishna refers to is sex life according to "religious principles," but those "religious principles" are not defined in the verse. So what? Did Srila Prabhupada make it up? Where did he get these "religious principles" which govern sex life?

 

The answer is (drum roll) - dharma-shAstras! In Manu dharma-shAstra it is explained that one should approach one's wife for sex only at the moment when conception can be assured, and not otherwise! Srila Prabhupada did not say it, but this principle is only explicitly mentioned in Manu dharma-shAstra! It is not explicitly mentioned in BhAgavatam or Bhagavad-gItA, even though Srila Prabhupada brought it up in his Bhaktivedanta purports. He brought it up only because it has basis in dharma-shAstras.

 

Dharma-shAstras not relevant to devotional life? To me, that sounds like the beginning of another apasampradAya in the making. What's bothersome is that this idea has pretty much infected the mainstream Western "Vaishnava" community. So don't worry about proving your point! Because everyone already agrees with you! All the child abusers, divorcees, illict sex seekers, and fanatics accept your position! Take comfort in that. Truth in Kali-yuga never has the majority support. Eventually, ISKCON will eventually evolve to the point where it says that no scriptures are necessary! Then people like us will have to flaunt our "stupidity" elsewhere. Rejoice!

 

Rascal