Manu Samhita

[Guest guest]

> Well, you can also find similar statements, which Prabhupada made

> about varnasrama, but we should discriminate where Srila Prabhupada

> speaks literally, where he addresses to particular situation, and

> where he speaks about main principles. If you are going to

> accept Manu-Samhita literally, without consideration, then probably

> you'll stuck with dillema of becoming a mleccha or yavana, but

> if you'll use our principle of yukta-vairagya, then you'll find

> many useful things there both for preaching and practical

> implementation for varnasrama.

 

Ok, great. This will be a very good point at which to end our discussion:

Manu Samhita should not be taken literally. But to the extent that it has

useful things for preaching and practical dealings we may take help from it.

I'll sign on to that conclusion.

 

Since the purpose of this conference is to discuss principles to be

implemented in ISKCON management, then according to the above conclusion we

may accept principles of management from Manu Samhita if they are confirmed

by guru, sadhu, and vaisnava sastra. Is this a fair compromise? Please let

me know.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

 

My favorite quote from Manu Samhita (translated by G. Buhler)

 

Chapter 1, verse 86.

In the Krita age the chief (virtue) is declared to be (the

performance of) austerities, in the Treta (divine) knowledge, in the

Dvapara (the performance of) sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone.

 

also the previous verse:

85. One set of duties (is prescribed) for men in the Krita age,

different ones in the Treta and in the Dvapara, and (again) another

(set) in the Kali, in a proportion as (those) ages decrease in length.

 

But to be very honest, I find it extremely difficult to understand anything

but asuric purpose in all the denigration of and restrictions, etc.

regarding sudras.

 

Like:

 

31. Let (the first part of) a Brahmana's name (denote something)

auspicious, a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaisya's with

wealth, but a Sudra's (express something) contemptible.

 

or later, speaking of brahmanas:

 

80. Let him not give to a Sudra advice, nor the remnants (of his

meal), nor food offered to the gods; nor let him explain the sacred

law (to such a man), nor impose (upon him) a penance.

81. For he who explains the sacred law (to a Sudra) or dictates

to him a penance, will sink together with that (man) into the hell

(called) Asamvrita.

 

 

or the punishments:

 

281. A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat

with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be

banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.

282. If out of arrogance he spits (on a superior), the king shall

cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urines (on him), the penis;

if he breaks wind (against him), the anus.

 

or the business of slaves:

 

413. But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do

servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to

be the slave of a Brahmana.

414. A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released

from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from

it?

415. There are slaves of seven kinds, (viz.) he who is made a

captive under a standard, he who serves for his daily food, he who

is born in the house, he who is bought and he who is given, he who

is inherited from ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of

punishment.

 

The whole thing seems to be based fully on a system for promoting the

intelligent, well -born by oppressing the less intelligent and low-born. It

may work well for keeping the cycle of karma going, up and down in the

different planetary systems, but it appears demoniac to me.

 

I would really like someone to explain to me how the Manu Samhita is

supposed to help create a human society conducive to spiritual life or even

finer human values.

 

Of course this translation may be wrong, or perhaps this is not the original

Manu Samhita. It certainly seems to support the varna by birth concept

completely.

 

Your servant,

Pancaratna das

[Guest guest]

> The whole thing seems to be based fully on a system for promoting the

> intelligent, well -born by oppressing the less intelligent and low-born.

> It may work well for keeping the cycle of karma going, up and down in the

> different planetary systems, but it appears demoniac to me.

>

> I would really like someone to explain to me how the Manu Samhita is

> supposed to help create a human society conducive to spiritual life or

> even finer human values.

>

> Of course this translation may be wrong, or perhaps this is not the

> original Manu Samhita. It certainly seems to support the varna by birth

> concept completely.

>

> Your servant,

> Pancaratna das

 

I personally doubt the authenticity of the translation.

 

The ill treatment of others deemed to be less intelligent in the verses you

posted is just not consistent with Bhagavatam philosophy which promotes

kindness to all other living entities. Vaisnavas just don't treat other

people like that.

 

Yudhisthira Maharaja, for example, would personally see to the comforts of

his working class people. Unlike the above abusive behaviour, Yudhisthira

was ALWAYS kind to everyone in his kindom and as a result everyone was

perfectly happy with the work that came most naturally to them, and the

society in general was peaceful and prosperous both materially and

spiritually.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

> > The whole thing seems to be based fully on a system for promoting the

> > intelligent, well -born by oppressing the less intelligent and low-born.

> > It may work well for keeping the cycle of karma going, up and down in

> > the different planetary systems, but it appears demoniac to me.

> >

> > I would really like someone to explain to me how the Manu Samhita is

> > supposed to help create a human society conducive to spiritual life or

> > even finer human values.

> >

> > Of course this translation may be wrong, or perhaps this is not the

> > original Manu Samhita. It certainly seems to support the varna by birth

> > concept completely.

> >

> > Your servant,

> > Pancaratna das

>

> I personally doubt the authenticity of the translation.

 

Ajamila Prabhu, do you really mean this? Are you trying to say that since

Manu Samhita seems to have statements which are inconsistent with the

Bhagavatam philosophy, therefore the translation must be wrong? If so, this

means that you, too, are assuming that Manu Samhita is a Vedic literature it

must be internally consistent with the Bhagavatam. I cannot speak for the

veracity of the translation, but this innate inconsistency between Manu and

the Bhagavatam on many points has been clearly stated by Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur. Even the strongest proponents of Manu speaking in

this forum have always qualified their statements by admitting that not all

of the statements of the dharmasastras are really applicable at the present

time. It is exactly the statements of the type quoted by Pancaratna Prabhu

which are in this category of statements which must be rejected. We do, of

course, accept the Bhagavatam in toto. Thus your assumption that the

translations must be wrong should be reconsidered.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

> > I personally doubt the authenticity of the translation.

>

> Ajamila Prabhu, do you really mean this? Are you trying to say that since

> Manu Samhita seems to have statements which are inconsistent with the

> Bhagavatam philosophy, therefore the translation must be wrong? If so,

> this means that you, too, are assuming that Manu Samhita is a Vedic

> literature it must be internally consistent with the Bhagavatam. I cannot

> speak for the veracity of the translation, but this innate inconsistency

> between Manu and the Bhagavatam on many points has been clearly stated by

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur. Even the strongest proponents of Manu

> speaking in this forum have always qualified their statements by admitting

> that not all of the statements of the dharmasastras are really applicable

> at the present time. It is exactly the statements of the type quoted by

> Pancaratna Prabhu which are in this category of statements which must be

> rejected. We do, of course, accept the Bhagavatam in toto. Thus your

> assumption that the translations must be wrong should be reconsidered.

 

 

I do not wish to interfere into the dialog, but to only add my

personal doubts regarding these translation of Manu-samhita, too.

Thus siding with Ajamila prabhu's opinion. I can try to qualify it.

 

 

It used to be the applicability of some statements found in

Manu-samhita, that had been under question. However, Pancaratna

prabhu has placed some new uncertainties about Manu-samhita. He

expressed his not understanding of Manu-samhita as being any helpful

to conductiveness of even finer *human values* for *human society*, in

general. The quoted parts of Manu-samhta would be illustrating the

demoniac nature of Manu-smahita's basic principles, i.e. the promotion

of the system of oppression and the exploitation of inferior-born

individuals by the side of superior-born ones, as opposed to the VAD

system actually sanctioned by God, as explained in BG.

 

 

Now, let's read again Srila Prabhupada's conclusion about Manu-samhita,

as found in his "10 000_years_law-book":

 

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

"The conclusion is that if we want real peace and order in the

human society, we must follow the principles laid down by the

Manu-samhita and confirmed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

Krsna." (SB 7.8.48, Purport)

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

 

Now, it is this above statement what has been indeed put in question,

implicitly. Not merely the possibility of the application of some

statements, in this age of Kali. Now, in between the choices, that

Srila Prabhupada is wrong regarding Manu-samhita, and that it is the

particular translation of Manu-samhita that rather might be wrong or

distorted (giving us the picture of the demoniac principles being in

promotion), what option will you rather go for?

 

Srila Prabhupada used to, quite a few times, to mention how many

hundreds and thousands of translations of Bhagavad-gita have existed

prior to his. But they were not helping anybody in becoming a devotee.

Some have had just the opposite effect. Now, here is certain "G. Buhler".

Who is he? Why not to place doubt about his translations, if these

jeopardize Srila Prabhupada's opinion? I am surprised with this

eagerness for accepting just anybody's translations of Vedic literature,

without questioning the validity. Would you do the same with Mr.

Buhler's translations of Bhagavad-gita, as you do with his translations

of Manu-samhita? I suppose, no. But you seem to not mind anybody's

translations of Manu-samhita even if these translations give the

distorted, asuric, picture of, by God sanctioned, varnasrama dharma

principles. It is the whole Vedic culture that has been jeopardized

by those quotes from Bhuler's MS, the entire vedic system of division

according to varna&asrama.

 

 

 

> If so,

> this means that you, too, are assuming that Manu Samhita is a Vedic

> literature it must be internally consistent with the Bhagavatam.

 

But we may safely assume that Manu-samhita represents God's given

instructions, at least:

 

" Formerly, many long years ago, Lord Krsna instructed the

sun-god. The Manus are generally sons of the sun-god. Therefore, while

speaking to Arjuna about the importance of Bhagavad-gita, Krsna said, imam

vivasvate yogam proktavan aham avyayam vivasvan manave praha: 'This

instruction was given to Vivasvan, the sun-god, who in turn instructed his

son Manu.' Manu gave the law known as Manu-samhita, which is full of

directions based on varna and asrama concerning how to live as a human

being. "

 

 

To me, it seems to be the knowledge given by Krsna that has been

passed down through the chain of parampara, from Vivasvan to Manu,

and further, thus our receiving it now from... Mr. Bhuler. And about

this, there is no doubt.

 

Actually, it *must* be consistent with *God's instructions*. Because

it **is** His instructions (according to Srila Prabhupada). And if

it seems not to be, then doubt Bhuler's translations rather than

anything else.

 

 

 

I just tried to qualify the position "Why to doubt Bhuler's

translations of Manu-samhita". Also, I would like to add (if

it's of some use anyway) that I appreciate Pancaratra prabhu's

presentation, not only that he put those questionable parts of

Bhuler's Manu-samhita on the table for everybody's consideration,

but he left an open door for different possibilities of explanation,

like not accurate translations or even not being the original

Manu-samhita. But why do you want to shut the doors to such

given options, that's what I don't understand.

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

Dear Pancaratna Prabhu, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

I think that first, before discussing how Manu-samhita can be beneficial,

the question of its authority should first be resolved. For example, you

have said:

 

> The whole thing seems to be based fully on a system for promoting the

> intelligent, well -born by oppressing the less intelligent and low-born.

It

> may work well for keeping the cycle of karma going, up and down in the

> different planetary systems, but it appears demoniac to me.

 

It has already been established on this conference that this was spoken by

Svayambhuva Manu, whom we know is a Mahajana; thus it could not be meant to

mislead people. Since this law was also spoken by a great proponent of the

Bhakti cult, it would be a mistake to consider that it is fundamentally

meant to mislead people (or is, in your words, "demoniac"), or that it is to

be understood outside of the context of bhakti.

 

Also, how could we even call it a vedic literature if fundamentally it is

meant to put a person into ignorance? "Veda" means knowledge, therefore

anything that is "vedic" is meant to awaken us from ignorance.

 

But yes, there is practical application of principles of Manu-samhita within

our society, and there are some very nice passages.

 

Before I move on to quoting those passages, can we agree that Manu-samhita

is (1) an authoritative Vedic literature, and (2) its fundamental purpose is

not demoniac but meant to spiritually benefit others?

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

 

 

> Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

>

> My favorite quote from Manu Samhita (translated by G. Buhler)

>

> Chapter 1, verse 86.

> In the Krita age the chief (virtue) is declared to be (the

> performance of) austerities, in the Treta (divine) knowledge, in the

> Dvapara (the performance of) sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone.

>

> also the previous verse:

> 85. One set of duties (is prescribed) for men in the Krita age,

> different ones in the Treta and in the Dvapara, and (again) another

> (set) in the Kali, in a proportion as (those) ages decrease in length.

>

> But to be very honest, I find it extremely difficult to understand

anything

> but asuric purpose in all the denigration of and restrictions, etc.

> regarding sudras.

>

> Like:

>

> 31. Let (the first part of) a Brahmana's name (denote something)

> auspicious, a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaisya's with

> wealth, but a Sudra's (express something) contemptible.

>

> or later, speaking of brahmanas:

>

> 80. Let him not give to a Sudra advice, nor the remnants (of his

> meal), nor food offered to the gods; nor let him explain the sacred

> law (to such a man), nor impose (upon him) a penance.

> 81. For he who explains the sacred law (to a Sudra) or dictates

> to him a penance, will sink together with that (man) into the hell

> (called) Asamvrita.

>

>

> or the punishments:

>

> 281. A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat

> with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be

> banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.

> 282. If out of arrogance he spits (on a superior), the king shall

> cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urines (on him), the penis;

> if he breaks wind (against him), the anus.

>

> or the business of slaves:

>

> 413. But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do

> servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to

> be the slave of a Brahmana.

> 414. A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released

> from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from

> it?

> 415. There are slaves of seven kinds, (viz.) he who is made a

> captive under a standard, he who serves for his daily food, he who

> is born in the house, he who is bought and he who is given, he who

> is inherited from ancestors, and he who is enslaved by way of

> punishment.

>

> The whole thing seems to be based fully on a system for promoting the

> intelligent, well -born by oppressing the less intelligent and low-born.

It

> may work well for keeping the cycle of karma going, up and down in the

> different planetary systems, but it appears demoniac to me.

>

> I would really like someone to explain to me how the Manu Samhita is

> supposed to help create a human society conducive to spiritual life or

even

> finer human values.

>

> Of course this translation may be wrong, or perhaps this is not the

original

> Manu Samhita. It certainly seems to support the varna by birth concept

> completely.

>

> Your servant,

> Pancaratna das

>

[Guest guest]

> Ajamila Prabhu, do you really mean this? Are you trying to say that since

> Manu Samhita seems to have statements which are inconsistent with the

> Bhagavatam philosophy, therefore the translation must be wrong?

 

First we have to establish whether or not the translation is correct, that's

all I'm saying.

 

> If so, this means that you, too, are assuming that Manu Samhita is a Vedic

> literature it must be internally consistent with the Bhagavatam.

 

Some parts are consistent and some are not, as Srila Prabhupada has

explained. My only doubt is your assertion that there are some demoniac

aspects in Manu Samhita.

 

> I cannot

> speak for the veracity of the translation, but this innate inconsistency

> between Manu and the Bhagavatam on many points has been clearly stated by

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakur. Even the strongest proponents of Manu

> speaking in this forum have always qualified their statements by admitting

> that not all of the statements of the dharmasastras are really applicable

> at the present time. It is exactly the statements of the type quoted by

> Pancaratna Prabhu which are in this category of statements which must be

> rejected.

 

If the statements are "actully" Manu Samhita then of course we all would

accept, but I would like to see a bona-fide translation of Manu Samhita to

see if the translation quoted is accurate. That's all I want to see.

 

> We do, of course, accept the Bhagavatam in toto. Thus your

> assumption that the translations must be wrong should be reconsidered.

 

I'll put it this way, until I'm satisifed that the translation quoted is

bona fide I'll hold the translation as suspect like we do with say Dr Radha

Krishna's offensive impersonal translation of Bhagavad-gita and all the

other hodge podge stuff there in India which Srila Prabhipada often heavily

criticised.

 

> Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

Here is the serious inconsistency I'm addressing. Even in today's degraded

society, one can be jailed for behaving in such a discriminatory way toward

others. Here in Britain, for example, one can be jailed even for insulting

another because of their race or ethnic background. And this society is not

based upon Vedic culture. Therefore I for one am not coinvinced that Manu,

an incarnation of Krishna, would mistreat people in the way described in the

posted translation of Manu Samhita. The inconsistency ranges from divne to

demoniac. I have no doubts about Manu, but I certainly have doubts about

anything outside of Srila Prabhupada's books and bona fide ISKCON

translations.

 

Consider how the posted questionable Manu Samhita verses contradict the very

essence of Vaisnava and Vedic culture given in the following verses from

Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita:

 

"One who is not envious but is a kind friend

to all living entities" .... BG 12.13

 

"He for whom no one is put into diffuculty" .... BG 12.15

 

"One who is equal to friend sand enemies" .... BG 12.18

 

"As the blazing fire of death, I cause great fear to whoever makes

the least discrimination between himself and other living entities

because of a differetial outlook." SB. 3.29.26

 

According to the posted translation, Manu would have already been burnt to

death. And we all know that there are many, many other such verses

throughout our Srila Prabhupada's books which say exactly the same thing,

which is distinctly different from the demoniac behaviour described.

 

Srila Prabhupada made a point of putting 'AS IT IS' after the title of his

Bhagavad-gita. Why? Because nearly all the other BG translations were not as

it is. They are as it were, or as it could have been, or whatever. Therefore

we have every reason to doubt other translations of Vedic scriptures. We

don't doubt Manu Samhita, we doubt the translation and we doubt that there

is anything demoniac in the strict sense of the term in REAL Manu Samhita.

Take Dr Radha Krishna's bogus translation of Bhagavad-gita, it is an exmaple

of how the facts can get so awfully distorted and mispresented.

 

I'm surprised we are even spending time on a point like this.

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu has also pointed out the same futility guite elaborately.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

I hear three issues being debated here:

 

1) Is the Manu Samhita an appropriate sastra for Vaishnavas?

 

2) How do we deal with the fact that some of the prescriptions of Manu Samhita

apparently offend our sensibilities as Vaishnavas and as members of 21st

century

cultures?

 

3) Are the scriptures and their injunctions interchangeable?

 

I'm not going to try and conclusively answer any of these questions. Rather, I

want to point out that we often have difficulty dealing with these kinds of

issues because we tend to have rather rigid thinking when it comes to things we

characterize as absolute. With sastras, we instinctively believe they must be

completely consistent because they ultimately come from the same source, and

that their meaning should be self-evident and clear. However, neither of these

assumptions is necessary true.

 

For example, if the meaning and relevancy of the sastras were self-evident,

then

why do we say, "sadhu, sastra, and guru"? Why not just "sastra"? Because we

need

genuine realization to put the sastras in perspective and practice. We must

ascertain what is important and what is not for the present time, place and

circumstance.

 

As for consistency, have we considered the fact that these scriptures didn't

just suddenly and simultaneously appear and were then immediately carved into

stone? The sastras come to us from many authors. Sometimes they are the words

of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his varied incarnations, sometimes the

words of demigods, sometimes the sages. Vedavyasa organized them, wrote them

down, and added content of his own.

 

The copy of Manu Samhita I read was also a translation by a Westerner, but not

the same as the one referred to in this discussion. I have to admit, I was

shocked like Pancaratna. I've never seen a translation by a Vaishnava. However,

I have read some portions of the Puranas translated by Vaishnavas and there are

striking differences between the six Puranas written for each of the modes of

goodness, passion and ignorance. Although the subject of the Puranas is the

worship of the Absolute, I found the tamasic and rajasic Puranas very hard to

relate to. They are obviously aimed at different audiences and I wouldn't

consider them to be at all interchangeable.

 

Time and place of presentation cannot also be ignored. It would incorrect to

assume that there is a single master copy of each sastra that is re-presented

in

exactly the same form again and again. Srila Prabhupada told us there are far

more extensive versions of Srimad Bhagavatam in other planets and universes. Or

consider Bhagavad-gita: Krishna tells Arjuna in the middle of the Gita text

that

He gave this same knowledge to the sun god at a distant time in the past. But

clearly the words would have been different, as the Bhagavad-gita was then

spoken in another context and not on the battlefield of Kurukshetra.

 

In the quote presented by Mahanidhi, Srila Prabhupada says, "The conclusion is

that if we want real peace and order in the human society, we must follow the

principles laid down by the Manu-samhita and confirmed by the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, Krishna." Certainly, the principles he refers to for

peace and order are those of varnashrama dharma and not the specific detailed

prescriptions of the book. If Srila Prabhupada said Kings were no longer

relevant in modern culture (as was quoted in this forum a few weeks back), it's

not hard imagine practices such as slavery, corporal punishment, and torture

would not be appropriate in this day and age. If Manu himself appeared in all

his splendor here tomorrow, do we really think he would present his principles

in the same context?

 

In our conception, Vedic culture has existed for millions of years, just in

this

one yuga-cycle. Should we assume that it has remained in a single, stagnant

form

through the various yugas and the countless passing of the years -- even though

our own experience is that culture can change dramatically several times within

a single, short lifetime? If that is going to be our assumption, then I believe

we have zero chance of re-establishing anything that even remotely resembles

Vedic culture.

 

The point is, we cannot just pick a sastra and market it as

across-the-board-relevant just because it supports our particular view of what

is needed and what is not. It is the principles that must be ascertained -- and

that is always a question of judgement requiring realization, wisdom, and the

mercy of guru and Krishna applied to the time, place and circumstance.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net]

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]

[Guest guest]

Mahanidhi Prabhu wrote:

 

> It used to be the applicability of some statements found in

> Manu-samhita, that had been under question. However, Pancaratna

> prabhu has placed some new uncertainties about Manu-samhita. He

> expressed his not understanding of Manu-samhita as being any helpful

> to conductiveness of even finer *human values* for *human society*, in

> general. The quoted parts of Manu-samhta would be illustrating the

> demoniac nature of Manu-smahita's basic principles, i.e. the promotion

> of the system of oppression and the exploitation of inferior-born

> individuals by the side of superior-born ones, as opposed to the VAD

> system actually sanctioned by God, as explained in BG.

>

> Now, let's read again Srila Prabhupada's conclusion about Manu-samhita,

> as found in his "10 000_years_law-book":

>

> --------------------------------

> "The conclusion is that if we want real peace and order in the

> human society, we must follow the principles laid down by the

> Manu-samhita and confirmed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead,

> Krsna." (SB 7.8.48, Purport)

> --------------------------------

 

> To me, it seems to be the knowledge given by Krsna that has been

> passed down through the chain of parampara, from Vivasvan to Manu,

> and further, thus our receiving it now from... Mr. Bhuler. And about

> this, there is no doubt.

>

> Actually, it *must* be consistent with *God's instructions*. Because

> it **is** His instructions (according to Srila Prabhupada). And if

> it seems not to be, then doubt Bhuler's translations rather than

> anything else.

 

I am going to give a try at explaining how Mr. Buhler's translation may not

be fundamentally wrong, and yet Srila Prabhupada's comments above about the

necessity of Manu-Samhita for peace and order in human society are also not

wrong.

 

For everyone's reference, here is some of what Pancaratna Prabhu wrote in

his original text:

 

> But to be very honest, I find it extremely difficult to understand

> anything but asuric purpose in all the denigration of and restrictions,

> etc. regarding sudras.

>

> Like:

>

> 31. Let (the first part of) a Brahmana's name (denote something)

> auspicious, a Kshatriya's be connected with power, and a Vaisya's with

> wealth, but a Sudra's (express something) contemptible.

>

> or later, speaking of brahmanas:

>

> 80. Let him not give to a Sudra advice, nor the remnants (of his

> meal), nor food offered to the gods; nor let him explain the sacred

> law (to such a man), nor impose (upon him) a penance.

> 81. For he who explains the sacred law (to a Sudra) or dictates

> to him a penance, will sink together with that (man) into the hell

> (called) Asamvrita.

>

>

> or the punishments:

>

> 281. A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat

> with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be

> banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.

> 282. If out of arrogance he spits (on a superior), the king shall

> cause both his lips to be cut off; if he urines (on him), the penis;

> if he breaks wind (against him), the anus.

 

> The whole thing seems to be based fully on a system for promoting the

> intelligent, well -born by oppressing the less intelligent and low-born.

> It may work well for keeping the cycle of karma going, up and down in the

> different planetary systems, but it appears demoniac to me.

 

Pancaratna Prabhu sums up:

 

> I would really like someone to explain to me how the Manu Samhita is

> supposed to help create a human society conducive to spiritual life or

> even finer human values.

 

"Spiritual life" is a bit vague of a term here, so I will not comment on it,

but we should be able to easily see how the above passages from Manu

Samhita, taken with at least some of the translation at face value, could be

helpful for promoting finer human values:

 

In a society with a strict delineation of the varnas according to guna and

karma and with a minimum of social interaction between the various varnas,

there are distinct behavior patterns practiced in different communities.

Sudras who are not qualified as anything more than that must be restricted

from associating intimately within brahmana society, but are instead forced

by the ksatriyas to remain socially within their own community. Since they

have no proper training, they will simply create a disturbance to the

brahmanas. If they violate the social norms and attempt to sit on the same

seat as a brahmana, then that is a very real risk to the purity of the

brahmanas (later on he may want his son to marry the brahmana's daughter!!)

If the brahmana community is not protected from such disturbance then they

cannot properly give direction to the ksatriyas, and the whole social

structure will become degraded to the collective loss of everyone. I

remember how we used to have a rule at the Brooklyn temple to keep out the

bums from the Sunday feast program. We had to be forceful in order to

protect the higher aspirations of others in attendance. And before the

advent of democracy what kind of force did the sudras understand? Perhaps a

good thigh-gashing was the order of the day. So what? It's a lot cheaper

than maintaining jails! And it undoubtedly worked to keep the upstarts in

place, thus protecting the long-range benefit of all the classes of society.

 

Promoting finer human values: These were possessed by the brahmanas, and it

entitled them to certain priveleges. Other social classes who did not

possess these values would hold the values in respect, and thus progress on

the path of attaining them, perhaps in the present life or perhaps in a

future life. This progress was not possible without a strong hand to

severely punish those who transgressed.

 

Is this OK, Pancaratna Prabhu? Mahanidhi Prabhu?

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP wrote:

 

>

> I am going to give a try at explaining how Mr. Buhler's translation may

> not be fundamentally wrong, and yet Srila Prabhupada's comments above

> about the necessity of Manu-Samhita for peace and order in human society

> are also not wrong.

>

> For everyone's reference, here is some of what Pancaratna Prabhu wrote in

> his original text:

>

> > But to be very honest, I find it extremely difficult to understand

> > anything but asuric purpose in all the denigration of and restrictions,

> > etc. regarding sudras.

 

 

It is a conflicting situation, indeed. That's why I think no door

shouldn't be a priori closed to different possibilities of solving it.

The fact is that we do NOT know wether the translations are genuine

Manu-samhita or not. The trigger that released the "demon" of doubt out,

was Pancaratna prabhu's viewing those principles as asuric. To me,

they (as written, "black on white) also struck as quite such - asuric.

*If* so, then to doubt the translations is quite an available option,

isn't it?

 

 

> but we should be able to easily see how the above passages from

> Manu Samhita, taken with at least some of the translation at face

> value, could be helpful for promoting finer human values:

 

That you have given now a try at explaining how those principles

are something else but asuric, that might eventually be attempt

to answer the Pancaratna prabhu's questions.

*If* it is so, as you are explaining, then there is no necessarily a

need to doubt the translations. Everybody happy. But previously, you

seamed to be not really trying to answer the raised question, you seamed

to be not making an objection of this kind "It is not asuric". Rather,

your comment was:

 

> It is exactly the statements of the type quoted by Pancaratna

> Prabhu which are in this category of statements which must be

> rejected.

 

That what *must be rejected*, in my opinion, are the sinful, asuric,

principles and activities. Not the ones that "could be helpful

for promoting finer human values". These are the integral part

of varnasrama dharma system, the system we want to promote in this

world. I suppose so.

 

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

|It is a conflicting situation, indeed. That's why I think no door

|shouldn't be a priori closed to different possibilities of solving it.

|The fact is that we do NOT know wether the translations are genuine

|Manu-samhita or not. The trigger that released the "demon" of doubt out,

|was Pancaratna prabhu's viewing those principles as asuric. To me,

|they (as written, "black on white) also struck as quite such - asuric.

|*If* so, then to doubt the translations is quite an available option,

|isn't it?

 

Is it possible that this term "asuric" has got us a bit confused as to what

we're talking about? Isn't it that:

 

Karma-kanda, the "path of karma," means to follow the regulations of the dharma

sastras for material benefit.

 

Karma-yoga means following the same basic path, but with the understanding that

the ultimate purpose of it is to please the Lord.

 

Bhakti-yoga directly satisfies the desires of the Lord, without any attachment

to the processes of karma or jnana.

 

We tend to use the word "asura" in two different ways:

 

It is true, in a general sense, that karma-kanda is the practice of the asuras

because it is without reference to the Supreme Lord. However, we also use the

term "asura" to mean one who is adamantly opposed to all principles of dharma.

These are really quite different meanings, but we seem to be failing to draw

the

distinction. As these words are used by us in English, one can be an asura --

in

that he acts only for his sense gratification -- but he may still not a demon

(asura) who is the wholehearted enemy of Krishna and his devotees.

 

I believe that when we say that some practices are asuric, we should really be

saying they are of the path of karma-kanda. "Asuric Varnashrama-dharma" can be

something of an oxymoron, as we appear to be getting confused about it.

 

ys,

SRd

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ram Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

It is very clear in the Vedic literature that the asuras are followers of

dharma, but they are opposed to the supremacy of Lord Vishnu.

 

BG 16.15 quotes the demoniac person as follows:

 

yaksye dasyami modisya iti

 

"I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall

rejoice."

 

Hiranyaksa, Ravana, Kamsa, etc. were all followers of laukika dharma.

 

Those who do not follow dharmasastras are described as yavanas and mlecchas.

They are distinct from the asuras. (An interesting note: When Kalayavana

attacked Krishna's army, Krishna refused to fight with him, but arranged for

him to be killed by Mucukunda.)

 

Those who follow varnasrama principles but who have no devotion to Lord

Vishnu are asuras, thus the description of their practices as asuric

varnasrama is not at all inappropriate. We have absolutely no interest as

ISKCON devotees to directly promote varnasrama devoid of devotion to Lord

Vishnu. We can, however, accept in principle that the general populace would

be better off following VAD than not following it, so we may for the sake of

preaching encourage the general society to take up its principles. This type

of preaching attitude is shown throughout Srila Prabhupada's books. Thus we

may not want to advertise it publicly as "asuric". But for our internal

discussions there is no harm in using that terminology. We want to attract

the public to the logical principles of varnasrama and thus to appreciate

Vedic culture in general. This will make them more amenable to our direct

preaching about bhakti and the holy name.

 

Some minor detail comments below.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

 

> |It is a conflicting situation, indeed. That's why I think no door

> |shouldn't be a priori closed to different possibilities of solving it.

> |The fact is that we do NOT know wether the translations are genuine

> |Manu-samhita or not. The trigger that released the "demon" of doubt out,

> |was Pancaratna prabhu's viewing those principles as asuric. To me,

> |they (as written, "black on white) also struck as quite such - asuric.

> |*If* so, then to doubt the translations is quite an available option,

> |isn't it?

>

> Is it possible that this term "asuric" has got us a bit confused as to

> what we're talking about? Isn't it that:

>

> Karma-kanda, the "path of karma," means to follow the regulations of the

> dharma sastras for material benefit.

>

> Karma-yoga means following the same basic path, but with the understanding

> that the ultimate purpose of it is to please the Lord.

>

> Bhakti-yoga directly satisfies the desires of the Lord, without any

> attachment to the processes of karma or jnana.

>

> We tend to use the word "asura" in two different ways:

>

> It is true, in a general sense, that karma-kanda is the practice of the

> asuras because it is without reference to the Supreme Lord. However, we

> also use the term "asura" to mean one who is adamantly opposed to all

> principles of dharma.

 

No. The correct term for this is mleccha/yavana.

 

> These are really quite different meanings, but we

> seem to be failing to draw the

> distinction. As these words are used by us in English, one can be an asura

> -- in

> that he acts only for his sense gratification -- but he may still not a

> demon (asura) who is the wholehearted enemy of Krishna and his devotees.

 

If someone is acting for his own sense gratification without understanding

the supremacy of the Lord then he is averse to Krishna and his devotees. The

may be only small asuras, but the mentality is basically the same as Ravana,

etc.

 

> I believe that when we say that some practices are asuric, we should

> really be saying they are of the path of karma-kanda. "Asuric

> Varnashrama-dharma" can be something of an oxymoron, as we appear to be

> getting confused about it.

 

Yes. We should definitely not add this term to our public preaching

vocabulary.

[Guest guest]

|

|GBC.Unmoderated (AT) pamho (DOT) net [GBC.Unmoderated (AT) pamho (DOT) net]On

|Behalf Of Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP (Bhubaneswara - IN)

 

|No. The correct term for this is mleccha/yavana.

 

|> I believe that when we say that some practices are asuric, we should

|> really be saying they are of the path of karma-kanda. "Asuric

|> Varnashrama-dharma" can be something of an oxymoron, as we appear to be

|> getting confused about it.

|

|Yes. We should definitely not add this term to our public preaching

|vocabulary.

 

Perhaps mleccha and yavana can be used as general terms, but maybe not. Isn't

mleccha used to specifically refer to the Greeks, and Yavana for people to the

north and east of India?

 

In any case, the term "asura" is problematic. You are technically correct, but

in ISKCON parlance, the word is used 99 times out of 100 to refer to persons

from a large variety of groups who are outside the devotional circle. Because

of

a quarter century of misuse of the word, "asura" -- as it has been imported

into

English -- is no longer limited to the precise definition you give. Therefore,

it is especially necessary to be very clear when using it amongst devotees.

 

ys

SRd

[Guest guest]

Bhaktarupa (das) ACBSP, wrote:

 

>

> Those who follow varnasrama principles but who have no devotion to Lord

> Vishnu are asuras, thus the description of their practices as asuric

> varnasrama is not at all inappropriate.

 

 

Devotion to Lord Visnu is the most rarely achieved sentiment in

this world. One who has such a devotion of Lord Visnu is known

as "Vaisnava", or "devotee of Lord Visnu". To assume that only

the varnasrama system practiced by such Vaisnavas is bona fide,

and that the one practiced by everybody else is asuri, I do not

think this to be appropriate. It is very contradiction to start

the sentence "Those who follow varnasrma principles.." and

end it with "... asuric varnasrama". If they follow it, then they

follow it!

 

 

If we wish to implement varnasrama system in this world, I would

suggest to be first clear about its *purpose*. As I understand, it

is meant to first bring the human beings to the actual platform of

being humans. The four principles (no meat, no illicit sex, no

intoxication, no gambling) are the start. We still do not speak here

about love of God, do we? Then gradually uplifting them to the higher

stages. The devotion of God is the **ultimate** achievement.

"Bahunam janmanam ante..." It takes many, many lifetimes to come

to that stage. If we reject everything before as "asuri", how

can people in general advance toward it? It's like kicking away

all the stepping stones of the stairways, but the last one. So

then we expect people to "gradually advance" up.

 

 

There are so many different processes meant for sel-realization,

different kind of yogas, different religious practices, demigod

worship, and so on. Where is it said that *devotion of Visnu* is

necessarily to be there, in order to avoid being labeled as a

practitioner of *asuri* system? Please.

 

I find this deffinition "one who has no devotion to Lord Visnu

is an asura" to be sharply exclusive, even sectarian. there may

be many, many realigious people in this world (in whatever degree),

but who got no devotion of Visnu. Never heared about Him. Even in

ISCKON. Many aspiring devotees of the Lord. Trying to develop love

of God. But you do not know who got devotion of God and who not.

 

 

Why not simply look upon sastra in order to determine which

activities/system are asuric and which are not? Why constantly

insist to look into people's hearth? We can't know what exactly is

in our own hearth hiding there, what to speak about others. The

probelm may be that you announced how asuri is sastric, therefore

you can't refer anymore to sastra as the criteria. If you can't

refer to sastra anymore, then what is there left to us to serve as

the reference or criteria?

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

Sri Ram Prabhu commented:

 

> |No. The correct term for this is mleccha/yavana.

>

> |> I believe that when we say that some practices are asuric, we should

> |> really be saying they are of the path of karma-kanda. "Asuric

> |> Varnashrama-dharma" can be something of an oxymoron, as we appear to be

> |> getting confused about it.

> |

> |Yes. We should definitely not add this term to our public preaching

> |vocabulary.

>

> Perhaps mleccha and yavana can be used as general terms, but maybe not.

> Isn't mleccha used to specifically refer to the Greeks, and Yavana for

> people to the north and east of India?

 

There are other terms also which refer to those who are not followers of

Vedic principles, such as candalas. They had separate societies within the

same geographic area.

 

> In any case, the term "asura" is problematic. You are technically correct,

> but in ISKCON parlance, the word is used 99 times out of 100 to refer to

> persons from a large variety of groups who are outside the devotional

> circle. Because of

> a quarter century of misuse of the word, "asura" -- as it has been

> imported into

> English -- is no longer limited to the precise definition you give.

> Therefore, it is especially necessary to be very clear when using it

> amongst devotees.

 

Thank you for at least giving me the credit for being technically correct. I

would be happy to take up your discussion about making strategies for how we

should use the word in ISKCON, but since other members of this discussion

have been making strong statements about how I am not even technically

correct it is probably best not to confuse matters further by changing the

subject. Let's understand the philosophy first. For understanding the

philosophy, if we want to refer to sastra we have to understand the word the

way it is used in the Gita and Bhagavatam and in the writings of our

acaryas.

 

The Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhan (dictionary of terms) gives only one relevant

definition for asura: sri-hari-vimukha. Vimukha means both "averse" and also

"indifferent". Sure, the "averse" usage gets a lot more public exposure, but

those who go about their moral lives indifferent to God are definitely also

included in the asura category, and the varnasrama system they follow, even

if it is sastric, is described by our acaryas as asuri-varnasrama. Since the

practitioners are indifferent or averse to God the process of following

varnasrama does not help them directly to develop bhakti. It rather keeps

them away from bhakti by satisfying their material desires. Bhakti can only

be bestowed by a bhakta. If while following asuri varnasrama they have the

good fortune to meet a bhakta then they can develop bhakti.

 

It seems to be quite sentimental to want to avoid calling a spade a spade

here. We have no good words for those who are indifferent or averse to the

Supreme Lord (in some form or another), except sometimes in our public

preaching we may glorify ordinary morality.

 

But I think the main problem some are having with this concept is that they

cannot accept that those who are indifferent or averse to the Supreme Lord

may be followers of the Vedic literature. I only hope that they can kindly

consider that it is the mercy of the Vedas that it has given procedures for

even the asuras to follow to achieve their sense gratification. They

mechanically perform sacrifices according to Vedic rules and achieve

material blessings as a result. These rules they are following mechanically

may even include Vishnu mantras, but since they do not also worship the

vaishnavas, Srila Prabhupada says that Vishnu compares their worship of Him

to be like the pricking of a pin. Still, because they followed the rules of

the yajna correctly he gives them their material results (so that they will

be satisfied and leave Him alone).

 

Same can be said for the demons following of varnasrama principles. They

have no commitment to the pleasure of Lord Vishnu. Their goal is their own

sense gratification. Since varnasrama will help them achieve sense

gratification they follow it.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

> If we wish to implement varnasrama system in this world, I would

> suggest to be first clear about its *purpose*. As I understand, it

> is meant to first bring the human beings to the actual platform of

> being humans. The four principles (no meat, no illicit sex, no

> intoxication, no gambling) are the start. We still do not speak here

> about love of God, do we? Then gradually uplifting them to the higher

> stages. The devotion of God is the **ultimate** achievement.

> "Bahunam janmanam ante..." It takes many, many lifetimes to come

> to that stage. If we reject everything before as "asuri", how

> can people in general advance toward it?

 

I am not at all suggesting we reject asuri varnasrama. It also has its use

for those who are not devotees.

 

> Bhakratarupa prabhu, however, observed the *hearth of the

> practitioner*. Not the system. And the criteria in use, "is there

> love of God, or is there not". So, if there is love then it supposedly

> daivi varnasrama, and if there is not, then it is supposedly asuri.

> The aplication of this kind of discriminatory process, or deffinitions,

> is what I do not agree with.

>

> A simple example. A sudra may be faithful to his master, serving

> him nicely, executing his duties. He may not have the sufficient

> knowledge of Godhead (he is not even allowed to study Vedas). Not

> having even the knowledge about Krsna, perhaps he got no love of

> Godhead. But he executes his prescribed duties, properly. So he makes

> the progress, next life time he is born as a brahmana (according to

> what I red in the books). He makes big step forward on his spiritually

> progressive path. So what varnasrama system is he following? Obviously,

> he is within daivi varnasrama dharama, where by simply executing the

> prescribed duties one makes the advancement, even without necessarily

> knowing anything about Param Brahman, what to speak about attaining

> love of Him.

 

Both sastric varnasrama systems are progressive. Please don't assume that

asuri varnasrama means degradation. Pseudo-varnasrama means degradation.

Daivi varnasrama means performing prescribed duties within society for the

purpose of pleasing the Supreme Lord. Asuri varnasrama means avoiding sinful

life in order to attain sense gratification. (Sins are a drag if you want to

go to heaven.)

 

> As far as Ravana, he *acted* against the injunctions of Vedas. Vedas

> do not sanction that what he did, stealing Rama's wife. You steal

> someone's wife, you deserved to be killed. Ravana openly defied God.

> That is clearly asatric. He was supposedly a brahmana, but he was

> acting against God and God's injuctions. So he didn't follow the

> prescribed duties of his varna according to daivai varnasrama, as

> we can see.

 

He was a rakshasa, not a brahmana.

 

The dharma sastras do not assume that the practitioner will not commit sins.

Rather, it is quite to the contrary. They expect that the followers will be

regularly sinning. Thus they prescribe antidotes for the sins in the form of

prayascitta. They permit the mentality that, "OK, you can't stop sinning, so

at least for every sin you have to perform some penance to get relief from

it."

 

> Hiranyakasipu, same. He defied God, too. He was a ksatriya. What

> is the basic occupational duty for a ksatriya? To give the protection

> to cows, brahamans, Vaisnavas,... Did he do it? No. He harassed

> brahmanas and Vaisnavas. Thus he followed asuri "system". And how do

> we know? Based on *sastric knowledge*. Wether it is according to

> sastras, or it is not. So, how can we say "asuri varnasrama is

> sastric"? It is not. It is *asastric*. This is indeed the definition

> of "asuri". It is there, described in Bhagavad-gita. Asuras (or

> shall we say, demons) do not follow sastric injuctions!

 

They selectively follow sastric injunctions according to their whims.

 

Your other points are answered (generally) either above or in my concurrent

text to Sri Ram Prabhu.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

>

> The Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhan (dictionary of terms) gives only one

> relevant definition for asura: sri-hari-vimukha. Vimukha means both

> "averse" and also "indifferent". Sure, the "averse" usage gets a lot more

> public exposure, but those who go about their moral lives indifferent to

> God are definitely also included in the asura category, and the varnasrama

> system they follow, even if it is sastric, is described by our acaryas as

> asuri-varnasrama. Since the practitioners are indifferent or averse to God

> the process of following varnasrama does not help them directly to develop

> bhakti. It rather keeps them away from bhakti by satisfying their material

> desires. Bhakti can only be bestowed by a bhakta. If while following asuri

> varnasrama they have the good fortune to meet a bhakta then they can

> develop bhakti.

 

In my knowledge, the process that helps the practitioner to

*directly* develop bhakti, is known by the name "bhakti-yoga".

The varnasrama dharma system, call it by any name you like, is NOT

direct process for attaining love of Godhead. It is a *social system*,

meant to help the followers to gradually purify their existence by mean

of following the prescribed occupational duties of varna and asrama.

Thus they make the spiritual advancement.

 

You speak about the direct attaining of bhakti, you say that bhakti

can be bestowed by a bhakta only. OK, but then let's forget talk

about varnasrama dharma. Krsna says "sarva dharman parityaja".

Abandon all varieties of religion! Krsna also says, just look for

that bhakta who will give you love of God, serve him.. That's

yoga. Not varnasrama dharma of any sort.

 

 

>

> But I think the main problem some are having with this concept is that

> they cannot accept that those who are indifferent or averse to the Supreme

> Lord may be followers of the Vedic literature. I only hope that they can

> kindly consider that it is the mercy of the Vedas that it has given

> procedures for even the asuras to follow to achieve their sense

> gratification.

 

Mercy... everything in the existence rests on God's mercy.

Vedas give the procedures for even Demigods to follow to

achieve their sense gratification. Look Lord Indra's adventures.

How about Daksa prajapati?

 

I think the problem is in our "curling the lips" on very mentioning

"sense gratification". We hear "sense gratification", and we say

it's asuri varnasrama system. But in this world, there is hardly

anything found as pure or 100%. It is all mixed. There is no a pure

karma-yogi, nor there is a pure karma-kandi perhaps. Aversion and

attraction are intermixed. It is said that even a demon and a

devotee are residing in the same bodies. So how can you make a

clear cut of "no-asuri" and "asuri" varnasrama system? Just on

the base that someone is performing some process for getting sense

gratification, is not good enough.

 

 

> They mechanically perform sacrifices according to Vedic

> rules and achieve material blessings as a result. These rules they are

> following mechanically may even include Vishnu mantras, but since they do

> not also worship the vaishnavas, Srila Prabhupada says that Vishnu

> compares their worship of Him to be like the pricking of a pin. Still,

> because they followed the rules of the yajna correctly he gives them their

> material results (so that they will be satisfied and leave Him alone).

>

 

We ought to look into the actual purpose of everything. I doubt

that the purpose of mentioned prescribed Vedic sacrifices is simply

to supply the performer with his sense gratification. The real

purpose of it, yes, even when performed mechanically, is to make

the performer to *follow* the God's injunctions, thus to perform some

purificatory rituals. Not simply to give him his sense gratification.

That is why varnasrama is required in this world. To "trick" the

people in general towards higher human and spiritual values, *also*.

There are various samskaras atteched to it.

 

 

> Same can be said for the demons following of varnasrama principles. They

> have no commitment to the pleasure of Lord Vishnu. Their goal is their own

> sense gratification. Since varnasrama will help them achieve sense

> gratification they follow it.

 

Demons, however, reject Vedic injunctions. So, even if they happen

to perform some sacrifice technically correct, they do it for the

wrong purpose. I do not mean here simply a "sense gratification", since

that may indeed be the promised result of that ritual. What demons want

more than anything, is the power by which to dominate and exploit.

Thus they are acting against the Vedic injunctions, for they perform

sacrifices and austerities for wrong reason than supposed. Thus they

do not make any advancement, but go to hell rather. While someone

else may go to heaven, associate with Demigods, by dint of his desire

for sense gratification. (or maybe join ISCKON)

 

In order to determine wether someone follows varnasrama or not,

one better look if the person executes properly his prescribed

duties according to his varna and asrama. To simply turn the

spot lights onto "sense gratification" is not the best way to

do it, in my opinion. Why? Because varnasrama both sanctions and,

yes, helps to everybody to attain this, in accordance to one's

position. There is much more needed to look into it than merely

"sense gratification", before we proclaim someone to be following

varnasrama dharma really. The problem with this is that by saying

"Demons follow varnasrma dharma" (but they go straight to hell,

indeed), one will want to a priori refuse to even hear about it,

not knowing what varnasrama dharma is actually about. One can't

go to hell if following God's social system, can he? If one can,

then forget God and His system.

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> If while following asuri varnasrama they have the

> good fortune to meet a bhakta then they can develop bhakti.

 

Does this include the Christians who have "met" Lord Jesus and Muslims who

have "met" Mohammed? Now their "moral" lives of asuri varnasrama is

transformed to develop bhakti even it may take a lot longer than Vaisnava

varnasrama? So we may have hundreds of millions of people following

non-asuri varnasrama-dharma in this world outside of ISKCON.

[Guest guest]

Janesvara (das) ACBSP, wrote:

 

>

> I understand what you are trying to say but, how can you really

> practically seperate the two?

>

 

It is already practically separated by the very fact that we

speak here about the attempt of implementing VAD system in this

world. I see it not being in place yet, and you are counting decades

and years and months and days, from Srila Prabhupada's given

instructions to start implementing the first institutions of VAD.

Not even varna divisions exist at all. Asramas are some indication,

not even a proper order in place; one may be a grhasta then he may take

sannyas then he may take a wife... or give up a wife for a wife..

 

But we can see that the process of bhakti-yoga is in place, elaborated

saddhana bhakti, and all of nine processes of devotional service are

there. The process "is operating", practically. VAD, practically no.

Not even theoretically, so far. Not even all Vaisnavas in ISCKON agree

there should be one whatsoever! And how about the acaryas in Gaudiya

Math? No VAD -- it is specifically meant for those in the bodily concept

of life.

 

 

> "In perfect human society, people are situated in the orders of varna and

> asrama and are engaged in worshiping Lord Visnu by their respective

> activities.

> Every citizen engaged in an occupation renders service by the resultant

> actions of his activities. That is the perfection of life.

> The people must follow the varnasrama-dharma and the king must see that

> they are following it nicely." Srimad Bhagavatam 4.14.18

>

> If "perfect" human society is that which follows daiva-varnasrama are they

> not performing the "direct" method of bhakti at the same time? One, some

> or all of the nine devotional practices are included in the

> daiva-varnasrama practices of devotees of God.

 

 

It doesn't say here that simply executing one's social duties is a

direct method of attaining the bhakti. It doesn't say that the

occupational duties are performed out of love to God. The execution

of duties according to one's varna and asrama are not mentioned in the

Bhagavatam as one among the nine devotional practices.

The point of the presence of the king's authority, who's duty

is to make sure that everyone does his "job" nicely (one must

do it, otherwise it's trouble, belive it or not), rather indicates

the elements of the external enforcing measures, in the case of not

executing it properly. There is also the system of different

punishments, for those who transgress the rules.

 

Srila Prabhupada explained that, because it is not so easy to become

a Vaisnava (so many go away), therefore VAD. I am sure you know that

quote very well.

 

 

Certainly, the practices of devotional services are included. But

so are the other kind of practices. For example, in that varnasrama

dharma, may a vaisya do some puja to Ganesh? May a ksatriya offer

worship to Vivasvan or Indra? According to this ongoing discussion,

this would be "asuri varnasrama", and the practitioners would be

risking to be labeled as "asura". But even Nanda Maharaja used to make

puja to Indra. (That Krsna showed how it is better to worship Him

*directly*, it's something else, but "asuri" was there, as the part

of VAD.)

 

 

How varnasrama dharma is not exactly bhakti-yoga, and what

and whom is indeed meant for, there is a description given by

Srila Prabhupada in BG. I'll post it separately, in the next

comment.

 

 

 

 

 

- mnd

 

PS.

BTW, actually, I don't know anymore even which expression to use.

Is it "varnasrama" or "daivi VAD" or "asuri varnasrama". Is it

"a fruitiv worker (karmi)" or "asura". Is it "asura" or "demon".

Is it "bhakti-yoga" or "varnasrma". Is it "sastra" or "no-satra"...

[Guest guest]

Me wrote:

>

> Anybody used to practice in a shooting range? Can see the charts of

> varnasrama dharma there, all over the place.

 

Sorry, by mistake this part remained undeleted. I wanted to use an

analogy of targets there, but then gave up.. and later forgot to

take away the above sentences. Maybe now, in short, if nobody

minds:

 

 

The concentric circles on the target could be seen as the different

vedic performances, the middle dot the perfection of aiming - the

devotional service. The hits outside of target (vad) - raksasas and

demons who don't even try to aim into the right place, but are rather

looking for the instructor to shot his head. One is advised to try go

for the best hit, the instructions are there also, but not everyone

will succeed immediately. All the proper hits into target bring

certain points, they are not rejected as "asuri". Some may be in

very outside circle, some quite close.. Everybody is conscious of

the goal (God realization), but not everybody concentrates enough,

being of no equal meditation, some disturbed by ongoing things,

no sharp vision, weak arm,.. Something like that.

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

 

Bhaktarupa prabhu wrote:

 

> In a society with a strict delineation of the varnas according to guna and

> karma and with a minimum of social interaction between the various varnas,

> there are distinct behavior patterns practiced in different communities.

 

My reading of the Manu Samhita translation that I have appears to base the

delineation of varna on birth to begin with. That seems to be the first

problem.

 

For example, in the first chapter:

 

> 98. The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the

> sacred law; for he is born to (fulfil) the sacred law, and becomes one

> with Brahman.

> 99. A Brahmana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on

> earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the

> treasury of the law.

 

 

or later:

 

> 57. A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna,

> but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the

> appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.

> 58. Behaviour unworthy of an Aryan, harshness, cruelty, and

> habitual neglect of the prescribed duties betray in this world a man

> of impure origin.

> 59. A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or

> his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature.

> 60. Even if a man, born in a great family, sprang from criminal

> intercourse, he will certainly possess the faults of his (father),

> be they small or great.

> 61. But that kingdom in which such bastards, sullying (the purity

> of) the castes, are born, perishes quickly together with its

> inhabitants.

 

Passages like these appear to indicate that the whole premise of the Manu

Samhita in regards to varna is that one's birth will automatically determine

one's varna in the same way as the seed determines the plant that grows from

it.

 

Of course, there are many ways by which persons born in a particular varna

can degrade themselves, but there does not seem to be anyway for those born

in lower strata to strive for higher positions without being reborn. In

fact to do so, by studying shastra for example, is considered punishable.

 

Another problem I have is that there seems to be always a direct correlation

between one's work and one's social status. I find no provision for

recognizing a person with saintly qualities who happens to be working in a

simple way and perhaps is not even very intelligent. There always seems to

be an equation between low class, low born, and being in a dependent

position in one's work.

 

Where is the scope to recognize a Haridas Thakur or even a Kholaveca

Sridhar? HOw do you think Manu Samhita would have dealt with Jesus Christ, a

carpenter?

 

I remember hearing once that's one of the effects of Lord Chaitanya's

sankirtan movement was that human society would become "eka varna" or in

other words some sort of human equality, or equal rights. I take this to

mean that although there may be a division of society according to quality

and work, there would be an overriding human equality based on spiritual

understanding.

 

It would seem to me therefore that the Western values of human liberty and

equality are a better foundation for establishing a God conscious society

than the type of varnashram I find in the Manu Samhita I am reading.

 

Your confused servant,

Pancaratna das

[Guest guest]

Commenting on the text by Pancaratna Prabhu:

 

> My reading of the Manu Samhita translation that I have appears to base the

> delineation of varna on birth to begin with. That seems to be the first

> problem.

>

> For example, in the first chapter:

>

> > 98. The very birth of a Brahmana is an eternal incarnation of the

> > sacred law; for he is born to (fulfil) the sacred law, and becomes one

> > with Brahman.

> > 99. A Brahmana, coming into existence, is born as the highest on

> > earth, the lord of all created beings, for the protection of the

> > treasury of the law.

>

>

> or later:

>

> > 57. A man of impure origin, who belongs not to any caste, (varna,

> > but whose character is) not known, who, (though) not an Aryan, has the

> > appearance of an Aryan, one may discover by his acts.

> > 58. Behaviour unworthy of an Aryan, harshness, cruelty, and

> > habitual neglect of the prescribed duties betray in this world a man

> > of impure origin.

> > 59. A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or

> > his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature.

> > 60. Even if a man, born in a great family, sprang from criminal

> > intercourse, he will certainly possess the faults of his (father),

> > be they small or great.

> > 61. But that kingdom in which such bastards, sullying (the purity

> > of) the castes, are born, perishes quickly together with its

> > inhabitants.

>

> Passages like these appear to indicate that the whole premise of the Manu

> Samhita in regards to varna is that one's birth will automatically

> determine one's varna in the same way as the seed determines the plant

> that grows from it.

>

> Of course, there are many ways by which persons born in a particular varna

> can degrade themselves, but there does not seem to be anyway for those

> born in lower strata to strive for higher positions without being reborn.

 

This is quite understandable. The whole concept is based upon samskaras.

Without developing certain habits one simply will not be able to perform

certain activities. For example, all ISKCON devotees get up early in the

morning and take bath, wash themselves after passing, etc. In our previous

lives before becoming devotees most of us Westerners did not do these

things, and under normal circumstances we would have never adopted those

practices in order to, say, apply for a particular job. But by following

those practices under the guidance of the devotees we became qualified for a

"second birth", initiation. Someone who is not following those practices

could not become a pujari, a GBC member, a sannyasi, etc. in ISKCON. They

are necessary samskaras.

 

Someone who is born in a high class family in the Vedic culture will develop

so many auspicious habits from birth (and before, even) that they have

higher qualification for higher service. Someone born in a lower class

family will have a different set of inborn habits which disqualify them for

some services, but qualify them for others. So in a sense, we also accept

that one must be qualified by birth in order to strive for a high position

in ISKCON -- but diksa is that birth! Diksa includes all the necessary

samskaras.

 

The glories of bhakti are hidden in the Vedas. Scriptures like Manu Samhita

do not speak about them at all. But the purificatory power of the holy name

and the other angas of bhakti make Manu Samhita pretty much obsolete,

especially in this special Kaliyuga of Sriman Mahaprabhu.

 

> In fact to do so, by studying shastra for example, is considered

> punishable.

 

This particular tenet refers to only specific Vedic mantras which will only

be effective if chanted by someone with qualification. A low class person

who chants them will harm only himself and others, thus punishment is in

order. However, this stricture does not apply to the puranic texts.

 

> I remember hearing once that's one of the effects of Lord Chaitanya's

> sankirtan movement was that human society would become "eka varna" or in

> other words some sort of human equality, or equal rights. I take this to

> mean that although there may be a division of society according to quality

> and work, there would be an overriding human equality based on spiritual

> understanding.

>

> It would seem to me therefore that the Western values of human liberty and

> equality are a better foundation for establishing a God conscious society

> than the type of varnashram I find in the Manu Samhita I am reading.

 

But the type of varnasrama prescribed for devotees based upon guna and karma

is the only foundation that will really work to establish a God conscious

society. Srila Prabhupada made this very clear, and in the process rejected

such Western values.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das

[Guest guest]

Mahanidhi Prabhu commented as follows:

 

> > The Gaudiya Vaisnava Abhidhan (dictionary of terms) gives only one

> > relevant definition for asura: sri-hari-vimukha. Vimukha means both

> > "averse" and also "indifferent". Sure, the "averse" usage gets a lot

> > more public exposure, but those who go about their moral lives

> > indifferent to God are definitely also included in the asura category,

> > and the varnasrama system they follow, even if it is sastric, is

> > described by our acaryas as asuri-varnasrama. Since the practitioners

> > are indifferent or averse to God the process of following varnasrama

> > does not help them directly to develop bhakti. It rather keeps them away

> > from bhakti by satisfying their material desires. Bhakti can only be

> > bestowed by a bhakta. If while following asuri varnasrama they have the

> > good fortune to meet a bhakta then they can develop bhakti.

>

> In my knowledge, the process that helps the practitioner to

> *directly* develop bhakti, is known by the name "bhakti-yoga".

 

I am not sure what you mean here by the word "develop". Bhakti does not

develop out of something which is not bhakti, rather, it is bestowed,

independently of any practice. Bhakti is performed through the practice of

bhakti yoga.

 

> The varnasrama dharma system, call it by any name you like, is NOT

> direct process for attaining love of Godhead. It is a *social system*,

> meant to help the followers to gradually purify their existence by mean

> of following the prescribed occupational duties of varna and asrama.

 

Agreed.

 

> Thus they make the spiritual advancement.

 

This is a vague term, but in some sense, certainly the statement is true.

 

> You speak about the direct attaining of bhakti, you say that bhakti

> can be bestowed by a bhakta only. OK, but then let's forget talk

> about varnasrama dharma.

 

Well, when the bhakti lata that has been bestowed is still in seed form or

if it is still only a tender young creeper then there is the danger that it

might be killed by aparadha. Practice of social discipline is helpful in

preventing this.

 

> Krsna says "sarva dharman parityaja".

> Abandon all varieties of religion! Krsna also says, just look for

> that bhakta who will give you love of God, serve him.. That's

> yoga. Not varnasrama dharma of any sort.

 

When one has accepted vaisnava initiation and committed himself to the path

of love of God then he has given up any plan to work for his own

satisfaction. But in the process of working for the satisfaction of Krishna

he may accept dharma favorable for that. That is mam ekam saranam vraja.

 

> > But I think the main problem some are having with this concept is that

> > they cannot accept that those who are indifferent or averse to the

> > Supreme Lord may be followers of the Vedic literature. I only hope that

> > they can kindly consider that it is the mercy of the Vedas that it has

> > given procedures for even the asuras to follow to achieve their sense

> > gratification.

>

> Mercy... everything in the existence rests on God's mercy.

> Vedas give the procedures for even Demigods to follow to

> achieve their sense gratification. Look Lord Indra's adventures.

> How about Daksa prajapati?

>

> I think the problem is in our "curling the lips" on very mentioning

> "sense gratification". We hear "sense gratification", and we say

> it's asuri varnasrama system. But in this world, there is hardly

> anything found as pure or 100%. It is all mixed. There is no a pure

> karma-yogi, nor there is a pure karma-kandi perhaps. Aversion and

> attraction are intermixed. It is said that even a demon and a

> devotee are residing in the same bodies. So how can you make a

> clear cut of "no-asuri" and "asuri" varnasrama system? Just on

> the base that someone is performing some process for getting sense

> gratification, is not good enough.

 

The point is that initiated vaisnava devotees have committed themselves to

only follow processes which are favorable for giving up sense gratification.

Others have committed themselves to the process of trying to perfect sense

gratification. This is the clear-cut difference.

 

> > They mechanically perform sacrifices according to Vedic

> > rules and achieve material blessings as a result. These rules they are

> > following mechanically may even include Vishnu mantras, but since they

> > do not also worship the vaishnavas, Srila Prabhupada says that Vishnu

> > compares their worship of Him to be like the pricking of a pin. Still,

> > because they followed the rules of the yajna correctly he gives them

> > their material results (so that they will be satisfied and leave Him

> > alone).

> >

>

> We ought to look into the actual purpose of everything. I doubt

> that the purpose of mentioned prescribed Vedic sacrifices is simply

> to supply the performer with his sense gratification.

 

But it is a fact. Please read SB 2.3.2-9. Especially verse 9. Here's the

English:

 

One who desires domination over a kingdom or an empire should worship the

Manus. One who desires victory over an enemy should worship the demons, and

one who desires sense gratification should worship the moon. But one who

desires nothing of material enjoyment should worship the Supreme Personality

of Godhead.

 

> The real

> purpose of it, yes, even when performed mechanically, is to make

> the performer to *follow* the God's injunctions, thus to perform some

> purificatory rituals. Not simply to give him his sense gratification.

 

The purification is that he is not implicated in sin while enjoying his

sense gratification. We understand that ultimately one will get tired of

sense gratification and develop a desire to give it up, but these rituals

are specifically meant for someone who is not yet at that stage. So yes, he

is simply given his sense gratification. When he receives it his faith in

the effectiveness of the sastric processes increases. His pride in having

achieved it through his successful completion also increases. And he is

inspired to do more of the same, further entangling him. Later when the

results wear off he may be inclined to become philosophical and humble.

 

> That is why varnasrama is required in this world. To "trick" the

> people in general towards higher human and spiritual values, *also*.

> There are various samskaras atteched to it.

 

True.

 

> > Same can be said for the demons following of varnasrama principles. They

> > have no commitment to the pleasure of Lord Vishnu. Their goal is their

> > own sense gratification. Since varnasrama will help them achieve sense

> > gratification they follow it.

>

> Demons, however, reject Vedic injunctions. So, even if they happen

> to perform some sacrifice technically correct, they do it for the

> wrong purpose. I do not mean here simply a "sense gratification", since

> that may indeed be the promised result of that ritual. What demons want

> more than anything, is the power by which to dominate and exploit.

> Thus they are acting against the Vedic injunctions, for they perform

> sacrifices and austerities for wrong reason than supposed.

 

They are acting against the higher Vedic injunction to worship Vishnu

exclusively, but they are acting according to the specific injunction held

as supreme in the particular portion of the Vedas they are attached to.

 

> Thus they

> do not make any advancement, but go to hell rather. While someone

> else may go to heaven, associate with Demigods, by dint of his desire

> for sense gratification. (or maybe join ISCKON)

 

If the goal is primarily sense gratification it is asuri, if the goal is

primarily to please Vishnu it is daivi. Going to heaven is also hellish for

the devotees.

 

> In order to determine wether someone follows varnasrama or not,

> one better look if the person executes properly his prescribed

> duties according to his varna and asrama. To simply turn the

> spot lights onto "sense gratification" is not the best way to

> do it, in my opinion. Why? Because varnasrama both sanctions and,

> yes, helps to everybody to attain this, in accordance to one's

> position. There is much more needed to look into it than merely

> "sense gratification", before we proclaim someone to be following

> varnasrama dharma really. The problem with this is that by saying

> "Demons follow varnasrma dharma" (but they go straight to hell,

> indeed), one will want to a priori refuse to even hear about it,

> not knowing what varnasrama dharma is actually about. One can't

> go to hell if following God's social system, can he? If one can,

> then forget God and His system.

 

I am not saying that asuri varnasrama is not varnasrama. It certainly is.

Those that follow Manu Samhita nicely within human society will be free from

sin and will not go to hell. Technically they are asuras because they are

indifferent to Vishnu, but these technical asuras do not go to hell.

 

Sri Ram Prabhu mentioned that the term "asura" has developed a certain

meaning in our ISKCON language in the West, but the sastras often use the

term more broadly to denote anyone who is not godly: "a" - "sura", and we

should not be confused by this.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das