Śrīla Prabhupāda, the founder-ācārya of ISKCON, personally followed śāstra in all circumstances, and similarly taught his disciples to do the same. However, some ISKCON devotees have gradually developed different views or opinions regarding Śrīla Prabhupāda’s social instructions to ISKCON. If not addressed in light of guru-sādhu-śāstra, such differing views inadvertently lead to various apa-siddhāntas (deviant ideas). Hence there is a need for the present essay.
While presenting such opposing arguments (purva-pakṣa), I don’t intend to disrespect or offend any devotees. All devotees are worshipable to me, and hence, I beg forgiveness in advance for my own shortcomings.
Let me first present how Śrīla Prabhupāda defines “śāstra.” The following is from Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā 6.137, purport:
Śrīla Madhvācārya, commenting on the aphorism dṛśyate tu (Vedānta-sūtra 2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviṣya Purāṇa as follows:
ṛg-yajuḥ-sāmātharvāś ca bhārataṁ pañcarātrakam
mūla-rāmāyaṇaṁ caiva veda ity eva śabditāḥ
purāṇāni ca yānīha vaiṣṇavāni vido viduḥ
svataḥ-prāmāṇyam eteṣāṁ nātra kiñcid vicāryateThe Ṛg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahābhārata, Pañcarātra and original Rāmāyaṇa are all considered Vedic literature. The Purāṇas that are especially meant for Vaiṣṇavas (such as the Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa, Nāradīya Purāṇa, Viṣṇu Purāṇa and Bhāgavata Purāṇa) are also Vedic literature. Therefore, whatever is stated in such Purāṇas or in the Mahābhārata and Rāmāyaṇa is self-evident. There is no need for interpretation. The Bhagavad-gītā is also within the Mahābhārata; therefore all the statements of the Bhagavad-gītā are self-evident. There is no need for interpretation, and if we do interpret, the entire authority of the Vedic literature is lost.
Moreover, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, in his commentary on Caitanya Bhāgavata (1.195) quoting Madhvācārya, clarifies that those books that favorably follow in the footsteps of these authorized scriptures are also counted among the śāstras; Sarasvatī Ṭhākura writes:
yac cānukūlam etasya
tac ca śāstraṁ prakīrtitam
ato’nya grantha vistaro
naiva śāstraṁ kuvatma tatThe Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma, and Atharva Vedas, as well as the Mahābhārata, the Nārada-pañcarātra, and the Rāmāyaṇa, are certainly known as śāstra. Those books that favourably follow in the footsteps of these authorized scriptures are also counted among the śāstras. All other literatures simply lead one down the wrong path and can never be known as scriptures.”
Thus, by extension, smṛtis such as Manu and Yājñavalkya are also counted among śāstras. Also, writings from one’s tradition (pāramparika-granthas), are included in the definition.
Some Common Doubts
Now, I will present several doubts sometimes voiced in opposition to Śrīla Prabhupāda and his predecessors’ stance on varṇāśrama-dharma within the overall context of “How Śāstra is Our Centre Reference in all Circumstances”, since that is a very prominent theme in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books (and a theme that has become controversial in recent years within ISKCON). Then I will comment on each.
Pūrva-pakṣa (1): “We are living in a degraded society that is a product of Kali-yuga. Where is the scope for applying śāstras like Manu-saṁhitā in contemporary society?”
Comment: A few examples below show how Śrīla Prabhupāda applies śāstra in a modern society, following the logic of “sthālī-pulāka-nyāya” (i.e., judging from one grain from a pot of boiled rice). Literally there are hundreds of other examples like throughout Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books:
Śāstra means it is for all the time, not that śāstra was meant in the past for something else, and now something else. That is not the fact. That is, means, śāstra, that it does not change. The time, place and atmosphere, according to that, everything is the same. [Śrīla Prabhupāda lecture at Honolulu on Bhagavad-gītā 16.11 & 12, February 7, 1975]
In the above lecture Śrīla Prabhupāda also explains that there is absolutely no difference between historical demons like Rāvaṇa, Hiraṇyakaśipu, Kaṁsa and the modern-day demons, as both live the same way of life and both, directly or indirectly, deride śāstra, the laws given by Lord Kṛṣṇa. Śrīla Prabhupāda elaborates on this point in his Bhagavad-gītā 16.7 purport. He describes how modern day “demons” have neglected Manu-saṁhitā, the law of human race. He specifically adds they are allowing women as much freedom as men. He condemns the modern education system that has created an artificial puffed-up concept of womanly life that results in exploited and unprotected women. In other words, deriding Manu-saṁhitā and advocating a modern education system that promotes equal rights instead is demonic. It counters and in fact obstructs Kṛṣṇa’s already extant plan for human society, which ISKCON’s founder-ācārya also repeatedly endorsed both within his books and in his personal instructions to ISKCON leaders. Please visit BG (16.7), SB (4.18.2-5) and SB (3.29.15) to see Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direction in this regard.
Śrīla Prabhupāda makes the point that such modern “demons” do not follow the rules and regulations laid down by the sages and therefore the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable. From this, it can be established that śāstras like Manu-saṁhitā are still applicable today at least as our ideal, and that in principle, aversion to accepting this fact is demonic.
Let us see one more example, from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, 4.22.45:
It is clear therefore that a person who is not well versed in the Vedic injunctions (veda-śāstra-vit) should not run for election as president, governor, etc. Formerly kings were rājarṣis, which meant that although they were serving as kings, they were as good as saintly persons because they would not transgress any of the injunctions of the Vedic scriptures and would rule under the direction of great saintly persons and brāhmaṇas. According to this arrangement, modern presidents, governors and chief executive officers are all unworthy of their posts because they are not conversant with Vedic administrative knowledge and they do not take direction from great saintly persons and brāhmaṇas. Because of his disobedience to the orders of the Vedas and the brāhmaṇas, King Vena, Pṛthu Mahārāja’s father, was killed by the brāhmaṇas. Pṛthu Mahārāja therefore knew very well that it behooved him to rule the planet as the servant of saintly persons and brāhmaṇas.
From this, it is clearly established that Śrīla Prabhupāda saw the application of śāstras such as Manu-saṁhitā as necessary even in contemporary society.
Pūrva-pakṣa (2): “Śrīla Prabhupāda gave us devotional service, which is the essence of all śāstras. Why to bother with such details as dharma?”
Comment: The most obvious and immediate answer is that Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly, repeatedly, and increasingly asked ISKCON members to implement it into ISKCON members’ lives—and he did so both in his writings and in person. Pure devotional service is impossible without surrendering unto a bona fide spiritual master and following his instructions without any personal bias. Kindly note the following [Bhagavad-gītā 16.24, purport]:
In India there are many parties of spiritual understanding, generally classified as two: the impersonalist and the personalist. Both of them, however, lead their lives according to the principles of the Vedas. Without following the principles of the scriptures, one cannot elevate himself to the perfectional stage.“
Following the same, as personalists, devotees are also expected to lead their lives according to the principles of the Vedas. Without following the principles of the scriptures in daily practice, one cannot elevate himself to the perfectional stage. Also, kindly note the following from Bhagavad-gītā (3.21), purport:
People in general always require a leader who can teach the public by practical behavior. A leader cannot teach the public to stop smoking if he himself smokes. Lord Caitanya said that a teacher should behave properly before he begins teaching. One who teaches in that way is called ācārya, or the ideal teacher. Therefore, a teacher must follow the principles of śāstra (scripture) to teach the common man. The teacher cannot manufacture rules against the principles of revealed scriptures. The revealed scriptures like Manu-saṁhitā and others are considered the standard books to be followed by human society. Thus the leader’s teaching should be based on the principles of such standard śāstras. One who desires to improve himself must follow the standard rules as they are practiced by the great teachers. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam also affirms that one should follow in the footsteps of great devotees, and that is the way of progress on the path of spiritual realization. The king or the executive head of a state, the father and the schoolteacher are all considered to be natural leaders of the innocent people in general. All such natural leaders have a great responsibility to their dependents; therefore they must be conversant with standard books of moral and spiritual codes.
Śrīla Prabhupāda establishes the principle that a teacher or an ācārya cannot manufacture rules against the principles of revealed scriptures like Manu-saṁhitā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Similarly, all leaders are supposed to be following and teaching the principles of śāstras to their subordinates.
For example, we can see how Arjuna, a great devotee representing an administrative class, personally demonstrated the example of following the scriptures. Arjuna based his concerns on the authority of the śāstras he had studied under his guru (Bhagavad-gītā, 1.46). Elsewhere also (Bhagavad-gītā (10.12-14) Arjuna shows the principle of following śāstra by giving reference to the Vedic authorities such as Nārada, Asita, Devala, Vyāsa to establish that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Moreover, Lord Kṛṣṇa personally instructed Arjuna to follow śāstra in Bhagavad-gītā (16.23) by stating the ill-effect of not following it. He says: “one who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination”. Thus, Kṛṣṇa establishes the principle for all humanity that in any given situation: śāstra is the pramāṇa (valid evidence) in deciding what to do and not to do. As devotees, we are supposed to follow in the footsteps of great devotees like Arjuna.
Pūrva-pakṣa (3): “Arjuna had studied śāstras in Gurukula but we haven’t. Also, even if we try, it may not be possible to completely follow the rules of śāstras like Manu-saṁhitā and other Vedic literatures.”
Comment: It is accepted that there will be challenges in following many rules of śāstras like Manu-saṁhitā in the contemporary society, as expressed by Śrīla Prabhupāda in his own words in his purport on Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.17.16:
There are regular scriptural injunctions for different persons engaged in different occupational duties, and one who follows them is called svadharma-stha, or faithful in one’s prescribed duties. In the Bhagavad-gītā (18.48) it is advised that one should not give up his occupational prescribed duties, even if they are not always flawless.
In other words, even if devotees, due to unavoidable circumstances may not be able discharge their varṇāśrama duties perfectly, these duties, however, shouldn’t be given up completely. As Śrīla Prabhupāda remarks in Bhagavad-gītā (3.31, purport):
In the beginning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one may not fully discharge the injunctions of the Lord, but because one is not resentful of this principle and works sincerely without consideration of defeat and hopelessness, he will surely be promoted to the stage of pure Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Such sva-dharma might be violated in cases of emergency, if one is forced by circumstances (e.g. opening Brahmacāriṇī-āśrama, having women devotees to give regular Bhāgavatam lectures or worship the deities in public Temples and so on), but they cannot be violated in ordinary times, as Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.17.16) and other scriptures forbid us to do so.
In summary, Śrīla Prabhupāda anticipates emergency situations wherein we may be forced to violate our sva-dharma, or occupational duty (a/k/a varṇāśrama-dharma) ordained by the śāstra. However, we should not be violating our “sva-dharma” or “varṇāśrama-dharma” in ordinary times, for Śrīla Prabhupāda considers such varṇāśrama-dharmas as favorable for his disciples’ discharging devotional service. And, in order to achieve such “ordinary times”, Śrīla Prabhupāda has already given ISKCON a mandate to implement varṇāśrama communities all over the world. Kindly see the following excerpt from Room Conversation: Māyāpura, 14 February 1977:
Prabhupāda: Just like our [name withheld]. He was not fit for sannyāsa but he was given sannyāsa. And five women he was attached, and he disclosed. Therefore varṇāśrama-dharma is required. Simply show-bottle will not do. So the varṇāśrama-dharma should be introduced all over the world, and—
Satsvarūpa: Introduced starting with ISKCON community?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Yes. Brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas. There must be regular education.
Pūrva-pakṣa (4): “In Kali-yuga, saṅkīrtana-yajña is the only process for attaining the highest goal of life. Are devotees expected to follow many rituals pertaining to saṁskāras according to śāstra?”
Comment: The short answer is a simple “yes.” Kindly see the following Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam purport (7.14.26):
The Vedas recommend many ritualistic ceremonies to be performed with one’s wife, on the birthdays of one’s children, or during funeral ceremonies, and there are also personal reformatory methods like initiation. These must be observed according to time and circumstances and the directions of the śāstra. Bhagavad-gītā strongly recommends, jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktam: everything must be performed as indicated in the śāstras. For Kali-yuga, the śāstras enjoin that saṅkīrtana-yajña be performed always: kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ [Cc. Ādi 17.31]. All the ritualistic ceremonies recommended in the śāstras must be preceded and followed by saṅkīrtana. This is the recommendation of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī.
Śrīla Prabhupāda gives the opinion of Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, that devotees are supposed to follow all rituals pertaining to saṁskāras provided that they all are preceded by saṅkīrtana-yajña. It is not that devotees should purposefully avoid such rituals in the name of “kīrtanīyaḥ sadā hariḥ” or “harer namaiva kevalam.”
Likewise, his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.24.45-46, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains at some length how, “No one can worship the Lord in the bhāgavata-vidhi without going through the regulations of the pāncarātrika-vidhi.” He further adds: “Without serving Kṛṣṇa according to the vidhi-mārga regulative principles of the pāncarātrika-vidhi, unscrupulous persons want to jump immediately into the rāga-marga principles. Such persons are called sahajiyas.” He then goes on to warn that, “Devotees in Kṛṣṇa consciousness should be very careful to avoid such demons.”
Pūrva-pakṣa (5): “There are many prescriptions or descriptions in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (e.g. brahmacārīs keeping matted hairs) that are not applicable to devotees, and Śrīla Prabhupāda also didn’t practice them either. Hence, we need not get into śāstra details. We should just follow what Śrīla Prabhupāda has given us and practice how to remember Kṛṣṇa and never forget him.”
Comment: The problem with this doubt is that we are indeed discussing only what Śrīla Prabhupāda has given us, in his books—which he called the “basis” of ISKCON. And just as śāstra prescribes worship of different demigods for different types of living beings, similarly, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam caters to all classes of devotees. Consider the following from Varāha Upaniṣad (Chapter 1, verse 17):
Those that know these ninety-six tattvas will attain salvation in whatever order of life they may be, whether they have matted hair or are of shaven head or have (only) their tuft of hair on. There is no doubt about this.
Also, from the Vaikhānasa-gṛhya-sūtra (aṣṭama khaṇḍa, text 16):
Wearing either areddish dyed garment or a skin, wearing his hair matted or tufted, wearing a girdle, a staff, the sacred thread and the goat-skin, abstaining from sexual intercourse, undefiled, abstaining from pungent food and salt, lie fulfils during the years that are ordained his duties as a Veda-student thus it is prescribed in sacred lore.
We can clearly see that in a Vedic culture there are varieties of followers having different approaches in appearance. Some are “jaṭī” (having matted hairs), some are “muṇḍī” (shaven head) and some are “śikhī” (having a tuft of hair). And, all of these are applicable to all the āśramas, for all are valid options offered by the śāstra. We may wonder: then why does Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or Narada muni not clarify it?
Our answer is that śāstra contains a vast body of prescriptions, and therefore to ascertain what is applicable to us, we have to find a harmonious answer provided by the bona fide spiritual master, saintly persons in his disciplic succession, and their scriptures (guru-sādhu-śāstra.)
Moreover, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, commentating on Vedānta-sūtra (1.1.1), writes in his Govinda-bhāṣya, commentary that there are five things to be considered before concluding anything from śāstra:
(1) viṣaya, or proposition,
(2) saṁṣaya or doubt,
(3) pūrva-pakṣa or counter-proposition,
(4) siddhānta, or the proper conclusion, and
(5) saṅgati, or consistency between the proposition and the other parts of the śāstra.
Furthermore, Baladeva explains that the fifth part of these (saṅgati), involves these three further sub-types:
(1) śāstra-saṅgati: consistency with the other śāstras
(2) adhyāya-saṅgati: consistency with all chapters of the whole book, and
(3) pada-saṅgati: consistency with the whole chapter.
Only after passing the above test can anything be concluded from the śāstra in question; so, it is erroneous to assume that Śrīla Prabhupāda taught something that has not been prescribed by śāstra. It may not be explicitly prescribed by Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam or Nārada muni at some particular place, but the whole gamut of scriptures given to us by such great sages (Nārada, Vyāsa and so on) in disciplic succession (as defined by Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya 6.137 purport), must be carefully considered before reaching a specific conclusion.
We can see many examples of this in śāstra. For one example, in Bhagavad-gītā (1.36), Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura’s commentary explains that Arjuna (having been trained in śāstra) concluded (by considering artha-śāstra) that there is no sin in killing an aggressor.[1] However, dharma-śāstra overrides artha-śāstra, according Yājñavalkya-smṛti,[2] another standard authority. And considering that, killing Droṇācārya, Bhīṣma and so on, would certainly incur sin even though they supported the aggressors’ party. The critical point for our present discussion is that Arjuna didn’t only rely on one authoritative scripture before acting; he harmonized it with any potentially conflicting one, and thereby he could reach the proper conclusion.
In practical life, too, one has to exercise this principle. Let us say there is an injunction that everybody must take bath before coming to maṅgala-āratī. However, it would be wrong to enforce that injunction even upon a physically sick devotee—although that sick devotee is also covered by the former instruction “Everybody must…”[3] General prescriptions of śāstra are applicable to everyone unless otherwise specifically proscribed of the same. For more examples, we can see Bhagavad-gītā, 3.16 and 3.17; the former verse is a general prescription, while the later one is a specific one.
Pūrva-pakṣa (6): “Śrīla Prabhupāda followed scriptures, and at the same time transcended them in an inconceivable way while preaching in the west (e.g., opening brahmacāriṇī āśramas). And he wasn’t unduly attached to the stereotypical scriptural conventions– otherwise he could not have spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness worldwide. “Preaching is the essence,” he said. We should take the essence—shouldn’t we just follow Śrīla Prabhupāda without getting into scriptural details?”
Comment: Śrīla Prabhupāda is a transcendental personality. His transcendental teachings and actions are evidence of it. However, Śrīla Prabhupāda, acting as an ācārya, always emphasized the principle of following the scriptures (Bhagavad-gītā 16.23-24). He always taught us – “Books are the Basis” (of our preaching or any actions), hence, it would be an error to think that he ever rejected or transgressed scriptures, as some misled devotees in our movement concluded due to limited understanding of pramāṇa-tattva, (i.e., epistemology). Such misunderstanding leads to various apa-siddhāntas (heterodoxies), as illustrated in a few examples below:
(6a) “Śāstra is incomplete because it doesn’t provide solutions for every practical situation, especially in modern society. Therefore, it cannot be accepted as the ultimate authority for governing what is to be done or not, here and now.”
The fact is that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purports are full of details explaining exactly how to apply scriptural injunctions; indeed, this is why he wrote them. If we conclude that there are no guidelines ordained by the śāstras on dealing with the emergency situations or crisis (technically known as “āpad-dharma“) typical of modern life—such as those confronted even by Śrīla Prabhupāda during his preaching—we may easily even wrongly conclude that our scriptures are incapable of guiding us in any and all situations—and that as such, Śrīla Prabhupāda needed to violate them. But such a conclusion goes against Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own instructions—and those of and Lord Kṛṣṇa (Bhagavad-gītā 16.24). So, we should instead carefully consider the following excerpt from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s CC Madhya 20.352 purport:
One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the śāstra. The actual center is the śāstra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the śāstra, he is not a saintly person. The śāstra is the center for all.
Within the context: “One should accept a thing as genuine,” there is no difference between speaking according to the revealed scriptures and acting according to the revealed scriptures, for by the word “speaking”, “acting” has already been implied; speaking is an action.
Therefore, it is to be concluded that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books are indeed relevant, remain fully authoritative, and applicable for the next ten-thousand years, just as he suggested. As Vyāsadeva emphasized that everything in spiritual realization must be based on śāstra (Vedānta-sūtra. 1.1.3), so Śrīla Prabhupāda said, “Books are the basis.”
(6b) “An Ācārya like Śrīla Prabhupāda could violate scriptures.”
The following is the definition of “ācārya” from Vāyu-purāṇa and many other authoritative smṛtis:
ācinoti yaḥ śāstrartham
ācāre sthāpayaty api
svayam ācarate yasmād
ācaryas tena kīrtitaḥ“One is called an ācārya because he has studied and understood the meaning of the scriptures, he practices what he preaches, and he establishes this meaning in the behavior of others.”
Wrongly assuming that because Śrīla Prabhupāda is an ācārya, he could violate scriptures, that directly contradicts the very definition of ācārya by our own gurus, sādhus, and śāstras.
One might further argue that Śrīla Prabhupāda knew the deeper essence or spirit of scriptures, and therefore, he only apparently violated scriptures without going against their essence. In that case, the question may arise as to what constitutes the essence/spirit of the scriptures—and
how one could know it without studying from guru-paramparā or at the least learning that essence from those learned in the scriptures in guru-paramparā (unless one is guided by Lord Kṛṣṇa personally, the source of all Vedic knowledge). Thus, in any situation, an ācārya abides by the scriptures.
(6c) “Śrīla Prabhupāda wasn’t an ācārya whose every action or example, could ever be emulated by his followers.”
This false assumption is common among so-called “Ṛtvik” theorists. If it is accepted that Śrīla Prabhupāda (follows yet also transcends scriptures inconceivably, then it may raise a doubt as to how a person less advanced than Śrīla Prabhupāda could ever guide others in challenging situations based on scriptures.
There is a solution given by the scriptures to deal with any situations in life even when the varṇāśrama ideals are not perfectly in place. Manu-smṛti (2.6) directs as follows:
vedo’khilo dharma-mūlaṁ
smṛti-śīle ca tad-vidām
ācāraś caiva sādhūnām
ātmanas tuṣṭir eva ca“The sources of ascertaining dharma are: (1) The Vedas, (2) the sacred tradition (Manu-smṛti and so on) given by knowers of the Vedas, (3) the conduct of virtuous men who know Vedas, and (4) self-satisfaction of virtuous men who know Vedas.” (The above translation is based on the commentaries of traditional scholars like Medhātithi, Kulluka, Vijñāneśvara, and so on)
As far as the sources of dharma are concerned, both Vaiṣṇavas and Smārtas accept śruti, smṛti, and sadācāra (authorized behavior) as valid evidence (pramāṇa). Regarding Varṇāśrama-dharma practices, they mainly differ their respective philosophical outlook regarding those practices.
It is not that only Vedas are considered as the pramāṇa for ascertaining dharma (i.e., what is or is not to be done). Yājñavalkya-smṛti holds the same opinion of Manu-smṛti.[4] Thus, even on topics that are not explicit in the scriptures, the opinion of sacred tradition, the conduct of virtuous men, and such persons’ own discretion (ātmanaḥ tuṣṭiḥ) are each considered as valid evidence. All the traditional commentators on dharma-śāstras—viz., Medhātithi, Kulluka, Vijñāneśvara, and so on—agree on this point.
In fact, one major commentator, Medhātithi, says regarding self-satisfaction of knowers of the Vedas (ātmanaḥ tuṣṭiḥ), that those who know the Vedas will not take pleasure in adharma as a matter of course; this is why whatever they decide should be accepted as dharma. He gives an analogy of a mongoose: A mongoose will bite only those plants that kill poison, and therefore it can be concluded that whatever plants get bitten by mongoose are said to be killers of poison.
One can also remember the incident from Mahābhārata wherein Yudhiṣṭhira concludes that Draupadi could accept all five brothers as husbands. Because no sinful or adhārmika thought could ever enter his mind, there could be no adharma in this thought.
Another standard smṛti commentator, Vijñāneśvara, comments on Yājñavalkya-smṛti[5] that a person who is highly advanced in spiritual life (adhyātma-vittamaḥ) and who knows Vedas and dharma–śāstras (veda-dharma-sāstrajñam ca) is himself also an authority on dharma.
Also, see the following from Manu-smṛti (12.108):
If the question should arise— “How should it be in regard to those points upon which the laws have not been declared?”— [The answer is that]—whatever the cultured brāhmaṇas declare, that shall be the undoubted law.
After this verse Manu goes on defining “śiṣṭa-brāhmaṇa” in the proceeding verse: “” A “cultured Brāhmaṇa” (śiṣṭa-brāhmaṇa) is “artha-kāmeśu asaktaḥ,” one unattached to wealth and sensual pleasures, who has learnt the Veda along with its supplements (smṛtis, itihāsas, purāṇas) in the right manner, and who is guided directly by the revealed texts.
The following links to these texts provide more details:
Summary:
In any case, adherence to the Vedas is mandatory to ascertain dharma. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s loyalty to the scriptures is reflected in both his teachings as well as his application of them. Furthermore, he was directly guided by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the source of all knowledge. Therefore, his personal discretion under any circumstances should be treated as a law of dharma as per Vedic literatures.
Devotees who are not directly guided by Lord Kṛṣṇa, and thus, not as advanced as Śrīla Prabhupāda, must adhere to śāstra (śruti-smṛti-sadācāra), and become qualified as “śiṣṭa,” or cultivated to ascertain dharma, for the fourth source of dharma i.e. self-satisfaction (ātmanas tuṣṭir eva ca) is applicable to only such śiṣṭas.
Within the context of ISKCON, the (past, present, and future) GBC has been instructed to work toward creating such śiṣṭas. Or at least it must consult such authorities (whether past or present) in order to ascertain dharma. This is germane and vital to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mandate for the GBC to implement varṇāśrama-dharma within his society. Śrīla Prabhupāda personally expected a room for improvement in terms of directing ISKCON from GBC when he formed it. Kindly see the following:
But we want still more improvement in the standard of Temple management, propaganda for Krishna Consciousness, distribution of books and literatures, opening of new centers and educating devotees to the right standard.. [Legal document: Direction of Management, July 28, 1970]
Now, a doubt may arise: while ascertaining dharma. we may come across different opinions of śiṣṭas who have always followed scriptures. How should we decide the right course of action or dharma among them?
At the outset, we have to examine whether or not someone is really qualified based on Manu (2.13 and 12.109). Except for careful scrutiny, there is no way we can identify śiṣṭas. The same scrutiny is expected in identifying a guru or sannyāsī in ISKCON.
It isn’t unusual to have different opinions among śiṣṭas or cultured men. If such differences remain even after applying traditional exegetical principles (mīmāṁsā), then it is to be concluded that these differences constitute valid options for a particular action. There are many instances of this in the scriptures. And, in such cases, we can choose the one that is most in line with our guru-paramparā.
Ācārya Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, commentating on Viṣṇu-sahasra-nāma (139) says that the Vedas, mīmāṁsā-sūtras, śilpa-ādi-karma (various traditional arts and crafts) and so on have emanated from Lord Janārdana, the son of Devakī named Kṛṣṇa. In particular, Baladeva glosses the term mīmāṁsā-sūtras as scriptures that ascertain the meaning of the Vedas (tad-artha-nirṇetṛṇi mīmāṁsā -sūtrāṇi). These mīmāṁsā-sūtras are a tool to logically harmonize various (apparently contradictory or controversial) statements from the scriptures.
One should not wrongly confuse this mīmāṁsā process with the mīmāṁsā-darśana (one of the six philosophical systems). Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas have extensively used mīmāṁsā-sūtras in their various explications, yet they always reject the atheistic school that shares the name mīmāṁsā.
If we happen to face clashes between various dharmas, mīmāṁsā-sūtras help to prioritize dharmas. It is not that scriptures do not allow prioritizing and compromising dharmas as and when needed. Therefore, the ācārya sometimes adjust or compromise certain lower dharmas in relation to higher dharmas for some time in particular circumstances—in order to propagate Kṛṣṇa consciousness far and wide in today’s challenging situations. But gradually he should resume the norm once the situation is normalized (anāpadi). Śrīla Prabhupāda suggests this ideal in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam(1.17.16, purport):
Such sva-dharma might be violated in cases of emergency, if one is forced by circumstances, but they cannot be violated in ordinary times.[6]
At the same time, it’s also an imperative to think in the direction of creating an atmosphere wherein dharma as well as paro-dharma (i.e., Kṛṣṇa Consciousness) can be followed without needless concoctions and unauthorized compromises. There could be achieved by various ways—by developing ideal varṇāśrama communities governed by devotees, encouraging Villagers to take up Kṛṣṇa consciousness while protecting and nurturing their centuries-old dhārmika or cultured practices and so on. That would be great examples of the ideal society as desired by Śrīla Prabhupāda and Lord Kṛṣṇa.
A classic example of prioritizing and compromising dharmas is found in Mahābhārata (Karṇa-parva, chapter 69). Therein, Arjuna wanted to kill Yudhiṣṭhira for urging him to give up his Gāṇḍīva bow for not having killed Karṇa, their formidable enemy. Lord Kṛṣṇa had to intervene and He explained how Arjuna was mistakenly adhering to a lower form of dharma that would have destroyed a higher form of dharma. He further elaborated that if the result of speaking lies protects truth, then such a lie is also dharma—whereas if the result of speaking truth destroys dharma, that truth shouldn’t be spoken. The whole narration doesn’t instruct one to not speak truth; rather, it intends that sometimes speaking truth results in adharma.
Śrīla Prabhupāda’s adjustments or compromise of some dharmas (for time being) in his preaching to the West are vivid examples of this principle. For instance, while representing the teachings of Vedic scriptures, Śrīla Prabhupāda unambiguously established in his books that unnecessary intermingling of men and women is animalistic, however, he could sense that such lofty ideal of men-women separation, though desirable—as it has been prescribed by Vedic scriptures, was practically infeasible to implement in his contemporary Western audience overnight. Moreover, without a clear understanding of roles between men and women, any sudden attempt at enforcing this practice could have discouraged many sincere seekers from embracing Kṛṣṇa consciousness, as they were not yet prepared for such cultural expectations. Hence, Śrīla Prabhupāda had to tolerate such uncultured behaviour even though it was against what he preached in his books. However, he also wanted his “white elephants” to go to India to learn culture from there and also inspire Indians to regain their real wealth—Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Concluding Remarks:
Śāstra has always been the center reference for Śrīla Prabhupāda’s actions, and being his followers, it’s our sacred duty to follow him in this regard. Our actions/decisions should be based upon śāstra, since going against śāstra is whimsical: “He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.” (Bhagavad-gītā,16.23). Śrīla Prabhupāda was both a śiṣṭa (a follower of Vedic scriptures) and pragmatic in attracting everyone towards Kṛṣṇa consciousness, however, his pragmatism wasn’t subjective but strictly based on Vedic scriptures! In other words, his considerations of time-place-circumstances were deeply rooted in Vedic scriptures, for only the discretion of a śiṣṭa is considered dharma or proper action according to Manu (12.108). The same doesn’t hold true for anyone who is not a śiṣṭa! And therefore, it’s crucial for our members to seriously consider receiving and/or providing training into traditional śāstra-learning to those who are acting as the leaders for the better direction of the society. And, so long we don’t have our own trained scholars deep into traditional way of śāstra-learning, we can also think of consulting traditional scholars for the same. Let śāstras prevail in every minute aspect of our life, as demonstrated by our founder-ācārya, Śrīla Abhayacaraṇāravinda Bhaktivedānta Swami Prabhupāda.
dasābhāsa,
Jaya Nityananda Dasa
(“Nandagrama” Varnasrama Community Project)
Bibliography
- Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda. Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972.
———. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. 30 vols. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972–1977.
———. Caitanya-caritāmṛta. 17 vols. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1975.
———. Lectures on Bhagavad-gītā. Honolulu, February 7, 1975.
———. Room Conversation. Māyāpura, February 14, 1977.
Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura. Caitanya-bhāgavata Commentary. Kolkata: Gaudiya Mission, 1930.
Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. Govinda-bhāṣya. Vṛndāvana: 18th century.
Madhvācārya. Commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Uḍupi: 13th century.
Medhātithi. Manu-smṛti with Commentary. Translated at Wisdomlib. Accessed November 24, 2025. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi.
Yājñavalkya. Yājñavalkya-smṛti. Translated at Wisdomlib. Accessed November 24, 2025. https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/manusmriti-with-the-commentary-of-medhatithi.
Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura. Commentary on Bhagavad-gītā. Vṛndāvana: 17th century.
Foot Notes
-
This term (called ātatāyī in Sanskrit) is defined in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s 1.36 purport. ↑
-
artha-śāstrāt tu balavad dharma-śāstram iti sthitiḥ (Yājñavalkya-smṛti 2.21) ↑
-
In the language of logic, this is called “sāmānya-viśeṣa-nyāya” or in other words, general and specific instructions. ↑
-
Ācāra-adhyāya, upodghāta-prakaraṇa, verse 7. ↑
-
Ācāra-adhyāya, upodghāta-prakaraṇa, verse 9. ↑
-
To know more on how to apply mīmāṁsā or exegetical principles, kindly see the following video entitled “How to Identify? What is Principle and What is Detail –A Brief Exposition from Vedic Hermeneutics,” rendered by HG Dāmodara Prabhu. The following is the link:
https://guru-sadhu-sastra.blogspot.com/p/principles-and-details-how-to-identify.html ↑