Vedic law

Expressions researched:
"vedic law" |"vedic laws" |"laws of the vedas" |"law of vedas " |"laws of vedas "

SB Canto 6

One who does not follow the standard system of society should be considered a fifth-class man. A society without Vedic laws and regulations will not be very helpful to humanity.

SB 6.7.13, Purport: A civilization in which the people do not know how the representative of Nārada and Kṛṣṇa should be respected, how society should be formed and how one should advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness—a society concerned only with manufacturing new cars and new skyscrapers every year and then breaking them to pieces and making new ones—may be technologically advanced, but it is not a human civilization. A human civilization is advanced when its people follow the cātur-varṇya system, the system of four orders of life. There must be ideal, first-class men to act as advisors, second-class men to act as administrators, third-class men to produce food and protect cows, and fourth-class men who obey the three higher classes of society. One who does not follow the standard system of society should be considered a fifth-class man. A society without Vedic laws and regulations will not be very helpful to humanity. As stated in this verse, dharmaṁ te na paraṁ viduḥ: such a society does not know the aim of life and the highest principle of religion.

SB Canto 9

According to the Vedic law, there is no such thing as divorce laws, and a woman must be trained to be submissive to the will of her husband.

SB 9.3.10, Purport: If any wife wants to be happy with her husband, she must try to understand her husband's temperament and please him. This is victory for a woman. Even in the dealings of Lord Kṛṣṇa with His different queens, it has been seen that although the queens were the daughters of great kings, they placed themselves before Lord Kṛṣṇa as His maidservants. However great a woman may be, she must place herself before her husband in this way; that is to say, she must be ready to carry out her husband's orders and please him in all circumstances. Then her life will be successful. When the wife becomes as irritable as the husband, their life at home is sure to be disturbed or ultimately completely broken. In the modern day, the wife is never submissive, and therefore home life is broken even by slight incidents. Either the wife or the husband may take advantage of the divorce laws. According to the Vedic law, however, there is no such thing as divorce laws, and a woman must be trained to be submissive to the will of her husband. Westerners contend that this is a slave mentality for the wife, but factually it is not; it is the tactic by which a woman can conquer the heart of her husband, however irritable or cruel he may be. In this case we clearly see that although Cyavana Muni was not young but indeed old enough to be Sukanyā's grandfather and was also very irritable, Sukanyā, the beautiful young daughter of a king, submitted herself to her old husband and tried to please him in all respects. Thus she was a faithful and chaste wife.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

You cannot change. So as soon as you change, that means it is imperfect. You change. So Vedic laws are not like that. You cannot change.

Lecture on SB 1.3.15 -- Los Angeles, September 20, 1972: If you change the word of the scripture, then where is the authority of the scripture? Just like in lawbooks, there is some law made already. Whimsically you cannot, I mean to say, erase the words and put something that "It should be changed like this." That will not be accepted. Law, if there is change... Actually, there is no change. There cannot be change. Real law means there is no change. Just like day and night, it is coming. The fortnight, the dark period and the light period, it is coming for millions and millions and time immemorial. The same law is going, going on. You cannot change. So as soon as you change, that means it is imperfect. You change. So Vedic laws are not like that. You cannot change. Five thousand years ago Kṛṣṇa said, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja: [Bg. 18.66] "You give up all other religious principles. Simply surrender unto Me." We are preaching the same thing. No change. No change. There is no possibility of change. Then how Kṛṣṇa is authority? So change means imperfect knowledge.

According to the Vedic laws, the son is responsible for the father's debt. Because he inherits the property, why he shall not inherit the debts of the father?

Lecture on SB 1.7.32-33 -- Vrndavana, September 27, 1976, Purport: Family means husband, wife, children, father, mother. Generally, this is family. So in the family also there are enemies. This is prominent nowadays. The family is... How in the family one become enemy? Cāṇakya Paṇḍita has analyzed how in the family we can become enemies of one another. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita says, ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ: "A father in debts to others is enemy." Ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ. Because according to Manu-saṁhitā, the son inherits the property of the father. That is everywhere. So Manu-saṁhitā also makes responsible the son for the father's debt. Nowadays, if my father is debtor, I am not responsible. But according to the Vedic laws, the son is responsible the father's debt. Because he inherits the property, why he shall not inherit the debts of the father? According to Manu-saṁhitā law he is obliged to pay the debts of the father.

A brāhmaṇa never commits any sinful activity. If he, sometimes in an unnatural condition, if he does something. So he should be excused. This is Vedic law. The woman, the brāhmaṇa, the child, the cow, and...? Old men. Yes. They should be excused.

Lecture on SB 1.7.49-50 -- Vrndavana, October 7, 1976: The other day I told you the judgement given to a murderer. There must be some consideration, sakaruṇam. Sakaruṇam means mercy. Not that... Because one has committed murder in a fanatic condition, he is excused sometimes. That is sakaruṇam. The judgement should be given not simply on the superficial causes. Everything should be con... Dharmyaṁ nyāyyaṁ sakaruṇaṁ nirvyalīkam. Suppose a child commits something wrong. He is not punished. A brāhmaṇa. A brāhmaṇa never commits any sinful activity. If he, sometimes in an unnatural condition, if he does something. So he should be excused. This is Vedic law. The woman, the brāhmaṇa, the child, the cow, and...? Old men. Yes. They should be excused. That is

dharmyaṁ nyāyyaṁ sakaruṇaṁ

nirvyalīkaṁ samaṁ mahat

rājā dharma-suto rājñyāḥ

pratyanandad vaco dvijāḥ

He accepted. "Yes, what Draupadī is saying is all right." Not only he, but also others. Nakulaḥ sahadevaś ca yuyudhāno dhanañjayaḥ bhagavān. Ultimately, bhagavān devakī-putro cānye yāś ca yoṣitaḥ.

According to Vedic law, if one cow dies while he's locked up on the neck... Somehow or other, it dies and the rope is round the neck, the proprietor of the cow has to make some atonement.

Lecture on SB 6.1.8-13 -- New York, July 24, 1971: Man-made law, they're taking consideration of the man being killed. Another, the killer, must be killed. Why not an animal? The animal also a living entity. The man is also living entity. So if you have law that if a man kills one man he must be killed, why not if a man kills an animal he should be killed also? What is the reason? This is man-made law, defective. But there cannot be defect in God-made laws. God-made law, if you kill an animal, you are equally punishable as you kill a man. That is God's law. There is no excuse that he..., when you kill a man you are punishable, but when you kill an animal you are not punishable. This is concoction. This is not perfect law. Perfect law. Therefore Lord Jesus Christ prescribes in the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill." That is perfect law. Not that you shall discriminate that "I shall not kill man, but I shall kill animals." This is cheating one's self. The God laws will not excuse. Therefore there are different atonements. According to Vedic law, if one cow dies while he's locked up on the neck... Because the cow is on the safe.(?) Somehow or other, it dies and the rope is round the neck, the proprietor of the cow has to make some atonement. Because it is to be supposed that the cow has died on account of being locked up with the rope, there is atonement. Now if you are willingly killing cows and so many animals, so how much we are being responsible? Therefore at the present moment there is war, and the human society becomes subjected to be killed in mass massacre—the nature's law. You cannot stop war and go on killing animals. That is not possible.

If you abide by the laws of the Vedas, then you should know that you are following the path of dharma, or religion. But if you do not abide by the laws of Vedas, then you are irreligious. This is the sum and substance.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970: Then the reply is given by the Yamadūtas, the representatives, the constables of Yamarāja. They are working under Yamarāja, who is an authority. They must know. They must know what is right and wrong. So how nicely they are replying. So the first challenge was given: "What is dharma? What is religion? What is piety?" So they are replying, veda-praṇihito dharmaḥ: "Dharma means the injunctions given in the Vedas. That is dharma." Just like if you ask, "What is law?" then the immediate answer is, "Law means the injunction of the state." You cannot make it law. The state, the government, whatever the government orders, that is law. The word of the government is law. Similarly, dharma means the injunctions given in the Vedas. It is clearly said, veda-praṇihito dharma hy adharmas tad viparyayaḥ: [SB 6.1.40] "And nonreligions or irreligion, irreligion, or nonreligion, is just the opposite." For example, if you abide by the laws of the Vedas, then you should know that you are following the path of dharma, or religion. But if you do not abide by the laws of Vedas, then you are irreligious. This is the sum and substance

Why Vedas should be accepted to seriously? At least we, who are supposed to be followers of the Vedic laws, we take it so seriously.

Lecture on SB 6.1.39-40 -- Surat, December 21, 1970: Now, why Vedas should be accepted to seriously? At least we, who are supposed to be followers of the Vedic laws, we take it so seriously. For example, how we accept the injunctions of Vedas seriously? There is example, a stool, animal stool, or any, human being stool—stool is stool—that stool is supposed to be impious, impure. If you touch stool, then you have to take your bath. You become impure. You have to take your bath, as you do generally. After passing stool we take bath. That is a Hindu injunction. And even a man goes twice for passing stool, he must take twice bath. That is real Hindu religious life. Now, stool, in one place it is said that "It is impure. If you touch, then you have to take your bath." In another place it is said, "This stool, particular, the cow dung, is pure. Cow dung is pure. If there is any impure place, if you smear over it cow dung, then it is pure." That is also injunction of the Vedas. Now, you cannot argue that "One place you say that this stool is impure, and another place you say this is pure. This is contradiction." Sometimes people find this contradiction. But you have to accept because it is injunction of the Vedas. That you are doing practically every day.

For Kṛṣṇa's sake they sacrificed everything. They became, I mean to say, social outcaste. They transgressed the laws of the Vedas. But because they did it for Kṛṣṇa, they have been accepted as mahājanas, as authorities.

Lecture on SB 6.3.18-19 -- Gorakhpur, February 12, 1971: Just like spiritual master of Bali Mahārāja, he tried to advise his disciple Bali Mahārāja not to give to Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu, as Vāmanadeva, came to ask some alms from the Bali Mahārāja, "Give Me some alms. I want three feet of land." And Śukrācārya prohibited: "He is Viṣṇu. He is asking you three feet of land, but He will take everything from you." So in this way, he was against this charity. And when Bali Mahārāja understood that "For his personal interest, he is going against Viṣṇu," he immediately gave up his connection. Similarly, the gopīs also, they flaunted the social law. At midnight they left their husbands and home and came to Kṛṣṇa. There are so many instances. For Kṛṣṇa's sake they sacrificed everything. They became, I mean to say, social outcaste. They transgressed the laws of the Vedas. But because they did it for Kṛṣṇa, they have been accepted as mahājanas, as authorities.

I am not manufacturing, I am speaking authorizedly on the Vedic principle. The Manu-saṁhitā, the law of Vedas, Manu, the master of the humankind, Manu... Manu is the father of the mankind. So he has got his lawbook.

Lecture -- Seattle, October 7, 1968: So this surrendering process is there. Now we have to understand why this is so. That means my constitutional position is to surrender, but the present difficulty is that I'm surrendering to a wrong person. When we understand that I should surrender to the Supreme Lord, then my constitutional position is revived. That is my liberty. I do not know that my position is to surrender, and that surrendering principle is my life, is my happy life. Just like a small child, if he surrenders to the wishes of the parents, his life is very pleasing, very happy. A young girl, if she surrenders to the wishes of the parents, and... That is the system, Vedic system. A woman, by nature, is dependent. Artificially, if woman wants liberty, then his (her) life is unhappy, her life is unhappy. Therefore Vedic system is... I am not manufacturing, I am speaking authorizedly on the Vedic principle. The Manu-saṁhitā, the law of Vedas, Manu, the master of the humankind, Manu... Manu is the father of the mankind. So he has got his lawbook. That Manu-saṁhitā lawbook is still followed in India so far as the Hindus are concerned. So in that book Manu-saṁhitā, it is stated, na striyaṁ svatantram arhati. He gives the law that woman should not be given independence. Then? What should be the life? The life should be so long she's not married, she must live under the guidance, dependent on the parents. And as soon as she is married, she should live dependent on her husband. And when the husband is gone out... Because according to Hindu system, the husband does not remain at home for all the days, till death. No. When children are grown up, he gives up wife and children and becomes a sannyāsī.

1968 Conversations and Morning Walks

We are preaching God consciousness. We should be given... That was the Vedic law. Saintly persons, they should be given all protection. If somebody insulted a saintly person, there was a special punishment for that.

Talk During Prasada After Kirtana -- November 8, 1968, Los Angeles:

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: He mentioned other religious people, and he said if we can just keep the crowd moving, then we have every right to be there. So he has given us right to go to Hollywood. In downtown Los Angeles we don't have that right yet. We'll still go there, but in Hollywood it is all right. So that's good enough.

Prabhupāda: That's all right. It is Kṛṣṇa's grace. I was telling the same thing to Dayānanda, that he should present this case to the higher officer. That's all. We are preaching God consciousness. We should be given... That was the Vedic law. Saintly persons, they should be given all protection. If somebody insulted a saintly person, there was a special punishment for that.

1971 Conversations and Morning Walks

My point is that we accept Vedic laws in such a way, without argument, accept because it is stated in the Vedas, and that is the principle followed by scholars.

Conversation with Prof. Kotovsky -- June 22, 1971, Moscow:

Prof. Kotovsky: That is due to analyze. That's right. That's from common sense point of view.

Prabhupāda: Similarly, another, another instance is there. Just like conchshell. Conchshell is the bone of an animal. So according to Vedic instruction, if you touch the bone of an animal, you become impure. You have to take bath. You become impure. But this conchshell is kept in the deity room because it's accepted as pure by the Vedas. So my point is that we accept Vedic laws in such a way, without argument, accept because it is stated in the Vedas, and that is the principle followed by scholars. If you can substantiate your statement by quoting from the Vedas, then it is accepted. You do not require to substantiate in other ways if you prove by Vedic quotation. Śruti-pramāṇa. It is called śruti-pramāṇa. There are different kinds of pramāṇa, evidences. Just like in the legal court if you can give quotation from the law books, your statement is accepted, similarly, all statements which you give, if they are supported by śruti-pramāṇa... I think you know. The Vedas are known as Śrutis.

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

You cannot decry the Vedic laws.

Morning Walk -- March 29, 1974, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: But why he's making nindā? You don't eat, even it is... Now in the first you said, you don't..., you cannot kill animal, even if it is...

Indian man (3): I, I follow even though you said that you kill it for the sake of yajña, I am not going to kill it, that's all. That is my personal...

Prabhupāda: No, no. That you can do. But you cannot decry the Vedic laws.

Indian man (2): This is not decrying the Vedic law...

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes... You said, api, even if it is enjoined in the Vedas...

Indian man (2): I don't think so.

Prabhupāda: Why not? It is clear, it is clear. You don't think, but the writing is there.

Indian man (3): The writing...

Prabhupāda: Writing is there.

Indian man (3): The writing can be interpreted in a lot of ways.

Prabhupāda: No, no, no, no! You can interpret. No, no, no, no. We are not interpreting.

Indian man (3): We are not going to take that way.

Prabhupāda: We cannot... As soon as you say api, even if it is enjoined in the Vedas, don't do it. That means decrying the Vedas. What do you think?

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

The passion and the desire is the same, either married or not married. So this Vedic law says, "Better married. Then you will be controlled."

Morning Walk -- May 11, 1975, Perth: Prabhupäda:That is the material world, rajas-tamaḥ. Rajas-tamo-bhāvaḥ kāma-lobhadayaś ca ye [SB 1.2.19]. It is all discussed in the śāstra. Just like I am hungry man. There is foodstuff. I want to eat it. So if I take by force, that is illegal, and if I pay for it, then it is legal. But I am the hungry man, I want it. This is going on. Everyone is lusty. Therefore they say "legalized prostitution." They want it. So marriage is something legalized, that's all. The passion and the desire is the same, either married or not married. So this Vedic law says, "Better married. Then you will be controlled." Married life... So he will not be so lusty as without married life. So the gṛhastha life is a concession-same lusty desire under rules and regulation. That's all. That is our higher... (?) Without married life he will commit rapes in so many ways, so better let him be satisfied with one, both the man and woman, and make progress in spiritual life. That is concession. Everyone in this material world has come with these lusty desires and greediness.

According to Manu-saṁhitā, which is Vedic laws, it is said that "Woman is not to be given freedom." They have to be protected.

Room Conversation after Press Conference -- July 9, 1975, Chicago:

Harikeśa: The two countries that have women as leaders are in the headlines all the time. Like Israel, Golda Meir, they are always war between there and Egypt.

Brahmānanda: Argentina also.

Harikeśa: Argentina, and India. Now there will be war. Wherever there is woman in charge, there is war, disruption. But they think because they are in charge, that proves they are equal.

Prabhupāda: I think in Indian history she is the first woman to be in charge of the state. Before her, there is no instance of woman becoming in charge.

Brahmānanda: In Śrī Lanka also, they have woman in charge. That is also considered Indian.

Prabhupāda: According to Manu-saṁhitā, which is Vedic laws, it is said that "Woman is not to be given freedom." They have to be protected. According to Vedic civilization, women, children, old man, brāhmaṇa, and cow—they are to be given protection. The state should give protection. [break] ...the defect of modern civilization is that vox populi.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

According to Vedic law, a saintly person is never subjected to any law. He's paramahaṁsa. He's never.... Rather, the order is he must be given all help that he wants.

Morning Walk -- March 19, 1976, Mayapura:

Hari-śauri: But when you go through, Śrīla Prabhupāda, everybody offers their respects.

Prabhupāda: They also sometimes show me the favor, but generally.... Sometimes they also search.

Guru-kṛpā: Search your pockets?

Prabhupāda: Yes. No, like this. (laughter) That way.

Devotee (1): That's a great mercy for them.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is mercy. When they excuse a saintly person, that is, that is their great mercy. Now, according to Vedic law, a saintly person is never subjected to any law. He's paramahaṁsa. He's never.... Rather, the order is he must be given all help that he wants. That is the Vedic civilization. And brahmacārī, sannyāsīs, they should be treated as children at home, so that wherever they go, they will be treated just like children: "Oh, he's my son. He's my dependent." They will treat like that. And they also go to every home: "Mother, give me some food." So he's children, as the child asks from the mother, "Give me some food." This is system. This is civilization. And M.A., Ph.D., and searching after woman, how to induce her, and being searched out in the airport, whether he's a rogue—what is this education? We don't want this education.

According to Vedic law, because the son inherits the property of father, he's responsible also for the debts of the father, by law. A father dies debtor, so the creditor can claim from his son.

Garden Conversation -- June 14, 1976, Detroit: Family means father, mother, wife, children. Generally this is family. So family members are supposed to be all friendly, in one accord, so that family life is peaceful. But sometimes the family members become enemies. So how they become enemies? That is given by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita: mātā śatruḥ, ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ. Father is enemy if he's a debtor, he dies a debtor. According to Vedic law, because the son inherits the property of father, he's responsible also for the debts of the father, by law. A father dies debtor, so the creditor can claim from his son. So therefore ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ. A father who dies a debtor, he's enemy. Mātā śatrur dvicāriṇī. Mother becomes enemy when she accepts another husband in the presence of children. Mātā śatrur dvicāriṇī. Ṛṇa-kartā pitā śatruḥ is father and mother. Then wife: rūpavatī bhāryā śatruḥ. If wife is very beautiful, she's enemy. (laughs) Rūpavatī bhāryā śatruḥ. Because he will remain always anxious whether my wife is going with other somebody. And it so happens. (laughs) Rūpavatī bhāryā śatruḥ. And putraḥ śatrur apaṇḍitaḥ. And son is enemy if he's a rascal. So father, mother, wife, children.