Usage

Expressions researched:
"usage" |"usages"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 3.23, Translation and Purport:

For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed duties, O Pārtha, certainly all men would follow My path.

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

SB Canto 1

SB 1.8.7, Purport:

Apparently Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was a kṣatriya and was not worshipable by the brāhmaṇas. But the brāhmaṇas present there, headed by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, all knew Him to be the Personality of Godhead, and therefore they worshiped Him. The Lord reciprocated the greetings just to honor the social order that a kṣatriya is obedient to the orders of the brāhmaṇas. Although Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa was always offered the respects due the Supreme Lord from all responsible quarters, the Lord never deviated from the customary usages between the four orders of society. The Lord purposely observed all these social customs so that others would follow Him in the future.

SB 1.18.18, Translation and Purport:

Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī said: O God, although we are born in a mixed caste, we are still promoted in birthright simply by serving and following the great who are advanced in knowledge. Even by conversing with such great souls, one can without delay cleanse oneself of all disqualifications resulting from lower births.

Sūta Gosvāmī did not take his birth in a brāhmaṇa family. He was born in a family of mixed caste, or an uncultured low family. But because of higher association, like Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī and the great ṛṣis of Naimiṣāraṇya, certainly the disqualification of inferior birth was washed off. Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu followed this principle in pursuance of the Vedic usages, and by His transcendental association He elevated many lowborn, or those disqualified by birth or action, to the status of devotional service and established them in the position of ācāryas, or authorities. He clearly stated that any man, whatever he may be, whether a brāhmaṇa or śūdra by birth, or a householder or mendicant in the order of society, if he is conversant with the science of Kṛṣṇa, he can be accepted as an ācārya or guru, a spiritual master.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.10.12, Translation:

My dear King, if you still think that you are the King and that I am your servant, you should order me, and I should follow your order. I can then say that this differentiation is temporary, and it expands only from usage or convention. I do not see any other cause. In that case, who is the master, and who is the servant? Everyone is being forced by the laws of material nature; therefore no one is master, and no one is servant. Nonetheless, if you think that you are the master and that I am the servant, I shall accept this. Please order me. What can I do for you?

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 7.127, Purport:

The falsity of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's explanation of vivarta-vāda and pariṇāma-vāda has been detected by the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas, especially Jīva Gosvāmī, whose opinion is that actually Śaṅkara did not understand the Vedānta-sūtra. In Śaṅkara's explanation of one sūtra, ānanda-mayo ’bhyāsāt, he has interpreted the affix mayaṭ with such word jugglery that this very explanation proves that he had little knowledge of the Vedānta-sūtra but simply wanted to support his impersonalism through the aphorisms of the Vedānta philosophy. Actually, however, he failed to do so because he could not put forward strong arguments. In this connection, Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī cites the phrase brahma pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā (Taittirīya Up. 2.5), which gives Vedic evidence that Brahman is the origin of everything. In explaining this verse, Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya interpreted various Sanskrit words in such a way that he implied, according to Jīva Gosvāmī, that Vyāsadeva had very little knowledge of higher logic. Such unscrupulous deviation from the real meaning of the Vedānta-sūtra has created a class of men who by word jugglery try to derive various indirect meanings from the Vedic literatures, especially the Bhagavad-gītā. One of them has even explained that the word kurukṣetra refers to the body. Such interpretations imply, however, that neither Lord Kṛṣṇa nor Vyāsadeva had a proper sense of word usage or etymological adjustment. They lead one to assume that since Lord Kṛṣṇa could not personally sense the meaning of what He was speaking and Vyāsadeva did not know the meaning of what he was writing, Lord Kṛṣṇa left His book to be explained later by the Māyāvādīs. Such interpretations merely prove, however, that their proponents have very little philosophical sense.

Festival Lectures

His Divine Grace Srila Sac-cid-ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Appearance Day, Lecture -- London, September 3, 1971:

Formerly, in India there was no necessity of hotel. Anyone goes anywhere, even in a village, he goes to a temple-prasāda is ready. There is no need of going to a hotel. You pay or don't pay. If you say that "I want little prasāda," "Yes, take it." That is the system still. There is the Nāthadvārā temple in Rajasthan. You pay two annas only. Two annas means one cent. You get sumptuous prasāda for two annas, all very nice prasāda, still. So prasāda distribution in temple is longstanding usage. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura... The Jagannātha temple is managed by a body, and it is the custom that the local magistrate of the district, he becomes the president, or manager. So Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura was manager in that sense, because he was magistrate. The managing committee was being presided by him. So there was a complaint. In Orissa, this Jagannātha temple is situated in Orissa. Utkāla. Utkāla, this state, was originally belonging to Dhruva Mahārāja. His son's name was Utkāla, Mahārāja Utkāla. Anyway, so this Utkāla, there was a pseudo yogi. He declared himself that... Just like you'll find nowadays also, there are so many rascals declaring that "I am incarnation of God." And they know some mystic power, play some jugglery, and foolish people take them: "Oh, he's God." So there appeared one like such pseudo God, Viṣṇu, in a village of Orissa. And he was dancing rāsa dance, and foolish people were sending their daughters and wife to dance with him. You see? There were so many. Not only that. People are so foolish, they do not know... They want to be cheated, and these cheaters come. He declared that "I am God. I am Viṣṇu." So there were sane men also. They took objection, "What is this nonsense? This man is dancing with ladies and gentlemen, er, girls." So they filed a complaint. At that time it was British rule. They complained to the governor or the commissioner, very high officer. The commissioner knew that Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura... His name was Kedāranātha Datta. Datta. Kedāranātha Datta, his household name. So the commissioner of the division, he knew that Kedāranātha Datta is a religious man, and he's magistrate in charge.

1971 Conversations and Morning Walks

Room Conversation -- August 17, 1971, London:

Prabhupāda: Therefore Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura said that "Whatever I heard from my guru, that is my life. That's all. Let me execute that."

Revatīnandana: That was semantics. That was word usage. That's why we got confused. And now I can clear up the confusion I stirred up. Thank you very much.

Haṁsadūta: But I have one more question Prabhupāda.

Prabhupāda: On the light.

Haṁsadūta: In our world here, there are material scientists and they understand things in a particular way. They understand, for instance...

Prabhupāda: Their way and our way is completely different.

1970 Correspondence

Letter to Pradyumna -- Los Angeles 5 April, 1970:

About word endings, when we speak about sabdharupa it is just like the sabdarupa is gunin or svamin, but when we actually articulate, we speak the nominative form. In the place of gunin we speak guni (nominative form). So the nominative part of speech is used when we articulate, not the pratipadika. That is usage. Similarly in the matter of atman, we should speak atma. So I do not know what the scholars in this place want to have. You can make your own discrimination.

1972 Correspondence

Letter to Mandali Bhadra -- Jaipur 20 January, 1972:

So far your telling me that some devotees consider that because there may be some grammatical discrepancies in my Srimad-Bhagavatam, first canto, then they may also be allowed to translate with errors accepted, that is just like imitating Raslila. When you do all other things like Krishna, they you can do Raslila. So if these other writers can do like me and spread Krishna Consciousness all over the world by becoming big Vedic scholars, then they can do. If one is too big, there is no mistake. Arsapreyaya means there may be discrepancies but it is all right. Just like Shakespeare, sometimes there are odd usages of language, but he is accepted as authority. I have explained all these things in my Preface to First Canto.