Deprecate

Expressions researched:
"deprecate" |"deprecated" |"deprecates" |"deprecating"

SB Preface and Introduction

Prakāśānanda deprecated the activities of the Lord because of His preaching the saṅkīrtana movement, which was in his opinion nothing but religious sentiment.

SB Introduction:

In India there is always a kind of spiritual rivalry between the Māyāvāda and Bhāgavata schools, and thus when the news of the Lord reached Prakāśānanda he knew that the Lord was a Vaiṣṇava sannyāsī, and therefore he minimized the value of the Lord before those who brought him the news. He deprecated the activities of the Lord because of His preaching the saṅkīrtana movement, which was in his opinion nothing but religious sentiment. Prakāśānanda was a profound student of the Vedānta, and he advised his followers to give attention to the Vedānta and not to indulge in saṅkīrtana.

One devotee brāhmaṇa, who became a devotee of the Lord, did not like the criticism of Prakāśānanda, and he went to the Lord to express his regrets. He told the Lord that when he uttered the Lord's name before the sannyāsī Prakāśānanda, the latter strongly criticized the Lord, although the brāhmaṇa heard Prakāśānanda uttering several times the name Caitanya. The brāhmaṇa was astonished to see that the sannyāsī Prakāśānanda could not vibrate the sound Kṛṣṇa even once, although he uttered the name Caitanya several times.

SB Canto 1

Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya wrote his Śārīraka-bhāṣya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bhāgavatam as some "new" presentation.

SB 1.2.3, Purport:

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the one unrivaled commentary on Vedānta-sūtra. Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya intentionally did not touch it because he knew that the natural commentary would be difficult for him to surpass. He wrote his Śārīraka-bhāṣya, and his so-called followers deprecated the Bhāgavatam as some "new" presentation. One should not be misled by such propaganda directed against the Bhāgavatam by the Māyāvāda school. From this introductory śloka, the beginning student should know that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the only transcendental literature meant for those who are paramahaṁsas and completely freed from the material disease called malice. The Māyāvādīs are envious of the Personality of Godhead despite Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya's admission that Nārāyaṇa, the Personality of Godhead, is above the material creation. The envious Māyāvādī cannot have access to the Bhāgavatam, but those who are really anxious to get out of this material existence may take shelter of this Bhāgavatam because it is uttered by the liberated Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī. It is the transcendental torchlight by which one can see perfectly the transcendental Absolute Truth realized as Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān.

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gayā (Bihar) as the son of Añjanā, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas.

SB 1.3.24, Purport:

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gayā (Bihar) as the son of Añjanā, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas. At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly. Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing. Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization. He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God. Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.

SB Canto 2

One should not deprecate the Supreme Lord for the creation of this miserable world, just as one should not blame the king for creating a prisonhouse in the government.

SB 2.7.50, Purport:

One should not deprecate the Supreme Lord for the creation of this miserable world, just as one should not blame the king for creating a prisonhouse in the government. The prisonhouse is a necessary institution of the governmental establishment for those who are disobedient to the laws of the government. Similarly, this material world, full of miseries, is a temporary creation of the Lord for those who have forgotten Him and are trying to lord it over the false manifestation. He, however, is always anxious to get the fallen souls back home, back to Godhead, and for this He has given so many chances to the conditioned souls via the authoritative scriptures, His representatives, and personal incarnations also. Since He has no direct attachment to this material world, He is not to be blamed for its creation.

SB Canto 4

In Bhagavad-gītā the crude Vedic scholars have been deprecated by Kṛṣṇa.

SB 4.7.27, Purport:

The Vedas are known as traiguṇya-viṣayā vedāḥ (BG 2.45). Those who are serious students of the Vedas are very much attached to the ritualistic ceremonies mentioned in the Vedas, and therefore these veda-vādīs cannot understand that the ultimate goal of the Vedas is to understand Lord Kṛṣṇa, or Viṣṇu. Those who have transcended the qualitative Vedic attractions, however, can understand Kṛṣṇa, who is never contaminated by the material qualities. Therefore Lord Viṣṇu is addressed here as anañjana (free from material contamination). In Bhagavad-gītā (2.42) the crude Vedic scholars have been deprecated by Kṛṣṇa as follows:

yām imāṁ puṣpitāṁ vācaṁ

pravadanty avipaścitaḥ

veda-vāda-ratāḥ pārtha

nānyad astīti vādinaḥ

"Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, and they say that there is nothing more than this."

The rendering of service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead in expectation of a good reward is deprecated by Prahlāda Mahārāja as mercantile business.

SB 4.21.47, Purport:

When Prahlāda Mahārāja was offered benediction by Nṛsiṁhadeva, due to his great devotion and tolerance he refused to accept any benediction from the Lord, thinking that such acceptance was not befitting a sincere devotee. The rendering of service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead in expectation of a good reward is deprecated by Prahlāda Mahārāja as mercantile business. Because Prahlāda Mahārāja was a Vaiṣṇava, he did not ask a benediction for his personal self but was very affectionate toward his father. Although his father tortured him and would have killed him had he himself not been killed by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Prahlāda Mahārāja begged pardon for him from the Lord. This favor was immediately granted by the Lord, and Hiraṇyakaśipu was delivered from the darkest region of hellish life, and he returned back home, back to Godhead, by the grace of his son. Prahlāda Mahārāja is the topmost example of a Vaiṣṇava, who is always compassionate toward sinful persons suffering a hellish life within this material world. Kṛṣṇa is therefore known as para-duḥkha-duḥkhī kṛpāmbudhiḥ, or one who is compassionate toward others' suffering and who is an ocean of mercy. Like Prahlāda Mahārāja, all pure devotees of the Lord come to this material world with full compassion to deliver the sinful. They undergo all kinds of tribulations, suffering them with tolerance, because that is another qualification of a Vaiṣṇava, who tries to deliver all sinful persons from the hellish conditions of material existence.

Nārada Muni did not directly deprecate the value of performing sacrifices in which animals are sacrificed. Lord Buddha, however, directly rejected all animal sacrifice.

SB 4.25.9, Purport:

The great sage Nārada Muni turned toward another topic—the history of King Purañjana. This is nothing but the history of King Prācīnabarhiṣat told in a different way. In other words, this is an allegorical presentation. The word purañjana means "one who enjoys in a body." This is clearly explained in the next few chapters. Because a person entangled in material activities wants to hear stories of material activities, Nārada Muni turned to the topics of King Purañjana, who is none other than King Prācīnabarhiṣat. Nārada Muni did not directly deprecate the value of performing sacrifices in which animals are sacrificed. Lord Buddha, however, directly rejected all animal sacrifice. Śrīla Jayadeva Gosvāmī has stated: nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam. The word śruti jātam indicates that in the Vedas animal sacrifice is recommended, but Lord Buddha directly denied Vedic authority in order to stop animal sacrifice. Consequently Lord Buddha is not accepted by the followers of the Vedas. Because he does not accept the authority of the Vedas, Lord Buddha is depicted as an agnostic or atheist. The great sage Nārada cannot decry the authority of the Vedas, but he wanted to indicate to King Prācīnabarhiṣat that the path of karma-kāṇḍa is very difficult and risky.

CC Adi-lila

Pure love is possible only when the predominated is made happy by the happiness of the predominator. Such unadulterated love is exemplified when the lover deprecates her happiness in service that hinders her from discharging it.

CC Adi 4.200-201, Translation and Purport:

Whenever there is unselfish love, that is its style. The reservoir of love derives pleasure when the lovable object is pleased. When the pleasure of love interferes with the service of Lord Kṛṣṇa, the devotee becomes angry toward such ecstasy.

As mentioned above, the gopīs are the predominated lovers, and Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the predominator, the beloved. The love of the predominated nourishes the love of the predominator. The gopīs had no desire for selfish enjoyment. Their feeling of happiness was indirect, for it was dependent on the pleasure of Kṛṣṇa. Causeless love of Godhead is always so. Such pure love is possible only when the predominated is made happy by the happiness of the predominator. Such unadulterated love is exemplified when the lover deprecates her happiness in service that hinders her from discharging it.

The mentality of Mīnaketana Rāmadāsa is never deprecated by devotees.

CC Adi 5.171, Purport:

Mīnaketana Rāmadāsa was a great devotee of Lord Nityānanda. When he entered the house of Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, Guṇārṇava Miśra, the priest who was worshiping the Deity installed in the house, did not receive him very well. A similar event occurred when Romaharṣaṇa-sūta was speaking to the great assembly of sages at Naimiṣāraṇya. Lord Baladeva entered that great assembly, but since Romaharṣaṇa-sūta was on the vyāsāsana, he did not get down to offer respect to Lord Baladeva. The behavior of Guṇārṇava Miśra indicated that he had no great respect for Lord Nityānanda, and this idea was not at all palatable to Mīnaketana Rāmadāsa. For this reason the mentality of Mīnaketana Rāmadāsa is never deprecated by devotees.

To describe the direct meaning of the Vedic literatures is glorious, but to describe them in one's own way, using imperfect senses and imperfect knowledge, is a disastrous blunder. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu fully deprecated the attempt to describe the Vedas in this way.

CC Adi 7.108, Purport:

It has become fashionable since the time of Śaṅkarācārya to explain everything regarding the śāstras in an indirect way. Scholars take pride in explaining everything in their own way, and they declare that one can understand the Vedic scriptures in any way he likes. This "any way you like" method is foolishness, and it has created havoc in the Vedic culture. One cannot accept scientific knowledge in his own whimsical way. In the science of mathematics, for example, two plus two equals four, and one cannot make it equal three or five. Yet although it is not possible to alter real knowledge, people have taken to the fashion of understanding Vedic knowledge in any way they like. It is for this reason that we have presented Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. We do not create meanings by concoction. Sometimes commentators say that the word kurukṣetra in the first verse of the Bhagavad-gītā refers to one's body, but we do not accept this. We understand that Kurukṣetra is a place that still exists, and according to the Vedic version it is a dharma-kṣetra, or a place of pilgrimage. People still go there to perform Vedic sacrifices. Foolish commentators, however, say that kurukṣetra means the body and that pañca-pāṇḍava refers to the five senses. In this way they distort the meaning, and people are misled. Here Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu confirms that all Vedic literatures, including the Upaniṣads, Brahma-sūtra and others, whether śruti, smṛti or nyāya, must be understood according to their original statements. To describe the direct meaning of the Vedic literatures is glorious, but to describe them in one's own way, using imperfect senses and imperfect knowledge, is a disastrous blunder. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu fully deprecated the attempt to describe the Vedas in this way.

CC Madhya-lila

The practices of mystic yoga and philosophical speculation are deprecated in the Bhakti-sandarbha as simply hard labor.

CC Madhya 1.43, Purport:

The fifth Sandarbha is called Bhakti-sandarbha, and in this book there is a discussion of how devotional service can be directly executed, and how such service can be adjusted, either directly or indirectly. There is a discussion of the knowledge of all kinds of scripture, the establishment of the Vedic institution of varṇāśrama, bhakti as superior to fruitive activity, and so forth. It is also stated that without devotional service even a brāhmaṇa is condemned. There are discussions of the process of karma-tyāga (the giving of the results of karma to the Supreme Personality of Godhead), and the practices of mystic yoga and philosophical speculation, which are deprecated as simply hard labor. Worship of the demigods is discouraged, and worship of a Vaiṣṇava is considered exalted. No respect is given to the nondevotees.

By deprecating the principles of Vedic civilization and supporting cow-killing, these so-called brāhmaṇas are immediately degraded to the platform of mlecchas and yavanas.

CC Madhya 1.197, Purport:

There are two kinds of meat-eaters—one who is born in a family of meat-eaters and one who has learned to associate with meat-eaters. From Śrīla Rūpa and Sanātana Gosvāmīs (formerly Dabira Khāsa and Sākara Mallika) we can learn how one attains the character of a meat-eater simply by associating with meat-eaters. At the present moment in India the presidential offices are occupied by many so-called brāhmaṇas, but the state maintains slaughterhouses for killing cows and makes propaganda against Vedic civilization. The first principle of Vedic civilization is the avoidance of meat-eating and intoxication. Presently in India, intoxication and meat-eating are encouraged, and the so-called learned brāhmaṇas presiding over this state of affairs have certainly become degraded according to the standard given herein by Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī. These so-called brāhmaṇas give sanction to slaughterhouses for the sake of a fat salary, and they do not protest these abominable activities. By deprecating the principles of Vedic civilization and supporting cow-killing, they are immediately degraded to the platform of mlecchas and yavanas. A mleccha is a meat-eater, and a yavana is one who has deviated from Vedic culture. Unfortunately, such mlecchas and yavanas are in executive power. How, then, can there be peace and prosperity in the state? The king or the president must be the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Bhaṭṭācārya appreciated Lord Caitanya's explanation, and he concluded that Lord Caitanya was none other than Kṛṣṇa Himself. Bhaṭṭācārya then began to deprecate his own position.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 26:

Bhaṭṭācārya appreciated Lord Caitanya's explanation, and he concluded that Lord Caitanya was none other than Kṛṣṇa Himself. Bhaṭṭācārya then began to deprecate his own position, relating that he had at first considered Lord Caitanya to be an ordinary human being and therefore committed an offense. He then fell down at the lotus feet of Lord Caitanya, deprecating himself, and requested the Lord to show His causeless mercy upon him. Lord Caitanya appreciated the humility of this great scholar and therefore exhibited His own form, first with four hands, and then with six hands (ṣaḍbhuja). Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya then repeatedly fell down at the Lord's lotus feet and composed various prayers to Him. He was undoubtedly a great scholar, and after receiving the causeless mercy of the Lord, he was empowered to explain the Lord's activities in different ways. Indeed, he was able to express the method of chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare.

Nectar of Devotion

Since Lord Buddha appeared and began to deprecate the performance of sacrifice in order to stop animal-killing on this planet, the process of offering sacrifices has been stopped, and the demigods do not care to come here anymore.

Nectar of Devotion 21:

It is said that because Kṛṣṇa was constantly performing various types of sacrifices and was inviting the demigods from the higher planetary systems, the demigods were almost always absent from their consorts. Therefore the wives of the demigods, regretting the absence of their husbands, began to pray for the appearance of Lord Buddha, Kṛṣṇa's ninth incarnation, who appears in the age of Kali. In other words, instead of being pleased that Lord Kṛṣṇa had come, they began to pray for Lord Buddha, who is the ninth incarnation, because Lord Buddha stopped the ritualistic ceremonies and sacrifices recommended in the Vedas in order to discourage animal-killing. The demigods' wives thought that if Lord Buddha appeared, all kinds of sacrifices would be stopped, and thus their husbands would not be invited to such ceremonies and would not be separated from them.

Sometimes it is inquired, "Why don't the demigods from higher planetary systems come to this earth planet nowadays?" The plain answer is that since Lord Buddha appeared and began to deprecate the performance of sacrifice in order to stop animal-killing on this planet, the process of offering sacrifices has been stopped, and the demigods do not care to come here anymore.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Those who are compact in the thought of bodily comforts of life, they are all anāryas, and that is now deprecated, nānuśocitum arhasi: "Don't lament on these immaterial things."

Lecture on BG 2.25 -- London, August 28, 1973:

So nānuśocitum arhasi. Kṛṣṇa here has said, "You are eternal. Your business is how to achieve that eternal position, and, so far the body is concerned, antavanta ime dehāḥ, this is destructible. So you should not be very much serious about this body." This is the distinction between the Vedic civilization, Aryan civilization. Vedic civilization means Aryan. And anāryan civilization. Anāryan civilization means bodily concept of life, and Aryan civilization means spiritual concept of life, how to make spiritually advancement. That is real civilization. Those who are compact in the thought of bodily comforts of life, they are all anāryas, and that is now deprecated, nānuśocitum arhasi: "Don't lament on these immaterial things."

We don't deprecate the meditational process. That is a process, standard process. We simply say that this process is not very fruitful in this age.

Lecture on BG 3.1-5 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1968:

The meditation process is also one process. That is also one of the processes. That is good. But we simply say that this process is not, I mean to say, very fruitful in this age. In this age, this chanting of Hare Kṛṣṇa is the most beneficial process.

That is our program. We don't deprecate the meditational process. That is a process, standard process. But we don't say... We have not manufactured. It is the śāstra says. Kṛte yad dhyāyato viṣṇum (SB 12.3.52). Meditation of Viṣṇu was possible in the Satya-yuga when people used to live for one hundred thousands of years. Just like Vālmīki Muni, he meditated for sixty thousands of years. He got perfection. Here it is very difficult even to meditate for sixty minutes at a time. You see? Kṛte yad dhyāyato viṣṇum. That process was recommended in the Satya-yuga.

"My dear Lord, you have assumed now the buddha-śarīra, body, just to, by taking compassion on the poor animals, and therefore you are also deprecating the animal sacrifices recommended in the Vedas."

Lecture on BG 4.20-24 -- New York, August 9, 1966:

Animal sacrifice is mentioned in the Vedas. Why we shall stop?" So Lord Buddha started his movement, completely stopping this animal sacrifice. But he knew that "These foolish men will come and give me evidence that 'Here in the Vedas animal sacrifice is recommended. Why you are preaching? Why you are preaching stoppage of animal killing?' " Therefore he completely rejected Vedas. He said that "I don't accept Vedas."

That is stated in a very nice verse about Lord Buddha by a Vaiṣṇava poet.

nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātaṁ

sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam

keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa hare

It is very nicely composed. The idea is that the poet is praying Lord Buddha. And Lord Buddha is also mentioned in Bhāgavatam as incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. So he is praying Lord Buddha, "My dear Lord, you have assumed now the buddha-śarīra, body, just to, by taking compassion on the poor animals, and therefore you are also deprecating the animal sacrifices recommended in the Vedas."

So because Lord Buddha did not accept... He had to do that because his mission was to stop animal sacrifice and animal killing. "Now if these foolish persons, without knowing the Vedic purpose, if they present, 'Oh, here it is recommended in the Vedas,' then there will be disturbance." So he had to discard, he had to go out of the Vedic rules and regulation, and he preached his own philosophy.