Do women get a varna on their own?

[Guest guest]

>

 

Srila Prabhupada made unmarried woman brahmanas, said women can be temple

presidents.

 

GHQers say women can't be brahmanas, nor can there be woman temple presidents.

 

>

>

> Too bad that so many initiated devotees don't have the full faith in his

> words and teachings

 

 

 

> It is highly offensive and simply slanderous to label as

 

feminists

 

>

> devotees such as yourself who's only "crime" is to present in such a

> transparent manner the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Wonder what fate

> awaits such offenders? Only Lord Krishna and He Himself in His form of Time

> will tell...

>

> VaiSNava dAsanudAs,

>

> Basu Ghosh Das

[Guest guest]

> On 31 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > It is highly offensive and simply slanderous to label as

>

> feminists

>

No, it is not highly offensive or slanderous to refer to Vaisnavis who

advocate gender equality within ISKCON as "feminists," since the

definition of a feminist is "one who advocates the theory of the political,

economic, and social equality of the sexes." Actually, this constant attack

upon those who oppose feminism within ISKCON is very much like the scientsts'

attack upon those who oppose darwinism. Curious, isn't it?

[Guest guest]

>

> > feminists

> >

> No, it is not highly offensive or slanderous to refer to Vaisnavis who

> advocate gender equality within ISKCON as "feminists," since the

> definition of a feminist is "one who advocates the theory of the

> political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

 

In other words, to call a thief a thief is speaking the truth,

yes?

 

It only depends wether it is you who calls someone a thief,

or is it someone who calls you a thief. So in the case of the

former it is "saying the facts", while in the case of the

later it is a "highly slanderous offence" punishable by

Yamaraja.

 

Typical.

 

 

> Actually, this constant attack

> upon those who oppose feminism within ISKCON is very much like the

> scientsts' attack upon those who oppose darwinism. Curious, isn't it?

 

Curiously, but you are using term "Vaisnavis" when referring

to "one who advocates... [atheism]". While "one" is of no gender,

you got only the females in your divine mind (as opposed to

"darwinistic mind") to attribute to this trouble making.

 

Typical.

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das (typical)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, this

> constant attack upon those who oppose feminism within ISKCON is very much

> like the scientsts' attack upon those who oppose darwinism. Curious, isn't

> it?

[Guest guest]

On 31 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > We know

> > that the author of the above statement can provide no evidence of any

"GHQer"

> > (whatever that is!?) saying "can't be brahmanas, nor can there be woman

> temple

> > presidents," so we continue wonder what exactly he seeks to accomplish by

> such

> > consistently exaggerated claims.

>

> Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents, I'll refer them to

> you

> for similar calrification.

 

In order for there to be a "next time," there has to have been a "first time."

So prabhu, would you be so kind as to tell us who has said that women *can't*

be temple presidents?

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu, you are the expert in detecting straw-man arguments. Would

you also be so kind as to 1) either declare the above as a straw-man argument,

or 2) help Madhava Gosh Prabhu find a statement made by one of the "Gentl

[Guest guest]

On 31 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> On 31 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents, I'll refer >them

to you for similar calrification.

>

In order for there to be a "next time," there has to have been a first time.

So prabhu, would you be so kind as to tell us who has said that women *can't*

be temple presidents?

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu, you are the expert in detecting straw-man arguments. Would

you also be so kind as to 1) either declare the above as a straw-man argument,

or 2) help Madhava Gosh Prabhu find a statement made by one of the "Gentle &

Humble Quarter" (GHQ) with which to verify his claim?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

you-know-who

[Guest guest]

On 31 Dec 1999, Prema Bhakti wrote:

>>Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

>> No, it is not highly offensive or slanderous to refer to Vaisnavis who

>> advocate gender equality within ISKCON as "feminists," since the

>> definition of a feminist is "one who advocates the theory of the

>> political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

 

>In other words, to call a thief a thief is speaking the truth, yes?

 

And to call a belief a belief is speaking the truth, yes

 

>It only depends wether it is you who calls someone a thief, or is it someone

who calls you a thief.

 

Unfortunately, too often "it all depends" on one's *belief*--truth being a

subordinate concern.

 

>So in the case of the former it is "saying the facts", while in the case >of

the later it is a "highly slanderous offence" punishable by Yamaraja.

>Typical.

 

In the case of the former, whoe

[Guest guest]

>

> > Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents, I'll refer

> > them to you for similar calrification.

 

> Mahanidhi Prabhu, you are the expert in detecting straw-man arguments.

> Would you also be so kind as to 1) either declare the above as a straw-man

> argument, or

 

It's not a straw-man argument.

 

Take the word of the expert.

 

 

> 2) help Madhava Gosh Prabhu find a statement made by one of

> the "Gentle & Humble Quarter" (GHQ) with which to verify his claim?

 

He needs no help here, obviously. You got your "GHQ founder acarya"

on record, at least. "verba volvent scripta manent" ("words role,

the written stay").

 

 

BTW, just see how you present yourselves (GHQ) infront of public:

"Gentle & Humble Quarter". While among yourself, in privacy, the

"GHQ" stands for "General Head Quarters" (to indicate that you

are in the war). So when in a private room, the teeth and the

swords are being sharpened, and when curtains are up, the sheepish

smiles are put on the faces.. for the sheepish-like people.

 

My mom told me looong time ago, "All alarms on alert when there's

someone who is trying to convince you how he's gentle and humble

and nice and sweet and all that."

 

 

> Thanks in advance.

 

Oh dear, it's my pleasure. Just call for me next time also when

you are in some similar desperate situation.

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

> are in the war). So when in a private room, the teeth and the

> swords are being sharpened, and when curtains are up, the sheepish smiles

> are put on the faces.. for the sheepish-like people.

>

> My mom told me looong time ago, "All alarms on alert when there's someone

> who is trying to convince you how he's gentle and humble and nice and

> sweet and all that."

 

 

"Outside the they seem to be sheeps, but inside they are like rapacious

wolfes"

(from somewhere in the Bibel,NT)

[Guest guest]

On 1 Jan 2000, Prema Bhakti wrote:

 

 

> > > Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents...

 

> He needs no help here, obviously. You got your "GHQ founder acarya"

> on record, at least. "verba volvent scripta manent" ("words role,

> the written stay").

 

Then let's see it. The best Madhava Gosh could do was quote a "suggestion" of

one GHQ conference member that women "should not be temple presidents." But he

says "Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents..." OK, prabhus,

next time I'm a millionare I might not give half of it to you two.

[Guest guest]

>

> Then let's see it. The best Madhava Gosh could do was quote a "suggestion"

> of one GHQ conference member that women "should not be temple presidents."

> But he says "Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents..."

 

"women can", "women can't", "no woman as..", "women should not",

"women may", "women may not", blah, blah, blah.

 

One can keep twisting around the words for ever, without saying

anything substantial. That's the business of politicians. Devotees

are expected to be dealing on a straightforward way to each others.

 

Just give the straight answer on the issue:

 

Do "GHQ" polices accept that simply possessing a woman body

does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a

TP or a GBC?

 

If you can't answer in the name of your ideological comrades,

then answer in your name only.

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

Yes. Women get varna on their own.

 

The proof is that only children of parents belonging to the same varna

belong to that varna. Only if brahmana boy marries a girl from brahmana

family does the child get the brahmana varna. If a father is from the higher

varna than a mother (anuloma marriage) children don't belong to that higher

varna, but are classified in other categories. If a father is from a lower

varna than a mother children still don't get the same varna as a father, but

are belonging to different other categories and that is considered a lower

birth. If a girl from a lower varna marries a boy from a higher varna she is

entitled the same varna as her husband, but her children are not. She didn't

change her qualities and that is seen in the combination which comes out as

an ofspring. This is important to understand because by mixing girls and

boys from different varnas, varna is getting lost.

 

If you are interested in introducing varnasrama and training varnas you

have to understand this point.

 

Women might be entitled the varna of their husbands, but that doesn't

change their qualities. It is the titles that we are speaking about in this

case and not the real varna (quality of work). Besides that it is the men

who need titles to feel good about themselves. Women don't need that.

This also has very much to do with the male-female relationship in which a

man needs to feel superior to a woman.

 

"Pratiloma indicates the combination of a superior woman with an inferior

man. For example, the vaidehaka community consists of those born of a sudra

father and brahmana mother, whereas the sutas are those born from a ksatriya

father and a brahmana mother or from a sudra father and ksatriya mother.

Anuloma indicates those born from a superior father and inferior mother. The

murdhavasikta are those born of a brahmana father and ksatriya mother.

Ambasthas are those born from a brahmana father and vaisya mother, and they

often become medical men. Karana indicates those born of a vaisya father and

sudra mother or of a ksatriya father and vaisya mother. That such mixing of

castes is not very much appreciated in the Vedic culture is demonstrated in

the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita. Arjuna was very worried that the death

of so many ksatriyas on the battlefield would lead to the mixing of superior

women with inferior men, and on those grounds he objected to fighting. In

any case, the entire Vedic social system is based on distinguishing between

piety and sin, and Sri Uddhava is encouraging the Lord to explain more

elaborately His statement that one should transcend both piety and sin."

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

On 1 Jan 2000, Prema Bhakti wrote:

 

> "women can", "women can't", "no woman as..", "women should not",

> "women may", "women may not", blah, blah, blah.

>

> One can keep twisting around the words for ever, without saying

> anything substantial. That's the business of politicians. Devotees

> are expected to be dealing on a straightforward way to each others.

 

So please, for your own sakes (yours and your Goduncle Madhava Gosh's), if not

for others', please stop the crooked word jugglery.

 

> Just give the straight answer on the issue:

>

> Do "GHQ" polices accept that simply possessing a woman body

> does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a

> TP or a GBC? If you can't answer in the name of your ideological > >

comrades, then answer in your name only.

 

Since "GHQ policies" is a phantasmagorical notion of "anti-GHQers," so I'll

answer in my own humble name only: "No, prabhu, simply possessing a woman body

does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP or a GBC." (Of

course, that you should have understood already by now, since there is no

record of my ever having said such a thing.)

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Then let's see it. The best Madhava Gosh could do was quote a

> > "suggestion" of one GHQ conference member that women "should not be

> > temple presidents." But he says "Next time someone says women can't be

> > temple presidents..."

>

> "women can", "women can't", "no woman as..", "women should not",

> "women may", "women may not", blah, blah, blah.

>

> One can keep twisting around the words for ever, without saying

> anything substantial. That's the business of politicians. Devotees

> are expected to be dealing on a straightforward way to each others.

>

> Just give the straight answer on the issue:

>

> Do "GHQ" polices accept that simply possessing a woman body

> does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a

> TP or a GBC?

 

Doesn't the fact that Srila Prabhupada didn't manage/arrange/instruct *even

one women* to do so answer the question.

 

Well, if it doesn't then you ought to study the history of India... the

Mahabharata.

 

In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her household

affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

 

If not... Hare Krishna Prabhu.

[Guest guest]

> "No, prabhu, simply possessing a woman body

> does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP or a GBC."

> (Of course, that you should have understood already by now, since there is

> no record of my ever having said such a thing.)

 

Thank you. We are starting to be making some progress.

 

So, then the discussion is concluded so far so your good self and

this particular issue is concerned. I ma glad about the outcome.

 

Thanks again, Guru-Krsna prabhu. So, if in a future it ever happens

that someone denies to a woman becoming an authority like TP or

GBC just because she is a woman (what has not happen so far, as we

all should have understood already by now), I will be glad to

refer them to you as the one (among many) who got no objection

to a woman becoming an authority.

 

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Doesn't the fact that Srila Prabhupada didn't manage/arrange/instruct

> *even one women* to do so answer the question.

>

 

Doesn't the fact that Srila Prabhupada didn't say that a person's

is disqualified to accomplish such tusks simply because of her

body, doesn't this ring a bell to you?

 

And that Srila Prabhupada did indeed acknowledged that the

a womanly body is NOT the acoustical disqualification, does

this tells you just anything?

 

 

 

> Well, if it doesn't then you ought to study the history of India... the

> Mahabharata.

>

 

India is in India. Have you noticed that yet?

 

 

> In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

> ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

 

It does, indeed. That the men of that time were qualified.

That your image of Vedic times is an utopia in the given

circumstances. That the women were taken care of properly,

that they had the ways of control and influence in the

society and that they did not feel the need for occupying

the managing positions.

 

And that you are unable to provide that society from the great

history of India where the women would be happy and satisfied

with your management. Simple like that.

 

 

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

 

Now, why don't you, Bashu Gosh, give simply the answer

straightforwardly on the posed question. Guru Krsna prabhu did,

and my compliments go to him for it. See his answer.

 

 

 

- Mahnidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

> In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

> ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

>

In that great history there is also NOT EVEN ONE instance of MEN being so

unqualified like they are nowdays (the same goes for the women). So, if you

are speaking about certain things you should take in the consideration the

time, place and circumstances. Yes, men were in charge, but they were also

qualified. That was their qualification for being in charge! But if women of

nowdays happen to be more qualified than some men who are trying to present

themselves as so qualified, than women are more qualified and that's what

counts.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> > This also has very much to do with the male-female relationship in which

> > a man needs to feel superior to a woman.

> >

> I just want to explain one more thing about this. This male-female

> relationship can be of two ways. One is when a male feels superior to a

> female and that is sexual and the other one is when a male feels respect

> for a female and that is the relationship to his mother.

 

Funny. I feel friendly toward females. Feeling superior does not give me any

sexual attraction kick. I guess I am not a proper vedic man.

 

asva user friendly

[Guest guest]

> > > This also has very much to do with the male-female relationship in

> > > which a man needs to feel superior to a woman.

> > >

> > I just want to explain one more thing about this. This male-female

> > relationship can be of two ways. One is when a male feels superior to a

> > female and that is sexual and the other one is when a male feels respect

> > for a female and that is the relationship to his mother.

>

> Funny. I feel friendly toward females. Feeling superior does not give me

> any sexual attraction kick. I guess I am not a proper vedic man.

>

The thing is that in both relationships male is supposed to feel friendly,

otherwise he is misogynyst, or whatever was that word.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> Well, if it doesn't then you ought to study the history of India... the

> Mahabharata.

>

> In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

> ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

 

 

You surprise me and betray your own intelligence, Prabhu. Bhumi is in charge

of this whole earth. Mother Sarasvati is in charge of all knowledge, art and

music. Mother Durga is in charge of the whole material universe.

 

This is not really the point that you should be making, though I think you

are trying to but get caught up in the debate too much and become defensive.

 

I believe the point is that generally, for MOST women (Read: by far the

majority) , the roles of mother and wife were considered by the women

themselves as the most important roles for them because by nature and God

given body they could perform their duty to help Krsnas devotee society

succeed. The womans nature and body is so unique and qualified to fulfill

certain roles that men will never ever be able to do. Engaged thus, women

have a clear and concise prescription for their duty in life and Krsna.

 

The roles of management were already filled by qualified men. There is

nothing wrong in this.

 

It is not that there were no women in management positions because the men

were spending all of their valuable time keeping women out of the positions.

Both parties accepted there nature and followed the examples of MOST of

their predecessors with voluntary love for their duty.

[Guest guest]

> O FOOLISH, LESS INTELLIGENT, UNCULTURED AND UNCIVILIZED MEN, please try to

> understand that while you are trying to prove how women are less

> intelligent and don't deserve to serve Krishna in different ways, you are

> just exposing your own foolishness and the sex desire.

>

> SO, IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!!!

>

> Ys. Sraddha dd

 

 

Mother: Your many responses in this issue have been thoughtful and helpful

in many instances.

 

However, the above only plays into the hands of your opponents perfectly.

[Guest guest]

> In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

> ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

>

> If not... Hare Krishna Prabhu.

 

I cannot quote the relevant shloka but I remember reading in the Mahabharata

that Draupadi was in charge of the finances of the Pandavas.

 

Of course, it is a fact that in vedic culture women are generally in the

background and usually do not play dominant parts in politics. That does not

mean however that, under no circumstance, a woman could ever manage or lead

and that all a woman can do is cook, clean and take care of kids.

 

In times of emergency, certain vedic rules can be ignored. A

brahmana can act as a kshatriya and vice versa or a woman might act as

temple president. If she does a good job and the men under her have no

problem with it and she does not engage in illicit relations, then what is

the harm? It is probably less harmful than closing the temple for good.

 

Another point is that not all women are the same. Some are submissive, very

feminine by nature and like to cook and take care of kids. Others are of a

more masculine temperament and thinking of what to cook for the husband and

washing the diapers is not always enough to give them a feeling of

accomplishment and satisfaction. So once the kids are taken care of such

women want to contribute more.

 

There are some educated, powerful, confident and capable women who are

better managers than many men. One of my aunts lost her husband very early

in life and she managed his embroidery factory quite successfully after his

death. Then her son took over but inspite of his university education he

steered the company into debt fast. It seems that his mother did a better

job than him. In my own family also I saw that my mother was very powerful

and active in the hotel which my parents ran together and she was, in

several respects, a better manager than my father who was more of a

philosophical temperament while my mother was very practical and good with

money.

 

Now you may say that this is only going on amongst the mlecchas but didn´t

Sumati Morarjee run a big shipping company and successfully at that?

Sumati Morarjee was an elderly woman. Canakya says that, in old age, a woman

becomes respected. Why? I speculate that it has something to do with the

fact that an elderly woman is beyond menopause and thus beyond the mental

roller coster rides of menstruation. Women and men who are married know

what I mean. I suspect that the fact that most womens capacity to function

normally is seriously impeded for a few days during menstruation is one of

the reasons why the vedas assert that women should not be heads of states

etc. I also suspect that there is not so much of a problem if an elderly

woman who is beyond menopause and whose kids are out of the house accepts

management responsibilities other than taking care of the household.

 

And are women in management positions really that big of a threat for

ISKCON? How many female temple presidents and GBC´s are there anyway? At

best, the ratio will be something like 1:100. No need to be worried. I heard

that even in the karmi world the ratio of women to men in top management

positions is not going beyond 1:7. So Krishna´s universe is self regulatory.

If the few women in managerial positions are so dangerous it will soon

become self evident. Phalena pariciyate. Or they will resign as soon as they

fall in love with someone and get pregnant. And if the female TP is an

elderly respectable woman why she should not be able to manage?

Personally, I have never lived in a temple run by a female TP.But I did see

some Vaishnavis manage their own small scale preaching projects very

successfully.

 

By the way, I also like the idea of having a chaste wife who submissively

and affectionately serves the husband. Which man would not? The problem is

that according to Prabhupada only she can be a chaste wife who never had any

connection with men other than her husband and who was trained by her own

chaste mother. In ISKCON we have many western girls whose mother was not a

chaste woman to begin with. Many of these girls went to college, took drugs,

had a few boyfriends and then joined ISKCON. You cannot expect such a woman

to become the perfect vedic housewife. It is not possible in this lifetime.

 

I once read a passage from Varaha Purana glorifying the chaste wife. I

really liked it.Subsequently I showed it to a mataji who was experiencing

serious marital trouble. I thought that this would inspire her to become

subservient to her husband but just the opposite happened. She became very

upset and said: You guys simply want us to become doormats, vedic slaves who

can serve your whims. This girls mother had divorced when she was ten. When

she was 11 the mother remarried and divorced for the second time when she

was 12. Later on she was into drugs for a while and then joined ISKCON. Soon

her guru arranged her marriage and she was wed to a man who she never really

liked. Naturally the marriage turned out to be a disaster and part of the

trouble was that the girl, having had an unhappy dhildhood, did not want to

have kids and an even greater problem was that she fell in love with someone

other than her husband.

 

Why am I telling this story? To illustrate that western girls are generally

very different from indian girls and you cannot expect them to behave as

ideally as indian girls. It is interesting to note, that some of the men who

are most vocal about the dharma of women are married to indian women. From

what I understand, Ameyatma, Krishna Kirti and Basu Ghosh Prabhus had the

good karma to get chaste indian wives. That is nice, but there are thousands

of devotees who are married to western women with no vedic upbringing and we

cannot expect these matajis to behave exactly like Hindu sadhvis.

Cultural conditioning is not just an imagination - it is a hard fact of

life:

 

"Candidates from western countries should be taught about the renunciation

of material existence, but one would teach candidates from a different

country like India in a different way. The teacher (acarya) has to consider

time, candidate and country. He must avoid the principle of

niyamagraha that is, he should not try to perform the impossible.

What is possible in one country may not be possible in another. The

acarya's duty is to accept the essence of devotional service. There

may be a little change here and there as far as yukta vairagya

(proper renunciation) is concerned..." CC. M.23.105

 

Is trying to enforce a strict rule that no woman in any temple can ever take

up any managerial responsibility "trying to perform the impossible"?

 

ys Anantarupa

[Guest guest]

> >

> > In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT

> > EVEN ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> > household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

> >

> In that great history there is also NOT EVEN ONE instance of MEN being

> so unqualified like they are nowdays (the same goes for the women). So, if

> you are speaking about certain things you should take in the consideration

> the time, place and circumstances. Yes, men were in charge, but they were

> also qualified. That was their qualification for being in charge! But if

> women of nowdays happen to be more qualified than some men who are trying

> to present themselves as so qualified, than women are more qualified and

> that's what counts.

> Ys. Sraddha dd

 

Sorry, respected Mataji...

 

You are WRONG.

 

Not according to me. According to SRILA PRABHUPADA;

 

> As Srila Prabhupada commented at London in a lecture on July 18, '73:

>

> > We have got.... In India we have got little experience. The female is

> > always controlled. Female is never given the position of controller.

> > Nowadays it is going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the

> > position of controller. This is artificial. In the history of India,

> > greater India, Mahäbhärata, you will never find that a woman has been

> > given a position of controller. No. It is not possible

 

What "counts" for you, appearantly "didn't count" for Srila Prabhupada.

 

Now...

 

If you wish to accept SP's statement AS IT IS... well, it would be really

beneficial for you... and if you reject it... which you are fully entitled

to due as an independent spirit soul...

 

Hare Krishna!

 

But do so at your own risk! :-)

[Guest guest]

> > Doesn't the fact that Srila Prabhupada didn't manage/arrange/instruct

> > *even one women* to do so answer the question.

>

> Doesn't the fact that Srila Prabhupada didn't say that a person's

> is disqualified to accomplish such tusks simply because of her

> body, doesn't this ring a bell to you?

 

Do these statements "ring a bell" for you, "Dr. Frog,Prabhu"??

 

> > SB 6th Canto Chapter 17:34-35 Purport

> >

> > "Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the

> > higher statuses of life -- in fact, even between Lord Siva and his wife.

> > Lord Siva could understand Citraketu very nicely, but Parvati could not.

> > Thus even in the higher statuses of life there is a difference between

> > the understanding of a male and that of a female. It may be clearly said

> > that the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the

> > understanding of a man. In the Western countries there is now agitation

> > to the effect that man and woman should be considered equal, but from

> > this verse it appears that woman is always less intelligent than man."

> > (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srimad Bhagavatam SB 6:17:34-35.

> > purport.)

>

> As Srila Prabhupada commented at London in a lecture on July 18, '73:

>

> > We have got.... In India we have got little experience. The female is

> > always controlled. Female is never given the position of controller.

> > Nowadays it is going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the

> > position of controller. This is artificial. In the history of India,

> > greater India, Mahäbhärata, you will never find that a woman has been

> > given a position of controller. No. It is not possible

 

 

> And that Srila Prabhupada did indeed acknowledged that the

> a womanly body is NOT the acoustical disqualification, does

> this tells you just anything?

 

Really? Where?

 

> > Well, if it doesn't then you ought to study the history of India... the

> > Mahabharata.

> >

> India is in India. Have you noticed that yet?

 

Seems you deserve the Nobel prize for logic with this sentence! :-)

 

Anybody over there in neighboring Norway listening? :-)

 

> > In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT

> > EVEN ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> > household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

>

> It does, indeed. That the men of that time were qualified.

> That your image of Vedic times is an utopia in the given

> circumstances. That the women were taken care of properly,

> that they had the ways of control and influence in the

> society and that they did not feel the need for occupying

> the managing positions.

>

> And that you are unable to provide that society from the great

> history of India where the women would be happy and satisfied

> with your management. Simple like that.

>

>

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

>

> Now, why don't you, Bashu Gosh, give simply the answer

> straightforwardly on the posed question. Guru Krsna prabhu did,

> and my compliments go to him for it. See his answer.

 

Prabhuji, you win. You have tried to prove that your intelligence is

greater than that of Srila Prabhupada and you have indeed convinced yourself

of the truth of it!

 

All glories to you! :-)

 

Just keep ignoring what Srila Prabhupada instructed above in the quotes

provided. I'm sure you'll enjoy doing it! :-)

[Guest guest]

> > O FOOLISH, LESS INTELLIGENT, UNCULTURED AND UNCIVILIZED MEN, please try

> > to understand that while you are trying to prove how women are less

> > intelligent and don't deserve to serve Krishna in different ways, you

> > are just exposing your own foolishness and the sex desire.

> >

> > SO, IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT!!!

> >

> > Ys. Sraddha dd

>

>

> Mother: Your many responses in this issue have been thoughtful and helpful

> in many instances.

>

> However, the above only plays into the hands of your opponents perfectly.

 

The above was just ment for those whom the shoe fit!

 

If there are some men like this, than this is aplicable for them. If there

are not such men, then we are lucky. I don't see any opponents. I am just

trying to present the philosophy.

I don't mind being called mother, but I do mind being called mataji.

Thanks for your care.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

>

> Prabhuji, you win. You have tried to prove that your intelligence is

> greater than that of Srila Prabhupada and you have indeed convinced

> yourself of the truth of it!

 

It is easy to be fooling around like that, Bashu Gosh.

Any clown would be able say anything of a kind about anybody

in this world. You are to be showing us the example of how to

be a Vaisnava, not a clown.

 

 

- Mahanidhi das