M-dd

Yes, and the opperative words here are 'in due course'. This, in a nutshell, is the kernel of all the ISKCON false shame, or toxic shame, that devotees beat themselves up with. Why? Because, it is turning into the shaming idea that IF YOU ARE NOT TOTALLY FREE OF "BEING EXPLOITED", THEN IT IS ASSUMED, BY PROCESS OF DEDUCTION(black & white), THAT YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN TO THE PROCESS! Then you go beat yourself up, and let others do it for you, feeling in the end unable to meet the task. This is why it's so important to reckognize abuse and all of its factors, culturing knowledge as well as nescience----per NoI, so that we can see it for what it is, stop beating ourselves up, and free our minds from this entangling conditioning. It's a bit like freeing the mind while still in prison, and feeling genuinely free, as opposed to the 'free' citizen who is a slave to his boss, etc. 'In due course' means it takes time, and one must offer the sufferings along the way up to Krsna and move beyond them, digging up, ever deeper the very roots of the annnarthas. M-d.d.

Mysogenism. My 'pet' topic. Hehe. What is mysogenism? Hatred of the female. Where does it come from? Well pop-psychology has explainations of how the soul is conditioned into it from childhood. But we know that that conditioning comes by special arrangement to fill the criterias of our particular multi-plex combinations of karma. So is there a deeper root? I think so. Consider this, the soul is ultimately female. The fallen jiva is envious of Krsna and wants to play at being Krsna in this here material world. Thus she needs to dis-identify with the feminine nature of her existence. To the degree that 'feminism' rears her ugly head, to that degree the covered soul must deny. Sure, we take birth as females too, but maybe that is in a more covered state even than the male who is trying to be Krsna. Maybe it is double denial. I don't think that's very important, just mentioning it so no one thinks I'm trying to say a female body is more spiritual in some way, as I'm not. What is important is this hatred of the feminine. It manifests in our little boy's upbringings when they are taught not to cry, not to have feelings. The modern civilization as a whole is obsessed with denying the feminine. Soon women will even be drafted. Truth is the 'women's lib' movement has not only done nothing to help the plight of women, outside of maybe a token here or there, but it has also greatly harmed us. Women also means children. How much child-hatred do we witness in our greater society? Just look at the abortion numbers and you have your answer. But what about devotee societies? My experience is that temple devotees hate children quite as much as their non-devotee counterparts, and that goes for women as well as men, but more in quantity from men. Especially the ones in that orange color. Compare this to the shining example of Srila Prabhupada. One godsister told me how in Vrndavana when Srila Prabhupada was cooking for his beloved Deities, he would not hesitate if a child appeared at the kitchen door to take a chapati right off the fire and give it to the child! This same devotee told me Srila Prabhupada called her five year old son 'chapati face', and once said to her, 'he should always be eating'. How does that compare to a husband who takes food out of his own children and pregnant wife's mouths? Oh no one would do that, you say? Thank goodness some people can believe that for not having been exposed. Ok, enough of my theory of the root of mysogeny. How about examining it's phenomenon. Would it surprise anyone if I were to say women can also be mysogenistic? Take the woman who kisses up to the men by putting other women down. That is also mysogenism. Mysogenism is an annartha, which, like pride et al, resides in the seeds of the heart and can sprout at any time and must be cleared out by the good gardener like any other weed. We don't get all in a ruffle about admitting other annarthas, so why so much defensiveness surrounding this particular one? I won't try answer that, except to suggest that perhaps it is the deepest enviousness, to deny the feminine self in the desire to be Krsna. How is it manifest? Many many ways. Most often reckognizable in men, for obvious reasons. I think that it is a particular challenge for men, and perhaps that is because their particular birth is beyond the lower coverings that exist for us women. But in society, the problem of mysogenist behaviour is mostly manifest in men abusing and exploiting women and children. What really saddens me is to hear in other places devotee men who are still trying to say that ISKCON marriages were disasterous due to the lack of submission of the women, when the truth is that many many women submitted to mysogenistic abuse to please Srila Prabhupada and ended up endangering their spiritual lives in the process due to the heavy duty chains of entanglement abuse fosters, it is negative conditioning. I have yet to hear even one man say publicly that these assessments are wrong and that the vast majority of Srila Prabhupada's daughters did in actual fact take willingly and enthusiastically to the humble role of submissiveness. aspiring to serve and share, Madhavi-devi dasi [This message has been edited by M-dd (edited 09-25-2001).]

Dear Rishi prabhu, I've just finished reading this wonderful thread, full of great posts, and my first thanks also goes to Jayaradhe for her inspirational sharing. But my gratitude also goes to yourself and the other men here who have shared so kindly of them/yourselves. I think your use of the word seduce was an unfortunate misnomer. It set off my alarm bells too, but I didn't find myself making the same drastic conclusions as Suryaz. I have appreciated your posts here very very much. In fact one of my first impulses was to post and ask you where you lived geographically..........which is a rare reaction for me, thus quite significant of how much I perceived your gentleness and sincerity of intent. I think I understand why Suryaz prabhu has reacted so sensitively to the term seduced, but I chose to interpret it as seduction by the material energies, not by the person who was your fiance', and I honestly believe that is how you meant it. Please continue to share with us here your much appreciated feelings and ideas on the topic. If Suryaz is carrying her own agenda of hurt from abuse, the compassion of devotee men can be a healing experience for her. If she has experienced serious abuse, she will be especially sensitive to any 'warning sign' and that is for her own soul's protection, and if she overshoots the mark, please be tolerant of her mistake with the compassion I am sure your heart feels. To remove oneself from possible future abuse women often need to be especially wary, and the desire to point out publicly the 'warning signs' is not only valid but necessary for growth sometimes. Perhaps you can be like a sponge to her and let this accusation go whilst continuing on your own contributions which hopefully will eventually show her that your intentions are not mysogenistic. You see, for a while during recovery from being victimized the jiva needs to be very strong against any sign of abusive intent. We all make mistakes. But an ex-abusee has to fight for his/her very soul, as the chains of abuse are none other than the gross entanglement of maya. It is especially hard for devotee women who have sincerely accepted their submissive role and then been seriously abused and exploited as a result. This phenomenon of abuse in ISKCON is unique in history, and the survivor women are battling against a maya so huge their very lives are often at stake, what to speak of their souls. The amount of serious abuse in ISKCON marriages is astounding, and it is very easy for us survivors to accidentally generalize too wide to the point of unfairness. I'm sure I have been guilty of this too. It's the pendulum, too far one way, then backlash. But a survivor will heal the most quickly if his/her foyeurs into the world are met with understanding and tolerance and gentle compassion. I take Maitreya's point on trust, but it is too narrow for me. I'm always quick to trust, but I see this more as a reflection on my own trustworthiness than as a dysfunctional defect of character in a dance of soliciting abuse. Abusers always wish to blame the victim, and when all else fails it is 'our'(victim's) fault for placing trust in one not worthy of trust. However valid this may be according to some slokas we know, it can be a very destructive stance also, in that it can keep us seperate, when our only hope is always association. Who among us can succeed alone and without association? How many of us are isolated and chanting purely without influence of the readimade anarthas of our wonderful society in all it's glittery forms of tv fastfood soft beds and everything else and no one to answer to, or admit to, or be mirrored by? We do need each other, and we especially need to learn to share confidentially with each other. The risks are so worth it, it is sad to hear from some an unwillingness to extend trust. These topics of spiritual life we take for granted, ie. the love of Sri Sri Radha Krsna, are the most confidential, yet we are broadcasting them at the behest of our guru, so how can complementing that by sharing of ourselves in confidentiality be any less important? We are sharing a confidential journey which by it's very nature is the most confidential, yet it is our dharma to spread it far and wide. So I can see only ultimate benefit in our 'risky' sharing. What are we to do? Trust no one? I can't buy that. We have to take some risks of trust if we are ever to grow. When it backfires, its a chance for us to go more deeply into our hearts. When it is met in kind, it is a chance to share our hearts ever more deeply with an/other wonderful heart/s, the true engagement of the soul. Hoping to hear more of your wonderful contributions on this great thread, Madhavi-devi dasi