narayanadasa

Any mention is made about Drishti in Sastras. I think that the current form of all this is superstition but the original forms of Drishti etc may indeed have some real reasoning. Any idea? Jai Sriman Narayan

whatever be the cause of the invasion we have (especially our kings, brahmins, everyone in general) have sinned, thats why God has punished us. today, we have to understand that and rectify ourselves. After the Mahabharata there was no big event and this could mean that people in general have been living life more enjoying material senses than and spiritual beliefs. This is ofcourse sinful. Bharatavarsha was not just India but the whole world together apparently people became materialistic and it began to split due to infighting. We have indeed been punished. Now that we realize this, is there nothing we can do? I dont think chasing away muslims, christians from India is a real solution. They were mostly converted by force or cheap tactics which westerners still do. We need the people in general realize what the real spiritual choices are and leave the option to them. May be the best way to do this is to introduce one subject in schools about soul, matter and God. The students will then start discussing themselves and finally land up with our great Aacharya's for auhtoritative answers. I think thats the only way. Jai Sriman Narayan

What is Drishti? I have heard elders telling someone's drishti has fallen you, which is troubling you, that must be removed? Any idea what this is about?

I also read somewhere that christianity and Islam will soon die with only a few traces left in India... in fact nobody really follows Christianity in the US or Europe... this shows that even if it flourishes in India, it will be last that will be left.

In the age of kali it is being said that things will tend to become bad easily. While I agree with this, I dont think it would be a steep downfall but a gradual like the steps... so may be it will be like Good (vedic times)==> Bad (Invasions)==> Good (if we recover well)==> Bad etc. For example. Germany went up and came down, UK went up and came down, may be next in line in USA. Similarly India was up at one time, it came down, it may again come up. So, people have to work towards upcoming the vedic way, rather than the western way (material). Jai Sriman Narayan

Yep, agreed. Let us now see if anyone else has other thoughts.

Yep, What Gandhi wanted is not clear? thats what I am telling from the very beginning. I dont know whether he is good or bad (I dont care!) but it appears that the congress hyped a lot about him (may be Gandhi himself would have been embarassed if he was alive). Also, the negative thoughts about Gandhi were suppressed with positive thoughts being projected more than necessary making any comparison unjust. Even people like Rajagopalachari had negative thoughts, these were being hidden. Secondly, there cant be varnasharma if all are equal. Varnashrama however only means that all are different in terms of what type of work we do, but we are all spiritually equal. For those of you who are interested I am already discussing the plan to revive India in another thread called "Truth about British Invasion and plan". Jai Sriman Narayan

I fully accept your views about Brahmins being a small-society within society and not being too dependent on Govt. / politicians. Gandhi in my opinion is indeed a good leader but I dont know about his authority on vedas etc. Scondly, I dont know whether whatever he knows of Bhagavad Gita is from a bonafide aacharya, so his interpretations of Gita seem very strange from a religious point of view, although from the a pure literature point of view, it is excellent. Also, it may be due to his professional education Gandhi had more inclination to a lot western way of thinking but he resisted that to his life-style.. in terms of his dress, (dont know about food habits) etc. But, religiously, seems like he was confused. I have this information fron sources like Rajagopalachari who worked with Gandhi for a long time. So, I am a bit sceptical about Gandhi being a leader for this, although I accept that he was a good leader as far as independence / freedom movement was concerned. Secondly, I think the leader must be a Kshatriya who would support the Gurukula system... dont know who that could be. Regarding teaching, the Brahmins are indeed needed to provide proper intrepretations of the Gita. Because otherwise due to changing times, people could misinterpret and things could go wrong again. Remember, Max Mueller wrong translated our scriptures and gave it to the sudras who have now lost all faith on Brahmins. Jai Sriman Narayan

[[[ Others (muslims, portuguese, dutch etc) used brute force on Indians like (1) beat them (2) dont give them food, water (3) destroy their temples (4) Convert by force etc etc etc But, importanly, they did not realize that the Vedic foundation was very vert strong and they will not lose the fighting spirit to win in the end. Thats how in invaders were always being thrown out. However, I disagree with this. If you live with Muslims, you will know that they too work in the same principles like British. They pretend to be your friend, Infiltrate into your society, question you (passively) about your own beliefs as if to make you confuse and then, introduce their own beliefs into you thus corrupting you further. I believe British learn this from Muslims and their encounters in other nations (like Arab) and used it here for their political gains. BTW ... Viruses spread in the same manner as above, if you study Microbiology. ]]] Hmm, it could well be the way you say it. But for what the Britishers really did, remnants of how they planned it is now available in the British Museums for ex: Max Muellers letter to his wife.. his granddaughter is now publishing it. [[[ According to Vivekananda, thats not a problem if such jobs were done using machines and Sudras were given a place among the other 3 classes as applicable. I don't agree with your plan, simply because does not follow Vedic principles either. You say Brahmins must first become true Brahmins (and prove them such by living accordingly). Ask any Brahmins and they will say they are living accordingly. They have their rituals, they have the poojas and such. So how to proof they are real Brahmins? ]]] Brahmins may say they live, but they usually say that with guilt when asked by another Brahmin who is better. So, what the Brahmins do is not enough, the rituals etc are one part of the story and they are already getting due respect for that, no doubt. There is more to it. They have to move out of professional competition from the so-called Sudras. Only then, they will be respected. Otherwise, it becomes like “well, “I do everything that they do, so why am I less, so why should I respect them” … and there is nothing wrong about that. All this is possible only if Brahmins become simple. Right now it appears that *presumably intelligent* Brahmins are trying to compete professionally with the Vaishyas/Sudras. [[[[ Many of Brahmins have become Lawyers, Doctors and such. To them, to leave such profession is to leave money and status behind and willing to accept "dhanas" from the society. Do you think they could do so? I don't think so. ]]]] Ok, they won’t be willing to do it, I agree. And till they do that, no body will listen to them, there will never be a Ram Rajya kind of society. That’s why the Brahmins need to get together and seriously discuss this possibility,. [[[[ Also, you expect them to teach Vedas to other classes. Right now, Veda knowledge had been taught within Brahmins while others do not taught about it. Do you think they are willing to share? I don't think so either. ]]] I did’nt mean the Vedas because Vedas are anyway not meant to be shared with all. But the Gita etc that contain the essence of the Vedas can be taught. People will only listen to a person if he is respected in society. So the earlier prerequisite is a must. [[[[ It will be difficult to handle the Sudras because they will no more be willing to do the jobs that they once did without dislike. It's not matter of willing or diswilling. It is matter of allowing others to step over you. If a Sudra as intelligence as a brahmin, do you think is it fair for him to give up his pursuit of knowledge and follow others? I don't think so. ]]]] Yep, I don’t think it is fair to ask a Sudra to become a Sudra. I was only telling he need’nt go back if the jobs are replaced by Machines (remember, this is not my idea, I just carried forward from one of Vivekananda’s speeches). I also said that Sudra must join one of the above classes with the classes themselves not based on birth but on quality. That’s why the so-called superior Brahmins must demonstrate that they are indeed Brahmins, only then they are fit to lead. Otherwise, what is the difference between the western countries and us, if all are same? If they cant do that, then we will live a sandwich life of western-Indian-Arabian way, Open to good comments like yours.. Jai Sriman Narayan

You said "Our Constitution was made in such a way that the best of all world order was put together" Then, did it not compromise on a lot of factors of all religions in the process? But are you telling that the constitution is a better representation of all religions, than the religions themselves? Also, on what basis was the "best of all world order" decided? Was it from the religious books of various religions? If so, there are a lot of contradictions in each f them, how was that resolved? or was it purely by mental speculation using selfish minds? or was it purely to satisfy the minority while sacrifising the majority interests (secular)? Religions may be man-made but Sanatana-Dharma, the Vedas, the Upanishads etc are not. They contain valuable information on what a society should be like - example Ram Rajya. Was any of this incorporated into the constitution? What was the goal of constitution then? Sanatana-Dharma should be enforced and the constitution must be made to provide the necessary support to someone who can do it - like ISKCON, Ramakrishna Math, etc. This is what we wanted after freedom. Secondly, India accomodated every religion but the major religion is suffering a lot, does the constitution have any solution for this? Well, yes, Muslims, Christians etc are sufferring too? I certainly dont blame Gandhi for all of this but only telling that I dont find enough evidence of what he really wanted after freedom - what was his vision? I do find a lot of real vision from the others. If this is what Gandhi wanted, then we have it, so why is it not working correctly? Or is it? If this not what Gandhi wanted, then what did he want? Any mention about this anywhere? We certainly cannot accept Gandhi's auto-biography over any religious books that are given by God. If you analyze in depth than just by the worldly affairs you will certainly see the blunder we are in. Finally, what we want India to be? As far as I can see, the Congress doesnt still have a clue about this. It appears that they are happy creating another Europe/US in India... great roads, foreign clothing, free sex, dont worry about birth, death, rebirth. Make the teachings of our great preceptors, like Srila Prabhipada, Sri. Ramanuja, Sri. Vivekananda, Sri. Chanakya etc, King Shivaji, Rana Pratap Singh etc as just waste pieces of material - dont include that in school text books etc. The congress doesnt want to analyze the other side of the coin because this side is beneficial to them (secular as used by Gandhi). Remember, thats exactly where we are going a tangential direction to where we really want to.

Jai Sriman Narayan: We call it independence, no doubt but I would call it so-called independence and there are very few people who know what independence really means. There are very few people who really love their motherland because they dont know anything else but Gandhi. If we have idependence, why is there a restriction on singing hindu prayers in hindu schools although christians / muslims can sing their own prayers? Why is an attempt being made to construct a church in Tirumala Tirupati? Why Muslims are against Uniform Civil code? What Sanatana-Dharma have we really had *freedom* to implement in Independent India. It is difficult because the constitution was not framed on the basis of Sanatana-Dharma. It was framed as per Britishism... is that really independence? Why are people voting Sonia Gandhi who doesnt know one bit of Sanatana-Dharma? It is only because they are ignorant and that is because the path to make them aware was very very difficult as per the current constitution.But, if she has contested and won the elections then why cant she become the PM? Anyway, Sanatana-Dharma was not re-established. I certainly dont accept that if no Gandhi, then no independence and that we would still be under British rule. Does it make a difference now, we are still talking about secular. Clear Archeological proofs have been hidden for years about earlier invasions. If muslims / christians cannot appreciate the truth but we have to remain peaceful at the cost of truth, then what is the independence we are talking about? Remember, Sanatana-Dharma is universal for all, infact Christians and Muslims will be happier following that. Independent India must have been a clear platform and creating such a platform is independence. Will you please be more precise about what is your opinion about independence rather than just use the term. Try and compare how different we are before and after independence. Jai Sriman Narayan

Jai Sriman Narayan: I would like to present some information about how British Invasion succeded over previous invasions from the others. I heard this from an Acharya. Others (muslims, portuguese, dutch etc) used brute force on Indians like (1) beat them (2) dont give them food, water (3) destroy their temples (4) Convert by force etc etc etc But, importanly, they did not realize that the Vedic foundation was very vert strong and they will not lose the fighting spirit to win in the end. Thats how in invaders were always being thrown out. After that, the famous vedic culture was always there. Invaders did not attempt to spoil the literature. But the British did something different because they knew that they would face the same fate if they did the same thing. They analyzed all this and formed 2 groups to debate the topic. One group telling exactly what the others did and the other group "Infiltrate into their society". Finally the 2nd group won the vote and was on a mission to go about "destroying literature". Below are the highlights of what they did.. 1. Tackle the Brahmins, so that they stop teaching anyone. The action was to close Gurukulas but get people to study in British run schools. This worked because the Brahmins were mainly in the mode of goodness and did not resort to violence. Thats why, it was the Brahmihs who originally went to school and others were suppressed. Although the Britishers were suppressing by wrong-propoganda, the people thought it was the Brahmins...so Brahmins were hated. 2. Tackle the Kshatriyas, so that they stop fighting for the country The action was to provide them with weapons,gifts and inducting them into the British army and give them some concessions. This worked because the Kshatriyas operated in the mode of passion and it wasnt difficult too conivnce them. 3. Tackle the Vaishyas, so that they continue to do business but with profits to the British. The action was to encourage them to do business / trade with the British so that they can be manipulated. Remember, foreigh currency meant more money. This worked because the Vaishys mostly operated in the mode of passion / ignorance. 4. Tackle the Sudras, so that they can be easily conveted with the 1st 3 classes already out of the way, so no one to teach. The action was to simply castigate them. They were given the wrong book of Vedas as manipulated by Max Mueller, so they really started disbeleiving our own scriptures. Also, they were beaten and food shortage was created. Inspite of this life continued normally, because of "Daana" or charity. So, another action was taken by the British was to stop this Daana. All this then created a good platform for the British to start conversion / brain washing activities. They succeeded no, doubt. Now, how do we get back to what we originally were 1. Brahmins must first become true Brahmins: The so-called Brahmin-born Brahmins must prove that they are indeed Brahmins by leading a true Brahminical life. Only then they will get respect in society. This could mean that they may need to sacrifise their professional careers' for the sake of other groups like the Vaishyas and Sudras. Once they get respect, then they can teach, repoen Gurukulas. Ofcourse, the Brahmins must be looked after with food and support by the earning class. This expenditure must be minimal for the simple life of Brahmins. All this is possible only if Brahmins become simple. Right now it appears that *presumably intelligent* Brahmins are trying to compete professionally with the Vaishyas/Sudras. This must stop. The above step will be the foundation for further growth by providing education to the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and The Sudras. It will be difficult to handle the Sudras because they will no more be willing to do the jobs that they once did without dislike. According to Vivekananda, thats not a problem if such jobs were done using machines and Sudras were given a place among the other 3 classes as applicable. Seems to be the only way. Please let me know all your thoughts on this. Jai Sriman Narayana

Yep, thats where the problem is: How can anybody expect to live in peace without proper religious foundation.. unless Gandhi wanted to establish his own which according to him was much better than the one given by God.. I would have been happier if he did create a religion than rather than doing something and calling it Hinduism. I think peace for him meant "Allow have butcher shops next to our houses, allow Mosques next to our houses, pray to God the way they wanted us to pray, forget Pancharatra system of worship, do whatever they say" but still be a so-called hindu.. very peaceful indeed. On the positive side, I believe Gandhi was NOT offered the Noble prize because he did not get converted to christianity. But still, I dont think he seriously followed / embraced any religion but just manipulated various statements in all religions to gain public support. At his time, any writer who wrote against Gandhi was called "Controversial writer" and was banned. These writings are now being published. This tends to show that the "against Gandhi" attitude was nothing new, it only remained hidden due to hypocracy. Someone also said that Godse was a fundamentalist. I disagree here, he was an extremely well educated and well disciplined man. His only fault - he started disagreeing with Gandhi as time went by and he truly believed and loved Sanatana Dharma which Gandhi failed to really understand and embrace. Importantly, I would still place Gandhi among all other freedom fighters, nothing higher. Professionally, he was an excellent statesman. Anyway, it doesnt matter to us, but just to remain in our old mindsets about Gandhi doesnt make sense.. ofcourse it hurts to realize this now, but better to realize now than later. Jai Sriman Narayan

Even before britishers others also came to India and they were eventually thrown out (as per Dharma). The only difference is unlike the others, the Britishers instead of doing just physical harm to rule-over they infiltered into the society and brainwashed people to have western taste (by closing the Gurukulas as a 1st step, so that brahmins cant teach others anymore). So the fight for freedom was to free foreign rule and then to get our true culture back. I certainly dont see any such reasoning in Gandhi's fight. But I do certainly see this type of reasoning in the other freedom figthers (including Godse). Remember, King Shivaji too fought numerous battles and successfully restored culture on numerous occasions (converted Muslims back to Hinduism). We cant assume Gandhi's attempt was the last and it failed because it succeeded in getting us the so-called independence.... the only problem however is nobody knows why Gandhi especially wanted independence. At that time, there were indeed a lot of people who were happy with the British rule. Lastly, as someone already said "Gandhi's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is nothing great becasue he was not an Acharya". As of now, I know these facts but certainly cant decide whether was Gandhi was good or bad (I dont care really!). But, inspite of having so much literature on Gandhi and his life, no one knows why he wanted freedom although he fought for one. Jai Sriman Narayan

The last thing Vaishnivites should do is to have hatred even of facts are startlingly opposite to our previous opinion (or our current understanding of Gita etc) whether it be with Gandhi or Mother Theresa etc. But, please clarify one doubt of mine. I have'nt been able to see any literature (may be I have'nt attempted to really study yet) why Gandhi wanted to fight for freedom? Was it purely because he was thrown out of the train in South Africa? Or was it because India was not supposed to be ruled by a foreigner? He fought an excellent fight with non-violence. Now we got freedom (let us for now assume that it was only because of Gandhi). Now the question is, is there any mention about what Ram Rajya was as per Gandhi? Anybody has any thoughts on this? I am also not aware that once we got freedom, did he have a clear plan (or did he atleast attempt?) on how to form our constitution? Did he want to base it on Sanatana Dharma? or Islam? or Christianity? or rather a much better religion of how he wanted it that beats all other philosphies. I still have no hatred for Gandhi because from the beginning I did not have that much love too. To me Godse really had a clear picture of what he wanted India to be... this was surely based on Sanatana Dharma - the universal Dharma for all. Jai Sriman Narayana.

I did'nt know about that.

Hope this interests... I dont say Gandhi did not fight for freedom, nor that he was'nt a great man.. but a great man for wrong things... too Namaste, This interview took place a few years ago but still lends serious light on the reasons why Nathuram Godse took part in the assasination of Mahatma Gandhi. When Gandhi was first assasinated, the media immediately placed blame on the RSS, since Godse had been a member years earlier. However, he had also been a member or supporter of the Congress party, which the media easily overlooked. However, in this interview with Gopal Godse, Nathuram's brother, we find insights as to why it actually took place, at least in the minds of the Godse brothers. It is interesting and provides additional light on what many have come to understand as some of the misleading aspects of Gandhi's motivations. TIME (FEBRUARY 14, 2000 VOL. 155 NO. 6) W E B - O N L Y I N T E R V I E W "His Principle of Peace Was Bogus" Gopal Godse, co-conspirator in Gandhi's assassination and brother of the assassin, looks back in anger--and without regret Fifty-two years ago, on Jan. 30, 1948, Mohandas Gandhi was shot dead by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. Godse believed that the Mahatma, or great soul, was responsible for the 1947 partition of India and the creation of Pakistan. Godse and his friend Narayan Apte were hanged. His brother Gopal and two others were sentenced to life imprisonment for their part in the conspiracy. Gopal Godse remained in jail for 18 years and now, at 80, lives with his wife in a small apartment in Pune. He is still proud of his role in the murder. Although Godse is largely ignored in India and rarely talks to journalists, he agreed to speak with TIME Delhi correspondent Meenakshi Ganguly. TIME: What happened in January 1948? Godse: On Jan. 20, Madanlal Pahwa exploded a bomb at Gandhi's prayer meeting in Delhi. It was 50 m away from Gandhi. [The other conspirators] all ran away from the place. Madanlal was caught there. Then there was a tension in our minds that we had to finish the task before the police caught us. Then Nathuram [Gopal's brother] took it on himself to do the thing. We only wanted destiny to help us -- meaning we should not be caught on the spot before he acted. TIME: Why did you want to kill Gandhi? Godse: Gandhi was a hypocrite. Even after the massacre of the Hindus by the Muslims, he was happy. The more the massacres of the Hindus, the taller his flag of secularism. TIME: Did you ever see Gandhi? Godse: Yes. TIME: Did you attend his meetings? Godse: Yes. TIME: Can you explain how he created his mass following? Godse: The credit goes to him for maneuvering the media. He captured the press. That was essential. How Gandhi walked, when he smiled, how he waved -- all these minor details that the people did not require were imposed upon them to create an atmosphere around Gandhi. And the more ignorant the masses, the more popular was Gandhi. So they always tried to keep the masses ignorant. TIME: But surely it takes more than good publicity to create a Gandhi? Godse: There is another thing. Generally in the Indian masses, people are attracted toward saintism. Gandhi was shrewd to use his saintdom for politics. After his death the government used him. The government knew that he was an enemy of Hindus, but they wanted to show that he was a staunch Hindu. So the first act they did was to put "Hey Ram" into Gandhi's dead mouth. TIME: You mean that he did not say "Hey Ram" as he died? Godse: No, he did not say it. You see, it was an automatic pistol. It had a magazine for nine bullets but there were actually seven at that time. And once you pull the trigger, within a second, all the seven bullets had passed. When these bullets pass through crucial points like the heart, consciousness is finished. You have no strength. When Nathuram saw Gandhi was coming, he took out the pistol and folded his hands with the pistol inside it. There was one girl very close to Gandhi. He feared that he would hurt the girl. So he went forward and with his left hand pushed her aside and shot. It happened within one second. You see, there was a film and some Kingsley fellow had acted as Gandhi. Someone asked me whether Gandhi said, "Hey Ram." I said Kingsley did say it. But Gandhi did not. Because that was not a drama. TIME: Many people think Gandhi deserved to be nominated TIME's Person of the Century. [He was one of two runners-up, after Albert Einstein.] Godse: I name him the most cruel person for Hindus in India. The most cruel person! That is how I term him. TIME: Is that why Gandhi had to die? Godse: Yes. For months he was advising Hindus that they must never be angry with the Muslims. What sort of ahimsa (non-violence) is this? His principle of peace was bogus. In any free country, a person like him would be shot dead officially because he was encouraging the Muslims to kill Hindus. TIME: But his philosophy was of turning the other cheek. He felt one person had to stop the cycle of violence... Godse: The world does not work that way. TIME: Is there anything that you admire about Gandhi? Godse: Firstly, the mass awakening that Gandhi did. In our school days Gandhi was our idol. Secondly, he removed the fear of prison. He said it is different to go into prison for a theft and different to go in for satyagraha (civil disobedience). As youngsters, we had our enthusiasm, but we needed some channel. We took Gandhi to be our channel. We don't repent for that. TIME: Did you not admire his principles of non-violence? Godse: Non-violence is not a principle at all. He did not follow it. In politics you cannot follow non-violence. You cannot follow honesty. Every moment, you have to give a lie. Every moment you have to take a bullet in hand and kill someone. Why was he proved to be a hypocrite? Because he was in politics with his so-called principles. Is his non-violence followed anywhere? Not in the least. Nowhere. TIME: What was the most difficult thing about killing Gandhi? Godse: The greatest hurdle before us was not that of giving up our lives or going to the gallows. It was that we would be condemned both by the government and by the public. Because the public had been kept in the dark about what harm Gandhi had done to the nation. How he had fooled them! TIME: Did the people condemn you? Godse: Yes. People in general did. Because they had been kept ignorant.

Sorry.. last sentence I meant Gnana yoga and Karma Yoga. Jai Sriman Narayan

Actually I was told that there are basically only two yogas - Gnana Yoga and Karma Yoga. For both yoga's bhakti is necessary. So, you do Karma yoga through bhakti and gnana yoga also through Bhakti. I believe it is always necessary to go through the mill of Karma yoga before Gnana yoga. Apparently, in the recent past people have made other yoga's called Raja Yoga, etc etc etc. But as per ancient scriptures only 2 yogas are there that is Gnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga. Jai Sriman Narayan

ok

I just heard from someone that what becomes oil under the earth by a scientist. I was told that the bones of so many people, animals etc after a long time get converted to Oil. So, where the number of burials/killings have been more over centuries, there is oil. Neither do I believe this nor disbelieve this.. because as of now I dont know.

Ok, what you are telling is that Sastras actually dont say women should'nt chant Gayatri mantra? but sastras just said that men and women should just do prescribed duties.. as there is really no need to change. Secondly, are you telling that since Gayatri is a women's name,they can chant? In my opinion, if Sastra's say something we should adhere to it (unless ofcourse the Aacharya says so). Anyway, I dont have enough knowledge, so will live by this logic for now.

Ok, thanks for responding. I agree that Aacharya is the authority for a disciple, so it is ok as long as a bonafide Aacharya says. Women dont get the sacred thready because of the question of purity... ofcourse this doesnt mean "all men are pure" . It just means that by nature there are some important differences in the way men do things and women do it. Thats why Sastras said some things. I dont expect these to change based on situations but some of our Aacharyas have done so with due responsibility, no doubt. Still, just to be clear: Am I right in assuming that Sastras have changed with changing times? I guess only the interpretations have been changing with changing times right? and this is what Aacharya's are supposed to be doing for upliftment of manking, right?

I stated why in my original question, Anyway. I repeat again, Nitya Karmas need to be done without fail everyday and Women may not be able to do that due to periods etc (but this cant be an excuse for Nitya Karmas). It is hence advised that Women should not chant. This does not mean they cannot get the benefits, God knows this so he has recommeded other things that women should do and get the same benefit. This was always my understanding but now things seem to have changed.. so was just looking for a convincing answer for this change.