see *some* women as mother?

[Guest guest]

>Of course, the question can be raised as to what they are fighting for.

 

How about the right to use our Krsna-given skills and talents in the

service of Guru and Krsna? If we happen to have non-traditional skills,

why *artificially* make us do stereotypical female work? I couldn't

arrange flowers if my life depended on it, I hate cooking, I don't have an

artistic bone in my body and I get cabin fever whenever I have had to be a

full-time mom, however much I love my children. On the other hand, I'm good

with numbers, designing scientific studies, using my "left brain", and

managing projects. Why not try to apply these skills in service too?

 

>If I am a woman trying to be a man, this is not what Krsna advises.

 

As far as I've heard from early Prabhupada disciples, such as Malati,

Yamuna, Pranada, Kausalya, Jyotirmayi etc. Prabhupada encouraged all of

them pretty much in whatever service they wanted and much of it was not

traditionally female. Some of these women said that they even forgot that

they were in female bodies and simply thought of themselves as servants

when they were around Prabhupada. This doesn't mean they were trying to be

men - far from it. They just wanted to be themselves, serving Krsna

according to their individual propensities.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>Of course, the question can be raised as to what they are fighting for.

 

How about the right to use our Krsna-given skills and talents in the

service of Guru and Krsna? If we happen to have non-traditional skills,

why *artificially* make us do stereotypical female work? I couldn't

arrange flowers if my life depended on it, I hate cooking, I don't have an

artistic bone in my body and I get cabin fever whenever I have had to be a

full-time mom, however much I love my children. On the other hand, I'm good

with numbers, designing scientific studies, using my "left brain", and

managing projects. Why not try to apply these skills in service too?

 

>If I am a woman trying to be a man, this is not what Krsna advises.

 

As far as I've heard from early Prabhupada disciples, such as Malati,

Yamuna, Pranada, Kausalya, Jyotirmayi etc. Prabhupada encouraged all of

them pretty much in whatever service they wanted and much of it was not

traditionally female. Some of these women said that they even forgot that

they were in female bodies and simply thought of themselves as servants

when they were around Prabhupada. This doesn't mean they were trying to be

men - far from it. They just wanted to be themselves, serving Krsna

according to their individual propensities.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> So, my definite

> point is, please let's become serious,accept our positions as given

> according to our past desires and serve Krsna without trying to become

> what we're not. That would include to give up the false ego too.

>

> servant of the all Vaisnavas/is

As far as I know, male/female is a false ego consideration. And if a woman's

past desires have brought her to the position of being a competent

professional, why should she try to fit some formulistic concept of what she

is supposed to be, which may be what she's not?

[Guest guest]

> So, my definite

> point is, please let's become serious,accept our positions as given

> according to our past desires and serve Krsna without trying to become

> what we're not. That would include to give up the false ego too.

>

> servant of the all Vaisnavas/is

As far as I know, male/female is a false ego consideration. And if a woman's

past desires have brought her to the position of being a competent

professional, why should she try to fit some formulistic concept of what she

is supposed to be, which may be what she's not?

[Guest guest]

On 21 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> >Of course, the question can be raised as to what they are fighting for.

>

> How about the right to use our Krsna-given skills and talents in the

> service of Guru and Krsna? If we happen to have non-traditional skills,

> why *artificially* make us do stereotypical female work? I couldn't

> arrange flowers if my life depended on it, I hate cooking, I don't have an

> artistic bone in my body and I get cabin fever whenever I have had to be a

> full-time mom, however much I love my children. On the other hand, I'm good

> with numbers, designing scientific studies, using my "left brain", and

> managing projects. Why not try to apply these skills in service too?

>

> >If I am a woman trying to be a man, this is not what Krsna advises.

>

> As far as I've heard from early Prabhupada disciples, such as Malati,

> Yamuna, Pranada, Kausalya, Jyotirmayi etc. Prabhupada encouraged all of

> them pretty much in whatever service they wanted and much of it was not

> traditionally female. Some of these women said that they even forgot that

> they were in female bodies and simply thought of themselves as servants

> when they were around Prabhupada. This doesn't mean they were trying to be

> men - far from it. They just wanted to be themselves, serving Krsna

> according to their individual propensities.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Comment:

There are a number of factors in action here:

1. Due to past desires certain karmic activities have to be fulfilled, these

can best be done in a female body.

Why this is I do not know, this is something that is ordained by Krsna.

2. Those placed in a female body must be given shelter.

 

Problem is how to give that protection in such a way that encourages one to

act for the best advancement in

ones Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada did this, he took over the role of

father to those mothers, he

was tactful, gentle but above all considerate.

 

The ideal situation:

1. The women, when she was a girl would show particular interest which in her

family would be cultivated.

2. She would be encouraged to marry a man of similar interests.

3. She and her husband would engage in these common interests in their pursuit

of Krsna consciousness.

4. The framework of the extended family would support them in their joint

ventures.

5. All their activities must be in the "isavasya concept", with the goal to

awakening their Krsna

consciousness.

 

True the women would fulfill the support role. It is not an easy position and

her husband (protector) needs

to understand this and be considerate yet encourage her so that her desires

are met within a Krsna conscious

realm.

 

Our problem is three fold:

1. The husbands have not acquired this tactfulness, most likely due to an over

lording nature.

2. The wives have not been submissive in their role.

3. There is usually no extended family to support the couple.

 

This can only be corrected by an increase of both parties Krsna consciousness.

It can not be accomplished to

a beneficial effect by analysis or similar counseling. Srila Prabhupada always

stressed that by cooperation,

the cultivation of offenseless chanting and the strict following a full

sadhana practice is the only means to

success. This lack of strict sadhana is the central problem compounded by

individualistic natures and our

desires for materialistic comforts. The association of other like minded

devotees will have to function in the

extended families position until the proper mentality within ISKCON allows for

growth of extended families.

ys,

Rohita dasa ACBSP

[Guest guest]

On 21 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> >Of course, the question can be raised as to what they are fighting for.

>

> How about the right to use our Krsna-given skills and talents in the

> service of Guru and Krsna? If we happen to have non-traditional skills,

> why *artificially* make us do stereotypical female work? I couldn't

> arrange flowers if my life depended on it, I hate cooking, I don't have an

> artistic bone in my body and I get cabin fever whenever I have had to be a

> full-time mom, however much I love my children. On the other hand, I'm good

> with numbers, designing scientific studies, using my "left brain", and

> managing projects. Why not try to apply these skills in service too?

>

> >If I am a woman trying to be a man, this is not what Krsna advises.

>

> As far as I've heard from early Prabhupada disciples, such as Malati,

> Yamuna, Pranada, Kausalya, Jyotirmayi etc. Prabhupada encouraged all of

> them pretty much in whatever service they wanted and much of it was not

> traditionally female. Some of these women said that they even forgot that

> they were in female bodies and simply thought of themselves as servants

> when they were around Prabhupada. This doesn't mean they were trying to be

> men - far from it. They just wanted to be themselves, serving Krsna

> according to their individual propensities.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Comment:

There are a number of factors in action here:

1. Due to past desires certain karmic activities have to be fulfilled, these

can best be done in a female body.

Why this is I do not know, this is something that is ordained by Krsna.

2. Those placed in a female body must be given shelter.

 

Problem is how to give that protection in such a way that encourages one to

act for the best advancement in

ones Krsna consciousness. Srila Prabhupada did this, he took over the role of

father to those mothers, he

was tactful, gentle but above all considerate.

 

The ideal situation:

1. The women, when she was a girl would show particular interest which in her

family would be cultivated.

2. She would be encouraged to marry a man of similar interests.

3. She and her husband would engage in these common interests in their pursuit

of Krsna consciousness.

4. The framework of the extended family would support them in their joint

ventures.

5. All their activities must be in the "isavasya concept", with the goal to

awakening their Krsna

consciousness.

 

True the women would fulfill the support role. It is not an easy position and

her husband (protector) needs

to understand this and be considerate yet encourage her so that her desires

are met within a Krsna conscious

realm.

 

Our problem is three fold:

1. The husbands have not acquired this tactfulness, most likely due to an over

lording nature.

2. The wives have not been submissive in their role.

3. There is usually no extended family to support the couple.

 

This can only be corrected by an increase of both parties Krsna consciousness.

It can not be accomplished to

a beneficial effect by analysis or similar counseling. Srila Prabhupada always

stressed that by cooperation,

the cultivation of offenseless chanting and the strict following a full

sadhana practice is the only means to

success. This lack of strict sadhana is the central problem compounded by

individualistic natures and our

desires for materialistic comforts. The association of other like minded

devotees will have to function in the

extended families position until the proper mentality within ISKCON allows for

growth of extended families.

ys,

Rohita dasa ACBSP

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Male/female definitely IS wrong conception of life,and everyone who

> wants to become serious devotee should try to change that conception,

> but when we are married, we can't deny there is affection to other

> person we are married for, even on the bodily platform. So when it's

> there what to do ? We can't say that's transcendental.

 

Why not?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Male/female definitely IS wrong conception of life,and everyone who

> wants to become serious devotee should try to change that conception,

> but when we are married, we can't deny there is affection to other

> person we are married for, even on the bodily platform. So when it's

> there what to do ? We can't say that's transcendental.

 

Why not?

[Guest guest]

On 22 Feb 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > we can't deny there is affection to other

> > person we are married for, even on the bodily platform. So when > >

it's

> > there what to do ? We can't say that's transcendental.

>

 

 

> Why not?

 

 

Ghosh, you must have a little smirk on your face saying this, don't you?

 

As I go through my life, living out my karma which manifests in so many ways,

both miserable and pleasant, I only feel an ever increasing awareness of how

far away from being transcendental I really am. The reason I like The Books is

because when I enter into them humbly, they take me to a place where I know I

am not anywhere near right now but instill in me the hope and determination

that I will one day attain to that level. But I do not want to make the

mistake of thinking a snake is a rope for fear of being bitten. That far off

day, when someone's activities are truly transcendental, only the blind will

mistake them for otherwise (i.e. Srila Prabhupada).

 

My fear is going backward by rationalizing and justifying my nonsense

activities out of shame, frustration, false ego and insecurity and somehow

calling them transcendental. The day I think I'm THERE, I stop trying to

learn. I don't want that. Heck, I actually like this war with my mind and

senses. Though they win most of the time, I win a few battles every once and

awhile and it gives me strength and conviction that, if I keep trying , one

day, my wins will outnumber my losses.

 

But, the Vedic culture represents that lifestyle to me which, if I want to

enter and gain the advantages it presents, I must give up certain things and

not try to drag my stubborn attachment to the more non-Vedic things I have

been programmed to maintain. What's the use otherwise. I know I can't have the

kingdom of God without God, and His devotees live a certain way. This leaves a

lot of room for compassion and tolerance, but there are limits to certain acts

and mentalities.

 

Dvaraka, Krsna's city, welcomed all devotees and they lived many different

lifestyles and mentalities but there was still a vast difference between that

city life and our city life.

 

I am not going to pretend to know very much about Vedic life or how this whole

material world thing is going on, but I am fully willing to accept the fact

that I am very, very, fallen and ashamed of myself for being here in this

material world. I apologize to my Lord everyday for ever leaving Him. I

realize I have a LOT of work to do before I can expect Him to open the door to

the spiritual world to me again.

[Guest guest]

On 22 Feb 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > we can't deny there is affection to other

> > person we are married for, even on the bodily platform. So when > >

it's

> > there what to do ? We can't say that's transcendental.

>

 

 

> Why not?

 

 

Ghosh, you must have a little smirk on your face saying this, don't you?

 

As I go through my life, living out my karma which manifests in so many ways,

both miserable and pleasant, I only feel an ever increasing awareness of how

far away from being transcendental I really am. The reason I like The Books is

because when I enter into them humbly, they take me to a place where I know I

am not anywhere near right now but instill in me the hope and determination

that I will one day attain to that level. But I do not want to make the

mistake of thinking a snake is a rope for fear of being bitten. That far off

day, when someone's activities are truly transcendental, only the blind will

mistake them for otherwise (i.e. Srila Prabhupada).

 

My fear is going backward by rationalizing and justifying my nonsense

activities out of shame, frustration, false ego and insecurity and somehow

calling them transcendental. The day I think I'm THERE, I stop trying to

learn. I don't want that. Heck, I actually like this war with my mind and

senses. Though they win most of the time, I win a few battles every once and

awhile and it gives me strength and conviction that, if I keep trying , one

day, my wins will outnumber my losses.

 

But, the Vedic culture represents that lifestyle to me which, if I want to

enter and gain the advantages it presents, I must give up certain things and

not try to drag my stubborn attachment to the more non-Vedic things I have

been programmed to maintain. What's the use otherwise. I know I can't have the

kingdom of God without God, and His devotees live a certain way. This leaves a

lot of room for compassion and tolerance, but there are limits to certain acts

and mentalities.

 

Dvaraka, Krsna's city, welcomed all devotees and they lived many different

lifestyles and mentalities but there was still a vast difference between that

city life and our city life.

 

I am not going to pretend to know very much about Vedic life or how this whole

material world thing is going on, but I am fully willing to accept the fact

that I am very, very, fallen and ashamed of myself for being here in this

material world. I apologize to my Lord everyday for ever leaving Him. I

realize I have a LOT of work to do before I can expect Him to open the door to

the spiritual world to me again.

[Guest guest]

> I can fully agree with you that a person should be engaged in service

> according to " Krsna-given skills and talents " as you said. That's

> what Krsna advises us in Bhagavad-Gita, to perform our given duty.

 

Good, then we agree.

 

> And every man is very pleased when he is a " hero " of his wife, and

> he feels he's a man.

 

I'd be careful before making such sweeping generalizations. Believe it or

not, there actually are men out there who have moved beyond this need to be

"a hero" (whatever that means) and who still feel they are men.

 

 

> I can tell you from my own

> experience that my wife respects me and allows me to have a dominant

> role ( not in the sense of tyranny ),

 

Now, you're being more honest. Thank you for clarifying that you're

referring to your own situation. I'm glad that the two of you have found a

solution that works for you.

 

 

> but he also never advised

> them to not cook nicely, and to stop performing their housewife

> duties, because, there lies the family happiness.

 

Who said that women should not cook nicely? I just said that cooking may

not be every woman's service (although of course I cook too - after all we

have to eat - I just don't particularly enjoy it, especially not after a

long day of work).

 

Let's stop imposing such rigid expectations on couples and let people work

out these details in their own relationship without critisicing them for

not being "traditional". If the husband and wife are satisfied with their

division of labor, why can't we simply be happy for them?

 

For example if it wasn't for the very talented business woman Pranada

Prabhu, we may not have had such a nice BTG these past few years (she works

and supports the family so that her husband Nagaraja Prabhu could be the

full time editor of BTG). I don't think it makes him any less of a hero. In

fact, I think he's been performing a wonderful service. If they are happy

with their non-traditional situation, so am I.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> I can fully agree with you that a person should be engaged in service

> according to " Krsna-given skills and talents " as you said. That's

> what Krsna advises us in Bhagavad-Gita, to perform our given duty.

 

Good, then we agree.

 

> And every man is very pleased when he is a " hero " of his wife, and

> he feels he's a man.

 

I'd be careful before making such sweeping generalizations. Believe it or

not, there actually are men out there who have moved beyond this need to be

"a hero" (whatever that means) and who still feel they are men.

 

 

> I can tell you from my own

> experience that my wife respects me and allows me to have a dominant

> role ( not in the sense of tyranny ),

 

Now, you're being more honest. Thank you for clarifying that you're

referring to your own situation. I'm glad that the two of you have found a

solution that works for you.

 

 

> but he also never advised

> them to not cook nicely, and to stop performing their housewife

> duties, because, there lies the family happiness.

 

Who said that women should not cook nicely? I just said that cooking may

not be every woman's service (although of course I cook too - after all we

have to eat - I just don't particularly enjoy it, especially not after a

long day of work).

 

Let's stop imposing such rigid expectations on couples and let people work

out these details in their own relationship without critisicing them for

not being "traditional". If the husband and wife are satisfied with their

division of labor, why can't we simply be happy for them?

 

For example if it wasn't for the very talented business woman Pranada

Prabhu, we may not have had such a nice BTG these past few years (she works

and supports the family so that her husband Nagaraja Prabhu could be the

full time editor of BTG). I don't think it makes him any less of a hero. In

fact, I think he's been performing a wonderful service. If they are happy

with their non-traditional situation, so am I.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 23 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

 

> I'd be careful before making such sweeping generalizations. Believe it or

> not, there actually are men out there who have moved beyond this need to be

> "a hero" (whatever that means) and who still feel they are men.

 

 

I think the Prabhu is referencing Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam when he

was talking about the nature of men and women as purusha and prakriti

respectively? I try to take Srila Prabhupada's advice and views on this as

something I should try to realize carefully. My bad brain is really not

capable of interpreting such things. I am pretty sure they are meant to be

taken "As Is".

 

Is there a fear that if we talk about Srila Prabhupada's statements from his

Books about this that there will be a debate on it? I'm just curious.

 

I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros" the Prabhu talks of.

I don't believe, though I may be wrong, that they felt a need to "move past"

this natural inclination. There are many men who have not "moved past" this

and remain loving gentle men with their spouses. There are also many women who

greatly adore and love these qualities in their spouses.

 

 

 

 

> Let's stop imposing such rigid expectations on couples and let people work

> out these details in their own relationship without critisicing them for

> not being "traditional".

 

 

I think it would be more advantageous, for the couples ultimate salvation, to

share with them the Vedic cultural/varnasrama-dharma examples of a successful

relationship and let them decide if it is something they would like to utilize

to enhance their Krsna conscious relationship. "Traditional" is quite

different than Vedic, right?

 

The need for Vedic cultural education and varnasrama-dharma lifestyles and

societal standards as positive, attainable goals is the meaning of the Krsna

consciousness movement, in my opinion.

 

 

 

> If the husband and wife are satisfied with their

> division of labor, why can't we simply be happy for them?

 

It's kind of hard to be happy for a couple if they are engaged in a situation

that one knows will bring them unhappiness. Its also not very friendly. They

are certainly free to pursue whatever path they choose together, but if it is

a contrived method, like the Western traditional or (here I go, I'm gonna say

it...) feminist (Uh-oh!) "division of labor" as opposed to the Lord's

varnasrma-dharma divisions of labor there is probably going to be problems

like we see tons of - divorce, abuse, adultery, etc. Not very happy.

[Guest guest]

On 23 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

 

> I'd be careful before making such sweeping generalizations. Believe it or

> not, there actually are men out there who have moved beyond this need to be

> "a hero" (whatever that means) and who still feel they are men.

 

 

I think the Prabhu is referencing Srila Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam when he

was talking about the nature of men and women as purusha and prakriti

respectively? I try to take Srila Prabhupada's advice and views on this as

something I should try to realize carefully. My bad brain is really not

capable of interpreting such things. I am pretty sure they are meant to be

taken "As Is".

 

Is there a fear that if we talk about Srila Prabhupada's statements from his

Books about this that there will be a debate on it? I'm just curious.

 

I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros" the Prabhu talks of.

I don't believe, though I may be wrong, that they felt a need to "move past"

this natural inclination. There are many men who have not "moved past" this

and remain loving gentle men with their spouses. There are also many women who

greatly adore and love these qualities in their spouses.

 

 

 

 

> Let's stop imposing such rigid expectations on couples and let people work

> out these details in their own relationship without critisicing them for

> not being "traditional".

 

 

I think it would be more advantageous, for the couples ultimate salvation, to

share with them the Vedic cultural/varnasrama-dharma examples of a successful

relationship and let them decide if it is something they would like to utilize

to enhance their Krsna conscious relationship. "Traditional" is quite

different than Vedic, right?

 

The need for Vedic cultural education and varnasrama-dharma lifestyles and

societal standards as positive, attainable goals is the meaning of the Krsna

consciousness movement, in my opinion.

 

 

 

> If the husband and wife are satisfied with their

> division of labor, why can't we simply be happy for them?

 

It's kind of hard to be happy for a couple if they are engaged in a situation

that one knows will bring them unhappiness. Its also not very friendly. They

are certainly free to pursue whatever path they choose together, but if it is

a contrived method, like the Western traditional or (here I go, I'm gonna say

it...) feminist (Uh-oh!) "division of labor" as opposed to the Lord's

varnasrma-dharma divisions of labor there is probably going to be problems

like we see tons of - divorce, abuse, adultery, etc. Not very happy.

[Guest guest]

>I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros" the Prabhu talks of.

>I don't believe, though I may be wrong, that they felt a need to "move past"

>this natural inclination. There are many men who have not "moved past" this

>and remain loving gentle men with their spouses.

 

 

But do you think they had a *need* to be heroes or were they simply doing

their duty and thereby being heroes? When someone says a man has a *need*

to be a hero, it sounds more like s/he is talking about his ego.

 

>There are also many women who

>greatly adore and love these qualities in their spouses.

 

So let's hope the men who need to be heroes meet up with the women who need

hero-husbands. My point was just that - we're all individuals.

 

> "Traditional" is quite

>different than Vedic, right?

 

Don't know. When the GHQ-ers were let lose, the two sounded very similar.

I'd love to see someone show how they were wrong.

 

 

>

>> If the husband and wife are satisfied with their

>> division of labor, why can't we simply be happy for them?

>

>It's kind of hard to be happy for a couple if they are engaged in a situation

>that one knows will bring them unhappiness.

 

And why should we assume that it will make anyone unhappy if the woman has

a business she enjoys and the man cooks the meals?

 

>I'm gonna say

>it...) feminist (Uh-oh!) "division of labor" as opposed to the Lord's

>varnasrma-dharma divisions of labor there is probably going to be problems

>like we see tons of - divorce, abuse, adultery, etc. Not very happy.

 

 

There is no "feminist division of labor". Feminism just says that we

should all have the opportunity to utilize our individual skills, talents

and interests without regard for traditional sex-role stereotypes. Maybe

it's the other way around: divorces arising out of being forced to do

things that make you miserable and feeling you have to live up to some

abstract model that is not you - all in order to be married.

 

Just wonderin'

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros" the Prabhu talks of.

>I don't believe, though I may be wrong, that they felt a need to "move past"

>this natural inclination. There are many men who have not "moved past" this

>and remain loving gentle men with their spouses.

 

 

But do you think they had a *need* to be heroes or were they simply doing

their duty and thereby being heroes? When someone says a man has a *need*

to be a hero, it sounds more like s/he is talking about his ego.

 

>There are also many women who

>greatly adore and love these qualities in their spouses.

 

So let's hope the men who need to be heroes meet up with the women who need

hero-husbands. My point was just that - we're all individuals.

 

> "Traditional" is quite

>different than Vedic, right?

 

Don't know. When the GHQ-ers were let lose, the two sounded very similar.

I'd love to see someone show how they were wrong.

 

 

>

>> If the husband and wife are satisfied with their

>> division of labor, why can't we simply be happy for them?

>

>It's kind of hard to be happy for a couple if they are engaged in a situation

>that one knows will bring them unhappiness.

 

And why should we assume that it will make anyone unhappy if the woman has

a business she enjoys and the man cooks the meals?

 

>I'm gonna say

>it...) feminist (Uh-oh!) "division of labor" as opposed to the Lord's

>varnasrma-dharma divisions of labor there is probably going to be problems

>like we see tons of - divorce, abuse, adultery, etc. Not very happy.

 

 

There is no "feminist division of labor". Feminism just says that we

should all have the opportunity to utilize our individual skills, talents

and interests without regard for traditional sex-role stereotypes. Maybe

it's the other way around: divorces arising out of being forced to do

things that make you miserable and feeling you have to live up to some

abstract model that is not you - all in order to be married.

 

Just wonderin'

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> It's kind of hard to be happy for a couple if they are engaged in a

> situation that one knows will bring them unhappiness. Its also not very

> friendly. They are certainly free to pursue whatever path they choose

> together, but if it is a contrived method, like the Western traditional or

> (here I go, I'm gonna say it...) feminist (Uh-oh!) "division of labor" as

> opposed to the Lord's varnasrma-dharma divisions of labor there is

> probably going to be problems like we see tons of - divorce, abuse,

> adultery, etc. Not very happy.

 

I have a hard time following this reasoning. Here we don't care for an

individuals happiness, but define something else as the person's

happiness.

"We will define what makes you happy, and you better be happy doing it".

 

Varnasrama means the right person on the right place. Whatever capabilities

a person is born with s/he will be allowed to use for the good of society.

What tasks a man or a women do in society, does not need to be incompatible

with the male/female body. Society can be arranged so that whoever needs

protection, whether man or woman, can get that, while still using her/his

skills for the good of society. We can not let ourselves be blinded by the

external appearance of different persons. As long as men think women

is a "lower breed" we will not come anywhere.

 

ISKCON has been man-dominated, and after so many years, still did

not come anywhere on the varnasrama development. Maybe it is time

to realize that varnasrama implementation needs the other half of

the human population also. That means not just as "slaves", but

maybe also to listen to it. Intelligence, after all, is a female quality

according to Bhagavad Gita. In fact, many more good qualities are

considered female; fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, intelligence,

steadfastness and patience. If women are supposed to be inferior,

I guess those have to be inferior qualities also.

 

Interesting, this aspect or intelligence is not in the index in the

new edition of the Bhagavad Gita. You have to look for "woman" to

find it. There are two references under woman. If these two things are

the only references to women in the Bhagavad Gita, we can really say

nothing about woman's duty in society, as separated from men's.

[Guest guest]

> It's kind of hard to be happy for a couple if they are engaged in a

> situation that one knows will bring them unhappiness. Its also not very

> friendly. They are certainly free to pursue whatever path they choose

> together, but if it is a contrived method, like the Western traditional or

> (here I go, I'm gonna say it...) feminist (Uh-oh!) "division of labor" as

> opposed to the Lord's varnasrma-dharma divisions of labor there is

> probably going to be problems like we see tons of - divorce, abuse,

> adultery, etc. Not very happy.

 

I have a hard time following this reasoning. Here we don't care for an

individuals happiness, but define something else as the person's

happiness.

"We will define what makes you happy, and you better be happy doing it".

 

Varnasrama means the right person on the right place. Whatever capabilities

a person is born with s/he will be allowed to use for the good of society.

What tasks a man or a women do in society, does not need to be incompatible

with the male/female body. Society can be arranged so that whoever needs

protection, whether man or woman, can get that, while still using her/his

skills for the good of society. We can not let ourselves be blinded by the

external appearance of different persons. As long as men think women

is a "lower breed" we will not come anywhere.

 

ISKCON has been man-dominated, and after so many years, still did

not come anywhere on the varnasrama development. Maybe it is time

to realize that varnasrama implementation needs the other half of

the human population also. That means not just as "slaves", but

maybe also to listen to it. Intelligence, after all, is a female quality

according to Bhagavad Gita. In fact, many more good qualities are

considered female; fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, intelligence,

steadfastness and patience. If women are supposed to be inferior,

I guess those have to be inferior qualities also.

 

Interesting, this aspect or intelligence is not in the index in the

new edition of the Bhagavad Gita. You have to look for "woman" to

find it. There are two references under woman. If these two things are

the only references to women in the Bhagavad Gita, we can really say

nothing about woman's duty in society, as separated from men's.

[Guest guest]

On 23 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> >I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros"

 

> But do you think they had a *need* to be heroes or were they simply doing

> their duty and thereby being heroes?

 

 

Heroism is a QUALITY of a ksatriya. It is a natural need and quite fitting for

engagement in the service of the Lord, in my opinion.

 

 

> When someone says a man has a *need*

> to be a hero, it sounds more like s/he is talking about his ego.

 

Yes, ego. But as a quality of a varna engaged in the service of the Lord it

becomes real ego of a human being in the institution of varnasrama-dharma.

Devotees are not ego-less.

 

>

> >There are also many women who

> >greatly adore and love these qualities in their spouses.

>

> So let's hope the men who need to be heroes meet up with the women who need

> hero-husbands. My point was just that - we're all individuals.

>

 

I agree. Varna/nature compatibility is important to successful relationships.

 

 

> > "Traditional" is quite

> >different than Vedic, right?

>

> Don't know. When the GHQ-ers were let lose, the two sounded very similar.

> I'd love to see someone show how they were wrong.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada does a pretty good job in his Books, I think.

 

 

> And why should we assume that it will make anyone unhappy if the woman has

> a business she enjoys and the man cooks the meals?

 

 

Its fine. There are always exceptions to the "rules". Especially in Kali-yuga.

Though it is not the intended path for the vast majority of human beings in

any age. If we were to make our best (not perfect) attempt to establish a

Vedic/varnasrama-dharma community for anyone to live in, with the goal of

becoming gentlemen and ladies along the Vedic examples, what general,

best-for-the-majority of the participants roles would we be providing

education for? I have found a wealth of information and examples for men and

women in the Books. Should they now be abandoned because of Kali-yuga,

"traditional" or feminist influences?

 

 

> There is no "feminist division of labor". Feminism just says that we

> should all have the opportunity to utilize our individual skills, talents

> and interests without regard for traditional sex-role stereotypes.

 

 

This will NOT happen in the material world. To attempt to erase bodily

discrimination in this duplicit world will prove futile and is a waste of time

better spent performing devotional service. The bodily differences are real

and must be recognized as much as one would not approach a tiger and say "Come

here, kitty, kitty." It is a fact of life in the material world. The Vedic

idea is not to try to fight material nature, but to get out of it as soon as

possible. A woman can get out of this material world just as quickly as a man

can. This is the important point. She just has to find out the best path as

given by sadhus, scripture, etc., to do this in her present bodily status.

Women are not inferior but they definitely have a different body which must be

engaged differently.

 

If Lord Caitanya came today would the women of ISKCON protest vehemently when

restricted from approaching close to Him? I wouldn't protest and I would be

BEHIND them! I am a pounds, shilling, pence administrator man and He wouldn't

talk to me either. I accept my position because I know I can engage it in the

service of the Lord and He will accept that service if I perform it with

submissive and humble devotion. But Lord Caitanya at no time felt that the

women or money-men being restricted from approaching Him were incapable of

performing devotional service. He was respecting the Vedic social structure of

varnasrama-dharma which works for every human being eternally.

 

 

 

> Maybe

> it's the other way around: divorces arising out of being forced to do

> things that make you miserable and feeling you have to live up to some

> abstract model that is not you - all in order to be married.

 

 

When I first learned about Krsna consciousness I felt that many of the things

were "abstract models" compared to the way I was conditioned to live. I was

trained in the traditional American ways and quite proud of myself. I was a

complete fool, of course. I gradually accepted the fact that if I wanted to do

my duty to God I would have to start conforming to His way of life and give up

many of my habits that I thought were "me". I have a body and I won't deny

that nor try to absolve myself of any responsibility to maintaining it and its

senses in a reasonable regulated manner, but "me" is a spirit soul which

requires constant work at improving myself toward the ideal Vedic model. It

may take many, many lifetimes but that is my fault and I blame no one else but

myself. There is a way out and I know what that is thanks to Srila Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

On 23 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> >I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros"

 

> But do you think they had a *need* to be heroes or were they simply doing

> their duty and thereby being heroes?

 

 

Heroism is a QUALITY of a ksatriya. It is a natural need and quite fitting for

engagement in the service of the Lord, in my opinion.

 

 

> When someone says a man has a *need*

> to be a hero, it sounds more like s/he is talking about his ego.

 

Yes, ego. But as a quality of a varna engaged in the service of the Lord it

becomes real ego of a human being in the institution of varnasrama-dharma.

Devotees are not ego-less.

 

>

> >There are also many women who

> >greatly adore and love these qualities in their spouses.

>

> So let's hope the men who need to be heroes meet up with the women who need

> hero-husbands. My point was just that - we're all individuals.

>

 

I agree. Varna/nature compatibility is important to successful relationships.

 

 

> > "Traditional" is quite

> >different than Vedic, right?

>

> Don't know. When the GHQ-ers were let lose, the two sounded very similar.

> I'd love to see someone show how they were wrong.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada does a pretty good job in his Books, I think.

 

 

> And why should we assume that it will make anyone unhappy if the woman has

> a business she enjoys and the man cooks the meals?

 

 

Its fine. There are always exceptions to the "rules". Especially in Kali-yuga.

Though it is not the intended path for the vast majority of human beings in

any age. If we were to make our best (not perfect) attempt to establish a

Vedic/varnasrama-dharma community for anyone to live in, with the goal of

becoming gentlemen and ladies along the Vedic examples, what general,

best-for-the-majority of the participants roles would we be providing

education for? I have found a wealth of information and examples for men and

women in the Books. Should they now be abandoned because of Kali-yuga,

"traditional" or feminist influences?

 

 

> There is no "feminist division of labor". Feminism just says that we

> should all have the opportunity to utilize our individual skills, talents

> and interests without regard for traditional sex-role stereotypes.

 

 

This will NOT happen in the material world. To attempt to erase bodily

discrimination in this duplicit world will prove futile and is a waste of time

better spent performing devotional service. The bodily differences are real

and must be recognized as much as one would not approach a tiger and say "Come

here, kitty, kitty." It is a fact of life in the material world. The Vedic

idea is not to try to fight material nature, but to get out of it as soon as

possible. A woman can get out of this material world just as quickly as a man

can. This is the important point. She just has to find out the best path as

given by sadhus, scripture, etc., to do this in her present bodily status.

Women are not inferior but they definitely have a different body which must be

engaged differently.

 

If Lord Caitanya came today would the women of ISKCON protest vehemently when

restricted from approaching close to Him? I wouldn't protest and I would be

BEHIND them! I am a pounds, shilling, pence administrator man and He wouldn't

talk to me either. I accept my position because I know I can engage it in the

service of the Lord and He will accept that service if I perform it with

submissive and humble devotion. But Lord Caitanya at no time felt that the

women or money-men being restricted from approaching Him were incapable of

performing devotional service. He was respecting the Vedic social structure of

varnasrama-dharma which works for every human being eternally.

 

 

 

> Maybe

> it's the other way around: divorces arising out of being forced to do

> things that make you miserable and feeling you have to live up to some

> abstract model that is not you - all in order to be married.

 

 

When I first learned about Krsna consciousness I felt that many of the things

were "abstract models" compared to the way I was conditioned to live. I was

trained in the traditional American ways and quite proud of myself. I was a

complete fool, of course. I gradually accepted the fact that if I wanted to do

my duty to God I would have to start conforming to His way of life and give up

many of my habits that I thought were "me". I have a body and I won't deny

that nor try to absolve myself of any responsibility to maintaining it and its

senses in a reasonable regulated manner, but "me" is a spirit soul which

requires constant work at improving myself toward the ideal Vedic model. It

may take many, many lifetimes but that is my fault and I blame no one else but

myself. There is a way out and I know what that is thanks to Srila Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

On 24 Feb 1999, Prsnigarbha das wrote:

 

> Here we don't care for an

> individuals happiness, but define something else as the person's

> happiness.

> "We will define what makes you happy, and you better be happy doing it".

 

 

Not "we", scripture defines it. And its not that "you better be happy doing

it" its "it WILL make you happy". Believe me, I've come up with a million ways

that I thought made me "happy" and I'm still trying everyday! Everytime I talk

to beautiful women I figure, "Oh, this time I'm gonna really enjoy myself".

Its been so frustrating I think I'll try eating some thorns because the camels

seem to enjoy it.

 

I know I have to conform to the path as described in the Books. I have to give

up "my" ideas and accept the Lords ideas. I am stubborn. He is patient. I will

succeed. I will certainly be tolerant of others struggling similarly because

I'm far worse than them, but I will not try to convince them that anything

other than following the directions of the Mahajans will make them happy.

 

I will not defend my nonsense activities and consciousness. They are not

conducive to going back home. And I will never get home if I continue them.

Its going to take a long time for my stubborn mind to accept this fact but I

want to accept it factually and truly, not pretentiously.

 

 

> What tasks a man or a women do in society, does not need to be incompatible

> with the male/female body.

 

 

You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

children to a man. Even if one tries to artificially or medically change ones

body from a man to a woman it changes nothing in the eyes of the Lord and ones

earned karma.

 

 

> We can not let ourselves be blinded by the

> external appearance of different persons.

 

 

This must be respected not "blinding". Lord Caitanya was not "blind" because

He wouldn't allow His female devotees to come close to Him. He was respecting

varnasrama-dharma. He knew the women could attain Him in their hearts through

devotional service, not in wasting valuable human life on bodily "inequities".

 

> As long as men think women

> is a "lower breed" we will not come anywhere.

 

Lord Caitanya did not see them as "lower breed". They are not lower, but they

are in a different body than a man, dog, demigod, etc. We have to stop trying

make it all ONE. Its not! It has nothing to do with sravanam, kirtanam, etc.

 

 

>

> ISKCON has been man-dominated, and after so many years, still did

> not come anywhere on the varnasrama development.

 

 

Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

 

 

> Maybe it is time

> to realize that varnasrama implementation needs the other half of

> the human population also. That means not just as "slaves", but

> maybe also to listen to it.

 

 

I agree with this. There is much to be gained from intelligent discussions

between men and women for the betterment of society. For example, who could

deny that Mother Hare Krsna dd has contributed immensely to the effort to

recognize the importance of varnasrama-dharma within our society of devotees

which is probably Srila Prabhupada's most important overall mission? I

wouldn't. But I do not think that Mother Hare Krsna dd thinks she is not a

woman, or is a "feminist". She seems quite content and her contribution is

very valuable by portraying a role as a Mataji or Mother even though inside

she knows she is really a spirit soul.

[Guest guest]

On 24 Feb 1999, Prsnigarbha das wrote:

 

> Here we don't care for an

> individuals happiness, but define something else as the person's

> happiness.

> "We will define what makes you happy, and you better be happy doing it".

 

 

Not "we", scripture defines it. And its not that "you better be happy doing

it" its "it WILL make you happy". Believe me, I've come up with a million ways

that I thought made me "happy" and I'm still trying everyday! Everytime I talk

to beautiful women I figure, "Oh, this time I'm gonna really enjoy myself".

Its been so frustrating I think I'll try eating some thorns because the camels

seem to enjoy it.

 

I know I have to conform to the path as described in the Books. I have to give

up "my" ideas and accept the Lords ideas. I am stubborn. He is patient. I will

succeed. I will certainly be tolerant of others struggling similarly because

I'm far worse than them, but I will not try to convince them that anything

other than following the directions of the Mahajans will make them happy.

 

I will not defend my nonsense activities and consciousness. They are not

conducive to going back home. And I will never get home if I continue them.

Its going to take a long time for my stubborn mind to accept this fact but I

want to accept it factually and truly, not pretentiously.

 

 

> What tasks a man or a women do in society, does not need to be incompatible

> with the male/female body.

 

 

You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

children to a man. Even if one tries to artificially or medically change ones

body from a man to a woman it changes nothing in the eyes of the Lord and ones

earned karma.

 

 

> We can not let ourselves be blinded by the

> external appearance of different persons.

 

 

This must be respected not "blinding". Lord Caitanya was not "blind" because

He wouldn't allow His female devotees to come close to Him. He was respecting

varnasrama-dharma. He knew the women could attain Him in their hearts through

devotional service, not in wasting valuable human life on bodily "inequities".

 

> As long as men think women

> is a "lower breed" we will not come anywhere.

 

Lord Caitanya did not see them as "lower breed". They are not lower, but they

are in a different body than a man, dog, demigod, etc. We have to stop trying

make it all ONE. Its not! It has nothing to do with sravanam, kirtanam, etc.

 

 

>

> ISKCON has been man-dominated, and after so many years, still did

> not come anywhere on the varnasrama development.

 

 

Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

 

 

> Maybe it is time

> to realize that varnasrama implementation needs the other half of

> the human population also. That means not just as "slaves", but

> maybe also to listen to it.

 

 

I agree with this. There is much to be gained from intelligent discussions

between men and women for the betterment of society. For example, who could

deny that Mother Hare Krsna dd has contributed immensely to the effort to

recognize the importance of varnasrama-dharma within our society of devotees

which is probably Srila Prabhupada's most important overall mission? I

wouldn't. But I do not think that Mother Hare Krsna dd thinks she is not a

woman, or is a "feminist". She seems quite content and her contribution is

very valuable by portraying a role as a Mataji or Mother even though inside

she knows she is really a spirit soul.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >

> > ISKCON has been man-dominated, and after so many years, still did

> > not come anywhere on the varnasrama development.

>

> Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

>

 

Yet those pretentious swamis as a rule didn't start out expecting to be

pretentious swamis. I believe the most of them were originally sincere. They

did

however very much ascribe to the Bhaktipada misogynist world view that women

were

somehow lesser and mainly the men were important, using all the GHQ type logic

to

justify it. We now see that fruit of that philosophy.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >

> > ISKCON has been man-dominated, and after so many years, still did

> > not come anywhere on the varnasrama development.

>

> Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

>

 

Yet those pretentious swamis as a rule didn't start out expecting to be

pretentious swamis. I believe the most of them were originally sincere. They

did

however very much ascribe to the Bhaktipada misogynist world view that women

were

somehow lesser and mainly the men were important, using all the GHQ type logic

to

justify it. We now see that fruit of that philosophy.

[Guest guest]

> On 23 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

>

> > >I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros"

>

> > But do you think they had a *need* to be heroes or were they simply

> > doing their duty and thereby being heroes?

>

 

Janesvara commented:

 

> Heroism is a QUALITY of a ksatriya. It is a natural need and quite fitting

> for engagement in the service of the Lord, in my opinion.

 

In this discussion, it seems to me like Janesvara is discussing the

qualities of a ksatriya, and somehow the conception came about that to be a

man, one "has" to be a ksatriya. (I may be reading between the lines here,

but that is what it looks like to me anyway.)

 

I agree with Janesvara that a real ksatriya is a hero, and if his spouse

does not look at him as such, I think the couple will have problems in their

relationship.

 

But that does not mean that all relationships have to be like that. Real

ksatriyas are anyway hard to find these days...

 

Ys

Jkd