A/ Women in leading positions.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Maybe not, but he did seem to enjoy telling his disciples about how he

grew up as a Vaisnava. In other words, Gour Mohan De, his pure devotee

> > father, didn't appear to have philosophical coniptions about this

> > particular activity.

>

>

> And why? Maybe because as srila prabhupada said, "I can't remember a time

when I didn't remember Krsna". One can remember Krsna during any activity.

That's the idea I think. we can remember Krsna when we are playing soccer, or

digging ditches, or being a prostitute or killing our relatives and gurus. We

have to remember we are engaged by material nature in so many activities due

to our past desires which MUST be fulfilled. One cannot deny ones nature. One

must only remember Krsna as much as one is able to at their present state of

advancement. Getting into the shower is the only qualification Krsna looks at;

it doesn't matter how dirty one is before getting in nor how long a time one

stays in the shower. (Does anyone really know what time it is?)

>

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly, certain GHQers must be remembering Krsna when they are dumping on

their favorite Vaisnavis. I mean how else could you explain their superior

escotericism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

> On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

> [Please excuse the multiple submissions of this, but it kept getting cut

> off. The last line sentence below is finally included intact this time.]

>

> So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the

> other, vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get

> protection by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't

> no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And

> they won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness.

> If that weren't already bad enough, she'll also be sorely lacking in

> feminine beauty,since *nari-rupam pati-vratam* (the beauty of a woman is

> how much she if firmly devoted to her husband).

>

> --gkd

That's alright. But what does that has to do with woman's varna? You see,

the qualified ksatriya lady would be somebody who is able to manage, is

married, is nicely assisting husband and is chaste. Is that alright with

you?

But you know, if there are no qualified husbands available and ksatriya

ladies grew up in a completely demoniac culture and are trained to be

independent, than you got a problem. They would still be able to manage,

because that's their nature, and they wouldn't be that shy. Because they

have desire to serve Krishna they would still go on managing no matter what

you do. And those are the one's who know how to protect themselves even

without a husband.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

> [Please excuse the multiple submissions of this, but it kept getting cut

> off. The last line sentence below is finally included intact this time.]

>

> So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the

> other, vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get

> protection by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't

> no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And

> they won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness.

> If that weren't already bad enough, she'll also be sorely lacking in

> feminine beauty,since *nari-rupam pati-vratam* (the beauty of a woman is

> how much she if firmly devoted to her husband).

>

> --gkd

That's alright. But what does that has to do with woman's varna? You see,

the qualified ksatriya lady would be somebody who is able to manage, is

married, is nicely assisting husband and is chaste. Is that alright with

you?

But you know, if there are no qualified husbands available and ksatriya

ladies grew up in a completely demoniac culture and are trained to be

independent, than you got a problem. They would still be able to manage,

because that's their nature, and they wouldn't be that shy. Because they

have desire to serve Krishna they would still go on managing no matter what

you do. And those are the one's who know how to protect themselves even

without a husband.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> Everyone may want tobein a superior position, but it takes only a little

common sense to realize that in order for a family, community, society,

nation, etc. to function, some individuals will assume superior positions,

others subordinate. That's the idea. In the family, "as constituted by [both

subtle and gross] bodily frame," the man naturally becomes the superior

member. Or, if the women or children unnaturally

> try to or succeed to usurp his role, then we have (as Srila Pra

>

 

 

For some mysterious reason Krsna keeps cutting the message above short. While

I can certainly appreciate the beauty of our KC philosophy, possibly the

essential problem at hand is the difficulty created by people who relentlessly

claim to hold a superior position through exploiting the philosophy in an

attempt to justify their own boorish and often abusive behaviour. Some might

catatorize this kind of mentality as 'offensive' to the point of being

'destructive'.

 

As we have all experienced, any computer can quote Srila Prabhupada, but it

takes a Vaisnava to apply it beneficially.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> Everyone may want tobein a superior position, but it takes only a little

common sense to realize that in order for a family, community, society,

nation, etc. to function, some individuals will assume superior positions,

others subordinate. That's the idea. In the family, "as constituted by [both

subtle and gross] bodily frame," the man naturally becomes the superior

member. Or, if the women or children unnaturally

> try to or succeed to usurp his role, then we have (as Srila Pra

>

 

 

For some mysterious reason Krsna keeps cutting the message above short. While

I can certainly appreciate the beauty of our KC philosophy, possibly the

essential problem at hand is the difficulty created by people who relentlessly

claim to hold a superior position through exploiting the philosophy in an

attempt to justify their own boorish and often abusive behaviour. Some might

catatorize this kind of mentality as 'offensive' to the point of being

'destructive'.

 

As we have all experienced, any computer can quote Srila Prabhupada, but it

takes a Vaisnava to apply it beneficially.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> On 09 Dec 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

>

> > On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

>

> > > The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

> > statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as

constituted

> by

> > bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

 

 

This desire to be superior is the foundation for illicit sex. There can

be no material sexual enjoyment without the concept of exploitation and a

feeling of superiority on the part of the man. This is simple sexual

psychology. When men and women, be thay married couples or whatever, see

each other as devotees first, then concepts of superiority vanish. People

then simply do the needful according to their ability. When Krsna is the

center of the marriage, then desires for superiority vanish. The husband

sees himself as the servant (protector, based on his "superior bodily

frame") of the wife, who is actually Krsna's property. He does not puff

himself up with ideas about being Krsna's representative. The wife, in

turn, does not try to dangle sex, feminine charm, and false worship in

front of her husband to get her material desires satisfied. Even Diti,

who was married, was considered a prostitute for using her feminine

qualities to get what she wanted from her husband. No shortage of sweet

words and femininity there!

 

 

> > >

> >

> > But why just men? Every conditioned soul wants to be in a superior

> position --

> > that's why we're all here.

>

> Of course. So man practices subordinating himself to guru, and woman

practices

> subordinating herself to husband (pati-guru).

 

 

Then why is a woman not required to serve a fallen husband? Service to

Krsna is primary. If the husband is following, then the wife's duty is to

serve. But if he's not, then she, and no one else, is responsible for her

own spiritual life. A fallen husband will not tell his wife to leave him

for her own sake, he will do whatever he can to keep squeezing

sense-gratification out of her, telling her(and himself) that this is the

Krsna conscious or Vedic way. Krsna is the only real husband. And a

woman, no matter how unintelligent, has to know what is need for her own

spiritual progress. Prabhupada's sister married a fish-eater, but she

kept her Vaisnava diet, she did not just give in, in the name of

submissiveness to her husband, and abandon her religious principles. She

was, as are all women, not only a wife, but an _individual_, a spirit

soul. That's the bottom line.

 

I haven't read anything here yet that addresses the issue of illicit sex,

in or out of marriage, but I always get the feeling that this is what is

at issue when talking about male superiority. Even if gross sexual

activity is absent, the psychological dynamic is still at play. In other

words, men get off in subtle ways by seeking superiority over women other

than their wives. By that I mean a concession is given to men to feel

superior to the woman, or women that a man is actually serving in that

aspect, but he is not entitled to take that attitude with all women.

That's why every woman BUT wife should be seen as mother.

 

I'm not saying that women should not be submissive to their husbands, But

when I hear men in general saying how all women should be, I start

feeling a little icky. It makes me feel like such men are trying to act

as husband to me by telling me what I should do or be. It makes me feel

like such men are looking at my body and subtly enjoying it by their

feeling of superiority, instead of seeing me as a mother. A mother is a

superior, is she not? A son serves by protecting, not by instructing his

mothers how submissively they should behave.

 

I have one husband, whom I serve and whom I recognize myself as inferior

to. To be pressured to have that kind of mentality, however subtle, in

relation to other men seems to me to be a kind of subtle prosti

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> On 09 Dec 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

>

> > On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

>

> > > The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

> > statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as

constituted

> by

> > bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

 

 

This desire to be superior is the foundation for illicit sex. There can

be no material sexual enjoyment without the concept of exploitation and a

feeling of superiority on the part of the man. This is simple sexual

psychology. When men and women, be thay married couples or whatever, see

each other as devotees first, then concepts of superiority vanish. People

then simply do the needful according to their ability. When Krsna is the

center of the marriage, then desires for superiority vanish. The husband

sees himself as the servant (protector, based on his "superior bodily

frame") of the wife, who is actually Krsna's property. He does not puff

himself up with ideas about being Krsna's representative. The wife, in

turn, does not try to dangle sex, feminine charm, and false worship in

front of her husband to get her material desires satisfied. Even Diti,

who was married, was considered a prostitute for using her feminine

qualities to get what she wanted from her husband. No shortage of sweet

words and femininity there!

 

 

> > >

> >

> > But why just men? Every conditioned soul wants to be in a superior

> position --

> > that's why we're all here.

>

> Of course. So man practices subordinating himself to guru, and woman

practices

> subordinating herself to husband (pati-guru).

 

 

Then why is a woman not required to serve a fallen husband? Service to

Krsna is primary. If the husband is following, then the wife's duty is to

serve. But if he's not, then she, and no one else, is responsible for her

own spiritual life. A fallen husband will not tell his wife to leave him

for her own sake, he will do whatever he can to keep squeezing

sense-gratification out of her, telling her(and himself) that this is the

Krsna conscious or Vedic way. Krsna is the only real husband. And a

woman, no matter how unintelligent, has to know what is need for her own

spiritual progress. Prabhupada's sister married a fish-eater, but she

kept her Vaisnava diet, she did not just give in, in the name of

submissiveness to her husband, and abandon her religious principles. She

was, as are all women, not only a wife, but an _individual_, a spirit

soul. That's the bottom line.

 

I haven't read anything here yet that addresses the issue of illicit sex,

in or out of marriage, but I always get the feeling that this is what is

at issue when talking about male superiority. Even if gross sexual

activity is absent, the psychological dynamic is still at play. In other

words, men get off in subtle ways by seeking superiority over women other

than their wives. By that I mean a concession is given to men to feel

superior to the woman, or women that a man is actually serving in that

aspect, but he is not entitled to take that attitude with all women.

That's why every woman BUT wife should be seen as mother.

 

I'm not saying that women should not be submissive to their husbands, But

when I hear men in general saying how all women should be, I start

feeling a little icky. It makes me feel like such men are trying to act

as husband to me by telling me what I should do or be. It makes me feel

like such men are looking at my body and subtly enjoying it by their

feeling of superiority, instead of seeing me as a mother. A mother is a

superior, is she not? A son serves by protecting, not by instructing his

mothers how submissively they should behave.

 

I have one husband, whom I serve and whom I recognize myself as inferior

to. To be pressured to have that kind of mentality, however subtle, in

relation to other men seems to me to be a kind of subtle prosti

[Guest guest]

On 11 Dec 1999, Tulasi-priya Devi Dasi wrote:

 

 

 

 

> I have one husband, whom I serve and whom I recognize myself as

inferior

> to. To be pressured to have that kind of mentality, however subtle, in

> relation to other men seems to me to be a kind of subtle prosti

 

 

a subtle kind of prostitution.

 

your servant,

 

Tulasi-priya dasi

[Guest guest]

On 11 Dec 1999, Tulasi-priya Devi Dasi wrote:

 

 

 

 

> I have one husband, whom I serve and whom I recognize myself as

inferior

> to. To be pressured to have that kind of mentality, however subtle, in

> relation to other men seems to me to be a kind of subtle prosti

 

 

a subtle kind of prostitution.

 

your servant,

 

Tulasi-priya dasi

[Guest guest]

> On 11 Dec 1999, Tulasi-priya Devi Dasi wrote:

>

>

> > I have one husband, whom I serve and whom I recognize myself as

> inferior to. To be pressured to have that kind of mentality, however subtle,

in relation to other men seems to me to be a subtle kind of prostitution.

>

> your servant,

>

> Tulasi-priya dasi

>

 

 

While not having much realized knowledge about male/female relations myself, I

would dare to speculate that even in our glorious Vedic days of 'male

dominance', a womans desires to serve her husband were often motivated by a

genuine feeling of protection based on love and trust. Devotion is voluntary,

a key lesson to be learned as we approach Krsna. On the other hand, the

glorious Vedic husband would serve their wives by actually create an

enviroment where they felt loved and protected, and not just during

agonizingly long venomized sermons.

 

In any event, I find it somewhat difficult to imagine our Vedic men-folk heros

behaving like a pack of frustrated whiners.

[Guest guest]

> On 11 Dec 1999, Tulasi-priya Devi Dasi wrote:

>

>

> > I have one husband, whom I serve and whom I recognize myself as

> inferior to. To be pressured to have that kind of mentality, however subtle,

in relation to other men seems to me to be a subtle kind of prostitution.

>

> your servant,

>

> Tulasi-priya dasi

>

 

 

While not having much realized knowledge about male/female relations myself, I

would dare to speculate that even in our glorious Vedic days of 'male

dominance', a womans desires to serve her husband were often motivated by a

genuine feeling of protection based on love and trust. Devotion is voluntary,

a key lesson to be learned as we approach Krsna. On the other hand, the

glorious Vedic husband would serve their wives by actually create an

enviroment where they felt loved and protected, and not just during

agonizingly long venomized sermons.

 

In any event, I find it somewhat difficult to imagine our Vedic men-folk heros

behaving like a pack of frustrated whiners.

[Guest guest]

> I'm not saying that women should not be submissive to their husbands, But

> when I hear men in general saying how all women should be, I start feeling

> a little icky. It makes me feel like such men are trying to act as husband

> to me by telling me what I should do or be. It makes me feel like such men

> are looking at my body and subtly enjoying it by their feeling of

> superiority, instead of seeing me as a mother. A mother is a superior, is

> she not? A son serves by protecting, not by instructing his mothers how

> submissively they should behave.

>

Yes, mothers are superior. You will not find any cultured men telling his

mother what to do. Pandavas were pure devotees and selfrealized, they were

men, but when it came to Kunti, they listened to her and did what she told

them to do.

There we come back to one of my previous posts (from long time ago) in

which I explained that the real men are hanpacked.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> > By the way, if you have so many qualified men, why don't you send some

> >over here, we are in lack of it.

>

> The men will forever be apathetic to protect women and to serve in

> managerial roles when women are there like this.

 

Women step in when there are no qualified men to do the job.

When the men are busy running after their senses, they loose

their qualifications. In my opinion, the position for a qualified woman

is to work together with her husband, but when there are no good

husbands, what to do?

 

So the whole thing just breaks down due to men being useless.

And it is true, such useless men are getting apathetic, when they see

that women do better than them.

 

Isn't it pretty foolish to try to pull down an able person, just because

you cannot perform good yourself? The solution is to be qualified

yourself, and not complain about women doing a good job.

 

ys Prisni dasi

[Guest guest]

> The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

> statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as

> constituted by bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

 

But what men forget is that being born in a superior position is not

enough. Being born a brahmana does not make you one. You have

to qualify yourself. So if you are born a man, you have to qualify

yourself, to be superior to women.

 

> So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the

> other, vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get

> protection by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't

> no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And

> they won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness.

 

A lousy excuse. No Vaisnavi is adverse to submissing herself to a

qualified husband. Its the women nature to do that. But if the man

need to say "I am superior", and beat his wife in the head to get

the point through, then something is wrong. Either he married someone

that is more qualified than him, and he cannot match up, or he is

not qualifying himself to the point that he should be, according to

his nature.

 

ys Prisni dasi

[Guest guest]

> The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

> statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as

> constituted by bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

 

But what men forget is that being born in a superior position is not

enough. Being born a brahmana does not make you one. You have

to qualify yourself. So if you are born a man, you have to qualify

yourself, to be superior to women.

 

> So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the

> other, vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get

> protection by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't

> no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And

> they won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness.

 

A lousy excuse. No Vaisnavi is adverse to submissing herself to a

qualified husband. Its the women nature to do that. But if the man

need to say "I am superior", and beat his wife in the head to get

the point through, then something is wrong. Either he married someone

that is more qualified than him, and he cannot match up, or he is

not qualifying himself to the point that he should be, according to

his nature.

 

ys Prisni dasi

[Guest guest]

> Everyone may want tobein a superior position, but it takes only a little

> common sense to realize that in order for a family, community, society,

> nation, etc. to function, some individuals will assume superior positions,

> others subordinate. That's the idea. In the family, "as constituted by

> [both subtle and gross] bodily frame," the man naturally becomes the

> superior member. Or, if the women or children unnaturally

> try to or succeed to usurp his role, then we have (as Srila Pra

 

Husband and wife are on an equal position control-wise, in a marriage.

They are in charge of different parts. From the men's point of view,

men are superior, and I guess they need to see it like that, but from

a more external point of view it is not so. It is more like a balance.

But as the men's point of view is the world's point of view, yes men

need to be superior. Women's point of view is like a hidden secret

throughout the ages.

 

It is a delicate balance, and it involves much more than just the

marriage. It involves the whole society. The women are satisfied in

their field, but if the society structure and the family structure is broken

up, the women's field is removed, and the women are not satisfied

anymore. That's when women move over to men's field, when the men

does not protect them, and provide for the women's field of activity.

 

In one way men are right. Women are moving into their field. But men

don't understand the causes for it. It is the lack of protection of women.

So it starts with failure from the men's part (in case it has any interest

where it fails first).

 

When women are satisfied with what the men do, and when they have

their own field of action, it will give peace in society.

 

We can take an example from the Krsna book, that shows how it

works (the Krsna book is a marvelous source in teaching us about

how men and women live together in peace). When the men failed to

do their duty in offering to Krsna and the cows, and was instead busy

doing their ritualistic procedures, the women took over and did the right

thing. That would never have happened if the men did it right from the

beginning. It is only when men fails, that women take over.

 

ys Prisni dasi

[Guest guest]

"COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2844707 from COM]

>

> On 9 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

>

> > Therefore I see that I will have to play much more soccer to make up for

> that. (Have fun quoting that one, GHQers)

>

> Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct

> any of his disciples to play soccer?

 

Did he ever instruct them not to?

[Guest guest]

"COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2844707 from COM]

>

> On 9 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

>

> > Therefore I see that I will have to play much more soccer to make up for

> that. (Have fun quoting that one, GHQers)

>

> Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct

> any of his disciples to play soccer?

 

Did he ever instruct them not to?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> In any event, I find it somewhat difficult to imagine our Vedic men-folk

heros

> behaving like a pack of frustrated whiners.

 

If you have the content, then form follows naturally. If you lack the

content,

then it is necessary to whine about the necessity to follow form.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> In any event, I find it somewhat difficult to imagine our Vedic men-folk

heros

> behaving like a pack of frustrated whiners.

 

If you have the content, then form follows naturally. If you lack the

content,

then it is necessary to whine about the necessity to follow form.

[Guest guest]

On 16 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> "COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

>

> > [Text 2844707 from COM]

> >

> > On 9 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> >

> > > Therefore I see that I will have to play much more soccer to make up for

> > that. (Have fun quoting that one, GHQers)

> >

> > Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever

instruct

> > any of his disciples to play soccer?

 

> Did he ever instruct them not to?

 

That is no answer to my question, prabhu--just a typical diversionary tactic,

I humbly submit. But I'll answer the question for you: He did not instruct his

disciples to play soccer. Beyond that, in so many ways he also instructed us

"not to." For, if we even *try* to follow even a *fraction* of the many direct

instructions which he *did* give us, then we barely have time to eat or sleep,

what to speak of wa

[Guest guest]

On 16 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> "COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

>

> > [Text 2844707 from COM]

> >

> > On 9 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> >

> > > Therefore I see that I will have to play much more soccer to make up for

> > that. (Have fun quoting that one, GHQers)

> >

> > Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever

instruct

> > any of his disciples to play soccer?

 

> Did he ever instruct them not to?

 

That is no answer to my question, prabhu--just a typical diversionary tactic,

I humbly submit. But I'll answer the question for you: He did not instruct his

disciples to play soccer. Beyond that, in so many ways he also instructed us

"not to." For, if we even *try* to follow even a *fraction* of the many direct

instructions which he *did* give us, then we barely have time to eat or sleep,

what to speak of wa

[Guest guest]

>>> Did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct any of his disciples to play soccer?

>

>> Did he ever instruct them not to?

 

He wrote "no frivolous sports" on his posted notice to initiated disciples

at 26 Second Avenue.

 

(Check out the header - is this a great match, or what?)

[Guest guest]

>>> Did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct any of his disciples to play soccer?

>

>> Did he ever instruct them not to?

 

He wrote "no frivolous sports" on his posted notice to initiated disciples

at 26 Second Avenue.

 

(Check out the header - is this a great match, or what?)

[Guest guest]

>

> > >

> > > Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever

> instruct

> > > any of his disciples to play soccer?

>

> > Did he ever instruct them not to?

>

> That is no answer to my question, prabhu--just a typical diversionary tactic,

> I humbly submit. But I'll answer the question for you: He did not instruct

his

> disciples to play soccer. Beyond that, in so many ways he also instructed us

> "not to." For, if we even *try* to follow even a *fraction* of the many

direct

> instructions which he *did* give us, then we barely have time to eat or

sleep,

> what to speak of wa

 

Here, you owe one. This could be used to imply we shouldn't play soccer if

you

felt strongly to make such a case.

 

Although we are part and parcel of God, mamaiväàço jéva-bhütaù, because we

have cyuta, fallen down from our spiritual atmosphere... Just like spiritual

atmosphere, Kåñëa’s friends, cowherd boys, they’re playing with Kåñëa. That

is also playing. And here in this material world the boys they also play

football play. But these two plays are different. One is spiritual and

another is material.

9/14/76 VRNDAVAN