Varna first, then Asrama

[Guest guest]

At 12:50 AM -0500 12/9/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

><< Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant of

> her husband?

>

> ys. JMd

 

>Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get married

>if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is not

>a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

How many brahmacarinis from the 70's remained brahmacarini? Why did

Prabhupada call it "artificial? Actually this question is answered in

section 3.6.1 (Brahmacarini is artificial) of the paper entitled

"Vaisnavism and Social Responsibility" which can be found at

http://www.ghqd.org in both downloadable zip and on-line formats.

 

If you will recall, the above question was stated in the context of

designating a woman's *varna*. Whenever Prabhupada discussed the social

position of women ie. varna, he did so by saying things like:

 

"Woman can become first-class if she is chaste and very much attached to

husband. And if the husband is first-class, she becomes first-class.

Because woman's duty is to follow husband. So if the husband is

first-class, the wife is first-class, if she sticks to the husband.

 

Mrs. Wax: But she can never be first-class unless she has a first class

husband.

 

Prabhupada: No, she is first class by following faithfully husband. And if

the husband is first-class, then woman is first-class." July 5, 1975 RC

with Mr. & Mrs. Wax of Playboy Magazine)

 

and:

 

"Woman reporter: Where do women fit into these four classes?

Prabhupada: That I already explained. Women's position is subordinate to

man. So if the man is first-class, the woman is first-class. If the man is

second-class, the woman is second-class. If the man is third-class, the

woman is third-class. In this... Because woman is meant for assisting man,

so the woman becomes suitable according to the man, her husband." (July 9,

1975 TV Interview)

 

"Brahmananda: She's asking where does woman fit into this structure?

Prabhupada: Now, woman is supposed to be assistant of man. If woman is

faithful wife of the first-class man, then she also becomes first-class. If

she is assistant of the second-class man then he is also second-class. If

she is assistant of the third-class man, then she is also third-class.

Because she is assistant, so, according to her husband, or protector, she

becomes first, second, third, fourth." (July 9, 1975 Press Conference)

 

So when Hare Krsna Dasi states:

 

"Srila Prabhupada also advised that the spiritual master should designate

the varna of a disciple"

 

we can add that Prabhupada designates a woman's varna to be that of her

husband.

 

>I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in a

>"vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are preachers

>and educators. Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

>brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have them

>attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

 

Every human being is supposed to come to the brahminical platform. This is

further discussed in sections 1.2 (Vedic Culture), 1.5.2 (Stricter Policies

for Sannyasa and Brahminical Initiation), and 3.5.2 (Brahmana on Spiritual

Platform Only) of the VSR paper.

 

Ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

At 12:50 AM -0500 12/9/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

><< Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant of

> her husband?

>

> ys. JMd

 

>Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get married

>if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is not

>a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

How many brahmacarinis from the 70's remained brahmacarini? Why did

Prabhupada call it "artificial? Actually this question is answered in

section 3.6.1 (Brahmacarini is artificial) of the paper entitled

"Vaisnavism and Social Responsibility" which can be found at

http://www.ghqd.org in both downloadable zip and on-line formats.

 

If you will recall, the above question was stated in the context of

designating a woman's *varna*. Whenever Prabhupada discussed the social

position of women ie. varna, he did so by saying things like:

 

"Woman can become first-class if she is chaste and very much attached to

husband. And if the husband is first-class, she becomes first-class.

Because woman's duty is to follow husband. So if the husband is

first-class, the wife is first-class, if she sticks to the husband.

 

Mrs. Wax: But she can never be first-class unless she has a first class

husband.

 

Prabhupada: No, she is first class by following faithfully husband. And if

the husband is first-class, then woman is first-class." July 5, 1975 RC

with Mr. & Mrs. Wax of Playboy Magazine)

 

and:

 

"Woman reporter: Where do women fit into these four classes?

Prabhupada: That I already explained. Women's position is subordinate to

man. So if the man is first-class, the woman is first-class. If the man is

second-class, the woman is second-class. If the man is third-class, the

woman is third-class. In this... Because woman is meant for assisting man,

so the woman becomes suitable according to the man, her husband." (July 9,

1975 TV Interview)

 

"Brahmananda: She's asking where does woman fit into this structure?

Prabhupada: Now, woman is supposed to be assistant of man. If woman is

faithful wife of the first-class man, then she also becomes first-class. If

she is assistant of the second-class man then he is also second-class. If

she is assistant of the third-class man, then she is also third-class.

Because she is assistant, so, according to her husband, or protector, she

becomes first, second, third, fourth." (July 9, 1975 Press Conference)

 

So when Hare Krsna Dasi states:

 

"Srila Prabhupada also advised that the spiritual master should designate

the varna of a disciple"

 

we can add that Prabhupada designates a woman's varna to be that of her

husband.

 

>I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in a

>"vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are preachers

>and educators. Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

>brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have them

>attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

 

Every human being is supposed to come to the brahminical platform. This is

further discussed in sections 1.2 (Vedic Culture), 1.5.2 (Stricter Policies

for Sannyasa and Brahminical Initiation), and 3.5.2 (Brahmana on Spiritual

Platform Only) of the VSR paper.

 

Ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 12/7/99 12:40:59 AM Central Standard Time,

> btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

>

> << Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant

> of her husband?

>

> ys. JMd

> >>

>

> Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get

> married if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini

> asrama is not a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

Mahatma Prabhu... I think if you did a little research into this subject on

an SP Vedabase Folio, you might reconsider such an opinion. SP's

instruction above sounds like a "time & circumstance" instruction, rather

than a prinicple of vedic dharma & culture; which seems to be the opposite.

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

> a "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers and educators. Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

He encouraged them to do Deity worship in the home... the distinction was

clearly made by him here in India, where he DID NOT institute women pujaris

in the major temples; precisely because it is disallowed in vedic

literatures. It just isn't done at ANY major ancient temple. Puri,

Tirupati, Dwaraka, Badrinath, etc., etc., etc.

 

"Time & circumstance" preaching in the west meant engaging all in these

activities. "Something is better than nothing" is invoked in an emergancy

situation. But as things progress towards the standards mentioned in

Haribhaktivilas and other vedic literature and vedic supplimentary

literature, men & women's roles are clearly defined... and women are

encouraged to serve their husbands and look after the household, while the

man engages in his duties according to varnashrama dharma.

 

dasanudas,

 

Basu Ghosh Das

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 12/7/99 12:40:59 AM Central Standard Time,

> btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

>

> << Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant

> of her husband?

>

> ys. JMd

> >>

>

> Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get

> married if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini

> asrama is not a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

Mahatma Prabhu... I think if you did a little research into this subject on

an SP Vedabase Folio, you might reconsider such an opinion. SP's

instruction above sounds like a "time & circumstance" instruction, rather

than a prinicple of vedic dharma & culture; which seems to be the opposite.

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

> a "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers and educators. Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

He encouraged them to do Deity worship in the home... the distinction was

clearly made by him here in India, where he DID NOT institute women pujaris

in the major temples; precisely because it is disallowed in vedic

literatures. It just isn't done at ANY major ancient temple. Puri,

Tirupati, Dwaraka, Badrinath, etc., etc., etc.

 

"Time & circumstance" preaching in the west meant engaging all in these

activities. "Something is better than nothing" is invoked in an emergancy

situation. But as things progress towards the standards mentioned in

Haribhaktivilas and other vedic literature and vedic supplimentary

literature, men & women's roles are clearly defined... and women are

encouraged to serve their husbands and look after the household, while the

man engages in his duties according to varnashrama dharma.

 

dasanudas,

 

Basu Ghosh Das

[Guest guest]

[Text 2843828 from COM]

 

At 12:50 AM -0500 12/9/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

><< Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant of

> her husband?

>

> ys. JMd

 

>Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get married

>if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is not

>a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

Ameyatma Prabhu responds:

 

First of all, in my own study on the topic I found mostly that SP only

wanted his female disciples to get married. But, he would not force. He

wrote one mataji asking her to concider marriage, but did tell her if she

did not want to she did not have to. In other words, he wanted them to

marry, and he preached that they 'should', but,, yes, if they didn't want to

he didn't force it. At least that was my impression.

 

And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and in

1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So, where does

Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of brahmacarini ashram is

he speaking about? There were widows ashrams, and mother Deva Huti told me

that SP instructed her, regarding opening such a widows ashram, is that the

seperated or widowed mothers with daughters would live in that ashram to

train their daughters how to become submissive wives of their future

husbands. But, where is any shastric evidence that young girls, 5 and up,

the father would hand them over to a guru to go live in his ashram to be

trained as celebant student? Or even an ashram where unwed teenage girls

go to learn from a guru in such an ashram?

 

My understanding is that SP started it as a stop-gap measure for the current

situations. He originally only wanted to have male students. But, young

girls also came to his lectures and also wanted to stay in his ashram. What

to do? They were living on their own, not with parents - but they wanted

to become devotees, Vaishnavis. So, what to be done? When he went to hold

the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

[i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

referrences right now]. SP considered, if he did not take them in, there

was no one else, so he did so. Also, even though the guru may tell his

brahmacaris never to marry, guru also knows that the majority of men will

marry. So, who will his disciples marry? Non-devotee women? This was

America and outside of those who came to SP, there were no other Vaishnavis.

If he didn't take in these girls and train them, who else would and who else

would his male disciples marry when they were ready for marriage?

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

a

> "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers

> and educators.

 

Vedic scripture, upon which Vedic culture is based, is for all mankind.

Where did SP say that the instructions of Narad Muni to Maharaj Yudisthira

regarding the qualities of a chaste woman and wife only apply to

non-devotees? Where did SP say that his instructions regarding how 'we' are

to train our daughters in the Dallas gurukula in 2 things, how to become

first-class cook and how to submissively serve their husbands somehow not

apply to our daughters but to the non-preachers?

 

> Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them

> attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

Then, what was the meaning of the statement (no time to look up now, so

paraphrasing), when he spoke that his female disciples are not agitated for

'equal rights' because they are satisfied, being Krsna Conscious. He said

that they don't ask him to travel and preach like he does. They are

satisfied cooking and cleaning.... I guess SP must have been in maya

when he said that.

 

Here is where I do agree that SP did make room for 2 standards. The women

who were joining off the streets, who had modern schooling and modern ideas,

he did try to teach them to become submissive wives, and did want to see

they were all married. But, he also saw that some were agitated by their

Western training, so he engaged them as well.

 

Yes, Deity worship in the temples in India is only by men, but at home, it

is the duty of the husband to see that the wife is always engaged in

religious activities. At home the wife can do more direct pujari service.

So, in America, why not train them in this way. But, SP did not allow such

loose standards in the temples in India. Since enough people there

understood the higher standards, SP wanted that in India we also follow

those higher standards. In the West he made some consideration.

 

But, where he made a second and totally different standard was in what he

taught how we must train our daughters. In my study on this all I found

was that he instructed us to teach them the more strict and proper Vedic

culture. This is where he said, in regards to building a girls' ashram in

Vrndaban, that such brahmacarini ashrams are artificial. It was a mistake

to have school for girls, for girls (and he was speaking of our daughters)

there should be no school. Girls should remain at home, trained by the

mother, how to cook, how to sew, clean, take care of babies, serve their

husbands. They don't need big big education for this.

 

I have not found one referrence where SP instructed that our daughters must

be trained to become like men. To become social leaders, or what ever.

But, many times he stated they are to be taught to become first-class cooks,

how to clean, how to sew, and how to submissively serve their husbands.

And I say that this is also what he wanted for his direct disciples who

joined older in life as well, but due to the extra baggage they carried in

with them, due to their Western upbringing, some concessions had to be made.

But, as he spoke in one lecture, and asked his lady disciples not to get

angry with him, but he said that shastra is actually only for the men.

Those who have large enough brain capacity to understand. Those with

smaller intelligence, the women, they must get married and serve their

husbands, but shastra and philosophical understanding, that is for the men.

You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

 

So, yes, Plato, Soccratees, Pythagorus, Kant, Narad Muni, Chanakya,

Einstien, Edison, Ben Franklin, Issac Newton, De Vinci, SP, to name a few

off the top of my head, they are all men. What great female thinkers are

there in hisotry (outside of very unique and special Vaishnavis, such as

Sarasvati)? So, he told his own lady disciples that actually shastra and

philosophy is mostly only for the men.

 

So, yes, I have found really only one standard that he preached, the Vedic

standard. And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

mistake - but, for these older women who were joining, for those he started

the brahmacarini ashrams, for those mataji's he made some concessions - if

they could not fully accept and follow the more strict Vedic standards.

 

ys ameyatma

[Guest guest]

[Text 2843828 from COM]

 

At 12:50 AM -0500 12/9/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

><< Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant of

> her husband?

>

> ys. JMd

 

>Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get married

>if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is not

>a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

Ameyatma Prabhu responds:

 

First of all, in my own study on the topic I found mostly that SP only

wanted his female disciples to get married. But, he would not force. He

wrote one mataji asking her to concider marriage, but did tell her if she

did not want to she did not have to. In other words, he wanted them to

marry, and he preached that they 'should', but,, yes, if they didn't want to

he didn't force it. At least that was my impression.

 

And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and in

1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So, where does

Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of brahmacarini ashram is

he speaking about? There were widows ashrams, and mother Deva Huti told me

that SP instructed her, regarding opening such a widows ashram, is that the

seperated or widowed mothers with daughters would live in that ashram to

train their daughters how to become submissive wives of their future

husbands. But, where is any shastric evidence that young girls, 5 and up,

the father would hand them over to a guru to go live in his ashram to be

trained as celebant student? Or even an ashram where unwed teenage girls

go to learn from a guru in such an ashram?

 

My understanding is that SP started it as a stop-gap measure for the current

situations. He originally only wanted to have male students. But, young

girls also came to his lectures and also wanted to stay in his ashram. What

to do? They were living on their own, not with parents - but they wanted

to become devotees, Vaishnavis. So, what to be done? When he went to hold

the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

[i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

referrences right now]. SP considered, if he did not take them in, there

was no one else, so he did so. Also, even though the guru may tell his

brahmacaris never to marry, guru also knows that the majority of men will

marry. So, who will his disciples marry? Non-devotee women? This was

America and outside of those who came to SP, there were no other Vaishnavis.

If he didn't take in these girls and train them, who else would and who else

would his male disciples marry when they were ready for marriage?

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

a

> "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers

> and educators.

 

Vedic scripture, upon which Vedic culture is based, is for all mankind.

Where did SP say that the instructions of Narad Muni to Maharaj Yudisthira

regarding the qualities of a chaste woman and wife only apply to

non-devotees? Where did SP say that his instructions regarding how 'we' are

to train our daughters in the Dallas gurukula in 2 things, how to become

first-class cook and how to submissively serve their husbands somehow not

apply to our daughters but to the non-preachers?

 

> Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them

> attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

Then, what was the meaning of the statement (no time to look up now, so

paraphrasing), when he spoke that his female disciples are not agitated for

'equal rights' because they are satisfied, being Krsna Conscious. He said

that they don't ask him to travel and preach like he does. They are

satisfied cooking and cleaning.... I guess SP must have been in maya

when he said that.

 

Here is where I do agree that SP did make room for 2 standards. The women

who were joining off the streets, who had modern schooling and modern ideas,

he did try to teach them to become submissive wives, and did want to see

they were all married. But, he also saw that some were agitated by their

Western training, so he engaged them as well.

 

Yes, Deity worship in the temples in India is only by men, but at home, it

is the duty of the husband to see that the wife is always engaged in

religious activities. At home the wife can do more direct pujari service.

So, in America, why not train them in this way. But, SP did not allow such

loose standards in the temples in India. Since enough people there

understood the higher standards, SP wanted that in India we also follow

those higher standards. In the West he made some consideration.

 

But, where he made a second and totally different standard was in what he

taught how we must train our daughters. In my study on this all I found

was that he instructed us to teach them the more strict and proper Vedic

culture. This is where he said, in regards to building a girls' ashram in

Vrndaban, that such brahmacarini ashrams are artificial. It was a mistake

to have school for girls, for girls (and he was speaking of our daughters)

there should be no school. Girls should remain at home, trained by the

mother, how to cook, how to sew, clean, take care of babies, serve their

husbands. They don't need big big education for this.

 

I have not found one referrence where SP instructed that our daughters must

be trained to become like men. To become social leaders, or what ever.

But, many times he stated they are to be taught to become first-class cooks,

how to clean, how to sew, and how to submissively serve their husbands.

And I say that this is also what he wanted for his direct disciples who

joined older in life as well, but due to the extra baggage they carried in

with them, due to their Western upbringing, some concessions had to be made.

But, as he spoke in one lecture, and asked his lady disciples not to get

angry with him, but he said that shastra is actually only for the men.

Those who have large enough brain capacity to understand. Those with

smaller intelligence, the women, they must get married and serve their

husbands, but shastra and philosophical understanding, that is for the men.

You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

 

So, yes, Plato, Soccratees, Pythagorus, Kant, Narad Muni, Chanakya,

Einstien, Edison, Ben Franklin, Issac Newton, De Vinci, SP, to name a few

off the top of my head, they are all men. What great female thinkers are

there in hisotry (outside of very unique and special Vaishnavis, such as

Sarasvati)? So, he told his own lady disciples that actually shastra and

philosophy is mostly only for the men.

 

So, yes, I have found really only one standard that he preached, the Vedic

standard. And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

mistake - but, for these older women who were joining, for those he started

the brahmacarini ashrams, for those mataji's he made some concessions - if

they could not fully accept and follow the more strict Vedic standards.

 

ys ameyatma

[Guest guest]

>

> So when Hare Krsna Dasi states:

>

> "Srila Prabhupada also advised that the spiritual master should designate

> the varna of a disciple"

>

> we can add that Prabhupada designates a woman's varna to be that of her

> husband.

>

Nice that you add that, but are you sure that you understood properly what

Prabhupada ment? Do you know what is varna? Do you know what is a material

body? Do you know what is the difference between a male material body and a

female material body? Do you know what is a soul? Do you know how this

things relate to each other?

Krishna is The One who creates and designates things. I mean, it is

Krishnas nature that we are talking about.

In all those quotes that you mentioned Prabhupada didn't even once use the

word varna. Do you have any quote which clearly confirms your conclusion? I

deffinitely have some that don't, but I don't want to use them. Since, we

are also supposed to understand the philosophy and not just quote like

parrots.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

>

> So when Hare Krsna Dasi states:

>

> "Srila Prabhupada also advised that the spiritual master should designate

> the varna of a disciple"

>

> we can add that Prabhupada designates a woman's varna to be that of her

> husband.

>

Nice that you add that, but are you sure that you understood properly what

Prabhupada ment? Do you know what is varna? Do you know what is a material

body? Do you know what is the difference between a male material body and a

female material body? Do you know what is a soul? Do you know how this

things relate to each other?

Krishna is The One who creates and designates things. I mean, it is

Krishnas nature that we are talking about.

In all those quotes that you mentioned Prabhupada didn't even once use the

word varna. Do you have any quote which clearly confirms your conclusion? I

deffinitely have some that don't, but I don't want to use them. Since, we

are also supposed to understand the philosophy and not just quote like

parrots.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

> Do you know what is varna?

 

I have a harder one: how does Vedic literature define "species"?

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

> Do you know what is varna?

 

I have a harder one: how does Vedic literature define "species"?

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

> train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

> mistake -

 

So those mujahedin in Afghanistan must be prety doing the right thing by

stoping the girls to enter the schools and by sending the woman teachers

home...

 

All glories to your "vedic" culture...

[Guest guest]

> And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

> train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

> mistake -

 

So those mujahedin in Afghanistan must be prety doing the right thing by

stoping the girls to enter the schools and by sending the woman teachers

home...

 

All glories to your "vedic" culture...

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Jivan Mukta Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> ><< Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant

of her husband?

> >

> > ys. JMd

>

 

 

I'm probably wrong in saying this, but I do believe he might have mentioned

they were eternal servants of Krsna. I can't remember the exact quote -- but

I'm sure he said it!

 

ys,

 

Sthita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Jivan Mukta Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> ><< Did Prabhupada ever designate a woman as anything other than a servant

of her husband?

> >

> > ys. JMd

>

 

 

I'm probably wrong in saying this, but I do believe he might have mentioned

they were eternal servants of Krsna. I can't remember the exact quote -- but

I'm sure he said it!

 

ys,

 

Sthita

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

> You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

> big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you

> will not find. All are men.

 

Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

"Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

[Guest guest]

> You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

> big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you

> will not find. All are men.

 

Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

"Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Harsi das wrote:

 

> Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

> "Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

 

"Behind every great man is a woman telling him he's wrong!" (author: some

comedian whose name I no longer remember)

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Harsi das wrote:

 

> Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

> "Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

 

"Behind every great man is a woman telling him he's wrong!" (author: some

comedian whose name I no longer remember)

[Guest guest]

>

> > Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so.. "Behind

> > every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

>

> "Behind every great man is a woman telling him he's wrong!" (author: some

> comedian whose name I no longer remember)

 

What would be Krsna without Radharani, his better half...

[Guest guest]

At 12:48 AM +0100 12/10/99, COM: Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) wrote:

>[Text 2845221 from COM]

>

>> You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

>> big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you

>> will not find. All are men.

>

>Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

>"Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

 

There was Indira Gandhi in Prabhupada's time. And what did he call her? A

whore.

 

ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

> > Do you know what is varna?

>

> I have a harder one: how does Vedic literature define "species"?

>

> MDd

 

I don`t know who you are but this one is a tuff one!

[Guest guest]

> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

> > Do you know what is varna?

>

> I have a harder one: how does Vedic literature define "species"?

>

> MDd

 

I don`t know who you are but this one is a tuff one!

[Guest guest]

> Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get

married

> if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is

not

> a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

First of all, in my own study on the topic I found mostly that SP only

wanted his female disciples to get married. But, he would not force. He

wrote one mataji asking her to concider marriage, but did tell her if she

did not want to she did not have to. In other words, he wanted them to

marry, and he preached that they 'should', but,, yes, if they didn't want to

he didn't force it. At least that was my impression.

 

And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and in

1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So, where does

Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of brahmacarini ashram is

he speaking about? There were widows ashrams, and mother Deva Huti told me

that SP instructed her, regarding opening such a widows ashram, is that the

seperated or widowed mothers with daughters would live in that ashram to

train their daughters how to become submissive wives of their future

husbands. But, where is any shastric evidence that young girls, 5 and up,

the father would hand them over to a guru to go live in his ashram to be

trained as celebant student? Or even an ashram where unwed teenage girls

go to learn from a guru in such an ashram?

 

My understanding is that SP started it as a stop-gap measure for the current

situations. He originally only wanted to have male students. But, young

girls also came to his lectures and also wanted to stay in his ashram. What

to do? They were living on their own, not with parents - but they wanted

to become devotees, Vaishnavis. So, what to be done? When he went to hold

the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

[i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

referrences right now]. SP considered, if he did not take them in, there

was no one else, so he did so. Also, even though the guru may tell his

brahmacaris never to marry, guru also knows that the majority of men will

marry. So, who will his disciples marry? Non-devotee women? This was

America and outside of those who came to SP, there were no other Vaishnavis.

If he didn't take in these girls and train them, who else would and who else

would his male disciples marry when they were ready for marriage?

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

a

> "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers

> and educators.

 

Vedic scripture, upon which Vedic culture is based, is for all mankind.

Where did SP say that the instructions of Narad Muni to Maharaj Yudisthira

regarding the qualities of a chaste woman and wife only apply to

non-devotees? Where did SP say that his instructions regarding how 'we' are

to train our daughters in the Dallas gurukula in 2 things, how to become

first-class cook and how to submissively serve their husbands somehow not

apply to our daughters but to the non-preachers?

 

> Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them

> attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

Then, what was the meaning of the statement (no time to look up now, so

paraphrasing), when he spoke that his female disciples are not agitated for

'equal rights' because they are satisfied, being Krsna Conscious. He said

that they don't ask him to travel and preach like he does. They are

satisfied cooking and cleaning.... I guess SP must have been in maya

when he said that.

 

Here is where I do agree that SP did make room for 2 standards. The women

who were joining off the streets, who had modern schooling and modern ideas,

he did try to teach them to become submissive wives, and did want to see

they were all married. But, he also saw that some were agitated by their

Western training, so he engaged them as well.

 

Yes, Deity worship in the temples in India is only by men, but at home, it

is the duty of the husband to see that the wife is always engaged in

religious activities. At home the wife can do more direct pujari service.

So, in America, why not train them in this way. But, SP did not allow such

loose standards in the temples in India. Since enough people there

understood the higher standards, SP wanted that in India we also follow

those higher standards. In the West he made some consideration.

 

But, where he made a second and totally different standard was in what he

taught how we must train our daughters. In my study on this all I found

was that he instructed us to teach them the more strict and proper Vedic

culture. This is where he said, in regards to building a girls' ashram in

Vrndaban, that such brahmacarini ashrams are artificial. It was a mistake

to have school for girls, for girls (and he was speaking of our daughters)

there should be no school. Girls should remain at home, trained by the

mother, how to cook, how to sew, clean, take care of babies, serve their

husbands. They don't need big big education for this.

 

I have not found one referrence where SP instructed that our daughters must

be trained to become like men. To become social leaders, or what ever.

But, many times he stated they are to be taught to become first-class cooks,

how to clean, how to sew, and how to submissively serve their husbands.

And I say that this is also what he wanted for his direct disciples who

joined older in life as well, but due to the extra baggage they carried in

with them, due to their Western upbringing, some concessions had to be made.

But, as he spoke in one lecture, and asked his lady disciples not to get

angry with him, but he said that shastra is actually only for the men.

Those who have large enough brain capacity to understand. Those with

smaller intelligence, the women, they must get married and serve their

husbands, but shastra and philosophical understanding, that is for the men.

You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

 

So, yes, Plato, Soccratees, Pythagorus, Kant, Narad Muni, Chanakya,

Einstien, Edison, Ben Franklin, Issac Newton, De Vinci, SP, to name a few

off the top of my head, they are all men. What great female thinkers are

there in hisotry (outside of very unique and special Vaishnavis, such as

Sarasvati)? So, he told his own lady disciples that actually shastra and

philosophy is mostly only for the men.

 

So, yes, I have found really only one standard that he preached, the Vedic

standard. And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

mistake - but, for these older women who were joining, for those he started

the brahmacarini ashrams, for those mataji's he made some concessions - if

they could not fully accept and follow the more strict Vedic standards.

 

ys ameyatma

[Guest guest]

> Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get

married

> if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is

not

> a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

First of all, in my own study on the topic I found mostly that SP only

wanted his female disciples to get married. But, he would not force. He

wrote one mataji asking her to concider marriage, but did tell her if she

did not want to she did not have to. In other words, he wanted them to

marry, and he preached that they 'should', but,, yes, if they didn't want to

he didn't force it. At least that was my impression.

 

And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and in

1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So, where does

Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of brahmacarini ashram is

he speaking about? There were widows ashrams, and mother Deva Huti told me

that SP instructed her, regarding opening such a widows ashram, is that the

seperated or widowed mothers with daughters would live in that ashram to

train their daughters how to become submissive wives of their future

husbands. But, where is any shastric evidence that young girls, 5 and up,

the father would hand them over to a guru to go live in his ashram to be

trained as celebant student? Or even an ashram where unwed teenage girls

go to learn from a guru in such an ashram?

 

My understanding is that SP started it as a stop-gap measure for the current

situations. He originally only wanted to have male students. But, young

girls also came to his lectures and also wanted to stay in his ashram. What

to do? They were living on their own, not with parents - but they wanted

to become devotees, Vaishnavis. So, what to be done? When he went to hold

the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

[i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

referrences right now]. SP considered, if he did not take them in, there

was no one else, so he did so. Also, even though the guru may tell his

brahmacaris never to marry, guru also knows that the majority of men will

marry. So, who will his disciples marry? Non-devotee women? This was

America and outside of those who came to SP, there were no other Vaishnavis.

If he didn't take in these girls and train them, who else would and who else

would his male disciples marry when they were ready for marriage?

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

a

> "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers

> and educators.

 

Vedic scripture, upon which Vedic culture is based, is for all mankind.

Where did SP say that the instructions of Narad Muni to Maharaj Yudisthira

regarding the qualities of a chaste woman and wife only apply to

non-devotees? Where did SP say that his instructions regarding how 'we' are

to train our daughters in the Dallas gurukula in 2 things, how to become

first-class cook and how to submissively serve their husbands somehow not

apply to our daughters but to the non-preachers?

 

> Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them

> attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

Then, what was the meaning of the statement (no time to look up now, so

paraphrasing), when he spoke that his female disciples are not agitated for

'equal rights' because they are satisfied, being Krsna Conscious. He said

that they don't ask him to travel and preach like he does. They are

satisfied cooking and cleaning.... I guess SP must have been in maya

when he said that.

 

Here is where I do agree that SP did make room for 2 standards. The women

who were joining off the streets, who had modern schooling and modern ideas,

he did try to teach them to become submissive wives, and did want to see

they were all married. But, he also saw that some were agitated by their

Western training, so he engaged them as well.

 

Yes, Deity worship in the temples in India is only by men, but at home, it

is the duty of the husband to see that the wife is always engaged in

religious activities. At home the wife can do more direct pujari service.

So, in America, why not train them in this way. But, SP did not allow such

loose standards in the temples in India. Since enough people there

understood the higher standards, SP wanted that in India we also follow

those higher standards. In the West he made some consideration.

 

But, where he made a second and totally different standard was in what he

taught how we must train our daughters. In my study on this all I found

was that he instructed us to teach them the more strict and proper Vedic

culture. This is where he said, in regards to building a girls' ashram in

Vrndaban, that such brahmacarini ashrams are artificial. It was a mistake

to have school for girls, for girls (and he was speaking of our daughters)

there should be no school. Girls should remain at home, trained by the

mother, how to cook, how to sew, clean, take care of babies, serve their

husbands. They don't need big big education for this.

 

I have not found one referrence where SP instructed that our daughters must

be trained to become like men. To become social leaders, or what ever.

But, many times he stated they are to be taught to become first-class cooks,

how to clean, how to sew, and how to submissively serve their husbands.

And I say that this is also what he wanted for his direct disciples who

joined older in life as well, but due to the extra baggage they carried in

with them, due to their Western upbringing, some concessions had to be made.

But, as he spoke in one lecture, and asked his lady disciples not to get

angry with him, but he said that shastra is actually only for the men.

Those who have large enough brain capacity to understand. Those with

smaller intelligence, the women, they must get married and serve their

husbands, but shastra and philosophical understanding, that is for the men.

You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

 

So, yes, Plato, Soccratees, Pythagorus, Kant, Narad Muni, Chanakya,

Einstien, Edison, Ben Franklin, Issac Newton, De Vinci, SP, to name a few

off the top of my head, they are all men. What great female thinkers are

there in hisotry (outside of very unique and special Vaishnavis, such as

Sarasvati)? So, he told his own lady disciples that actually shastra and

philosophy is mostly only for the men.

 

So, yes, I have found really only one standard that he preached, the Vedic

standard. And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

mistake - but, for these older women who were joining, for those he started

the brahmacarini ashrams, for those mataji's he made some concessions - if

they could not fully accept and follow the more strict Vedic standards.

 

ys ameyatma

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Harsi das wrote:

 

> > You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

>

> Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

> "Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

 

 

What of Queen Elizabeth I, or Queen Victoria. Catherine the Great was another

prominant monarch. Curiously, this statement attributed to Prabhupada appears

to be culled from a conversation as compared to something written in his

books, which we claim to be our lawbooks for the coming generations.

Conversations, letters and lectures are also important, though they are often

directed to a specific audience according to time and place.