Varna first, then Asrama

[Guest guest]

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

 

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

> comedian whose name I no longer remember)

> >

> How about 'buzzing around every women trying to make an offering of

'external'

> significance is a pack of naysayers who claim it can't be done'?

>

> Actually, that doesn't apply only to woman, when you think about it.

 

Geez, is the JOKES conference the only one where attempts at humor are

allowed? I thought that the word "comedian" above was sufficient to tip off

the reader that the comedian's quoted words were meant as *humor*.

 

OK, I know what to do:

 

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

comedian whose name I no longer remember)

 

DISCLAIMER: The above quote ***should not be misconstrued!!!*** as misogynist

pathology, but rather as a benign attempt at humor.

 

--gkd&

[Guest guest]

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

 

> One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is

that

> they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the fantasy of

> scoring a teenage wife.

 

Interesting observation, prabhu. Perhaps you will provide more details for the

assembled readers.

 

>I wonder if it is better that certain woman stay at

> home, or that certain men stay at home.

 

No need to wonder. It is certainly better for women stay at home, and it

certainly also better if certain men can earn their livelihoods by staying at

home.

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

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

 

> One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is

that

> they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the fantasy of

> scoring a teenage wife.

 

Interesting observation, prabhu. Perhaps you will provide more details for the

assembled readers.

 

>I wonder if it is better that certain woman stay at

> home, or that certain men stay at home.

 

No need to wonder. It is certainly better for women stay at home, and it

certainly also better if certain men can earn their livelihoods by staying at

home.

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

"COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2846027 from COM]

>

> >

> >I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy. Prabhupada

> >jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

> >don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

> >something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

>

> Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

> reflected the state of science at the time.

 

Wasn't this professor Urquarht? What sampadaya was he from?

 

If Srila Prabhupada quotes the TV weather announcer, I personally don't take it

on the same level of seriousness as I do when he quotes saddhus from the

Gaudiya

sampradaya.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

> Srila Prabhu once

> supplied us with more current numbers pointing out that 64 oz is

> actually *gigantic* and not found in any humans. Apparently, the

> male brain size is closer to 46 oz and that of the female about 42

> oz, but as earlier pointed out here, a larger brain does not

> necessarily equal greater intelligence.

>

> ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

"COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2846027 from COM]

>

> >

> >I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy. Prabhupada

> >jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

> >don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

> >something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

>

> Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

> reflected the state of science at the time.

 

Wasn't this professor Urquarht? What sampadaya was he from?

 

If Srila Prabhupada quotes the TV weather announcer, I personally don't take it

on the same level of seriousness as I do when he quotes saddhus from the

Gaudiya

sampradaya.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

> Srila Prabhu once

> supplied us with more current numbers pointing out that 64 oz is

> actually *gigantic* and not found in any humans. Apparently, the

> male brain size is closer to 46 oz and that of the female about 42

> oz, but as earlier pointed out here, a larger brain does not

> necessarily equal greater intelligence.

>

> ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

"COM: Kanti (dd) ACBSP (Florida - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2846723 from COM]

>

>

> ...Mataji,

>

> How many brahmcaris remained brahmacari? How many took sanyasa and remained

> in that ashram? How many took wives and stayed with the same wife? What is

> your point?

>

> The brahmacari / brahmacarini ashram is a temporary one for most devotees

> and the fact that there are few if any brahmacarinis left in the ashram from

> the 70's does not diminish the fact that Srila Prabhupada initiated it. If

> the fact that there are not 50 year old brahmacarinis indicates the ashram is

> artificial it appears that in this age remaining in the brahmacari ashram (

> and the sannyasi ashram for that matter) also rather artificial .

 

A number of the sannyasis who fall down are among our best devotees. Maybe if

we

are honest with ourselves, it is time to reconsider the instructions of Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, as cited by Srila Prabhupada:

 

***********************************

As stated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

asvamedham gavalambham

sannyasam pala-paitrkam

devarena sutotpattim

kalau panca vivarjayet

 

“In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in

sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order of

sannyasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a man’s

begetting children in his brother’s wife.” (Cc. Adi 17.164) Such sacrifices are

impossible in this age due to the scarcity of expert brahmanas or rtvijah who

are

able to take the responsibility. In the absence of these, the sankirtana-yajna

is

recommended.

 

============ REF. SB 5.7.5

 

What is our goal? Maintaining pre-Kali-Yuga Vedic standards, or elevating as

many people as possible to the platform of Krsna consciousness. If the main

goal

is the latter, perhaps an increase in chanting Hare Krsna on sankirtan would

prove a more effective means of reaching it than increasing the number of

devotees we attempt to place in the sannyasa asrama.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

"COM: Kanti (dd) ACBSP (Florida - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2846723 from COM]

>

>

> ...Mataji,

>

> How many brahmcaris remained brahmacari? How many took sanyasa and remained

> in that ashram? How many took wives and stayed with the same wife? What is

> your point?

>

> The brahmacari / brahmacarini ashram is a temporary one for most devotees

> and the fact that there are few if any brahmacarinis left in the ashram from

> the 70's does not diminish the fact that Srila Prabhupada initiated it. If

> the fact that there are not 50 year old brahmacarinis indicates the ashram is

> artificial it appears that in this age remaining in the brahmacari ashram (

> and the sannyasi ashram for that matter) also rather artificial .

 

A number of the sannyasis who fall down are among our best devotees. Maybe if

we

are honest with ourselves, it is time to reconsider the instructions of Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, as cited by Srila Prabhupada:

 

***********************************

As stated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

asvamedham gavalambham

sannyasam pala-paitrkam

devarena sutotpattim

kalau panca vivarjayet

 

“In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in

sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order of

sannyasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a man’s

begetting children in his brother’s wife.” (Cc. Adi 17.164) Such sacrifices are

impossible in this age due to the scarcity of expert brahmanas or rtvijah who

are

able to take the responsibility. In the absence of these, the sankirtana-yajna

is

recommended.

 

============ REF. SB 5.7.5

 

What is our goal? Maintaining pre-Kali-Yuga Vedic standards, or elevating as

many people as possible to the platform of Krsna consciousness. If the main

goal

is the latter, perhaps an increase in chanting Hare Krsna on sankirtan would

prove a more effective means of reaching it than increasing the number of

devotees we attempt to place in the sannyasa asrama.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> > Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

> > reflected the state of science at the time.

>

>Wasn't this professor Urquarht?

 

Yes, thank you. I didn't have his name handy.

 

 

>What sampadaya was he from?

 

Probably a long line of science teachers, each having no problem

adding to the general body of knowledge based on recent findings.

 

>

>If Srila Prabhupada quotes the TV weather announcer, I personally

>don't take it

>on the same level of seriousness as I do when he quotes saddhus from the

>Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

 

Excellent point. Besides, he never said he expected us to, did he? I

remember seeing a letter from Srila Prabhupada to two disciples who

wanted health advice. He told them to go see a medical professional,

commenting that he was their guru, not their doctor.

 

Prabhupada was perfect because he gave us Krsna, because he followed

the orders of his spiritual master, and because he didn't deviate

from the teachings of the previous acaryas in our sampradaya. We're

not following him because he was a perfect meterologist, physician or

biologist. Or am I mistaken? If so, I'd like to see quotes by

Prabhupada to that effect.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> > Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

> > reflected the state of science at the time.

>

>Wasn't this professor Urquarht?

 

Yes, thank you. I didn't have his name handy.

 

 

>What sampadaya was he from?

 

Probably a long line of science teachers, each having no problem

adding to the general body of knowledge based on recent findings.

 

>

>If Srila Prabhupada quotes the TV weather announcer, I personally

>don't take it

>on the same level of seriousness as I do when he quotes saddhus from the

>Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

 

Excellent point. Besides, he never said he expected us to, did he? I

remember seeing a letter from Srila Prabhupada to two disciples who

wanted health advice. He told them to go see a medical professional,

commenting that he was their guru, not their doctor.

 

Prabhupada was perfect because he gave us Krsna, because he followed

the orders of his spiritual master, and because he didn't deviate

from the teachings of the previous acaryas in our sampradaya. We're

not following him because he was a perfect meterologist, physician or

biologist. Or am I mistaken? If so, I'd like to see quotes by

Prabhupada to that effect.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> > One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is

> >that they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the

>fantasy of

> > scoring a teenage wife.

 

>Guru-Krsna wrote:

>Interesting observation, prabhu. Perhaps you will provide more details for the

>assembled readers.

 

 

Personally, I have no interest in the sordid details of others'

private lives. But since Guru-Krsna apparently finds this kind of

information interesting, maybe you could supply him with it

privately? (if you decide to comply, that is)

 

ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> > One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is

> >that they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the

>fantasy of

> > scoring a teenage wife.

 

>Guru-Krsna wrote:

>Interesting observation, prabhu. Perhaps you will provide more details for the

>assembled readers.

 

 

Personally, I have no interest in the sordid details of others'

private lives. But since Guru-Krsna apparently finds this kind of

information interesting, maybe you could supply him with it

privately? (if you decide to comply, that is)

 

ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/99 2:12:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<< I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy.

Prabhupada

jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

>>

Subj: Re: Brain-size 2

97-04-18 00:24:06 EDT

srila (AT) com (DOT) org (WWW: Srila (Dasa) ACBSP (Berkeley CA - USA))

vrinda (AT) aol (DOT) com

 

Brain Size 2

 

I want to thank the contributors to this "Brain size discussion, as they have

raised several cogent points, Jivan Mukta Prabhu, Murari Prabhu and Mother

Sita devi. However, I am thankful that Mother Sita has brought back to the

table the PRECISE reason I started this subconference-- to settle conclusively

this "64-36 ounce" debacle as much as our conditioned natures allow. Then we

can proceed to other points, "What is meant by "less intelligent" etc.

 

Particularly I wish to hear Jivan Mukta's conclusion. THIS POINT IS NOT A "RED

HERRING" except for those who wish to slither away from the issue. THIS

SPECIFIC QUOTE HAS BEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE FOR DEEP-SEATED IGNORANCE AND

HARM TO THE WOMEN OF THIS MOVEMENT, INCULCATES GRAVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ON THE

PART OF THE MEN, AND HAS SEVERELY CRIPPLED OUR PREACHING POTENTIAL OVERALL.

Sincere souls become attracted to participate in this movement when they see

it can separate truth (reality) from illusion. When they observe otherwise,

that our so-called preaching compounds illusion and increases a bodily concept

of life, they shy away -- as many have already done from this conference.

 

This abuse of this quote has become the greatest travesty of Vedic philosophy

since the caste system began. Admittedly, there are differences in the brain

between the sexes. But they are not nearly as pronounced as people think,

especially what we in ISKCON have presumed. Even a preliminary understanding

of gender differences, physiology, etc, this would become readily apparent. A

woman's brain size (ie, head) is clearly NOT half of a man's. The idea of it

seems preposterous. Prabhupada is free to say whatever Krsna inspires him. Our

duty is to intelligently understand it.. or admit there are some things we

will never understand. The general principle however is that we don't go

around repeating what we aren't sure of. Such a practice will only prove our

own foolishness.

 

What I want to highlight here is that a year and a half after Prabhupada's

publicized talk with the woman reporters in Chicago, in a room conversation

with Srila Prabhupada, one senior ISKCON leader repeated how he had understood

this 64-36ounce misinformation: the difference between a woman's brain and

man's brain is, "half the size." (Mayapur, Feb. 1977) That means this leader

had and continued to propagate his misconception amongst all those under his

leadership and thereby expanding a culture of further ignorance.

 

The mind necessarily rationalizes from *first principles,* processing

information, often unconsciously, inasmuch as we possess "intelligence." By

such cognitive deduction, if a woman has "half a brain," how do we treat such

an inferior creature? How do we treat anything with half a brain? (Like a dog,

of course.) Order it. ("Hutt!"). Yell at it ("Bad dog!"). Kick it! ("Stupid

woman"). Beat it into submission. ("Do what I say!") This is where we end up

with such a fundamental attribution error and compounded with bad logic. The

premise itself, "a woman has a half a brain" is the original fault. I

therefore implore all devotees to please correct these insidious

misconceptions and dispel them from their minds. Prabhupada never intended

such a misconstrual of Vedic culture as his "conclusion" about women,

especially about Vaisnavis.

 

Mother Sita wrote:

> People are still making offenses to Prabhupada by rejecting and demanding

others to reject some of his statements.

 

Reply:

It is the duty of a disciple to correct his spiritual master if required

(Narahari Thakura). Prabhupada expected it. Ramanuja accepted it when

dictating his commentaries to his disciple-secretary. There are so many

examples. Even more preliminary to such enlightened correction done in a

respectful spirit is the elementary duty of a disciple to make INQUIRY from

the spiritual master.

 

"In this verse BLIND FOLLOWING and absurd inquiries are CONDEMNED. ONE SHOULD

NOT ONLY HEAR FROM THE SPIRITUAL MASTER, but one must also get a CLEAR

UNDERSTANDING from him, in submission and service and INQUIRIES." (Bg 4.34

purpt)

 

By rereading these conversations about brain-sizes, it's obvious from the

devotees' reactions that it is ourselves, as Prabhupada's naive and immature

disciples, who are guilty for not getting a clear understanding from

Prabhupada on these issues in the first place. Ignorance, naievete, is no

excuse. Therefore, we continue to maintain many misconceptions to this day.

Let's soberly address these issues and then resolve them. I make this urgent

appeal for some sanity.

 

Old ideas don't die easily, it seems.

 

I propose 1) either the information Prabhupada quoted from his teacher in 1918

is obsolete, and/or 2) we don't understand what Prabhupada meant. In either

case, it behooves us to not repeat something that is untrue or something we

don't understand, especially given the extremely negative repercussions this

kind of mechanical mimicry of Prabhupada's words has had. I don't personlly

claim to fully understand what Prabhupada ultimately meant by these quotes,

but it is clear from their result we should avoid them.

 

Can Jivan Mukta Prabhu also admit his inability to fathom them?

 

Mother Sita also wrote:

> There was a more recent study done a few years ago at the University of

> Western Ontario (Canada).

Fine. There have been so many studies since Dekaban's 1978 LANDMARK study.

What does it say? Give some reference please. What is your point?

 

Otherwise, I will be more than willing to go on to other issues, such as what

I understand as Prabhupada's general conclusion. First, let's stick to the

issue of this subconference, BRAIN-SIZE in terms of OUNCES, without becoming

distracted by other arguments (eg, some magical "brain substance" which defies

gravity and our puny attempts to measure it).

 

I wrote:

> >I appeal to the presumed higher intelligence of all male devotees and

implore them to retire these quotes completely from our repertoire of

repeatable knowledge.

 

Sita replied:

> Why don't you suggest that to the Bhaktivedanta Archives?!

 

My Response: What's on file with the BBT archives is not what I am contesting,

HOW WE UTILIZE THIS INFORMATION is the problem.

 

 

On 26 Mar 1997, Murari Dasa wrote:

> Thank you, Srila Prabhu, for your in-depth report on brain sizes. Of

course, I have no interest in studying the size of people's brains nor do I

beleive that brain size has anything to do with intelligence.

 

My reply: It is implicit within Srila Prabhupada's argument that brain-size

correlates very strongly with intelligence (ie, brain-size has a lot to do

with it). It is the duty of a truly faithful disciple, however, to suggest a

need for correction when it is required. Prabhupada, unfortunately, is no

longer physically present (prakrta) to answer our queries. These issues will

continue to be the cause for considerable confusion unless "intelligent" and

faithful disciples can come to some proper consensus.

 

You have rightly addressed the other issue, "What does Prabhupada mean by less

intelligent." I'll have more to say about that later.

 

Respectfully,

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/99 2:12:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<< I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy.

Prabhupada

jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

>>

Subj: Re: Brain-size 2

97-04-18 00:24:06 EDT

srila (AT) com (DOT) org (WWW: Srila (Dasa) ACBSP (Berkeley CA - USA))

vrinda (AT) aol (DOT) com

 

Brain Size 2

 

I want to thank the contributors to this "Brain size discussion, as they have

raised several cogent points, Jivan Mukta Prabhu, Murari Prabhu and Mother

Sita devi. However, I am thankful that Mother Sita has brought back to the

table the PRECISE reason I started this subconference-- to settle conclusively

this "64-36 ounce" debacle as much as our conditioned natures allow. Then we

can proceed to other points, "What is meant by "less intelligent" etc.

 

Particularly I wish to hear Jivan Mukta's conclusion. THIS POINT IS NOT A "RED

HERRING" except for those who wish to slither away from the issue. THIS

SPECIFIC QUOTE HAS BEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE FOR DEEP-SEATED IGNORANCE AND

HARM TO THE WOMEN OF THIS MOVEMENT, INCULCATES GRAVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ON THE

PART OF THE MEN, AND HAS SEVERELY CRIPPLED OUR PREACHING POTENTIAL OVERALL.

Sincere souls become attracted to participate in this movement when they see

it can separate truth (reality) from illusion. When they observe otherwise,

that our so-called preaching compounds illusion and increases a bodily concept

of life, they shy away -- as many have already done from this conference.

 

This abuse of this quote has become the greatest travesty of Vedic philosophy

since the caste system began. Admittedly, there are differences in the brain

between the sexes. But they are not nearly as pronounced as people think,

especially what we in ISKCON have presumed. Even a preliminary understanding

of gender differences, physiology, etc, this would become readily apparent. A

woman's brain size (ie, head) is clearly NOT half of a man's. The idea of it

seems preposterous. Prabhupada is free to say whatever Krsna inspires him. Our

duty is to intelligently understand it.. or admit there are some things we

will never understand. The general principle however is that we don't go

around repeating what we aren't sure of. Such a practice will only prove our

own foolishness.

 

What I want to highlight here is that a year and a half after Prabhupada's

publicized talk with the woman reporters in Chicago, in a room conversation

with Srila Prabhupada, one senior ISKCON leader repeated how he had understood

this 64-36ounce misinformation: the difference between a woman's brain and

man's brain is, "half the size." (Mayapur, Feb. 1977) That means this leader

had and continued to propagate his misconception amongst all those under his

leadership and thereby expanding a culture of further ignorance.

 

The mind necessarily rationalizes from *first principles,* processing

information, often unconsciously, inasmuch as we possess "intelligence." By

such cognitive deduction, if a woman has "half a brain," how do we treat such

an inferior creature? How do we treat anything with half a brain? (Like a dog,

of course.) Order it. ("Hutt!"). Yell at it ("Bad dog!"). Kick it! ("Stupid

woman"). Beat it into submission. ("Do what I say!") This is where we end up

with such a fundamental attribution error and compounded with bad logic. The

premise itself, "a woman has a half a brain" is the original fault. I

therefore implore all devotees to please correct these insidious

misconceptions and dispel them from their minds. Prabhupada never intended

such a misconstrual of Vedic culture as his "conclusion" about women,

especially about Vaisnavis.

 

Mother Sita wrote:

> People are still making offenses to Prabhupada by rejecting and demanding

others to reject some of his statements.

 

Reply:

It is the duty of a disciple to correct his spiritual master if required

(Narahari Thakura). Prabhupada expected it. Ramanuja accepted it when

dictating his commentaries to his disciple-secretary. There are so many

examples. Even more preliminary to such enlightened correction done in a

respectful spirit is the elementary duty of a disciple to make INQUIRY from

the spiritual master.

 

"In this verse BLIND FOLLOWING and absurd inquiries are CONDEMNED. ONE SHOULD

NOT ONLY HEAR FROM THE SPIRITUAL MASTER, but one must also get a CLEAR

UNDERSTANDING from him, in submission and service and INQUIRIES." (Bg 4.34

purpt)

 

By rereading these conversations about brain-sizes, it's obvious from the

devotees' reactions that it is ourselves, as Prabhupada's naive and immature

disciples, who are guilty for not getting a clear understanding from

Prabhupada on these issues in the first place. Ignorance, naievete, is no

excuse. Therefore, we continue to maintain many misconceptions to this day.

Let's soberly address these issues and then resolve them. I make this urgent

appeal for some sanity.

 

Old ideas don't die easily, it seems.

 

I propose 1) either the information Prabhupada quoted from his teacher in 1918

is obsolete, and/or 2) we don't understand what Prabhupada meant. In either

case, it behooves us to not repeat something that is untrue or something we

don't understand, especially given the extremely negative repercussions this

kind of mechanical mimicry of Prabhupada's words has had. I don't personlly

claim to fully understand what Prabhupada ultimately meant by these quotes,

but it is clear from their result we should avoid them.

 

Can Jivan Mukta Prabhu also admit his inability to fathom them?

 

Mother Sita also wrote:

> There was a more recent study done a few years ago at the University of

> Western Ontario (Canada).

Fine. There have been so many studies since Dekaban's 1978 LANDMARK study.

What does it say? Give some reference please. What is your point?

 

Otherwise, I will be more than willing to go on to other issues, such as what

I understand as Prabhupada's general conclusion. First, let's stick to the

issue of this subconference, BRAIN-SIZE in terms of OUNCES, without becoming

distracted by other arguments (eg, some magical "brain substance" which defies

gravity and our puny attempts to measure it).

 

I wrote:

> >I appeal to the presumed higher intelligence of all male devotees and

implore them to retire these quotes completely from our repertoire of

repeatable knowledge.

 

Sita replied:

> Why don't you suggest that to the Bhaktivedanta Archives?!

 

My Response: What's on file with the BBT archives is not what I am contesting,

HOW WE UTILIZE THIS INFORMATION is the problem.

 

 

On 26 Mar 1997, Murari Dasa wrote:

> Thank you, Srila Prabhu, for your in-depth report on brain sizes. Of

course, I have no interest in studying the size of people's brains nor do I

beleive that brain size has anything to do with intelligence.

 

My reply: It is implicit within Srila Prabhupada's argument that brain-size

correlates very strongly with intelligence (ie, brain-size has a lot to do

with it). It is the duty of a truly faithful disciple, however, to suggest a

need for correction when it is required. Prabhupada, unfortunately, is no

longer physically present (prakrta) to answer our queries. These issues will

continue to be the cause for considerable confusion unless "intelligent" and

faithful disciples can come to some proper consensus.

 

You have rightly addressed the other issue, "What does Prabhupada mean by less

intelligent." I'll have more to say about that later.

 

Respectfully,

Srila dasa

[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

>

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

> whore.

>

> ys. JMd

 

I can imagine the headline in the US newspapers:

 

"Is State Department head Madeline Albright a whore?"

 

"Hare Krsna monk, inspired by the guru,s statement about Indira Gandhi calls

Minister of State Department a whore, since she is managing the US Ministry

of Foreign Affairs instead of her own at the stove at home, cooking and

taking care of the "inner management" of her husbands home."

 

What a delight would that be for the newspapers and their reporters, and

what that would mean for ISKCON in the USA one can vividly imagine.

 

Maybe someone from our learned members of this forum can enlighten us a

little bit why and under which circumstances Prabupada may have used such a

sexist expresion in relation to I. Gandhi. Was it because she was a woman in

a management position or did it had also another cause?

 

yours

Harsi das

[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

>

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

> whore.

>

> ys. JMd

 

I can imagine the headline in the US newspapers:

 

"Is State Department head Madeline Albright a whore?"

 

"Hare Krsna monk, inspired by the guru,s statement about Indira Gandhi calls

Minister of State Department a whore, since she is managing the US Ministry

of Foreign Affairs instead of her own at the stove at home, cooking and

taking care of the "inner management" of her husbands home."

 

What a delight would that be for the newspapers and their reporters, and

what that would mean for ISKCON in the USA one can vividly imagine.

 

Maybe someone from our learned members of this forum can enlighten us a

little bit why and under which circumstances Prabupada may have used such a

sexist expresion in relation to I. Gandhi. Was it because she was a woman in

a management position or did it had also another cause?

 

yours

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/1999 8:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

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

> whore.

 

But was that because she was Prime Minister or because she was indeed a

whore? Your assumption that one automatically equals the other is, as usual,

astounding. ys, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/1999 8:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

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

> whore.

 

But was that because she was Prime Minister or because she was indeed a

whore? Your assumption that one automatically equals the other is, as usual,

astounding. ys, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

At 2:04 AM -0500 12/10/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

>Prabhupada acknowledged that some women would not want to marry and thus did

>not force them to marry. This has nothing to do with how many women remained

>brahmacarinis. It was an allowance for those who wanted to do it. And some

>did it and are still doing well to this day.

 

Mahatma Prabhu, you had made the point that Prabhupada did not always

designate women as servants of their husbands; that they were sometimes

trained to be brahmacarinis and brahmanas. However, most, if not all women

who became brahmacarinis in Prabhupada's time were not virgins and were

living independently. To say some of these women have remained single to

this day is not proof that the brahmacarini asrama is not "artificial" nor

is it proof that Prabhupada wanted women in ISKCON to be trained as

brahmanas. If Prabhupada had wanted that, he would have allowed women to

attend varnasrama college. Prabhupada made allowances, yes, but he also

wanted us to more forward with the next generation. Are we in agreement

here?

 

Ys, Sdd

Here are a couple of quotes for those who are interested:

 

Prabhupada: Woman brahmacarini, this is artificial.

Tamala Krsna: In our centers, though, there are so many brahmacarinis, and

even sometimes they're encouraged to remain brahmacarini.

Prabhupada: That they cannot. As soon as they will find opportunity, they

will become vyabhicarini.

Tamala Krsna: They'll become what?

Prabhupada: Vyabhicarini. For woman, protection.

Tamala Krsna: So you don't advocate this remaining sing..., these women

remaining brahmacarinis.

Prabhupada: Therefore polygamy was allowed. Let them be taken care of, one

husband, three wives. Therefore the ksatriyas were taking hundreds of

women. They had money. (Morning Conversation April 29, 1977, Bombay)

 

Prabhupada: Actually, there is no... Brahmacarini is not allowed in the

sastra. Where is the question of brahmacarini? Because according to Vedic

system, as soon as a girl is fourteen years old or sixteen years old, she

is at once married. According to Vedic system, no girl should be allowed

remaining unmarried. So there is no question of brahmacarini. Every girl is

supposed to be married. That is the Vedic system. A father's duty is that

as soon as the girl is grown up, she must be married. She must be given in

charge of a suitable boy. That is Vedic system.

Striyah sudras tatha vaisyah. A woman is meant for being protected. So long

she is not young, she is under the protection of the father. And as soon as

she is young, she is given in charge, in charity. Kanya-dana. Dana means

charity. He should find out some suitable boys and give in charity: "My

dear boy, take charge of this girl. So long she was under my charge. Now it

is under your charge." So where is the brahmacarini? There is no question

of brahmacarini. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.1.2-5 Montreal, October 23, 1968)

[Guest guest]

At 2:04 AM -0500 12/10/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

>Prabhupada acknowledged that some women would not want to marry and thus did

>not force them to marry. This has nothing to do with how many women remained

>brahmacarinis. It was an allowance for those who wanted to do it. And some

>did it and are still doing well to this day.

 

Mahatma Prabhu, you had made the point that Prabhupada did not always

designate women as servants of their husbands; that they were sometimes

trained to be brahmacarinis and brahmanas. However, most, if not all women

who became brahmacarinis in Prabhupada's time were not virgins and were

living independently. To say some of these women have remained single to

this day is not proof that the brahmacarini asrama is not "artificial" nor

is it proof that Prabhupada wanted women in ISKCON to be trained as

brahmanas. If Prabhupada had wanted that, he would have allowed women to

attend varnasrama college. Prabhupada made allowances, yes, but he also

wanted us to more forward with the next generation. Are we in agreement

here?

 

Ys, Sdd

Here are a couple of quotes for those who are interested:

 

Prabhupada: Woman brahmacarini, this is artificial.

Tamala Krsna: In our centers, though, there are so many brahmacarinis, and

even sometimes they're encouraged to remain brahmacarini.

Prabhupada: That they cannot. As soon as they will find opportunity, they

will become vyabhicarini.

Tamala Krsna: They'll become what?

Prabhupada: Vyabhicarini. For woman, protection.

Tamala Krsna: So you don't advocate this remaining sing..., these women

remaining brahmacarinis.

Prabhupada: Therefore polygamy was allowed. Let them be taken care of, one

husband, three wives. Therefore the ksatriyas were taking hundreds of

women. They had money. (Morning Conversation April 29, 1977, Bombay)

 

Prabhupada: Actually, there is no... Brahmacarini is not allowed in the

sastra. Where is the question of brahmacarini? Because according to Vedic

system, as soon as a girl is fourteen years old or sixteen years old, she

is at once married. According to Vedic system, no girl should be allowed

remaining unmarried. So there is no question of brahmacarini. Every girl is

supposed to be married. That is the Vedic system. A father's duty is that

as soon as the girl is grown up, she must be married. She must be given in

charge of a suitable boy. That is Vedic system.

Striyah sudras tatha vaisyah. A woman is meant for being protected. So long

she is not young, she is under the protection of the father. And as soon as

she is young, she is given in charge, in charity. Kanya-dana. Dana means

charity. He should find out some suitable boys and give in charity: "My

dear boy, take charge of this girl. So long she was under my charge. Now it

is under your charge." So where is the brahmacarini? There is no question

of brahmacarini. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.1.2-5 Montreal, October 23, 1968)

[Guest guest]

COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

 

> [Text 2845423 from COM]

>

> > 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.

>

> 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].

 

The history is that Srila Prabhupada gave women first initiation. Then when it

came time for second initiations he gave it to the men one day, the women the

next. The women did not plead for him for first or second initiation.

[Guest guest]

COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

 

> [Text 2845423 from COM]

>

> > 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.

>

> 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].

 

The history is that Srila Prabhupada gave women first initiation. Then when it

came time for second initiations he gave it to the men one day, the women the

next. The women did not plead for him for first or second initiation.

[Guest guest]

>In a message dated 12/10/99 2:12:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

> BTW, I

> don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

> something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

Whether or not a woman's brain is 34 ounces or less is a detail and not the

principle Prabhupada was trying to convey. One can easily pick up that

principle in the following conversation. The truth inherent in Prabhupada's

statement is valid even if scientists disprove the brain sizes he gave.

 

Prabhupada: All right, trying. But you women, you cannot see that this

so-called equal right means cheating the woman. Now I say more clearly that

a woman and man meets. Now they become lover. Then they have sex, and the

woman becomes pregnant, and the man goes away. The simple woman, she has to

take charge of the child and beg from government alms, "Please give me

money." This is your independence. Do you admit this is independence, that

the man makes the woman pregnant and he goes away without any

responsibility, and the woman cannot give up the child, she maintains,

begging from the government or she tries to kill the child? Do you think it

is very good independence? What is your answer?

Woman: To... Whether or not it is good to kill a child? Is that the question?

Prabhupäda: Yes, they are killing now, abortion.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: He wants to know that kind of independence.

Woman: For the child?

Ravéndra-svarüpa: For the woman.

Prabhupäda: For the woman.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: This is liberation. She has an affair with a man, and she

gets pregnant. The man leaves. Then she has to beg alms from the government

to support the child...

Prabhupäda: Or kill.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: Or she kills the child. So is that good or bad?

Woman: Well, she has made the choice to have...

Prabhupäda: That means, *that is 34 ounce*. You have made your choice to

kill your own child. Is that very good choice?

Sandy Nixon: It's the worst crime you could commit.

Jayatértha: Her brain is getting larger. (laughter)

Prabhupäda: Do you think it is very good business?

Woman: I think this is a very complicated question.

Prabhupäda: Therefore I say they are cheating you in the name of

independence. That you do not understand. *Therefore 34 ounce.* They are

cheating you, and you are thinking you are independent. (Room Conversation

with writer, Sandy Nixon, July 13, 1975, Philadelphia)

[Guest guest]

>In a message dated 12/10/99 2:12:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

> BTW, I

> don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

> something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

Whether or not a woman's brain is 34 ounces or less is a detail and not the

principle Prabhupada was trying to convey. One can easily pick up that

principle in the following conversation. The truth inherent in Prabhupada's

statement is valid even if scientists disprove the brain sizes he gave.

 

Prabhupada: All right, trying. But you women, you cannot see that this

so-called equal right means cheating the woman. Now I say more clearly that

a woman and man meets. Now they become lover. Then they have sex, and the

woman becomes pregnant, and the man goes away. The simple woman, she has to

take charge of the child and beg from government alms, "Please give me

money." This is your independence. Do you admit this is independence, that

the man makes the woman pregnant and he goes away without any

responsibility, and the woman cannot give up the child, she maintains,

begging from the government or she tries to kill the child? Do you think it

is very good independence? What is your answer?

Woman: To... Whether or not it is good to kill a child? Is that the question?

Prabhupäda: Yes, they are killing now, abortion.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: He wants to know that kind of independence.

Woman: For the child?

Ravéndra-svarüpa: For the woman.

Prabhupäda: For the woman.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: This is liberation. She has an affair with a man, and she

gets pregnant. The man leaves. Then she has to beg alms from the government

to support the child...

Prabhupäda: Or kill.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: Or she kills the child. So is that good or bad?

Woman: Well, she has made the choice to have...

Prabhupäda: That means, *that is 34 ounce*. You have made your choice to

kill your own child. Is that very good choice?

Sandy Nixon: It's the worst crime you could commit.

Jayatértha: Her brain is getting larger. (laughter)

Prabhupäda: Do you think it is very good business?

Woman: I think this is a very complicated question.

Prabhupäda: Therefore I say they are cheating you in the name of

independence. That you do not understand. *Therefore 34 ounce.* They are

cheating you, and you are thinking you are independent. (Room Conversation

with writer, Sandy Nixon, July 13, 1975, Philadelphia)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/99 3:01:55 PM Central Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

<< Mahatma Prabhu, you had made the point that Prabhupada did not always

designate women as servants of their husbands; that they were sometimes

trained to be brahmacarinis and brahmanas. However, most, if not all women

who became brahmacarinis in Prabhupada's time were not virgins and were

living independently. To say some of these women have remained single to

this day is not proof that the brahmacarini asrama is not "artificial" nor

is it proof that Prabhupada wanted women in ISKCON to be trained as

brahmanas. If Prabhupada had wanted that, he would have allowed women to

attend varnasrama college. Prabhupada made allowances, yes, but he also

wanted us to more forward with the next generation. Are we in agreement

here?

>>

 

I think the problem is that Iskcon will always have women who want to join.

So will we allow them to join and be trained as devotees or will we say you

have to be married because this is your nature and living in the temple is

artificial? I don't suspect that most preachers would feel right doing this,

at least not in the West.

 

What do you think we should preach to women because when one goes out to

preach, one will certainly meet women. And if they get a book they may be

encouraged to move into a temple.

 

Within a vedic social structure things would be different. You mentioend that

Prabhupada said a brahmacarini asrama was artificial, but still he created it

because he wanted to give women shelter. Do you suppose today he would not

want to give them that shelter?

 

But as I said on another post, even if we try to raise our children to the

ideal vedic standard, it may not completely work without a vedic social

system in place. In fact, it may backfire since they are surrounded by

antithetical views in western society. Often children raised in devout

religious families completely reject their parents religion because they were

given more of it than they wanted. Obvioiusly, we are not immune to these

problems.

 

So when devotees talk of strictly adhereing to vedic principles while living

in the midst of a non vedic social system, I don't see how it can be

entirely possible unless they create a vedic village and do not mix with the

secular society.Because this was not the case, Prabhupada made adjustments.

Yet at the same time, he preached the vedic ideal. Now if any devotees can

show how to make the ideal work, hats off to them. And this would be the

stongest argument for their cae and cause.

 

And it is important to note that in some cases this attempt has produced

contradictory results. Many arranged marriages didn't work, our gurukulas

have been great failures, and the list goes on. So many compotents are needed

to make the vedic social model a success. And if those components are not

there, it can backfire.

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/99 3:01:55 PM Central Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

<< Mahatma Prabhu, you had made the point that Prabhupada did not always

designate women as servants of their husbands; that they were sometimes

trained to be brahmacarinis and brahmanas. However, most, if not all women

who became brahmacarinis in Prabhupada's time were not virgins and were

living independently. To say some of these women have remained single to

this day is not proof that the brahmacarini asrama is not "artificial" nor

is it proof that Prabhupada wanted women in ISKCON to be trained as

brahmanas. If Prabhupada had wanted that, he would have allowed women to

attend varnasrama college. Prabhupada made allowances, yes, but he also

wanted us to more forward with the next generation. Are we in agreement

here?

>>

 

I think the problem is that Iskcon will always have women who want to join.

So will we allow them to join and be trained as devotees or will we say you

have to be married because this is your nature and living in the temple is

artificial? I don't suspect that most preachers would feel right doing this,

at least not in the West.

 

What do you think we should preach to women because when one goes out to

preach, one will certainly meet women. And if they get a book they may be

encouraged to move into a temple.

 

Within a vedic social structure things would be different. You mentioend that

Prabhupada said a brahmacarini asrama was artificial, but still he created it

because he wanted to give women shelter. Do you suppose today he would not

want to give them that shelter?

 

But as I said on another post, even if we try to raise our children to the

ideal vedic standard, it may not completely work without a vedic social

system in place. In fact, it may backfire since they are surrounded by

antithetical views in western society. Often children raised in devout

religious families completely reject their parents religion because they were

given more of it than they wanted. Obvioiusly, we are not immune to these

problems.

 

So when devotees talk of strictly adhereing to vedic principles while living

in the midst of a non vedic social system, I don't see how it can be

entirely possible unless they create a vedic village and do not mix with the

secular society.Because this was not the case, Prabhupada made adjustments.

Yet at the same time, he preached the vedic ideal. Now if any devotees can

show how to make the ideal work, hats off to them. And this would be the

stongest argument for their cae and cause.

 

And it is important to note that in some cases this attempt has produced

contradictory results. Many arranged marriages didn't work, our gurukulas

have been great failures, and the list goes on. So many compotents are needed

to make the vedic social model a success. And if those components are not

there, it can backfire.

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa