Jivan Mukta & Prostitutes

[Guest guest]

At 23:21 -0800 12/15/98, COM: Gunamani (dd) ARD (Arhus - DK) wrote:

>[Text 1939827 from COM]

>

>>So, men of ISKCON (that are from this category, and eager to

>>have the "whore ministry"), simply pay the visit to a prostitute

>>in the place you live at, and both purposes (satisfaction of

>>your lust & protection of ISKCON matajis) will be served.

 

> How is the ISKCON matajis protection served in that way? They and their

>children may end up with AIDS or other reactions.

> y.s. Gunamani d.d.

 

True. The infection rate among women giving birth in Mumbai municipal

hospitals now is over 4%, which is incredibly high, especially given they

had no risk factors, other than sex with their husbands. AIDS prevention

projects there suggest that the men not visit sex workers. However, since

the men argue that "boys will be boys" and that this behavior is part of a

long standing tradition, they are told that if they can't stop going, to

protect themselves *in order to protect their wives and unborn children*.

 

Please note that I'm not endorsing condom use for devotees. I'm simply

describing what it might require if we go down the path suggesting in the

top paragraph *and* if we are to simultaneously protect ISKCON women from

deadly diseases.

 

Better we let the W in the International Women's Ministry continue to stand

for Women.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 15 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

 

>

> Please note that I'm not endorsing condom use for devotees. I'm simply

> describing what it might require if we go down the path suggesting in the

top paragraph *and* if we are to simultaneously protect ISKCON women from

deadly diseases.

>

>

 

 

I guess if someone has a choice of risk getting VD and aids or using a condom,

then using a condom might be less potentially socially destructive. Better to

not have to make such choices.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> What this "whores in ISKCON" proposal from Jivan Mukta

> has to do with establishment of varnasrama-dharma anyway?

> I suppose we can simply leave it behind our backs. First

> start with figuring out your varna that you are closest

> to, not a whore. "Krishna-varna" can even a prostitute clame

> to be belonging to, se we got no where from that.

>

> ys mnd

 

I think that the prostitutes being there is one thing that noone has to put

any intelligent planning to. It is going to be more one of those, yes,

somehow we tolerate this going on in certain ways.

 

VAD is natural. Like planting a seed in fertile soil. We don't have to

overthink it if we just pay attention to basics. Weeds will come. Sometimes

in

my garden I tolerate certain weeds, lke lambsquarter, because it is also

edible

( please no one read into this that eating a weed is like going to a prostitute

- it's just an analogy!), so also whne society is developing, some weeds may

be

permitted in empty spaces. Not that it is encouraged by letting it go to seed,

that is an act of imbalance with consequences, but even if I am able to keep

all weeds from going to sed within my garden, somehow so many seeds are

dropped

by birds, dormant in the soil, blown in on the wind, brought in with the

manure, weeds are always there. I don't have to make a special arrangement

for

them.

[Guest guest]

> > Please note that I'm not endorsing condom use for devotees. I'm simply

> > describing what it might require if we go down the path suggesting in

> > the

> top paragraph *and* if we are to simultaneously protect ISKCON women from

> deadly diseases.

> >

> >

> I guess if someone has a choice of risk getting VD and aids or using a

> condom, then using a condom might be less potentially socially

> destructive. Better to not have to make such choices.

 

It is definately better to not have to make such choices. At the same time,

if we relate to reality, there will be those who make the "wrong" choices. I

believe that we cheat ourselves if we don't even want to talk about these

things. The more qualified we become to relate to different people's

situations, the more qualified we become to apply practical VAD.

[Guest guest]

> The idea of protection of chaste ladies by having the "outlet"

> for men's lust somewhere else than "home" is to prevent these

> ladies to be molested, raped, sexually misused. Like that.

 

Fr'instance, in NV, they was one alleged case of child molestation by a

teacher, who later got married and then had no furthur allleged occurences.

Had he had a socially allowed (which is not to say encouraged or condoned,

but at least not condemned) outlet for his passion, he may not have allegedly

abused the child.

 

> And, even if in the Vedic society a remarried woman could be

> considered a "prostitute", the same label for another time and another

> type of society might not be applicable.

 

The actual quote that is the basis for this is that a woman who already has

children who remarries is an enemy to the existing child. Not every woman who

remarries, incidentally. The other logic used is that there are more women

then men, so if a woman who has a child remarries, it means there is a

virgin girl who loses the opportunity to have a child.

 

These are considerations in a society where the social structure is stable and

broadly based, unlike our own little bubble which is neither. While they may

be goals that shouldn't ultimately be lost sight of, I think a more important

immediate goal would be to minimise the use of paper money and get back to the

some form of barter system, only consuming things produced by devotees.

 

The GHQ condemns acceptance of Western values, but as long as the primery

economic imputs of the society (foodstuffs, money) comes directly from that

culture, then the values come along with the support. The first step of

changing the value system will be to wean from the economic life support most

ISKCON temples are currently living on.

 

Talk to me of village values for women when the men (hopefully with the help

of the women) have created a village system of support for those women.

Until then, welcome to 1998, Kali Yuga, sink or swim, don't complain that

dry is better than wet.

 

 

 

Narada Bhakti Sutra, TEXT 62:

 

Even after one has achieved devotional service, one should not abandon one's

responsibilities in this world but should rather continue surrendering the

results of one's work to the Lord. And while still trying to reach the stage

of pure devotion, one must certainly continue executing prescribed duties.

 

PURPORT

 

Lord Krsna has strongly criticized the pseudo renunciants who live at the

cost of society: "One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind

dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender"

(Bg. 3.7). Srila Prabhupada states that it is better to work in karma-yoga

(Krsna consciousness) within one's varna and asrama designation:

 

[bg. 3.7, purport]

 

This does not mean, however, that ordinary work is itself the fulfillment of

human life. The karmi slogan "Work is worship" is not the same as working in

Krsna consciousness. But one has to do both: work to earn one's living and

at the same time work for the satisfaction of Visnu, or Krsna. Srila

Prabhupada writes, "Any other work done in this material world will be a

cause of bondage, for both good and evil work have their reactions, and any

reaction binds the performer."

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I think Jiva Mukta's problem is that he was too extreme. I believe instead of

> suggesting a ministry for woman sex workers, he should have proposed

something

> more mainstream and wholesome like; ISKCON Ministry of Women Chearleaders for

> Insexure Vedic Men Wannabees.

 

ROFLMAO

 

However, such a Ministry is unacceptable to these guys, so it should be

orgainised as an auxilliary society, which could be named

 

Hers Encouraging Losers and Provedic Whiners among ISKCON Men Promotional

Society

 

which is such a mouthful we might use the acronym

 

HELPWIMPS

[Guest guest]

>

>

> It is definately better to not have to make such choices. At the same time,

> if we relate to reality, there will be those who make the "wrong" choices. I

> believe that we cheat ourselves if we don't even want to talk about these

> things. The more qualified we become to relate to different people's

> situations, the more qualified we become to apply practical VAD.

 

So what you are saying is VAD or VD?

[Guest guest]

At 7:36 -0800 12/16/98, COM: Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan - USA)

wrote:

>The other logic used is that there are more women

>then men, so if a woman who has a child remarries, it means there is a

>virgin girl who loses the opportunity to have a child.

 

Well, India and China has taken care of that "problem", haven't they?

They're the only two countries in the world that we know of, where there

are more males than females. It's very significant (something like 93

girls for every 100 boys) and there are thousands of females "missing" each

year - demographically speaking.

 

So if we're going to be logical and practical, maybe more Indian women need

to start following Draupadi's example. ;-)

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 8:14 -0800 12/16/98, COM: Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan - USA)

wrote:

>[Text 1941250 from COM]

>

>>

>>

>> It is definately better to not have to make such choices. At the same time,

>> if we relate to reality, there will be those who make the "wrong" choices. I

>> believe that we cheat ourselves if we don't even want to talk about these

>> things. The more qualified we become to relate to different people's

>> situations, the more qualified we become to apply practical VAD.

>

>So what you are saying is VAD or VD?

 

Are they mutually exclusive? No VD in VAD?

 

Yes, I'm getting silly, but apparently the header keeps inspiring us. ;-)

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> Well, India and China has taken care of that "problem", haven't they?

> They're the only two countries in the world that we know of, where there

> are more males than females. It's very significant (something like 93

> girls for every 100 boys) and there are thousands of females "missing" each

> year - demographically speaking.

>

> So if we're going to be logical and practical, maybe more Indian women need

> to start following Draupadi's example. ;-)

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

It is sad and depressing to think of what is happening there, if not ironic

that it is happening in India where the GHQ is so enamored of the culture. I

think the point that in a Coca Cola world, geographical differences in culture

are a relic, and not much longer to be relied on. As the progression is more

Amercianisation everywhere, the application of VAD in American culture will

automatically have benefits everywhere.

 

It was quite visonery of Srila Prabhuapda to see this and come to the US.

 

Still, of course, India has much to offer the world, and I second Alanais

Morrissette in saying "Thank you India" although I believe she is refering to

a more metaphysical India then just the current geographical culture. It is a

question of accepting what is good for American Krsna Concsiousness from that

culture, and rejecting what is bad.

[Guest guest]

> > It is definately better to not have to make such choices. At the same

> > time, if we relate to reality, there will be those who make the "wrong"

> > choices. I believe that we cheat ourselves if we don't even want to talk

> > about these things. The more qualified we become to relate to different

> > people's situations, the more qualified we become to apply practical

> > VAD.

>

> So what you are saying is VAD or VD?

 

I am sure your point is funny, but I dont even know what VD stands for.

That's how it goes when one lives on the North pole.

[Guest guest]

> > So what you are saying is VAD or VD?

>

> I am sure your point is funny, but I dont even know what VD stands for.

> That's how it goes when one lives on the North pole.

 

"VD" = Venereal Diseases

[Guest guest]

COM: Jatukarnya (das) HKS (Cintamani Intl, Oslo - N) wrote:

 

> [Text 1941376 from COM]

>

> > > It is definately better to not have to make such choices. At the same

> > > time, if we relate to reality, there will be those who make the "wrong"

> > > choices. I believe that we cheat ourselves if we don't even want to talk

> > > about these things. The more qualified we become to relate to different

> > > people's situations, the more qualified we become to apply practical

> > > VAD.

> >

> > So what you are saying is VAD or VD?

>

> I am sure your point is funny, but I dont even know what VD stands for.

> That's how it goes when one lives on the North pole.

 

VD is venereal disease, which is sexually transmitted disease which by

following the regulative principles you should never get.

[Guest guest]

>> I am sure your point is funny, but I dont even know what VD stands for.

>> That's how it goes when one lives on the North pole.

 

Unfortunately those nasty little bugs thrive near the North Pole too. It's

called "VS" in Sweden (venerisk sjukdom).

 

>

>VD is venereal disease, which is sexually transmitted disease which by

>following the regulative principles you should never get.

 

That's what millions of HIV infected Indian women thought too.

Unfortunately, unless your partner is also following the regulative

principles you can't be sure.

 

In addition, unless your spouse was a virgin when you met, several

infections could have been acquired prior to your marriage, and he/she

could still be infectious. In the case of HIV, Herpes and Human Papilloma

Virus (warts), these infections *never* go away. If you or your partner

have been diagnosed with one of those infections, you'd better see a doctor

before planning a pregnancy to ensure that you are minimizing the risk to

each other and your child.

 

Bottom line: unless you are both virgins, it's best to ensure that you are

both disease free before you start chanting your 50 rounds.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> > > > It is definately better to not have to make such choices. At the

> > > > same time, if we relate to reality, there will be those who make the

> > > > "wrong" choices. I believe that we cheat ourselves if we don't even

> > > > want to talk about these things. The more qualified we become to

> > > > relate to different people's situations, the more qualified we

> > > > become to apply practical VAD.

> > >

> > > So what you are saying is VAD or VD?

> >

> > I am sure your point is funny, but I dont even know what VD stands for.

> > That's how it goes when one lives on the North pole.

>

> VD is venereal disease, which is sexually transmitted disease which by

> following the regulative principles you should never get.

 

Aha! Then I am suggesting that we go for the VAD and not the VD. But since

there unfortunately seem to always be those around who cannot keep

themselves under control sexually, maybe some VD education should be there,

if nothing else for their spouse's sake.

[Guest guest]

>> Aha! Then I am suggesting that we go for the VAD and not the VD. But since

>there unfortunately seem to always be those around who cannot keep

>> themselves under control sexually, maybe some VD education should be there,

>if nothing else for their spouse's sake.

>>

>

>There's plenty of organizations with a plethoria of material on this stuff, I

>wonder how much we in ISKCON need to make it a priority?

 

I agree that it should not be a priority. However, if someone doesn't want

to get it from the outside, I'll volunteer to be "Dr Ruth" (a sweet little

German-born old lady who answers these kinds of questions in US media).

 

It's better if people get it from their local outside groups who can

provide local referrals, but if they can't or won't do that, please feel

free to to write me.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 16 Dec 1998, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> The actual quote that is the basis for this is that a woman who already has

> children who remarries is an enemy to the existing child. Not every woman

who

> remarries, incidentally. The other logic used is that there are more women

> then men, so if a woman who has a child remarries, it means there is a

> virgin girl who loses the opportunity to have a child.

 

Haribol. Although that's an interesting example, it shows why

the woman would be the enemy of the virgin girl, not the enemy of

her own children; for the latter, a genetic example may be more

appropriate. Although I am not a geneticist (I studied genetics in

undergraduate-level biology and independently for a few months in

graduate school in the context of artificial intelligence), I

suspect that a geneticist would agree with the following assessment:

 

A woman who remarries has no incentive to preserve her former

husband's DNA. As a result, such a woman is likely to give

preferential treatment to the byproducts of her current husband's DNA;

although she still has reason (her own DNA) to prefer her previous

children to complete strangers, she has less reason to support them

than the available or potential offspring from her new husband. In

this way, she performs triage on her own DNA strands, effectively

becoming the enemy of those which are mingled with less desirable

traits.

 

However, the pratyaksha and anumaaNa evidence related to genetics

cuts both ways; the above argument applies equally well to a man who

remarries.

 

Additionally, genetics recognizes cases of altruism. The altruism

may be motivated (e.g. if the current husband is infertile), or

inexplicable. Humans aren't genetic automata, so there's always

plenty of room to express the jiiva's minute degree of independence

in this direction.

 

Yours,

Vijay

[Guest guest]

> Additionally, genetics recognizes cases of altruism. The altruism may be

> motivated (e.g. if the current husband is infertile), or inexplicable.

> Humans aren't genetic automata, so there's always

> plenty of room to express the jiiva's minute degree of independence in

> this direction.

 

In other words, people are the way they are; they care for whatever they

care for, they are all different, and most of them couldn't care less for

what any philosophers would have them to be.