Do women get a varna on their own?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

> ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her household

> affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

>

> If not... Hare Krishna Prabhu.

 

In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT EVEN

ONE instance of a man who lived less than 100 years being a manager of

anything.

affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

[Guest guest]

> > Well, if it doesn't then you ought to study the history of India... the

> > Mahabharata.

> >

> > In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT

> > EVEN ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> > household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

>

>

> You surprise me and betray your own intelligence, Prabhu. Bhumi is in

> charge of this whole earth. Mother Sarasvati is in charge of all

> knowledge, art and music. Mother Durga is in charge of the whole material

> universe.

>

> This is not really the point that you should be making, though I think you

> are trying to but get caught up in the debate too much and become

> defensive.

>

> I believe the point is that generally, for MOST women (Read: by far the

> majority) , the roles of mother and wife were considered by the women

> themselves as the most important roles for them because by nature and God

> given body they could perform their duty to help Krsnas devotee society

> succeed. The womans nature and body is so unique and qualified to fulfill

> certain roles that men will never ever be able to do. Engaged thus, women

> have a clear and concise prescription for their duty in life and Krsna.

>

> The roles of management were already filled by qualified men. There is

> nothing wrong in this.

>

> It is not that there were no women in management positions because the men

> were spending all of their valuable time keeping women out of the

> positions. Both parties accepted there nature and followed the examples of

> MOST of their predecessors with voluntary love for their duty.

 

Thank you Janesvara Prabhu... your salient points are well made.

 

The "atmavat manyante jagatcrowdfelt" what I was writing was politics,

but rather I too was trying to enunciate VAD principles as you have so

nicely done above.

[Guest guest]

On 3 Jan 2000, Basu Ghosh wrote:

 

 

>

> You are WRONG.

>

> Not according to me. According to SRILA PRABHUPADA;

>

> > As Srila Prabhupada commented at London in a lecture on July 18, '73:

> >

We have got.... In India we have got little experience. The female is

always controlled. Female is never given the position of controller....

> >

> What "counts" for you, appearantly "didn't count" for Srila Prabhupada.

>

 

 

Curiously, Prabhupada made this statement once in London, but now as Kali

Yuga progresses it appears to have become the only quote of significance

in the repetoires of some.

 

Didn't Draupadi act as treasurer for the Pandava's. I recall hearing that

somewhere. How's that for Mahabharata?

 

Anyway, this goes on endlessly, selective 'sastra hurling', otherwise

known as the blind men and the elephant pastime. I guess in Vedic

culture, blind women weren't allowed to manage elephants, or something.

[Guest guest]

>

> Since "GHQ policies" is a phantasmagorical notion of "anti-GHQers," so

> I'll answer in my own humble name only: "No, prabhu, simply possessing a

> woman body does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP

> or a GBC." (Of course, that you should have understood already by now,

> since there is no record of my ever having said such a thing.)

>

> --gkd

 

Of course as far as I have understood from your and other comments like

Jivan Muktha prabhu this statement of yours "No, prabhu, simply possessing a

woman body does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP

or a GBC." has only significance for those qualified ladies whose husband is

a TP or GBC thus they could be "Co-TP" or "Co-GBC" to their husband but

never indpendently.

All others maybe next life in a male body or in the fortunate female body

who is maryd to a TP or GBC. Isn,t it so?

 

Thats pure caste system consciousness or gender consciousness in my opinion.

But maybe I understood everything you said in a wrong way or you changed

your understanding in this matter.

 

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

>

> Since "GHQ policies" is a phantasmagorical notion of "anti-GHQers," so

> I'll answer in my own humble name only: "No, prabhu, simply possessing a

> woman body does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP

> or a GBC." (Of course, that you should have understood already by now,

> since there is no record of my ever having said such a thing.)

>

> --gkd

 

Of course as far as I have understood from your and other comments like

Jivan Muktha prabhu this statement of yours "No, prabhu, simply possessing a

woman body does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP

or a GBC." has only significance for those qualified ladies whose husband is

a TP or GBC thus they could be "Co-TP" or "Co-GBC" to their husband but

never indpendently.

All others maybe next life in a male body or in the fortunate female body

who is maryd to a TP or GBC. Isn,t it so?

 

Thats pure caste system consciousness or gender consciousness in my opinion.

But maybe I understood everything you said in a wrong way or you changed

your understanding in this matter.

 

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Sorry, respected Mataji...

>

> You are WRONG.

 

You don't have to yeal on the "respected Mataji".

Just say that she is wrong.

 

>

> Not according to me. According to SRILA PRABHUPADA;

 

Now you have started shouting out this phrase of yours

even when nobody is attributing you anything. But others

got to be WRONG no matter what's their point, and you

got to be pushing SRILA PRABHUPADA as your diffence shield

infront you and those others, no matter what.

 

 

>

> What "counts" for you, appearantly "didn't count" for Srila Prabhupada.

 

Again one of your cheap tricks that involves Prabhupada's

name in it. You are acting as if Prabhupada is in your

possession.

 

 

>

> If you wish to accept SP's statement AS IT IS...

 

Again, a cheap trick to provide an illusory sense of

dominance for oneself. Misusing Prabhupada's name.

 

 

> well, it would be really

> beneficial for you...

 

.... oh, "respected mataji" will then get a candy from

Bashu Gosh. But she got to be first aproved by him,

of course.

 

> and if you reject it... which you are fully entitled

> to due as an independent spirit soul...

 

It is a pitifull situation when in argument and debate with

someone, you are grabbing for this cheap trick of being

a "preacher" to your opponent.

 

>

> But do so at your own risk! :-)

 

Another cheap trick -- try to scare the oponent for the

running a risk of being exposed as the one who chooses

to reject Prabhupada, if he/she keeps oposing Bashu Gosh

(WRONG, not Bashu Gosh or XYZ, but PRABHUPADA!!).

 

 

 

Now, in all this application of your trick collection,

you forgot to addres, refute, explain, discusse, argue,

a *single* point that your "respected Mataji" made in

her text. You kept playing your odd tricks on her. So

much so for your "respect" to her.

 

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

On 3 Jan 2000, Harsi das wrote:

 

> Of course as far as I have understood from your and other comments like

> Jivan Muktha prabhu this statement of yours "No, prabhu, simply possessing a

> woman body does not automatically disqualify the person from becoming a TP

> or a GBC." has only significance for those qualified ladies whose husband is

> a TP or GBC thus they could be "Co-TP" or "Co-GBC" to their husband but

> never indpendently.

> All others maybe next life in a male body or in the fortunate female body

> who is maryd to a TP or GBC. Isn,t it so?

 

That's this gist of it, yes.

 

> Thats pure caste system consciousness or gender consciousness in my opinion.

 

An important fact to remember is that unless one is gender conscious, then he

cannot marry and beget children. In other words, who isn't gender conscious in

this material world? Yet those rare souls who aren't gender conscious

generally behave within society as if they are also gender conscious, for the

purpose of educating the masses. Ours is not Mayavada. Krsna consciousness

isn't "all one" asexual, phantasmagorical consciousness.

 

> But maybe I understood everything you said in a wrong way or you >changed

your understanding in this matter.

 

I have no plans to change my understanding, lest it be proved wrong--proved

not by sentimentalism, opinionations, or speculations, but by the three-fold

authority guru-sastra-sadhu.

 

Haribol, haribol!

[Guest guest]

> > In that great history, where the Bhagavad-gita is from, there is NOT

> > EVEN ONE instance of a woman being a manager of anything more than her

> > household affairs. Doesn't that teach you anything?

> >

> > If not... Hare Krishna Prabhu.

>

> I cannot quote the relevant shloka but I remember reading in the

> Mahabharata that Draupadi was in charge of the finances of the Pandavas.

>

> Of course, it is a fact that in vedic culture women are generally in the

> background and usually do not play dominant parts in politics. That does

> not mean however that, under no circumstance, a woman could ever manage or

> lead and that all a woman can do is cook, clean and take care of kids.

 

Prabhuji, even the household activities of a woman require management! :-)

 

The point is that a woman's place is in the home; Srila Prabhupada clearly

instructed that in so many places. For example in Srila Prabhupada's

conversations with Hayagriva regarding various western philosophers &

philosophies he said;

 

> Prabhupada: These are all imagination. When woman, when she is misguided,

> she becomes dangerous. There is no question of love. But one thing,

> according to Vedic conception life, that women and children are on the

> same level, so they should be given protection by men. In childhood the

> protection is from the father, in youthhood the protection is from the

> husband, and in old age the protection is from the grown-up sons. So they

> should never be given independence. They should be given protection, and

> their natural love for father or for husband or for children, then that

> propensity will grow very smoothly, and that will establish the

> relationship with woman and man very happy, and both of them will be able

> to execute their real function, spiritual life, by cooperation. The woman

> is known as his better half, so if she looks after the comfort of the man,

> a man is working and he is looking after the comfort, then both will be

> satisfied and their spiritual life will progress. Woman is meant for

> certain duties; man is meant for... Man is meant for hard working, and

> woman is meant for homely comfort, love. So both of them, if they are

> situated in their respective duties under proper training, then this

> combination of man and woman will help both of them to make progress in

> spiritual life.

 

This last sentence is really something like a "statement of principle"

regarding men & women, no? Therefore Srila Prabhupada clearly mentions

"respective duties" & "proper training".

 

The "Dr. Frog's" within ISKCON do not wish to accept these instructions of

Srila Prabhupada... they will protest that we do not know what Srila

Prabhupada meant here... or that Srila Prabhupada was only talking about

1973 and not 2000...

 

I say "balderdash"! This "dharma", "duties" that Srila Prabhupada describes

here is "sanatana dharma"; it is meant for all times & all circumstances!

 

> In times of emergency, certain vedic rules can be ignored. A

> brahmana can act as a kshatriya and vice versa or a woman might act as

> temple president. If she does a good job and the men under her have no

> problem with it and she does not engage in illicit relations, then what is

> the harm? It is probably less harmful than closing the temple for good.

 

Prabhuji... In the passage from SP's purport in SB 1.10.16 Srila

Prabhupada advocates "pardaa". What do you think that means?

 

How can a women, who is following the "pardaa" (which literally means a

"curtain" or "veil") system act as a TP? "Pardaa" means not mixing in

public & general society.

 

> Shyness is a particular extra-natural beauty of the fair sex, and it

> commands respect from the opposite sex. This custom was observed even

> during the days of the Mahabharata, i.e., more than five thousand years

> ago. It is only the less intelligent persons not well versed in the

> history of the world who say that observance of separation of female from

> male is an introduction of the Mohammedan period in India. This incident

> from the Mahabharata period proves definitely that the ladies of the

> palace observed strict pardä (restricted association with men), and

> instead of coming down in the open air where Lord Krsna and others were

> assembled, the ladies of the palace went up on the top of the palace and

> from there paid their respects to Lord Krsna by showers of flowers. It is

> definitely stated here that the ladies were smiling there on the top of

> the palace, checked by shyness. This shyness is a gift of nature to the

> fair sex, and it enhances their beauty and prestige, even if they are of a

> less important family or even if they are less attractive. We have

> practical experience of this fact. A sweeper woman commanded the respect

> of many respectable gentlemen simply by manifesting a lady's shyness.

> Half-naked ladies in the street do not command any respect, but a shy

> sweeper's wife commands respect from all.

 

A women who acts as TP will necessarily have to CONSTANTLY interact with the

men. And "you can bet your sweet bippy" that it will lead to illict

connections... albeit not in every case. But in many. Look at the

"workplace" and the "sexual harrasment" phenomenon in the west to better

understand what I'm writing about here.

 

If you want to rationalize ANYTHING... well, I'm sure you can find the logic

to do so. But is that how we are supposed to understand things in KC?

 

Aren't "shastra chakshu" and the clear instructions in this regard of Srila

Prabhupada a safer way to understand things? Ignoring the rules &

regulations of vedic society ought to be the exception and not the rule.

 

> Another point is that not all women are the same. Some are submissive,

> very feminine by nature and like to cook and take care of kids. Others are

> of a more masculine temperament and thinking of what to cook for the

> husband and washing the diapers is not always enough to give them a

> feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction. So once the kids are taken

> care of such women want to contribute more.

 

Such women can organize "satsang"; hearing and chanting about Lord Krishna

and his incarnations amongst groups of other women. That's how it's been

done here in India for centuries.

 

> There are some educated, powerful, confident and capable women who are

> better managers than many men. One of my aunts lost her husband very early

> in life and she managed his embroidery factory quite successfully after

> his death. Then her son took over but inspite of his university education

> he steered the company into debt fast. It seems that his mother did a

> better job than him. In my own family also I saw that my mother was very

> powerful and active in the hotel which my parents ran together and she

> was, in several respects, a better manager than my father who was more of

> a philosophical temperament while my mother was very practical and good

> with money.

 

OK. But this is not the vedic ideal. Not by a long shot.

 

I had a "great aunt"; my mother's aunt, who ran a successful clothing store

on the North Side of Chicago... When she died back in '93 at the age of 92

she left a 6 carat Diamond ring to my mother...

 

But the vedic ideal for a woman was mentioned in the Ayodhya Kaand of Sri

Valmiki Ramayana in the instructions of Anasuya, the wife of Gautama Rishi,

to Sitadevi, the incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi, the eternal consort of Lord

Vishnu. Please refer to that to understand better what "sanatana dharma"

teaches that a woman ought to do and how a woman ought to act in life.

 

> Now you may say that this is only going on amongst the mlecchas but didn´t

> Sumati Morarjee run a big shipping company and successfully at that?

 

If she imitated the mlecchas, what was the great accomplishment of that? It

can only be said to be a deviation from vedic prinicples. Too bad.

 

> Sumati Morarjee was an elderly woman. Canakya says that, in old age, a

> woman becomes respected. Why? I speculate that it has something to do with

> the fact that an elderly woman is beyond menopause and thus beyond the

> mental roller coster rides of menstruation. Women and men who are married

> know what I mean. I suspect that the fact that most womens capacity to

> function normally is seriously impeded for a few days during menstruation

> is one of the reasons why the vedas assert that women should not be heads

> of states etc. I also suspect that there is not so much of a problem if an

> elderly woman who is beyond menopause and whose kids are out of the house

> accepts management responsibilities other than taking care of the

> household.

 

And so was Indira Gandhi (She was 53 in 1973). And here is what Srila

Prabhupada said about her in London, back in '73;

 

> Nowadays it is going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the

> position of controller. This is artificial. In the history of India,

> greater India, Mahabharata, you will never find that a woman has been

> given a position of controller. No. It is not possible.

 

Which shows how he was opposed IN PRINCIPLE to a woman being leader/manager.

 

> And are women in management positions really that big of a threat for

> ISKCON? How many female temple presidents and GBC´s are there anyway? At

> best, the ratio will be something like 1:100. No need to be worried. I

> heard that even in the karmi world the ratio of women to men in top

> management positions is not going beyond 1:7. So Krishna´s universe is

> self regulatory. If the few women in managerial positions are so dangerous

> it will soon become self evident. Phalena pariciyate. Or they will resign

> as soon as they fall in love with someone and get pregnant. And if the

> female TP is an elderly respectable woman why she should not be able to

> manage?

 

The answer is given in the quote from SP above.

 

And... "a wise man learns by hearing"; if SP & vedic culture teach us that a

woman's place is in the home... why should we experiment with that? Just as

why is verification needed to understand that cow's dung is pure?

 

Since it's stated in vedic literature, we accept that it's pure & save much

trouble. Buddham? (Do you understand, Prabhuji?)

 

> Personally, I have never lived in a temple run by a female TP.But I did

> see some Vaishnavis manage their own small scale preaching projects very

> successfully.

 

Irrelevant.

 

> By the way, I also like the idea of having a chaste wife who submissively

> and affectionately serves the husband. Which man would not? The problem is

> that according to Prabhupada only she can be a chaste wife who never had

> any connection with men other than her husband and who was trained by her

> own chaste mother. In ISKCON we have many western girls whose mother was

> not a chaste woman to begin with. Many of these girls went to college,

> took drugs, had a few boyfriends and then joined ISKCON. You cannot expect

> such a woman to become the perfect vedic housewife. It is not possible in

> this lifetime.

 

That is their misfortune. If western girls... or any girls are intelligent

and study vedic literatures and Srila Prabhupada's teachings, then they

ought to direct their lives accordingly, no? Then, YES; we can expect them

at least to attempt to rectify. Of course it means difficulty; like the

music school that charges more to teach those who have previously learned

the wrong way.

 

But definately not impossible. "Impossible is a word in a fools

dictionary!"

 

> I once read a passage from Varaha Purana glorifying the chaste wife. I

> really liked it.Subsequently I showed it to a mataji who was experiencing

> serious marital trouble. I thought that this would inspire her to become

> subservient to her husband but just the opposite happened. She became very

> upset and said: You guys simply want us to become doormats, vedic slaves

> who can serve your whims. This girls mother had divorced when she was ten.

> When she was 11 the mother remarried and divorced for the second time when

> she was 12. Later on she was into drugs for a while and then joined

> ISKCON. Soon her guru arranged her marriage and she was wed to a man who

> she never really liked. Naturally the marriage turned out to be a disaster

> and part of the trouble was that the girl, having had an unhappy

> dhildhood, did not want to have kids and an even greater problem was that

> she fell in love with someone other than her husband.

 

Obviously she was not very sincere about the teachings of vedic literature

and Srila Prabhupada. Even if she had some sincerity... it was not very

deep. And we have all seen 100s of such cases over the years.

 

Isn't that why Lord Krishna said in Bhagavad-gita "manushyanam sahasreshu,

kashchid yatati siddhaye" (BG 7.3)...

 

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't preach in the west or to western girls.

 

The point is that we shouldn't compromise with our principles. Compromise

was for people like "Swami" Nikhilananda... who advised SP in NYC to wear a

western suit and eat beef; you are in America now!

 

But, if you wish to rationalize doing "this, that & whatnot"... who am I to

stand in your way? :-)

 

> Why am I telling this story? To illustrate that western girls are

> generally very different from indian girls and you cannot expect them to

> behave as ideally as indian girls. It is interesting to note, that some of

> the men who are most vocal about the dharma of women are married to indian

> women. From what I understand, Ameyatma, Krishna Kirti and Basu Ghosh

> Prabhus had the good karma to get chaste indian wives. That is nice, but

> there are thousands of devotees who are married to western women with no

> vedic upbringing and we cannot expect these matajis to behave exactly like

> Hindu sadhvis. Cultural conditioning is not just an imagination - it is a

> hard fact of life:

>

> "Candidates from western countries should be taught about the renunciation

> of material existence, but one would teach candidates from a different

> country like India in a different way. The teacher (acarya) has to

> consider time, candidate and country. He must avoid the principle of

> niyamagraha that is, he should not try to perform the impossible.

> What is possible in one country may not be possible in another. The

> acarya's duty is to accept the essence of devotional service. There

> may be a little change here and there as far as yukta vairagya

> (proper renunciation) is concerned..." CC. M.23.105

>

> Is trying to enforce a strict rule that no woman in any temple can ever

> take up any managerial responsibility "trying to perform the impossible"?

>

> ys Anantarupa

 

I think you've taken it slightly too far, Prabhu. Here, at least I can

speak for myself, am talking about TP & GBC. There are any number of

engagements for ladies in management within temples; that they can do with

limited association with men. That means managing activities that deal

mostly with other ladies. Got me? Understand? It's simple, really.

 

Hope this finds you well.

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

Basu Ghosh Das

[Guest guest]

>

> The point is that a woman's place is in the home; Srila Prabhupada

> clearly instructed that in so many places.

 

"Dr. Frogs" in ISCKON remember how Srila Prabhupada sent ISCKON

women out onto street to distribute the books and preach to people

in general. He was pleased to hear how they are doing these activities.

 

 

>

> The "Dr. Frog's" within ISKCON do not wish to accept these instructions of

> Srila Prabhupada... they will protest that we do not know what Srila

> Prabhupada meant here... or that Srila Prabhupada was only talking about

> 1973 and not 2000...

 

 

 

Obviously you know what Srila Prabhupada was talking about in

that quote. That is there:

 

"Man is meant for hard working, and woman is meant for homely

comfort, love."

 

Now, "Dr. Frogs" within ISCKON do not have objection to you

having your wife (or wifes) performing only these mentioned

duties, giving you comfort and love. But they object your

attempt to cut&paste this and try to inforce an absolute rule

for every man amd women in ISCKON and this world. "Dr. Frogs"

are also aware of other types of Prabhupada's words.

 

Now what are you doing with that quote of Prabhupad is the

case of "hurling Prabhupada". Becouse you insist in refusing

to acknowledge the existence of those other words of Srila

Prabhupada that other ISCKON devotees ("Dr. Frogs", according

to you) might want to try to follow and apply into their

lives.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada said **both** things. For example, no eduacation

for women and women to be obtaining Bhaktivedanta title and

becoming gurus.

But you are cutting Prabhupada into pieces, trying to hide

away some portions of him, and insisting to be applying

*on others* only those *selected* parts of him that fit to

some intersts of yours.

 

You have filled your pockets with cout-out pieces of

Prabhupada, and you think you got SRILA PRABHUPADA. While

others are for yoy "Dr. Frogs" who are atheisticaly and

arrogantly rejecting Prabhupada. But it's you who are cutting

him and hurling on others, and when others do not want to

"cooperate", then you demonize them as antiVedic and

antiPrabhupada.

 

 

>

> Prabhuji... In the passage from SP's purport in SB 1.10.16 Srila

> Prabhupada advocates "pardaa". What do you think that means?

>

> How can a women, who is following the "pardaa" (which literally means a

> "curtain" or "veil") system act as a TP? "Pardaa" means not mixing in

> public & general society.

 

 

"Dr. Frogs" may observe that Srila Prabhupada sent women out

in sankirtan to mix with in public & general society. That'he

did not object. That he did not insist in keeping every

and any woman locked back in a home.

 

If you can't understnad that women is practicing more of that

"pardaa" when performing a TP or a GBC function among the

devotees back in the Krsna's temple than when she is out

on the street in sankirtana, then what is your point anyway.

 

Prabhuji, you can keep your wife locked at your home,

undeducated, unable to write and read. Fine. That's what

some extreme Pakistani Muslims do as well. But that's

not the model for the every woman in this world, nor

the world is impressed. Namely, it came to attention to

"Dr. Frogs" that most of the violence and abuses of women

occures in the "protected" cirumstances when women are

uneducated and kept in the seclusion at home, away from

the "public eyes"; It is not public & general society

who abuses her there.

 

 

Women got to have their ways of having the influence over

their lifes and the lives of their children, no matter

what. Either on a Vedic way when there is such society,

or on a non-Vedic way where ther isn't such.

 

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

>

> How can a women, who is following the "pardaa" (which literally means a

> "curtain" or "veil") system act as a TP? "Pardaa" means not mixing in

> public & general society.

>

 

So please, how do you reconcile this not mixing in public with the commonplace

practive of women going out on sankirtan distributing books? This was a

common

practive while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet.

 

A women who acts as TP will necessarily have to CONSTANTLY interact with the

 

> men. And "you can bet your sweet bippy" that it will lead to illict

> connections... albeit not in every case. But in many.

 

And the track record of men in this regard? Not hard to concieve that, yes,

women may have problems, but less then the men. How many of the gurukuli

abusers were men? How many were women? The per capita of male abusers is off

the chart, relative to women. All of which went on under the supervision of

male managers.

 

> Aren't "shastra chakshu" and the clear instructions in this regard of Srila

> Prabhupada a safer way to understand things? Ignoring the rules &

> regulations of vedic society ought to be the exception and not the rule.

 

Yes, to me the conclusion Srila Prabhupada came to is quite clear.

 

Conversation July 5 1975

 

Mrs. Wax: Could a woman be a temple president?

Prabhupada: Yes, why not?

 

But as you say, you can ignore that and rationalize any other conclusion.

 

>

> OK. But this is not the vedic ideal. Not by a long shot.

 

When the sannyasis start living in the forest, and wearing deerskin or bark,

as per the Vedic ideal, then we can start worrying about the other segments

of

society. They are supposed to be the ones setting the example. Or do you

expect the women to be the acaryas, and be the first to follow strict Vedic

and

to set the example for the rest of society?

 

>

> If she imitated the mlecchas, what was the great accomplishment of that? It

> can only be said to be a deviation from vedic prinicples. Too bad.

 

Yes, she also deviated from the strict Vedic principle that sannyasis

shouldn't

cross the ocean, when she gave Srila Prabhupada the free ride, without which

ISKCON would have never existed.

[Guest guest]

>

> The "Dr. Frog's" within ISKCON do not wish to accept these instructions of

> Srila Prabhupada... they will protest that we do not know what Srila

> Prabhupada meant here... or that Srila Prabhupada was only talking about

> 1973 and not 2000...

>

> I say "balderdash"! This "dharma", "duties" that Srila Prabhupada

> describes here is "sanatana dharma"; it is meant for all times & all

> circumstances!

 

Why did he then introduce something else than that?

 

I mean if the time place and circumstances didn't matter. Why did he send

women on the streets, send their children to gurukula at the age of five,

seperate women from their husbands in order that husbands should continue

preaching? Why did he introduce the movement in which everybody should be

kind of sannyasi?

Prabhu, I really think that you are here preaching something against what

Srila Prabhupada had himself introduced in ISKCON.

 

> > In times of emergency, certain vedic rules can be ignored. A

> > brahmana can act as a kshatriya and vice versa or a woman might act as

> > temple president. If she does a good job and the men under her have no

> > problem with it and she does not engage in illicit relations, then what

> > is the harm? It is probably less harmful than closing the temple for

> > good.

>

> Prabhuji... In the passage from SP's purport in SB 1.10.16 Srila

> Prabhupada advocates "pardaa". What do you think that means?

>

> How can a women, who is following the "pardaa" (which literally means a

> "curtain" or "veil") system act as a TP? "Pardaa" means not mixing in

> public & general society.

>

You see, you are again preaching something against things which Srila

Prabhupada introduced. Prabhupada put women together with men in the same

temple. Where is then question of not mixing? They are already living in the

same building.

 

> > Shyness is a particular extra-natural beauty of the fair sex, and it

> > commands respect from the opposite sex. This custom was observed even

> > during the days of the Mahabharata, i.e., more than five thousand years

> > ago. It is only the less intelligent persons not well versed in the

> > history of the world who say that observance of separation of female

> > from male is an introduction of the Mohammedan period in India. This

> > incident from the Mahabharata period proves definitely that the ladies

> > of the palace observed strict pardä (restricted association with men),

> > and instead of coming down in the open air where Lord Krsna and others

> > were assembled, the ladies of the palace went up on the top of the

> > palace and from there paid their respects to Lord Krsna by showers of

> > flowers. It is definitely stated here that the ladies were smiling there

> > on the top of the palace, checked by shyness. This shyness is a gift of

 

Yes, those fortunate ladies had a palaces with the roofs. I would

definitely be very happy to smile on the top of a beautiful palace.

But where do you plan to put all those ladies who are right now living in

the temple buildings? On the temple roofs? Even if it is -20 outside?

 

> But the vedic ideal for a woman was mentioned in the Ayodhya Kaand of Sri

> Valmiki Ramayana in the instructions of Anasuya, the wife of Gautama

> Rishi, to Sitadevi, the incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi, the eternal

> consort of Lord Vishnu. Please refer to that to understand better what

> "sanatana dharma" teaches that a woman ought to do and how a woman ought

> to act in life.

 

Yes, when men become as qualified as Lord Vishnu, then definitely we

can get on the case of the ladies that they are not as same shy and chaste

as the Goddes Laksmi.

Do you have some examples of men who are as qualified as Lord Vishnu?

I mean if there are such one's I am planning to start performing austerities

to obtain one of them as a husband. I am serious.

 

> Obviously she was not very sincere about the teachings of vedic literature

> and Srila Prabhupada. Even if she had some sincerity... it was not very

> deep. And we have all seen 100s of such cases over the years.

Yes, but we have seen soooooo many cases of fallen man too. I guess they

have no sincerity.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> >

> > The "Dr. Frog's" within ISKCON do not wish to accept these instructions

> > of Srila Prabhupada... they will protest that we do not know what Srila

> > Prabhupada meant here... or that Srila Prabhupada was only talking about

> > 1973 and not 2000...

> >

> > I say "balderdash"! This "dharma", "duties" that Srila Prabhupada

> > describes here is "sanatana dharma"; it is meant for all times & all

> > circumstances!

>

> Why did he then introduce something else than that?

>

> I mean if the time place and circumstances didn't matter. Why did he

> send women on the streets, send their children to gurukula at the age of

> five, seperate women from their husbands in order that husbands should

> continue preaching? Why did he introduce the movement in which everybody

> should be kind of sannyasi?

> Prabhu, I really think that you are here preaching something against

> what Srila Prabhupada had himself introduced in ISKCON.

 

With all due respect... I think that you are mistaken.

 

In the west the mixing was already there; Srila Prabhupada did not

"introduce" it.

 

And if your personal opinion is the standard, then what Srila Prabhupada

wrote in the Purport of SB 7.12.8... should be thrown out?

 

"Unnecessary association with women, even with one’s mother, sister or

daughter, is strictly prohibited. This is human civilization. A civilization

that allows men to mix unrestrictedly with women is an animal civilization.

In Kali-yuga, people are extremely liberal, but mixing with women and

talking with them as equals actually constitutes an uncivilized way of

life."

 

I think you should change the way you think. If you think that you wish to

be a "shiksha" disciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Kindly open the Seventh Canot of Srimad Bhagavatam to verify if what I've

"cut & pasted" here is there... and then "change".

 

Why should you be "Sraddha devi dasi" if you have no "Shraddha" (faith) in

the teachings of Srila Prabhupada?

 

> > > In times of emergency, certain vedic rules can be ignored. A

> > > brahmana can act as a kshatriya and vice versa or a woman might act as

> > > temple president. If she does a good job and the men under her have no

> > > problem with it and she does not engage in illicit relations, then

> > > what is the harm? It is probably less harmful than closing the temple

> > > for good.

> >

> > Prabhuji... In the passage from SP's purport in SB 1.10.16 Srila

> > Prabhupada advocates "pardaa". What do you think that means?

> >

> > How can a women, who is following the "pardaa" (which literally means a

> > "curtain" or "veil") system act as a TP? "Pardaa" means not mixing in

> > public & general society.

> >

> You see, you are again preaching something against things which Srila

> Prabhupada introduced. Prabhupada put women together with men in the same

> temple. Where is then question of not mixing? They are already living in

> the same building.

 

As Srila Prabhupada explained in the Purport mentioned above, in the west

men & women were already freely mixing and in fact are no better than

animals. His aim was to engage them in the Lord's service.

 

There is a higher standard; how can you negate Srila Prabhupada's clear

instructions in that regard simply because you desire it to be so?

 

Whoever does so is only cheating him/herself.

 

> > > Shyness is a particular extra-natural beauty of the fair sex, and it

> > > commands respect from the opposite sex. This custom was observed even

> > > during the days of the Mahabharata, i.e., more than five thousand

> > > years ago. It is only the less intelligent persons not well versed in

> > > the history of the world who say that observance of separation of

> > > female from male is an introduction of the Mohammedan period in India.

> > > This incident from the Mahabharata period proves definitely that the

> > > ladies of the palace observed strict pardä (restricted association

> > > with men), and instead of coming down in the open air where Lord Krsna

> > > and others were assembled, the ladies of the palace went up on the top

> > > of the palace and from there paid their respects to Lord Krsna by

> > > showers of flowers. It is definitely stated here that the ladies were

> > > smiling there on the top of the palace, checked by shyness. This

> > > shyness is a gift of

>

> Yes, those fortunate ladies had a palaces with the roofs. I would

> definitely be very happy to smile on the top of a beautiful palace.

> But where do you plan to put all those ladies who are right now living in

> the temple buildings? On the temple roofs? Even if it is -20 outside?

 

Do you really expect me to answer your sarcastic remarks?

 

Why don't you stay indoors, engage in your God given duties, and smile there

itself! :-)

 

> > But the vedic ideal for a woman was mentioned in the Ayodhya Kaand of

> > Sri Valmiki Ramayana in the instructions of Anasuya, the wife of Gautama

> > Rishi, to Sitadevi, the incarnation of Goddess Lakshmi, the eternal

> > consort of Lord Vishnu. Please refer to that to understand better what

> > "sanatana dharma" teaches that a woman ought to do and how a woman ought

> > to act in life.

>

> Yes, when men become as qualified as Lord Vishnu, then definitely we

> can get on the case of the ladies that they are not as same shy and chaste

> as the Goddes Laksmi.

 

"And when the rest of the world goes back to Godhead... I'll endeavor to do

so too."

 

> Do you have some examples of men who are as qualified as Lord Vishnu?

 

So this question negates the teachings of the Valmiki Ramayana?

 

> I mean if there are such one's I am planning to start performing

> austerities to obtain one of them as a husband. I am serious.

 

Now here I agree with part of your statement. Indeed you very well ought to

start performing austerities.

 

Lord Vishnu can & will answer your sincere prayers/austerities, etc.

 

Is he not the omniscient/omnipotent Supreme Personality of Godhead? What is

there that he cannot do?

 

> > Obviously she was not very sincere about the teachings of vedic

> > literature and Srila Prabhupada. Even if she had some sincerity... it

> > was not very deep. And we have all seen 100s of such cases over the

> > years.

> Yes, but we have seen soooooo many cases of fallen man too. I guess they

> have no sincerity.

> Ys. Sraddha dd

 

So the question is one of sincerity. Those who are sincere will accept the

teachings of shastras and follow them. Those who don't... kindly consult

the Bhagavad-gita 16.19, 20...23 & 24...

 

"Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I

perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac

species of life."

 

"And Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of

Kunté, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the

most abominable type of existence."

 

"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims

attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."

 

"One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the

regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one

should act so that he may gradually be elevated."

[Guest guest]

> He clearly said that in Mahabharata you will never find that a woman has

> been given a position of controller. But prabhu, we are not living in the

> Mahabharata times.

> Maybe it's the time that you also aknowledge that one. He also said:

> "Nowdays it is going on."

I just read yesterday being inspired by Janesvara Prabhu most of the

Prayers of Queen Kunti. One place Srila Prabhupada writes that in this Kali

yuga a women is concidered very fortunate if she even has a husband. (I was

traveling and borrowing the book so I cant give references but actually the

whole page was very nice on this matter if some one else has the book.)

 

ys. Gunamani d.d.

[Guest guest]

> Why should you be "Sraddha devi dasi" if you have no "Shraddha" (faith) in

> the teachings of Srila Prabhupada?

 

I am sorry, your conclusion does not fit reality. Without faith how and why

should this devotee serve Srila Prabhupada so nicely year after year after

year?