Guest guest Posted October 30, 2000 Report Share Posted October 30, 2000 >All I was trying to say was that you can't have two different >approaches when determining who is to be accepted and who not into >managing positions. Could you please elaborate what these "two different approaches" are? Do you think that I have been advocating women on the GBC? Whatever happened to the "no mental speculation" ideal? >So that for those dressed in saffron it isn't OK >(because it's against their sva-dharma) and for those dressed in saris >it is OK (because they are not the bodies and are acting on the >spiritual platform). Again, do you think that I said something like this? Please supply a quote or a retraction. I think that you have read something into what I wrote that was not there. >On that way, you can only bring your own >restructuring attempt into jeopardizing position, so those >sannyasis that "are attached and will not give up their positions" >(in your wording) and their supporters/followers will sinply laugh >on. And you will still not win the argument against GHQ-folk like >that. I am not a politician, so I don't jeopardize anything! I speak according to my heart, not according to what I can gain. You may agree or not, but it's my 5 decades worth of realization. If you would have lived my life you would have a totally different opinion about women. One of the leaders of the GHQ, his mother abandoned him when he was a child. My mother sacrificed her own life to give me a good one when my father abandoned the family to pursue his own enjoyment. She never remarried and I never saw her with another man. She took the role of mother and father and supported the family by working 14 hours a day. Please explain how you will fit her into your "Vedic woman" category? It's obvious that many "men" cannot support their families and the women are doing double duty. It's very rare to find "men" doing double duty. Krishna clearly says pandita sama darsinah...the chanting of Hare Krishna brings this transcendental vision. As for your "GHQ-folk" let tham rant and rave. How can they disturb my devotional service? Can you explain? And those that "simply laugh on" would be better off becoming more serious about chanting Hare Krishna. Then they will also develop a transcendental vision. But where there is no chanting there is also Vaishnava aparadha. >I have just voted for Sri >Rama prabhu's proposal (which is quite close to yours). That means I >find it OK and I support it, basically, right? Actually, it is my proposal. He suggested we change a few parts and we reworked some wording. yours in devotional service, vaiyasaki dasa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2000 Report Share Posted October 31, 2000 Hare Krishna. I'm transferring this discussion to GBC Unmoderated, as it is drifting off the relevant varnashrama issues. Your servant, Sri Rama das Conference Moderator | |Vaiyasaki.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Vaiyasaki.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net] |Monday, October 30, 2000 1:49 PM |Srirama (das) ACBSP; Kunti-Devi (dd) HDG (Berkeley - USA); Mahanidhi |(das) (S) |Re: By popular demand. | | |>All I was trying to say was that you can't have two different |>approaches when determining who is to be accepted and who not into |>managing positions. | |Could you please elaborate what these "two different approaches" are? Do you |think that I have been advocating women on the GBC? Whatever happened to |the "no mental speculation" ideal? | |>So that for those dressed in saffron it isn't OK |>(because it's against their sva-dharma) and for those dressed in saris |>it is OK (because they are not the bodies and are acting on the |>spiritual platform). | |Again, do you think that I said something like this? Please supply a quote |or a retraction. I think that you have read something into what I wrote that |was not there. | |>On that way, you can only bring your own |>restructuring attempt into jeopardizing position, so those |>sannyasis that "are attached and will not give up their positions" |>(in your wording) and their supporters/followers will sinply laugh |>on. And you will still not win the argument against GHQ-folk like |>that. | |I am not a politician, so I don't jeopardize anything! I speak according to |my heart, not according to what I can gain. You may agree or not, but it's |my 5 decades worth of realization. | |If you would have lived my life you would have a totally different opinion |about women. One of the leaders of the GHQ, his mother abandoned him when he |was a child. My mother sacrificed her own life to give me a good one when my |father abandoned the family to pursue his own enjoyment. She never remarried |and I never saw her with another man. She took the role of mother and father |and supported the family by working 14 hours a day. Please explain how you |will fit her into your "Vedic woman" category? It's obvious that many "men" |cannot support their families and the women are doing double duty. It's very |rare to find "men" doing double duty. Krishna clearly says pandita sama |darsinah...the chanting of Hare Krishna brings this transcendental vision. | |As for your "GHQ-folk" let tham rant and rave. How can they disturb my |devotional service? Can you explain? And those that "simply laugh on" would |be better off becoming more serious about chanting Hare Krishna. Then they |will also develop a transcendental vision. But where there is no chanting |there is also Vaishnava aparadha. | |>I have just voted for Sri |>Rama prabhu's proposal (which is quite close to yours). That means I |>find it OK and I support it, basically, right? | |Actually, it is my proposal. He suggested we change a few parts and we |reworked some wording. | |yours in devotional service, vaiyasaki dasa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2000 Report Share Posted October 31, 2000 > > Could you please elaborate what these "two different approaches" are? Do > you think that I have been advocating women on the GBC? Whatever happened > to the "no mental speculation" ideal? One approach is to determine the type of one's activities according to the person's varna&asrama. The other one is a transcendental approach that transgresses the first one; the performer is seen as a spirit soul and not a body, and the activity is spiritual, hence any person may perform any service regardless of color or type of robes, or what asrama or kind of body one is in. I have already repeatedly explained my point and told you what I thought. You are not being consistent. For sannyasis, you are advocating the division of activities as prescribed to that particular asram according to the principles of Vedic varnasrama dharma. And then right away, when the issue of women's position in ISCKON pooped up, you are advocating "transgression of the Vedic tradition" and transcendental approach "we are not this body". > > >So that for those dressed in saffron it isn't OK > >(because it's against their sva-dharma) and for those dressed in saris > >it is OK (because they are not the bodies and are acting on the > >spiritual platform). > > Again, do you think that I said something like this? Please supply a quote > or a retraction. I think that you have read something into what I wrote > that was not there. I have just explained above what I think. > > I am not a politician, so I don't jeopardize anything! I speak according > to my heart, not according to what I can gain. You may agree or not, but > it's my 5 decades worth of realization. Sorry, I was not aware of that only a politician is capable of jeopardizing one's own position. OK, now I must understand that the people over 50 who speak from heart are immune of such thing. > > If you would have lived my life you would have a totally different opinion > about women. What do you know about my opinion about women. > My mother sacrificed her own life to give me a good one when my > father abandoned the family to pursue his own enjoyment. She never > remarried and I never saw her with another man. She took the role of > mother and father and supported the family by working 14 hours a day. > Please explain how you will fit her into your "Vedic woman" category? I don't care for "Vedic woman" category. Ask those who made it up. > As for your "GHQ-folk" let tham rant and rave. How can they disturb my > devotional service? Can you explain? But let's assume that not everybody in ISCKON is living the life of one Vaiyasaki das whose devotional service can't be undisturbed by GHQ's preaching. Also, you can stay assured that there is for certain at least someone here whose devotional service can't be disturbed by a sannyasi based GBC (it could be even Vaiyasaki das himself), so why bother anything about restructuring it. Let them go as they like. > > Actually, it is my proposal. He suggested we change a few parts and we > reworked some wording. So as you say. I only do not understand why there is need to post it as "Sri Rama's" proposal while in the same time announcing that you have withdrawn yours from voting. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 Mahanidhi dasa wrote: >You are not being consistent. For sannyasis, you are >advocating the division of activities as prescribed to that >particular asram according to the principles of Vedic varnasrama >dharma. >From the following conversation it is obvious that sannyasi sva-dharma is not to manage, even though their service IS bhagavat dharma, and that is what we are presenting. You don't seem to understand what Prabhupada is teaching and that is your defect. Room Conversation Vrindaban, July 1, 1977 Mr. Myer: We need in this country very much, in every city, in every town. For twenty years I was searching for something like this, and I think something exactly what I have dreamt of. And I think there are some very few problems that might come up, because most of the people are sannyasis. They are doing lot of preaching work. They aren't necessarily bothered with lot of administrative work. And if their administrative work is done by some other people, then they can concentrate more on preaching, which is very necessary. Prabhupada: Yes, sannyasi, brahmacari, means preaching. They are not meant for material management. They have dedicated their life for spiritual--although this material service is also spiritual--but they are doing on such a strength. You cannot expect a very expertly management and... But they act. Simply ask them to do the needful. Mr. Myer: That's right. Tamala Krsna: Yeah, out of desire to serve you, they carry out whatever you ask. Prabhupada: They cannot be expert, these men, managers. They are not... They are giving up everything. But as soon as there is big establishment, we require a top manager. Mr. Myer: Sometimes there are so many different areas. There is temple management. There is book distribution. There is guesthouse. Now the gurukula is coming. Prabhupada: Therefore we want some expert manager to stick to this. When they cannot manage, it is not their fault, because they are not meant for this. >> I am not a politician, so I don't jeopardize anything! I speak according >> to my heart, not according to what I can gain. You may agree or not, but >> it's my 5 decades worth of realization. > >Sorry, I was not aware of that only a politician is capable of >jeopardizing one's own position. OK, now I must understand that >the people over 50 who speak from heart are immune of such thing. If you want to disagree on a point that is all right, but your every post is full of ad hominems which tells me that you are not out to make a point but just out to put another person down. I do not know who you are but one thing is evident from your texts -- you are facetious and disrespectful in presenting arguments. Your whole approach is unsettling and who wants to hear from disrespectful persons? No one I associate with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 > >You are not being consistent. For sannyasis, you are > >advocating the division of activities as prescribed to that > >particular asram according to the principles of Vedic varnasrama > >dharma. > > From the following conversation it is obvious that sannyasi sva-dharma is > not to manage, even though their service IS bhagavat dharma, and that is > what we are presenting. You don't seem to understand what Prabhupada is > teaching and that is your defect. What I aparently seem not to be able be able, is to succeed in bringing my point across: How is it that you are advocating the application of "sva-dharma" approach in determining the type of service when sannyasis are in question, and in the case of women you are advocating the transgression of the same??? But you may be right in that I don't seem to understand what Prabhupada is teaching, and that this is my defect. So why don't you explain to me (and to everybody else here) why "sva-dharma" is to be applied in regard to sannyasis, and in regard to women it is to be transgressed? Is this what Srila Prabhupada is teaching? Please explain that. But I could understand that sannyasi sva-dharma is not to manage (that's why I voted for "Sri Rama's" proposal), so please do not post more on that. > If you want to disagree on a point that is all right, but your every post > is full of ad hominems which tells me that you are not out to make a point > but just out to put another person down. "Ad hominem" means to rather negatively address the person's profile instead of addressing the argument or point that he is making. For example, right now in this letter, you are missing (one time more) to address my actual point and instead you are choosing to go establishing my *personal defects* and a low-class personality portret. > I do not know who you are but one thing is evident from your texts -- you > are facetious and disrespectful in presenting arguments. Your whole > approach is unsettling and who wants to hear from disrespectful persons? > No one I associate with. True. But the faults in my insignificant and conditioned nonsense personality are of far lesser importance than possible faults of eventual "double-standard" application of determining the type of services for ISCKON devotees. Your all-around call for not hearing this disrespectful person of mine, is indicative. (Sorry, but I can't depend anymore on some "noble's" sweet and merciful glance upon me that would acknowledge his satisfaction with the reached level of my honoring and respecting his personality, before I dare to check or challenge his concepts of social reforms in ISCKON, or whatever else may be.) When Krsna came to negotiate the peace with Kauravas, He was addressed with extremely offensive and insulting words by Dhuryodana. But, it was stated in Mahabharata, "Krsna was so noble that he did not even notice that He was being insulted". - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2000 Report Share Posted November 3, 2000 > you may be right in that I don't seem to understand what >Prabhupada is teaching, and that this is my defect. So why don't >you explain to me (and to everybody else here) why "sva-dharma" >is to be applied in regard to sannyasis, and in regard to women >it is to be transgressed? Is this what Srila Prabhupada is teaching? >Please explain that. OK. There are 4 asramas and 4 varnas. That makes 8 divisions. Each division has its own sva-dharma. The "sannyasi" division has a particular sva-dharma which must be fulfilled and that is the cornerstone of our proposal. Varnasrama dharma has no categorical division for "women" therefore there is no defined sva-dharma to be considered for women according to varnasrama dharma, which is what this conference is about -- establishing varnasrama dharma according to the sva-dharmas of its 8 divisions. Since Srila Prabhupada is teaching that bhagavat dharma includes varnasrama dharma, and is also transcendental to it, and since our lady devotees are on this platform, therefore Prabhupada considered them to be above the restrictions of varnasrama dharma and therefore he sent them out to preach, put them on the altar, had them write articles for BTG, had them do photography for BTG, had them do paintings for the books, etc. etc. This was Prabhupada's understanding and that's why it is considered in India that he transgressed the Vedic standard re: the women. People of the GHQ mentality have the same attitude about women as Prabhupada's Indian brethren, whom Prabhupada said "did not know how to preach." This adherence to so-called Vedic dharma by these so-called transcendentalists is what Prabhupada called "skin disease." I hope that this point is now clear and we can move on to higher subject matter. yours in service, vaiyasaki dasa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2000 Report Share Posted November 4, 2000 > This was Prabhupada's understanding and that's why it is considered in India > that he transgressed the Vedic standard re: the women. People of the GHQ > mentality have the same attitude about women as Prabhupada's Indian > brethren, whom Prabhupada said "did not know how to preach." > > yours in service, vaiyasaki dasa... PAMHO AGTSP Being one of the members of the former GHQ, I want to say that Vaiyasaki Prabhu has been quite wrong in his persistent mud-slinging of myself and others in our group. He has never personally spoken to me about our "mentality", nor am I aware that he has personally spoken to others in our group about this. He wrongly assumes that we have some sort of collective, materialistic desire to repress and lord it over women that mainifests as some sort attempt, either philosophically or politically, to stop women from becoming GBCs and temple presidents. Yes, we do object to women being GBCs and temple presidents, but not for the reasons Vaiyasaki Prabhu and some others suggest. We have objected because establishing the so-called egalitarian society which is now official GBC policy seems inconsistent with several things Srila Prabhupada has said with regard to women and management. In fact, speaking for myself and for others in our group, if we could see solid evidence that supports such an egalitarian (read "feminist"[1]) social structure, where women may be managers as much as men, then we would accept this idea and give up the other ideas we have been promulgating. Since the issue is one of philosophy and not of materialistic interest, as Vaiyasaki Prabhu alleges, I request him to stop misrepresenting us. For the record, when I say "solid evidence," I am specifically refering to an explanation that considers and refers to all of Srila Prabhupada's remarks on the subject and offers a consistent explanation without rejecting any of them. Unfortunately, the explanations we have encountered so far, without exception, have one or more of the following characteristics: - References that are relevant but do not support a feminist social concept are considered to be a result of Srila Prabhupada's so-called 19th century cultural conditioning. - Relevant but contradictory references are, without exception, conspicuous by their absence. - Counter evidence is sometimes declared to refer only to the karmis or devotees with a male body but not to female devotees. The recent discussions on this matter are a case in point. If it is all right for a woman to abandon her so-called worldly duties to serve Krishna, why not for a man? - References that would seem to support a feminist concept of society are often quoted out of context. - Arguments that advocate a feminist society are often accompained by and rely on ad hominem attacks. Notice how Vaiyasaki Prabhu consistently mentions "GHQ". It's as though his arguments couldn't exist without some sort of mud-slinging. It should be noted that these characteristics themselves are merely symptoms of the real problem - inconsistent and self-contradictory reasoning. Considering that the Absolute Truth is ultimately without any self-contradictions (in other words, if there are seeming contradictions, there is a deeper understanding that reconciles the so-called superficial contradictions), a reasonable test for the veracity of any understanding would be that it is also consistent with the authority of scripture and our acaryas. The corollary of this is that an understanding that is incosistent beyond reconcilliation cannot be true. You can count on such inconsistent understandings having one or more absurd ideas. Vaiyasaki Prabhu's most recent statements are a gross example of such inconsistent, contradictory reasoning. For example: > OK. There are 4 asramas and 4 varnas. That makes 8 divisions. Each division > has its own sva-dharma. The "sannyasi" division has a particular sva-dharma > which must be fulfilled and that is the cornerstone of our proposal. > Varnasrama dharma has no categorical division for "women" therefore there is > no defined sva-dharma to be considered for women according to varnasrama > dharma, which is what this conference is about -- establishing varnasrama > dharma according to the sva-dharmas of its 8 divisions. > > Since Srila Prabhupada is teaching that bhagavat dharma includes varnasrama > dharma, and is also transcendental to it, and since our lady devotees are on > this platform, therefore Prabhupada considered them to be above the > restrictions of varnasrama dharma and therefore he sent them out to preach, > put them on the altar, had them write articles for BTG, had them do > photography for BTG, had them do paintings for the books, etc. etc. First of all, let's put Vaiyasaki Prabhu's (VP) arguments in a more standard format: (1) Varnashrama-Dharma (VD) does not have a categorical division for women. (2) Women devotees are transcendental to VD (3) (Modern) women devotees did all the services men did. ------------- Since there are no prescribed duties for women, and women devotees are transcendental to VD, and Srila Prabhupada let them do things they wouldn't have been allowed to do in the distant past, Women devotees may do any service, up to and including being temple presidents and GBCs. ------------- Here are some irreconcilliable inconsistencies in the above argument: - (VP's point 2) Women (devotees) are liberated by virtue of their gender. Considering that VD is the most benign form the material energy anyone could hope to encounter, it would follow that a lady devotee (by virtue of gender only) would also be transcendental to any other material consideration. Besides VD, what other worldly activities would women devotees not be transcendental to? Certainly we would not expect any devotee lady to forego VD and engage in material activities that are less than VD (and almost always sinful). In short, what is implied here is that women are liberated souls (not conditioned souls) just because they are women. (OK, they also put on some tilak.) (How come men aren't transcendental to VD, even if they do put on tilak?) - (VP's point 1) If VD does not refer to women, why did Srila Prabhupada, for example, tell his lady disciples they should cover their heads? Or why did he insist so strongly that women (specifically his lady disciples) should be married? Marriage, in and of itself, has nothing to do with bhagavata-dharma. It does not guarantee in the least that a man or woman will advance in Krishna-consciousness. Often times it becomes an impediment. We also find in scripture that there are women who didn't depend on any husband or son, like the prostitute who tried to seduce Haridasa Thakura but later became his disciple. However, Srila Prabhupada generally did not encourage his lady disciples to stay unmarried marry (like he did for his male disciples). We see, however, he did the opposite. - (VP's point 1) VD does have a categorical division for women. This is confirmed both in Srimad-Bhagavatam[2] and Manu-samhita[3]. That varnashrama consists exclusively of 4 ashramas and 4 social orders is true in the sense that women who marry a man of a particular social order are considered also to belong to that social order. And at the same time, there are prescribed duties (stri-dharma) meant exclusively for women. But the contention that VD does not refer to women or have prescribed duties for women as a class is untrue. - (VP's point 3) We see in scripture that women also were as qualified as men. Subhadra and Rukmini could drive a chariot, Devaki was expert in the art of politics (cf. SB 10.4.5.), Arjuna had to combat a princess of Manipura. Still we never find any examples in scripture of a society that even closely approximates the ideal of a feminist society. Since we see from scripture that women, acting *within* the ambit of varnashrama-dharma - not outside of it, performed all these various activities short of accepting managerial authority, VP's argument that women did all the activities he mentioned because they were transcendental to material considerations is therefore false. Thus we can see that VP's third point is significant in that he stops short of mentioning "temple president" and "GBC". There certainly were capable women while Srila Prabhupada was on the planet, yet during that time not one woman ever became a GBC or temple president. If we are to regard such restrictions as repression, then why should we not also regard the "patriarchal" societies of scripture to also be repressive and unfair? After all, since the great, liberated vaisnavis in scripture were equal to men in ability - wasn't it wrong to deny them equal opportunity for particular types of services which includes having (Krishna-conscious) political authority? Our concern here is preserving the philosophical integrity of our siddhanta, therefore we have been speaking out on these issues. Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG) ---------- Foot notes ------------------- [1] "Feminism", according to the Collins Concise Dictionary, has the following definition: "n. a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women" [2] Here in SB 7.11.25, Narada Muni talks refers to women as a class, not a specific woman: strinam ca pati-devanam tac-chusrusanukulata tad-bandhusv anuvrttis ca nityam tad-vrata-dharanam "To render service to the husband, to be always favorably disposed toward the husband, to be equally well disposed toward the husband's relatives and friends, and to follow the vows of the husband-these are the four principles to be followed by women described as chaste." [3] Manu-samhita 5.146: An entire section dealing specifically with the duties of women is introduced. strINAM dharmAnni bodhata "Hear now (know) the duties of women." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2000 Report Share Posted November 4, 2000 > OK. There are 4 asramas and 4 varnas. That makes 8 divisions. Each > division has its own sva-dharma. The "sannyasi" division has a particular > sva-dharma which must be fulfilled and that is the cornerstone of our > proposal. Varnasrama dharma has no categorical division for "women" > therefore there is no defined sva-dharma to be considered for women > according to varnasrama dharma, which is what this conference is about -- > establishing varnasrama dharma according to the sva-dharmas of its 8 > divisions. > Yes, it is indeed so that the word "women" is not to be found among the eight words that indicate 4 asramas and 4 varnas. But so is not the word "men". Yet, nevertheless, based on this kind of observation only (so far), you have singled-out women only as to be transcendental to the division of prescribed duties according to varna&asrama. As if women do not fit in any of varna nor any of asrama, but man only do. As if women would not be human beings but some undefined far-out spices of life. Do you think you are doing the favor to the women by depriving them from belonging to any of particular varna or asrama (and therefore, what to do, let's proclaim they are above it rather than out of it)?? As far as "women" as category, there is definitely clearly given dharma for that category to be followed by women. On the other hand, there is also clearly given dharma of men as a category, to be followed by men. All these are parts of varnasrahma dharma, too, and bruise them aside as supposedly not defined, is a blunder. I say it is cheating to the women to proclaim them to be transcendental to the rules and regulations of varnashrama dharma that is meant to be followed by the *human kind*. Why? Because it is simply based on the inability to understand how women do fit into varnasrama system as the another half of this humankind. You apparently do not know where and how they fit into VAD, so simply proclaim they are "transcendental" to it. (That kind of reasoning can be done with cows and horses, too. See, varnasrama dharma has no categorical division for "cow" or "horse", nor there is defined "sva-dharma" for cows and horses... so they, cows and horses, are on transcendentally platform in regard to VAD...) > Since Srila Prabhupada is teaching that bhagavat dharma includes > varnasrama dharma, and is also transcendental to it, and since our lady > devotees are on this platform, therefore Prabhupada considered them to be > above the restrictions of varnasrama dharma and therefore he sent them out > to preach, put them on the altar, had them write articles for BTG, had > them do photography for BTG, had them do paintings for the books, etc. > etc. > Srila Prabhupada did exactly the same in regard to men *also*. It was Western born hippies, junkies, meat-eaters, varna-sankaras, and so on. Was it that Srila Prabhupada considered these Western mlecchas and yavanas to be not above the restrictions of varnasrama dharma, so therefore he put them on altar, gave them brahmin initiations and awarded sannyasa, all in accordance to prescribed varna&asrama rules and regulations that they were up to... ??? It is Srila Prabhupada causeless *mercy* that he transgressed the restrictions of varnasrama dharma in regard to *both* women and men. However, to single-out the women only as (if) considered by Prabhupada to be above the varnasrama-dharma restrictions and regulations becouse of being (as if) situated on transcendental platform, and than to form some philosophical concepts out of that as the corner stones for the future varnasrama dharma based society, this is something entirely unacceptable. It is all wrong. Beginning with the assumption that the reason for Prabhupada's transgressing the principles of Vedic dharma in regard to women was based on women's being situated on the platform of transcendence (while men were not, on other hand). > This was Prabhupada's understanding and that's why it is considered in > India that he transgressed the Vedic standard re: the women. People of the > GHQ mentality have the same attitude about women as Prabhupada's Indian > brethren, whom Prabhupada said "did not know how to preach." > That is what you think it was Prabhupada's understanding, not necesraily "Prabhupada's understanding". And, once again you have singleout women here only. In India, it is considered that Prabhupada transgressed the Vedic standard re: **both** women and men! You ought to know this. Otherwise, just go an mix with the local smarta brahmins and try to go together worship Lord Jagannath there in the Puri's temple! They will send the guards to chase you away with the sticks. > This adherence to so-called Vedic dharma by these so-called > transcendentalists is what Prabhupada called "skin disease." I hope that > this point is now clear and we can move on to higher subject matter. > I would appreciate if you would finally leave out mentioning "GHQ" and to GHQ related expressions and assumptions whenever you comment on my words. You are keeping grinding on me your frustration with them. I am not a Hannibal that is out to just destroy your Rome. Otherwise, clearly, this point "women are transcendental to VAD rules and regulations, men (sannaysis in the first line) are not" is far away from being clear. But you are free to move on to "higher subject matter" whenever you wish. As for me, seeing such a blunder in the very basics of this envisioned "varnashrama society", that higher the overall structure goes that lower it's going to crash due to its false foundation. Thank you for answering on my actual point and not anything else, this time. I really appreciate that. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2000 Report Share Posted November 4, 2000 > In India, it is considered that Prabhupada >transgressed the Vedic standard re: **both** women and men! >You ought to know this. Otherwise, just go an mix with the local >smarta brahmins and try to go together worship Lord Jagannath there >in the Puri's temple! They will send the guards to chase you away >with the sticks. Again, this is something you know nothing about. We honor Jagannath mahaprasad with the local brahmins all the time and they even serve us with their own hand. As far as not entering the temple, this is a tradition that even Mahaprabhu followed. That's why Haridasa Thakur and Rupa and Santana Goswamis also did not enter the temple. Even Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India and daughter of Mahatma Gandhi the father of the nation, was not allowed to enter the temple due to the tradition. Many devotees do not appreciate that tradition is a good thing and, except for this one stricture, most of Jagannath Puri's traditions have been maintained over thousands of years and that's what makes the Puri temple so special. yours in service, vaiyasaki dasa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2000 Report Share Posted November 4, 2000 > > Again, this is something you know nothing about. We honor Jagannath > mahaprasad with the local brahmins all the time and they even serve us > with their own hand. That is fine, I was also having similar experience in Jagannatah Puri, with some nice brahmanas there. Me and my wife honored Jagannath prasad together with them. Yet, we were offered the darsan of Lord Jagannath but only in the night time after the temple was closed. Of course, one had to pay a good money to the certain priest and the chokidars, and you had to come completely covered over the head, like that. With an extra payement, one was offered to even touch the Deities. > As far as not entering the temple, this is a > tradition that even Mahaprabhu followed. That's why Haridasa Thakur and > Rupa and Santana Goswamis also did not enter the temple. Even Indira > Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India and daughter of Mahatma Gandhi the > father of the nation, was not allowed to enter the temple due to the > tradition. They were not *allowed*. Haridas Thakura because he was from a Muslim background (though, out of humility he didn't even try to enter, considering himself a low-born Muslim). Sanatana Goswami, because he was serving Muslims and he thus lost his cast. Something similar for Indira Gandhi, was she married to a Muslim? And Mahatma Gandhi, BTW, he proclaimed "harijan" to the untouchables. And because you and I are white Westerners, so we can't into the temple, no matter what Prabhupada said or did. It is not accepted there. (rupees are) However, I find your statement "this is a tradition that even Mahaprabhu followed" somewhat misleading. It gives the signal that it is a bona-fide and proper tradition - even God Himself follows it. And therefore His greatest devotees like Haridas Thakura and Sanatana Goswami also. So shall we also. But you have already proclaimed to everybody that I, again, know nothing about. So I should perhaps simply listen to whatever you may happen to say, and take that as the final truth. Sorry, it doesn't go so. > > Many devotees do not appreciate that tradition is a good thing and, except > for this one stricture, most of Jagannath Puri's traditions have been > maintained over thousands of years and that's what makes the Puri temple > so special. (If it is so that even Mahaprabhu, and the Acaryas consequently, followed that tradition, as you say, then how is it possible that it might not be a good thing and that many devotees do not appreciate it? It's our Parampara, for God's sake!) That was anyway just a side remark about the "skin disease" tradition in Puri, which is equally applied to both ISCKON white women and white men. Or anybody who is not a born Hindu. The point is that Prabhupada was criticized by the smarta brahmana community in India for giving brahmin initiation to not only the women but to the Western *men* also, and that Prabhupada transgressed the Vedic standards in both cases. Obviously, you can't say this is not true. But you will nevertheless single out the women only, out of whatever purposes you have gotten. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 > Even Indira Gandhi, the Prime > Minister of India and daughter of Mahatma Gandhi the father of the nation, Actually, it is not that she was a daughter of Mahatma Gandhi. She was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 In a message dated 11/4/2000 2:40:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, Vaiyasaki.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes: > Even Indira Gandhi, the Prime > Minister of India and daughter of Mahatma Gandhi the father of the nation, > was not allowed to enter the temple due to the tradition. > I am sure that you have heard by now that Indira was married to a Gandhi and the daughter of Nehru, not Mahatma Gandhi. Although I agree with you interpretation that Iskcon devotees should not pass judgement because we are not allowed in the temple. My experience has been that we are treated very well in Puri, except for that. Maybe we should develop the mood of seperation and not condemn the locals for it. yhs, Kanti dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 Christopher Shannon wrote: >Yes, we do object to women being GBCs and temple presidents, but not for >the reasons Vaiyasaki Prabhu and some others suggest. We have objected >because establishing the so-called egalitarian society which is now >official GBC policy seems inconsistent with several things Srila Prabhupada >has said with regard to women and management. I have never stated anything on this conference, either negative or positive, about women being GBCs or TPs. Yet some people go on and on attacking a position they claim that I represent. In reality they have no idea what my views on the subject are. I saw that Prabhupada treated devotee women as transcendentalists, just like he did the men amd therefore I follow in his footsteps. (He also taught that devotee women should be treated as "goddesses of fortune." He also said that most of his comments on women did not refer to devotee women but non-devotee women. I distinctly remember this. Moreover, devotees in the early days of the movement saw their godsisters as sisters, and there was no "women's issue." This aberration came later.) I simply stated that sannyasis must follow their sva-dharma because this is a conference about sannyasis being on the GBC. It is not a conference about women being on the GBC, about women's sva-dharma, nor about women at all. Let me now state my position categorically so we can put this silly discussion to bed. I will stand up for ANY devotee who is attacked either verbally or physically. I would even risk my own life to save a devotee, man or woman, if I saw that devotee being attacked, because devotees are dear to Krishna. The fact that some people get so disturbed about a women's place in Prabhupada's movement seems, to me, to illustrate an unhealthy preoccupation with the opposite sex. (Because Prabhupada recognized that today's women are independent and could do the same preaching work as the men.) Krishna consiousness is the process of self-realization. If everyone just looked after their own consciousness, and didn't poke their nose into everybody else's business, our movement would have the potency to actually help the world's distressed people. Instead, this over-absorption in the affairs of others (especially women) simply ridicules the self-realization process which this movement is based on. This in my opinion, and I am entitled to it, whether you agree or disagree. Can we now drop the subject? It is neither enlightening or uplifting. (I find it boring to the extreme.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2000 Report Share Posted November 5, 2000 > I simply stated that sannyasis must follow their sva-dharma because this is > a conference about sannyasis being on the GBC. It is not a conference about > women being on the GBC, about women's sva-dharma, nor about women at all. > Prabhu, with all due respect, you've just made some currious comments specifically about women - that unlike the sannyasis they don't have prescribed duties vis-a-vis varnashrama-dharma. When you make such speculative and untrue statements, why complain when others object? In a society, the behavior of one member of society will affect the other members of society, either beneficially or adversely. A realistic discussion would therefore not exclude the other social elements with which that member has to interact. With regard to the sannyasa order and women, or any order for that matter, there are strict vows regulating association with women. If sannyasa really had nothing to do with women, then we wouldn't even see these restrictions. The facts are that most falldowns of our sannyasis (or brahmacaris or grihasthas) have involved a woman at some point. One of the purposes of a discussion on engaging sannyasis in acting according to their sva-dharma instead of trying to act transcendental to it is to minimize such embarrasments as falling down, getting married, etc. A rational discussion on the topic of sannyasis must therefore not exclude other members of society - the brahmacaris, grihasthas, vanaprasthas and women. One thing that should be noted here is that having an all-grihastha GBC will not be a panacea for the problems we have had in the past -- not by a long shot. If anything, the grihastha asrama in our current day vaisnava society has been been a "hotbed" (get it?) of rampant infidelity - broken marriages, people being married and remarried three, four times or more, confused and neglected children, etc. You yourself well know this. Now, considering that, if anything, our grihastha asrama has fared no better than our sannyasis, we can also look forward to the same scandals our leadership has suffered in the past if our new leadership also does not address the actual issues that created those problems, many (if not most) of which specifically resulted from improper association with women. (And relationships are a two-way affair, right?) This is a general forewarning for the potential new grihastha incumbents. If varnasrama-dharma is going to be part of the solution, then it will require everyone's cooperation. But if not, then lets forget about varnasrama chant Hare Krishna and just be "transcendental". If the sahajiyas can do it, why can't we? :-) Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG) p.s. Thank you for accepting the fact that women do have prescirbed VAD duties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 > > I have never stated anything on this conference, either negative or > positive, about women being GBCs or TPs. Yet some people go on and on > attacking a position they claim that I represent. You presented the position that advocated ISCKON women being situated on the transcendental platform and thus above the restricting regulations of varnasrama system, hence eligible to perform ANY (your emphases) service in ISCKON. While in the same time advocating the implementation of varnasrama dharma system in ISCKON, with the emphasis on sanayasis and the restructuring of the GBC, according to the varnasrama principles. This *above* was your position that has been under the attack. But if you can't recognize that this position got to do something with you, then you can simply denounce it to be not yours. Please do it. Or otherwise, be kind and stop insisting in accusing others for misunderstanding it all. As far as positions of TPs and GBCs, self evidently, these fit within the category of ISCKON services, so women being GBCs or TPs is simply automatically included in the whole package. Thus, yes, you **implicitly** did advocate women occupying these positions too, or ANY other position of leadership (the word you actually used) or ANY other service. You got to be aware by now what all possibly could be included within category "ANY service". But if in your mind, by some chance, the services of TPs and GBCs are excluded from this expression "ANY service", then this conference still offers you such facilities that would enable you to clearly let us know it. Please utilase that facilities. Or otherwise, kindly stop accusing others for misreading into your statements. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 7, 2000 Report Share Posted November 7, 2000 > Krishna consiousness is the process of self-realization. If everyone just > looked after their own consciousness, and didn't poke their nose into > everybody else's business, our movement would have the potency to actually > help the world's distressed people. Instead, this over-absorption in the > affairs of others (especially women) simply ridicules the self-realization > process which this movement is based on. Yes until we focus on our own shortcomings how can we progress spiritualy? There is way too much criticism in our movement today, criticism is not the way to get the Lords favour. Your servant Samba das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.