Reading the books is like hearing the flute of Krishna

[Beggar 0]

 

These clowns that had some physical proximity to Srla Prabhupada have always tried to use that for their own prestige and position.

 

Use a gun - Go to jail

Have physical proximity to a pure devotee - become a clown

IT'S THE LAW!

[Guruvani 0]

 

Use a gun - Go to jail

Have physical proximity to a pure devotee - become a clown

IT'S THE LAW!

You mighty be making a funny, but if you look at what happened to some top disciples of Saraswati Goswami, Srila Prabhupada and even some fallen sannyasis of Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja, you will see that physical proximity is not anything magic like we sometimes think.

 

Especially, the ISKCON example is good evidence that physical proximity is not magic.

You can see the mundane image of Srila Prabhupada that Satsvarupa had from reading his books.

 

I remember attending some lectures of Srila Prabhupada and I saw some of this top sannyasis nodding out and they were sleeping through the class.

 

I have had physical proximity to Srila Prabhupada. I have set 5 feet away and listened to lectures.

It was nice, but I have always felt a more intimate connection through the books.

[suchandra 1]

 

You mighty be making a funny, but if you look at what happened to some top disciples of Saraswati Goswami, Srila Prabhupada and even some fallen sannyasis of Sridhar Maharaja and Narayana Maharaja, you will see that physical proximity is not anything magic like we sometimes think.

 

Especially, the ISKCON example is good evidence that physical proximity is not magic.

You can see the mundane image of Srila Prabhupada that Satsvarupa had from reading his books.

 

I remember attending some lectures of Srila Prabhupada and I saw some of this top sannyasis nodding out and they were sleeping through the class.

 

I have had physical proximity to Srila Prabhupada. I have set 5 feet away and listened to lectures.

It was nice, but I have always felt a more intimate connection through the books.

 

Someone is just harassing me that Prabhupada was mysoginistic - especially last sentence of this purport, http://www.vedabase.net/sb/4/25/41/en what to reply?

[Guruvani 0]

 

Someone is just harassing me that Prabhupada was mysoginistic - especially last sentence of this purport, http://www.vedabase.net/sb/4/25/41/en what to reply?

I have a good explanation for that.

 

Srila Prabhupada was from a very conservative, rigid Vaishnava upbringing.

Where Srila Prabhupada came from, the act of seducing a woman was considered rape.

Srila Prabhupada is not referring to the form of violent physical assault that in the west we refer to as rape.

In his view, being aggressive and seducing a woman and being eager for her is a form of rape in his mind from his cultural background.

 

In his mind, any sexual advance outside of sex for procreation is considered rape.

 

All he meant to say was that many woman like when the man takes charge and becomes aggessive so she doesn't have to feel like she is the responsible party in any illicit sexual act (sex of other than procreation).

 

Some women desire recreational sex for enjoyment as do many men. but they don't like to be the aggressor. They want the man to be the aggressor.

 

When a man aggressively seduces his wife or another woman, in Inda in bygone days that was considered rape.

 

The cultural background and the definition of rape in rigid Hindu society has to be known in order to understand that Srila Prabhupada is simply refering to aggressive seduction and not violent sexual assault.

 

His statement there was one of the faults and errors that he admitted would be there in his attempt to present Vaishnava literatures into the English language.

 

It was a bad choice of words, but if we understand his background coming from a rigid Hindu society, we can understand that he was not saying that women enjoy being physically assaulted against their will.

 

He was just saying that women like the man to take all the initiative in sexual affairs.

 

I knew a devotee woman who said that same thing.

 

So, it is not just an all male idea.

[suchandra 1]

 

I have a good explanation for that.

 

Srila Prabhupada was from a very conservative, rigid Vaishnava upbringing.

Where Srila Prabhupada came from, the act of seducing a woman was considered rape.

Srila Prabhupada is not referring to the form of violent physical assault that in the west we refer to as rape.

In his view, being aggressive and seducing a woman and being eager for her is a form of rape in his mind from his cultural background.

 

In his mind, any sexual advance outside of sex for procreation is considered rape.

 

All he meant to say was that many woman like when the man takes charge and becomes aggessive so she doesn't have to feel like she is the responsible party in any illicit sexual act (sex of other than procreation).

 

Some women desire recreational sex for enjoyment as do many men. but they don't like to be the aggressor. They want the man to be the aggressor.

 

When a man aggressively seduces his wife or another woman, in Inda in bygone days that was considered rape.

 

The cultural background and the definition of rape in rigid Hindu society has to be known in order to understand that Srila Prabhupada is simply refering to aggressive seduction and not violent sexual assault.

 

His statement there was one of the faults and errors that he admitted would be there in his attempt to present Vaishnava literatures into the English language.

 

It was a bad choice of words, but if we understand his background coming from a rigid Hindu society, we can understand that he was not saying that women enjoy being physically assaulted against their will.

 

He was just saying that women like the man to take all the initiative in sexual affairs.

 

I knew a devotee woman who said that same thing.

 

So, it is not just an all male idea.

 

You mean what is also stated in the Mahabharata when a ksatriya prince kidnapped his future wife - or Krishna kidnapped Subhadra? That this is considered as rape?

I dont understand why people call Prabhupada mysoginistic - after all he just repeated what the Vedas say, women are materially less intelligent but NOT spiritually. As soon a woman becomes a devotee her spiritual intelligence is awakened and spiritual intelligence is unchecked by material limitation. If Prabhupada would be looking down on women he would never have published the Prayers of Queen Kunti.

[Kulapavana 0]

my father has some faults too, but I forgive him these imperfections out of love. I dont try to justify these faults, or twist logic and reason to explain them - that would be dishonest.

[Guruvani 0]

 

You mean what is also stated in the Mahabharata when a ksatriya prince kidnapped his future wife - or Krishna kidnapped Subhadra? That this is considered as rape?

 

According to the archaic definition of the term, yes that was also a form of rape.

(5.Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.)

 

So, in bygone ages a Princess was always happy if her Knight in shining armor would come steal her away and take her to be his Queen.

 

Despite hiow some hateful and ignorant people might like to present it, Srila Prabhupada was certainly not trying to say that women enjoy being brutalized and sexually abused.

Only a foolish idiot would think that Srila Prabhupada would say such a thing.

 

If you look at his statement in context instead of taking it out of context like some people like to do to make Srila Prabhupada look like a monster, you will see that he made the comment in regards to a verse where a woman is in fact praising her hero lover.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 4.25.41

 

kā nāma vīra vikhyātaḿ

vadānyaḿ priya-darśanam

na vṛṇīta priyaḿ prāptaḿ

mādṛśī tvādṛśaḿ patim

 

SYNONYMS

 

kā — who; nāma — indeed; vīra — my dear hero; vikhyātam — famous; vadānyam — magnanimous; priya-darśanam — beautiful; na — not; vṛṇīta — would accept; priyam — easily; prāptam — gotten; mādṛśī — like me; tvādṛśam — like you; patim — husband.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

O my dear hero, who in this world will not accept a husband like you? You are so famous, so magnanimous, so beautiful and so easily gotten.

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

Every husband is certainly a great hero to his wife. In other words, if a woman loves a man, that man appears very beautiful and magnanimous. Unless one becomes beautiful in the eyes of another, one cannot dedicate his whole life to another. The husband is considered very magnanimous because he gives as many children to the wife as she likes. Every woman is fond of children; therefore any husband who can please his wife by sex and give her children is considered very magnanimous. Not only does the husband become magnanimous by begetting children, but by giving his wife ornaments, nice food and dresses, he keeps her completely under submission. Such a satisfied wife will never give up the company of her husband. Manu-saḿhitā recommends that to keep a wife satisfied a husband should give her some ornaments because women are generally fond of home, ornaments, dresses, children, etc. In this way the woman is the center of all material enjoyment.

In this regard, the word vikhyātam is very significant. A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape.

 

 

So, again as I said already, aggression towards women was considered rape in rigid Hindu society.

 

Srila Prabhupada says;

 

 

A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape.

 

So, anybody with an ounce of brain substance can see that Srila Prabhupada used the word "rape" in the context of it meaning "aggression".

 

No woman wants to chase after the man she wants.

She wants him to come sweep her off her feet.

 

If you look at the verse and the whole purport, you will see the truth about what Srila Prabhupada was saying.

 

Only some fool who wants to find something bad about Srila Prabhupada to use against him and make him out to be some sort of monster, would take that statement out of context and use it to try and show Srila Prabhupada is a bad light.

 

The verse is about a woman who loves her hero.

It's not about violent assault and physical abuse.

[Guruvani 0]

 

my father has some faults too, but I forgive him these imperfections out of love. I dont try to justify these faults, or twist logic and reason to explain them - that would be dishonest.

 

So you think Srila Prabhupada actually was saying that women like to be physically assaulted, brutalized and used for sexual acts against her will?

 

So, it's ok, we forgive Srila Prabhupada even though he said women like to be brutalized and sexually abused?

 

The twisting of logic and reason is when somebody tries to take that verse, purport and statement of Srila Prabhupada and use to to say that Srila Prabhupada taught that woman love to be brutalized and sexually abused against her will.

 

Only a peabrain idiot would screw that meaning out of that verse and purport. If one reads the whole verse and purport in context, it is easy to see that Srila Prabhupada was simply saying that women like it when their hero is aggressive in getting the women he wants.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The verse is about a woman who loves her hero.

It's not about violent assault and physical abuse.

 

"A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape."

 

actually, because the phrase "not legally allowed" is used, it most likely is rape as we know it.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

So you think Srila Prabhupada actually was saying that women like to be physically assaulted, brutalized and used for sexual acts against her will?

 

more or less, but not quite in these terms - a lot of devotees I know read it in that way. women are supposed to be 9 times more lusty than men and deep down liking to be ravished by force.

 

such statements have no universal application altough sometimes may be true. why would Prabhupada say things like that? because he DID want his male disciples to stay away from women, plain and simple. Prabhupada loved to generalize and make a point by simplification or exagerration. That was his style of preaching. Some devotees loved it, some did not.

[Guruvani 0]

 

"A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape."

 

actually, because the phrase "not legally allowed" is used, it most likely is rape as we know it.

 

Duh, maybe you don't have a clue, but in Vedic times and even in the time of Srila Prabhupada, girls in India were married sometimes as young as 9 or usually more like 12 or 13 at the latest.

 

So, it is not legal anymore to take a young girl at that age away from her family and marry her like it was in Vedic times.

That is what Srila Prabhupada was saying about it not being legal.

 

You obviously think Srila Prabhupada was a nutjob, but all that really does is show who the real nutjob actually is.

[Guest guest]

Did Prabhupada hate women? Most certainly not. But he had very poor communication skills. He couldn't speak proper English, which was why many of his statements sounded rather offensive. It's in this context one must try and understand his statements about women, rape etc. Hope this helps.

[Guruvani 0]

 

more or less, but not quite in these terms - a lot of devotees I know read it in that way. women are supposed to be 9 times more lusty than men and deep down liking to be ravished by force.

 

 

Those kind of statements come from scriptures and Hindu texts.

Srila Prabhupada didn't make it up.

 

Women can have about 9 orgasms while a man is only having one.

 

It's obvious that you think Srila Prabhupada was a nutjob, but in fact all these wild and crazy views of his that you accuse him of are standard Hindu and Vaishnava sayings and beliefs that have been around since the Vedic time.

 

Western society and it's birth control for woman and abortion and all sorts of insane and absurd ideas are actually a lot more far-fetched than the Hindu way of thinking.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Duh, maybe you don't have a clue, but in Vedic times and even in the time of Srila Prabhupada, girls in India were married sometimes as young as 9 or usually more like 12 or 13 at the latest.

 

So, it is not legal anymore to take a young girl at that age away from her family and marry her like it was in Vedic times.

That is what Srila Prabhupada was saying about it not being legal.

 

 

where do you find all these gem explanations? certainly not in the text itself. as usual, you fantasize and extrapolate at will, yet you call me a nutjob... whatever...

 

Prabhupada does not say: "Although rape is NO LONGER legally allowed as it was under the Vedic system..." (btw. do you like that sentence? you think Prabhupada would say something like that?) he says: "Although rape is not legally allowed"... rape was not legal in Vedic system either.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It's obvious that you think Srila Prabhupada was a nutjob...

 

lay off the fireworks...

 

which part of this comment did you not understand?

 

"such statements have no universal application altough sometimes may be true. why would Prabhupada say things like that? because he DID want his male disciples to stay away from women, plain and simple. Prabhupada loved to generalize and make a point by simplification or exagerration. That was his style of preaching. Some devotees loved it, some did not."

[Guruvani 0]

 

where do you find all these gem explanations? certainly not in the text itself. as usual, you fantasize and extrapolate at will, yet you call me a nutjob... whatever...

 

Prabhupada does not say: "Although rape is NO LONGER legally allowed as it was under the Vedic system..." (btw. do you like that sentence? you think Prabhupada would say something like that?) he says: "Although rape is not legally allowed"... rape was not legal in Vedic system either.

You obviously refuse to look at the whole verse and purport and see that Srila Prabhupada is refering to the act of taking away a woman from her family by force.

They call that "eloping" in western dialect.

 

It is illegal now and has always been illegal to take away a girl from her family by force, but in the Vedic times we saw many examples of that and even some example of that in fairly recent ages as well.

 

The idea that Srila Prabhupada is trying to convey is that many girls in the history of the world have set around and dreamed and prayed that their Knight in shining armor would come steal her away from her possessive family and have a wonderful romantic marriage.

 

You will never see that because you prefer to think that Srila Prabhupada was a clueless Hindu male chauvinist misogynist.

 

He wasn't.

[Guruvani 0]

 

why would Prabhupada say things like that? because he DID want his male disciples to stay away from women, plain and simple.

 

Patently false.

Srila Prabhupada personally married several of his own disciples.

He is the first sannysasi in history to personally marry disciples.

 

Your idea is just historically false.

 

Srila Prabhupada adored all of his householder devotees - men and women.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

If Vaisnava nuns wrote sastra then there would have been similar statements about men. It is important for the aspiring sadaka to avoid illicit connection with the opposite sex.

[Guruvani 0]

 

If Vaisnava nuns wrote sastra then there would have been similar statements about men. It is important for the aspiring sadaka to avoid illicit connection with the opposite sex.

 

The shastra was given by souls who had no bodily conception of male and female.

What is in shastra is not the product of some male's false ego.

 

We can trace all shastric wisdom to incarnations of Godhead.

 

But, then again, God is a male, so I guess we could say that God is a male cheuvinist?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

You obviously refuse to look at the whole verse and purport and see that Srila Prabhupada is refering to the act of taking away a woman from her family by force.

They call that "eloping" in western dialect..

 

Are you suggesting that Prabhupada did not know the meaning of the word "rape" in English? that is beyond absurd as Prabhupada was very articulate in his writing and certainly came across this word in his life. besides, whatever happened to the idea people like you propagate that his books were dictated by Krsna?

 

why dont you simply say it was there to test our faith? like the biblethumpers claiming dinosaur bones were placed in earth by the Devil to delude the faithful?

 

 

 

You will never see that because you prefer to think that Srila Prabhupada was a clueless Hindu male chauvinist misogynist. He wasn't.

 

I dont see Prabhupada in that way, but he does refer many times to his particular upbringing and education. He quoted prof. Urkquart quite frequently for example. Even Sridhara Maharaja said once that such influences are there, and that they dont really represent spiritual perspective. It is dishonest to claim these things do not exist.

[cbrahma 0]

 

Bhagavad Gita lecture in Hawaii, February 3rd, 1975

..

 

 

To understand Brahman is not the business of tiny brain. Alpha-medhasan. There are two Sanskrit words, alpa-medhasa and sumedhasa. Alpa-medhasa means having little brain substance. Physiologically, within the brain there are brain substance. It is found that the brain substance in man is found up to 64 ounce. They are very highly intellectual persons. And in woman the brain substance is not found more than 34 ounce. You’ll find, therefore, that there is no very great scientist, mathematician, philosopher, among women. You’ll never find because their brain substance cannot go.

 

Artificially do not try to become equal with men. That is not allowed in the Vedic sastra. Na striyam svatantratam arhati. That is called sastra. You have to understand that woman is never given to be independence. Independence means just like child has to be taken care, similarly, woman has to be taken care. You cannot get your child go in the street alone. There will be danger. Similarly, according to Vedic civilization, Manu-samhita, woman should be given protection. In this way, acara, this is called acara. So the demons, they do not know. The demons, they do not know what is what, how one thing should be treated, how... They do not know. In the Western countries there is no such distinction between man and woman. But there is.

 

We have to accept it and construct this social institution in that way. Then it will be perfect. So everything should be learned from the standard Vedic literature, and society and other things, economic development, everything... So that is here in the Bhagavad-gita. All problems, whatever you want, you consult Bhagavad-gita—you’ll have perfect answer. That is called Vedic literature. Perfect without any flaw you’ll get.

 

 

 

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

The shastra was given by souls who had no bodily conception of male and female.

What is in shastra is not the product of some male's false ego.

 

We can trace all shastric wisdom to incarnations of Godhead.

 

But, then again, God is a male, so I guess we could say that God is a male cheuvinist?

-

"The absolute conception and the relative consideration", Sridhar Maharaja.

Womens position in relation to men's position is part of the relative consideration. The sages applied the absolute conception to the relative position of men and women. Part of the relativity is that they are in male bodies. There's a time to view the absolute and a time to view the relative but in this system we never view the relative outside of relation with the absolute.

[Guest guest]

What a load of hogwash.

 

 

Did Prabhupada hate women? Most certainly not. But he had very poor communication skills. He couldn't speak proper English, which was why many of his statements sounded rather offensive. It's in this context one must try and understand his statements about women, rape etc. Hope this helps.

[Guest guest]

 

Bhagavad Gita lecture in Hawaii, February 3rd, 1975

..

 

 

To understand Brahman is not the business of tiny brain. Alpha-medhasan. There are two Sanskrit words, alpa-medhasa and sumedhasa. Alpa-medhasa means having little brain substance. Physiologically, within the brain there are brain substance. It is found that the brain substance in man is found up to 64 ounce. They are very highly intellectual persons. And in woman the brain substance is not found more than 34 ounce. You’ll find, therefore, that there is no very great scientist, mathematician, philosopher, among women. You’ll never find because their brain substance cannot go.

 

Artificially do not try to become equal with men. That is not allowed in the Vedic sastra. Na striyam svatantratam arhati. That is called sastra. You have to understand that woman is never given to be independence. Independence means just like child has to be taken care, similarly, woman has to be taken care. You cannot get your child go in the street alone. There will be danger. Similarly, according to Vedic civilization, Manu-samhita, woman should be given protection. In this way, acara, this is called acara. So the demons, they do not know. The demons, they do not know what is what, how one thing should be treated, how... They do not know. In the Western countries there is no such distinction between man and woman. But there is.

 

We have to accept it and construct this social institution in that way. Then it will be perfect. So everything should be learned from the standard Vedic literature, and society and other things, economic development, everything... So that is here in the Bhagavad-gita. All problems, whatever you want, you consult Bhagavad-gita—you’ll have perfect answer. That is called Vedic literature. Perfect without any flaw you’ll get.

 

 

 

 

Well, it should be clear that Prabhupada is not talking about a female soul but just about the female body vs man's body. Just like someone who explains the difference of a city bike and a mountain bike - this doesnt have anything to do with the persons who use those bikes, but just the different characteristics of those machines. But because people are attached to their bodies in which they are presently stuck they feel valued and classified. Wrong! The souls who are within those bodies are all the same in quality.

 

" ... all living beings, are seated as on a machine made of the material energy."

 

Bhagavad-gita 18.61

 

"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be."

 

Bhagavad-gita 2.12

 

"That which pervades the entire body is indestructible."

 

Bhagavad-gita 2.17

 

See also Bhagavad-gita 2.16, 2.20, 2.23, 5.18, 13.27, 13.34, 15.7

[suchandra 1]

Gender Irrelevant in Cosmic Consciousness</ARTTITLE>

CHAITANYA CHARAN DAS posted

27 Dec, 2006| Updated at 2127hrs IST

<TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=bottom align=middle>

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=bottom align=middle height=5></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #dfdfdf 1px solid" width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left>RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

 

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!--google_ad_region_start=article-->We are neither male nor female for at core we are spiritual souls, whereas our gender refers only to our shell, the physical body. Our spiritual identity is eternal, our gender is transient.

 

According to the Bhagavad Gita, we attain in our next life a body as per the thought that predominates our consciousness at the last moment of this life.

 

So a male in this life may become a female in the next life, if the person dearest to him happens to be a female and vice versa. Hence gender is physical misidentification.

 

Only when we distance ourselves from our temporary physical gender we will be freed from the ideological preconceptions that are inevitably dragged into discussion on the gender of God.

 

So in the conventional sense gender refers to bodily gender, so God is neither.

 

Yet God is both male and female as seen in the worship of divine couples in Vedic tradition. The inclusive Vedic definition of God as the source of everything, the cause of all causes, leads to an egali-tarian understanding of God — as both male and female.

 

In Radha-Krishna, Radha personifies the primordial cosmological female principle and Krishna, the primor-dial cosmological male principle.

 

Sometimes personification is mistaken to be a mere literary device, but this misconception overlooks the omni-dimensional all-encompassing nature of divinity.

 

So Radha and Krishna are not symbols denoting metaphysical principles. As divine embodiments, they are particular individuals, yet they are universal individuals, being wholly identical with the ontological principles they personify.

 

Krishna is compared to the sun and Radha, to sunshine. Though sunshine comes from the sun, to say that the sun is superior to or exists prior to the sunshine is incorrect for sun includes sunshine.

 

The sun has no meaning without sunshine, without heat and light. And heat and light would not exist without the sun. The sun and sunshine coexist, each equally important for the existence of the other.

 

They are simultaneously inconceivably one and different, achintyabhedabheda tattva.

 

Likewise, the singular Absolute Truth manifests as the plural Radha-Krishna for the sake of loving reciprocation. One person, two personalities; inconceivable identity in diversity. Hence the saint Bhaktivinoda Thakura sings, "Just as there is no sun without sunshine, I do not accept Krishna without Radha".

 

The Gita explains that God is the source, the essence and the best of everything. Therefore, as Radha, God is the supreme worshipper, and as Krishna, God is the supreme worship-ped.

 

In terms of tattva or philosophical truth, Krishna excels as the supreme controller and so the traditional reference to God as male.

 

But in terms of lila or divine loving exchanges, Radha excels by controlling Krishna with her selfless spiritual love.

 

Krishna is celebrated as Madan-Mohan, who mesmerises everyone, but Radha is glorified as Madan-Mohan-Mohini, the mesmeriser of the mesmeriser for spiritual aspirants, Radha acts as the divine mediatrix, without whom access to Krishna is not possible.

 

So devotees always chant her name before Krishna's, as is also seen with Sita-Rama and Lakshmi-Narayana.

 

Like the Biblical Bride-of-Christ concept and the Kabbalistic Jewish conception of the Female Divine, the truth behind Radha-Krishna is theologically profound and constitutes the zenith of spiritual awareness.

 

This enligh-tened God consciousness resolves all confusion, contradiction and conflict caused by misconceptions of sexuality and spirituality.

 

The writer is spiritual mentor at ISKCON, Pune.