desired activities

[Guest guest]

On 2 Jul 2002, Balaji Prasad wrote:

 

> On 02 Jul 2002, Urmila Devi Dasi wrote:

>

> > On 2 Jul 2002, Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

> > In other words, women are not all one homogenious class where any

individual

> > woman can marry any man and automatically mold herself to his mentality.

> > Prabhupada writes that such a marriage between those of different castes

> will

> > entail great suffering for both the man and the woman; and such marriages

> are

> > particularly not approved if the woman is "higher."

>

> This is what I too undestand, if there is no "varna" for woman, there is no

> meaning for "varna-sankara". Right.

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. The two statements are not logically

equivalent, nor does your conclusion follow from your premise.

 

The literal meaning of "varna-sankara" is one whose varna is unknown.

Prabhupada would sometimes define this term by saying that the father is

unknown and therefore the person's birth caste is unknown. In modern society,

Prabhupada says the varna-sankara are the hippies who have so set occupation

nor developed qualities for any occupation. Also, varna-sankara would be, in

modern parlance, illegitimate children, and perhaps also the children whose

lives are sundared by divorce.

 

Prabhupada: Therefore in our Hindu society there is garbhadhana-samskara, so

that everyone knows that "This man is this man's father." That is

garbhadhana-samskara. And especially in brahmana family, if there is no

garbhadhana-samskara, immediately he becomes a sudra, because cannot give real

identity of the father.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation Meeting with Dr. Sharma (from Russia)

April 17, 1977, Bombay

 

 

So it is very difficult to say at the present moment whether

garbhadhana-samskara is observed. At least, in garbhadhana-samskara we

understand that "This child is born of a real brahmana," but without

garbhadhana-samskara, who knows how the child is born? Nobody knows except the

mother. Therefore the sastra says, "In this age, Kali-yuga, because this

garbhadhana-samskara is not observed regularly," kalau sudrah sambhavah,

"everyone in the Kali-yuga is a sudra because the garbhadhana-samskara is not

observed." Of course, those who are observing... But it is very hard to say

who is observing.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 7.11-13 -- Bombay, April 5, 1971

 

 

 

Varna-sankara. You cannot specify whether he's a brahmana or a ksatriya and

vaisya and sudra. That is called varna-sankara. So varna-sankara population is

not good. Varna-sankara. No caste. No designation, no definition to which

class this man belongs.

So at the present moment, because these purificatory processes are not

accepted, even in India... Accepted, they're unable. Everything has

topsy-turvied. Therefore the sastra says that: "Accept everyone as sudra."

Kalau sudrah sambhava. There is no more brahmana, ksatriya or vaisya. All

sudras. We have to accept. Because no Vedic culture, no Garbhadhana samskara.

They are born like cats and dogs. So where is this division? There cannot be.

Therefore, accept them as sudra. Varna-sankara is less than sudra. So at

least, sudra they should be.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 1.40 -- London, July 28, 1973

 

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

[Guest guest]

On 3 Jul 2002, Robert Cope wrote:

 

> Well, I certainly think that you are beyond criticism for not wanting to

> debate men. But I am a bit confused since you state that you are still

> interested to continue but definitely the majority of participants are male.

> In any case, let us see if there are any issues not resolved which will

> spark discussion.

 

I guess I distinguish between discussion in order to come to a philosphical

and practical understanding, and debate. I was indeed a debate champion for

three years in high school, and in debate, some one wins and some one loses.

In discussion, the idea is to come to a consenses, based on guru, shastra, and

sadhu, where everyone wins and hopefully no one feels foolish or embarassed.

Perhaps discussion should not be done, either, but even our Sita feels that

such is not inappropriate. :-) If I appear in any way to be "debating" or

"combative," then please bring that to my attention, and I'll attempt to

immediately shift course.

 

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

[Guest guest]

On 3 Jul 2002, Mahat-tattva das wrote:

 

> Mataji Urmila didn't tell us if her understanding of the matter changed or

> not. It appears that she has more to say. If she has I would like to have

> the discussion continued publicly.

>

> Thank you.

 

 

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

1) I wrote a few texts to the whole group this morning. Did you receive them?

 

2) Does this discussion center around *my* understanding? If so, why?

 

3) How did this discussion (which I did not ask to join, nor initiate) start

anyway?

 

 

Years ago, I dropped out of all philosophical "conferences" except those

related to specific practical service and where all participants were both

participating and working toward that service....

 

4) Is there some group here of which I am unaware that is part of some project

involving women and women's social/spiritual position? In other words, is

there some specific goal here, or are we simply "talking" among ourselves for

our own edification and enlightenment? (no sarcasm intended, honest question

only)

 

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi