beatting women

[Guest guest]

>

> > In one sense, how can Vedas advocate protection of the women,

> > and the sametime making a provision for beating them. You protect

> > someone, and then you smack the person on the head; the pieces just

> > doesn't match together.

>

> This is interesting conclusion. Why would protecting one mean that you

> make him/her/it feel good momentarily? And why would using physical force

> exclude protection. Not to cause more disturbance to already enough

> disturbed female members, lets switch to child protection. For example, it

> was a common practice in schools, not so long ago, to punish children

> physically. And it was ment to educate and protect them. Mother Yasoda

> surely scared Krsna by showing him a stick, and why would he cry because

> of seeing a stick? If I show stick to my kids, they just lough at me, they

> take it as a joke. So, in the past, there must have been something else in

> the mind of children, to make them cry upon seeing a stick... Anyway,

> there are numerous details of protecting with educational punishment. Like

> from certain Nimai-lila:

>

> "This naughty boy has spoiled the offering." When Jagannatha Misra heard

> this he prepared to beat the boy in anger, but he was stopped by the

> brahmana's request.

> >>> Ref. VedaBase => CBP 5: Eating the Mendicant Brahmana's Offerings

>

> or

> Everyone present tried to restrain Misra, but he said, "Leave me alone.

> Today I'll beat Him!"

> >>> Ref. VedaBase => CB Adi-khanda 5.71

>

> or

> "Misra, you are supposed to be a cultured Aryan! What is the use of

> beating this ignorant boy?

> COMMENTARY

> The brahmana said, "O Misra, you are elderly and respectable, and He is

> only a foolish child. So it is not worth while to punish Him for His

> foolishness."

> >>> Ref. VedaBase => CB Adi-khanda 5.39

>

>

> So maybe in some "cultured" parts of the world there is jail punishment

> for strictness in physical way. But in many parts of the world it is not

> so black/white. I come from southern europe and it seems that I can see

> things a bit differently then Canadian or US born devotees.

>

> I'm more disturbed by this artificial sentimentalism, then violence in the

> name of protection. Domesting violence, as they like to call it nowadays,

> was usual part of life for a long time, even to the point, that it is

> mentioned in sastras. This is not at all disturbing to me. It doesn't

> mean, that I will beat my wife and kids now, but also I will not get on

> case and blaspheme devotees, who want to discuss this things. Using force

> in education was there in time of Krsna and Caitanya, it is there

> nowadays, and it will be there even after western artificial

> sentimentalism is long gone. It is a way to educate and protect. And what

> disturbs me, is that some people now make a real big thing out of it, like

> it is most sinful and anybody doing it deserves to go to jail, or at least

> be thrown out of ISKCON. Like queen Kunti, who put her own child in basket

> and sent him down the river. If any woman would nowadays do this, put her

> newborn child in basked and send it down the river, she would be

> considered crazy, charged of attempted murder, and put to jail for

> eternity.

 

I think that is why Queen Kunti kept it quiet!

 

Thats what I call artificial western sentimentalism. Everybody

> is so careful, that everybody is happy and feeling good... Cheating, just

> cheating!

 

A woman's will always have a right to her body until fetuses get votes!

>

> Anyway, I can see that such subjects cause strong emotions to surface, so

> I will not push it any further here. Basically, this subject seems to be

> just another on a long list of undefined ISKCON (mis)understandings. And

> untill ISKCON comes up with some unified decision for us how to view on

> this things, everybody is mercilessly left on his own with his own

> opinion.

 

It's not quite like that. Srila Prabhupada was for men taking several wives

if he could afford them - until he found out the strong opposition in

America, he retracted it in terms of time and circumstances. Similarily, the

climate is such that men cannot use force on wives (and thus the threat is

even gone) against anyone, and we can see how this has resulted in women

being happy in their marriages and hence such strong family ties in America

and Europe have reduced the percentage divorce rate to double figures.

 

 

We may fight about it, who is right, but it is useless. Rather I

> suggest, that leaders come up with some ISKCON law regarding this subject,

> and then it will be simple - either one is with ISKCON, or one distances

> himself from ISKCON.

>

ISKCON law will always follow the law of the land.

 

> your servant Giri-nayaka das

>

>