Part 2. In Hope Of Setting The Record Straight!!!

[Guest guest]

SATYAM EVA JAYATE.

 

Continued from part 1

WHAT I SAID THAT SOME FOUND OBJECTIONABLE

 

First, please allow me to say that I find it extremely distasteful to have

to justify to others words that were written in private (for the receivers'

eyes only) yet now being scrutinized by an unfriendly lynch mob. But who

cares what I think? (the theme of the day) As an Internet user and not

primarily on COM, I wrote many texts via Internet that would now give

credence to my present statements but are not available on COM for the

gossip tabloids. To really understand many of my comments, one would need

to have seen the previous messages to the receiver and also the particular

messages sent to me from some feminists, which directly prompted those

remarks.

 

In short, there is a general understanding--among people who are without

motive to misinterpret my words--that to have "no soul" simply means to

have no soft heart, no mercy, no sensitivity for others, etc. It is an

obvious figurative use of words that both parties of the private discussion

understood:

 

(Please note that my comment refers both to men and women who fit the mode

of having "no soul." I repeat, IT IS NOT A SLUR AGAINST WOMEN, as some are

taking my words to mean. Nor is it a philosophical statement. We are

talking behaviour, and attitude and in a light hearted manner between

friends.)

 

>"Mmmmmmmm! I must admit although they appear to be spirit souls like those

>of us either wearing male or female bodies, in actually they have no soul."

 

Or this statement:

 

>Yes, you guessed it, I really can't stand them, and as you may have seen

>in my chart too, it predicts that I'd have trouble with "these fellows".

 

This simply means as it says: that I've had numerous run-ins with these

people over the years. And just as I'm entitled to dislike fruit salad or

sloppy kitri, I also cannot tolerate pushy, loud-mouthed, domineering women

(or men for that matter).

 

I also said:

 

>To me they defy nature!!! I did start writing a paper on feminism, some

>years ago, but came to a conclusion that even if one of these arrogant

>personalities did in fact read it, they'd only use the excuse that I was

>sexist, or the like."

 

Possibly this provides some significant background information. For many

years I had recognised the deviant philosophy of feminism creeping into

ISKCON, disguised as liberalism, reform, anti-abuse, equal rights, etc. And

again, I say that this is my opinion. (Or is it only feminists and their

supporters that are authorised to express opinions - and in private?)

 

I reasoned:

>Are they really in Srila Prabhupada's Iskcon, or have they started their

>own philosophy within Iskcon???"

 

And I sincerely believe it to be true (!!!), despite their having support

even at the GBC level.

 

I also said:

 

>One of my friends summed it up in a similar matter of some indigenous

>people in New Zealand, whose crime rate, alcohol consumption, domestic

>violence, etc., far exceeds the others in NZ. He made the point it's not

>that I'm racist, I just find a certain kind of behaviour unacceptable. It

>doesn't matter what the colour they're Niggers!!!

 

The reader may take the above in several ways:

 

(i) I'm commenting upon a friend's realisation regarding social problems in

many parts of the world. Note that actually there should have been

quotation marks around "it's not that I'm racist, I just find a certain

kind of behaviour unacceptable. It doesn't matter what the colour they're

Niggers!!!" Please check and re-check this; it's you who are accusing ME of

saying this!

 

(ii) We are not actually talking of a particular race of people, the poor

fellows of whom were abused as slaves in the USA. Indeed, it remains a

sensitive issue to date.

 

(iii) The context is addressing low-class behaviour, i.e. the unethical way

that certain feminists will do such things as publicise private mail,

publicly abuse devotees, and say or do whatever they can in order to bring

down their opponents. In some social-issue movies, such as "Boyz in the

Hood," there are many scenes where "Black African Americans" (also a

ridiculous term) shout at each other, calling other Black African Americans

"nigger!" The word was used to mean that they were low, that they had no

integrity, dignity or self-respect, etc. And the movie is based on

real-life people of South Central Los Angeles in 1991 (directed by John

Singleton).

 

(iv) Some of you may remember that former Beatle John Lennon wrote a song

called "Women Are the Niggers of the World." The essence of the song is

that women are exploited by men who themselves are slaves! Even if you're

not fond of his music (I no longer am), still it is definitely worth

looking at the words:

 

"Woman is the nigger of the world, yes she is, think about it!

Woman is the nigger of the world, yes she is, do something about it!

 

We make her paint her face and dance,

But she won't be a slave to say she don't love us

If she's free to say she's going to be a man

'n' put me down with terms so hard that she's above us.

 

Women is the nigger of the world.

(If you don't believe me take a look at the one you're with.)

 

Woman is the slave of the slave

(If you believe me you better scream about it!)

 

Make our bed and raise our children.

Then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen.

We tell her home is the only place you should be,

Then complain she's too unworthy to be our friend.

 

Woman is the nigger of the world.

(If you believe me take a look at the one you're with.)

Woman is the slave of the slave.

 

We insult her every day on TV,

Knock her when she has no guts or confidence.

When she's young we kill her will to be free

By putting her down for being dumb--

We put her down for being..." [unclear, moves away from the microphone]

 

Is this so different from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, wherein he

says that devious men are manipulating women enmass for their own sensual

gratification only? (SSR 1, Discussion with Ms. Nixon) No, it is not.

Rather, these words of John Lennon's clearly support most of His Divine

Grace's teachings, with a few exceptions due to Lennon's being under the

influence of "a third-class Japanese girl." (Room Conversation, 12-13-70)

 

As for this:

>In the same way these feminists in my opinion are the ones who due to

>their transgressing the shy and pure nature of real womanhood, are

>bringing, and have brought society to above their knees."

 

Is there something wrong with this statement? If you think so, then please

read the following Purports, wherein Srila Prabhupada explains that:

 

i) Shyness is the real nature of womanhood (SB 1:10:16 purport), and

 

ii) "A prostitute generally dresses herself in various fashions intended to

attract a man's attention to the lower part of her body. Today it has

become a much advertised fashion for a woman to go almost naked, covering

the lower part of her body only slightly, in order to draw the attention of

a man to her private parts for sexual enjoyment. The intelligence engaged

to attract a man to the lower part of the body is the intelligence of a

professional prostitute." (SB 6.5:14. purport)

 

(You can try to make something else of that if you like!)

 

Regarding this:

 

>We used to have one in our group here, she was a constant pain in the...not

>just for the men, but also for the women too. She ended up misleading a

>few, but then her husband left her, and she took off to another temple. Now

>she's in the process of marrying a REAL eunuch--he's totally enamoured, and

>she's wearing the pants already."

 

You should know that this is MORE than true. We did have such a woman in

our midst. She broke up a relationship while the male devotee's partner was

traveling, then moved in and took over. It happened. Sure, it takes two to

tango--we don't allow the male to come to our programs either. Now, some

have accused me of using the term "eunuch" unfairly, but shastra refers to

certain kind of men as being eunuchs (and not necessarily meaning that part

of their anatomy has been removed).

 

In the Gitamrta tapes of Purnacandra Prabhu, Krsna chides Arjuna, "People

will call you a eunuch." And Srila Prabhupad states that such a selfish

person may even be killed by the king (SB 4:7:26 Purport) who is "under the

protection of an unworthy husband, who is a coward and a eunuch although he

thinks himself a great hero." (SB 9:14:28) (Or is Vyasadeva wrong, or just

a sexist male also?)

 

(One feminist supporter who used to be what I considered a close friend

sent me an e-mail, accusing me of pointing the finger at one of her

friends, to whom she thought I had been referring, but when I revealed the

actual name, then SHE herself proceeded to say some quite heavy words

against her.)

 

My request to the receiver of this mail is clear, but again totally

neglected by "Ardhabuddhi" otherwise motivated:

>For God's sake don't distribute this to any of them.......! I've spent

>years fighting with these people, and their onesided "libralism"........!

 

…And further more, even though this must have been read by many, it was not

mentioned by EVEN ONE devotee to date!!! Maybe it's my ethics that need

re-evaluating??? Maybe I should "cut-loose", "keep up with the nineties"

and get rid of that stuffy Vaidika life-style I live by and follow.

 

Frankly I would rather follow as many of the guidelines as I can, even

where they get in the way of and stop my material propensities. After all

our directive is as I understand, to attain to spiritual ethics, and not

merely those that are pleasing to me at a given time in this world.

 

In the following Purport (SB 9:14:36), Srila Prabhupada warns us about such

materialistic women and what will happen if the man is lax to control the

senses (and in this fallen age I would even say the same applies if a man

is caught in the pursuit of materialistic goals; fame, adoration,

distinction, re-inforcement of the bodily concept of life, etc):

 

"Chanakya Pandita has advised, visvaso naiva kartavyah strisu raja-kulesu

ca: 'Never place your faith in a woman or a politician.' Unless elevated to

spiritual consciousness, everyone is conditioned and fallen, what to speak

of women, who are less intelligent than men. Women have been compared to

sudras and vaishyas (striyo vaishyas tatha sudrah). On the spiritual

platform, however, when one is elevated to the platform of Krsna

consciousness, whether one is a man, woman, sudra or whatever, everyone is

equal. Otherwise, Urvasi, who was a woman herself and who knew the nature

of women, said that a woman's heart is like that of a sly fox. If a man

cannot control his senses, he becomes a victim of such sly foxes. But if

one can control the senses, there is no chance of his being victimized by

sly, foxlike women. Chanakya Pandita has also advised that if one has a

wife like a sly fox, he must immediately give up his life at home and go to

the forest ….mata yasya grhe nasti etc.(Canakya-sloka 57) (SB 9:14:36.,

Purport)

 

Anyone who behaves as a "sly fox", man or women should be pulled up by the

authorities and reprimanded (not appointed as a leader). Someone please

tell me that a sly fox did NOT steal my mail and publicise it! I whole

heartedly agree that equality is there among those who are cent percent OFF

of the bodily concept and free from political agendas--that Srila

Prabhupada says. But now the "foxes" are saying that Srila Prabhupada was

sexist. No, he was a transcendentalist, and certainly not a fool! He knows

better than you or I why we NEED to keep the fire and the butter separated.

 

This is also why he says that "one should never place your faith in a woman

or a politician." - it is self evident in what has happened here. That is

not the kind of leadership that is required!!! We NEED to know what His

Divine Grace teaches in his books, not that we merely sentimentally or

emotionally, or angrily propound quotes to mean this or that--out of

context--motivated for material gain.

 

(I've received comments to my texts by some of ISKCON's leading female

devotees, including Malati, Prtha, Hare Krsna Dasi, Tulasi Maharani; and

others like Madhusudhani Radha, etc., and even Mukunda Goswami; however, it

seems that none of them have either understood or properly read my texts.

All primed ready to shoot, and shoot they did………!)

 

Our ISKCON society is sorely NEEDing role models--both male and

female--ideal role models who are able to inspire devotees to again develop

love and trust in each other, who are level headed, uninfluenced by public

opinion and not looking only for a fight to support PERSONAL CAUSES. Such

LEADERS lead by example and not in the manner conducted herein - which is

counterproductive to the cause of pure Krishna consciousness. I sincerely

believe that the smear campaign against members of GHQ (who were simply

preparing to draft a proposal to the GBC with the aim to establish such

REAL KRSNA CONSCIOUS ROLE MODELS), was designed specifically to undermine

the endeavour and pursuit of fairness, and in the long term to have the

exact opposite effect of introducing, an accepted watered down philosophy

based on materialistic feminism. You are entitled to believe as you like.

 

NOW, THE BOTTOM LINE:

 

If a mail service, or some of its staff or co-users, were to intercept

other people's private mail, read it, and then PUBLICISE it, there would be

quite a hue and cry, isn't it? But in our case, a person of no integrity

("Ardabuddhi das") did just that and thereby exposed you, the innocent

public, to expressions of ideas between one person and another of similar

thoughts and experience. In so doing, he/she violated all acts of privacy

(of civil law and netiquette) simply to propagate the selfish ends of the

feminist bloc. WE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED! (Yes, it can happen to males also!)

 

Unfortunately, this is how such one-sided, materialistic philosophy works,

and this is why it should not be accepted or condoned in ISKCON. We NEED

spiritual ethics based on the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. We NEED a

recognised process through which to present ideas, petitions, papers, and

the like to the GBC--to assist in maintaining the purity of the society.

 

I'm VERY upset in the way that WE have been treated in this whole matter.

It will take some time for me to get over this one. The amazing thing is

some I've heard are already saying that my crying hurt doesn't count.

THANKS!!!

 

In response to this posting, I don't expect to get any favourable results

from some sectors of our society; many of you have made your minds up long

ago, as I also did. Your thoughts and experiences cannot be denied, but

neither can mine. The fact of the matter is that whatever any of us GHQers

might have said that a feminist could disagree with certainly would have

been interpreted in the same negative way. That's the way it tends to be

for most people when reading something: one derives what one is looking

for, and only according to one's own realisation. This is why pratyaksha

pramanam (sensory perception) is not accepted alone as being a bona fide

source of evidence (To err is human; we have those four defects...). But if

that pratyaksha parallels the Vedic conclusion (Shruti pramanam) then it

can be and is accepted.

 

Now, sometimes anumanam (logic and argumentation) leads one, in fact, to

make downright absurd conclusions. A funny instance of how anumana went

astray was once recounted by a friend who was told the following story by

his "manaseega-acharyan," Sri Mukkur Swamy II of the Sri Vaishnava

sampradaya (and it will bear recalling here as we indeed relate it to the

events at hand):

 

"One early but bright marghashi morning, many years ago," he began, "I was

proceeding from home in Mambalam to Lord Parthasarathy's temple at

Tiruvellikeni. Unable to engage an auto-rickshaw immediately, I strolled

over to the nearest bus stand. Along with about a half-dozen others

gathered there, I began the long and patient wait for the rare privilege of

Chennai's (Madras) public transport.

 

"After about a quarter of an hour, I witnessed a most unusual event. (It

was so unusual that a few of my fellow passengers-in-waiting also were

drawn to it.) About a hundred yards from where we stood at the bus stop,

Usman Road turned sharply into Doraisamy Road. Suddenly an auto-rickshaw

pulled up at this same street corner. Eager to engage it, a few of us

quickly proceeded towards the rickshaw until what we saw abruptly halted us

in our tracks.

 

"I saw an elderly brahmin gentlemen alighting from the auto-rickshaw. His

deportment and demeanour indicated that he was an orthodox vaidika brahmin.

He wore his dhoti in the traditional pancha-kaccha style; a roughhewn shawl

was draped around his shoulders; he wore the tuft on his head; and on his

body and limbs were displayed proudly the twelve marks of the

Urdhva-pundram (tilak), shining forth with dazzling brahma-tejas (the

lustre of religious grooming)! He looked extremely venerable, indeed--every

inch the man given to observing the puritanical discipline of impeccable

Vedic conduct.

 

"As I watched him alight from the rickshaw, I saw this vaidika gentleman

pull out some currency from under his shawl and give it to the

rickshaw-man. 'The fare perhaps,' I thought. A moment later, I saw him

mutter a few words to the same rickshaw-man, and then to my utter

surprise--and to all those gathered there at the bus-stop--I watched the

venerable brahmin suddenly stride across to the other side of the road and

enter Radha Bhavan, the wayside restaurant!

 

"We were simply aghast. I was speechless, dumbstruck. I could not believe

my eyes! Here was I--it flashed across my mind--here was I watching the

living proof of Vedic degeneration in the age of Kali!

 

"As if echoing my own mortification, another gentleman who was standing

beside me in the bus stop, who too had just witnessed what I had, began to

mutter under his breath to himself but within earshot:

 

"'Oh, dear, dear,' he said, 'What a sorry sight! Oh "tempora"! Oh mores!

What a fall indeed for the Vedic ideal! Why should it surprise us that it

doesn't rain enough in the land? Why should it surprise us that there is

hunger, poverty, and disease in this land? Why should it surprise us that

the gods themselves curse this land of ours? This accursed land where a

vaidika-brahmin--in full brahma-vesham and regalia, including his twelve

namams (Vaishnava tilaks), his face radiating Vedic tejas-- a brahmin like

that thinks nothing of striding boldly, without the least compunction, into

a filthy, wayside restaurant for commoners; that too in the broad daylight

of an auspicious marghashi morning! Oh dear, dear, dear me! What have we

come to in this hallowed land of the Vedas? I wonder what the vaidika

gentleman is up to now? Feasting on what the restaurant serves him perhaps?

Yesterday's rancid medu-vadai turned into today's steaming special

vadai-curry perhaps?'"

 

Mukkur Swamy continued, "When I overhead my companion's anguished but

derisive remarks, a great sadness enveloped me too. The sight of a vaidikan

caught 'in flagrant delicto,' transgressing the Vedic code, caught entering

a wayside restaurant--just like that!--it pained my heart to see one of our

faithful brethren, one of our own, commit the unspeakable!

 

Unable to tolerate this blatant act of Vedic trespass," Mukkur Swamy

continued, "I decided then and there to confront the 'vaidika gentleman.'

 

"As he came out of the wretched Radha Bhavan, I strode up to him and

accosted him in a very belligerent manner. 'What a shame you are, sir, to

the Vedic community! You who look so venerable, so full of brahma-tejas,

how could you stoop to such low behaviour?

 

"The poor elderly brahmin turned to me," said Mukkur Swamy, "and looked at

me with obvious perplexity.

 

"'Pray tell me, sir, what have I done now, at this auspicious hour, in the

month of marghashi, at this spot here at the intersection of Usman Road and

Doraiswamy Road, in the good neighbourhood of Mambalam, in this big city of

Chennai. Pray tell me what have I done that has brought shame on the Vedic

community and which has moved you to such indignation that it has brought

you here with gods-speed to pick a fight with me first thing in the

morning!' said the old man equally belligerently.

 

"I then confronted him with the evidence," said Mukkur Swamy, "with the

fact of his visiting Radha Bhavan, a commoner's wayside restaurant, unclean

and un-vedic.

 

"How do you explain your conduct, sir? Is it becoming of you to do this?

You who have obviously had pancha-samskara, samashrayanam too!" (the

purificatory rites of initiation)

 

At this point in the narration, Sri Mukkur Swamy paused and looking askance

at us with a mischievous twinkle in his eyes, and asked:

 

"Do you know what the old vaidika brahmin did next? He drew his shawl over

the shoulders and drawing himself up to his full height, hands on hips, he

shouted at me: 'Oy, hold it right there! Hold it! Your anumana has gone all

awry!'"

 

Later it was explained what the old vaidikan meant by saying that Mukkur

Swamy's anumanam had gone awry:

 

"It seems the poor old brahmin on alighting from the auto-rickshaw had

handed out the fare with fresh currency notes. The rickshaw-man, however,

had expressed difficulty in returning change, for he did not have the

necessary denominations of coins. The old man had then pleaded with the

rickshaw-man to go over to Radha Bhavan and convert the currency notes into

change at the restaurant's cash counter.

 

"The rickshaw-man however had had better ideas. 'Swamy, these restaurateurs

are very rude fellows,' he had said. 'If I go at this early hour in the

morning and ask the Radha Bhavan cashier for small denomination change,

believe me, he will scream and throw me out! On the other hand, you oh

venerable Swamy--you who look so holy, so full of Vedic piety--if you went

up to Radha Bhavan and asked for change, I am sure they would not turn you

away; they dare not shoo away a good brahmin, as they surely will an

auto-rickshaw man like me. So I beseech you, sir, kindly proceed yourself

to Radha Bhavan to procure the change and settle my fare!'

 

"And that was how the poor old vaidika-brahmin had come to pay a visit to

Radha Bhavan!"

 

And that was how, too, Mukkur Swamy's anumanic inference--that the old

brahmin had travestied and disgraced the whole Vedic community--that was

how, in the end, the anumana of Mukkur Swamy was rendered absurdly

erroneous! (…those restaurateurs among you readers do not get up in arms,

as I'm only relating a story, and am not making a personal attack on you……)

 

Srila Prabhupada gives the example that if one sees Lord Nityananda going

into a drinking establishment, he should think that He's going there for

preaching. Unfortunately, the tendency has arisen in our society to

immediately try to drag another down, and especially if he be opposed to

your presentation (the tall poppy syndrome).

 

Congratulations on your attention span for making it this far, I'm almost

done. Before finishing I'd like to mention one other important story that

actually happened in a park in Amritsar, Jhulianwala Bagh (if I recall

correctly), during the time of the British Raj in India. One Indian fellow

was standing upon a soap box, arousing the emotions of the people gathered

in the walled park for nonviolent action against the British. The park was

surrounded on three sides by a ten- or twelve-foot-high wall, and the only

opening or exit was where the British soldiers stood with their rifles. And

being outnumbered by the influx of people in the park, the 'British rifles'

were becoming nervous.(They had been ordered not to shoot.)

 

Incited by the constant shouts from the soap box, the crowd grew

exceedingly loud, and some of the soldiers felt very much threatened. Amid

the tension, one soldier squeezed his trigger and a shot rang out. The

other soldiers immediately concluded that they were being fired upon, and

as panic enveloped them, some of the soldiers began to fire into the crowd;

with the sound of that gunfire, the others all followed suit.

 

Inside the park, the people ran to climb the walls as their only means of

escape. But alas, as anyone climbed the walls, their former cohorts would

pull him down with the aim of themselves getting out. As fate would

dictate, none of them survived.

 

Had they employed the principle enunciated by Rupa Goswami, then instead of

trying to pull others down to place themselves up, they would have, been

they united, catapulted some to the top, who could have reached down to

rescue those still within. At least some would have escaped.

 

(Likewise with us in ISKCON:) Trying to defame me or anyone else is not the

significant issue. The essential issue is to find a functional manner in

which devotees who presently feel unprotected will be protected, so that

they may pursue their spiritual development in a manner to which we are all

entitled. What must be done is to address issues in a proper manner and

then present suggestions--not conclusions or ultimatums or political

affronts--to the GBC. The objective must be that devotees remain under the

shelter of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON, which was his now famous stated

desire that we work cooperatively to keep his institution together after

his departure.

 

That, prabhus, was the purpose of GHQ. You can believe it or not, as you

like. I could have kept quiet easily enough, but no, I insist that the

truth be heard. And this is it.

 

I'm sorry if some of you refuse to accept what I have to say, but what can

I do? I would humbly suggest that we become more objective in our

interactions with each other, so that my feelings of repulsion for certain

individuals and the same feelings of repulsion that some have for me, may

be understood for what they are and dealt with properly. Then, instead of

my trying to force something on you, or vice versa, let us empathise and

try to appreciate another's subjugation. Such subjugation, be it by those

of us thinking we are male, or by those thinking they are female (or by

their male supporters), is not required, nor will it unite us in the

harmony required for working together cooperatively.

 

Nor is that the means to accomplish it, that is called daiva-varnashrama.

In that system each of us has a prescribed duty, function, and role to

execute. Honesty is required for us to participate therein, and humility

too. There's more to being a brahmana than simply one's inclination,

desire, or wearing some thread, as also there's more to being a vaishya

than simply doing business. And of course there's much more to being a

husband or a wife than merely cohabiting, as there is also much more to

being a guru than having disciples. Qualifications are not based on

academic achievement, but rather on how one lives his life (...karma

svabhava-jam, Bg 18.41-44)

 

Thank you for giving me further faith in devotional interactions between

devotees, and for all the kind words and feelings toward me. Not a blade of

grass moves without the hand of the Lord. This is not meant to be

sarcastic, I really mean this. I've learned a lot about the kind of

devotees I want to associate with from all of this.

 

For the record I don't expect a formal apology, rather I trust that Krishna

will give those of us who are responsible some appropriate punishment to

help rectify words and our actions. Having said that I wish you ALL well.

 

If you don't mind, those of you who want to send hate-mail AGAIN (or Even

for the first time) need not bother--I won't read them or reply. When an

unwelcome or unrequested "gift" is presented but its reception is rejected,

it remains with the sender. I'm sorry if this fact causes further upset to

anyone, for actually it is not meant to. However, I don't expect to make

some happy ever; some never will be happy (even though possessing all the

"toys" or facility or attention in the world).

 

However, I hope to appeal to those who have studied Srila Prabhupada's

books, are open-minded, and are faithful to his ISKCON. And in all

sincerity I humbly apologise for my part to those whose devotional service

has been disrupted in any way by any of this, as it was not my intention or

doing.

 

Please excuse me if you think my attitude stinks, I'm just fried with all

this.

 

I beg to remain eternally in the service of Sri Guru and Gauranga,

 

ys,

Jaya Tirtha Charan Dasa