Guest guest Posted December 14, 1998 Report Share Posted December 14, 1998 >[Text 1926910 from COM] > >> >By the way, readers might be interested to note two interesting >> >definitions of a "fanatic" that I came across recently:- >> > >> >* One who doesn't change his mind and doesn't change the subject... >Maybe it's you who are the **fanatic** here, my dear Prabhu! It appears that we might have a crossed-wire. I didn't mean to imply that you are a fanatic. I'm dredging my Kali-yuga memory here but I seem to remember the theme of fanaticism coming up a number of times in the discussion and I had it in mind that at some time I would include these light-hearted definitions. >Kindly note that **Srila Prabhupada** not Basu Ghosh Das, GHQ, XYZ, ABC >or whomsover, clearly says that "women are meant for certain duties". I do believe that you've misunderstood the thrust of what I meant in my last message. You seem to be arguing *against* "equality" which assumes that this is what others are necessarily arguing *for*. In making your arguments, you're quoting Srila Prabhupada quite accurately questioning/challenging the validity or viability of "equality". The reason others are not convinced by such quotes is that these quotes do not refute the points that they are making--because these quotes are making a different point. I can quite understand why people get upset at inferences that they're trying to introduce some Kali-yuga concepts in defiance of Srila Prabhupada--which appears to be the insinuation of some GHQ members. I don't think that the issue that such devotees are arguing for has been correctly heard and understood by GHQ members. I also sense that the devotees who are taking exception with the position of the GHQ devotees don't believe that it is all about loyalty to tradition. The perception is that tradition is being used as a device to enforce compliance because of some other concerns. And this concern for tradition is seen as a weapon which is being wielded with total disregard for the feelings of others--hardly Vaisnava-modelling. >Prabhupada: These are all imagination. When woman, when she is misguided, >she becomes dangerous... I'm not taking issue with this statement. However, this clearly needs to be sensitively and intelligently processed. Someone might argue that Srila Prabhupada didn't mince his words--and sometimes deliberately courted controversy. That may be. However, there are some important distinctions. Srila Prabhupada had his purposes which flowed out of the maturity of his realisation. We should act at our level--rather than blindly imitate. Clearly this issue of how much to follow without question and how much to exercise discretion is a complex matter which could be sastrically argued either way. Hence my stress on maturity. Srila Prabhupada was sometimes so inflexible and extreme as to bring tears to the eyes. Yet he also possessed the capacity (which he regularly demonstrated) to nurture, support and encourage others to feel valued/valuable. I suggest that all behaviour is consciously used by a conscious being. The same behaviour might be imitated by another but it may not be a "smart" weapon which does purely the intended job. I see lots of "heavy" behaviour in ISKCON (heavily justified in the name of Srila Prabhupada's "heaviness"). But rarely is it used where called for--and rarely does it produce a beneficient outcome. More often than not it seems to be fulfilling a need of the so-called "surgeon" rather than the so-called "patient". Just to continue the medical metaphor a stage further I think that "scalpels" should only be used by those who have the ability/capacity and intent to "heal" and are also able to administer "anaesthetics"--i.e. calm pain. >Prabhupada to Hayagriva in their discussions on philosophy. > >"Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the higher >statuses of life Is anyone suggesting otherwise? >It may be clearly said that >the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the understanding of a >man. OK, so exactly what does that mean? Does it apply in every age--since in Kali yuga all men other than brahmanas and ksatriyas (about 95% of the population) are lumped in with women in numerous sastric statements? How is the word "understanding" being used? Or the word "intelligence" in other places? Are they being used to indicate the difference in wiring that men and women have around "logic" and "feeling", "head" and "heart", "reasoning" and "intuition", left-brain and right-brain, etc? Does it mean that because a woman's understanding is inferior that she is treated in an inferior way. She is clearly psychologically and biologically oriented towards a different societal role. What about when a woman becomes a Vaisnava? How does the transcending of sva-dharma apply at that point? And even if we can resolve all of these philosophical points, we still must figure out how to apply in the current times. And even when we work that out (and come up with specific social policies), in the administration of those policies we must still conduct ourselves with all the hallmarks of KC--compassion, genuine feeling for the situation of others. I'm not sure that the situation is as black and white as you might hope to prove by generous servings of Srila Prabhupada quotations. >"But we have to pick up the order of the shastras. Tasmad shastra-vidhanokta >As the shastra gives regulative, we have to accept that. And if we do not >accept that, yah shastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate kama-karatah, if we do >whimsically, then na siddhim avapnoti, you cannot get any perfection of >life, na sukham, neither you’ll be happy." Srila Prabhupada is possibly making 2 points here--as a scholar of sanskrit you'll know better than I. Srila Prabhupada is denouncing both "non-acceptance" and "whimsical doing". What I hear going on in this debate is counter-accusation. GHQ members are practically accusing the whole society of "non-acceptance" of the Vedic ideal--of having made some compromise with the current social values of equality, etc. On the other hand, others are accusing that the GHQ approach is one of "whimsical doing"--pushing the letter of the law without the spirit of the law and without deep understanding of the principles involved or much concern for the impact on anyone but themselves (and those with whom they feel sympathy). The reason I mentioned "fanatic" is the apparent lack of critical thinking capacity--to even scrutinise one's own motives. Occasionally, there is concession on both sides that "I might be a little imbalanced here" but that is generally outweighed by "fisticuffs". If we can begin to think totally reasonably (and, after all, you're a man--you have an advantage!) then we have a chance of having more of a reasonable debate. The GHQ members have to accept some responsibility that their language had been so inflammatory which laregly brought about the vehemence of the backlash. >Srila Prabhupada From a lecture on SB 2.3.24 at Los Angeles on 22-6-72. > >Similarly, a devotee, an unflinching devotee, without any other desires, who >is dedicated to the service of the Lord, he is Sadhu. So we have to take >shelter of such Sadhu. Adau gurv-ashrayam. And Sadhu will instruct you. Not >by whims, but through Shastra. He is Sadhu. Sadhu will never speak to you >anything which is not in the Shastra. After a while, your selective choice of quotes (revealing your obvious line of thinking) becomes very predictable. Well I suppose that you'll really go to town on my non-quotation of sastra to support my statements if I don't mention one so here's one for you. "yei krsna bhaje, sei bada catura" Srila Prabhupada quotes to Bob Cohen in a discussion between them about how to apply the philosophical principles of respecting prasadam in a normal every day setting. Better to truly understand what is meant by what is said than to simply research databases for words that appear to support the very point one wishes to personally make. This is merely borrowing strength from another source. In the face of real understanding, even such sastric so-called "loyalty" (actually gymnastics) comes out "lightweight". Dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1998 Report Share Posted December 14, 1998 > > > Srila Prabhupada was sometimes so inflexible and extreme as to bring tears > to the eyes. Yet he also possessed the capacity (which he regularly > demonstrated) to nurture, support and encourage others to feel > valued/valuable. I suggest that all behaviour is consciously used by a > conscious being. The same behaviour might be imitated by another but it > may not be a "smart" weapon which does purely the intended job. > Thoughtful essay, Damodara prabhu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1998 Report Share Posted December 15, 1998 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Letter COM:1934977 (396 lines) [W1] Basu Ghosh ACBSP 14-Dec-98 15:15 Damodara (das) BCS (NZ) Reference: Text COM:1933750 by Damodara (das) BCS (NZ) Re: hmm Indeed!!! --------------------------- > >[Text 1926910 from COM] > > > >> >By the way, readers might be interested to note two interesting > >> >definitions of a "fanatic" that I came across recently:- > >> > > >> >* One who doesn't change his mind and doesn't change the subject... > > >Maybe it's you who are the **fanatic** here, my dear Prabhu! > > It appears that we might have a crossed-wire. I didn't mean to imply that > you are a fanatic. I'm dredging my Kali-yuga memory here but I seem to > remember the theme of fanaticism coming up a number of times in the > discussion and I had it in mind that at some time I would include these > light-hearted definitions. Thank you for the clarifications. Maybe I got a little "hot under the collar" due to hearing about your "lambasting" letters to Bhakti Vikas Maharaj, which I honestly didn't fully read. The Damodar I remember was a mild mannered gentleman addicted to the finer points of Bengali culture, kirtan & Bhakti Caru Swami. > >Kindly note that **Srila Prabhupada** not Basu Ghosh Das, GHQ, XYZ, ABC > >or whomsover, clearly says that "women are meant for certain duties". > > I do believe that you've misunderstood the thrust of what I meant in my > last message. You seem to be arguing *against* "equality" which assumes > that this is what others are necessarily arguing *for*. In making your > arguments, you're quoting Srila Prabhupada quite accurately > questioning/challenging the validity or viability of "equality". The > reason others are not convinced by such quotes is that these quotes do not > refute the points that they are making--because these quotes are making a > different point. Maybe so. And I've dropped "hand to hand COMbat" for the past couple of days & now wish to withdraw from answering the critics of GHQ in/on the COM conferences. > I can quite understand why people get upset at inferences that they're > trying to introduce some Kali-yuga concepts in defiance of Srila > Prabhupada--which appears to be the insinuation of some GHQ members. I > don't think that the issue that such devotees are arguing for has been > correctly heard and understood by GHQ members. I also sense that the > devotees who are taking exception with the position of the GHQ devotees > don't believe that it is all about loyalty to tradition. The perception > is that tradition is being used as a device to enforce compliance because > of some other concerns. And this concern for tradition is seen as a > weapon which is being wielded with total disregard for the feelings of > others--hardly Vaisnava-modelling. Well, then those devotees, the anti-GHQers, are under a "grand misconception" about the aim & objective of GHQ. Did you ever read Bhakti Vikas Maharaj's explanation, or mine about it? If not.... here goes; (This is from a letter sent to Hare Krishna dd from Bhakti Vikas Swami): > To quote from a letter by Basu Ghosh Prabhu: > > > > However when we see the accusations and harsh words put against Malati > > > Prabhu it is understandable that Srila Prabhupada accepted their > > > desire not to take up the challenge. Some men have indeed been very > > > violent in their attempts to keep power. Historical fact too. > > > > I fully agree with you that harsh words were indeed used against Malati > > Mataji & it is regrettable in view of the fact that she is sincerely > > endevoring to propagate the Krishna Consciousness movement. Both Bhakti > > Vikas Maharaj & myself (I speak/write for him at this time because we > > discussed this issue last month) appreciate that and feel that she is a > > very sincere soul. We do not approve of the any public denegration of > > her. No. > > > > Writing this, there is also a valid concern that for a lady (or if she > > was even a male) with a past such as her's, it might not be prudent for > > her to accept a leadership position. It might set the wrong precedent > > for society. > > > > The fact is that she did leave the path of Bhakti & engaged in certain > > reprehensible activities that we need not remember here, nay they should > > be forgotten in the sense that since she sincerely regrets those > > activities & she has already distanced herself from them. > > > > But "others", & that means both devotees in the institution & those > > outside the institution may not fully understand that. Therefore the > > verse in Gita, "sa yat pramanam kurute" comes into effect, when we are > > talking about a leadership position. > > > > Hope you understand my point. I fully respect Malati Mataji & can state > > that I had found her most co-operative (in corresspondence we had about > > some ISKCON "work" earlier this year). Since she is working in full > > co-operation with ISKCON I hold her in high esteem. How can I prove my > > sincerity to you on this issue any more? Radhanath Maharaj knows who I > > am & what my activities are, and I am sure that Malati Mataji can check > > my bona fides with him anyday, if that is the question here. > > > > As Guru Krishna Prabhu has pointed out nicely in several texts he has > > posted in this discussion, our aim as an informal "think tank" was a > > concern for the direction of the movement. No a campaign to villify or > > demonize anyone - despite the fact that, as you rightly point out, > > certain contributors to the GHQ conference did appear to indulge in > > doing so. > > > > Some of it was just that they went a little overboard in their > > passionate zeal of idealism. Since we really don't know each other > > (many of us, that is) to be fully judgemental would be a mistake. > > > > If anyone wants to continue to harp on that - fine. It can be brought > > up to the ISKCON authorities, as Bhakti Vikas Maharaj had written & we > > all will accept their judgement. -end of my "diatribe"- You continued... > >Prabhupada: These are all imagination. When woman, when she is misguided, > >she becomes dangerous... > > I'm not taking issue with this statement. However, this clearly needs to > be sensitively and intelligently processed. Someone might argue that > Srila Prabhupada didn't mince his words--and sometimes deliberately > courted controversy. That may be. However, there are some important > distinctions. Srila Prabhupada had his purposes which flowed out of the > maturity of his realisation. We should act at our level--rather than > blindly imitate. Clearly this issue of how much to follow without question > and how much to exercise discretion is a complex matter which could be > sastrically argued either way. Hence my stress on maturity. No argument at all here, Prabhu. No one bit. I've said it before, I wrote it in an e-mail this morning & I'll "shout it from the hilltops" if you will, that Srila Prabhupada was 90% lenient. Agreed. > Srila Prabhupada was sometimes so inflexible and extreme as to bring tears > to the eyes. Yet he also possessed the capacity (which he regularly > demonstrated) to nurture, support and encourage others to feel > valued/valuable. I suggest that all behaviour is consciously used by a > conscious being. The same behaviour might be imitated by another but it > may not be a "smart" weapon which does purely the intended job. OK. > I see lots of "heavy" behaviour in ISKCON (heavily justified in the name > of Srila Prabhupada's "heaviness"). But rarely is it used where called > for--and rarely does it produce a beneficient outcome. More often than > not it seems to be fulfilling a need of the so-called "surgeon" rather > than the so-called "patient". Just to continue the medical metaphor a > stage further I think that "scalpels" should only be used by those who > have the ability/capacity and intent to "heal" and are also able to > administer "anaesthetics"--i.e. calm pain. OK again. But... if there IS no authority, surgeon... then what? Srila Prabhupada appointed persons who *were not* 100% fit. I call them "blind uncles"; it's an aphorism in "niti shastra"; "better a blind uncle than no uncle." Thus the problem. No easy solution. "Something is better than nothing." Still.... we ought to endeavor to move ahead towards the ideals that Srila Prabhupada indeed taught. With your kind permission.... here is an except from an excellent letter written to me by a TP in the USA; > I think we all agree that currently ISKCON is in a more vulnerable state > than ever: problems that were thought to be under control are completely > out of control; the authority structure within the movement is almost > completely broken down; various parties who have been considered barking > dogs have become so empowered that the GBC is afraid of them; many > devotees distance themselves from the movement; the city temples are > emptying out; the internet has become a fierce battle ground of devotees > attacking each other; websites like VNN were created with the single > purpose of weakening, discrediting and if possible destroying ISKCON; > Chakra has proven to be equally politically motivated; the list goes on > and on. > > In other words we are living in a turmoil which is characterized by > politics, fighting, insecurity, hypocrisy, emotional explosions, loss of > orientation, resentment, loss of faith, etc. > > Now we have the choice of either becoming overwhelmed by this fighting > spirit or remain cool-headed and simply try to satisfy Srila Prabhupada > with whatever we do, write, etc. Although the DMW conference has become > somewhat affected by politics occasionally, it still contains some of the > most cultured and intelligent texts written on COM. Many contributions > were and still are valuable eye-openers in the realm of social dharma. Why > become worried about barking dogs? Better to continue to write thoughtful > articles that are pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. According to our > philosophy dharma, and those who propagate dharma will prevail. > > Dialog with opponents have to be seen as helpful because they test and > deepen our understanding and conviction. E.g. everyone who reads DMW texts > will find that the DMW members remained mostly if not always composed > while those who disagreed with DMW conclusions often lost their nerves and > Vaishnava etiquette. Again from your letter... > >Prabhupada to Hayagriva in their discussions on philosophy. > > > >"Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the > >higher statuses of life > > Is anyone suggesting otherwise? I clearly get that impression from certain lady devotees - one of whom is running the "Chakra" Website & 2 or 3 others who are deeply involved with the IWM (ISKCON Women's Ministry). Now of course they will admit that there certainly ARE differences... it's just "that both men & women should have *equal* service opportunities" - which means that women can/ought to become GBCs & TPs. Etc., etc., etc. In my most humble opinion, this is most certainly not what Prabhupada had in mind for the ladies. Hope you got that impression from the quotes I sent you. You know very well that in Indian/vedic/bengali/hindu culture, as Srila Prabhupada clearly told Hayagriva; "women have their duties". Within the scope of those duties there is UNLIMITED engagement for them in the service of the Lord. Here's a quote from a Mataji who is an active participant - but not a blind follower, in the present "COMbat" going on in the "Varnashram development" & "(ISKCON) Social & Economic development" conferences on COM: (from a private letter to me, just received today...) > My opinion is this: most women who are truly chaste, shy, and a good Vedic > example (not me) are too busy in their womanly duites and too shy to come > out and write :-). However, this is a goal, no matter how lofty, that I > want to achieve, to be such a woman. My life has improved a thousand > times, and so has my marriage, since I have attempted to be more > surrendured to my home and husband. And he in turn has never been more > surrendured to me, while being my strong protector. > >It may be clearly said that > >the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the understanding of a > >man. > > OK, so exactly what does that mean? Does it apply in every age--since in > Kali yuga all men other than brahmanas and ksatriyas (about 95% of the > population) are lumped in with women in numerous sastric statements? How > is the word "understanding" being used? Or the word "intelligence" in > other places? Are they being used to indicate the difference in wiring > that men and women have around "logic" and "feeling", "head" and "heart", > "reasoning" and "intuition", left-brain and right-brain, etc? Does it > mean that because a woman's understanding is inferior that she is treated > in an inferior way. She is clearly psychologically and biologically > oriented towards a different societal role. Thank you for agreeing with the thrust of my contentions. This last sentence shows/proves to me that we harbor (or British "harbour") no real difference of opinion. Or do we? Not that I relish debate... I'm sick of the whole thing. But discussion that leads to conclusive truth... well, that's a million times better. Which is why I'm leaving (I've left it already & minute by minute my resolve to shun it 100% grows!) the "COMbat" on the VaD development & ISED conferences. > What about when a woman > becomes a Vaisnava? How does the transcending of sva-dharma apply at that > point? And even if we can resolve all of these philosophical points, we > still must figure out how to apply in the current times. And even when we > work that out (and come up with specific social policies), in the > administration of those policies we must still conduct ourselves with all > the hallmarks of KC--compassion, genuine feeling for the situation of > others. OK. As I said/wrote; Srila Prabhupada WAS 90% lenient. He did indeed make concessions for a society in which "men & women mix freely" (which is the opposite of "traditional vedic/indian/hindu society [despite obvious violations of that in the past & in the present. There indeed WAS a standard, which broadly was in force throughout India]. > I'm not sure that the situation is as black and white as you might hope to > prove by generous servings of Srila Prabhupada quotations. OK, OK. But ought we not share our "ideals" - they were indeed put forward by Srila Prabhupada, with others... who claim to be HIS followers? > >"But we have to pick up the order of the shastras. Tasmad > >shastra-vidhanokta As the shastra gives regulative, we have to accept > >that. And if we do not accept that, yah shastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate > >kama-karatah, if we do whimsically, then na siddhim avapnoti, you cannot > >get any perfection of life, na sukham, neither you’ll be happy." > > Srila Prabhupada is possibly making 2 points here--as a scholar of > sanskrit you'll know better than I. Srila Prabhupada is denouncing both > "non-acceptance" and "whimsical doing". What I hear going on in this > debate is counter-accusation. GHQ members are practically accusing the > whole society of "non-acceptance" of the Vedic ideal--of having made some > compromise with the current social values of equality, etc. On the other > hand, others are accusing that the GHQ approach is one of "whimsical > doing"--pushing the letter of the law without the spirit of the law and > without deep understanding of the principles involved or much concern for > the impact on anyone but themselves (and those with whom they feel > sympathy). First of all GHQ members - some of them, as you read [quite well] above did go overboard WITHIN THE PRIVATE CONFERENCE. It WAS NOT meant for public consumption. It was a think tank - a "cyber" brainstorming session, if you will. Ideas were being tossed around. But the concern was for "watering down" the teachings of Prabhupada. And an idealistic approach to morality. As for the latter part of your above para, I feel that deliberate disinformation about GHQ is being spread due to fear that an indeed quasi feministic agenda is being threatened (and rightly so. Because the aim of GHQ was to petition the GBC against perceived feminism) & the proponents of this quasi feminism will do XYZ to "overturn the apple cart" of GHQ. Simple. What do you think? > The reason I mentioned "fanatic" is the apparent lack of critical thinking > capacity--to even scrutinise one's own motives. Occasionally, there is > concession on both sides that "I might be a little imbalanced here" but > that is generally outweighed by "fisticuffs". If we can begin to think > totally reasonably (and, after all, you're a man--you have an advantage!) > then we have a chance of having more of a reasonable debate. The GHQ > members have to accept some responsibility that their language had been so > inflammatory which laregly brought about the vehemence of the backlash. If you can honestly accept that GHQ was indeed a "think tank", then you must accept the fact that we were indeed engaged in "critical thinking". However, if YOU have become a "victim" of "disinformation"... what can I do? As for the "fisticuffs"... Peculiar to the present political system in parliament here in India; when the opposition parties want to stifle a debate where they are hopelessly outnumbered, they engage a few of their loudest & shameless members to "shout down" the regular recognized speaker & the proceedings grind to a halt. In the press here in India, they are called "the shouting brigade". We seem to have a spontaneous group of them functioning on the above mentioned conferences. Hence, I've lost my taste... However, despite this "shouting brigade" there have been some very sincere exchanges which I feel were valuable to those concerned. Hope this is another one of them. > >Srila Prabhupada From a lecture on SB 2.3.24 at Los Angeles on 22-6-72. > > > >Similarly, a devotee, an unflinching devotee, without any other desires, > >who is dedicated to the service of the Lord, he is Sadhu. So we have to > >take shelter of such Sadhu. Adau gurv-ashrayam. And Sadhu will instruct > >you. Not by whims, but through Shastra. He is Sadhu. Sadhu will never > >speak to you anything which is not in the Shastra. > > After a while, your selective choice of quotes (revealing your obvious > line of thinking) becomes very predictable. > Well I suppose that you'll really go to town on my non-quotation of sastra > to support my statements if I don't mention one so here's one for you. > "yei krsna bhaje, sei bada catura" Srila Prabhupada quotes to Bob Cohen > in a discussion between them about how to apply the philosophical > principles of respecting prasadam in a normal every day setting. Better > to truly understand what is meant by what is said than to simply research > databases for words that appear to support the very point one wishes to > personally make. This is merely borrowing strength from another source. > In the face of real understanding, even such sastric so-called "loyalty" > (actually gymnastics) comes out "lightweight". So, what is the conclusion? 1. We want to engage all human beings in Krishna's service 2. We want to gradually elevate the "two legged animals" (the category to which we must admit we come from) to a) the position of "human being" & b) to accept the vedic system of life. 3. To spread vedic culture in every town & village. This spread of culture includes changing our names, culinary habits, dress, mentality, outlook on life, etc., etc., etc., Part of those changes is come to understand what our duties are according to our "station in life". That is varnashrama dharma. Am I wrong? Isn't that what Prabhupada wanted us to "understand"? Or should we be so attached to our western culture & conditioning that we cling to it for the rest of our lives? OK. Fine. If that's YOUR (figuratively. I mean anyone's) "cup of tea" - go for it! You ask me to "truely understand" the meaning of Prabhupada's words. In the words of a senior (Indian) godbrother, who massaged Srila Prabhupada's feet - literally for days on end; "what do you think I've been doing here for 25 years, cutting grass?" Hope you and your good wife are happy & healthy down there in "sunny" New Zealand. dasabhas, Basu Ghosh Das (Text COM:1934977) -------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1998 Report Share Posted December 15, 1998 ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Letter COM:1934977 (396 lines) [W1] Basu Ghosh ACBSP 14-Dec-98 15:15 Damodara (das) BCS (NZ) Reference: Text COM:1933750 by Damodara (das) BCS (NZ) Re: hmm Indeed!!! --------------------------- > >[Text 1926910 from COM] > > > >> >By the way, readers might be interested to note two interesting > >> >definitions of a "fanatic" that I came across recently:- > >> > > >> >* One who doesn't change his mind and doesn't change the subject... > > >Maybe it's you who are the **fanatic** here, my dear Prabhu! > > It appears that we might have a crossed-wire. I didn't mean to imply that > you are a fanatic. I'm dredging my Kali-yuga memory here but I seem to > remember the theme of fanaticism coming up a number of times in the > discussion and I had it in mind that at some time I would include these > light-hearted definitions. Thank you for the clarifications. Maybe I got a little "hot under the collar" due to hearing about your "lambasting" letters to Bhakti Vikas Maharaj, which I honestly didn't fully read. The Damodar I remember was a mild mannered gentleman addicted to the finer points of Bengali culture, kirtan & Bhakti Caru Swami. > >Kindly note that **Srila Prabhupada** not Basu Ghosh Das, GHQ, XYZ, ABC > >or whomsover, clearly says that "women are meant for certain duties". > > I do believe that you've misunderstood the thrust of what I meant in my > last message. You seem to be arguing *against* "equality" which assumes > that this is what others are necessarily arguing *for*. In making your > arguments, you're quoting Srila Prabhupada quite accurately > questioning/challenging the validity or viability of "equality". The > reason others are not convinced by such quotes is that these quotes do not > refute the points that they are making--because these quotes are making a > different point. Maybe so. And I've dropped "hand to hand COMbat" for the past couple of days & now wish to withdraw from answering the critics of GHQ in/on the COM conferences. > I can quite understand why people get upset at inferences that they're > trying to introduce some Kali-yuga concepts in defiance of Srila > Prabhupada--which appears to be the insinuation of some GHQ members. I > don't think that the issue that such devotees are arguing for has been > correctly heard and understood by GHQ members. I also sense that the > devotees who are taking exception with the position of the GHQ devotees > don't believe that it is all about loyalty to tradition. The perception > is that tradition is being used as a device to enforce compliance because > of some other concerns. And this concern for tradition is seen as a > weapon which is being wielded with total disregard for the feelings of > others--hardly Vaisnava-modelling. Well, then those devotees, the anti-GHQers, are under a "grand misconception" about the aim & objective of GHQ. Did you ever read Bhakti Vikas Maharaj's explanation, or mine about it? If not.... here goes; (This is from a letter sent to Hare Krishna dd from Bhakti Vikas Swami): > To quote from a letter by Basu Ghosh Prabhu: > > > > However when we see the accusations and harsh words put against Malati > > > Prabhu it is understandable that Srila Prabhupada accepted their > > > desire not to take up the challenge. Some men have indeed been very > > > violent in their attempts to keep power. Historical fact too. > > > > I fully agree with you that harsh words were indeed used against Malati > > Mataji & it is regrettable in view of the fact that she is sincerely > > endevoring to propagate the Krishna Consciousness movement. Both Bhakti > > Vikas Maharaj & myself (I speak/write for him at this time because we > > discussed this issue last month) appreciate that and feel that she is a > > very sincere soul. We do not approve of the any public denegration of > > her. No. > > > > Writing this, there is also a valid concern that for a lady (or if she > > was even a male) with a past such as her's, it might not be prudent for > > her to accept a leadership position. It might set the wrong precedent > > for society. > > > > The fact is that she did leave the path of Bhakti & engaged in certain > > reprehensible activities that we need not remember here, nay they should > > be forgotten in the sense that since she sincerely regrets those > > activities & she has already distanced herself from them. > > > > But "others", & that means both devotees in the institution & those > > outside the institution may not fully understand that. Therefore the > > verse in Gita, "sa yat pramanam kurute" comes into effect, when we are > > talking about a leadership position. > > > > Hope you understand my point. I fully respect Malati Mataji & can state > > that I had found her most co-operative (in corresspondence we had about > > some ISKCON "work" earlier this year). Since she is working in full > > co-operation with ISKCON I hold her in high esteem. How can I prove my > > sincerity to you on this issue any more? Radhanath Maharaj knows who I > > am & what my activities are, and I am sure that Malati Mataji can check > > my bona fides with him anyday, if that is the question here. > > > > As Guru Krishna Prabhu has pointed out nicely in several texts he has > > posted in this discussion, our aim as an informal "think tank" was a > > concern for the direction of the movement. No a campaign to villify or > > demonize anyone - despite the fact that, as you rightly point out, > > certain contributors to the GHQ conference did appear to indulge in > > doing so. > > > > Some of it was just that they went a little overboard in their > > passionate zeal of idealism. Since we really don't know each other > > (many of us, that is) to be fully judgemental would be a mistake. > > > > If anyone wants to continue to harp on that - fine. It can be brought > > up to the ISKCON authorities, as Bhakti Vikas Maharaj had written & we > > all will accept their judgement. -end of my "diatribe"- You continued... > >Prabhupada: These are all imagination. When woman, when she is misguided, > >she becomes dangerous... > > I'm not taking issue with this statement. However, this clearly needs to > be sensitively and intelligently processed. Someone might argue that > Srila Prabhupada didn't mince his words--and sometimes deliberately > courted controversy. That may be. However, there are some important > distinctions. Srila Prabhupada had his purposes which flowed out of the > maturity of his realisation. We should act at our level--rather than > blindly imitate. Clearly this issue of how much to follow without question > and how much to exercise discretion is a complex matter which could be > sastrically argued either way. Hence my stress on maturity. No argument at all here, Prabhu. No one bit. I've said it before, I wrote it in an e-mail this morning & I'll "shout it from the hilltops" if you will, that Srila Prabhupada was 90% lenient. Agreed. > Srila Prabhupada was sometimes so inflexible and extreme as to bring tears > to the eyes. Yet he also possessed the capacity (which he regularly > demonstrated) to nurture, support and encourage others to feel > valued/valuable. I suggest that all behaviour is consciously used by a > conscious being. The same behaviour might be imitated by another but it > may not be a "smart" weapon which does purely the intended job. OK. > I see lots of "heavy" behaviour in ISKCON (heavily justified in the name > of Srila Prabhupada's "heaviness"). But rarely is it used where called > for--and rarely does it produce a beneficient outcome. More often than > not it seems to be fulfilling a need of the so-called "surgeon" rather > than the so-called "patient". Just to continue the medical metaphor a > stage further I think that "scalpels" should only be used by those who > have the ability/capacity and intent to "heal" and are also able to > administer "anaesthetics"--i.e. calm pain. OK again. But... if there IS no authority, surgeon... then what? Srila Prabhupada appointed persons who *were not* 100% fit. I call them "blind uncles"; it's an aphorism in "niti shastra"; "better a blind uncle than no uncle." Thus the problem. No easy solution. "Something is better than nothing." Still.... we ought to endeavor to move ahead towards the ideals that Srila Prabhupada indeed taught. With your kind permission.... here is an except from an excellent letter written to me by a TP in the USA; > I think we all agree that currently ISKCON is in a more vulnerable state > than ever: problems that were thought to be under control are completely > out of control; the authority structure within the movement is almost > completely broken down; various parties who have been considered barking > dogs have become so empowered that the GBC is afraid of them; many > devotees distance themselves from the movement; the city temples are > emptying out; the internet has become a fierce battle ground of devotees > attacking each other; websites like VNN were created with the single > purpose of weakening, discrediting and if possible destroying ISKCON; > Chakra has proven to be equally politically motivated; the list goes on > and on. > > In other words we are living in a turmoil which is characterized by > politics, fighting, insecurity, hypocrisy, emotional explosions, loss of > orientation, resentment, loss of faith, etc. > > Now we have the choice of either becoming overwhelmed by this fighting > spirit or remain cool-headed and simply try to satisfy Srila Prabhupada > with whatever we do, write, etc. Although the DMW conference has become > somewhat affected by politics occasionally, it still contains some of the > most cultured and intelligent texts written on COM. Many contributions > were and still are valuable eye-openers in the realm of social dharma. Why > become worried about barking dogs? Better to continue to write thoughtful > articles that are pleasing to Srila Prabhupada. According to our > philosophy dharma, and those who propagate dharma will prevail. > > Dialog with opponents have to be seen as helpful because they test and > deepen our understanding and conviction. E.g. everyone who reads DMW texts > will find that the DMW members remained mostly if not always composed > while those who disagreed with DMW conclusions often lost their nerves and > Vaishnava etiquette. Again from your letter... > >Prabhupada to Hayagriva in their discussions on philosophy. > > > >"Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the > >higher statuses of life > > Is anyone suggesting otherwise? I clearly get that impression from certain lady devotees - one of whom is running the "Chakra" Website & 2 or 3 others who are deeply involved with the IWM (ISKCON Women's Ministry). Now of course they will admit that there certainly ARE differences... it's just "that both men & women should have *equal* service opportunities" - which means that women can/ought to become GBCs & TPs. Etc., etc., etc. In my most humble opinion, this is most certainly not what Prabhupada had in mind for the ladies. Hope you got that impression from the quotes I sent you. You know very well that in Indian/vedic/bengali/hindu culture, as Srila Prabhupada clearly told Hayagriva; "women have their duties". Within the scope of those duties there is UNLIMITED engagement for them in the service of the Lord. Here's a quote from a Mataji who is an active participant - but not a blind follower, in the present "COMbat" going on in the "Varnashram development" & "(ISKCON) Social & Economic development" conferences on COM: (from a private letter to me, just received today...) > My opinion is this: most women who are truly chaste, shy, and a good Vedic > example (not me) are too busy in their womanly duites and too shy to come > out and write :-). However, this is a goal, no matter how lofty, that I > want to achieve, to be such a woman. My life has improved a thousand > times, and so has my marriage, since I have attempted to be more > surrendured to my home and husband. And he in turn has never been more > surrendured to me, while being my strong protector. > >It may be clearly said that > >the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the understanding of a > >man. > > OK, so exactly what does that mean? Does it apply in every age--since in > Kali yuga all men other than brahmanas and ksatriyas (about 95% of the > population) are lumped in with women in numerous sastric statements? How > is the word "understanding" being used? Or the word "intelligence" in > other places? Are they being used to indicate the difference in wiring > that men and women have around "logic" and "feeling", "head" and "heart", > "reasoning" and "intuition", left-brain and right-brain, etc? Does it > mean that because a woman's understanding is inferior that she is treated > in an inferior way. She is clearly psychologically and biologically > oriented towards a different societal role. Thank you for agreeing with the thrust of my contentions. This last sentence shows/proves to me that we harbor (or British "harbour") no real difference of opinion. Or do we? Not that I relish debate... I'm sick of the whole thing. But discussion that leads to conclusive truth... well, that's a million times better. Which is why I'm leaving (I've left it already & minute by minute my resolve to shun it 100% grows!) the "COMbat" on the VaD development & ISED conferences. > What about when a woman > becomes a Vaisnava? How does the transcending of sva-dharma apply at that > point? And even if we can resolve all of these philosophical points, we > still must figure out how to apply in the current times. And even when we > work that out (and come up with specific social policies), in the > administration of those policies we must still conduct ourselves with all > the hallmarks of KC--compassion, genuine feeling for the situation of > others. OK. As I said/wrote; Srila Prabhupada WAS 90% lenient. He did indeed make concessions for a society in which "men & women mix freely" (which is the opposite of "traditional vedic/indian/hindu society [despite obvious violations of that in the past & in the present. There indeed WAS a standard, which broadly was in force throughout India]. > I'm not sure that the situation is as black and white as you might hope to > prove by generous servings of Srila Prabhupada quotations. OK, OK. But ought we not share our "ideals" - they were indeed put forward by Srila Prabhupada, with others... who claim to be HIS followers? > >"But we have to pick up the order of the shastras. Tasmad > >shastra-vidhanokta As the shastra gives regulative, we have to accept > >that. And if we do not accept that, yah shastra-vidhim utsrjya vartate > >kama-karatah, if we do whimsically, then na siddhim avapnoti, you cannot > >get any perfection of life, na sukham, neither you’ll be happy." > > Srila Prabhupada is possibly making 2 points here--as a scholar of > sanskrit you'll know better than I. Srila Prabhupada is denouncing both > "non-acceptance" and "whimsical doing". What I hear going on in this > debate is counter-accusation. GHQ members are practically accusing the > whole society of "non-acceptance" of the Vedic ideal--of having made some > compromise with the current social values of equality, etc. On the other > hand, others are accusing that the GHQ approach is one of "whimsical > doing"--pushing the letter of the law without the spirit of the law and > without deep understanding of the principles involved or much concern for > the impact on anyone but themselves (and those with whom they feel > sympathy). First of all GHQ members - some of them, as you read [quite well] above did go overboard WITHIN THE PRIVATE CONFERENCE. It WAS NOT meant for public consumption. It was a think tank - a "cyber" brainstorming session, if you will. Ideas were being tossed around. But the concern was for "watering down" the teachings of Prabhupada. And an idealistic approach to morality. As for the latter part of your above para, I feel that deliberate disinformation about GHQ is being spread due to fear that an indeed quasi feministic agenda is being threatened (and rightly so. Because the aim of GHQ was to petition the GBC against perceived feminism) & the proponents of this quasi feminism will do XYZ to "overturn the apple cart" of GHQ. Simple. What do you think? > The reason I mentioned "fanatic" is the apparent lack of critical thinking > capacity--to even scrutinise one's own motives. Occasionally, there is > concession on both sides that "I might be a little imbalanced here" but > that is generally outweighed by "fisticuffs". If we can begin to think > totally reasonably (and, after all, you're a man--you have an advantage!) > then we have a chance of having more of a reasonable debate. The GHQ > members have to accept some responsibility that their language had been so > inflammatory which laregly brought about the vehemence of the backlash. If you can honestly accept that GHQ was indeed a "think tank", then you must accept the fact that we were indeed engaged in "critical thinking". However, if YOU have become a "victim" of "disinformation"... what can I do? As for the "fisticuffs"... Peculiar to the present political system in parliament here in India; when the opposition parties want to stifle a debate where they are hopelessly outnumbered, they engage a few of their loudest & shameless members to "shout down" the regular recognized speaker & the proceedings grind to a halt. In the press here in India, they are called "the shouting brigade". We seem to have a spontaneous group of them functioning on the above mentioned conferences. Hence, I've lost my taste... However, despite this "shouting brigade" there have been some very sincere exchanges which I feel were valuable to those concerned. Hope this is another one of them. > >Srila Prabhupada From a lecture on SB 2.3.24 at Los Angeles on 22-6-72. > > > >Similarly, a devotee, an unflinching devotee, without any other desires, > >who is dedicated to the service of the Lord, he is Sadhu. So we have to > >take shelter of such Sadhu. Adau gurv-ashrayam. And Sadhu will instruct > >you. Not by whims, but through Shastra. He is Sadhu. Sadhu will never > >speak to you anything which is not in the Shastra. > > After a while, your selective choice of quotes (revealing your obvious > line of thinking) becomes very predictable. > Well I suppose that you'll really go to town on my non-quotation of sastra > to support my statements if I don't mention one so here's one for you. > "yei krsna bhaje, sei bada catura" Srila Prabhupada quotes to Bob Cohen > in a discussion between them about how to apply the philosophical > principles of respecting prasadam in a normal every day setting. Better > to truly understand what is meant by what is said than to simply research > databases for words that appear to support the very point one wishes to > personally make. This is merely borrowing strength from another source. > In the face of real understanding, even such sastric so-called "loyalty" > (actually gymnastics) comes out "lightweight". So, what is the conclusion? 1. We want to engage all human beings in Krishna's service 2. We want to gradually elevate the "two legged animals" (the category to which we must admit we come from) to a) the position of "human being" & b) to accept the vedic system of life. 3. To spread vedic culture in every town & village. This spread of culture includes changing our names, culinary habits, dress, mentality, outlook on life, etc., etc., etc., Part of those changes is come to understand what our duties are according to our "station in life". That is varnashrama dharma. Am I wrong? Isn't that what Prabhupada wanted us to "understand"? Or should we be so attached to our western culture & conditioning that we cling to it for the rest of our lives? OK. Fine. If that's YOUR (figuratively. I mean anyone's) "cup of tea" - go for it! You ask me to "truely understand" the meaning of Prabhupada's words. In the words of a senior (Indian) godbrother, who massaged Srila Prabhupada's feet - literally for days on end; "what do you think I've been doing here for 25 years, cutting grass?" Hope you and your good wife are happy & healthy down there in "sunny" New Zealand. dasabhas, Basu Ghosh Das (Text COM:1934977) -------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1998 Report Share Posted December 15, 1998 > > Thank you for the clarifications. Maybe I got a little "hot under the > collar" due to hearing about your "lambasting" letters to Bhakti Vikas > Maharaj, which I honestly didn't fully read. > > I wonder if it will ever become fashionable in ISKCON to relentlessly call men with whom we disagree 'male sex workers' or something equally flattering. I guess we feel we can call mothers 'prostitutes' knowing we are someone only a mother could love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1998 Report Share Posted December 15, 1998 At 19:43 -0800 12/14/98, WWW: Sthita-dhi-muni (Dasa) SDG (Alachua FL - USA) wrote: > >I wonder if it will ever become fashionable in ISKCON to relentlessly call men >with whom we disagree 'male sex workers' or something equally flattering. Since the "industry" is being maintained by men, I guess the corresponding word could be "Johns". But no, I don't think we have to stoop to the same level. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 On 15 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > Since the "industry" is being maintained by men... A thought. I have heard that many women here where I am are even married and their husbands don't know what they do in the evening hours. One "worker" I heard about told her family she was a cleaner at night, when in fact she was doing something entirely different, as a "worker" in the "industry." So I don't believe all blame lies with the men. The women involved have some responsibility to take for their involvement also. These ones I have heard of are highly deceiptful to say the least. I can't imagine how I would feel if I was married with a wife who was secretly deceiving me. Nasty. Ys, Bhaktavatsala dasa (NZ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 On 15 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > Since the "industry" is being maintained by men... A thought. I have heard that many women here where I am are even married and their husbands don't know what they do in the evening hours. One "worker" I heard about told her family she was a cleaner at night, when in fact she was doing something entirely different, as a "worker" in the "industry." So I don't believe all blame lies with the men. The women involved have some responsibility to take for their involvement also. These ones I have heard of are highly deceiptful to say the least. I can't imagine how I would feel if I was married with a wife who was secretly deceiving me. Nasty. Ys, Bhaktavatsala dasa (NZ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 >So I don't believe all blame lies with the men. No one said it did. However, the bottom line is that without demand, there is no need for a supply, or to put it more candidly: no "johns", no sex workers. In communities where they have reduced sex work, it has been accomplished by vocational training for the women and legal consequences for johns and pimps. >A thought. I have heard ... Yes, we "hear" so many things don't we? It sounds like the person who told you that may have read some male porn-fantasy magazines. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 1999 Report Share Posted January 14, 1999 >So I don't believe all blame lies with the men. No one said it did. However, the bottom line is that without demand, there is no need for a supply, or to put it more candidly: no "johns", no sex workers. In communities where they have reduced sex work, it has been accomplished by vocational training for the women and legal consequences for johns and pimps. >A thought. I have heard ... Yes, we "hear" so many things don't we? It sounds like the person who told you that may have read some male porn-fantasy magazines. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 1999 Report Share Posted January 15, 1999 In a message dated 99-01-13 21:59:50 EST, you write: << On 15 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > Since the "industry" is being maintained by men... A thought. I have heard that many women here where I am are even married and their husbands don't know what they do in the evening hours. One "worker" I heard about told her family she was a cleaner at night, when in fact she was doing something entirely different, as a "worker" in the "industry." So I don't believe all blame lies with the men. The women involved have some responsibility to take for their involvement also. These ones I have heard of are highly deceiptful to say the least. I can't imagine how I would feel if I was married with a wife who was secretly deceiving me. Nasty. Ys, Bhaktavatsala dasa (NZ) >> This comment is a little lost on me...perhaps I don't know the background of the discussion....this kind of behavior is unacceptable whether it is a woman lying to a man, or a man lying to a woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 1999 Report Share Posted January 15, 1999 In a message dated 99-01-13 21:59:50 EST, you write: << On 15 Dec 1998, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > Since the "industry" is being maintained by men... A thought. I have heard that many women here where I am are even married and their husbands don't know what they do in the evening hours. One "worker" I heard about told her family she was a cleaner at night, when in fact she was doing something entirely different, as a "worker" in the "industry." So I don't believe all blame lies with the men. The women involved have some responsibility to take for their involvement also. These ones I have heard of are highly deceiptful to say the least. I can't imagine how I would feel if I was married with a wife who was secretly deceiving me. Nasty. Ys, Bhaktavatsala dasa (NZ) >> This comment is a little lost on me...perhaps I don't know the background of the discussion....this kind of behavior is unacceptable whether it is a woman lying to a man, or a man lying to a woman. 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.