Guest guest Posted December 10, 1998 Report Share Posted December 10, 1998 Dear Mahanidhi Prabhu, Dandavata. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. I will try to answer your comments on my text points for points, however, you should remember, this is a philosophical debate and not a name calling issue or challenging issue. Sysop sent out warnings that devotees refrain from attacking each other on COM, or else they will be given temporary suspension on COM. As a matter of fact only cowardly person who is unable to engage in sound philosophical debate engages in name calling etc. Presentation of Krishna consciousness is meant to creat enlightenment, and thus give those concerned enthuasiam to engage in the service of Krishna. > > > > > This may be an eye opener. Manu Smrti mentions that if a woman is > > abandoned by her husband, and she is quite young, and no child, she may > > be permited to re-marry. Once a woman produces a child, there is no more > > question of re-marriage, regardless if her husband abandons her or not, > > else she is an enemy. > > > > Now, this is something that I belive you have not though about, > since you do not give any indication of it. It is in the text given by Manu. I will provide actual sanskrti text and translation to back my statement. > That is that these particular codes of Manu Smrti are applicable > in the civilized, cultured society. The society that does not > provide the full protection to the weaker classes (children, old > men, women) can't be classified as such. When the full protection is > insured, *then* "there is no more question of remarriage". It may be a fact that Vedic age is gone, and humanity nowadays are lower than the sudras. In a society that is lower than the sudra, where is the question of proper protection of women, brahmana, old people, cow and children. But Krishna consciousness movement is about creating a perfect society based on brahminical and Vedic principles. If we say that whatever injunctions that were written in the Manu Samhitas etc., are irrelivant, then my question is "why did we join Krishna consciousness movement?'. Did Srila Prabhupada wasted his time by simply trying to create an utopian society in forming ISKCON?. > What I am noticing often here is that some persons merely > show the "skill" of being able to quote some code from > somewhere. And that's it. Actually, not exactly "that's it". > The expect, and demand, that the codes are to be "executed" > (the word that best suites, as I find it) on that weaker > class of the society (women). As a preaching movement, the members ought to be very skillful in undertstanding the philosophy and in presentation citing appropriate sastric refferences. We are not sentimentalists. A preacher should never open his mouth without appropriate sastric backings. Otherwise it is cheating. So, don't be so much upset if devotees quote so much scriptures to back up their points. Those quotations are part of the amunitions a devotee has against material energy. > Taking in consideration the protection of women, and here we > speak particularly about single mothers with children, ISKCON > does not make it into the category of a civilized society. > Sorry to spell it out. HOW will, on the earth, a single mother > in ISKCON provide for herself that she ought to have - a house, > regular economical maintenance, social security, her children > being taken care of materially, and so on. HOW??? You, Isvara > prabhu, please tell me. > That is exactly the problem we are having today in Iskcon. Pessimism pervades the conciousness of every devotee. There is an all-around cry of "no-body cares" from majorities of devotees. The full perception is that those who are on the leadership position only cares for their own arrangement and even make future arrangements for themselves. I knew many devotees, including myself, who have spent the prime time of their lives collecting lots of money for the movement, only to find themselves strugling to maintain themselves, after years of active dedication to the movement. Today, we have so many sanyassis who have houses, large bank accounts, credit cards etc., at the expense of the innocent devotees who made it possible for them to have whatever they may have today. Here in Vrindavana, many devotees come to Vrindavana to visit in order to deepen their experience of Krishna consciousness, but would find it quite difficult to find place to stay, proper food to eat, getting cheated by the Indians etc, and the Iskcon management showing absolutely no care for all those devotees. On the other hand, the sanyassis, and other prominent leaders would visit, and stay in very comfortable accommodations in places like MVT, or private houses that they own. The brahmacari ashram in the gurukula building is very empty. Iskcon sanyassis have found it very demeaning for them to stay in those ashrams. But you have querried 'Who cares?" My answer "Krishna cares" > And everybody is so eager to pull out Manu Smrti (the parts > that speak of women's duties, only) and show how he is "learned" > and the supporter of the Vedic society and daiva-varnasrama dharma. As if > that alone makes us "Vedic". What a joke (the one you rather cry on, not > laugh). You seemed to too dissapointed. But the bitter medicine is still what is prescripbed in the sastras. > > > The women in Iskcon who are campagning for equality in all areas with > > men are practically unheard of in Vedic age. Majority of these women are > > either single, divorced, several husbands, frustrated with their current > > husbands, and are simply looking to get even. But have nothing to do > > with pure Krishna consciousness. > > > "They are simply looking to get even" > > This is interesting idea, that shows to me (besides that it is > highly subjective observation, and not necessarily the > actuality) the background of your approach: The ISKCON men > did something bad to ISKCON women, they *mistreated* them. > Therefore they will to get - even. Iskcon women also did something very bad to men as well. I knew one mataji who broke her fiften year marriage just because she became attracted to very younger man. Both men and the women are the victims. Bhagavatam says "kale dosa nidher rajanO King, Kali yuga is an ocean of faults" > Now, THIS is practically unheard of in Vedic age. That the > entire class (women) get mistreated by the superior class (men) > whose DUTY is to PROTECT them (see Manu Smrti). I will humbly challenge you that if there is actually a woman who has all the good qualities of women like Mother Draupadi, Queen Kunti and Mother Gandhari, don't you agree with me such women will be sort after by every men of the society, and she will be giving full protection?. Such women are called devis or goddess. A goddess is worshipped. The fact is that in Kali yuga, women are longer real women, therefore, men are longer real men. > And you dare to talk "nothing to do with pure Krishna > consciousness". More I am hearing this phrase, that becomes > cheaper and cheaper, I almost start developing a kind of repulsion to > "pure Krsna consciousness" paradigm. It all becomes so meaningless. > Phraseology, no substance. Please Prabhu, don't be scared of the word "pure" > > > > > There are lots of respected Iskcon matajis that I personally know, who > > finds the wranglings of Western Iskcon devotees about equality as simply > > ridiculous. If the mataji who upholds the Vedic standard, and a mataji > > who is fighting for her so called right, stand together in an assembly, > > real admiration and respect will be given only to the mataji that > > embodies the Vedic principles. > > > Do you, Isvara prabhu, do YOU *embody the Vedic principles*??? Why are you challenging me? It is not the basis of this discussion. > > "Wranglings of Western Iskcon devotees" > > You are apparently living in the holiest of holy Dhams, > Vrindavan. If this is the result of living there (a politically > oriented vision), then I prefer to stay here, no matter how > many "pucka Hindus" will drill my brain how they are superior > in there performance of Dharma, in their execution of pure Krsna > consciousness, in their following Manu Smrti, in their marriages, in their > everything. It is simply sickening. Why don't you leave "Westerners" deal > with their own lifes as they find it fitting? I am also a Westerner just like you. But I got really tired of trying to be a devotee in the West, I moved to Vrindavana. I think it has been the most rewarding experience of my ilfe and I thank guru and Krishna for it. invite you to spend sometime in India. > Has not "East" got enough own problems to handle with? How many > ISKCON children have been so far raped and abused there in the > midst of Vrndavan? Was that heard of in Vedic Times? What about > Manu Smrti? And so on and so on. Don't forget that all the demons that Krishna killed were all Indians, and as a matter of fact residents of Mathura. > Ah, yes, we got off the topic. Sorry, gentlemen. Yes, what was > it? A single mother is not to be allowed to remarry. Not > Vedic. She is otherwise prostitute and enemy to her child. > Otherwise, besides this, who cares for her. Srila Prabhupada quoted Canakya Pandita many times. A beautiful woman, a woman who argues with her husband, and mother who remarries are all considered enemies. Please check the folio. Ys, Isvara Dasa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 Isvara das wrote: > > Now, this is something that I belive you have not though about, since > > you do not give any indication of it. > > It is in the text given by Manu. I will provide actual sanskrti text and > translation to back my statement. > No. You don't have to, I belive it. I meant *this* under (that you cut in between). I meant, you did not thought about *the conditions* in which the codes (that you gonna provide sanskrt for) are normally applied. > > That is that these particular codes of Manu Smrti are applicable in the > > civilized, cultured society. The society that does not provide the full > > protection to the weaker classes (children, old men, women) can't be > > classified as such. When the full protection is insured, *then* "there > > is no more question of remarriage". *This* I meant that you did not show the indication of. > It may be a fact that Vedic age is gone, and humanity nowadays are lower > than the sudras. In a society that is lower than the sudra, where is the > question of proper protection of women, brahmana, old people, cow and > children. But Krishna consciousness movement is about creating a perfect > society based on brahminical and Vedic principles. If we say that whatever > injunctions that were written in the Manu Samhitas etc., are irrelivant, > then my question is "why did we join Krishna consciousness movement?'. Did > Srila Prabhupada wasted his time by simply trying to create an utopian > society in forming ISKCON?. > Right. So let's do it. Let's do it by FIRST insuring the proper protection to the single mothers with children, give them all they required, and THEN call them prostitutes and enemies of their children if they remarried anyway. I am not against constructing the house in which we all can live nicely. I am against this unreasonable attempt to put the furniture into the rooms that have no walls, no windows, no roofs.. I hope I am making myself somehow more clear. > > As a preaching movement, the members ought to be very skillful in > understanding the philosophy and in presentation citing appropriate > sastric refferences. We are not sentimentalists. A preacher should never > open his mouth without appropriate sastric backings. Otherwise it is > cheating. So, don't be so much upset if devotees quote so much scriptures > to back up their points. Those quotations are part of the amunitions a > devotee has against material energy. > But do not assume, again and again, that we here are not aware of those quotes on women! These ones are amongst the *most often* quoted by our "preachers". We DO KNOW them. What are you preaching here, and to whom? Are you a preacher? Then why don't you choose those sannyasis and ISKCON managers (that you spoke about here) to shoot on with your scriptural ammunitions, instead of single mothers with children that got no tangible protection in this society? Oh, I got it, yes. You are not a sentimentalist. Get on their case (unprotected, non influential, unimportant, powerless, less intelligent, dependent, non productive,... single mothers). > That is exactly the problem we are having today in Iskcon. Pessimism > pervades the conciousness of every devotee. There is an all-around cry of > "no-body cares" from majorities of devotees. OK. Let's be concrete. Now you please tell us what is the position of a single mother with children in ISKCON. Tell me what security she is entitled to. Quote the ISKCON laws that guarantee to such single mother (and her children) all social, economical, psychological, physical, medical, emotional and so on protection. Do it. So, let's stop talking empty words and assuming this and that. Let's get to the point. Is that OK with you? The full perception is that > those who are on the leadership position only cares for their own > arrangement and even make future arrangements for themselves. I knew many > devotees, including myself, who have spent the prime time of their lives > collecting lots of money for the movement, only to find themselves > struggling to maintain themselves, after years of active dedication to the > movement. Today, we have so many sanyassis who have houses, large bank > accounts, credit cards etc., at the expense of the innocent devotees who > made it possible for them to have whatever they may have today. Great, isn't? "SANNYASIS WHO HAVE HOUSES, LARGE BANK ACCOUNTS, CREDIT CARDS ETC." And your concern is single mother with children that remarries! (Yes, I know, I know, I know. You can supply me with the sanskrt. Yes) > Here in > Vrindavana, many devotees come to Vrindavana to visit in order to deepen > their experience of Krishna consciousness, but would find it quite > difficult to find place to stay, proper food to eat, getting cheated by > the Indians etc, and the Iskcon management showing absolutely no care for > all those devotees. On the other hand, the sanyassis, and other prominent > leaders would visit, and stay in very comfortable accommodations in places > like MVT, or private houses that they own. The brahmacari ashram in the > gurukula building is very empty. Iskcon sanyassis have found it very > demeaning for them to stay in those ashrams. > No comment. All is said. > But you have querried 'Who cares?" > > My answer "Krishna cares" > Please, do not tell me that. You got the right answer. No one else here could make that much. So, let's all go home now and sleep nicely, our dear children... (How not to be upset and angry? Somebody quickly tell me, please, before I got sent to the Sysop for my attitudes) > > And everybody is so eager to pull out Manu Smrti (the parts > > that speak of women's duties, only) and show how he is "learned" and the > > supporter of the Vedic society and daiva-varnasrama dharma. As if that > > alone makes us "Vedic". What a joke (the one you rather cry on, not > > laugh). > > You seemed to too dissapointed. But the bitter medicine is still what is > prescribed in the sastras. I *am* disappointed. (is it still allowed? I don't know.) > > Now, THIS is practically unheard of in Vedic age. That the > > entire class (women) get mistreated by the superior class (men) whose > > DUTY is to PROTECT them (see Manu Smrti). > > I will humbly challenge you that if there is actually a woman who has all > the good qualities of women like Mother Draupadi, Queen Kunti and Mother > Gandhari, don't you agree with me such women will be sort after by every > men of the society, and she will be giving full protection?. Such women > are called devis or goddess. A goddess is worshiped. The fact is that in > Kali yuga, women are longer real women, therefore, men are longer real > men. > (well, I will remember that phrase, to use it in order to avoid to be sent to the Sysop for being simply challenging - "I will humbly challenge you." I love it Please (humbly, humbly asking) do not assume that we do not know what Draupadi, Kunti, Gandhari and other great ladies were. One interesting thing. I almost start laughing when I think about. Our "Vedic-men" will give no freedom of independence from them to our women, yet they would want, will expect, and will demand from them to be "Draupadis" and "Kuntis" *independently* from them. Without their (men's) first becoming "Arjunas" and "Pandus". They say that a woman can't have even a varna on her own, without "leaning" to a husband's qualities. And, surprise, surprise, here they want them to be nothing less then - Draupadis. On their *own*. Well, they (men) can be irresponsible fellows, that is no problem. > > And you dare to talk "nothing to do with pure Krishna > > consciousness". More I am hearing this phrase, that becomes > > cheaper and cheaper, I almost start developing a kind of repulsion to > > "pure Krsna consciousness" paradigm. It all becomes so meaningless. > > Phraseology, no substance. > > Please Prabhu, don't be scared of the word "pure" > Please Prabhu, don't apply it on single mothers with children that have no other protection (I mean, God is there, of course, how could we forget Him, dear) that their own capabilities to find their way through. Practically speaking, apply that word "pure" on yourself, and those sannyasis and ISKCON management that you spoke about here. You ain't scared of it? No. (oh, sorry, I got again onto that "name calling" COM-offense) > > > > > > Do you, Isvara prabhu, do YOU *embody the Vedic principles*??? > > Why are you challenging me? It is not the basis of this discussion. > > Of course it is not. Just a simple argument. Before you place demand on women to be those to "embody the Vedic principles", insure first the same "at home". Not you, a single person. But men. Men in general. You are a man, right. Then press *men* to be that "embodiment of the Vedic culture". Or are they already, perhaps? I didn't noticed it. All heroes get on the case of single mothers. (sorry, here I go again... a coward.. sorry, humbly sorry..) > > "Wranglings of Western Iskcon devotees" > > > > You are apparently living in the holiest of holy Dhams, > > Vrindavan. If this is the result of living there (a politically oriented > > vision), then I prefer to stay here, no matter how many "pucka Hindus" > > will drill my brain how they are superior > > in there performance of Dharma, in their execution of pure Krsna > > consciousness, in their following Manu Smrti, in their marriages, in > > their everything. It is simply sickening. Why don't you leave > > "Westerners" deal with their own lifes as they find it fitting? > > I am also a Westerner just like you. But I got really tired of trying to > be a devotee in the West, I moved to Vrindavana. I think it has been the > most rewarding experience of my ilfe and I thank guru and Krishna for it. > invite you to spend sometime in India. > I visited India several times, spending some time. Got a glimps. That what irkes me is this attitude of looking from above on "others." As you there in India got your specific sets of problems to deal with, so has the "West". You are neither better nor worse. But I am constantly witnessing here the patronizing from the side of "Hidu-dharmics". Actually, it's typical Indian style. Just be above. No matter in what sh.. one is, just role your head from left to right, and say, "Evrtng perfkt, baba." (And when some "Hindu-dharmi" wants to sell you some his crap, he talks, "Am I cheating you? No. I have no intention Mataji, no. I simply give you this for free. Yes. You are so intelligent and humble, Mataji. Where you coming from? Ahh.. from Scandivana.. ...accha. Thirty-five rupees Mataji, only") > > > Ah, yes, we got off the topic. Sorry, gentlemen. Yes, what was > > it? A single mother is not to be allowed to remarry. Not > > Vedic. She is otherwise prostitute and enemy to her child. > > Otherwise, besides this, who cares for her. > > Srila Prabhupada quoted Canakya Pandita many times. A beautiful woman, a > woman who argues with her husband, and mother who remarries are all > considered enemies. Please check the folio. I believe you. When a brahman's newly born child died, he accused Arjuna for it. In the proper *Vedic* society such thing does not happen. How did Arjuna react? Did he say something like, "Ah come on, what a brahmin you are? Haven't you heard for karma? Haven't you hear for God, brahman-ji? God protects, not me. Don't be silly". Arjuna *immediately* accepted the responsibility and sworn to protect brahman's next child from death, or he (Arjuna) will himself die. Please check the folio. If that's all we are about. ys mnd PS. Please do not tell for now to the Sysop for my cowardly and challenging attitude to you. I will be nicer. Promises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 >A woman looses all her respect when she looses her shyness, by attempting >to be plainly visible alongside with men. Is that only with her physical body? If she is attempting to be plainly visible conversing with men and sannyasis on COM, does she preserve her shyness? Even though she is writing letters to men other than her husband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 Dear Mahanidhi, Dandavata. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. It seems you are too much pre-occupied with the single mothers' syndrome. I don't feel it should be the basis of this discussion. It is very unfortunate situation for a single mother, who have been left behind by her husband. It is part of the whole western culture that family values is being severely erroded. I remembered about seven years ago, when the vice-president of the United States, Dan Quale made a remark about the Holywood glorification of single motherhood, as the basis of declining traditional family value in America. He was immediately criticised by all the medias. To the Western situation, a woman can have a child without a man staying around for the child raising. I am sure you are aware of several so-called celebrity women producing children as single mothers, and are being glorified, and are being put forward as role models for others. Our movement should study the cause of widespread single mothehood in Iskcon. My opinion of single motherhood in Iskcon is due to unwillingness of the party concerned to imbibe the vedic spiritual heritage. You cannot force a man to protect a woman who is not submissive, and always very belligerent. As a matter of fact, Manu Samhita permits the abandonment of a belligerent woman, for another woman who is more submissive. The blame cannot entirly be put on Iskcon men who might apparently left their wives, but we need to examine the character of those women as well. I know one mataji, even in Vrindavana, who has married five times, and have five children with five different husbands. If that is not prostitution, I don't know what to call that. Of course if your concern is about unprotected single mother, then may be you can initiate a single mothers' ashrama, that will be funded by the society. In that way there will be protection for all. I don't think you will get the approval of the GBC. We should realise that though we might have been in the movement for five, ten, twenty or more years, we are still student. When somebody quotes the scriptures to substantiate a statement, our mood should not be "Oh, we already know that. We don't have to hear it anymore". The fact is if we are already know that, then why are we not following?. And if we are following, why are we so complacence?. Srila Bhaktissidhanta instructed his disciples to read Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya Caritamrta etc. at least 108 times, in order to really imbibe the mood of bhakti. How many of us have read Bhagavad-gita at least ten times. I can vouch fo myself, I have only read complete Gita with the purports five times, and each time I read, it is always as if I have not read it before. Why are we considering ourselves as proffesors of vedic scriptures that are so vast, that we are unwilling to hear from others when they quote scriptures for philosophical arguements. We may say that they only quote what is beneficial for their political statements, nonetheless, such quotations are part of the Vedas, and we should to be persons bringing forth such refferences. ys, Isvara Dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 > >A woman looses all her respect when she looses her shyness, by attempting > >to be plainly visible alongside with men. > > Is that only with her physical body? If she is attempting to be plainly > visible conversing with men and sannyasis on COM, does she preserve her > shyness? Even though she is writing letters to men other than her husband? Is she loosing her shyness while asking philosophical questions during a temple lecture given by a man other than her husband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 Isvara prabhu wrote: > > It seems you are too much pre-occupied with the single mothers' syndrome. > I don't feel it should be the basis of this discussion. That was the topic you initiated, not me. You got some codes (that you can even supply us with the original Sanskrit for) from Manu Smrti, that you used as the "ammunition" for your preaching here. > Our movement should study the cause of widespread single mothehood in > Iskcon. My opinion of single motherhood in Iskcon is due to unwillingness > of the party concerned to imbibe the vedic spiritual heritage. You cannot > force a man to protect a woman who is not submissive, and always very > belligerent. My opinion is that this society failed badly to protect the dependents, and that the hypocritical excuse is to blame the subordinates for it. My opinion is that this cheap excuse for own failure is - nonsense. Well, at least you disclose us now on what your previous accusation of women was based on. I mean, that one that they (women) want to simply get even with them (men). So, yes, they (women) were not submissive and they were belligerent, and now they will revenge to men for this. > As a matter of fact, Manu Samhita permits the abandonment of > a belligerent woman, for another woman who is more submissive. The blame > cannot entirly be put on Iskcon men who might apparently left their wives, > but we need to examine the character of those women as well. What else could I expect from you but to quote the Manu Samhita on a belligerent women!? I would be pleasurably shocked to hear you quoting something else from Manu. You know, "Varieties are the spices of the life", at least. I though we gonna be talking a concrete language, remember? What has this society practically done so far to ensure all (or sound) economical, social, psychological, medical, physical protection for its single female members? Any ISKCON laws? Anything reasonable? No? Then let's not talk "belligerent women", "she's not submissive" and al that "observations" of yours. That's talk of idle uneducated spaced-out village (Indian) men. (Single mothers are too busy putting their economy together have no time to discuss meaningless ideas). (And now you can rapport me to the Sysop, since I couldn't keep my promise to be a nice guy to you, that can't discuss "philosophically" with you.) > I know one mataji, even in Vrindavana, who has married five times, and Keep it for yourself. Otherwise I will start telling you all about one men who raped several matajis in the basement of the temple that he was the authority at. OK? > > Of course if your concern is about unprotected single mother, then may be > you can initiate a single mothers' ashrama, that will be funded by the > society. In that way there will be protection for all. I don't think you > will get the approval of the GBC. Why not be your concern also?? Or is it that your concern ends with simply supplying us with the "ammunition" for classifying the remarried single mothers as prostitutes and the enemies of their children? Is this your (apparently ironical) suggestion of a "single mother's ashrama" perhaps based on Manu Smriti? Could you supply us with the "ammunition" for it? And why on the earth you are suggesting to me something that you don't think would be given the approval for from the GBC anyway? Got no other sense of "responsibility" toward unprotected single mothers but to be proposing here absurd ideas? Better then simply be quiet. > We should realise that though we might have been in the movement for five, > ten, twenty or more years, we are still student. When somebody quotes the > scriptures to substantiate a statement, our mood should not be "Oh, we > already know that. We don't have to hear it anymore". I have realized that many of has got no hearth. We got, in some five, ten, twenty years in this movement, some grip of a few scriptural references, and that's all. Not much more than that. Simply acting as broken LP automates that repeat few favorite "ever-green" slokas endlessly. Like robots. > The fact is if we > are already know that, then why are we not following?. And if we are > following, why are we so complacence?. > [snip] I am tired. ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 11, 1998 Report Share Posted December 11, 1998 On 11 Dec 1998, Mahanidhi das wrote: > They say that a woman can't have even a varna on her own, > without "leaning" to a husband's qualities. Here's the proof that a woman has a varNa, and that it is not always identical to that of her husband: SB 5.26.23 "The shameless husbands of lowborn shuudra women live exactly like animals, and therefore they have no good behavior, cleanliness or regulated life..." If women have no varNa, then the group described by the term "shuudra women" is the null set, as the term "women" would rule out the term "shuudra" and vice versa. Therefore, this Bhaagavatam verse would speak of the husbands of a null group, which in turn is also a null group. So, this Bhaagavatam verse speaks of nobody at all, and is therefore absolutely useless -- it may as well speak of rabbit's horns or barren women's children. In other words, the idea that "women are a class unto themselves... [distinct from] the four higher divisions" is entirely contradictory to the Bhaagavatam verse above, and therefore can safely be discarded. Incidentally, this Bhaagavatam verse also contradicts the idea that women have no varNa of their own and that their varNa is determined _entirely_ by their husband's. For, if that were true, there is no value at all to the contorted expression "husbands of lowborn shuudra women" -- in fact, it would suffer from the flaw of viruddha-mati, just as the expression "bhavaanii-bhartuH" suffered from this flaw when spoken by Keshava Kashmiri. Your servant, Vijay S. Pai 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.