Guest guest Posted December 12, 1998 Report Share Posted December 12, 1998 On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, COM: Isvara (das) GGS (Vrindavana - IN) wrote: '' ''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. [..] '' ''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. May be blessed with long life and ever-increasing realizations as above! your servant in service to ISKCON, Guru-Krsna das (HDG) *dharmo-rakshati rakshitaha* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 1998 Report Share Posted December 12, 1998 COM: Vijaya-venugopala (das) JPS (Persian Gulf) wrote: > [Text 1927093 from COM] > > >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? The women should not be seen with men in ISKCON, as that would be a sign of lack of shyness, but if they go out and sell books so sannyasis and temple presidents can have money to spend, then that is not shyness. The amazing thing is these guys can support positions like the above with a straight face and actually believe it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 1998 Report Share Posted December 12, 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? Definitely looses her shyness that way too. A chaste woman would leave all dealings with other mean entirely to her husband. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 1998 Report Share Posted December 12, 1998 Isvara das wrote: > > 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? > > Definitely looses her shyness that way too. A chaste woman would leave all > dealings with other mean entirely to her husband. Jivan Mukta prabhu and Sita dd, have you heared? ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 1998 Report Share Posted December 12, 1998 Dear Mahanidhi, Dandavata. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. I can clearly understand that whatever sastric refferences there may be, you will stick to your idea about the unprotected single women in Iskcon, and how the men are the ones to blame for it. I can say to you that myself and some male devotees who are strongly advocating traditional roles of women according to Vedic principles are all married men. At least I know some of them personally, they have never been known as those who abuse their wives or other women. Myself and my wife have very cordial relationship, based on sound vedic principles. She understands her role as a dutiful wife, and a mother, very respectful to her husband, the result is she is quite happy. So she is always fully protected. A husband provides for the household, while the wife keeps the household happy. Srila Prabhupada mentioned as follows in Srimad Bhagavatam 3:23:4-5 "The daughter of Manu, who was fully devoted to her husband, looked upon him as greater even than providence. Thus she expected great blessings from him. Having served him for a long time, she grew weak and emaciated due to her religious observances. Seeing her condition, Kardama, the foremost of celestial sages, was overcome with compassion and spoke to her in a voice choked with great love. PURPORT The wife is expected to be of the same category as the husband. She must be prepared to follow the principles of the husband, and then there will be happy life. If the husband is a devotee and the wife is materialistic, there cannot be any peace in the home. The wife must see the tendencies of the husband and must be prepared to follow him. From Mahäbhärata we learn that when Gändhäré understood that her would-be husband, Dhåtaräñöra, was blind, she immediately began to practice blindness herself. Thus she covered her eyes and played the part of a blind woman. She decided that since her husband was blind, she must also act like a blind woman, otherwise she would be proud of her eyes, and her husband would be seen as inferior. The word samanuvrata indicates that it is the duty of a wife to adopt the special circumstances in which the husband is situated. Of course, if the husband is as great as Kardama Muni, then a very good result accrues from following him. But even if the husband is not a great devotee like Kardama Muni, it is the wife’s duty to adapt herself according to his mentality. That makes married life very happy. It is also mentioned herein that by following the strict vows of a chaste woman, Princess Devahüti became very skinny, and therefore her husband became compassionate. He knew that she was the daughter of a great king and yet was serving him just like an ordinary woman. She was reduced in health by such activities, and he became compassionate and addressed her as follows." While the Vedic regulations are the principles to be followed by civilised society, but it is not the end in themselves. The goal is the development of love of God and thereby end the repetition of birth and death. But as long as we are conditioned, the principles must be followed. Endless speculations about the duties are will not help, as long as we think the vedic rules and regulations are outdated, and needs to be modified to suit our western mentality. Regardless of how much you care about single mothers, unprotected women etc, withour adhering very strictly about the injuctions given by the Supreme Lord in the form of the Vedas, there will not be any success in whatever formula we think, we may adopt. I think you can the only to help the unprotected single motherhood in Iskcon, is by stopping them from becoming single, by following the guidelines as given above by Srila Prabhupada. If you still think sticking to the vedic principles is not enough, and I am simply following some politically motivated ideal, (you have a right to your opinion), then it is simply a waste of my valuable time to continuing indulging in maeaningful discussion with you. I hope we can engage in honest, frank, and heart to heart dialog that can really be helpful to all members of Iskcon. Ys, Isvara Dasa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1998 Report Share Posted December 13, 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. The proof that women have different varnas is that pratiloma and anuloma marriages existed in Vedic times. Pratiloma marriages were not welcome because the woman would belong to a higher varna. In this case she would be more qualified then the husband, what would make relationship difficult. We have example of Maharaj Yayati, who was a ksatriya, getting married to Devayani, who was a brahmani girl. Sukracarya had to make special arrangments that this marrige would be accepted, since Yayati already had seen her naked. I think another example could be Romaharsana Suta, but I can't remember right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1998 Report Share Posted December 13, 1998 > > The proof that women have different varnas is that pratiloma and anuloma > marriages existed in Vedic times. Pratiloma marriages were not welcome > because the woman would belong to a higher varna. In this case she would > be more qualified then the husband, what would make relationship > difficult. We have example of Maharaj Yayati, who was a ksatriya, getting > married to Devayani, who was a brahmani girl. Sukracarya had to make > special arrangments that this marrige would be accepted, since Yayati > already had seen her naked. I think another example could be Romaharsana > Suta, but I can't remember right now. The proof is being rejected by "Vedics" on the base that "varna" of an unmarried girl is determined by her father's varna (or by her birth), not by her personal qualities, like in the case of the boys. Thus either husband or father. But not on "her own". They simply refuse that women also got the personal qualities of the particular varna. Like if she would be a piece of a furniture that may be "painted" over with another color as soon it changes the owner. Hopeless people. ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1998 Report Share Posted December 13, 1998 PAMHO. AGTSP. > A husband provides for the household, while the wife keeps the household happy. In other words: the wife keeps the houshold happy, while the husband provides for the houshold. Ys Vdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1998 Report Share Posted December 13, 1998 On Sun, 13 Dec 1998, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote: > [Text 1931777 from COM] > > > 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. > > > The proof that women have different varnas is that pratiloma and anuloma > marriages existed in Vedic times. Pratiloma marriages were not welcome > because the woman would belong to a higher varna. In this case she would be > more qualified then the husband, what would make relationship difficult. We > have example of Maharaj Yayati, who was a ksatriya, getting married to > Devayani, who was a brahmani girl. Sukracarya had to make special > arrangments that this marrige would be accepted, since Yayati already had > seen her naked. I think another example could be Romaharsana Suta, but I > can't remember right now. > HKDD comments: Sita's already got you beat there. We've been through this discussion before. Even though Prabhupada maintains that varna is determined by quality not by birth, Sita maintains that Srila Prabhupada is wrong in the case of women. Their varna is only determined by birth -- until they are married that is. They have no inherent nature that determines their varna. It is determined by birth only. You may ask how Sita prabhu knows more than Srila Prabhupada on how varna is determined. I admit, I'm stumped on that one. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1998 Report Share Posted December 14, 1998 PAMHO. AGTSP. > > >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? > > Definitely looses her shyness that way too. A chaste woman would leave all > dealings with other mean entirely to her husband. As such, your statement gives a lot of space for speculation. Unless I know what do you mean by "all dealings", "other men" and "entirely" I tend to think I would always have to send my husband shopping, go for me to my gynaecologist and dentist, etc... Your servant, Viraja dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1998 Report Share Posted December 14, 1998 Please accept my humble obesiances and all glories to srila Prabhupada! Please remove me from any conference! Personal mail are welcome! Your servant Bharat Patel _________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] 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.