Sticking to the vedic principles

[Guest guest]

Isvara prabhu wrote:

 

> 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 do not think that you have really clearly understood

here neither my words nor my mind.

 

First of all, it is not Mahanidhi's "idea" about the

unprotected single mothers in ISKCON. I have asked you

repeatedly to get to the concrete evidence in the regard

of full (or sound) economical, social, medical, etc. protection

of the single mothers (especially those with children) in

ISCKON. Aparently, you got no idea how to answer, but you

turn all to be "Mahanidhi's idea".

 

Second. It was you, Isvara das, who gave us here your

own **opinion** that it is women in ISKCON who were "not

submissive and always very belligerent" that are to be blamed

for their not being protected. What does this have to do

with the "sastric" evidence?

 

Third. It is shame. It is shame to see the men, so-called

protectors of the women, to be so eager to protect themselves

from being hold responsible for not having the proper Vedic

system for women (!and caws and children!) protection

established in ISKCON, yet. Instead, they ("masculines") go

insisting on putting the blaming on the women.

 

 

>

> 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.

>

(you meant "meaningless discussion" not "meaningful", I suppose)

 

 

Since when it is the *vedic principle* that those whose

occupational duty is to give the protection, that in the

case of the protection falure they put the blame on the

dependents??

 

 

> I hope we can engage in honest, frank, and heart to heart dialog that can

> really be helpful to all members of Iskcon.

 

 

I appreciate your "challenge". I accept. Let's do it.

 

 

So as I may understand, you, Isvara das, are the proponent

of sticking to the vedic principles (please correct me if I

am wrong). And you are for "honest, frank, and heart to heart"

dialog, right. OK. Please let us know just one thing about

your good self. What is your *varna*? I am asking you the most

possible simple question that may exist and that have gotten

something to do with the "varnasrama-dharma" idea and to the

"sticking to the vedic principles".

 

Then I might surprise you pleasantly with my ability to

quote sastra in term of sticking to the vedic principles

as prescribed for your varna & asrama, in accordance to

your own conclusion:

> 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.

 

So we seem to be sharing the same interest, so please stay with

us, we are just about to get to the actual issue, STICKING TO

THE VEDIC PRINCIPLES.

 

So, first, what your varna is?

 

 

ys mnd

 

PS.

 

> 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.

 

Do you think that me and some others who "give" the right to

women (actually, not Mahanidhi or XYZ or ABC, but PRABHUPADA

gives them that right) not to necessarily be obliged to act in the

traditional Vedic women roles are something else than married men?

[Guest guest]

Sorry for butting in Isvara Prabhu:

 

>First of all, it is not Mahanidhi's "idea" about the

>unprotected single mothers in ISKCON. I have asked you

>repeatedly to get to the concrete evidence in the regard

>of full (or sound) economical, social, medical, etc. protection

>of the single mothers (especially those with children) in

>ISCKON. Aparently, you got no idea how to answer, but you

>turn all to be "Mahanidhi's idea".

 

"We cannot expect that our temples will become places of shelter for so

many widows and rejected wives, that will be a great burden and we shall

become the

laughingstock in the society. There will be unwanted progeny also. And

there will be illicit sex life, that we are seeing already." (Letter to

Madhukara)

 

"If they want they can have a separate asrama supported independently of

ISKCON. Every woman in America has money, so why do they want support? No,

the BBT cannot give them loan." (Letter to: Jayatirtha Calcutta 13 January,

1976)

 

Doesn't seem to me that Prabhupada was inetersted in having ISKCON support

single mothers. ALl the more reaso we should train then according toVedic

standards. Otherwise there will be more rejected women. This is not to

say that men do not need training. Of course they do. So this training

should be our priority.

 

The issue has always been that the feminist course of action may be a knee

jerk reaction to a social problem in part cuased by men but the solution is

not to throw out the system of civilized social management.

 

>Second. It was you, Isvara das, who gave us here your

>own **opinion** that it is women in ISKCON who were "not

>submissive and always very belligerent" that are to be blamed

>for their not being protected. What does this have to do

>with the "sastric" evidence?

 

It is Prabhupada's opinion (July 9, 1975 TV Interview):

 

Woman reporter: Is the social unrest in this country caused because...

Prabhupada: Because of these things. They do not know that.

Woman reporter: And if women were subordinate to men, it would solve all of

our problems?

Prabhupada: Yes. Man wants that woman should be subordinate, faithful to

him. Then he is ready to take charge. The man's mentality, woman's

mentality different. So if the woman agrees to remain faithful and

subordinate to man, then the family life will be peaceful.

 

 

>Third. It is shame. It is shame to see the men, so-called

>protectors of the women, to be so eager to protect themselves

>from being hold responsible for not having the proper Vedic

>system for women (!and caws and children!) protection

>established in ISKCON, yet. Instead, they ("masculines") go

>insisting on putting the blaming on the women.

 

Until women are prepared to accept male authority, how can a man act

according to his dharma? A wife, instead, should be submissive to her

husband even if he is not perfect in behaviour.

 

>Since when it is the *vedic principle* that those whose

>occupational duty is to give the protection, that in the

>case of the protection falure they put the blame on the

>dependents??

 

Prabhupada blamed divorce mainly on the women.

 

"Generally, separation between husband and wife is due to womanly behavior;

divorce takes place due to womanly weakness. The best course for a woman is

to abide by the orders of her husband." (SB 4.4.3)

 

How much clearer could Prabhupada be?

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

Mananidhi prabhu wrote:

>>Second. It was you, Isvara das, who gave us here your

>>own **opinion** that it is women in ISKCON who were "not

>>submissive and always very belligerent" that are to be blamed

>>for their not being protected. What does this have to do

>>with the "sastric" evidence?

 

Jivanmukta prabu wrote:

>It is Prabhupada's opinion (July 9, 1975 TV Interview):

>

>Woman reporter: Is the social unrest in this country caused because...

>Prabhupada: Because of these things. They do not know that.

>Woman reporter: And if women were subordinate to men, it would solve all of

>our problems?

>Prabhupada: Yes. Man wants that woman should be subordinate, faithful to

>him. Then he is ready to take charge. The man's mentality, woman's

>mentality different. So if the woman agrees to remain faithful and

>subordinate to man, then the family life will be peaceful.

>

 

>How much clearer could Prabhupada be?

>

>Ys. JMd

 

Well, let's see.....in the same interview, Prabhupada also said 3 times

that the "inferior", "superior" is our "calculation" and that the main

point is that we are "different". Here is one short section of that

interview, in which he says so twice:

 

Woman reporter: Would you say that women are inferior to men?

Prabhupda: Yes.

Woman reporter: Why?

Prabhupda: By physiological condition. Just like you are. Your bodily

features are different from the man s features. You cannot deny it. So

according to the bodily features, the psychological condition and

everything is there. How you can deny it?

Woman reporter: Do you think that I am inferior to you?

Prabhupda: It is not the question of inferior or superior. Different.

Now you take one inferior or superior. That is your calculation. But the

bodily features are different. That is material. But spiritually, they

are all one. Materially... Just like your bodily feature and a man s

bodily feature is different. Now, so far question of inferior, superior,

that is your calculation. But we say that by nature, a woman and man is

different.

Woman reporter: What does this mean as far as whether women can do the

same things that men can do, or whether women can lead people?

Prabhupda: Well, women can bear children, but the man cannot. Is it

possible to bear children? A man can become pregnant? Is it possible?

Woman reporter: No.

Prabhupda: Physically... Therefore there are so many things which is

possible in man and which is not possible in woman, by nature. How you

can say that they are of the same nature?

Woman reporter: I'm not saying they re the same. What can...

Prabhupda: Then if you not saying that, then they are different in

their physiological condition. So now this physiological condition, you

may calculate, This is better, this is better. That is your

calculation. Our calculation is the man and woman are different in their

physiological condition.

 

On the topic of inferior/superior, Prabhupada also said:

 

Now another thing, that girls should not be taken as inferior. You see?

Sometimes... Of course, sometimes scripture we say that Woman is the

cause of bondage. So that should not be, I mean to say, aggravated.

(laughs) That should not be aggravated, that Woman is inferior, or

something like that. So the girls who come, you should treat them

nicely, at least. I heard that Gargamuni, after his wife left him, he

became a woman-hater like that. (chuckles) That is not good. You see?

Yes. After all, anyone who is coming to Krishna consciousness, man or

woman, boys or girls, they are welcome. They are very fortunate. You

see. And the idea of addressing prabhu means you are my master. That

is the... Prabhu means master. And Prabhupda means many masters who

bows down at his lotus feet. That is Prabhupda. So each, everyone shall

treat others as My master. This is the Vaishnava system. (9/24/68

Seattle)

 

and:

 

Prabhupada: Therefore, if one is spiritually advanced, then she becomes.

Brahmnanda: Then he becomes.

Prabhupda: She can become equal with man. Spiritually advanced man and

woman, they are equal. So long one is materially encaged, this is not

possible. (July 9, 1975 conversation)

 

On the topic of gender roles in devotional service during vedic vs. modern

times, Prabhupada said:

 

"In India all the acaryas and their descendants later on acted only from

the man's side. Their wives were at home because that is the system from

old times that women are not required to go out. But in Bhagavad-gita we

find that women are also equally competent like the men in the matter of

Krishna Consciousness Movement. Please therefore carry on these

missionary activities, and prove it by practical example that there is

no bar for anyone in the matter of preaching work for Krishna

Consciousness." (letter to Himavati 12/20/69)

 

*No bar* - pretty revolutionary!

 

On the topic of gender equality in bhakti yoga:

 

Therefore in the bhakti platform, Krishna consciousness, there is no

such distinction, Here is American, here is an Indian, here is an

African, here is this and that. No. Everyone is Krishna conscious. So

actually if we want equality, fraternity, then we must come to Krishna

consciousness. This is the purpose of Krishna consciousness movement.

And actually, it is becoming fact, factual. These boys and these girls,

they are no more thinking that they are American or European or Canadian

or Australian and Indian also. They are equal. So if you want equality,

fraternity, friendship, love and perfection, solution of problems, all

problems, economic, political, social, religious, then come to Krishna

consciousness. Come to this platform. Then all your ambitions will be

fulfilled and you will be perfect. (Bhagavad-gita lecture, 13.4)

 

And finally, with regard to equality between his own spiritual sons and

daughters:

 

"since both the boys and girls are being trained to become preachers,

those girls are not ordinary girls but are as good as their brothers who

are preaching Krishna consciousness." (Cc Adi 7.31-32)

 

 

You are absolutely right, Jivan Mukta prabhu, how much clearer could Srila

Prabhupada be?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

Jivan Mukta das wrote:

>

> "We cannot expect that our temples will become places of shelter for so

> many widows and rejected wives, that will be a great burden and we shall

> become the laughingstock in the society. There will be unwanted progeny

> also. And there will be illicit sex life, that we are seeing already."

> (Letter to Madhukara)

>

 

"Perfect Vedic society" means a bit more than few temples.

Do we agree?

 

In the same time when you "Vedics" are "marching" to

develop and move towards the perfect Vedic **society**, in

the same time you want to freeze the conditions of ISKCON

found in the time of Srila Prabhupada's presence.

 

What was that favorite word of yours? ... "madness".?

...something like that in any case.

 

 

> "If they want they can have a separate asrama supported independently of

> ISKCON. Every woman in America has money, so why do they want support? No,

> the BBT cannot give them loan." (Letter to: Jayatirtha Calcutta 13

> January, 1976)

>

 

Though the specifics of this case are not obvious, apparently

Srila Prabhupada believes that "every woman in America has

money", and therefore there was no need to give them money on

top of money. That's all here.

 

 

> Doesn't seem to me that Prabhupada was inetersted in having ISKCON support

> single mothers. ALl the more reaso we should train then according toVedic

> standards. Otherwise there will be more rejected women. This is not to

> say that men do not need training. Of course they do. So this training

> should be our priority.

>

 

 

Ok, Jivan Mukta prabhu. I think that we can all agree on

ONE point at least - that there is no proper protection

established in ISKCON for the single mothers. Do we agree

on that? So, I suppose now that it is not "Mahanidhi's idea"

that there is no protection. We all know it now till know.

OK? Next step.

 

Neither Isvara das nor Mahanidhi das had on their mind

the idea (at least they did not show it to you and the

rest of the world) that in this society called ISKCON

there is not supposed to be established the protection

system ("support", as you translate it) for ISKCON single

mothers.

 

It is Jivan Mukta das who brings it on the "table."

I don't mean to suggest that it is not to be discussed

(though my experience tells me, once Jivan Mukta das

proclaims something in the name of Prabhupada, then no

discussion anymore with him is possible). I mean to

make it clear what we are talking about, on the first

place.

 

 

> The issue has always been that the feminist course of action may be a knee

> jerk reaction to a social problem in part caused by men but the solution

> is not to throw out the system of civilized social management.

>

 

By quoting here Prabhupada on the management of some Hare

Krishna temples in LA or NY, giving it the meaning of the

social management and the society, is a practical example

of throwing out the system of civilized *social* management.

 

By your quoting here Prabhupada's "Every woman in America has

money" in connection to the topic of discussions means

de facto the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the demoniac(!)

modern "civilization". The acknowledgment of the situation

where our single mothers are left to the demons to depend

on their social money and their job facilities and the management

to employ "our" women that ought to go on living somehow or other.

If that is the situation, when the protection of ISKCON single

mothers is to be conducted by the demoniac management, then

you, Jivan Mukta das and other "Vedic protectors" got to

keep your moths tightly shut up -- demons take care already. You

got no right on any claim for regulating the lifes of somebody

else's dependents. You got no sane logic to blame the dependents

of demons for ISKCON's social disruptions and failures.

 

 

> >Second. It was you, Isvara das, who gave us here your

> >own **opinion** that it is women in ISKCON who were "not

> >submissive and always very belligerent" that are to be blamed

> >for their not being protected. What does this have to do

> >with the "sastric" evidence?

>

> It is Prabhupada's opinion (July 9, 1975 TV Interview):

>

> Woman reporter: Is the social unrest in this country caused because...

> Prabhupada: Because of these things. They do not know that.

[...]

 

 

I have discussed this particular topic with Ameyatma prabhu,

and I presented the clear opposing evidence from the Srimad

Bhagavatam based on Prabhupada's philosophical explanation on

what due are the major social disruptions a society. He (Ameyatma),

nor any of "Vedics", replied. Makes sense to me, since you simply

ignore Bhagavatam whenever it gives the kind of explanations that

are not up to your taste, and then you give all the precedence to

some broken parts of Prabhupada's being interviewed (provocated)

by a feminist reporter infront of TV cameras in some Chicago

TV studio.

 

Next. It is a further big blunder to extrapolate this Prabhupada's

conversation with a feminist reporter to the extent to not

only ignore the statements in the Srimad Bhagavatam, but

to put into Srila Prabhupada's mouth something like that

what you are doing now -- That it is his (Prabhupada's)

opinion that the blame for not protecting the women **in**

ISKCON goes to ISKCON women. And that on top of all, you

give to this jugglery of yours the weight of *sastric evidence*

 

 

Prabhupada speaks basically about an average husband-wife

relationship in a **feminist reporter's demoniac society**:

(She is representing that demoniac society, not ISKCON!!)

 

> Woman reporter: Is the social unrest in THIS COUNTRY caused because..

 

> Prabhupada: Yes. Man wants that woman should be subordinate, faithful to

> him. Then he is ready to take charge. The man's mentality, woman's

> mentality different. So if the woman agrees to remain faithful and

> subordinate to man, then the family life will be peaceful.

>

 

But you project this on ISKCON. Isvara's and your personal

opinion you label to be Prabhupada's opinion. Shame.

 

 

 

>

> >Third. It is shame. It is shame to see the men, so-called

> >protectors of the women, to be so eager to protect themselves

> >from being hold responsible for not having the proper Vedic

> >system for women (!and caws and children!) protection

> >established in ISKCON, yet. Instead, they ("masculines") go

> >insisting on putting the blaming on the women.

>

> Until women are prepared to accept male authority, how can a man act

> according to his dharma? A wife, instead, should be submissive to her

> husband even if he is not perfect in behavior.

>

 

 

We are not idiots, Jivan Mukta. We are very well aware of

the historical facts in ISKCON where ladies **took** the

subordinate position over more than two decades (just like

caws and children did it as well as) to men. Yet they got

not only un-protected, but **abused** on the various ways

(just like caws and children got abused; by whom??).

 

> >Since when it is the *vedic principle* that those whose

> >occupational duty is to give the protection, that in the

> >case of the protection failure they put the blame on the

> >dependents??

>

> Prabhupada blamed divorce mainly on the women.

>

 

You did not give the answer on my question:

 

Since when the **protector's** business is to blame the

dependents for the failure to protect them?

 

Did you understand my question?

 

 

 

> "Generally, separation between husband and wife is due to womanly

> behavior; divorce takes place due to womanly weakness. The best course for

> a woman is to abide by the orders of her husband." (SB 4.4.3)

>

> How much clearer could Prabhupada be?

>

 

Please answer on my question first.

 

 

As far as my comment to your "how much clearer could

Prabhupada be", I think I can try to make it a bit more

clearer to you, if you allow me:

 

Srila Prabhupada obviously speaks here about "general" reasons

for the separation. Now. We all here master that much English,

I suppose. So, just see the *actual* cause (reason) for this to

take the place: "due to **womanly weakness**". Did we marked

it, Jivan Mukta? Yes? Good. Let's try now to make the next

little step from this point:

 

The conclusion that you are suggesting to us (as supposedly

the answer to my question) would thus be:

 

If there is the failure of the women protection, that is

ultimately due to women's nature of possessing the womanly

weakness, and therefore women are to be blamed by their

"protectors" for not being protected by them.

 

Congratulations, Jivan Mukta das. Yes, we got it straight,

what the basic idea behind your notorious fanaticistic approach

to the issue is -- "Women are weak, therefore they are to

be blamed for whatever bad happens to them (and what happens to

men and to the society and to children and to caws....)."

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>Jivanmukta prabu wrote:

>>It is Prabhupada's opinion (July 9, 1975 TV Interview):

>>

>>Woman reporter: Is the social unrest in this country caused because...

>>Prabhupada: Because of these things. They do not know that.

>>Woman reporter: And if women were subordinate to men, it would solve all of

>>our problems?

>>Prabhupada: Yes. Man wants that woman should be subordinate, faithful to

>>him. Then he is ready to take charge. The man's mentality, woman's

>>mentality different. So if the woman agrees to remain faithful and

>>subordinate to man, then the family life will be peaceful.

>>

>

>>How much clearer could Prabhupada be?

>>

>>Ys. JMd

>

>Well, let's see.....in the same interview, Prabhupada also said 3 times

>that the "inferior", "superior" is our "calculation" and that the main

>point is that we are "different". Here is one short section of that

>interview, in which he says so twice:

 

Wonderful quotes on the nature of inferiority and superiority. It is all

based on the body and mind. Spiritually we are all equal. Great. We

understand the basics.

 

>On the topic of gender roles in devotional service during vedic vs. modern

>times, Prabhupada said:

 

>"In India all the acaryas and their descendants later on acted only from

>the man's side. Their wives were at home because that is the system from

>old times that women are not required to go out. But in Bhagavad-gita we

>find that women are also equally competent like the men in the matter of

>Krishna Consciousness Movement. Please therefore carry on these

>missionary activities, and prove it by practical example that there is

>no bar for anyone in the matter of preaching work for Krishna

>Consciousness." (letter to Himavati 12/20/69)

>

>*No bar* - pretty revolutionary!

 

Also nice quote. Spoken to a married women who was assisting her husband

in preaching. NO argument here.

 

>On the topic of gender equality in bhakti yoga:

 

>Therefore in the bhakti platform, Krishna consciousness, there is no

>such distinction, Here is American, here is an Indian, here is an

>African, here is this and that. No. Everyone is Krishna conscious. So

>actually if we want equality, fraternity, then we must come to Krishna

>consciousness. This is the purpose of Krishna consciousness movement.

>And actually, it is becoming fact, factual. These boys and these girls,

>they are no more thinking that they are American or European or Canadian

>or Australian and Indian also. They are equal. So if you want equality,

>fraternity, friendship, love and perfection, solution of problems, all

>problems, economic, political, social, religious, then come to Krishna

>consciousness. Come to this platform. Then all your ambitions will be

>fulfilled and you will be perfect. (Bhagavad-gita lecture, 13.4)

 

This is the confusion that is embarrassing the feinists and their

followers. You will agree that genders is on the material platform right?

So how can their be gender equality if there is no possibility of equality

on the material platform? As long as there are gender difference, there

will be inequality.

 

For example humans are spiritually equal with dogs. But we don't invite

dogs to sit next to us to honor prasdam. WEll I guess some do but it is

pretty muci and low class. Prabhupada uses this analogy very effectively

in the following quote:

 

"If I invite one learned scholar, and if I ask him, "Please sit down with

the dog," will he be pleased? He will feel insulted. But I see that within

the dog, there is spirit soul, and within the learned scholar, there is

spirit soul. Panditah sama... Sama-darsinah means from different platform.

On the material platform, if I say, "Oh, you may be a learned scholar, and

you may think the dog is dog, but I see you are all equal," so it will be

insult. So the fact is that we cannot disturb the equality, er, different

position materially; at the same time, we have to understand what is the

position, spiritual. That is wanted. (Arrival Lecture Philadelphia, July

11, 1975)

 

The point here is "So the fact is that we cannot disturb the equality, er,

different position materially; at the same time, we have to understand what

is the position, spiritual. That is wanted." It really isn't that

difficult to understand dear Mata.

 

>And finally, with regard to equality between his own spiritual sons and

>daughters:

>

>"since both the boys and girls are being trained to become preachers,

>those girls are not ordinary girls but are as good as their brothers who

>are preaching Krishna consciousness." (Cc Adi 7.31-32)

 

Too bad you left out his qualifying statement just before the section you

quoted:

 

"But these rascals should consider that one cannot suddenly change a

community's social customs."

 

You cannot suddenly change their nasty customs, but change they must.

 

>You are absolutely right, Jivan Mukta prabhu, how much clearer could Srila

>Prabhupada be?

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Ys. JMd