Sticking to the vedic principles

[Guest guest]

Isvara das wrote:

 

> > So, first, what your varna is?

>

> If you are interested about my varna. My varna is Krishna-varna. As far as

> my response to the rest of your text, then please read Jivan Mukta

> Prabhu's text. That gives more light to what I have been saying.

>

 

You can't tell us even what your varna is. And you talk

"Vedic society". "Manu Smrti". "Varnasrama-dharma".

"Sticking to the vedic principles".

 

 

OK. But you are a grhasta, at least so much you could

figure it out. Shall I post now the several quotes on

what the Vedic prescriptions for grhasta-man are there

to be followed? To check out how much you actually

"stick to the Vedic principles"?

 

No. You just have left us, after having "shoot" out

here your sastric ammunition on women, and after

having bluffed me for being interested for the honest

and open discussion not just about single mothers, but

about "sticking to the Vedic principles".

 

 

> As far as

> my response to the rest of your text, then please read Jivan Mukta

> Prabhu's text. That gives more light to what I have been saying.

>

 

And you can read my response to him. JMD did misused

Prabhupada's name once again to cover up own (and yours,

along his) speculation ("opinion").

 

 

> In the meanwhile I am busy compiling and publishing gaudiya vaisnava

> acaryas granthas. If you are interested about that, we can talk about it,

> not about how Iskcon should encourage and protect single motherhood.

 

(got no too much time either. Got to cut and chop some 20 cubics

of the fire-wood)

 

Please keep yourself busy with compiling and publishing g.v.a.

granthas, do not bother for ISKCON single mothers anymore. They

will be thankful to you for that, belive me.

 

 

 

 

ys mnd

 

 

PS. "Krishna-varna" (that is not to be found in the description

of the four varnas of the Vedic society) is the self-proclaimed

privilege of the ISKCON men for the ISKCON men only. Women

are not permitted in to that exclusive boys' club. They are,

after all, always - "nigers".

 

Thanks for the honest and open discussion. Bye.

[Guest guest]

Jivan Mukta das wrote:

 

 

>

> If it's not Vedic it is nasty.

>

 

Srila Prabhupada's crossing the ocean is not Vedic.

Srila Prabhupada's engaging Westerners, mellechas, in KC is

not Vedic.

Srila Prabhupada's giving brahmin and sannyas initiatins to

the caw-eaters is not Vedic.

Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON is not Vedic.

............

............

 

And Jivan Mukta das is definetely not Vedic.

 

 

 

> No one has ever said that some concessions have and must continue to be

> made. But for whom? For newcomers, not for 30 year devotees and

> certainly not for our children.

>

 

What "concessions" and for whom? What are you speculating

here, some "sub-society" within your "perfect Vedic society"?

How is that gonna to look alike? Tell us, acarya-ji.

 

BTW., is your varna also "Krishna-varna", like of Isvara

das?

 

 

 

> >Now you and some of your GHQ-ies go on criticizing from

> >the top of your lungs this Krsna consciousness movement

> >for engaging equally both boys and girls, and for the un-Vedic

> >"intermingling". Go on with your "hammering" the radical and

> >drastic change of the customs that are prevalent for this part

> >of the world.

>

> No one is criticizing Prabhupada. The criticism is to those who want to

> do what Prabhupada did not sanction. The criticism is towards those who

> say that we should not only mainain the nasty social customs of these boys

> and girls but we should adopt them and enshrine them as ISKCON Law. Now

> that is bogus.

>

 

Srila Prabhupada DID SANCTIONED some of these customs in

this movement, like (read it again, Jivan Mukta, the same

quote):

 

"Sometimes jealous persons criticize Krsna consciousness

movement because ****it engages equally both boys and girls

in distributing love of Godhead****."

 

That you are now telling us all here that Prabhupada did not

sanction, and that it is bogus to do it the way described by

Prabhupada in the quote above, is...... whatever.

 

You are Jivan Mukta, after all.

 

 

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>Who accuse them of being low class and muci.

>

>And just for the record, I don't own a dog, don't like dogs, thought it was

>off that Bhaktipada took a dog regularly into the temple, and am consistantly

>on

>record as being opposed to loose dogs roaming the temple area.

 

Why was it *off* o bring dogs into the temple?

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

>

 

 

 

> In the meanwhile I am busy compiling and publishing gaudiya vaisnava acaryas

> granthas. If you are interested about that, we can talk about it, not about

> how Iskcon should encourage and protect single motherhood.

>

> Ys, Isvara Dasa.

 

Just maintain the status quo of de facto encourage and then not protect?

[Guest guest]

COM: Jivan Mukta (das) TSI (Back to Basics) (Ontario - CAN) wrote:

 

> If it's not Vedic it is nasty.

 

If it isn't about protection it is isn't Vedic.

 

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> "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)

>

 

Ah, JMD, you are nothing if not predictable. Here is the quote in it's

context.

 

This letter was sent in reply to a request to take vanaprastha. Srila

Prabhupada did not say yes or no, stating that he did not know the

circumstances, then went into a lengthy explanation that clearly indicates

that it is the duty of a man to stick with his family. It is clearly meant as

a warning to the men to not abandon their wives so the situation doesn't

arise. Again you are clearly missing the point Srila Prabhupada is making.

 

"Householder life means wife, children, home, these things are understood by

everyone, why our devotees have taken it as something different? They simply

have some sex desire, get themselves married, and when the mater does not

fulfill their expectations, immediately there is separation--these things are

just like material activities, prostitution. The wife is left without husband,

and sometimes there is child to be raised, in so many ways the proposition that

you, and some others also, are making becomes distasteful. 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

[Guest guest]

COM: Jivan Mukta (das) TSI (Back to Basics) (Ontario - CAN) wrote:

 

> [Text 1933548 from COM]

>

> >Who accuse them of being low class and muci.

> >

> >And just for the record, I don't own a dog, don't like dogs, thought it

was

> >off that Bhaktipada took a dog regularly into the temple, and am

consistantly

> >on

> >record as being opposed to loose dogs roaming the temple area.

>

> Why was it *off* o bring dogs into the temple?

>

> Ys. JMd

 

Jivon, this was not the important point of my text. To fix on that is a

cowardly

act. Address the point that was being made, please. To you really think

devotees

are so ignorant they will fall for your diversionery tactics?

[Guest guest]

>This letter was sent in reply to a request to take vanaprastha. Srila

>Prabhupada did not say yes or no, stating that he did not know the

>circumstances, then went into a lengthy explanation that clearly indicates

>that it is the duty of a man to stick with his family. It is clearly meant as

>a warning to the men to not abandon their wives so the situation doesn't

>arise. Again you are clearly missing the point Srila Prabhupada is making.

 

I completely agree with this point as well. But it doesn't nullify the

fact that Prabhupada didn't want to be embarrassed by a having our temples

as shelters for these rejected wives.

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

>> >Who accuse them of being low class and muci.

 

>> Why was it *off* o bring dogs into the temple?

>>

>> Ys. JMd

 

>Jivon, this was not the important point of my text. To fix on that is a

>cowardly

>act. Address the point that was being made, please. To you really think

>devotees

>are so ignorant they will fall for your diversionery tactics?

 

Prabhu. do you really want me to give you *proof* that dogs are dirty? Is

that what you are asking for?

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhusudani Radha,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. All

glories to all the vaisnava and vaisnavi devotees of the Lord.

 

First of all, thank you for including me in the IWC. I have been reading all

the articles with great interest. Especially, the article by HH Hrdayananda

Swami Maharaja was very nice and encouraging.

 

I am supporting the view of giving qualified ladies in Iskcon (more)

responsiblilities on higher managerial and preaching levels. Women are

expert in crisis-management. Had it not been for the women, who worked so

hard during the 2nd world war, making ammunition, the Allies would not have

managed to win the war and who would say in what condition the world would

have been today?

 

Reading through your text, I was thinking how there appears to be

contradiction in what Prabhupada is saying:

 

> >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.

 

The dilemma seems to be: can a woman be more qualified materially and

spiritually and still be subordinate to her husband?

 

Personally I think that this is possible, that this should be so, but that

we cannot always manage to be like that. It is easier to be submissive to a

very Krishna Conscious husband, whereas it is difficult, at times impossible

and even detrimental to one's spiritual life to be submissive to a husband

who is not deserving. A husband who cannot maintain his wife and children, a

husband who cannot spiritually guide his family, a husband who does not give

love and affection, a husband who looks down on his wife and considers her

to be his personal slave, a husband who physically, mentally or sexually

abuses his wife and/or children, does not deserve a chaste and submissive

wife. He requires help to rectify himself, to qualify himself and in worst

cases even punishment for his irreligious acts.

 

ISKCON is now existing for 32 years. The society has in this time mainly

been managed by male devotees. But, the woman are not feeling satisfied, not

feeling protected and cared for, not feeling encouraged in their spiritual

lives. It makes one wonder if it is not possible, that somewhere the men

have gone wrong?! Because, if the men had done a wonderful job and everyone

was loved and taken care of, no woman would have felt the need to complain?

At least, I wouldn't have.

 

But as things have turned out, it is heartbreaking to see and hear of all

the childabuses, of the hatred-filled anti-woman remarks on the part of some

unintelligent male persons. Men, who have no respect for women, are like

animals. They have forgotten, that they would not have their present body,

without their mother, who is/was also a woman. They have forgotten the

statement of the sastras that woman represent the energy of the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, Who is the only Male or Purusha, whereas all living

entities are female, prakrti. They cannot transcend the platform of thinking

of themselves as male, purusha, enjoyer! This is unneccesary and sad, for it

keeps everyone from advancing spiritually in our Iskcon movement.

 

Your quotes from Prabhupada re spiritual equality of men and women speak for

themselves. Only fools refuse to understand and accept them.

 

> 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)

 

In response with the above quote I would like to say, that in my humble

view, the time has come that Iskcon should gladly accept qualified ladies on

the levels of GBC and spiritual masters, who help get our movement strong

and healthy again. Women are expert in caring for the weak and sick. Does

not a mother lovingly nourish her sick child back to vigor and good health

with incredible love and dedication? I believe that many of my respected

god-aunts feel that way towards Iskcon. They care about Iskcon, as if it

were their own child, and they see that Iskcon is not healthy. They feel

helpless at not being allowed to take care ofher(Iskcon), to nourish her

back to health.

 

My humble plea to the GBC is to allow the most qualified vaisnavis in our

society to take responsibilities on GBC, Temple Management, Congregational

Preaching, Education, Childcare and even Siksha- and Diksha levels. The men

had their monopoly and did not really make much of it. If they continue the

way they have going, nothing worthwile will be left in the end. Why not make

an combined effort to save what is left and cure the diseased parts? Has not

the war (against maya and internal friction) been going on for far too long?

How many more casualties are needed?

 

> 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?

 

You have brought things really into perspective with your quotes. Thank you

very much.

 

Before ending I like to say, that it is my sincere prayer, that if Sri Sri

Radha-Krishna so desire, They will make the attempts of all the vaisnavis,

who care about Iskcon and want to fight for the welfare of the society,

succesful. These women are not fighting for position, name and fame. They

are fighting out of love. They cannot bear to see Iskcon torn apart,

bleeding and in pain. They feel they have to contribute to her recovery.

 

I hope that our all?-male-GBC-body will come to realise that they need "the

better half" of Iskcon to complete their task of leading ISKCON for the next

10.000 years.

 

Many great saints have stated that: Radha sakti bina na koyi Shyamala darsan

paye....without the blessings of Srimati Radharani no one can see Krishna.

My personal feeling is that so long as proper respect is denied to the

(sincere) vaisnavi's in Iskcon, the hidden glory of Iskcon will not be

revealed.

 

Your humble servant,

Krishna Premavati dasi

[Guest guest]

COM: Jivan Mukta (das) TSI (Back to Basics) (Ontario - CAN) wrote:

 

> [Text 1933770 from COM]

>

> >This letter was sent in reply to a request to take vanaprastha. Srila

> >Prabhupada did not say yes or no, stating that he did not know the

> >circumstances, then went into a lengthy explanation that clearly indicates

> >that it is the duty of a man to stick with his family. It is clearly meant

as

> >a warning to the men to not abandon their wives so the situation doesn't

> >arise. Again you are clearly missing the point Srila Prabhupada is making.

>

> I completely agree with this point as well. But it doesn't nullify the

> fact that Prabhupada didn't want to be embarrassed by a having our temples

> as shelters for these rejected wives.

>

> Ys. JMd

 

I'm glad you agree. Then the question is how to avoid it. If you read the

letter

closely, you can see that Srila Prabhupada's thinking is that the men have to

be

responsible and fulfill their duties as householders: it is not that the

unprotected women are blamed for their situation and then rejected. As a

matter of

fact, it strongly implies that the temple DOES have a duty to shelter such

rejected women, otherwise how would it be a problem? If a devotee woman is

wrongly rejected by her husband, then the institution has responsibilities for

her.

[Guest guest]

COM: Jivan Mukta (das) TSI (Back to Basics) (Ontario - CAN) wrote:

 

> [Text 1933772 from COM]

>

> >> >Who accuse them of being low class and muci.

>

> >> Why was it *off* o bring dogs into the temple?

> >>

> >> Ys. JMd

>

> >Jivon, this was not the important point of my text. To fix on that is a

> >cowardly

> >act. Address the point that was being made, please. To you really think

> >devotees

> >are so ignorant they will fall for your diversionery tactics?

>

> Prabhu. do you really want me to give you *proof* that dogs are dirty? Is

> that what you are asking for?

>

> Ys. JMd

 

I agree that dogs are dirty. The point you made was that anyone who dealt

with a dog was low class and muci, and the story of Sivanada Sena it

clearly indicates that that is not always the case. It is this broad

overgeneralisations that you make that alienate many people from many points

that you do make that they might otherwise be in agreement with.

[Guest guest]

>I agree that dogs are dirty. The point you made was that anyone who dealt

>with a dog was low class and muci, and the story of Sivanada Sena it

>clearly indicates that that is not always the case. It is this broad

>overgeneralisations that you make that alienate many people from many points

>that you do make that they might otherwise be in agreement with.

 

This is what I said:

 

"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"

 

The example of Sivananda Sena's dog proves the point. Lord Caitanya threw

the dog prasadam. The dog wasn't sitting next to Him.

 

"When all the devotees came to the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, they

saw the same dog was sitting a little apart the Lord.

 

Furthermore, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was throwing remnants of green coconut

pulp to the dog. Smiling in His own way, He was saying to the dog, "Chant

the holy names Rama, Krsna, and Hari." (Antya 1.28-29)

 

I hope that makes thing a little clearer.

 

Ys. JMd