Guest guest Posted April 20, 1999 Report Share Posted April 20, 1999 I wrote: >> . But as many on this >> conference advocate the equality of men and women, Madhava Ghosh responded: >Not the equality of men and women, that is a strawman argument GHQ >types stubbornly cling to. What many of us support is equal >opportunity and judging position by qualification, not by birth. That >is a big difference. shouldn't she be allowed to take sannyasa. >No, she shouldn't be allowed to take sannyasa. Why? Because sastra >forbids it. > >"Quoting from the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said: > >asvamedham gavalambham >sannyasam pala-paitrkam >devarena sutotpattim >kalau panca vivarjayet > [Cc. Adi 17.164] > >"In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse >in sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the >order of sannyasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the >forefathers, and a man's begetting children in his brother's wife. >>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 9.6.7 Well, according to your quotation Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta et al also shouldn't have been allowed to take sanyasa. Also, there is no mention of a particular restriction specific to the ladies here. Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper into the folio and you might have found the purport to the above sastric quotation in the purport to Adi 15.14 <<Nevertheless we see that Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu Himself accepted sannyäsa and approved of the sannyäsa of His elder brother, Visvarüpa. It is clearly said here, bhäla haila,——viçvarüpa sannyäsa karila pitå-kula, mätå-kula,——dui uddhärila. Therefore, should it be thought that Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu made statements that are contradictory? No, actually He did not. It is recommended that one accept sannyäsa to dedicate his life for the service of the Lord, and everyone must take that kind of sannyäsa, for by accepting such sannyäsa one renders the best service to both his paternal and maternal families. But one should not accept the sannyäsa order of the Mäyäväda school, which has practically no meaning.>> But still there is no specific mention of ladies not taking sanyasa so I would still ask Hare Krsna dasi's indulgence (or anyone else) to list any such quotes since the above mentioned quote falls far short in defining a sastric answer. She has performed such a herculean task in researching these topics that I am sure she has much info on the subject. And finally, since I know Mother Malati corresponds to this conference since I have seen previous submissions to her: do you still consider yourself a sannyasini? And to comment on Madhava Ghosh's earlier comment: >Not the equality of men and women, that is a strawman argument GHQ >types stubbornly cling to. What many of us support is equal >opportunity and judging position by qualification, not by birth I don't understand the response here. Is not equal opportunity the same as equality. I think you are simply juggling words. Not to mention that you contradict yourself by later stating that women don't have the opportunity to take sannyasa even though you were speculating on the purport to this sastric quotation. So make up your mind--which is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 1999 Report Share Posted April 20, 1999 > > > > >"In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse > >in sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the > >order of sannyasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the > >forefathers, and a man's begetting children in his brother's wife. > >>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 9.6.7 > > Well, according to your quotation Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta et > al also shouldn't have been allowed to take sanyasa. Also, there is no > mention of a particular restriction specific to the ladies here. You didn't ask for specific restrictions pertaining to woman. You asked if I thought women should take sannyasa, and I don't think they should, based on the above quote. In any case it is not my quote. It is a quote from the scripture. If the conclusion you get from it is that Srila Prabhupada shouldn't have taken sannyasis, that is your conclusion and not mine. > > > Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper into the folio and you might > have found the purport to the above sastric quotation in the purport to Adi > 15.14 > <<Nevertheless we see that Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu Himself accepted sannyäsa > and approved of the sannyäsa of His elder brother, Visvarüpa. It is clearly > said here, bhäla haila,--viçvarüpa sannyäsa karila pitå-kula, > mätå-kula,--dui uddhärila. Therefore, should it be thought that Sri Caitanya > Mahäprabhu made statements that are contradictory? No, actually He did not. > It is recommended that one accept sannyäsa to dedicate his life for the > service of the Lord, and everyone must take that kind of sannyäsa, for by > accepting such sannyäsa one renders the best service to both his paternal > and maternal families. But one should not accept the sannyäsa order of the > Mäyäväda school, which has practically no meaning.>> It is interesting to note in this purport that the "one" is used which is gender neutrel. Also, the command is that "everyone" take that kind of sannyasa. It definitely doen't say every man should take sannyasa. > > > But still there is no specific mention of ladies not taking sanyasa so I > would still ask Hare Krsna dasi's indulgence (or anyone else) to list any > such quotes since the above mentioned quote falls far short in defining a > sastric answer. There aren't any. The only quote that even comes close is from a purport to the prayers of Queen Kunti. Even that is not an exact prohibition - just a prohibition of a man and a woman both taking sannyasa and then traveling together. Can't get to my VedaBase right now to dig it out. Side note: amusing to see this come up as a philosophical point again. Although I don't agree with women taking sannyasa, it is tempting to play devil's advocate here because it is possible to make a viable case for it. > > > And to comment on Madhava Ghosh's earlier comment: > >Not the equality of men and women, that is a strawman argument GHQ > >types stubbornly cling to. What many of us support is equal > >opportunity and judging position by qualification, not by birth > > I don't understand the response here. Is not equal opportunity the same as > equality. No. Every one has an equal opportunity to try out for the National Football League. Not everyone is going to make it. As a marketing gimmick, I am sure that if a woman could have a remote chance of playing in an NFL game, some promoter would make it happen. but it hasn't, because in real terms, no woman yet has the physical qualifications to make it. But the opportunity is there. Just like for the position of wide reciever, equal opportunity is there, but in point of fact, practically all wide recievers are black in the NFL. Maybe one white guy I know of, so equality is not there, even though equal opportunity is. > I think you are simply juggling words. Not to mention that you > contradict yourself by later stating that women don't have the opportunity > to take sannyasa even though you were speculating on the purport to this > sastric quotation. So make up your mind--which is it? So make up your mind, what are you asking me? I don't recall stating women don't have the opportunity to take sannyasi. Please provide the actual quote in context because it doesn't seem consistent with what I thought I was saying. As to the purport, I didn't reference it at all until after you quoted it, so how could I be speculating on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 1999 Report Share Posted April 20, 1999 > > > > >"In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse > >in sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the > >order of sannyasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the > >forefathers, and a man's begetting children in his brother's wife. > >>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 9.6.7 > > Well, according to your quotation Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta et > al also shouldn't have been allowed to take sanyasa. Also, there is no > mention of a particular restriction specific to the ladies here. You didn't ask for specific restrictions pertaining to woman. You asked if I thought women should take sannyasa, and I don't think they should, based on the above quote. In any case it is not my quote. It is a quote from the scripture. If the conclusion you get from it is that Srila Prabhupada shouldn't have taken sannyasis, that is your conclusion and not mine. > > > Perhaps you should have dug a little deeper into the folio and you might > have found the purport to the above sastric quotation in the purport to Adi > 15.14 > <<Nevertheless we see that Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu Himself accepted sannyäsa > and approved of the sannyäsa of His elder brother, Visvarüpa. It is clearly > said here, bhäla haila,--viçvarüpa sannyäsa karila pitå-kula, > mätå-kula,--dui uddhärila. Therefore, should it be thought that Sri Caitanya > Mahäprabhu made statements that are contradictory? No, actually He did not. > It is recommended that one accept sannyäsa to dedicate his life for the > service of the Lord, and everyone must take that kind of sannyäsa, for by > accepting such sannyäsa one renders the best service to both his paternal > and maternal families. But one should not accept the sannyäsa order of the > Mäyäväda school, which has practically no meaning.>> It is interesting to note in this purport that the "one" is used which is gender neutrel. Also, the command is that "everyone" take that kind of sannyasa. It definitely doen't say every man should take sannyasa. > > > But still there is no specific mention of ladies not taking sanyasa so I > would still ask Hare Krsna dasi's indulgence (or anyone else) to list any > such quotes since the above mentioned quote falls far short in defining a > sastric answer. There aren't any. The only quote that even comes close is from a purport to the prayers of Queen Kunti. Even that is not an exact prohibition - just a prohibition of a man and a woman both taking sannyasa and then traveling together. Can't get to my VedaBase right now to dig it out. Side note: amusing to see this come up as a philosophical point again. Although I don't agree with women taking sannyasa, it is tempting to play devil's advocate here because it is possible to make a viable case for it. > > > And to comment on Madhava Ghosh's earlier comment: > >Not the equality of men and women, that is a strawman argument GHQ > >types stubbornly cling to. What many of us support is equal > >opportunity and judging position by qualification, not by birth > > I don't understand the response here. Is not equal opportunity the same as > equality. No. Every one has an equal opportunity to try out for the National Football League. Not everyone is going to make it. As a marketing gimmick, I am sure that if a woman could have a remote chance of playing in an NFL game, some promoter would make it happen. but it hasn't, because in real terms, no woman yet has the physical qualifications to make it. But the opportunity is there. Just like for the position of wide reciever, equal opportunity is there, but in point of fact, practically all wide recievers are black in the NFL. Maybe one white guy I know of, so equality is not there, even though equal opportunity is. > I think you are simply juggling words. Not to mention that you > contradict yourself by later stating that women don't have the opportunity > to take sannyasa even though you were speculating on the purport to this > sastric quotation. So make up your mind--which is it? So make up your mind, what are you asking me? I don't recall stating women don't have the opportunity to take sannyasi. Please provide the actual quote in context because it doesn't seem consistent with what I thought I was saying. As to the purport, I didn't reference it at all until after you quoted it, so how could I be speculating on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 1999 Report Share Posted April 20, 1999 On 19 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > But still there is no specific mention of ladies not taking sanyasa so I > > would still ask Hare Krsna dasi's indulgence (or anyone else) to list any > > such quotes since the above mentioned quote falls far short in defining a > > sastric answer. > > There aren't any. The only quote that even comes close is from a purport to There is at least one specific mention. It came up one of the last times this topic went around the block. I'll see if I can find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 1999 Report Share Posted April 20, 1999 On 19 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > But still there is no specific mention of ladies not taking sanyasa so I > > would still ask Hare Krsna dasi's indulgence (or anyone else) to list any > > such quotes since the above mentioned quote falls far short in defining a > > sastric answer. > > There aren't any. The only quote that even comes close is from a purport to There is at least one specific mention. It came up one of the last times this topic went around the block. I'll see if I can find it. 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.