Is that varnasrama dharma? A Cut and philosophy!

[Guest guest]

Akhilesvar wrote

>"There is a popular saying that there is no harm in creating some antagonism

>with a great scholar but there is harm even by creating a friendly relation

>with a fool.

 

I prefer the saying that, "Krishna is the Supreme well-wishing friend of

ALL living enitities" (including women and even old fools like me).

Another saying I have heard is that Vaishnav's are also the friend of

everyone. (Including fools like me?)

 

>I understand quite well what you are talking about. I grew up in a culture

>where the condition of women is not very much different from a slave status.

>I hate what I know from it. I hate injustice, especially in the name of

>religion. I am not sure if -you- do know how exactly the world of polygamy

>looks like, apart from what you've heard or read in the old scriptures.

>And

>I think what you are proposing is a danger for women and society in general.

 

Later in this letter you say you are from Muslim country. Islamic culture

and Vedic culture are not synominous. I know for a fact that modern so

called feministic equal rights are far more degrading to women and society

then even what was here 50 or 100 years ago in the West. I do not know

much of Mulsim culture, my wife knows more than I, but what I do know, I do

not see women treated as nicely as I what I know of Hindu culture - and

modern Hinduism is a far cry from Vedic culture.

 

>I feel ashamed when I hear, -and I do quite often-, male devotees

>proclaiming, just like if it was the most natural and religious thing to

>say, that women are less intelligent; that they don't need to go to school;

 

There is a converstion where one Indian man told SP he also felt

embarrassed and ashamed when SP said things like women are not equal with

men, etc. SP said that when speaking Vedic knowledge, one cannot

compromise. He must speak the the truth.

On my own I never would have said women are less intelligent then men.

But, I have run across quotes where SP has said exactly that. I do agree

that if one is unscrupulous or bent one could wrongly mis-use those

statements abusively. But, to simply discard those aspects of what really

is the Vedic philosopy is completely wrong. Rather, I advocate that there

is a proper understanding and that we can and must come to that proper

understanding, not carelessly throw out what we most likely are totally

misunderstanding.. SP nor the Vedas are in favor of enslaving or

exploiting or abusing women. Just the opposite. Yet, SP said a women is

never to be given independence. She must remain under the protective care

of her father, husband or elder son. Never given independence. This SP

quoted many times. If such statements make you feel uncomforatable then I

think you are obviously seeing them differently then I do.

 

SP has also said that women are very easily misled, and that men who are

unscrupolous can easily take advantage of an unprotected woman. The idea

is that woman must therefore be taken care of and protected very diligently

- for their protection, not for their exploitation. But, to promote

so-called equal rights, that is the worst danger to women and society.

So-called equal rights only makes it so much easier for the unscrupulous

men to exploit and take advantage of those women who are more easily misled

(which may sound better then 'less intelligent').

..

 

The girl is thinking marriage, family, long term commitment, the men are

thinking immediate sense gratification with no strings attached. That is

what so-called equal rights ultimately leads to. Total disruption and

devistation of the family traditions. It leads to complete social and

moral breakdown and decay.

 

I have 2 daughters and I am trying to keep them from going to school, as

per my spiritual master's instructions. But, by no means will my

daughters be uneducated. We are home schooling them. They will learn

computers inside and out, as well as shastra and material sciences,

chemistry, physics, etc. But, first and foremost they will learn devotion

to Krsna followed by chastity and the culture of dharma. "No school",

does not mean no education. It simply means to further protect the girl's

chastity. When SP, in 1977, said there should be no school for the girls,

that it was a mistake to have done this, he was refering to their learning

prostitution from the beginning. Co-education. Chastity and shyness and

wholesome family values and learning how to do home duties they are all

learned best at home.

 

>The shadow is: woman in the back of temples; women not offering flowers

>during gurupuja while the men are still leading the kirtans; not expressing

>themselves in public; not having any leadership position in society; always

>being the last for any treatments; behind the curtain, the sexual abused

>doll; etc., etc., etc. In other words, it is regression. A regression that

>we justify in the name of vedic culture; by quoting Srila Prabhupada!

That is just it, I am SP's disciple, as well as you, and some of those

things he actually did say. Are you saying we should not repeat those

quotes? He has spoken very negatively about women taking up leadership

positions. And some of us repeat those instructions and quotes he has

made. Because we quote what SP has said, we are to be hanged that we are

just justifying our own positions? No. We are giving those quotes because

this is SP's movement and those were HIS positions, not 'ours'. Some of

those things he said and set up. But, not the abuse.

 

Can't we see, many of us who were 'devotees' were nothing but animals. How

many amoung us we now learn, our so-called god-brothers, molested young

innocent Vaishnav boys - right in the Holy Dham of Vrndaban? Who beat them

and deprived them of the carefree happiness of youth. Who stole from them

their child innocence. That is not the result of being KC, or of trying to

follow Dharma. Those same men would have done the same thing outide of KC.

In fact, this Murlivadaka who was exposed here in Alachua several years

ago, we heard that he was suspected of doing this at a camp for boys prior

to his becomng a devotee over 25 years ago.

 

My point? Yes, so many women were abused by unscrupulous men who dressed

and acted in the guise of Vaishnav devotees. And who may have quoted this

or that from SP's teachings to justify their criminal behavior. But, the

blame is not upon their feable attempts to follow Vedic dharma, the blame

is upon those wretched individuals themselves. The women were not abused

because the men quoted from SP and shastra - etc, they were abused because

those men were unable to raise themselves up to the level of first-class

human beings. (And some of the women were not totally faultless either)

But, it is that same as with the child molesters. This Murlidaka, he did

not molest boys because they were in a gurukula and KC made it easy for

him, but it now appears he was molesting boys even before he joined ISKCON

or became a devotee. If true, and it seems it is, then he carried his own

garbage in with him and never threw it out. It was not Vedic Dharma that

pushed him to molest the children, nor was it Vedic Dharma that made it so

easy for him to do it. So, it will be a grave mistake to place the blame on

our attempts to understand and follow dharma and thus throw out the baby

with the dirty bath water. That is the same as with all 10th class men who

have abused women in or our of ISKCON in the name of dharma, or Islam, or

Pagan gods.

>I am certainly not against the concept of polygamy, for, like you, I cherish

 

>vedic culture.

 

Hard to believe from what you have said so far.

 

>If you and me were to be

>compared for our natural attitude towards how women should behave in

>society, you will be surprised my mentality.

 

Did you see my article on VNN about Real Respect for Women?

 

[ I also sent the article to Chakra, but they refuse to publish anything I

write. I have email correspondence made between Madhusudani Radha dd and

Vipramukhya and Umapati, and their decision was that they would not publish

my articles because they did not want to be associated with someone who: 1)

Promoted polygamy, and 2) had an article on my web page questioning the

idea that man has gone to the moon. They say they are, what, the warriors

of truth, or what ever, they are in total maya as far as I am concerned,

and have lost all their intelligence. SP also at times promoted polygamy,

and he also more then just questioned the validity of the scientists claims

of going to the moon. So why not be consistent and also ban any writings

of HDG AC BSP from being published on Chakra. Why just my writings are

banned? Yet, that was their only complaint, that I had an article

promoting polygamy and that I had an article on my web page questioning the

validity of the moon landings.]

 

Anyway, if you read my article you should have been able to see that I also

promote a very high respect for women. Especially for their chastity and

faithfulness. Women are to be given all honor and respect and taken the

very best care of. That creates auspiciousness in the family and in the

society. That is the whole point of dharma and my only motive in promoting

it. When women's chastity is protected nicely and the men become first

class gentlemen and have geniune respect for women - in the proper dharmic

sense, then a whole new generation of saintly children will be born. That

is my motive. It has nothing to do with exploitation or abusive control or

power over anyone else, or even lusty desires to take an additional burden

(I mean wife, ah, I mean, ah women are not really burdens, ah, well,

yeah they are, I mean, sort of, I mean, well, oh God, you know what I mean,

right?).

>I am not a westerner, if I can put it this way. I was born in a Muslim

>country and in a pious Muslim family. ... ... I am such a macho! But I

>worked hard to come to the platform that I am addressing you now.

 

I come from just the opposite. I did not come from a macho background at

all. Just middle-class suburban USA - whose parents were liberal

Democrates, and hardworking and a mother who was a sideline supporter for

women's equal rights. I have lived on both sides, because I am now married

to a very chaste Hindu - Vasihnav wife. But, I was not brought up in a

macho enviornment of any sort. And I have always had a natural respect for

women. Even as a non devotee, I felt it was manly and respectable to open

the door for the ladies, to be curtious and respectful toward them. All my

other things I learned from studying SP's books.

 

>Bellow is a little talk from Srila Prabhupada in Vrindavana. Just because he

>said it, this is what we understand by ksatriya in varnasrama dharma at the

 

>dawn of the XXI century. And judges will be formed in the style of

>Bhaktivinod Thakur; very efficient. Just to know that there are devotees,

>who will not hesitate to integrate these Lois if they were put in charge of

>a government, gives me goose flesh.

 

(I do not understand the above statement you are making. Please clarify.

Are you saying you are opposed to the quote by SP you gave? You say that

it gives you goose flesh knowing that there are devotees who will not

hesitate to integrate these "Lois". What is a Lois? (Laws?). I am just

not understanding what you are trying to say? Are you against what he

said? I have explicit faith in the words of Shastra and my spiritual

master. If SP told me to go kill some animal and eat it, I would hopefully

do it without hesitation. At least, that is the faith I strive to have in

his words. Why? Because I have no doubt to his purity and his absolute

understanding.)

 

>What I dislike in your presentation, is your lack of psychology, your "Cut

>and Paste" philosophy, that Dharma you're holding on the westerners' head

>like the sword of Damocles.

 

Please, what is all the dramatics about? You seem to see me as some sort

of overbearing overLord. Believe me, I am no where near it.

 

>If I could draw a caricature of you, I will make

>you look like a mullah in Iran. One of those who maintain by hook or by

>crook the old teachings of the Coran. And of course, if such talents were

>given to you, I will be a politician promoting women's freedom.

 

Whoa or Wow. Or What? A female reporter told SP that in the West we are

trying to give equal rights to the women. SP replied, "I am not trying".

Oh, sorry, there I go quoting from my guru to justify "my" positioin again.

No, it is not "my" position, I quoted it because that is what my spiritual

master said. Of course, you say woman's "freedom". Freedom to do what?

Get sacked by a dozen different men before she turns 20? Freedom to marry,

divorce, remarry? (Which is destructive and devistaging to the lives of

any children she may have - which I call the worse form of child abuse -

and should be addressed from that point of view, the harm it does the

children). What freedom ? Freedom to have sex and then murdern their

unborn babies, so they can have irresponsible sex equally with men?

Freedom to NOT be under the protection of a man? Freedom in the form of

Independence from any and all men? How do you define this "Freedom"?

 

Yet, SP taught that women are not to be given such so-called freedom. Oh,

there I go again, quoting from that old Bengali man who doesn't understand

us liberated souls of the 1990's. Better stop quoting from him.

 

>I will be

>wearing a long hat with the American flag printed on it, and I will be

>holding the hips of a woman with her arm around my neck.

 

Double Whoa. The American flag? I see nothing sacred about a flag, and I

do not wroship false idols, like a nation's flag. And you will be holding

the hips of a woman who has her arms around your neck? What a strange

self-portrait by a disciple of SP?

 

 

I would rather like to see me as the menial servant of Krsna who is

entrusted with the responsibility of taking best care of my Vaishnavi wife,

and a loving Vaishnav father to my devotee childen - who understands that

in reality the souls I call my wife and children are not my possesions, but

they are Krsna's property and my small role is that they are now

temporarily in my care. I would rather be pictured with my hands on the

hips of our family Deities of Radha-Shyamasundar while I am dressing Them,

or standing with a Hare Krsna banner on Sankirtan as my flag. Where is

your head at?

 

>Let's consider these pictures extreme concoction of my false ego and settle

>for a reasonable and feasible state of KC.

 

Are you making any sense?

 

>Then by positive examples we

>could show to others what we mean by polygamy, widows or justice. If you

>have such statistics, produce them.

 

What statistics? What are you talking about, I lost you.

 

>Remember, even the Mormons failed in

>practice and had to comply to democratic rules.

 

Is that why there are over 48,000 polygamous families in the State of Utah

? (that number I read over 6 years ago) (and 10's of thousands of other

families in surroundng states). All we hear about are the wacko - off

color cases, like this man who forced his 14 or 16 year old daughter to

marry her uncle as an additional wife. That is incest in my book, or

extremely close to it. And no girl should be forced to marry anyone. But,

the wacko cases are all you hear about. The vast majority of other

polygamous marriages are very healthy families. I was in the home of one

"Mormon" polygamous family. Very nice - warm - together loving family,

where the older teen age children (all home schooled) were very respectful

to their parents, and it was a very nice experience. So, who said they

failed? The press, and those who only hear the extreme wacko cases?

 

>So, don't make the same

>mistakes. I propose you a synthesis of these two extremes. Unstead of

>brandishing the Rules of Dharma against the neo-liberarism, let's offer to

>the world the art of living.

 

You offer what ever you want. "Art of Living" Sounds politically correct

enough. But, I will try to stick to offering KC and Vedic culture as I

understand what SP taught it and as he wanted it implemented.

 

>That is, examples of individuals and situations

>were women will love to be sheltered. Not that they should be forced to

>accept.

 

For whatever you were trying to say above earler, Finally,

HARI BOL PRABHU !!!

 

We finally and fully agree here.

 

Yes, lets make situations where the women will want to seek out proper

protection. How to do that? By becoming First-Class men who take best

care of those under their care. (or at our age, training the younger men to

become the first class men we were not able to become) Who genuinely

respect women and who genuinely want to see them protected and happily

engaged in Krsna's Service. Actually, forget the whole respecting

'women' part. That is, we are in only temporary male or female bodies, but

we do have to function in the material world so we have to adhere to some

sort of social decorum and moral values (I choose those of Vedic Dharma),

but, ultimately we have to undestand, one's wife is not one's own property

which he is free to do with as he wants (like beat her like a dog to make

her play with you like a sweet mrdunga drum), but to see her as a spirit

soul who belongs to Krsna, and seeing our duties as devotee husbands to

take the best care of Krsna's property and treat them just like Krsna's

loving maid-servants.

 

 

The most auspicious thing for human society right now, other then to hear

and vibrate the Holy Names of Krsna, will be to see that the women (and

children) of society are well protected and happy. When the chaste women

of a society are truly happy, then all auspicous things will come to that

society. Then saintly children will come. Then purity in peoples minds

will come. Right now our minds are so polluted all we can do is transmit

insults to one another using electrons and micro wave radio energy via

satelites and digital networks. Hari Bol.

 

>You may not resemble what my impressions tell me about you, but you sound

>terribly like someone to guard from. I feel, by the little I know from your

>writings, that you took a firm stand on that matter.

 

If someone says that SP did not want us to practice polygamy, I will take a

stand because my study has led me to conclude with no doubts that he did

want us to properly protect our women, and that polygamy is needed in order

to do this. So, I will not back down.

 

>Therefore I don't

>expect any constructive dialogue from this exchange. I just wanted to share

>with you my perception on your position, since your message was posted in an

>open forum.

>

>Respectfully, your servant Ak

 

 

 

 

 

ys ameyatma das

[Guest guest]

Akhilesvar wrote

>"There is a popular saying that there is no harm in creating some antagonism

>with a great scholar but there is harm even by creating a friendly relation

>with a fool.

 

I prefer the saying that, "Krishna is the Supreme well-wishing friend of

ALL living enitities" (including women and even old fools like me).

Another saying I have heard is that Vaishnav's are also the friend of

everyone. (Including fools like me?)

 

>I understand quite well what you are talking about. I grew up in a culture

>where the condition of women is not very much different from a slave status.

>I hate what I know from it. I hate injustice, especially in the name of

>religion. I am not sure if -you- do know how exactly the world of polygamy

>looks like, apart from what you've heard or read in the old scriptures.

>And

>I think what you are proposing is a danger for women and society in general.

 

Later in this letter you say you are from Muslim country. Islamic culture

and Vedic culture are not synominous. I know for a fact that modern so

called feministic equal rights are far more degrading to women and society

then even what was here 50 or 100 years ago in the West. I do not know

much of Mulsim culture, my wife knows more than I, but what I do know, I do

not see women treated as nicely as I what I know of Hindu culture - and

modern Hinduism is a far cry from Vedic culture.

 

>I feel ashamed when I hear, -and I do quite often-, male devotees

>proclaiming, just like if it was the most natural and religious thing to

>say, that women are less intelligent; that they don't need to go to school;

 

There is a converstion where one Indian man told SP he also felt

embarrassed and ashamed when SP said things like women are not equal with

men, etc. SP said that when speaking Vedic knowledge, one cannot

compromise. He must speak the the truth.

On my own I never would have said women are less intelligent then men.

But, I have run across quotes where SP has said exactly that. I do agree

that if one is unscrupulous or bent one could wrongly mis-use those

statements abusively. But, to simply discard those aspects of what really

is the Vedic philosopy is completely wrong. Rather, I advocate that there

is a proper understanding and that we can and must come to that proper

understanding, not carelessly throw out what we most likely are totally

misunderstanding.. SP nor the Vedas are in favor of enslaving or

exploiting or abusing women. Just the opposite. Yet, SP said a women is

never to be given independence. She must remain under the protective care

of her father, husband or elder son. Never given independence. This SP

quoted many times. If such statements make you feel uncomforatable then I

think you are obviously seeing them differently then I do.

 

SP has also said that women are very easily misled, and that men who are

unscrupolous can easily take advantage of an unprotected woman. The idea

is that woman must therefore be taken care of and protected very diligently

- for their protection, not for their exploitation. But, to promote

so-called equal rights, that is the worst danger to women and society.

So-called equal rights only makes it so much easier for the unscrupulous

men to exploit and take advantage of those women who are more easily misled

(which may sound better then 'less intelligent').

..

 

The girl is thinking marriage, family, long term commitment, the men are

thinking immediate sense gratification with no strings attached. That is

what so-called equal rights ultimately leads to. Total disruption and

devistation of the family traditions. It leads to complete social and

moral breakdown and decay.

 

I have 2 daughters and I am trying to keep them from going to school, as

per my spiritual master's instructions. But, by no means will my

daughters be uneducated. We are home schooling them. They will learn

computers inside and out, as well as shastra and material sciences,

chemistry, physics, etc. But, first and foremost they will learn devotion

to Krsna followed by chastity and the culture of dharma. "No school",

does not mean no education. It simply means to further protect the girl's

chastity. When SP, in 1977, said there should be no school for the girls,

that it was a mistake to have done this, he was refering to their learning

prostitution from the beginning. Co-education. Chastity and shyness and

wholesome family values and learning how to do home duties they are all

learned best at home.

 

>The shadow is: woman in the back of temples; women not offering flowers

>during gurupuja while the men are still leading the kirtans; not expressing

>themselves in public; not having any leadership position in society; always

>being the last for any treatments; behind the curtain, the sexual abused

>doll; etc., etc., etc. In other words, it is regression. A regression that

>we justify in the name of vedic culture; by quoting Srila Prabhupada!

That is just it, I am SP's disciple, as well as you, and some of those

things he actually did say. Are you saying we should not repeat those

quotes? He has spoken very negatively about women taking up leadership

positions. And some of us repeat those instructions and quotes he has

made. Because we quote what SP has said, we are to be hanged that we are

just justifying our own positions? No. We are giving those quotes because

this is SP's movement and those were HIS positions, not 'ours'. Some of

those things he said and set up. But, not the abuse.

 

Can't we see, many of us who were 'devotees' were nothing but animals. How

many amoung us we now learn, our so-called god-brothers, molested young

innocent Vaishnav boys - right in the Holy Dham of Vrndaban? Who beat them

and deprived them of the carefree happiness of youth. Who stole from them

their child innocence. That is not the result of being KC, or of trying to

follow Dharma. Those same men would have done the same thing outide of KC.

In fact, this Murlivadaka who was exposed here in Alachua several years

ago, we heard that he was suspected of doing this at a camp for boys prior

to his becomng a devotee over 25 years ago.

 

My point? Yes, so many women were abused by unscrupulous men who dressed

and acted in the guise of Vaishnav devotees. And who may have quoted this

or that from SP's teachings to justify their criminal behavior. But, the

blame is not upon their feable attempts to follow Vedic dharma, the blame

is upon those wretched individuals themselves. The women were not abused

because the men quoted from SP and shastra - etc, they were abused because

those men were unable to raise themselves up to the level of first-class

human beings. (And some of the women were not totally faultless either)

But, it is that same as with the child molesters. This Murlidaka, he did

not molest boys because they were in a gurukula and KC made it easy for

him, but it now appears he was molesting boys even before he joined ISKCON

or became a devotee. If true, and it seems it is, then he carried his own

garbage in with him and never threw it out. It was not Vedic Dharma that

pushed him to molest the children, nor was it Vedic Dharma that made it so

easy for him to do it. So, it will be a grave mistake to place the blame on

our attempts to understand and follow dharma and thus throw out the baby

with the dirty bath water. That is the same as with all 10th class men who

have abused women in or our of ISKCON in the name of dharma, or Islam, or

Pagan gods.

>I am certainly not against the concept of polygamy, for, like you, I cherish

 

>vedic culture.

 

Hard to believe from what you have said so far.

 

>If you and me were to be

>compared for our natural attitude towards how women should behave in

>society, you will be surprised my mentality.

 

Did you see my article on VNN about Real Respect for Women?

 

[ I also sent the article to Chakra, but they refuse to publish anything I

write. I have email correspondence made between Madhusudani Radha dd and

Vipramukhya and Umapati, and their decision was that they would not publish

my articles because they did not want to be associated with someone who: 1)

Promoted polygamy, and 2) had an article on my web page questioning the

idea that man has gone to the moon. They say they are, what, the warriors

of truth, or what ever, they are in total maya as far as I am concerned,

and have lost all their intelligence. SP also at times promoted polygamy,

and he also more then just questioned the validity of the scientists claims

of going to the moon. So why not be consistent and also ban any writings

of HDG AC BSP from being published on Chakra. Why just my writings are

banned? Yet, that was their only complaint, that I had an article

promoting polygamy and that I had an article on my web page questioning the

validity of the moon landings.]

 

Anyway, if you read my article you should have been able to see that I also

promote a very high respect for women. Especially for their chastity and

faithfulness. Women are to be given all honor and respect and taken the

very best care of. That creates auspiciousness in the family and in the

society. That is the whole point of dharma and my only motive in promoting

it. When women's chastity is protected nicely and the men become first

class gentlemen and have geniune respect for women - in the proper dharmic

sense, then a whole new generation of saintly children will be born. That

is my motive. It has nothing to do with exploitation or abusive control or

power over anyone else, or even lusty desires to take an additional burden

(I mean wife, ah, I mean, ah women are not really burdens, ah, well,

yeah they are, I mean, sort of, I mean, well, oh God, you know what I mean,

right?).

>I am not a westerner, if I can put it this way. I was born in a Muslim

>country and in a pious Muslim family. ... ... I am such a macho! But I

>worked hard to come to the platform that I am addressing you now.

 

I come from just the opposite. I did not come from a macho background at

all. Just middle-class suburban USA - whose parents were liberal

Democrates, and hardworking and a mother who was a sideline supporter for

women's equal rights. I have lived on both sides, because I am now married

to a very chaste Hindu - Vasihnav wife. But, I was not brought up in a

macho enviornment of any sort. And I have always had a natural respect for

women. Even as a non devotee, I felt it was manly and respectable to open

the door for the ladies, to be curtious and respectful toward them. All my

other things I learned from studying SP's books.

 

>Bellow is a little talk from Srila Prabhupada in Vrindavana. Just because he

>said it, this is what we understand by ksatriya in varnasrama dharma at the

 

>dawn of the XXI century. And judges will be formed in the style of

>Bhaktivinod Thakur; very efficient. Just to know that there are devotees,

>who will not hesitate to integrate these Lois if they were put in charge of

>a government, gives me goose flesh.

 

(I do not understand the above statement you are making. Please clarify.

Are you saying you are opposed to the quote by SP you gave? You say that

it gives you goose flesh knowing that there are devotees who will not

hesitate to integrate these "Lois". What is a Lois? (Laws?). I am just

not understanding what you are trying to say? Are you against what he

said? I have explicit faith in the words of Shastra and my spiritual

master. If SP told me to go kill some animal and eat it, I would hopefully

do it without hesitation. At least, that is the faith I strive to have in

his words. Why? Because I have no doubt to his purity and his absolute

understanding.)

 

>What I dislike in your presentation, is your lack of psychology, your "Cut

>and Paste" philosophy, that Dharma you're holding on the westerners' head

>like the sword of Damocles.

 

Please, what is all the dramatics about? You seem to see me as some sort

of overbearing overLord. Believe me, I am no where near it.

 

>If I could draw a caricature of you, I will make

>you look like a mullah in Iran. One of those who maintain by hook or by

>crook the old teachings of the Coran. And of course, if such talents were

>given to you, I will be a politician promoting women's freedom.

 

Whoa or Wow. Or What? A female reporter told SP that in the West we are

trying to give equal rights to the women. SP replied, "I am not trying".

Oh, sorry, there I go quoting from my guru to justify "my" positioin again.

No, it is not "my" position, I quoted it because that is what my spiritual

master said. Of course, you say woman's "freedom". Freedom to do what?

Get sacked by a dozen different men before she turns 20? Freedom to marry,

divorce, remarry? (Which is destructive and devistaging to the lives of

any children she may have - which I call the worse form of child abuse -

and should be addressed from that point of view, the harm it does the

children). What freedom ? Freedom to have sex and then murdern their

unborn babies, so they can have irresponsible sex equally with men?

Freedom to NOT be under the protection of a man? Freedom in the form of

Independence from any and all men? How do you define this "Freedom"?

 

Yet, SP taught that women are not to be given such so-called freedom. Oh,

there I go again, quoting from that old Bengali man who doesn't understand

us liberated souls of the 1990's. Better stop quoting from him.

 

>I will be

>wearing a long hat with the American flag printed on it, and I will be

>holding the hips of a woman with her arm around my neck.

 

Double Whoa. The American flag? I see nothing sacred about a flag, and I

do not wroship false idols, like a nation's flag. And you will be holding

the hips of a woman who has her arms around your neck? What a strange

self-portrait by a disciple of SP?

 

 

I would rather like to see me as the menial servant of Krsna who is

entrusted with the responsibility of taking best care of my Vaishnavi wife,

and a loving Vaishnav father to my devotee childen - who understands that

in reality the souls I call my wife and children are not my possesions, but

they are Krsna's property and my small role is that they are now

temporarily in my care. I would rather be pictured with my hands on the

hips of our family Deities of Radha-Shyamasundar while I am dressing Them,

or standing with a Hare Krsna banner on Sankirtan as my flag. Where is

your head at?

 

>Let's consider these pictures extreme concoction of my false ego and settle

>for a reasonable and feasible state of KC.

 

Are you making any sense?

 

>Then by positive examples we

>could show to others what we mean by polygamy, widows or justice. If you

>have such statistics, produce them.

 

What statistics? What are you talking about, I lost you.

 

>Remember, even the Mormons failed in

>practice and had to comply to democratic rules.

 

Is that why there are over 48,000 polygamous families in the State of Utah

? (that number I read over 6 years ago) (and 10's of thousands of other

families in surroundng states). All we hear about are the wacko - off

color cases, like this man who forced his 14 or 16 year old daughter to

marry her uncle as an additional wife. That is incest in my book, or

extremely close to it. And no girl should be forced to marry anyone. But,

the wacko cases are all you hear about. The vast majority of other

polygamous marriages are very healthy families. I was in the home of one

"Mormon" polygamous family. Very nice - warm - together loving family,

where the older teen age children (all home schooled) were very respectful

to their parents, and it was a very nice experience. So, who said they

failed? The press, and those who only hear the extreme wacko cases?

 

>So, don't make the same

>mistakes. I propose you a synthesis of these two extremes. Unstead of

>brandishing the Rules of Dharma against the neo-liberarism, let's offer to

>the world the art of living.

 

You offer what ever you want. "Art of Living" Sounds politically correct

enough. But, I will try to stick to offering KC and Vedic culture as I

understand what SP taught it and as he wanted it implemented.

 

>That is, examples of individuals and situations

>were women will love to be sheltered. Not that they should be forced to

>accept.

 

For whatever you were trying to say above earler, Finally,

HARI BOL PRABHU !!!

 

We finally and fully agree here.

 

Yes, lets make situations where the women will want to seek out proper

protection. How to do that? By becoming First-Class men who take best

care of those under their care. (or at our age, training the younger men to

become the first class men we were not able to become) Who genuinely

respect women and who genuinely want to see them protected and happily

engaged in Krsna's Service. Actually, forget the whole respecting

'women' part. That is, we are in only temporary male or female bodies, but

we do have to function in the material world so we have to adhere to some

sort of social decorum and moral values (I choose those of Vedic Dharma),

but, ultimately we have to undestand, one's wife is not one's own property

which he is free to do with as he wants (like beat her like a dog to make

her play with you like a sweet mrdunga drum), but to see her as a spirit

soul who belongs to Krsna, and seeing our duties as devotee husbands to

take the best care of Krsna's property and treat them just like Krsna's

loving maid-servants.

 

 

The most auspicious thing for human society right now, other then to hear

and vibrate the Holy Names of Krsna, will be to see that the women (and

children) of society are well protected and happy. When the chaste women

of a society are truly happy, then all auspicous things will come to that

society. Then saintly children will come. Then purity in peoples minds

will come. Right now our minds are so polluted all we can do is transmit

insults to one another using electrons and micro wave radio energy via

satelites and digital networks. Hari Bol.

 

>You may not resemble what my impressions tell me about you, but you sound

>terribly like someone to guard from. I feel, by the little I know from your

>writings, that you took a firm stand on that matter.

 

If someone says that SP did not want us to practice polygamy, I will take a

stand because my study has led me to conclude with no doubts that he did

want us to properly protect our women, and that polygamy is needed in order

to do this. So, I will not back down.

 

>Therefore I don't

>expect any constructive dialogue from this exchange. I just wanted to share

>with you my perception on your position, since your message was posted in an

>open forum.

>

>Respectfully, your servant Ak

 

 

 

 

 

ys ameyatma das