Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 >Are you trying to force every young women who lost their husband to not >remaried? To wear white? I am not sure if this is what you are saying, but >if this is so, you just blow my mind! I am not forcing anyone to do anything. I am just preaching what is dharma and chastity. But, obviously you fit SP's description, that in the West the men do not understand dharma, nor the women chastity. The laws of dharma and chastity prescribe that even a young widow "should" not remarry. And that was the mood SP also preached,. What blows my mind is how so many followers of SP in the West do not understand these things. What is your proposal, to try and force me to abandon my current understanding of dharma? --- ys ameyatma das ameyatma (AT) iname (DOT) com Chk out my web page at: http://home.earthlink.net/~kgrafx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 On 15 Jul 1999, ameyatma ACBSP wrote: > > What is your proposal, to try and force me to abandon my current > understanding of dharma? > > You can certainly preach according to your inspiration, but if others are not similarly inspired, we don't necessarily have to get all huffy about it. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 1999 Report Share Posted July 16, 1999 In a message dated 7/16/99 1:10:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Samba.SDG (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: << For instance, Ameyatma prabhu recently made that comment about some girls smiling at him, and he reccomended that the girl should be married. Can we not give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what kind of smile he saw? ........We have to assume the worst and criticise. No comments on the validity of the point Srila Prabhupada made, no, just slag the guy off, assume that he is just a case, and forget about all the valid points in his text.>> Ameyatma prabhu did not just make one comment about girls smiling at him he also expanded his comment to include the revelation that he had been willing to "protect" and 18 year old gurukuli. Why did he not make the comment that she should develop a more serious attachment to Krsna? As a mother of an 18 year old daughter , I find it repulsive that a 40 year old man, and he must be at least that if he was initiated in 73, would still be considering these things and with children young enough to be his daughters no less. Have we not matured to the point that our men can remain undisturbed by the glance of an naive girl. So involved with mundane matters, what genuine protection could he offer? And although he has recently written me a private response to my comments rather than share them with the assembled devotees, he has again not given one example in which Srila Prabhupada specifically sanctioned a second marriage, nor explained why he is so focused on the topic of polygamy rather than planning his retirement from family life altogether. Is it really his Dharma to marry again so late in life? Should this be on his mind at all? Are there no references in folio ( I don't have it) in which Srila Prabhupada sheds unfavorable light on poligamy? Why is it we must continue to indulge criticism of women who happen to be less than ideal vedic women from men who also appear to be less than ideal vedic men? Ys, Kanti dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 16 Jul 1999, Kanti dd wrote: > > Why is it we must continue to indulge criticism of women who happen to be less than ideal vedic women from men who also appear to be less than ideal vedic men? > Maybe that's why in Vedic culture it was considered better to be a man then a women -- apparently it is much easier getting away with this kind of baloney as a man. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 > In a message dated 7/16/99 1:10:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Samba.SDG (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: > > << > For instance, Ameyatma prabhu recently made that comment about > some girls smiling at him, and he reccomended that the girl should be > married. Can we not give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what > kind of smile he saw? ........We have to assume the worst and criticise. > No comments on the validity of the point Srila Prabhupada made, no, just > slag the guy off, assume that he is just a case, and forget about all the > valid points in his text.>> I agree with Samba. > Ameyatma prabhu did not just make one comment about girls smiling at him > he also expanded his comment to include the revelation that he had been > willing to "protect" and 18 year old gurukuli. Why did he not make the > comment that she should develop a more serious attachment to Krsna? As a > mother of an 18 year old daughter , I find it repulsive that a 40 year old > man, and he must be at least that if he was initiated in 73, would still > be considering these things and with children young enough to be his > daughters no less. Are you saying that every 40 year old man in the world cannot love and honor a younger woman? Maybe many young women seek older men because many of the younger men prove themselves extremely immature and incapable of giving a young woman the kind of love and care that an older man can. Is this not beneficial to a young woman. There are many examples in the olden days of our Vedic culture of much, much older men marrying younger women. I don't think it is necessary to lump everyone in. There ARE some honorable men in this world and most will be found amongst the Vedically inclined. You will also find it "repulsive" when an immature, selfish young man abuses your daughter in some way and breaks her heart. > Have we not matured to the point that our men can > remain undisturbed by the glance of an naive girl. So involved with > mundane matters, what genuine protection could he offer? Why does it have to always be considered "disturbed"? To use your terms, Have we not matured to the point of beginning to trust Srila Prabhupada's influence upon the good hearts of at least some of his disciples? > And although he has recently written me a private response to my comments > rather than share them with the assembled devotees, he has again not given > one example in which Srila Prabhupada specifically sanctioned a second > marriage, Things take time, Mataji. The maturing process of KC is slow but sure. SOME of us are sure to be inspired by it and manifest the basic symptoms in time. It has been more than 20 years since Prabhpada "left". Many disciples have continued to mature with age and wisdom; they may have become more qualified than before. > nor explained why he is so focused on the topic of polygamy > rather than planning his retirement from family life altogether. Is it > really his Dharma to marry again so late in life? Should this be on his > mind at all? Are there no references in folio ( I don't have it) in which > Srila Prabhupada sheds unfavorable light on poligamy? For a spirit soul poligamy is totally unnecesssary to be sure. But for spirit souls with bodies these things are recommended in the Vedic culture. You know you have read them. We all have. We can't just dismiss them. We shouldn't. Yet utmost care must be taken in their implementation if the remote chance arises. Some may benefit. > Why is it we must continue to indulge criticism of women who happen to be > less than ideal vedic women from men who also appear to be less than ideal > vedic men? There does not need to be any criticism nor does everything need to be seen through such critical eyes always. We are all less than "ideal" yet we still have to make the best use of a bad bargain. Srila Prabhupada's program of varnasrama-dharma CAN make gentlemen out of some men and ladies out of some women - in time. ys, Jd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 16 Jul 1999, Janesvara das wrote: > > > I agree with Samba. > > I also agree with Samba. I think it is a brilliant analysis that young devotees are much better off in respectable KC relationships, which in our tradition, means marriage. I think it was very compassionate of Ajamila to bring this up to the young womans father, who must of somehow missed that point without the help of the mercy of the Vaisnavas. > > > Are you saying that every 40 year old man in the world cannot love and honor a younger woman? Maybe many young women seek older men because many of the younger men prove themselves extremely immature and incapable of giving a young woman the kind of love and care that an older man can. Is this not beneficial to a young woman. > Could be, but then there is also potential for danger of older men who never themselves grew up and thus wish to dally with young teenagers. There are no pat safe answers -- each situation has to judged individually and with care. > > You will also find it "repulsive" when an immature, selfish young man abuses your daughter in some way and breaks her heart. > > The principle is always protection. It is always the responsibility of those wish to present themselves as authorities to offer real shelter so that their 'dependents' actually feel secure and protected, and not just in name. I am sure this is a topic that is dear to your heart. > > Have we not matured to the point that our men can > > remain undisturbed by the glance of an naive girl. So involved with > > mundane matters, what genuine protection could he offer? > > > Why does it have to always be considered "disturbed"? To use your terms, Have we not matured to the point of beginning to trust Srila Prabhupada's influence upon the good hearts of at least some of his disciples? > Certainly good intentions may be there, but as per this conversation my own concern is the possibility of an inability to execute maturely based on these apparently good intentions. So far our track record does not inspire confidence -- and it is not just ISKCON's track record, it is the general experience within our global human society over these last few centuries. If (1) a father feels Ajamila is a suitable husband for their teenage daughter, (2) Ajamila's wife agrees, and (3) the daughter genuinely feels this situation is in her best interest, well then, I certainly am not going to go into histronics about it. But it is curious how if the man is, lets say 45, and the girl is, lets say 15, when this young woman becomes 30 years old with possibly young children or even teenagers of her own, her beloved protecter will be pushing 60 and should have taken vanaprastha or sanyass years ago, according to our enlightened Vedic heros. > > For a spirit soul poligamy is totally unnecesssary to be sure. But for > spirit souls with bodies these things are recommended in the Vedic culture. You know you have read them. We all have. We can't just dismiss them. We shouldn't. Yet utmost care must be taken in their implementation if the remote chance arises. Some may benefit. > > Yes, 'utmost care' is the critical point in my mind as well. Not that we simply get ahold of few slokas, and then based on that attempt to rearrange everyone's life, especially the life of our young children who have taken birth within our KC society. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 > > Have we not matured to the point that our men can > > remain undisturbed by the glance of an naive girl. So involved with > > mundane matters, what genuine protection could he offer? > > > Why does it have to always be considered "disturbed"? To use your terms, > Have we not matured to the point of beginning to trust Srila Prabhupada's > influence upon the good hearts of at least some of his disciples? I cannot but to say that this dialog about this matter amuses me. Is it really such a big thing in America if a young lady smiles at you, even if it happens that she is a devotee? > Certainly good intentions may be there, but as per this conversation my > own concern is the possibility of an inability to execute maturely based > on these apparently good intentions. WoW, What do you actualy want to say? > So far our track record does not inspire confidence -- and it is not > just ISKCON's track record, it is the general experience within our > global human society over these last few centuries. I could never understand this strange american puritanic education, in fact it,s all just a big show - see Bill Clinton, where the whole world was laughing at. < If (1) a father feels Ajamila is a suitable husband for their teenage > daughter, (2) Ajamila's wife agrees, and (3) the daughter genuinely feels > this situation is in her best interest, well then, I certainly am not > going to go into histronics about it. What ....? a second wife.. are we going to make harems or what? Who can complitely satisfy even one nowadays, what to speak of two? > But it is curious how if the man is, lets say 45, and the girl is, lets > say 15, when this young woman becomes 30 years old with possibly young > children or even teenagers of her own, her beloved protecter will be > pushing 60 and should have taken vanaprastha or sanyass years ago, > according to our enlightened Vedic heros. I don,t think every one is fit for taking sanyasa at old age. Sri Caitanya recomendet it just for preaching purposes, obviously not everyone is a preacher, even in Iskcon, or? ys Harsi das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > > On 16 Jul 1999, Janesvara das wrote: > > I agree with Samba. > I also agree with Samba. ....I think it was very compassionate of >Ajamila I believe the person originating this thread was the good Ameyatma Prabhu? > > Are you saying that every 40 year old man in the world cannot love and honor > a younger woman? Maybe many young women seek older men because many of the > younger men prove themselves extremely immature and incapable of giving a > young woman the kind of love and care that an older man can. Is this not > beneficial to a young woman. > Could be, but then there is also potential for danger of older men who never > themselves grew up and thus wish to dally with young teenagers. There are no > pat safe answers -- each situation has to judged individually and with care. Agreed. Good management by trusted leaders, once again. Parents can take active roles as much as possible with their children, although as a father of four sons, two of whom I experienced their teen years and one currently a teen, I have found it almost impossible to "control" many things I felt would be beneficial to my kids. They have learned many things, as did I, through the school of hard knocks. It's even tougher on the ladies, I'm sure. There will be some good-hearted devotees who can care for and love their wife or wives, as the case may be, and still be "coerced" a bit by Mr. Lust from time to time. This cannot be ignored out of denial. Sex is a very powerful "instinct" in all humans especially those who find themselves in the LAST of the yugas. It is to be expected and managed to the best of ones ability. There are certainly examples of great devotees of Krsna who dealt with periods of lust in their lives but, through determination and the Lords help within, they come around usually. Abuse and sex can be entirely different things. > > You will also find it "repulsive" when an immature, selfish young man abuses > your daughter in some way and breaks her heart. > The principle is always protection. It is always the responsibility of those > wish to present themselves as authorities to offer real shelter so that their > 'dependents' actually feel secure and protected, and not just in name. I am > sure this is a topic that is dear to your heart. It is. Vedic culture, varnasrama-dharma, gives us the means of organizing and administering social management of this nature. Some people who have been positively influenced by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's teachings and example have a sincere desire and trustworthy intentions to see that such social concepts are administered properly. Srila Prabhupada's charisma and civil reasoning can have a profound impact on any human being who genuinely wants to improve his/her life. I believe Krsna would like nothing better than to manifest some of those pupils of His pure devotee in order to glorify his legacy. Protection should be always offered, but some will not always take shelter. Facility must even be given to those who "fall through the cracks" and catch them in the net of compassion. We want that every living being is moving forward toward their ultimate destination, the spiritual world, and that "forward motion" may be almost infinitesimal to our blunt senses. > > > Have we not matured to the point that our men can > > > remain undisturbed by the glance of an naive girl. So involved with > > > mundane matters, what genuine protection could he offer? > > > > > > Why does it have to always be considered "disturbed"? To use your terms, > Have we not matured to the point of beginning to trust Srila Prabhupada's > influence upon the good hearts of at least some of his disciples? > Certainly good intentions may be there, but as per this conversation my own > concern is the possibility of an inability to execute maturely based on these > apparently good intentions. So far our track record does not inspire > confidence -- and it is not just ISKCON's track record, it is the general > experience within our global human society over these last few centuries. Certainly concepts such as polygamy always have and will continue to engender negative connotations especially due to the western influences of heartless sex. But the Vedic system embraces such concepts due to the benefits which can be realized through "proper" implementation. It is not for everyone and was never meant to be for everyone. Lord Ram had ONE wife and only lived with her a few years and, without her, lived un-remarried during his reign for hundreds of years as a model king. But our great Pandavas lived elsewise and were very successful and of utmost respect. Their wives all knew they were married to other women, but because the Vedic system teaches a woman that her ultimate Lord is the Lord of Goloka, their jealosies and competitions were absorbed by their submission to God. The women of Dvaraka VOLUNTARILY went up to the roofs of their homes to view the entrance of their husbands into the city even though they knew there were hundreds of society women who felt free to associate with the men in the streets. Both were protected by the men but some were a little closer to Home. > If (1) a father feels Ajamila is a suitable husband for their teenage > daughter, (2) Ajamila's wife agrees, and (3) the daughter genuinely feels this > situation is in her best interest, well then, I certainly am not going to go > into histronics about it. I think a few more details must be required. In my opinion no man can have more than one wife unless he has equal income and familial security (insurance, shelter, etc.) for additional wives. If it takes say $30K per year to maintain/protect/love one wife properly, then a man must provide the other wife with exactly equal resources. If the first wife is used to a standard of living which is higher any subsequent wives MUST be given equal standards. A man should not be allowed to accept another woman into his life in a formal protective relationship, whether we call it marriage or not, UNTIL he can prove fiscal security to the above conditions. Reviewable assets must be shown. > But it is curious how if the man is, lets say 45, and the girl is, lets say > 15, when this young woman becomes 30 years old with possibly young children or > even teenagers of her own, her beloved protecter will be pushing 60 and should > have taken vanaprastha or sanyass years ago, according to our enlightened > Vedic heros. This, of course, depends wholely upon the varna of the man. Sudras, the majority of the population, never take any asrama other than grihasta. Only brahamans take sannyasa. Ksatriyas can take vanaprastha but do not have to leave the wife unprotected. > > For a spirit soul poligamy is totally unnecesssary to be sure. But for > > spirit souls with bodies these things are recommended in the Vedic culture. > You know you have read them. We all have. We can't just dismiss them. We > shouldn't. Yet utmost care must be taken in their implementation if the remote > chance arises. Some may benefit. > Yes, 'utmost care' is the critical point in my mind as well. Not that we > simply get ahold of few slokas, and then based on that attempt to rearrange > everyone's life, especially the life of our young children who have taken > birth within our KC society. Face to face communications between mature adult devotees of the Lord can accomplish many auspicious results. ys, Jd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Janesvara Dasa wrote: > > I believe the person originating this thread was the good Ameyatma Prabhu? > You're right, and I agree with that too! > > Certainly concepts such as polygamy always have and will continue to engender negative connotations especially due to the western influences of heartless sex. But the Vedic system embraces such concepts due to the benefits which can be realized through "proper" implementation. > I have nothing against the idea of polygamy, it is just that it hasn't been practiced to any degree of success within recent history. I guess the Mormons had some luck with it, but then the Feds outlawed it, based on good Christian moral principles, I suppose. In any event, I think if we are able to take care of one wife at a time, our society will be greatly benefited. I really don't see how the idea of polygamy needs to become some kind of serious preaching point in ISKCON at this stage of our social evolution. > > This, of course, depends wholely upon the varna of the man. Sudras, the > majority of the population, never take any asrama other than grihasta. Only brahamans take sannyasa. Ksatriyas can take vanaprastha but do not have to leave the wife unprotected. > > All true, but the idea of, lets say, my daughter taking care of both young children and then having to depend on some senior citizen for emotional and financial support isn't terribly inspiring. What to speak of having a son-in-law who besides is already married with young children, is also old enough to be my older brother. It just plain seems to me we all have enough on our hands dealing with ordinary standard affairs. Sure, I'd like to say I'm all for creative situations, but I'd have to also add particular situation isn't something I would have in mind by saying that. I will be blunt -- I am the father of a child who is currently happily engaged in a KC ashrama situation. That some 45 year old man with a wife and two young children seems to think it is appropriate to publicly advertise that he feels young teenage girls who would otherwise be considered fairly KC are lusting after him -- now to me that is disturbing to the point of being psycologically perverse. I would assume this little public fantasy didn't occur recently, as this is the first I have heard of it. I would like to advize this Prabhu that in the future best that he keep his little fantasies to himself for his own well being. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 1999 Report Share Posted July 17, 1999 On 17 Jul 1999, Harsi das wrote: > > I cannot but to say that this dialog about this matter amuses me. Is it > really such a big thing in America if a young lady smiles at you, even if it happens that she is a devotee? > Apparently for some 45 year old men, it is a source of great inspiration. Apparently it inspires them to protect the rest of us butter-like men from ever seeing a smiling teenager girl in kirtan. I truly feel overwhelmed by the protection of such compassionate Vaisnavas. Boy, do I feel lucky being a devotee in Alachua. > > Certainly good intentions may be there, but as per this conversation my own concern is the possibility of an inability to execute maturely based on these apparently good intentions. > > WoW, What do you actualy want to say? > For the benefit of the doubt, and not wanting to make unnecessary offenses, I didn't want to call anyone a pervert. > > So far our track record does not inspire confidence -- and it is not > > just ISKCON's track record, it is the general experience within our > > global human society over these last few centuries. > > I could never understand this strange american puritanic education, in fact it,s all just a big show - see Bill Clinton, where the whole world was laughing at. > Well the fact that the average American, or any one of the other current residents on our lovely planet, do not seem overwhelmed with the ability to take care of just one wife and family -- now that little statistic just does not inspire me that we can now take care of two at a time -- that's all that was meant by that. > > What ....? a second wife.. are we going to make harems or what? > Who can complitely satisfy even one nowadays, what to speak of two? > Well, if it appears remotely KC, well, I won't totally go ballistic. But I suspect better we stick to the basics, like chanting and maybe making a success of one family if we have an inclination in that direction. > > I don,t think every one is fit for taking sanyasa at old age. > Sri Caitanya recomendet it just for preaching purposes, obviously not > everyone is a preacher, even in Iskcon, or? > Well, if they're not fit for sanyass, I don't think that is necessarily a qualification for thinking about taking on teenage girls as a second wife. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 1999 Report Share Posted July 18, 1999 > Are > there no references in folio ( I don't have it) in which Srila Prabhupada > sheds unfavorable light on poligamy? > > Why is it we must continue to indulge criticism of women who happen to be > less than ideal vedic women from men who also appear to be less than ideal > vedic men? > Ys, Kanti dasi My Dear Rupanuga, Please accept my blessings. I am in receipt of your letter dated 31/1/73. After conferring with my various GBC representatives I have concluded that polygamy must be strictly prohibited in our society. Although it is a Vedic institution still there are so many legal implications. Neither are many of our men fixed up enough to tend for more than one wife. Polygamy will simply increase the sex life and our philosophy is to gradually decrease the sex life till eventually there is no sex life. The policy should be that all the women are given the utmost protection. Women are looking for husbands because they feel unprotected so it is up to the senior members to give all protection to the women. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Rupanuga -- Sydney 14 February, 1973 Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated January 22nd, and 23rd and have noted the contents carefully. I am very much encouraged that you are taking this program of preaching to the college students seriously and this is very important program. Regarding your various questions. First let us understand that polygamy cannot be permitted in our society. Legally it is impossible and neither are there many of our devotees who are prepared to assume the responsibility for many wives. Therefore as I have suggested previously as they do in Christian religion they have so many convent where the women stay and they receive protection. The point is that the women must be protected and it is the duties of the leaders of our society to see that this is carried out. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Satsvarupa -- Melbourne 10 February, 1973 Please accept my blessings. I have received your letter of 1/24/73 concerning polygamy and feel that this policy must be strictly prohibited within our society. If it is not it shall only cause chaos, as what was possible under the system of pure Vedic Culture is impossible at the present time. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Karandhara -- Melbourne 10 February, 1973 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 In a message dated 7/16/99 11:40:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Janesvara.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: > As a > > mother of an 18 year old daughter , I find it repulsive that a 40 year old > > man, and he must be at least that if he was initiated in 73, would still > > be considering these things and with children young enough to be his > > daughters no less. > > > Are you saying that every 40 year old man in the world cannot love and honor > a younger woman? Maybe many young women seek older men because many of the > younger men prove themselves extremely immature and incapable of giving a > young woman the kind of love and care that an older man can. Is this not > beneficial to a young woman. Shades of Woody Allen and Soon Yi. Even the demoniac American court system did not swallow his story that his interest was in the best interests of his children. Just because someone is an older man doesn't mean he is mature, only that he is older. Many men have not grown up, only grown older. I would think a sign of maturity would be a diminishing desire for sex not an increasing desire. Isn't it curious that everyone rushing to defend polygamy and the "protection" of girls many years their junior do not have the same attitude about protecting the older, less attractive women in Iskcon who have never been married? My experience has been that when a man says this is a woman he is interested in protecting or when a woman says this is a man she could surrender to, what they are both really saying is this is someone I would consider having sex with. Sex may be there but pretending that expanding opportunities for sex is somehow Srila Prabhpada's instruction to hold near and dear, is not reasonable nor honest. > There are many examples in the olden days of our Vedic culture of much, much > older men marrying younger women. I don't think it is necessary to lump > everyone in. There ARE some honorable men in this world and most will be > found amongst the Vedically inclined. Yes there are honorable men found amongst the Vedically inclined, but our interest is spiritually inclined as well as Vedically inclined. Hiranyakasipu was Vedically inclined but spiritually challenged. Nor do I have to remind you that those who abused children in the gurukulas and women on traveling parties and in their homes, were also hiding behind the Vedas. One could even say that Hitler was hiding behind the Vedas, it is the motive of the heart that counts not the philosophy one expounds. > You will also find it "repulsive" when an immature, selfish young man abuses > your daughter in some way and breaks her heart. > I have faith that my daughter will be protected by Krsna up to that point that she is surrendered to Krsna. More than that I cannot hope for. She has her own karma, desire and transcendental awareness to deal with and I am under no illusion that I am the controller in this regard. There is no guarantee that an older man would be any less likely to break her heart. It is the consciousness that counts not the age. I believe that is the real point of the story that Ameyatma told. How great is our faith? Not that it is better for widows to remain unmarried. That was a detail, not the real point. > > Have we not matured to the point that our men can > > remain undisturbed by the glance of an naive girl. So involved with > > mundane matters, what genuine protection could he offer? > > > Why does it have to always be considered "disturbed"? To use your terms, > Have we not matured to the point of beginning to trust Srila Prabhupada's > influence upon the good hearts of at least some of his disciples? Focusing on poligamy and marriage with girls more than 20 years junior, at an advanced age when one should be withdrawing from the objects of the senses rather than contemplating them, does not suggest maturity or a good heart, it suggests a disturbance of the senses and the mind for that matter. It also borders on the perverse. > > And although he has recently written me a private response to my comments > > rather than share them with the assembled devotees, he has again not given > > one example in which Srila Prabhupada specifically sanctioned a second > > marriage, > > > Things take time, Mataji. The maturing process of KC is slow but sure. SOME > of us are sure to be inspired by it and manifest the basic symptoms in time. > It has been more than 20 years since Prabhpada "left". Many disciples have > continued to mature with age and wisdom; they may have become more qualified > than before. > That does not mean that poligamy is now a good idea. How many men in ISKCON have successfully managed one relationship? I have more faith in the maturity of those couples honestly struggling with the complexities of dealing with one other spirit soul on that level than someone anxious to expand his "service" in this regard.Let's try to get a grip on stable family units, before we expand the horizons for men to take more than one wife, especially at an advanced age. My husband has been protecting me for some years, but if he started talking about expanding his domain now that he is pushing 50, I would have doubts that he has actually made any serious attempt to surrender to the process of KC. Cloaking this type of mundane desire in the guise of service attitude suggests one is inhabiting the Egyptian fluvial plains rather than honest reality. > > nor explained why he is so focused on the topic of polygamy > > rather than planning his retirement from family life altogether. Is it > > really his Dharma to marry again so late in life? Should this be on his > > mind at all? Are there no references in folio ( I don't have it) in which > > Srila Prabhupada sheds unfavorable light on poligamy? > > > For a spirit soul poligamy is totally unnecesssary to be sure. But for > spirit souls with bodies these things are recommended in the Vedic culture. > You know you have read them. We all have. We can't just dismiss them. We > shouldn't. Yet utmost care must be taken in their implementation if the > remote chance arises. Some may benefit. > Someone who is pretending to be asleep cannot be awakened. Are you really suggesting that Srila Prabhupada recommended poligamy? It seems to me I have read more quotes when Srila Prabhupada said it was not a good idea for ISKCON than quotes when he (if ever) recommended it for ISKCON. I don't have folio, but I am sure those proposing poligamy are not presenting all the quotes, only the ones that serve their interests. There is a difference between acknowledging something did exist and recommending it for your disciples. > > Why is it we must continue to indulge criticism of women who happen to be > > less than ideal vedic women from men who also appear to be less than ideal > > vedic men? > > > There does not need to be any criticism nor does everything need to be seen > through such critical eyes always. We are all less than "ideal" yet we still > have to make the best use of a bad bargain. Srila Prabhupada's program of > varnasrama-dharma CAN make gentlemen out of some men and ladies out of some > women - in time. > ys, Jd Yes and that can happen without poligamy and without child abuse. ys, Kanti dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 On 18 Jul 1999, Kanti dd wrote: > Just because someone is an older man doesn't mean he is mature, > only that he is older. Many men have not grown up, only grown older. I would > think a sign of maturity would be a diminishing desire for sex not an > increasing desire. That some short pudgy balding old man feels he needs to quote Prabhupada in order to defend his desire to polygamize someone elses 13 year old daughter, (who, by the way, was practicing KC in an otherwise protected ashrama situation) is just in my mind way, way beyond any idea of normal social sensibility. It is just plain outlandish, and quite likely, perverse. Yes, I can see why some over the hill guy will feel rejuvinated to think that a young women starting out in life is showing him some interest. But then to act on it to the point of creating a public disturbance that needs to be defended on an open forum on COM is a situation that has just gone way too far out of line, Vedic or otherwise. And then we have the still unresolved issue that this appear to the be the caliber of certain so-called brahmanas who wish to guide us to a new golden age of Vedic prosperity. Look, from a general perspective of some guy simply appreciating a cute young girl, yes, this might not be such a big deal. But from another perspective of a parent who has invested maybe 10 to 20 years in another human being, this specific situation is crass beyond imagination. What takes the cake is then they try to hide behind Prabhupada to do it. Anyway, that is how is obviously looks to me. ys, sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 1999 Report Share Posted July 22, 1999 > We can have all sorts of friendships of varying qualities, and often they > make us feel good. I guess the permanence of them depends on how much they > are spiritualy based. This is the kind of statement I can't find fault with. It leaves possibilities open but within a devotional framework. You can befriend anyone in the world and you can spiritualize that relationship. Better to have a spiritual relation with a Karmi than a material one with a devotee. That statement, of course makes no sense! Karmi and devotee are just labels we put on spirit-souls, and it unfairly categorizes people sometimes to make ourselves feel better and usually to no good end. Hey, sorry I'm late with this response. I guess I'd better get on the ball if I'm gonna be in the game. Catch! tri 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.