Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 > > > > > There was Indira Gandhi in Prabhupada's time. And what did he call her? A > whore. > > > > ys. JMd > > Yeah, that's all she was. I bet when he met her in private he explained to her > why she was nothing but a useless..... > > You know, Prabhupada could attract even boorish misoginists, he was so great! > > ys, > > Sthita Does anyone else note the irony that ISKCON got started because a woman gave Srila Prabhupada a free ride to America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 Sita Devi Dasi wrote: > [Text 2849328 from COM] > > >It is certainly better for women stay at home, and it > >certainly also better if certain men can earn their livelihoods by staying at > >home. > > Until this happens, varnasrama (and homeschooling for daughters) will not > start to happen. But first the men must provide finacially for their > families (at home or outside the home) to facilitate this. > > Ys, Sdd I suppose that no one wants to hear this, but according to Marxian analysis, for the most part in the world economy as it stands now, both women and children will have to work outside the home. The purpose is to have a "reserve army of the unemployed" who will help keep wages down for capitalist employers. (Also, as a matter of practice, things have not worked out any better in the so-called communist countries -- which is why many people call them examples of "state capitalism.") To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since individuals from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women at home to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some countries, so will the children. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 Sita Devi Dasi wrote: > [Text 2849328 from COM] > > >It is certainly better for women stay at home, and it > >certainly also better if certain men can earn their livelihoods by staying at > >home. > > Until this happens, varnasrama (and homeschooling for daughters) will not > start to happen. But first the men must provide finacially for their > families (at home or outside the home) to facilitate this. > > Ys, Sdd I suppose that no one wants to hear this, but according to Marxian analysis, for the most part in the world economy as it stands now, both women and children will have to work outside the home. The purpose is to have a "reserve army of the unemployed" who will help keep wages down for capitalist employers. (Also, as a matter of practice, things have not worked out any better in the so-called communist countries -- which is why many people call them examples of "state capitalism.") To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since individuals from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women at home to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some countries, so will the children. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 COM: Prsnigarbha HKS wrote: > [Text 2850818 from COM] > > > Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that > > reflected the state of science at the time. Srila Prabhu once > > supplied us with more current numbers pointing out that 64 oz is > > actually *gigantic* and not found in any humans. Apparently, the > > male brain size is closer to 46 oz and that of the female about 42 > > oz, but as earlier pointed out here, a larger brain does not > > necessarily equal greater intelligence. > > I think it can be said that if the men used their brains, they would > be more intelligent. :-) > > But this can also be seen from a different viewpoint. From the point > of view how men and women use their brains. The specialization that > men often do, requies more brains to get it right. > > ys Prisni dasi A point of interest: evidently Einstein's brain was about the same weight as everyone else's. Unlike back in Professor Urquarht's day, scientists nowadays do not ascribe brain size to be a significant indicator of intelligence, noting that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than modern man. Still, the evidence was that Neanderthal man was less technologically advanced than his other human contemporaries. ys hkdd Copyright 1999 New Scientist IPC Magazines Ltd New Scientist June 26, 1999 SECTION: Comment: Editorial, Pg. 3 LENGTH: 733 words HEADLINE: Raising Albert HIGHLIGHT: Can studying dead brains ever tell us anything about genius ? BODY: WHAT would Albert Einstein make of all the recent fuss about the size and shape of his brain ? Just after his death in 1955, his brain was weighed, measured and photographed: its weight proved to be only average. Now, however, the photographs and measurements have been re-examined and his brain declared "exceptional". According to "The Lancet" (19 June) parts of his parietal lobe, an area of the brain associated with visuospatial abilities and mathematical ideas, are larger than normal and not divided by a fold in the usual way. The suggestion is that perhaps this allowed areas of his brain to develop more cross connections than usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 COM: Prsnigarbha HKS wrote: > [Text 2850818 from COM] > > > Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that > > reflected the state of science at the time. Srila Prabhu once > > supplied us with more current numbers pointing out that 64 oz is > > actually *gigantic* and not found in any humans. Apparently, the > > male brain size is closer to 46 oz and that of the female about 42 > > oz, but as earlier pointed out here, a larger brain does not > > necessarily equal greater intelligence. > > I think it can be said that if the men used their brains, they would > be more intelligent. :-) > > But this can also be seen from a different viewpoint. From the point > of view how men and women use their brains. The specialization that > men often do, requies more brains to get it right. > > ys Prisni dasi A point of interest: evidently Einstein's brain was about the same weight as everyone else's. Unlike back in Professor Urquarht's day, scientists nowadays do not ascribe brain size to be a significant indicator of intelligence, noting that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than modern man. Still, the evidence was that Neanderthal man was less technologically advanced than his other human contemporaries. ys hkdd Copyright 1999 New Scientist IPC Magazines Ltd New Scientist June 26, 1999 SECTION: Comment: Editorial, Pg. 3 LENGTH: 733 words HEADLINE: Raising Albert HIGHLIGHT: Can studying dead brains ever tell us anything about genius ? BODY: WHAT would Albert Einstein make of all the recent fuss about the size and shape of his brain ? Just after his death in 1955, his brain was weighed, measured and photographed: its weight proved to be only average. Now, however, the photographs and measurements have been re-examined and his brain declared "exceptional". According to "The Lancet" (19 June) parts of his parietal lobe, an area of the brain associated with visuospatial abilities and mathematical ideas, are larger than normal and not divided by a fold in the usual way. The suggestion is that perhaps this allowed areas of his brain to develop more cross connections than usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote: >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which >only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since >individuals >from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women >at home >to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some >countries, so will the children. Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to their lower class family's income by working *within* the family enterprise or earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their work was considered part of their educational training. YS, Sdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote: >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which >only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since >individuals >from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women >at home >to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some >countries, so will the children. Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to their lower class family's income by working *within* the family enterprise or earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their work was considered part of their educational training. YS, Sdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 Sita Devi Dasi wrote: > At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote: > > >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which > >only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since > >individuals > >from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women > >at home > >to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some > >countries, so will the children. > > Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to their > lower class family's income by working *within* the family enterprise or > earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their work was > considered part of their educational training. > > YS, Sdd For thousands of years, the market-oriented, capitalist, global economy did not exist. Now we have a different set of rules. It is a fundamentally unfair set of rules. And it is a set of rules which is fundamentally opposed to the development of spiritual life. That's why Srila Prabhupada said -- a number of times -- that we must "thoroughly overhaul" society. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 Sita Devi Dasi wrote: > At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote: > > >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which > >only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since > >individuals > >from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women > >at home > >to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some > >countries, so will the children. > > Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to their > lower class family's income by working *within* the family enterprise or > earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their work was > considered part of their educational training. > > YS, Sdd For thousands of years, the market-oriented, capitalist, global economy did not exist. Now we have a different set of rules. It is a fundamentally unfair set of rules. And it is a set of rules which is fundamentally opposed to the development of spiritual life. That's why Srila Prabhupada said -- a number of times -- that we must "thoroughly overhaul" society. your servant, Hare Krsna dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1999 Report Share Posted December 15, 1999 > At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote: > > >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in > >which only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since > >individuals from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of > >keeping women at home to tutor their children. Rather, those women will > >have to work. And in some countries, so will the children. > > Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to > their lower class family's income by working *within* the family > enterprise or earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their > work was considered part of their educational training. But, you see, women didn't for tousands of years live in this kind of demoniac ugra-karma industrialized society. This started to happen only some hundred years ago. And we have to take in a consideration which kind of society we are living in. Or, are we supposed to live in some non existing vacuum? Ys. Sraddha dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1999 Report Share Posted December 15, 1999 > At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote: > > >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in > >which only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since > >individuals from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of > >keeping women at home to tutor their children. Rather, those women will > >have to work. And in some countries, so will the children. > > Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to > their lower class family's income by working *within* the family > enterprise or earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their > work was considered part of their educational training. But, you see, women didn't for tousands of years live in this kind of demoniac ugra-karma industrialized society. This started to happen only some hundred years ago. And we have to take in a consideration which kind of society we are living in. Or, are we supposed to live in some non existing vacuum? Ys. Sraddha dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1999 Report Share Posted December 15, 1999 On 13 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > Does anyone else note the irony that ISKCON got started because a woman gave Srila Prabhupada a free ride to America? > > And an extremely successful business person at that. She respected Vedic culture, one of the motivating factors behind her assistance to Srila Prabhupada. Curiously, she seemed to do more than most for Srila Prabhupada during a difficult time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 1999 Report Share Posted December 15, 1999 On 13 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > Does anyone else note the irony that ISKCON got started because a woman gave Srila Prabhupada a free ride to America? > > And an extremely successful business person at that. She respected Vedic culture, one of the motivating factors behind her assistance to Srila Prabhupada. Curiously, she seemed to do more than most for Srila Prabhupada during a difficult time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 1999 Report Share Posted December 17, 1999 > . > But, you see, women didn't for tousands of years live in this kind of > demoniac ugra-karma industrialized society. This started to happen only some > hundred years ago. And we have to take in a consideration which kind of > society we are living in. Or, are we supposed to live in some non existing > vacuum? > Ys. Sraddha dd There was no paper money in Vedic society. If you use paper money, you aren't Vedic. There were no automobiles or yantra airplanes in Vedic Society. If you use them, you aren't Vedic. Noone drank blood milk in Vedic society. If you drink blood milk, you aren't Vedic. There were no computers in Vedic society. If you use computers, you aren't Vedic. There were no educated outspoken women managers in Vedic society. Educated outspoken women managers aren't Vedic. It is not Vedic to pass stool into water. If you pass stool into water , you aren't Vedic. As soon as the men drink only milk from protected cows, don't use cars, airplanes, computers or paper money, and get their stool together, I too will agree that women shouldn't be managers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 1999 Report Share Posted December 17, 1999 > . > But, you see, women didn't for tousands of years live in this kind of > demoniac ugra-karma industrialized society. This started to happen only some > hundred years ago. And we have to take in a consideration which kind of > society we are living in. Or, are we supposed to live in some non existing > vacuum? > Ys. Sraddha dd There was no paper money in Vedic society. If you use paper money, you aren't Vedic. There were no automobiles or yantra airplanes in Vedic Society. If you use them, you aren't Vedic. Noone drank blood milk in Vedic society. If you drink blood milk, you aren't Vedic. There were no computers in Vedic society. If you use computers, you aren't Vedic. There were no educated outspoken women managers in Vedic society. Educated outspoken women managers aren't Vedic. It is not Vedic to pass stool into water. If you pass stool into water , you aren't Vedic. As soon as the men drink only milk from protected cows, don't use cars, airplanes, computers or paper money, and get their stool together, I too will agree that women shouldn't be managers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 In a message dated 12/17/1999 12:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, Madhava.Gosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: > As soon as the men drink only milk from protected cows, don't use cars, > airplanes, computers or paper money, and get their stool together, I too > will > agree that women shouldn't be managers. > Thank you prabhu for your usual down-to-earth perspective. Either they can lead or get out of the way and let anyone willing and capable do it. At this point in the fledgling era of KC in the west, no talented and willing administrator should be rejected because of gender. As our society evolves over generations I am sure women will be satisfied to remain the organizers of a happy home, but to expect us to jump to that at this point and circumstance or limit our daughters, is unrealistic and unproductive. yhs, Kanti dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 In a message dated 12/17/1999 12:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, Madhava.Gosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: > As soon as the men drink only milk from protected cows, don't use cars, > airplanes, computers or paper money, and get their stool together, I too > will > agree that women shouldn't be managers. > Thank you prabhu for your usual down-to-earth perspective. Either they can lead or get out of the way and let anyone willing and capable do it. At this point in the fledgling era of KC in the west, no talented and willing administrator should be rejected because of gender. As our society evolves over generations I am sure women will be satisfied to remain the organizers of a happy home, but to expect us to jump to that at this point and circumstance or limit our daughters, is unrealistic and unproductive. yhs, Kanti dasi 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.