Mayavada

[Guest guest]

PAMHO AGTSP

 

> The purpose of the whole chapter is not to establish men as superior to

>women, which will be obvious to everyone who reads it, but to establish the

>supremecy of the Lord:

>

> "My dear Lord, You are certainly the fully independent master of all the

>senses. Therefore all women who worship You by strictly observing vows

>because they wish to acquire a husband to satisfy their senses are surely

>under illusion. they do not know that such a husband cannot actually give

>protection to them or their children. Nor can he protect their wealth or

>duration of life, for he himself is dependent on time, fruitive results and

>the modes of nature, which are all subordinate to You." (text 19 same

>chapter) This is Laxmidevi speaking.

>

That is true, the Supremacy of the Lord is being established here by

Laxmidevi, and others. At the same time, it seems that denying that there

is any reference to "superior" or "inferior", "predominating" or

"predominated" with regard to the examples given, is also incorrect.

 

For example, Laxmidevi talks here about women who worship the Lord for a

good husband--they are in illusion because they do not consider that her

material husband is bound by the laws of karma and thus cannot actually

protect her.

 

Now, within the context of our everyday society, using this as a marker by

which to assess the spiritual status of individuals (non-female or

otherwise), what is the status of devotees in general (conditioned or

liberated)?

 

Here, Laxmidevi is stressing on being dependent on the Lord, because only He

can offer protection. In the light of the Vrindavan temple disturbances,

and considering that the ladies have made such a hue and cry for their

protection, we can say that the ladies could not be considered liberated,

because their dependence is on something else:

--------

rajaovaca

dharmam bravisi dharam-jna dharmo 'si vrsa-rupa-dhruk yad

adharma-krta-sthanam sucakasyapi tad bhavet

 

"Pariksit Maharaj said, Oh you who are in the form of a bull, you know the

truth of religion and are speaking according to the principle that the

destination intended for the perpetrator of sinful acts is also intended for

the one who indentifies the perpetrator. You are none other than the

personality of religion." (SB 1, Chapter 17 text 22)

 

I leave it to the readers to go through the purport of this verse, which

also beautifully describes the difference in behaviour between a liberated

soul and a conditioned soul, but here is a small excerpt:

 

"The cow and bull never placed any complaint before the King for being

tortured by the personality of Kali, although everyone lodges such

complaints before the state authorities. The extraordinary behavior of the

bull made the King conclude that the bull was certainly the personality of

religion, for no one else could understand the finer intricacies of the

codes of religion."

--------

(From Sannyasis Must Get Preferred Treatment,

www.ghqd.org/articles/parv1.htm )

 

If the ladies were actually "liberated", we would expect them to behave like

the cow and bull. But they did quite the opposite.

 

Our whole point has been that as long as you are materially conditioned, you

are obliged to follow the rules and regulations prescribed for conditioned

souls. This is not an attempt to establish the "superiorty" of men above

women, as you have alleged.

 

The problem we see is that we have a section of society (read "women",

western in particular) who, in the name of spiritual equality, is trying to

dispense with these rules for ordinary living beings (read "varnasrama") in

an effort to gain political and social equality, which are clearly not

sanctioned by scripture, or by Srila Prabhupada.

 

Our contention is that this is akin to mayavad, because it promulgates the

renunciation of prescribed duties, which is an unique characteristic of

mayavad, as distinguished from vaishnavism:

 

"In the Visnu Purana it is said that the entire varnasrama institution is

meant to satisfy the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The rules and

regulations set up for the execution of the duties of brahmanas, ksatriyas,

vaisyas and sudras or brahmacaris, grhasthas, vanaprasthas and sannyasis are

all meant to satisfy the Supreme Lord. At the present moment, although the

so-called brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras have lost their original

culture, they claim to be brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras by

birthright. Yet they have rejected the proposition that such social and

spiritual orders are especially meant for worship of Lord Visnu. The

dangerous Mayavada theory set forth by Sankaracarya -- that God is

impersonal -- does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas. Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu therefore described the Mayavadi philosophers as the greatest

offenders against the Personality of Godhead. According to the Vedic system,

one who does not abide by the orders of the Vedas is called a nastika, or

atheist." (SB 4.21.27 purport)

 

To support the idea that the ladies in Vrindavan did not act improperly, you

would have to demonstrate that (1) they are liberated, and are thus not

subject to follow (or at least try to follow) the rules, regs, and etiquette

prescribed for conditioned souls, like, for example, offering respect to

sannyasis, and that (2) the Vrindavan Temple Management's policies were not

according to established custom, established either by our acharyas like

Srila Prabhupada, or by scripture.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

 

ys KKdas

 

p.s. New articles at www.ghqd.org :

 

"The Myth of Equal Rights", by Sri and Srimati Jivan Muktaji

 

Table of Contents http://ghqd.org/articles/toc.htm

 

Introduction http://ghqd.org/articles/intro.htm

 

Section 1 Parts 1-4 http://ghqd.org/articles/1.htm