how to train women in ISKCON

[Guest guest]

> At 11:59 PM -0500 12/10/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN)

> wrote:

>

> >I think the problem is that Iskcon will always have women who want to

> >join. So will we allow them to join and be trained as devotees or will we

> >say you have to be married because this is your nature and living in the

> >temple is artificial? I don't suspect that most preachers would feel

> >right doing this, at least not in the West.

> >

> >What do you think we should preach to women because when one goes out to

> >preach, one will certainly meet women. And if they get a book they may be

> >encouraged to move into a temple.

>

> I joined a women's asrama in a temple at the ripe old age of 16. My asrama

> leader had left her husband to join ISKCON and was living as a renunciate.

> I was preached to that family life was maya, that chidren were stool bags,

> that cooking was not as important as sankirtana. When I lost my menses for

> a year, I was told not to discuss that with a renounced woman. How could I

> have any desire to get married when I was exposed that sort of training?

> Fortunately, when I went to visit Satsvarupa Maharaja who I had been

> aspiring to take initiation from, he asked me what the position of women

> was according to Prabhupada's books. I answered that it was to serve her

> husband in Krsna consciousness; this is what I had from my reading. This

> got me wondering whether I was making the right decision to stay single.

>

> The moral of this story is we must be careful what we preach to women who

> come to Krsna consciousness.

>

> Ys, Sdd

 

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu!!!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/99 10:51:18 AM Central Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

<< The moral of this story is we must be careful what we preach to women who

come to Krsna consciousness. >>

 

Most women, if not all, will want to marry. But of those who want to be

devotees, many will first want to live in an asrama and be trained as

devotees. Do you think that is wrong provided they are not discouraged from

entering family life, having children, etc.?

 

Ys, Md

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/99 10:35:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Basu Gosh

posts from bg_das (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

 

720918SB.LA

<< Even the man may have many wives, polygamy, still, every woman should be

married. And she would get instruction from the husband. This is Vedic

system. >>

 

In the previous age this worked, however during Kali Yuga many of these ideal

Vedic programs have not succeeded. Sudras take birth as Brahmins

consequently the shoes go on the head of the social body and chaos ensues!

 

I was part of this sad chapter of ISKCON social experimentation being the

first wife in a co-wife triangle. When I asked Srila Prabhupada how I should

act, Srila Prabhupada told me not to associate with such a person as my

husband at that time (HariBallavha das) and to increase my chanting and

reading.

 

1974 was a tough year for women in our movement.

 

Co-wifery failed just as caste and gender discrimination continues to fail

and cause chaos within our society.

 

I pray we learn to appreciate one another's devotional service.

YS, Kusha mata

[Guest guest]

<<

In a message dated 12/11/99 10:35:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Basu Gosh

posts from bg_das (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

 

720918SB.LA

<< Even the man may have many wives, polygamy, still, every woman should be

married. And she would get instruction from the husband. This is Vedic

system. >>

 

The truth is, polygamy is advocated only or mostly by men due to lust. Lets

face it, there are more men in the movement currently than women so even if

there are more females born on the planet, there are not more women who join

the movement. (Gee I wonder why?! With such preaching, no wonder!) Anyway,

while there may be complaints about the high divorce rate in ISKCON there is

even a higher failure rate with polygamous marriages, so lets get real and

try to make the monogamous marriages work or deal with their needs rather

than do something that only adds to fuel to the fire. Hare Krishna.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[Guest guest]

On 12 Dec 1999, Parijata2 (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:

 

> <<

> In a message dated 12/11/99 10:35:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, Basu Gosh

> posts from bg_das (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

>

> 720918SB.LA

> << Even the man may have many wives, polygamy, still, every woman should

be

> married. And she would get instruction from the husband. This is Vedic

> system. >>

 

Sri Prthamayi uvaca:

 

> The truth is, polygamy is advocated only or mostly by men due to lust.

 

So we better change Srila Prabhupada's books--the lawbooks for the next 9.5K

years, those purports which were "dictated by Krsna," every word of which was

chosen carefully because "It is document." Otherwise, lusty men may seek

multiple wives.

 

Tell me, Mataji, do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet

realized that there is *no shortage* of unmarried lusty women with whom to

sport in extramarrital shenanigans? (J

[Guest guest]

At 4:25 PM -0500 12/12/99, COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA) wrote:

>[Text 2851718 from COM]

 

>Tell me, Mataji, do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet

>realized that there is *no shortage* of unmarried lusty women with whom to

>sport in extramarrital shenanigans? (J

 

Now that is a 64 ounce answer!

 

ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/1999 4:40:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Guru-Krsna.HDG (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

> So we better change Srila Prabhupada's books--the lawbooks for the next 9.5K

> years, those purports which were "dictated by Krsna," every word of which

> was

> chosen carefully because "It is document." Otherwise, lusty men may seek

> multiple wives.

>

> Tell me, Mataji, do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet

> realized that there is *no shortage* of unmarried lusty women with whom to

> sport in extramarrital shenanigans? (J

>

 

Mercifully, the computer deva has cut you off again. There is something so

distasteful about male devotees advocating polygamy when most haven't

learned how to be responsible for one wife and family yet. In reality, Srila

Prabhupada did not advocate polygamy for even one of his disciples. Not that

there was a shortage of requests from the crowds of "responsible and unlusty

men" who were unselfishly offering to take more than one wife.

 

As I recall, Srila Prabhupada did not specifically allow it and I don't think

you will find such an instruction from Srila Prabhupada anywhere in folio.

But you won't be the first who has searched. There may be some general

references to vedic this and that ,but specific instructions to do it, you

will be hard pressed to find. Why are you so wrapped up in the general

information rather than what Srila Prabhupada specifically instructed? Any

sane man who has actually made a good faith effort to be a responsible family

man would not volunteer for this and certainly not advocate it. That leaves

the rest of you. ys, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

At 07:55 AM 12/13/99 -0500, COM: Kanti (dd) ACBSP (Florida - USA) wrote:

>[Text 2854672 from COM]

>

>In a message dated 12/12/1999 4:40:14 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>Guru-Krsna.HDG (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

>> Tell me, Mataji, do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet

>> realized that there is *no shortage* of unmarried lusty women with whom to

>> sport in extramarrital shenanigans? (J

>>

>

>Mercifully, the computer deva has cut you off again.

 

And even more mercifully, we overcome such minor obstacles

 

>There is something so

>distasteful about male devotees advocating polygamy when most haven't

>learned how to be responsible for one wife and family yet. In reality, Srila

>Prabhupada did not advocate polygamy for even one of his disciples. Not that

>there was a shortage of requests from the crowds of "responsible and unlusty

>men" who were unselfishly offering to take more than one wife.

 

And equally distasteful is when simply in the course of discussing ideology

for social reform, as soon any male mentions polygamy he is immediately

branded as a lusty old man (by some). Nevertheless, the fact *will* remain,

for perhaps 9.5K more years, that Srila Prabhupada has certified polygamy as

*necessary* for the complete protection of women in civilized society.

 

>As I recall, Srila Prabhupada did not specifically allow it and I don't think

>you will find such an instruction from Srila Prabhupada anywhere in folio.

>But you won't be the first who has searched. There may be some general

>references to vedic this and that ,but specific instructions to do it, you

>will be hard pressed to find. Why are you so wrapped up in the general

>information rather than what Srila Prabhupada specifically instructed?

 

I don't think we're at all "wrapped up in," for there are so many other

aspects to Krsna conscious philosophy and/or Vedic culture to consider as

well. Personally, I find myself thinking or speaking about it quite rarely,

actually--and I say that in all honesty. But whenever the subject happens to

be raised in my presence, I certainly don't deny, but rather defend, the

importance of polygamy in ideal society. I take that to be our duty as

Prabhupadanugas.

 

>Any

>sane man who has actually made a good faith effort to be a responsible family

>man would not volunteer for this and certainly not advocate it.

 

Any such responsible family man indeed may humbly think himself unqualified

and therefore not volunteer to accept another wife or more, but these are

exactly the men who *are* qualified to do so. And let's not deny the fact

that certain still unmarried women (for example 30ish in age) indeed

naturally *do* look to such men as prospective hubands.

[Guest guest]

Jivan Mukta Dasa wrote:

 

> [Text 2851844 from COM]

>

> At 4:25 PM -0500 12/12/99, COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)

wrote:

> >[Text 2851718 from COM]

>

> >Tell me, Mataji, do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet

> >realized that there is *no shortage* of unmarried lusty women with whom to

> >sport in extramarrital shenanigans? (J

>

> Now that is a 64 ounce answer!

>

> ys. JMd

 

Yes, the 48 ounces of a normal male brain and an extra 16 ounces of (end

product

of digestive process).

[Guest guest]

> Nevertheless, the fact *will* remain,

> for perhaps 9.5K more years, that Srila Prabhupada has certified polygamy as

> *necessary* for the complete protection of women in civilized society.

 

Once again the GHQ is showing how mistaken Srila Prabhupada was in his

conclusions. They have read his writings and come to the correct conclusion.

Therefore we should all disregard the incorrect conclusions that Srila

Prabhupada

himself came to. Like :

 

--

Melbourne

10 February, 1973

73-02-10

 

My Dear Satsvarupa,

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

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

> I certainly don't deny, but rather defend, the

> importance of polygamy in ideal society. I take that to be our duty as

> Prabhupadanugas.

 

You have to believe in polygamy to be a rittvik supporter?

[Guest guest]

Guru-Krsna wrote:

> > Nevertheless, the fact *will* remain, for perhaps 9.5K more

>years, that Srila Prabhupada

> >has certified polygamy as> *necessary* for the complete protection

>of women in civilized society.

 

Madhava Gosh wrote:

>Once again the GHQ is showing how mistaken Srila Prabhupada was in his

>conclusions. They have read his writings and come to the correct conclusion.

>Therefore we should all disregard the incorrect conclusions that Srila

>Prabhupada himself came to. Like :

>

>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.

 

What would we do if we didn't have the GHQ to tell us whenever Srila

Prabhupada was wrong and what he really meant to say? Follow

Prabhupada's directions, perhaps?

 

But then the GHQ members would have no purpose - and all that

quote-twisting and mud-slinging would have been for nothing. What a

waste of energy.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 10:03 PM 12/17/99 -0500, COM: Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan -

USA) wrote:

>[Text 2866766 from COM]

>

>> Nevertheless, the fact *will* remain,

>> for perhaps 9.5K more years, that Srila Prabhupada has certified polygamy as

>> *necessary* for the complete protection of women in civilized society.

 

>Once again the GHQ is showing how mistaken Srila Prabhupada was in his

>conclusions. They have read his writings and come to the correct conclusion.

>Therefore we should all disregard the incorrect conclusions that Srila

>Prabhupada himself came to. Like :

 

>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.

 

And here's a little something from Hari Sauri Prabhu's *Transecendental Diary*:

 

"Prabhupada agreed that finding suitable husbands for the single women is a

problem throughout our ISKCON society. We are training boys to remain

celibate brahmacaris. Since women in Kali-yuga form the majority of the

population, who, then, will marry them? Prabhupada suggested that a man

could have more than one wife. He laughed, "The idea is he is already

spoled, so he ay as well take more!" However, he feels that public reaction

would ot be good, so it is doubtful whether this idea can ever be

implemented." (TD1, p277)

 

Readers please note that I did not mention (purposely, by the way) ISKCON in

that statement of mince quoted at the very top of this page. So also there

is no question of me "showing how mistaken Srila Prabhupada was." I don't

say that within ISKCON there should be polygamy. I simply repeated (what I

have read in Srila Prabhupada's books) that polygamy is necessary in

civilized society for the complete protection of women. So perhaps Madhava

Ghosh prabhu can explain to us *why* Srila Prabhupada has written so

favorably about polygamy the within the pages of Srimad-Bhagavatam.(?)

 

>> I certainly don't deny, but rather defend, the

>> importance of polygamy in ideal society. I take that to be our duty as

>> Prabhupadanugas.

>

>You have to believe in polygamy to be a rittvik supporter?

 

Who says so? Nor am I a ritvik supporter.

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

> So perhaps Madhava

> Ghosh prabhu can explain to us *why* Srila Prabhupada has written so

> favorably about polygamy the within the pages of Srimad-Bhagavatam.(?)

 

As you have stated, you would have to ask him, but whatever he has written

favorably about, his conclusion is what counts the most. he knew what he

wrote,

yet said, no polygamy in ISKCON.

 

Personally, even though I have seen several instances of polygamy that didn't

work, and none that did, I am not opposed to polygamy in every circumstance.

For

instance, Clinton should have married Monica. However, I see it only in

extreme

circumstances, and not a normal state of affairs, and not a matter to obsess

on. Certainly not an issue to make as a prerequisite to prove loyalty to Srila

Prabhupada, especially when he explicitly said it shouldn't happen in ISKCON.

 

To see all the writings about polygamy, and come to what seems to be the

obvious

conclusion that it should be allowed, and then to ignore the specific

instruction

of the guru on the topic, that it shouldn't be, seems to bespeak a real lack

of

faith in the guru's judgement.

 

>

>

> >> I certainly don't deny, but rather defend, the

> >> importance of polygamy in ideal society. I take that to be our duty as

> >> Prabhupadanugas.

> >

> >You have to believe in polygamy to be a rittvik supporter?

>

> Who says so? Nor am I a ritvik supporter.

>

> --gkd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> >> I certainly don't deny, but rather defend, the

> >> importance of polygamy in ideal society. I take that to be our duty as

> >> Prabhupadanugas.

> >

> >You have to believe in polygamy to be a rittvik supporter?

>

> Who says so? Nor am I a ritvik supporter.

>

> --gkd

 

Every rittvik who ever prozelitized me a.) had the same fanatic devotion to

Srila

Prabhupada as this godlike being b.) they called themselves Prabhupadanugas