Guest guest Posted December 12, 1999 Report Share Posted December 12, 1999 Guru-Krsna wrote: >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. No we don't. Not at all. We just have to follow Prabhupada and insist that each man takes *one* wife, following both the examples of Srila Prabhupada himself, Lord Rama, many other exalted Vaisnavas and of course Prabhupada's instructions to us. Very simple. You seem obsessed with trying to figure out how to control women who are not even your wives. As many devotees have already pointed out previously on these forums, it's safer to be concerned about our own spiritual lives, rather than trying to force, dictate or shame other devotees into maintaining a standard that we can't even uphold ourselves. Secondly, other participants in these discussions have pointed out the relationship between men who have failed to protect their wives and those wives subsequently having to stand up for themselves. Third, both you and other GHQers have admitted that Prabhupada was lenient with his disciples who were not born into ISKCON. Finally, you also stated in several papers that we need to start striving for a higher standard among our chidlren. Given these observations and based on your own experiences in a failed marriage, how do you suggest we train our young *boys* so that they can adequately protect their future wives thus preventing them from having to seek protection elsewhere and/or from having to stand up for themselves? That could be a very interesting discussion with immediate applicability for those of us raising sons. >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? Who knows what's going on in the minds of dirty old men? Maybe you can get some of them to tell you directly, so we don't have to speculate? Personally I'm not interested. I can think of about 50,000 more interesting and spiritually beneficial things on which to meditate. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 1999 Report Share Posted December 12, 1999 In a message dated 12/12/1999 5:30:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: << >do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet realized >that there is *no shortage*<< Yes, this is the point, that they cannot stop looking at other women! They certainly have *noticed* that there is no shortage of women. What they haven't noticed is that there are no shortage of men to marry the women. Also, how much they have noticed a shortage of Krishna Consciousness and have picked up a book bag to go out preaching, well, that I doubt. Their mind is on how many women are around. >of unmarried lusty women<< Here is another part of the problem. In this movement we have this misunderstanding that woman are lustier than men. Notice, I say *misunderstanding.* Even the nondevotees know that men want sex more than women so if we are going to point out that women are lusty let us only do it in the context that every human being has lust until they become a pure devotee and that when it comes to devotee women who are employing sense control (bhakti yoga), if men think these women are lusting after them, it is only self flattery and often illusion. It is harder for men to control their lusty desires than women, so lets not blatantly say *lusty women.* when the crux of this is more often than not a weakness of men. Nondevotee women complain that their husbands want sex more than they do. For that matter, so do devotee women! Lets be realistic here. And men may not realize it but women don't get married for sex. That is what is taught in the brahmacari ashram. ("Feeling lusty? Get a wife." Terrible reason for marriage - no wonder so many fail!) In the brahmacarini ashram however, one is taught the opposite. Many women I have spoken to have become VERY upset that after marriage the husband wanted sex. So lets look at who, in general, has the biggest lust problem in 1999 kali-yuga. >>with whom to sport in extramarrital shenanigans?<< The fact that men go after extramarital shenanigans is merely further proof that they have a larger problem with lust than women, as they such men have a hard time remaining loyal and faithful to one woman, allowing their eyes to wonder. The higher principal of marriage is to calm the lust in order to think of Krishna more. If they are only marrying to look around at the available number of women to them, than they are missing the point of Bhakti yoga. A brahmacari gets married so he can STOP thinking of women and learn how to take satisfaction in one wife. If he can't, the weakness is his, not hers. >> Who knows what's going on in the minds of dirty old men?<< Exactly. Notice it is the *older* men of this movement who are so anxiously running after, and strongly preaching in favor of polygamy. The young men don't need to. <g> (Time older men take sanyasa or at least varnaprastha.) >> Maybe you can get some of them to tell you directly, so we don't have to speculate? Personally I'm not interested. I can think of about 50,000 more interesting and spiritually beneficial things on which to meditate.<< I agree with that Madhusudani! Lets meditate on Krishna and get over the bodily concepts! YS, Prtha dd Ys, Madhusudani dasi >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 > >do you think that lusty men with only *1* wife haven't yet realized >that > >there is *no shortage*<< > >of unmarried lusty women<< > I agree with that Madhusudani! Lets meditate on Krishna and get over the > bodily concepts! > > YS, > Prtha dd Darn! Just when I thought the conversation actually was beginning to get interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 Hare Krsna, I am pretty sure that this is not written down specifically, but i do not recall that Srila Prabhupada ever encouraged us to do anything illegal. Having multiple wives is illegal in at least 49 states in the US. As far as i am concerned, multiple wives is illegal and therefore a moot point. These guys must have something better to concern themselves with than the structure of other persons sexlife......like going back to Godhead? YS JayaLalita dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 >So you can insist that each man takes *one* >wife, and I will insist that the leftover women will be exploited by lusty >married men. So better they be protected as co-wives than exploited as >playthings. Why disagree? What "left-over" women????? The only women I've ever seen having problems finding a man are those who are older, who are single mothers, who are unattractive by societal standards, or who have psychiatric problems. Are those the women you're talking about taking mercy on? Every man I've known of who has been eyeing a potential co-wife has focused his attention on cute, young virgins - none of whom have had any problems attracting a man of her own age to marry. Let's get real. Of course in India this is even less of a problem, given that it's one of only two countries in the world whose statistics show that there are fewer men than women. So does that mean that the solution for Indian women is to follow Draupadi's example? >Definitely. It is *much needed* training, Mataji. But it need not be a >wonder what to do or how to do it. SP has already given us the framework >called gurukula. Yes, we have had gurukulas for our young boys for several decades now. Do you think they have produced young men who are role models in terms of how to take care of and protect women? Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it and many of the men I have seen who have taken up those roles went to day schools. So maybe the curriculum in our schools (day school or boarding schools) is not yet optimal when it comes to such training. Do you have any thoughts about how it could be improved? I'm asking sincerely because I know you have been discussing these topics for over a year since the Dharma of Women conference became Dharma of Men and Women. Surely in all that time you could not only have been discussing how to make women more submissive or how to help men control women? >Insisting >that every man marries only 1 woman will not stop lusty married men from >going to lusty unprotected women. Just believe it! Sorry, I can't accept you as my guru. But you're partially right. Marrying one woman is only one piece of the solution. The man also needs to be trained properly so that he won't look at anyone else, much less touch her. And we all know how the mind works. The whole process starts with thinking about all those lusty unprotected women..... Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 On 12 Dec 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > >Insisting > >that every man marries only 1 woman will not stop lusty married men from > >going to lusty unprotected women. Just believe it! > > Sorry, I can't accept you as my guru. But you're partially right. > Marrying one woman is only one piece of the solution. The man also > needs to be trained properly so that he won't look at anyone else, > much less touch her. And we all know how the mind works. The whole > process starts with thinking about all those lusty unprotected > women..... > Anybody who saw the movie, "Little Big Man," might get an idea of what the proper motives for polygamy are. The hero, played by Dustin Hoffman is a white man who goes back and forth between the red Indian and the Euro-American worlds. At one point he gets caught having to protect a beautiful young Indian girl who is giving birth in the woods during a raid by the U.S. Army on the tribe. Her husband and father are killed and so they shack up and raise her kid, besides have one of their own not long after. The hero is a good hunter and puts more meat on the table than the little family can possibly eat. The wife says, "You are such a good provider. My sisters don't have any husbands, most of our men having been killed." The husband is embarrassed, appalled (it's even against the rules of the tribe to have more than one wife). He refuses her repeated requests, until she starts to take it personally and asks why he doesn't like her sisters. Eventually the wife and the sisters wear him down, and he performs his prescribed duties toward all of them. Everybody is happy until the next raid on the Indians when all his women (and most of the tribe) are killed. A guy like that deserves as many women as he can handle. Having a big sex drive doesn't disqualify a man, but he really has to be willing to do right by his women and the children he begets. Ys, Tulasi-priya dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 At 08:00 PM 12/12/99 -0800, COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA) wrote: >[Text 2852342 from COM] > >What "left-over" women????? The only women I've ever seen having >problems finding a man are those who are older, who are single >mothers, who are unattractive by societal standards, or who have >psychiatric problems. Are those the women you're talking about taking >mercy on? Not exactly, Mataji. The present-day society is indeed a mess. But even in ideal society, we see that polygamy was practiced. Why? Apparently there really were more marriageable women than men. Every man I've known of who has been eyeing a potential >co-wife has focused his attention on cute, young virgins - none of >whom have had any problems attracting a man of her own age to marry. > >Let's get real. Getting real: How many cute, young virgins end up cute, young, husbandless mothers? Which is to agree with you that our young boys *must* be trained in celibacy, so that they can either remain brahamacary or become responsible grhastas. >Yes, we have had gurukulas for our young boys for several decades >now. Do you think they have produced young men who are role models >in terms of how to take care of and protect women? Unfortunately, it >doesn't look like it and many of the men I have seen who have taken >up those roles went to day schools. So maybe the curriculum in our >schools (day school or boarding schools) is not yet optimal when it >comes to such training. Do you have any thoughts about how it could >be improved? I'm asking sincerely because I know you have been >discussing these topics for over a year since the Dharma of Women >conference became Dharma of Men and Women. Surely in all that time >you could not only have been discussing how to make women more >submissive or how to help men control women? Yes, it's true that we have definitely discussed the absolutely essential need for ISKCON devotees to properly train our boys. And I think I am fairly representing the others when I say that our consensual agreement was simply that ISKCON must *properly* establish gurukula. The boys must be trained in celibacy, sense control, to see all women as mother, etc. In other words, we have to *seriously* apply Srila Prabhupada's instructions. In the absence of such bona fide gurukulas as ISKCON's primary standard of education, it should be no surprise that we aren't exactly prodcuing the most highly qualified men and women from our schools. >The man also >needs to be trained properly so that he won't look at anyone else, >much less touch her. And we all know how the mind works. The whole >process starts with thinking about all those lusty unprotected >women..... Exactly, Mataji. The young boy must be trained as you say here, and the young girls must be trained to be shy, chaste, modest, etc. --gkd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 Regarding the "who is lustier" debate, I would like to remind that "lust" is not only refering to gross sexual desire or conduct, but to all of its variable aspects as well. Therefore, because ladies do not appear to be overtly interested in sexul acts does not necesarrily imply a lack of lust. The moderator and many partipants have noted that better we remember and speak of KRishna...so why are we going on with this topic anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 In a message dated 12/13/1999 12:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Malati.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes: >> The moderator and many partipants have noted that better we remember and speak of KRishna...so why are we going on with this topic anyway? >> I was under the impression that the only reason we were talking about this topic was because the GHQ and similar were using a woman's so called intense lust to justify polygamy as well as the so called need to keep an eye on her, keep her under their thumb or she will just go haywire. I agree though, it would be better to speak of Krishna, but in truth, since when have the GHQ done that? The majority of their posts have been about the opposite sex, and that is for the purpose of sex whether they will openly admit it or not. YS, Prtha dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 "if men think these women are lusty after them, it is self flaterry or often illusion..." a very important popint, something I witnessed again and again among "brahmacaris" here in Germany, unfortunately now most of the have taken sannyasa without going through the grhasta asrama - or worse: treated the wife so badly that she left the movement. (of course it was all HER fault anyway...) ys madanalasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 1999 Report Share Posted December 23, 1999 On 14 Dec 1999, Sraddha dd wrote: > You see, that framework which you are so proud of, Srila Prabhupad himself > called an experiment. > Here's the quote verbatim: "I am concerned that the gurukula experiment come > out nicely. These children are the future of our society..." (April 11, > 1973). > So, if an experiment fails, then it wasn't good. > Ys. Sraddha dd Here *experiment* may mean "to demonstrate a known fact". Sorry for the late comment. Your humble servant, Bhadra Govinda Das. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 23, 1999 Report Share Posted December 23, 1999 At 5:51 -0500 12/23/1999, WWW: Balaji Prasad (Singapore) wrote: > >Here *experiment* may mean "to demonstrate a known fact". Demonstrating a known fact is is not an experiment. Ys, Madhusudani 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.