Guest guest Posted December 28, 1999 Report Share Posted December 28, 1999 > > RR: Taking food together was an important part of our life. It was not > like in the West, where someone comes home and just fixes himself > something from the fridge. For example, no lady would eat until after her > husband had taken. Eating was a family event. There are still joint > families where fifty or sixty people sit down at a certain time to eat > together. (GOTIL, p131) This is not really "taking food together". Rather "taking food separately". First a husband eats. Then when he's finished, a wife may get to start eating. NOT together. But what's it really so important "part of our life" in having your wife wait with eating until after you had taken? I thought, if someone got to wait then rather the stronger members of the family got to be "on the end of the line". So first children, old people and women get the food. Then men. I prefer to be taking the food *together* with my wife. What is really the use of this particular "traditional Indian life", having a wife not to eat together with her husband but only after he's done?? - Mahanidhi das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 In text 2889548 from COM Mahanidhi dasa wrote: >> RR: Taking food together was an important part of our life. It was not >> like in the West, where someone comes home and just fixes himself >> something from the fridge. For example, no lady would eat until after her >> husband had taken. Eating was a family event. There are still joint >> families where fifty or sixty people sit down at a certain time to eat >> together. (GOTIL, p131) > I prefer to be taking the food *together* with my wife. What is > really the use of this particular "traditional Indian life", having > a wife not to eat together with her husband but only after he's > done?? My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada was ready to adapt to the customs of Western civilization, and indeed he did it regularly. We all know that he gave brahmin initiation to Westerners, personally carried out marriage ceremonies for his disciples, allowed women to live in temples, and sanctioned many other variations from the traditional Indian standards (thank God!!!). Adaptations such as allowing murtis made of resin in the temples and the use of the latest technology are evident proof of Srila Prabhupada's conviction of turning everything favourably towards the realm of Krsna Conciousness. He also accepted that Western women play a much more active role in society compared to Indian women and thus for example he never forbid them from going out and distribute books or from personally worshipping the Dieties in the temple. Western society is like that and acknowledging it won't compromise the essential teachings of Krsna Conciousness or anyone's potential for attaining love of Godhead. Thus for many devotees in the Western world hearing about "chaste" ladies not eating until after their husband and other male patriarchs in the family finish their meal means absolutely nothing, and rightly so. It may be nice that someone is compiling accounts of traditional Indian life. I am sure that it has great anthropological value just as Marco Polo's book "The Travels" (which by the way has some great insights into life in India in the 13th Century). But this cannot be the standard to follow. In Western civilization if the lady of the house is really a lady and if the husband is a gentleman then both sit at the same table at the same time, and eat the same food (except, of course, if she is on a diet). Only a maid will wait on those sitting at the table. Waiting until the husband finishes eating won't make the wife, or the husband, more Krsna concious (except if she is so hungry that she keeps praying to Krsna that the lazy bum finishes his dinner soon). I think that we have to be careful to keep stories like the one quoted above in the right context. ISKCON will be more irrelevant to the world than what it is unfortunately becoming now if what it offers is a narrow paradigm full of misconceptions while its tangible assets such as children, cows, personal initiative, women, cultural diversity, etc., are being neglected. Your servant Radha Krsna dasa Mexico City Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 In text 2889548 from COM Mahanidhi dasa wrote: >> RR: Taking food together was an important part of our life. It was not >> like in the West, where someone comes home and just fixes himself >> something from the fridge. For example, no lady would eat until after her >> husband had taken. Eating was a family event. There are still joint >> families where fifty or sixty people sit down at a certain time to eat >> together. (GOTIL, p131) > I prefer to be taking the food *together* with my wife. What is > really the use of this particular "traditional Indian life", having > a wife not to eat together with her husband but only after he's > done?? My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada was ready to adapt to the customs of Western civilization, and indeed he did it regularly. We all know that he gave brahmin initiation to Westerners, personally carried out marriage ceremonies for his disciples, allowed women to live in temples, and sanctioned many other variations from the traditional Indian standards (thank God!!!). Adaptations such as allowing murtis made of resin in the temples and the use of the latest technology are evident proof of Srila Prabhupada's conviction of turning everything favourably towards the realm of Krsna Conciousness. He also accepted that Western women play a much more active role in society compared to Indian women and thus for example he never forbid them from going out and distribute books or from personally worshipping the Dieties in the temple. Western society is like that and acknowledging it won't compromise the essential teachings of Krsna Conciousness or anyone's potential for attaining love of Godhead. Thus for many devotees in the Western world hearing about "chaste" ladies not eating until after their husband and other male patriarchs in the family finish their meal means absolutely nothing, and rightly so. It may be nice that someone is compiling accounts of traditional Indian life. I am sure that it has great anthropological value just as Marco Polo's book "The Travels" (which by the way has some great insights into life in India in the 13th Century). But this cannot be the standard to follow. In Western civilization if the lady of the house is really a lady and if the husband is a gentleman then both sit at the same table at the same time, and eat the same food (except, of course, if she is on a diet). Only a maid will wait on those sitting at the table. Waiting until the husband finishes eating won't make the wife, or the husband, more Krsna concious (except if she is so hungry that she keeps praying to Krsna that the lazy bum finishes his dinner soon). I think that we have to be careful to keep stories like the one quoted above in the right context. ISKCON will be more irrelevant to the world than what it is unfortunately becoming now if what it offers is a narrow paradigm full of misconceptions while its tangible assets such as children, cows, personal initiative, women, cultural diversity, etc., are being neglected. Your servant Radha Krsna dasa Mexico City 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.