Call Off The Dogs!

[Guest guest]

On 17 Apr 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

 

> I think the least we can do is to accept that Prsni is now a woman, and not

> go on calling her a man, even if it may feel strange for some. I think it is

> important to respect the fact that she is now existing in a female, not a

> male body.

 

 

No. I will not. I apologize for my apparent insensitivity to this issue. I

cannot say what Srila Prabhupada would say about this because he is not here

to approve or dissaprove of these "edits" to this bhaktas body.

My feeling is that he would ask if Prsni wanted to do it for his devotional

service why change anything. If the motive is ONLY for improving his

devotional service, a woman or a man's body can do it equally well. No change

is necessary for that.

 

If there are other motives involved, they can also be accommodated but there

must be admittance of this, and this admittance can be done completely

privately, otherwise honesty is severely compromised. We are not doing him any

good by furthering denial.

 

I will agree to call him a bhakta. His initiated name is Prsnigarbha dasa. His

nickname would probably be Prsni most of the time to those familiar with him.

I will go as far as calling him Bhakta Prsni Prabhu. Bhakta is not meant to be

a demeaning word in my book ever. Indeed, it is a very advanced human title

which he is eligible for.

 

 

 

> To me, the reactions Prsni manifest may seem a bit defensive, but I find it

> more or less impossible to explain the situation without being defensive

> when one is more or less rediculed for doing something one is convinced is

> the right thing to do.

 

 

It is difficult to avoid rhetorical and impersonal comments in this forum of

anonymous cyberspace. It is not a great excuse but it nevertheless occurs. He

participates in the forum and as we all know when the winds of criticism or

ridicule blow in our direction we have to sometimes swallow our pride and face

the music. It has helped me in the past to face my own immature reasonings and

strongly held beliefs to make compromises and adjustments or corrections to my

thinking.

 

 

 

> I am very grateful that Prsni is taking her time to explain the whole matter

> thoroughly for all of us who cannot really relate, even if she probably

> feels quite hurt by many of us. I believe that she is doing both us and

> herself and others in a similar situation as her a great favour by standing

> forth like this, explaining how it looks from her side. I think we should

> listen carefully, because this may be our first and only chance to get

> first-hand experience on how this looks from someone who has actually

> performed a sex-change, who was and is a devotee.

 

 

 

That is all fine and dandy. I wish him all the luck in the world that he finds

happiness with his choices. I do not think the situation will really come up

too often though for us to be concerned whether we have a complete perspective

on it. He has made material choices which make him "feel" better about

himself. He has the right to make those choices as we all do as independent

living entities.

 

 

>

> From the way Prsni explains herself, it does not seem like what she has done

> is manifesting a weakness, I would more say it manifests her strength.

 

 

It was born from material desire not spiritual desire. How can we possibly

think otherwise? If it was spiritual desire and only that why change body

parts? It is not necessary. Transexualism is not one of the 9 kinds of

devotional service.

 

These are the same facts I have to face everyday when I want to overeat with

lots of ghee or take an extra long look through the Sports Illustrated

Swimsuit issue. I love playing with my sons. If anything happened to them I

would positively be devastated. But I am not going to call these things

transcendental ever. I do them because I have not got the strength to overcome

the desires of the senses meeting their sense objects - yet. I am trying

everyday and will continue. But one will replace the other - they cannot

ultimately coexist.

 

 

 

 

> The

> fact that she has done this and is willing to discuss it with us, while

> knowing that most of us would look down upon her for what she has done,

> makes her get my respect.

 

 

He is strong in this regard and he has my respect for that also. I, however,

do NOT look "down" upon him at all for what he has done. How can I look down

on anyone when I am already on the ground? I consider him a friend and friends

tell each other frank truths wo help them. I have many devotee friends which I

have mentioned in the past. We became close friends in the movement, or on the

fringe of the movement, when so much nonsense was evolving around the so

called "leaders/gurus/sannyasis" who were pretending to be "advanced" when

doing complete nonsense and not admitting it. My friends and myself were

involved with many outside sense gratificatory activities while still

attending temple programs and doing ISKCON services. If any one of our friends

went "too far" with their sense gratification like heavy drugs or too much

womanizing or even overeating without proper exercise and health

consciousness, we would speak to them and be a support group to level him out

before doing too much damage. Our group of friends were like family. We did

not condemn each other or look "down" upon each other. We let those things

pass and continue with our friendships with each other. I had a tendency to

get completely drunk sometimes when we would have a gathering. I would start

berating and babbling about my ex-devotee wife, who most of them knew, and how

she decided to become a lesbian again. This lead to our divorce and a whole

ugly set of circumstances. My devotee friends would talk to me the next day

(and laugh about my hangover) but were always supportive and truthful to me.

This was not a good thing for my human development but at the time I wanted to

sooth my pain somehow. Certainly we don't want to discourage self-development

in our friends but we should not hide the fact that there is a difference

between spiritual activities and material activities and each will have its

respective reactions.

 

 

> I am in a similar situation as you, Janesh, as I guess we all are, including

> Prsni. But I think that Prsni expects us to not compare the sex-change to

> normal mental and bodily pushings, since she just wanted to have the right

> body for her gender. She probably also has her mental and bodily pushings

> like the rest of us, but that is a different point. Does that make sense?

 

 

Kind of. But personally, I think his gender was decided at birth by the

direction of the Lord and His modes of nature based upon his previous life. He

may have been, no, was obviously, meant to develop femininity in his life as

a man but that is his karma. Changing body parts is OK but it is not going to

change karma. It will only create a whole new set of karmic reactions. If I

had a devotee friend who told me he now had a desire to enjoy sex with men and

that his mind was completely in anxiety because of it, I would tell him fine

go have sex with a consenting man. But don't call it anything but sense

desire. Be honest. I'll still be his friend and chant the Holy Names with him

anytime he wants.

 

 

> Sure. But I don't think this can be compared with Prsni's situation of

> sex-change. I cannot say that I know, but my gut feeling tells me that

> Prsni's sex-change will not keep her away from the spiritual world. Offenses

> and material desires keep us in the material world, and I believe that is

> different from this.

 

 

C'mon, Jatu. I am not saying he is committing offenses with this (but then I

do not know about such unnecessary changes to the body and if that's

considered offensive to the Lord's temple) but it is clearly done out of

material desire. If he had pure spiritual desire he would have renounced any

bodily designation. Why would he take hormones to grow bigger breasts if it is

not from material bodily desires?

 

Material bodily desires keep us out of the spiritual world. This is just plain

fact. I don't always like to hear it either but it ain't going to change the

facts.

 

Now, through varnasrama-dharma one's admitted material desires and tendencies

can be dovetailed in the service of the Lord and those desires will be

transformed into pure love of God in due course. This is the recommended path.

 

Arjuna had soooooo many arguments for Krsna about how this fighting life just

was not for him anymore. He quoted scripture up the yingyang and said these

alternatives would definitely make him feel better about his life. He had

peaceful, brahminical motives only in mind. Stop the bloodshed, give them the

kingdom, leave the battle. This is what is truly good for me, said Arjuna.

 

Krsna disagreed.

 

 

> If Prsni is right, that she was born a woman captured in a man's body, then

> I really have problems with understanding what you mean.

 

 

 

Did the demigod's make a mistake in translating his karma?

 

 

 

> What is the point

> of trying to convince her that she has done a mistake, and thus should be

> humble, if she is sure that this was the right thing to do?

 

 

We all make mistakes. I can't get back all the brain cells that I destroyed

with drugs and alcohol, but I can try to convince myself that no material

adjustment will truly make me happy. I'll live with my brain changes and

continue to perform varnasrama-dharma to purify myself.

 

 

> Why do you think

> she did it? Because she thought it was the wrong thing to do?

 

 

She said she is not exactly sure why she did it, so I certainly don't know.

 

 

> I know they are your opinions, and knowing you, I am sure you mean nothing

> bad with anything you say. But I am not sure your perceptions are right in

> this case.

 

 

Maybe not.