Respectable gentlemen

[Guest guest]

> So before we hurl sastra at each other, we

> better check our motives, otherwise it may be very counterproductive.

 

"He has a right to critizize who has a mind to help." Abraham Lincoln

 

ys Anantarupa das

[Guest guest]

> > "This shyness is a gift of nature to the fair sex, and it enhances their

> > beauty and prestige, even if they are of a less important family or even

> > if they are less attractive. We have practical experience of this fact.

A

> > sweeper woman commanded respect of many respectable gentlemen simply by

> > manifesting a lady's shyness." (SB 1.10.16P)

 

> So "a sweeper woman commanded respect of many respectable gentlemen".

>

> But the prerequisite for the commanded respect is the men being

respectable

> and gentle.

 

The basic point by Traymaya is well taken. However, it teeters on the edge

of what comes first. The shyness commands respect of the respectable

gentlemen. Note that BOTH items are there. So, it is agreed, BOTH do have

to be there. Both the shyness in the woman and the trained first-class men.

However, it can also be argued that even for many respectable gentlemen it

is hard to be so graciously respectful to a woman who is not properly shy.

Rather, the highest respect is only given to the women who are qualified to

recieve it. That I have seen 100's of times again and again. Men who will

act as first-class respectable gentlemen in dealing with a properly

respectable chaste and shy lady, automatically act differently toward women

who have lost these important motherly qualities. But, it is fully

agreed, that BOTH the shy chastity of the women and the first-class

gentlemenly behavior of the men have to be there.

 

However, the reason why I decided to reply in the first place is to make the

point that guru-sadhu-shastra is the basis of our ISKCON society and our

Sampradaya. Those who do not or cannot understand or accept this, they will

eventually find there is no place for them in our movement. Shastra is the

foundation of the sampradaya. It cannot be replaced - otherwise the

sampradaya is broken. Thus, this attitude that some devotees are 'hurling'

shastra at others is non-sense. Shastra is shastra, it is the authority.

Misunderstanding it's real meaning or purposefully misusing it are totally

other things. However, even if someone has misunderstood and misused some

quote, that does not make the shastra wrong. Nor does it mean that shastra

should not be quoted. Rather, it is the only proper thing to do, to back

one's words up with shastra. If the understanding or use was wrong, or

incomplete, others can discuss it. As Traymaya himself did here. But, to

discuss some issue without referring to guru-sadhu-shastra is a useless

waist of time and energy. It has nothing to do with our sampradaya and such

discussion lies outside of the boundries of KC.

 

Because shastra was used as the basis of argument, Traymaya d has responded

pointing out another view of the same quote. That type of discussion is

wanted. To discuss the various angles and realizations - based on the

foundation - guru sadhu shastra. But, to accuse others of 'hurling'

shastra is not at all productive. It directly is an attack on shastra for

it minimizes it's value. It is, in effect, saying that shastra should not

be the foundation. Thus, it is an offensive attack upon shastra, meant to

reduce it's importance and validity and it is also an attack on those who do

base their realizations and understandings on shastra, which is the

foundation of this sampradaya.

 

What was the intended purpose of such an attack at minimizing shastra? To

try and convince others not to rely on shastra, not to take it as our

foundation? No, guru-sadhu-shastra is the life-blood, and to hear it, even

if one does not agree with the speaker, just to hear or read the quotes is

purifying.

 

> The condescending tone of many socalled "gentlemen" and "brahmanas" in our

> movement when "teaching" others "their" dharma is discouraging, not only

for

> women, but men too. It is not gentlemanly.

 

This is inflamatory language. One must only preach on the basis of shastra,

quoting from guru-sadhu-shastra. That is the proper method of teaching. One

must teach by repeating the words of his guru, by quoting shastra, and speak

based on his own realizations of the shastra. The realizations maybe our

'own', but by quoting and referencing those realization with proper shastra,

it is not teaching our 'own' dharma. What you are attacking is the very

essence of how a devotee, a brahman, must teach. It is the authorized

method of teaching. To speak, based on realizations, and to back one's self

up with shastra. If others see that as discouraging to their freedom of

mental speculation or whatever else they feel discouraged about, that is

unfortunate, but that does not mean we throw out shastra and throw aside

those who preach based on their realizations of shastra.

 

Other then this, I think Traymaya das has made some important points.

 

> I suggest the involved men (the humble and tolerant brahmanas),

> being so important to the society, be the ones to start a new softer, more

> understanding and supportive, facilitating, protective (with the help of

our

> strong ksatrya-leaders) campaign towards those in need, be they children,

> women, cows or otherwise.

 

However, protection is given to those who are willing to accept it. And,

Srila Prabhupad said, in regards to the husband with the wife, that the most

important form of protection the husband gives is his preaching, his

realizations of the philosophy, his spiritual guidance of the wife. The

same with the brahman's. The most important thing they give society is

their knowledge and realization of shastra. But, that protection can only

be given to those who are receptive of such instructions. Amoung the women,

those who are intelligent, they will understand. But, for those women who

lack intelligence, for the children and the cows, all they can understand is

physical protection because they lack the intelligence to understand

shastric guidance. Yes, they require physical protection. But, the

understanding of HOW to protect, and what really is proper protection, all

of that, in our Sampradaya, comes from and is based on shastra. So,

either way, by direct preaching of shastra the more intelligent will take as

their greatest protection, or those who physically protect in accordance

with shastric guidance, shastra remains the foundation.

 

> Surely they will appreciate and as time goes by, wounds will be healed and

> cooperation will blossom, so will our society.

>

> your servant Trayimaya dasa

 

Only if guru-sadhu-shastra remains our ultimate guide and foundation of

everything else we say or do.

 

ys ameya

[Guest guest]

> Thus, this attitude that some devotees are 'hurling'

> shastra at others is non-sense. Shastra is shastra, it is the authority.

> Misunderstanding it's real meaning or purposefully misusing it are totally

> other things.

 

That´s what I mean too, nothing wrong with the sastra, but the "hurling".

 

 

The quotes may be fine and allright, but they will not solve the problem

because the problem (as I see it) is on a personal level, something has been

said (and done) between some individuals or groups of individuals, feelings

has been hurt, trust has been misused, offences made, or whatever. Now the

fight seems to be "philosofical" with so many quotes on either sides. If

these devotees were friends (let´s just be straight) there would be very

little, if any, problem.

 

Ameyatma prabhu, thanks for answering, your viewpoint is valid, I think more

Prabhupada-disciples should speak up.

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Hare Krishna.

ys Trayimaya dasa

[Guest guest]

Ameyatma prabhu wrote:

 

> their knowledge and realization of shastra. But, that protection can only

> be given to those who are receptive of such instructions. Amoung the

> women, those who are intelligent, they will understand. But, for those

> women who lack intelligence, for the children and the cows, all they can

> understand is physical protection because they lack the intelligence to

> understand shastric guidance. Yes, they require physical protection.

>

Dear Ameyatma prabhu, I am sorry that I have to disagree with you. Women

don't need physical protection because they are less inteligent and don't

understand sastra. Women need physical protection because MEN ARE STRONGER.

Please read carefully the next quote.

 

"Jayadratha: Another son of Maharaja Viddhaksetra. He was the King of

Sindhudesa (modern Sind Pakistan). His wife’s name was Dushala. He was also

present in the svayamvara ceremony of Draupadi, and he desired very strongly

to have her hand, but he failed in the competition. But since then he always

sought the opportunity to get in touch with Draupadi. When he was going to

marry in the Salyadesa, on the way to Kamyavana he happened to see Draupadi

again and was too much attracted to her. The Pandavas and Draupadi were then

in exile, after losing their empire in gambling, and Jayadratha thought it

wise to send news to Draupadi in an illicit manner through Kotisasya, one of

his associates. Draupadi at once refused vehemently the proposal of

Jayadratha, but being so much attracted by the beauty of Draupadi, he tried

again and again. Every time he was refused by Draupadi. He tried to take her

away forcibly on his chariot, and at first Draupadi gave him a good dashing,

and he fell like a cut-root tree. But he was not discouraged, and he was

able to force Draupadi to sit on the chariot. This incident was seen by

Dhaumya Muni, and he strongly protested the action of Jayadratha. He also

followed the chariot, and through Dhatreyika the matter was brought to the

notice of Maharaja Yudhisthira. The Pandavas then attacked the soldiers of

Jayadratha and killed them all, and at last Bhima caught hold of Jayadratha

and beat him very severely, almost dead. Then all but five hairs were cut

off his head and he was taken to all the kings and introduced as the slave

of Maharaja Yudhisthira. He was forced to admit himself to be the slave of

Maharaja Yudhisthira before all the princely order, and in the same

condition he was brought before Maharaja Yudhisthira. Maharaja Yudhisthira

was kind enough to order him released, and when he admitted to being a

tributary prince under Maharaja Yudhisthira, Queen Draupadi also desired his

release. After this incident, he was allowed to return to his country."

SB. 1.15.16

 

So, no matter how chaste, intelligent, brahminical or, whatever, qualified

a women is, if a man is stronger (which is usually the case) the woman can't

protect herself. The lowclass man will spoil her chastity if he is desiring

so. That's why women need to be protected by respectable men like the

Pandavas, who will use their strenght in a proper manner.

It is not because the women are less intelligent, lower or more lusty. It

is because men have a problem with the sex desire, and when they can't

controle it they end up raping women. And it is only the other gentlemen men

who can protect women from unscrupulous men. Because the strong one's can

fight with the strong.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> The basic point by Traymaya is well taken. However, it teeters on the

> edge of what comes first. The shyness commands respect of the respectable

> gentlemen. Note that BOTH items are there. So, it is agreed, BOTH do have

> to be there. Both the shyness in the woman and the trained first-class

> men.

 

 

If every single women on earth was "unchaste" or not "shy" every single man

must still be respectful. Otherwise they become less than unchaste women in

mens bodies.

 

 

 

 

> However, it can also be argued that even for many respectable

> gentlemen it is hard to be so graciously respectful to a woman who is not

> properly shy. Rather, the highest respect is only given to the women who

> are qualified to recieve it.

 

 

This is almost tantamount to rape.

 

If a women encourages a man to join her in sex through unchaste acts,

lascivious acts, nudity, verbal encouragement, anything and everything

"un-shy", and then says NO, STOP, at the height of all lust in the man, he

MUST stop or he is not a man but an animal and is guilty of rape and to be

punished very severely. He MUST stop; there is no other excuse allowable.

 

Men can never use women as an excuse for their own misgivings and

weaknesses. Men have been given bodies by evolution which require no such

excuses.

 

When it is said by Manu that "women do not deserve independence" it is not

at all meant to be a putdown; it is a directive to men and meant as a

requirement of men to provide protection. Women do not deserve to be thrown

into independence in the material world as if they are to be caste out as

lone survivalists. They always deserve every respect, assistance,

consideration, allowance, forgiveness. They are always innocent. Manu also

says their mouths are never contaminated. They have special qualifications

which men will never have; therefore they do not deserve to be treated as

independent. If they want it they can have it but good men will always

explain that independence is a harsh thing in the material world and not

something to be very proud of. Men have to be independent because that is

their karma. It does mean it is easier or better. It can be downright

lonely, scary as hell, and very tiring. If a man feels a need to be

dependent that also must be given. Protection is available for everyone

under the laws of dharma. Some men also do not deserve to be "independent",

like old men or invalids or men that are just plain scared or unintelligent.

 

Independence in the material world is a not a qualification in and of

itself. It must be utilized to perform ones prescribed duty for God in order

to have any value. Dependence is the same.

 

Just because a child is also an independent living being he does not deserve

to be left alone. Anyone can understand this meaning.

 

Manu is telling men that if they are creating a situation where they are

forcing women to become independent then he says, "They do not DESERVE this!

Treat them respectfully! Do not create womens liberation movements just to

satify your lust and irresponsibility. Do not create divorce laws to escape

your responsibility. Women do not deserve this kind of treatment. They are

your mothers! You must always give them love and respect no matter what they

do."

 

This is the law of Manu. He held the utmost respect and love for women.

 

 

Janesvara dasa

[Guest guest]

On 26 Dec 1999, Ameyatma.ACBSP wrote:

 

> But, to accuse others of 'hurling'

> shastra is not at all productive. It directly is an attack on shastra for

it minimizes it's value. It is, in effect, saying that shastra should not be

the foundation. Thus, it is an offensive attack upon shastra, meant to reduce

it's importance and validity and it is also an attack on those who do base

their realizations and understandings on shastra, which is the foundation of

this sampradaya.

>

 

 

To accuse others of accusing others of 'hurling sastra' is also not

productive. The implication of the criticism 'hurling sastra' is that the

hurler is being criticised and not the sastra. The critisism suggests that the

'hurler' is 'hurling' in order to promote a self-serving materialistically

motivation by attempting to hide behind the sastra to justify his otherwise

unjustifiable intentions.

 

Such things are not uncommon. For instance, it is said that Lord Buddha denied

the Vedas due to excessive 'sastra hurling'. So if our 'hurling sastra-ites'

are as concerned about the application of sastra as they claim, they may serve

both themselves and the sastra well by not behaving like a bunch of whining

self-serving cry-babies.

 

 

 

 

> What was the intended purpose of such an attack at minimizing shastra? To

try and convince others not to rely on shastra, not to take it as our

foundation? No, guru-sadhu-shastra is the life-blood, and to hear it, even

if one does not agree with the speaker, just to hear or read the quotes is

purifying.

>

 

 

Jesus saves!