desired activities

[Guest guest]

This is another slightly confusing situation because I never recieved the

orginal text. I assume Mother Urmila wrote something and Mother Sita

responded. Hmmm. This kind of lost texts is happening a lot lately.

 

 

 

> > You equate ashrama duties with spiritual duties. They are not

> > equivilent. Spiritual duties are sravanam, kirtanam, etc. and have

> > nothing to do with either varna *or* ashrama. Yes, I know that ashrama

> > is refered to as "spritual" divisions; they more directly involve one's

> > spiritual duties than does varna, but still they are designations of the

> > *body.* For example, ashrama is basically designated according to *age.*

> > Caitanya Mahaprabhu said the varnashrama (both varna and ashrama) was

> > *external,* and so it is.

>

> Shyamasundara Prabhu was saying, and I agree with him, that for

> girls/women, training in chastity is "not just a material duty but a

> spiritual duty as well". You disagree? How are they NOT equivalent if a

> girl performs her duties for Krsna? Why separate her "ashrama" duties from

> the 9 processes of devotional service? If the 9 processes of devotional

> service can't encompass a chaste woman's or a dutiful man's occupational

> duty, then Bhagavad-gita loses its essential meaning. Arjuna heard from

> Krsna and then he acted to please Him. This action of Arjuna's, his

> ksatriya duty, was spiritual.

 

 

We should remember that the last of the 9 items of devotional service is

"atma nivedanam" offering one's self to the Lord. This is what Arjuna did,

he offered all his work, his very being to become an instrument of the Lord.

The teaching of the Gita and all Bhagavat literature is how to mold our

whole life as an offering to Lord Krsna. Indeed, in my first text to which

Mother Urmila originally responded I showed how a woman by following in the

footsteps of Arjuna, by offering all of her work in the familiy as an

offering to Lord Krsna will get exactly the same result as did Arjuna. That

means her whole life becomes an offering to Lord Krsna--that is atma

nivedanam.

 

 

 

>

> We shouldn't think that *only* chanting one's rounds, hearing Bhagavatam

> class, etc. are spiritual and being chaste is external. Someone who chants

> with offenses, gives class for self-aggrandizement, doesn't listen to

> Bhagavatam class or is half asleep in mangal arotika is NOT on the

> transcendental platform. Just because women's (what you call) "asrama"

> duties are different from men's doesn't prove such duties are separate

> from what is "spiritual duty".

>

> > "According to the regulative principles, there are nine departmental

> > activities, as described above, and one should specifically engage

> > himself in the type of devotional service for which he has a natural

> > aptitude. For example, one person may have a particular interest in

> > hearing, another may have a particular interest in chanting, and another

> > may have a particular interest in serving in the temple. So these, or

> > any of the other six

> different

> > types of devotional service (remembering, serving, praying, engaging in

> > some particular service, being in a friendly relationship or offering

> > everything

> in

> > one's possession), should be executed in full earnestness. In this way,

> > everyone should act according to his particular taste."

> >

> >>>> Ref. VedaBase => Eligibility for Spontaneous Devotional Service

>

> Previously you were saying re. "desired activities" there was a difference

> between one's work or "ordinary duties" and "spiritual duties". You gave

> the example of a divorced lawyer woman who offered her legal services to

> Krsna. A divorced woman lawyer is a clear example of someone not acting

> according to the occupational duties of a woman that are described in

> Prabhupada's books. You chose this to give an example of "desired

> activities" and you chose it because you believe women should be engaged

> in ISKCON according to their actual propensities ie. "varna", even if

> their husbands have different occupations. Now you give an example which

> describes a different type of "desired activity", ie. one that is

> referring to a favorite type of, or taste for, devotional service. What is

> your point exactly? When Arjuna wanted to leave the battlefield and not

> fight, did Krsna say, "Okay, be a brahmana because you want to do that

> more than fighting"? Similarly, how many women are going to think, "I'm

> really a ksatriyani because I don't like to clean the house and would

> rather be a temple president or GBC" after listening to your ideas about

> "women's varna"?

>

> How you conclude from Shyamasundara's posting that he thinks "women are

> blank, mindless beings" is beyond me. Neither did I see him say a girl's

> *guna* will be the same as her father. But on this topic, do you suggest a

> woman NOT mold herself to her husband?

 

 

Just as a boy's guna may or may not be the same as the father the same will

hold true for the girl. A girl coming from an aristocratic family may turn

out to be a raksasi (Indira Gandhi), and a girl coming from a fisherman's

family may turnout to be a jewel (Satyavati). Hence Canakya Pandit says:

 

"One can pick up gold even from a filthy place, marry a good girl even from

a bad family, and take good advice even from a fool."

 

 

 

>

> Re. Devahuti- she was raised in a ksatriya environment. Whether or not she

> also had a sattvic nature/guna according to astrology we can only guess

> but because she was *chaste*, she was raised to the status of brahmani.

> I'm not saying "a woman's varna is designated by birth" either because you

> are defining varna differently. I agree that a woman's guna-based nature

> may not be exactly the same as her parents but I don't agree that her

> astrological horoscope be equated with real varna. Varna means

> occupational duty and, scripturally speaking, it refers to men.

 

>From an astrological view point we could say that such and such girl would

be a good match for a brahmana, or a Ksatriya, etc. Not because she is a

Brahmana, but because she has good sattvik disposition, religious, pious,

respects Brahmanas, etc. She will not do Brahminical work, the man will do

the brahminical work. Varna = guna + karma, not guna alone.

 

 

>

> Yes, any woman should be able to mold to any man if he becomes her

> husband. This is why we honour the stories of Sukhanya and Cyavana Muni,

> Nala-Damayanti, and Gandhari. Once she has been trained in a "varna" as

> you believe they should, other than what the scriptures deliniate, it'll

> be much harder to chastely work in the mood of her husband's assistant.

> She will want to act in her own independent career and disguise it as her

> desired devotional service. Is this what Prabhupada taught? Please show me

> where.

>

> Re. Ajamila- his second "wife" was a prostitute! She was not just a

> sudrani. She was unchaste! Ajamila did not lawfully take a chaste

> "sudrani" wife. You can't use this story to prove women have varna.

>

> > Another point in this connection is that as soon as one understands that

> women

> > have varna (though in a different way than men) then *so* many other

> > scriptural and social points make sense and fall into place. I have seen

> > hundreds of people be able to accept that women are less intelligent,

> > more lusty, should serve their husband nicely, etc. etc. as soon as one

> > explains 1)the difference between spiritual and material duties, 2)the

> > three divisions of duties in each broad area, 3)women's varna. Judge by

> > the results.

 

 

Rather than say Varna just substitute Guna. It is axiomatic that females

have Guna, they can not be without Guna. But by definition in BG 4.13

Varna=Guna + Karma. The karmic duties of the 4 varnas are not assigned to

women only to men. As Sita points out below many texts and quotes will no

longer make sense and be contradictory. You may be able to convince

inexperienced persons but not others. Sita Mataji could convince them of the

same thing but better because her explanation would be without the

inconsistencies of your explanations and still be true the deeper they study

Vedic culture.

 

 

>

> Since when does popularity determine the truth? How will your view help me

> understand these statements by our Acarya, Srila Prabhupada:

>

> 1. "The woman, when she becomes the wife of a brahmana, then she is called

> brahmani, but she's not offered brahminical culture. She remains as sudra"

> (Conversation 8-2-76)

>

> 2. "Striyah sudras tatha vaisyah, including woman and sudras and vaisyas,

> they are considered as less intelligent. They are considered as less

> intelligent. Therefore according to Vedic system, a boy born in a brahmana

> family, he is allowed all the samskaras, reformatory, purificatory

> process, but the girl is not. Why? Now, because a girl has to follow her

> husband. So if her husband is brahmana, automatically she becomes

> brahmana. There is no need of separate reformation. And by chance she may

> be married with a person who is not a brahmana, then what is the use of

> making her a brahmana? That is the general method. So therefore the, even

> born in a brahmana family, a woman is taken as woman, not as brahmana."

> (Sri Sri Rukmini Dvaraka-natha Installation, LA, July 16, 1969)

>

> 3. Woman reporter: Where do women fit into these four classes?

> Prabhupada: That I already explained. Women's position is subordinate to

> man. So if the man is first-class, the woman is first-class. If the man is

> second-class, the woman is second-class. If the man is third-class, the

> woman is third-class. In this...Because woman is meant for assisting man,

> so the woman becomes suitable according to the man, her husband.

> (Television Interview, Chicago, July 9, 1975)

>

> Your servant, Sita dd

 

Sita Mataji is a credit to her good husband Jivan Mukta Prabhu who is one

very intelligent, and may I also say a very lucky man indeed.

 

 

yhs

Shyamasundara Dasa

 

www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com