desired activities

[Guest guest]

It would seem that Srila Prabhupada's usage of "Desired activities" refers

to kaamya-karma, or optional ritualistic observances performed with the aim

of gaining a desired object such as a son, and distinguished from

nitya-karma and naimmitika-karma, daily and occasional observances that are

obligatory. Occasional observances would mean fasting on Ekadasi etc.

[Guest guest]

My Dear Friend Urmila,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

Re. Desired Activities

 

You originally wrote in this discussion, "in the category of duties

prescribed according to the psychophysical nature, there are three

subcategories each--ordinary, emergency, and desired. While our ordinary

duties take precedence, desired activities that are not sinful and are for

the Lord's service can certainly be offered to Him and are not whimsical."

 

Desired activities are presented in the Gita as being a subcategory of

prescribed duty. The NOI quote about the 9 processes of devotional service

is NOT referring to this same type of desired activities. I don't understand

why you are expanding the Gita definition to include the 9 processes of

devotional service as there is no scripture to substantiate this. It's

confusing how you have added spiritual activities as a category of

prescribed duties and subcategorized them into ordinary, desired and

emergency. Did Prabhupada do this?

 

Desired activities cannot be whimsical because whimsical work is capricious

work ie. activity "without the sanction of authority" (Bg 2:47). Who is

desiring them? It is simply logical that they are activities primarily

desired by authority (sastric) and only secondarily desired by us. If they

are desired by us but not sanctioned by authority they are obviously not

kosher. But this is how you define desired activities in your paper:

 

"Srila Prabhupada sometimes divides prescribed duties under the heading of

varnasrama into three subcategories: routine, desired, and emergency. We

will primarily discuss one's routine duties. Desired activities may be

outside the range of what is required for a particular varna or asrama, but

they do not conflict." (no reference given)

 

How can something be outside of varna and asrama yet not conflict? As

desired activities are part of prescribed duty, there's naturally no

conflict with varnasrama. Using your definition of desired activities,

however, the woman lawyer you mentioned could feel justified that she's

doing her prescribed duty if she has the nature and training for it and

doesn't shirk her household duties. Now you are saying she's not acting

"within either the varnasrama system or the basic processes of devotion".

 

Re. Qualities and Qualification

 

You also state in your paper that "one can become fit for a certain type of

activity by qualification, not by birth" (SB 5.4.13). You have qpplied this

quote to women but it is specifically referring to men. Some of Rsabhadeva's

sons became brahmanas although they were ksatriyas by birth. We have to be

careful of using quotes about men interchangeably with women. Vishaka has

done this in the past, stating (quoting Bhagavad-gita) that a woman's work

is determined by her qualities and not her birth. She wrote, "(Prabhupada)

says that men and women have the same rights. What are those rights? Their

right -- their privilege -- to serve the Lord according to their propensity,

according to their hearts' desire."

 

This conclusion, which one can also make from some of your writings, is

misleading and the applications of it can be harmful on both personal and

social levels. Lord Krsna says:

 

"It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform

it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it

perfectly. Prescribed duties, according to one's nature, are never affected

by sinful reactions. " Bg 18.47

 

Krsna doesn't mean here that a woman who has the nature to do such and such

according to her heart's desire is rightly situated unless it is within the

realm of what authorized prescribed duty for chaste women. The spiritual

right we have as women to engage in devotional service is not equal to the

right to engage in any type of work. Sastra restricts a woman from certain

types of activity, even though she may have the same guna that a qualified

man has. Qualification for a woman is chastity so a woman becomes qualified

as a brahmani or ksatriyani when she a chaste assistant of her husband who

works in that way, not on her own on an individual basis. A chaste woman

would not conceive of being identified as a brahmani if her husband is not a

qualified brahmana (qualified by his nature & work).

 

> I have never said that a woman should be trained as a man

> is trained.

 

By equal training I meant academic education. Please show me where

Prabhupada said a girl should be trained according to her guna. He advised

against training girls to be brahmanas and ksatriyas because if a girl gets

married to someone who is not a brahmana, "then what is the use of making

her a brahmana?" Therefore even a girl is born in a brahmana family, and

even if she has the same guna as a brahmana, "woman is taken as woman, not

as brahmana." (July 16, 1969) Compare this with current ISKCON gurus who are

known to give unmarried girls brahminical initiation.

 

> I have tried my best to explain my understanding of these matters. I have

> written Shyamasundara a private message today with more details. He can send

> it to the rest of you if he wants. In almost all respects, I agree with the

> text(s) he posted today about woman's guna.

 

Why private? You have written these things publicly. I haven't yet seen any

detailed response from you to these questions:

 

1. Would you please explain, with reference(s) from Srila Prabhupada's

teachings, how a Vedic woman would have already been situated in the "work"

or karma of a brahmana or ksatriya before marriage.

 

2. Please also show how a girl's and woman's caste is anything other than

her father's or husband's.

 

Do you agree that:

 

>> First of all women have no varna what to speak of

>> sub-varna, this we have demonstrated in a previous text.

 

Yes? No?

 

My conclusion from all this is that you need to withdraw your paper from

circulation and (brace yourself) offer a public apology for its misleading

content. I know you are sincere in wanting to uphold the truth and you're

very strict, much more than me, in wanting to practically apply varnasrama.

If you have changed your views since you wrote it, people who have read it

need to know.

 

Don't get me wrong. I am aware that you're older than me as well as a

Prabhupada initiate. You've given me much good advice, particularly in the

area of home education. I think I'm safe in saying we have enjoyed each

other's company on many occasions. So why am I taking such liberty to speak

in this way? Because no one else has been objecting to these discrepancies

in your writings. I apologize if you have reason to feel I've breached

etiquette. Forgive me.

 

Your servant and friend, Sita dd