desired activities

[Guest guest]

On 02 Jul 2002, Urmila Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> On 2 Jul 2002, Bhakti Vikasa Swami wrote:

> In other words, women are not all one homogenious class where any individual

> woman can marry any man and automatically mold herself to his mentality.

> Prabhupada writes that such a marriage between those of different castes

will

> entail great suffering for both the man and the woman; and such marriages

are

> particularly not approved if the woman is "higher."

 

This is what I too undestand, if there is no "varna" for woman, there is no

meaning for "varna-sankara". Right.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

Dear and respected Mataji,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP. AGTYG.

 

> Oh, please forgive *me* but I beg you to consider that perhaps you are

mixing

> up the spiritual and the material.

 

No mataji. I am not at all mixing.

 

I request you to please read my text once again. I have not said anything

different from what you have said below after my comment. I copy and paste

here what I said.

 

> In such a scenario, externally by the VAD society they may be called as

> brahmana, ksatriya etc,. But among Vaisnavas themselves, they are never

> considered so, but they are simply considered as devotees of the Lord.

For

> the sake of outside people, they may considered as different professionals

> in different occupations.

 

Krishna is crystal clear in Bg about the qualities of brahmana, kastriya....

Whether man or woman who ever has those qualities by definition is a

brahmana. Just as irrespective of whether father is truthful or not, son

may be truthful. Similarly whether husband is truthful or not wife may be

truthful. (Note: I have picked for example truthfulness as it is one of the

qualities of a brahmana by definition of Bg)

 

That is the point. Everyone is evaluated according to one's guna and karma

according to Vaisnavas, guru and Krishna. If woman's varna simply depended

*only* on father's, husband's or son's varna then there is no meaning for

'varna sankara' and no meaning for 'anuloma' and 'pratiloma'. What I mean

is these terms would not exist.

 

Seeking your blessings,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

 

> Our duties in the nine processes are the same whether one is sudra or

> brahmana....It is true that some of some kinds of brahmana's duties are

the

> same as some of the nine processes, so there is a lot of confusion. There

is

> also confusion because Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta established the

> principle of accepting "as brahmana" anyone who takes on the guna of a

> brahmana, even if their activities, or "karma" (literally meaning actions,

> here, not fruitive work) remained those of a non-brahmana. One whose

activites

> are those of a non-brahmana but who is serving the Lord may be recognized

with

> a thread as more than a brahmana, and we don't think of them as a "sudra

> Vaisnava" but on one level, an external level, such would be a fact.

>

> Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

>

[Guest guest]

Dear and respected Mataji,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP. AGTYG.

 

> Oh, please forgive *me* but I beg you to consider that perhaps you are

mixing

> up the spiritual and the material.

 

No mataji. I am not at all mixing.

 

I request you to please read my text once again. I have not said anything

different from what you have said below after my comment. I copy and paste

here what I said.

 

> In such a scenario, externally by the VAD society they may be called as

> brahmana, ksatriya etc,. But among Vaisnavas themselves, they are never

> considered so, but they are simply considered as devotees of the Lord.

For

> the sake of outside people, they may considered as different professionals

> in different occupations.

 

Krishna is crystal clear in Bg about the qualities of brahmana, kastriya....

Whether man or woman who ever has those qualities by definition is a

brahmana. Just as irrespective of whether father is truthful or not, son

may be truthful. Similarly whether husband is truthful or not wife may be

truthful. (Note: I have picked for example truthfulness as it is one of the

qualities of a brahmana by definition of Bg)

 

That is the point. Everyone is evaluated according to one's guna and karma

according to Vaisnavas, guru and Krishna. If woman's varna simply depended

*only* on father's, husband's or son's varna then there is no meaning for

'varna sankara' and no meaning for 'anuloma' and 'pratiloma'. What I mean

is these terms would not exist.

 

Seeking your blessings,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

 

> Our duties in the nine processes are the same whether one is sudra or

> brahmana....It is true that some of some kinds of brahmana's duties are

the

> same as some of the nine processes, so there is a lot of confusion. There

is

> also confusion because Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta established the

> principle of accepting "as brahmana" anyone who takes on the guna of a

> brahmana, even if their activities, or "karma" (literally meaning actions,

> here, not fruitive work) remained those of a non-brahmana. One whose

activites

> are those of a non-brahmana but who is serving the Lord may be recognized

with

> a thread as more than a brahmana, and we don't think of them as a "sudra

> Vaisnava" but on one level, an external level, such would be a fact.

>

> Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

>

[Guest guest]

> Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

>

> Please don't put words in my mouth. The two statements are not logically

> equivalent, nor does your conclusion follow from your premise.

 

Sorry. Please forgive me mataji. I was not trying to put words in to your

mouth. That was never the motive atleast. I think I misunderstood your

words.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

Mataji Urmila didn't tell us if her understanding of the matter changed or

not. It appears that she has more to say. If she has I would like to have

the discussion continued publicly.

 

Thank you.

 

Your servant,

Mahat-tattva dasa

[Guest guest]

-

WWW: Urmila (Devi Dasi) ACBSP (Padma Academy NC - USA)

<urmila (AT) com (DOT) org>

Bhakti Vikasa Swami <Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Purnacandra (das)

ACBSP <Purnacandra.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic

Astrologer) (USA) <Shyamasundara.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Urmila (dd) ACBSP (ISKCON

School NC - USA) <Urmila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Bhaktivedanta Academy (Mayapur -

IN) <Bhaktivedanta.Academy (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Ganga IDS <Ganga.IDS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>;

Krsna-krpa (das) SDG (BI) (Alachua, FL - USA) <Krsna-krpa.SDG (AT) pamho (DOT) net>;

Mukunda Datta Prabhu <mpt@u.washington.edu>; Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS

(Mayapur - IN) <Vidvan.Gauranga.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; Robert Cope

<vyapaka (AT) nexicom (DOT) net>

Tuesday, July 02, 2002 11:54 AM

Re: desired activities

 

 

> On 2 Jul 2002, Robert Cope wrote:

>

> > Perhaps. But that would be difficult for us to know when specific

> > individuals limit the public debate and take it private.

>

> Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

>

> Actually, until now hardly anyone else was participating....sorry if my

> actions were improper.

 

I think improper would be a bit of an overstatement.

 

>

>

> I do not remember

> > any private or personal matters being discussed so still wonder why the

> > necessity of Mother Urmila to declare she was going to take the

discussion

> > private with both Shyamasundara Prabhu and Jivanmukta Prabhu and Mother

> > Sita.

>

> I have responded to you privately about the above.

 

Yes, and I have also responded privately back to Mother Urmila.

>

> To my knowledge there was no declaration of a conclusion so I am still

> > wondering if there is a discussion going on regarding these matters in

> > private.

>

> Sometimes there is no possibility of a conclusion so it is best to get on

with

> other service for the Lord. At this point I'm not discussing it further in

> private, though I hope that at some point Syamasundara Prabhu will assist

me

> in bringing my paper of 1988 to a better and more comprehensive and

accurate

> form.

 

Did you know that Shyamasundara Prabhu is from Canada. Many say it is his

only redeeming quality :0). His great intelligence must come from inhaling

all that fresh air up in Sudbury (that's a Canadian joke. You'd have to have

visited Sudbury to undersand).

 

>

>

> If they all want to limit readership, then there isn't much that

> > can be done since that would be their perogative. But it did seem that

it

> > was done unilaterally.

>

> Yes, I took action unilaterally. Sorry. If there is more interest from

other

> parties, I'm glad to continue.

 

Well, we'll soon know if there is still more interest by the flowing emails.

>

>

> >

> > If the discussion has indeed been terminated, my question is does Mother

> > Urmila now agree to your statement listed above? She did make the

comment in

> > the outset that she didn't like to get into these type of debates

because

> > everyone already has their mind made up. However, I was still impressed

by

> > her skill of debate and many of her points and if she has more to make,

I

> > personally would enjoy hearing them.

>

> Thank you for your kind and encouraging statements; however, one reason I

> wished to stop the discussion is that I do not wish to "debate" with men,

> especially in a public forum. I have responded (without, I hope, "debate")

to

> Maharaja's statement in another text.

 

Well, I certainly think that you are beyond criticism for not wanting to

debate men. But I am a bit confused since you state that you are still

interested to continue but definitely the majority of participants are male.

In any case, let us see if there are any issues not resolved which will

spark discussion.

 

Hare Krsna,

 

Vyapaka dasa

[Guest guest]

On 03 Jul 2002, Urmila Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> 4) Is there some group here of which I am unaware that is part of some

project

> involving women and women's social/spiritual position? In other words, is

> there some specific goal here, or are we simply "talking" among ourselves

for

> our own edification and enlightenment? (no sarcasm intended, honest question

> only)

>

> Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

 

Personally, I participate in discussions on COM purely in the mood of

istagosthi, as our founder acarya always wanted the members to have such

istagosthis, I heard.

 

Also from jnana comes Vijnana, so istagosti helps us in increasing our jnana,

which inturn is going to improve our vijnana (application of KC) in the course

of time.

 

Also, after a few years on COM I have understood, that there is nobody

completely right or completely wrong, as it apparently appears in discussion,

as any topic of discussion can be viewed from various angles of view.

 

That is why Istagosthi, helps us to understand any subject matter, more fully

and completely, as all the participants, present their points from different

angles.

 

Most important is we can hear, from disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and in

their association, remove any misunderstanding that we granddisciples may

have, in our understanding of Srila Prabhupada's *seemingly apparent

contradictory* statements sometimes.

 

All glories to COM for making the above possible, and taking Istagosthi to

higher platform, as many high quality dedicated devotees, association and

realisations we are getting here.

 

I am not in any project as referred above by mataji. However COM has helped

me to improve my real life (project), in so many ways.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.