Speaking from experience

[Guest guest]

>

> >>The principle of equality between the sexes is to be understood purely

> from

> >>the spiritual point of view. From the material point of view - no two

> men

> >>are even equal! That is a fact. So if there is someone arguing that men

> and

> >>women are equal from material point of view - then they are either

> ignorant

> >>or arrogant. That is all.

 

 

As far as I am concerned, it is rather either ignorance or

arrogance to be building up such a lousy straw-man and then

keeping oneself busy defeating it soundly, in the name of

defeating the "opponent's" position. Namely, I have not seen

so far that foolish person propagating that "women and

men are equal from material point of view". The creator of

this argument is bringing rather a complex issue down to

some meaningless absurdity.

 

 

> >>the sadhu until the end of life - arguing that it would be better if I

> >>set up "camp" here in this miserable place and give birth to a few

> >>children

> and

> >>instruct THEM in the spiritual science! So the essential difference

> between

> >>a man and a woman, from the Bhagavat's perspective is that a MAN is

> capable

> >>of immediately taking up the service of the senses of the Lord under the

> >>direction of the Spiritual Master and and a woman is advised to

> >>"dovetail

 

 

Here is the problem. The generalizations. Now think

about one Kunti Devi (we even got the book called

"Teachings of Queen Kunti") and some "Mr. Male".

 

That is the classical ISCKON problem, where Vaisnavis have

been constantly viewed through this kind of glasses,

constantly being blamed for men's failing in their spiritual

progress, and being abused on top of it. I consider this approach

to be an abuse also. Because it lumps all the ladies into one

pot. And all the men into another pot. While the truth is that

both pots are filled with both genders.

 

The issue is about replacing mayavada with personalism,

about stopping exploatation and abuse of the weaker members

of the society... Not about the attempt (sic!) to establish

how both women and men got equal kind of genitals (that's

indeed the "argument" that you are busy defeating, actually,

trying to prove to us something that we are supposedly

unaware off)

 

 

> These

> >>mothers have stated that they have "problems" with Srila Prabhupada's

> >>explanations on various points. And perhaps the most telling feature of

> >>their position is their expression of

> >>distrust or even dislike" for the CONFIDENCE of His Divine Grace AC

> >>Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada!!!!!

 

This is where it comes to - a male chauvinism.

 

The truth is that it does not need a body with this or

that type of genitals to either have or not have the

CONFIDENCE of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami

Srila Prabhupada!!!!!

 

But you have picked up on "those mothers", and not on

"those prabhus" although there may be tons of

them (beginning with some of us who are pretending).

Why? To prove your opening argument how males and females,

though spiritually equal, are not equal in material sense.

 

Congratulations, prabhuji. We males are superior creatures

after all, ain't we? We are constantly proving it. "Those

mothers" will not walk away just like that; the mad witch

hunt keeps going..

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

> Jaya! ! Yes!....simple truth. This point I've been trying to make off and

> on...we must hold up the standard, neither resenting nor trying to

> "smudge" it into something more palatable...truth is truth....our vision

> is the simple clear

 

A few short observations:

 

1. The author of the paper starts with the premise that women

and men are equal spiritually, not materially.

 

2. He assumes that there are such fools there out who claim

material equality and see no difference between male and female

bodies (wether gross or subtle material body).

 

3. He is lounching his refutation of such foolishness.

 

4. But while indeed giving the credit to women for their expertize

for arranging the material facilities, the most of the time he is

indeed trying to depict women as being uncapable and unintelligent

*spiritually*. They are unable to accept and surrender to God

as men can. As if surrendering to God (spiritual advancement) is

the quality of material body and not the soul. So, so much so

for "spiritual equality".

 

5. He is selecting from Bhagavatam the parts that describes

women negatively only, as materialistic kind of people.

However, he did not choose to present the parts where women have

been glorified as more qualified than men when it comes to

surender to Krsna. Like for example, the story about the wifes

of brahmans who dropped everything, even their children, and

left back at homes their materialisticaly minded husbands who

were pround on their superior knowledge of the Absolute.

 

6. He is, in the same time, selecting from the Bhagavatam

only those parts where men are to be viewed of a sadhu

tendency, a renounciate mentality.. He is not choosing

those parts where the men are described as cammels, hogs, dogs

and asses and attached mudhas.

 

7. Finally, he is selectivly depicting a couple of "mothers"

that have being hunted all over the place this last month,

as his "closing evidence" how women are not equal materially

with men.

 

 

> Jaya! ! Yes!....simple truth.

 

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das