You can't follow your adivice to Turn off your computers.

[Guest guest]

>Or, in the meantime. . .

 

.. . .you should turn off your computer. :-)

 

Too bad. You missed your chance to be an acharya. This is exactly our

point: Now that the ugly side of those with a feminist agenda have been

exposed, by their own endeavors, you want that people don't see it.

 

You can't turn off your computer, because your advice is meant for others,

not for yourself.

 

Same thing with the feminist devotees in Vrindavan, they expect to be

treated like ladies, but they are not prepared to act like ladies. Even the

Earth, when she took the form of a cow (and a woman) to avoid punishment

from Maharaj Prithu, was not going to be spared punishment unless she acted

appropriately.

 

The Dharmakshetra website (www.ghqd.org) is providing a Krishna-conscious

alternative to the anti-religious, feminist doctrines espoused on CHAKRA and

on other forums. (Notice that although CHAKRA published several pro-feminist

articles with regard to the Vrindavan temple incident, they did not publish

Mahaman Prabhu's letter.)

 

If you don't want to read anything at www.ghqd.org, don't go there. Simple

as that.

 

But just in case the temptation to go there and read is too much for you to

resist, here is another article entitled "Sannyasis Must Get Preferred

Treatment" http://ghqd.org/articles/parv1.htm

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

>

>

> But just in case the temptation to go there and read is too much for you to

> resist, here is another article entitled "Sannyasis Must Get Preferred

> Treatment" http://ghqd.org/articles/parv1.htm

>

> ys KKdas

 

Is being snide and condescending a necessity for those interesed in GHQ or is

it just coincidental that their most vocal proponents all seem to share those

traits?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/22/99 9:52:02 AM Central Standard Time,

cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net writes:

 

<< Same thing with the feminist devotees in Vrindavan, they expect to be

treated like ladies, but they are not prepared to act like ladies. Even the

Earth, when she took the form of a cow (and a woman) to avoid punishment

from Maharaj Prithu, was not going to be spared punishment unless she acted

appropriately.

>>

 

I would suspect that if the sannyasis who requested the space to pay

obeisances could forsee that it would create the problems it has, they

probably would have not requested it.

 

I think it is better to keep everyone happy and the situation peaceful than

agrue over who is right. This is how Prabhupada generally dealt with these

things. From what I saw, he valued unity above everything else. And to

acheive that unity, he would often have to overlook the rights and wrongs of

a situation.

 

So if we say that the sannyasis are really in the right on the basis of

sastra and culture, but the result is that large numbers of devotees are

disturbed by the application of that in a particular circumstance, what is

the benefit of over emphasizing their rights and position. This is why I

said I felt the sannyasis who asked for the space would probably do without

it in order to keep the peace.

 

Your servant,

 

Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

><< Same thing with the feminist devotees in Vrindavan, they expect to be

> treated like ladies, but they are not prepared to act like ladies. Even

the

> Earth, when she took the form of a cow (and a woman) to avoid punishment

> from Maharaj Prithu, was not going to be spared punishment unless she

acted

> appropriately.

> >>

>

>I would suspect that if the sannyasis who requested the space to pay

>obeisances could forsee that it would create the problems it has, they

>probably would have not requested it.

 

 

This reminds me of an incident, France I believe, where Srila Prabhupada was

supposed to give a lecture, but many young men were so unruly that he

didn't. When dealing with the karmis, then you have to sometimes forego the

etiquette; but what about with devotees, who are supposed to know the

standard? How can a devotee who has been in the movement 20+ years not know

the standard?

 

For example, if this were a non-ISKCON, Indian temple, or even an ISKCON

temple where the non-Indian is not in overabundance, making way for a

sannyasi is done without thinking, by both men and women. If even Indian

karmis have this basic knowledge, then why are some pushy western ladies

claiming they know something when they really don't?

 

It may be argued that, "Well, they are westerners, they have a difficult

time accepting all these customs." But it is not simply an empty custom,

offering such respects to sannyasis is soundly grounded in our philosophy.

According to our acharyas, the sannyasi is the spiritual master of all other

varnas and ashramas:

 

"In the varnasrama institution the sannyasi, or the person in the renounced

order of life, is considered to be the head or the spiritual master of all

the social statuses and orders." (BG 16.1-3 purport)

 

A practical application of this can be found in the Caitanya-caritamrita,

where just before Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya started instructing the Lord,

Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya offered the Lord a more elevated seat, because of

His being a sannyasi (note that at this point, the Bhattacarya had not

accepted the Lord's divinity):

 

battacarya-sange tanra mandira aila

prabhure asana diya apane vasila

 

"When they entered the temple, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya offered Caitanya

Mahaprabhu a seat, while he himself sat down on the floor out of due respect

for a sannyasi." (CC Madhya 6.119)

 

Please note that Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya was both older than the Lord, and

was about to instruct the Lord. Usually, a teacher, or someone giving

class, is supposed to sit on a more elevated seat than his students, but

Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya nonetheless offered an elevated seat out of respect

for the sannyasa ashrama, inspite of other considerations.

 

And also we have a more contemporary experience of our Bhakti Vikas Maharaj,

who in the course of working on a biography of the life of Srila Bhakti

Siddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, would visit disciples of Sarasvati Thakura

(Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers) and interview them. One particular

devotee, named Jati Shekhar (directly a disciple of Sarasvati Thakura)

offered an elevated seat for Bhakti Vikas Maharaj. At first, Maharaj

refused it, because a god-brother of one's guru is supposed to be respected

on an equal platform with one's guru. But Jati Shekhar Prabhu told him that

nonetheless, because BV Swami was a sannyasi, he was obliged to offer an

elevated seat to him, and that he should accept. Jati Shekhar Prabhu has

since passed away.

 

Now, aside from this contemporary example are the philosophical basis for

offering such respect: (1) Our acharyas have declared the sannyasi to be,

constitutionally, the spiritual master of all other varnas and ashramas, and

(2) a practical example is shown in the Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

Now, since it is assumed that a 20+ year devotee has read all of Srila

Prabhupada's books, most likely more than once, it is assumed that after all

this reading, and lectures, and classes, that she will understand THE

PHILOSOPHY on which these customs are founded (and act accordingly).

 

So, such devotee who does not accept these customs is actually openly

rejecting the conclusions of her spiritual master and the acaryas. The

other alternative is that she is just plain ignorant. And after 20+ years

in the movement, there is no excuse for this. (And such people, inspite of

their ignorance, want to be leaders!)

 

>I think it is better to keep everyone happy and the situation peaceful than

>agrue over who is right.

 

Why should there be an argument over who is right? We have scripture, we

have previous acharyas, we have Srila Prabhupada's instructions. There is

argument because one or more parties is adamant to remain ignorant, or at

worst defiant of acknowledged principles.

 

Can you tell me, honestly, from the above sources cited, that it is not

clear, either by philosophy or by custom, that the ladies' refusal to

respect the sannyasis was adharmic?

 

You may say that if the ladies refused to cooperate, even if they were

wrong, the sannyasis should not have insisted on being offered respect.

After all, Lord Caitanya says, amanina manadena kirtaniya sada hari. "One

should offer all respects to others, not wanting respect for himself."

 

But then again, a sannyasi is supposed to act as a preceptor, or a spiritual

master of the other varnas and ashramas. Does he not, then, have the

adhikar (authority) to instruct or corrrect? Certainly he has the right to

correct and reprimand, or how do we understand that the sannyasi is the

spiritual master of all other varnas and ashramas? The trouble is we want

to keep sannyasis like pet dogs--something for show, and who has to do

whatever you tell him.

 

Further, you may say that, "Well, since the ladies were still refusing to be

instructed, the sannyasis should have not insisted." And that's where the

temple management stepped in.

 

The temple is a place where religion is to be practiced. And if a person or

group of people are adamant on doing something irreligious, or acting

improperly, then the temple authorities are well within their rights to take

necessary action, even if it means physically evicting someone. If you want

to practice something besides Krishna-consciousness, then there is the whole

world outside of the temple. If you go there and do your nonsense, at least

it will be more difficult for you to commit offenses against devotees and

the Deities.

 

>This is how Prabhupada generally dealt with these

>things. From what I saw, he valued unity above everything else. And to

>acheive that unity, he would often have to overlook the rights and wrongs

of

>a situation.

 

 

And he would also often be very heavy, not tolerating nonsense in the least,

particularly among his older disciples. (Please note that the lady devotees

who instigated this incident are claiming such seniority.)

 

>So if we say that the sannyasis are really in the right on the basis of

>sastra and culture, but the result is that large numbers of devotees are

>disturbed by the application of that in a particular circumstance, what is

>the benefit of over emphasizing their rights and position. This is why I

>said I felt the sannyasis who asked for the space would probably do without

>it in order to keep the peace.

 

 

(Please don't take what follows as an ad-hominem attack.) This is a good

example of watering down our standards. Who cares what "large numbers of

devotees" think if what they think is not right? Our standards of right and

wrong are based on shastra and our acharyas, not on what most devotees think

(or what secular scholars think, or what the UN thinks). If most devotees

cannot accept the authority of the above cited references, then they are in

maya, and their opinions are useless--particularly since their opinions have

been demonstrated to be contrary to the authorities (i.e. scripture,

acaryas) they profess to follow.

 

You pose the question, "What is the benefit of overemphasizing their rights

and position?"

 

First of all, your question assumes something which is yet to be proven:

"overemphasizing their rights", that they (sannyasis, temple mangement)

should not have insisted that they be respected.

 

Second of all, the benefit gained from insisting on following these

injunctions is that your Krishna-consciousness will not be hindered. If you

are committing offenses, (and yes, disrespecting a sannyasi is an offense,

even if most devotees disagree), then you cannot practice

Krishna-consciousness with firm determination:

 

yesam tv anta gatam papam jananam punya karmanam

te dvandva moha nirmukta bhajante mam dridha-vratah

 

"Only those who have acted piously in this life and in previous lives, and

who are free from the reactions of sinful activities, can worship me with

firm determination." (BG 7.28)

 

Even if you may be committing an offense out of ignorance, a sin is still a

sin, and there will be a reaction, just as you may perform a pious act out

of ignorance you still get the benefit, or if you touch fire, knowingly or

unknowingly, it will still burn.

 

Therefore, those who continue to act sinfully, disrespectfully, etc., even

if on the plea that "We were not born in India, we are not inclined to offer

respects, we are not used to it, etc. etc. etc." will never get the

determination to perform devotional service, because they will never be free

of committing offenses.

 

This is WHY niyamagraha is one of the six spoilers of devotional service: if

you reject the rules and regulations of scripture, you are sure to committ

offenses. When you commit offenses (i.e. sinful acts), then you cannot

fully practice devotional service. The time you spend not practicing

devotional service means you are practicing maya. As your offenses and maya

accumulates, you gradually loose your spiritual qualities, and you fall down

into gross sense gratification, or you mix bhakti with other mundane ideas

(like there is the Stephen Covey [non-devotee] and his 7 principles

philosophy that is doing the rounds among some of those who occupy our

higher echelons), or lastly, you become a sahajiya.

 

Is it not the temple management's responsibility to see that this does not

happen?

 

For this reason alone, the temple management's insistence that the sannyasis

be respected was entirely appropriate. If the ladies had their way, that

would also have been bad for them, because their devotional service would

have been checked.

 

And finally, to those who still consider the plea "what about the general

peace of all?" How can you be peaceful if you reject the rules and

regulations of the scriptures?

 

yah sastra-viddhim ustrjya vartate kama-karatah

na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim

 

"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims

attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination." (BG

16.23)

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 11/22/99 9:52:02 AM Central Standard Time,

> cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net writes:

>

> << Same thing with the feminist devotees in Vrindavan, they expect to be

> treated like ladies, but they are not prepared to act like ladies. Even

> the

> Earth, when she took the form of a cow (and a woman) to avoid punishment

> from Maharaj Prithu, was not going to be spared punishment unless she

> acted

> appropriately.

> >>

>

> I would suspect that if the sannyasis who requested the space to pay

> obeisances could forsee that it would create the problems it has, they

> probably would have not requested it.

>

> I think it is better to keep everyone happy and the situation peaceful

> than agrue over who is right. This is how Prabhupada generally dealt with

> these things. From what I saw, he valued unity above everything else. And

> to acheive that unity, he would often have to overlook the rights and

> wrongs of a situation.

>

> So if we say that the sannyasis are really in the right on the basis of

> sastra and culture, but the result is that large numbers of devotees are

> disturbed by the application of that in a particular circumstance, what is

> the benefit of over emphasizing their rights and position. This is why I

> said I felt the sannyasis who asked for the space would probably do

> without it in order to keep the peace.

>

> Your servant,

>

> Mahatma dasa

 

Maybe it was other devotees who wanted to uphold vaishnav etiquette by

providing the space mentioned above? So that's another angle of vision; and

it's the job of the managers to uphold the culture, rules & regulations,

etc., no?

 

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

 

B€su Ghosh D€s

[Guest guest]

Prabhu,

 

What is GHQ?

 

 

Madhava.Gosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se [Madhava.Gosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se]

Monday, November 22, 1999 8:06 AM

COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN); cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net; COM:

India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum); COM: Prabhupada Disciples

Re: You can't follow your adivice to "Turn off your computers."

 

 

[Text 2799183 from COM]

 

>

>

> But just in case the temptation to go there and read is too much for you

to

> resist, here is another article entitled "Sannyasis Must Get Preferred

> Treatment" http://ghqd.org/articles/parv1.htm

>

> ys KKdas

 

Is being snide and condescending a necessity for those interesed in GHQ or

is

it just coincidental that their most vocal proponents all seem to share

those

traits?

[Guest guest]

"COM: Srirama (das) ACBSP" wrote:

 

> [Text 2803072 from COM]

>

> Prabhu,

>

> What is GHQ?

 

You missed all that? It is a bunch of misogynist siksa disciples of

Kirtanananda who build their self esteem by bad mouthing large blocks of

devotees (including but not limited to, all women and all westerners) and

rationalize it all with a mundane selective interpretation of scripture.

 

It was all the rage, or about a year or so ago.

 

Of course, they see themselves as the heroic defenders of the highest

standards of purity against the forces of evil embodied in all the fallen

ISKCON devotees. Oh, the burden....

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/23/99 8:23:09 PM Central Standard Time,

Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<<

Maybe it was other devotees who wanted to uphold vaishnav etiquette by

providing the space mentioned above? So that's another angle of vision; and

it's the job of the managers to uphold the culture, rules & regulations,

etc., no? >>

 

I don't know if it is that black and white, even though your point is well

taken. As you can see, we are not living in a vacuum, and nowadays there are

a lot of advocates and sympathizers for increased women's rights. So

managerial decisions in Vrndavana may have to take this more into

consideration when makng decisons concerning women.

 

BTW, I seem to reacall that Prabhupada said that when taking prasad, women

and children should be served first. Have you ever heard that? In any case,

in Iskcon it usually seems to be the other way around (except when I go to a

function organized by HIndus).

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 11/23/99 8:23:09 PM Central Standard Time,

> Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

>

> <<

> Maybe it was other devotees who wanted to uphold vaishnav etiquette by

> providing the space mentioned above? So that's another angle of vision;

> and it's the job of the managers to uphold the culture, rules &

> regulations, etc., no? >>

>

> I don't know if it is that black and white, even though your point is well

> taken. As you can see, we are not living in a vacuum, and nowadays there

> are a lot of advocates and sympathizers for increased women's rights. So

> managerial decisions in Vrndavana may have to take this more into

> consideration when makng decisons concerning women.

>

> BTW, I seem to reacall that Prabhupada said that when taking prasad, women

> and children should be served first. Have you ever heard that? In any

> case, in Iskcon it usually seems to be the other way around (except when I

> go to a function organized by HIndus).

 

Yes, I remember hearing/recalling having heard that women & children are to

be fed first... but it seems to me... maybe I'm wrong, that the idea is that

they are to be looked after... it's a householder situation type

instruction, no? At public functions and in institutions the tradition here

in India, not only in ISKCON, is that elderly/senior men are served first &

then the women & children... in any case they are served separately and most

times simultaneously.