Guest guest Posted November 22, 1999 Report Share Posted November 22, 1999 This is for the benefit of those who cannot browse the internet: Sannyasis Must Get Preferred Treatment by Anonymous November 20th, 1999 Just recently, Srila Prabhu had written a response to Mahaman Prabhu's side of the Vrindavan Temple controversey. In his response, he querried: >The personal PRIVILEGEs of a few sannyasis automatically outweighs and can >DISTURB the worship for the entire rank of ladies??? With regard to Srila Prabhu's query, I would have to unequivocally answer that yes, the "personal PRIVILEGEs" of even one sannyasi outweighs the personal privileges of an entire rank of ladies. That is the Vedic standard. If there is a question of who should have "first darshana", get the ghee-lamp first, sit on a more elevated platorm, then preference is ALWAYS given to sannyasis. Why? Because the sannyasi is the spiritual master for those in all other varnas and all other 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. A brahmana is considered to be the spiritual master of the three other sections of a society, namely, the ksatriyas, the vaisyas and the sudras, but a sannyasi, who is on the top of the institution, is considered to be the spiritual master of the brahmanas also." (BG 16.1-3 purport) Please note that the so-called "personal PRIVELEGE" is offered by Lord Vishnu Himself, through varnashrama dharma. So disrespecting this personal privelege is disrespecting Lord Vishnu's personal desire. Another point is that this respect offered to sannyasis is not simply because "Lord Vishnu said so", but because sannyasis, by virtue of their renunciation, are entitled to such respect: "The brahmacaris, the grhasthas, the vanaprasthas and the sannyasis all belong to the same mission of life, namely, realization of the Supreme. Therefore none of them are less important as far as spiritual culture is concerned. The difference is a matter of formality on the strength of renunciation. The sannyasis are held in high estimation on the strength of practical renunciation." (SB 1.7.2 purport) But ladies need "protection", "house", "bank balance", "beautiful saris", "jewelry", "children", etc. Is this also "practical renunciation"? The prostitute who became a disciple of Haridas Thakur gave up all her belongings, shaved her head, etc., so women should not think that with all their material possessions, saris, jewlry, earings, etc., that they are as renounced as sannyasis. Even Queen Kunti prayed like this: tatha paramahamsanam muninam amalatmana bhakti yoga vidanartha katham pasyema hi striayah "You Yourself descend to propagate the transcendental science of devotional service unto the hearts of great transcendentalists and mental speculators. How then can we women know you perfectly?" Of course, she is greater than any worldly sannyasi, no matter what his level of renunciation is, but her humility is as great as her renunciation. Our liberated ladies should imitate this behaviour before claming exemption from varnashrama duties, which Queen Kunti never did. Now, we come to a practical issue: what is the spiritual status of the members, in general, within our vaishnava society? Are most devotees (includinging senior devotees (non-female or otherwise), sannyasis, and women) liberated or materially conditioned (even if "ever-so-slightly"). Is Parvati Mataji exceptional? For a moment, let us assume that the sannyasis have some material conditioning (a safe position to assume) but are nonetheless true to their vows. After all, sannyas IS a material designation. The bottom line is that they are functioning as proper sannyasis, according to the principles of varnashrama dharma. Now, to the ladies: The demand for protection, as in the most recent outcry of Parvati Mataji, et al., etc., although it is a legitimate demand for ladies, designates them as materially conditioned souls. Why? Because a liberated soul is firmly convinced that wherever she may be, the Supreme Lord Krishna will protect her. "For a sannyasi, the first qualification should be fearlessness. Because a sannyasi has to be alone without any support or guarantee of support, he has simply to depend on the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one thinks, "After I leave my connections, who will protect me?" he should not accept the renounced order of life. One must be fully convinced that Krsna or the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His localized aspect as Paramatma is always within, that He is seeing everything and He always knows what one intends to do. One must thus have firm conviction that Krsna as Paramatma will take care of a soul surrendered to Him. "I shall never be alone," one should think. "Even if I live in the darkest regions of a forest I shall be accompanied by Krsna, and He will give me all protection." That conviction is called abhayam, fearlessness. This state of mind is necessary for a person in the renounced order of life." (BG 16.1-3 purport) One might say that this injunction applies to men, and not to women, because women are a special case. Not so: vipada santushta shashvat tatra-tatra jagad gurau bhavato darsanam yat syad apunar bhava darshanam "I wish that all those calamities would happen again and again, so that we could see you again and again, for seeing you means we will no longer see repeated births and deaths." (From prayers of Queen Kunti) And Goddess Laxmi prays: striyo vratais tva hrsikesvaram svato hy aradhya loke patim asasate 'nyam tasam na te vai paripanty apatyam priyam dhanayumsi yato 'sva-tantrah "My dear Lord, You are certainly the fully independent master of all the senses. Therefore all women who worship You by strictly observing vows because they wish to acquire a husband to satisfy their senses are surely under illusion. They do not know that such a husband cannot actually give protection to them or their children. Nor can he protect their wealth or duration of life, for he himself is dependent on time, fruitive results and the modes of nature, which are all subordinate to You." (SB 5.18.19) "[from the purport] In this verse, Laksmidevi (Rama) shows compassion toward women who worship the Lord for the benediction of possessing a good husband. Although such women desire to be happy with children, wealth, a long duration of life and everything dear to them, they cannot possibly do so. In the material world, a so-called husband is dependent on the control of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many examples of a woman whose husband, being dependent on the result of his own fruitive actions, cannot maintain his wife, her children, her wealth or her duration of life. Therefore, factually the only real husband of all women is Krsna, the supreme husband." The bottom line is that because Parvati Mataji and others have made such a hue and cry about their protection, it is to be understood that they are still materially conditioned souls, even if they think otherwise. If you are liberated, then follow in the footsteps of liberated ladies and depend on the Lord. But we see otherwise, and many so-called liberated ladies remarry and go through two, three or more husbands in the name of seeking protection but at the same time claim that they are not bound to be submissive, chaste, etc., as prescribed by varnashrama principles. Such liberated ladies would have us believe that every divorce that happens is the mans fault. I suppose we could say this--after all, even Srila Prabhupada "left his wife." And this was Srila Prabhuapda's opinion on "who's generally at fault:" Woman reporter: What happens when women are not subordinate to men? Prabhupada: Then there is disruption. There is disruption, social disruption. If the woman does not become subordinate to man, then there is social disruption. Therefore, in the western countries there are so many divorce cases because the woman does not agree to become subordinate to man. That is the cause. Woman reporter: What advice do you have to women who do not want to be subordinate to men? Prabhupada: It is not my advice, but it is the advice of the Vedic knowledge that woman should be chaste and faithful to man. (Television Interview: July 9, 1975, Chicago) [some devotees nowadays (even some of whom are in managerial positions) are even saying that Srila Prabhuapda was a chauvanist, and that his books have to be purged of this wrong understanding he had.] One might challenge that "What about Draupadi, was she a conditioned soul? Why was she demanding protection?" She, as well as the Pandavas, were still acting according to the designations of varnashrama, inspite of their liberated status. Even Krishna, the Supreme Lord Himself, performs prescribed duties, although He is not obliged to: utsideyur ime loka na kuryan karma cedaham sankarasya ca karta syam upahanyam ima prajah "If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings." (BG 3.24) Draupadi could successfully take care of 5 husbands. But we see that many of today's ladies can, if at all, barely take care of 1 husband. Many like to imitate the pastime of Draupadi chastising her husbands for failing to protect her in the rigged gambling match, but they will not imitate Draupadi's continuing to server her husbands so nicely, inspite of the fact. Draupadi is exhibiting the symptoms of a liberated soul because she is performing her prescribed duties, inspite of whatever else happens: yogah stha kuru karmani sangam tyaktva dhananjaya / siddhy-asiddhyo samo bhutva samatvam yoga ucyate, "Perform your duty equipoised, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga." (Bg Ch. 2) That is why this popular slogan, "If the ladies are treated well, they will respond in kind--if you will be like Rama, we will be like Sita", is just so much "balderdash." Why was Srila Prabhuapda's former wife uncooperative? Was she mistreated? Or Ramanajuacarya's former wife? What did Ramanujacarya do to make her unsubmissive? And there are other examples. One thing many women (and men who are also feminists) wrongly consider is that women will "automatically reciprocate" with their partners. This is wrong because women also have free will, and are also subject to the actions and reactions of their activities. They are not simply some automatic soda machine that you put 50 cents in and get your soda. Of course, reciprocation is there. But IF YOUR DEVOTIONAL SERVICE IS DEPENDENT ON YOUR MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW OTHERS DEAL WITH YOU, ETC., THEN YOU ARE A CONDITIONED SOUL. Therefore, besides bhagavata marg, you also have to follow duties prescribed for conditioned souls. The point is, just because the whole world falls down, it does not mean we should fall down. The best example is that of Mandodari. Her husband was Ravana, but she is nonethless considered one of the world's all-time most chaste women--she was not giving up her religious principles because of her husband (and she never divorced her husband, either): "Not only was mother Sita powerful, but any woman who follows in the footsteps of mother Sita can also become similarly powerful. There are many instances of this in the history of Vedic literature. Whenever we find a description of ideal chaste women, mother Sita is among them. Mandodari, the wife of Ravana, was also very chaste. Similarly, Draupadi was one of five exalted chaste women. As a man must follow great personalities like Brahmi and Narada, a woman must follow the path of such ideal women as Sita, Mandodari and Draupadi. By staying chaste and faithful to her husband, a woman enriches herself with supernatural power." (SB 9.10.27 purport) So, let's be realistic, the ladies who are making this big stink are still conditioned souls. As such, they are obliged to follow the rules of varnashrama dharma. If they DONT follow, then the material energy will penalize them. All divorces, woes, lack of protection, etc., are all deserved--both for men and women. And yes, this is what the shastra concludes: rajaovaca dharmam bravisi dharam-jna dharmo 'si vrsa-rupa-dhruk yad adharma-krta-sthanam sucakasyapi tad bhavet "Pariksit Maharaj said, Oh you who are in the form of a bull, you know the truth of religion and are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of sinful acts is also intended for the one who indentifies the perpetrator. You are none other than the personality of religion." (SB 1, Chapter 17 text 22) I leave it to the readers to go through the purport of this verse, which also beautifully describes the difference in behaviour between a liberated soul and a conditioned soul, but here is a small excerpt: "The cow and bull never placed any complaint before the King for being tortured by the personality of Kali, although everyone lodges such complaints before the state authorities. The extraordinary behavior of the bull made the King conclude that the bull was certainly the personality of religion, for no one else could understand the finer intricacies of the codes of religion." So we see that Parvati Mataji, et al., by their behaviour, are ordinary souls, not liberated souls. And Parvati Mataji is not extraordiary, either. Since conditioned souls are obliged to follow the rules and regulations of varnashram dharma, WHICH PRESCRIBE THAT SANNYASIS BE GIVEN ALL RESPECT, AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY, Parvati and others are obliged to offer the special respect that is due to those in the sannyasa ashrama. They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive behaviour bears fruit. ys Anonymous das © 1999, GHQD.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 1999 Report Share Posted November 22, 1999 Christopher Shannon wrote: > [Text 2798865 from COM] > > This is for the benefit of those who cannot browse the internet: This is for the benefit of those who weren't on the conferences where I already responded to this. Let me stipulate in advance that I have no idea if Parvati is just some pushy ambitious devotee seeking mundane power in ISKCON. She may be. We certainly have too numerous examples of such behaviors amongst the men, so I am not so naive as to think that there aren't women capable of the same behavior. I apologise to the devotee part of her for that statement, and apologise in advance to any sannyasis who may be offended by the broad brush strokes I am about to make, as I really don't know any of the sannyasis involved. My dealings here speak more to the consciousness of Anonymous das. As to the form of Anonymous' essay, let me relate a little story. Two friends for selling watermelon off the back of a truck for $1 a piece. After a while one of them turned to the other and asked "How much did we pay for these watermelons?" "$1" "How can we make money if we are also selling them for $1?" "Don't worry, we'll make up for it with volume." > > > > > "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. A brahmana is considered to > > be the spiritual master of the three other sections of a society, namely, > > the ksatriyas, the vaisyas and the sudras, but a sannyasi, who is on the > > top of the institution, is considered to be the spiritual master of the > > brahmanas also." (BG 16.1-3 purport). Why? Let us read the 2 immediate following sentences. "For a sannyasi, the first qualification should be fearlessness. Because a sannyäsi has to be alone without any support or guarantee of support, he has simply to depend on the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Sure sounds like the Vrindavan sannyasia are asking for a guarantuee of support in their dealings. Anonymous' quote: > > > > For a moment, let us assume that the sannyasis have some material > > conditioning (a safe position to assume) but are nonetheless true to their > > vows. After all, sannyas IS a material designation. And again: > > > > > Of course, reciprocation is there. But IF YOUR DEVOTIONAL SERVICE IS > > DEPENDENT ON YOUR MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW OTHERS DEAL WITH YOU, ETC., > > THEN YOU ARE A CONDITIONED SOUL. Applying the same standard not just to women, but to sannyasis also, who was originally asking for the special circumstance? (with all due respect to any sannyasi caught in the middle of this who may be actually deserving of respect). > > > > So, let's be realistic, the ladies who are making this big stink are still > > conditioned souls. Judgeth I , from my most high and mighty vantage point. > As such, they are obliged to follow the rules of > > varnashrama dharma. If they DONT follow, then the material energy will > > penalize them. Letter to: Himavati -- Hawaii 18 March, 1969 69-03-18 My Dear Himavati, Please accept my blessings. I thank you very much for your letter dated February 21, 1969, along with the Deity dress. It has come to me late on account of changing places so quickly and the statement given by you in the matter of worshiping the Deity is super excellent. Please continue this system and Krishna will bestow upon you all blessings. If one attains perfection in Deity worship, that is called Arcana Siddhi. Arcana Siddhi means simply by Deity worship one goes back to Godhead, immediately after this life. So this Arcana Siddhi program is given in the Narada Pancaratra especially for the householders. Householders cannot undergo strict disciplinary activities of austerity, therefore for every householder the path of Arcana Siddhi is very much recommended. According to Vedic system, all householders are ordered to keep Deity at home and follow strictly the worshipment process. That makes the home pure, body pure, mind pure, and quickly promotes one to the pure platform of spiritual life. The temple is also specially meant for the householders. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Himavati -- Hawaii 18 March, 1969 So although Srila Prabhupada herein clearly indicates that Deity worship is meant for householders, I would propose that we still don't exclude those sannyasis from Deity worship if they also are having difficulty living in the forest. After all, strict disciplinary activities of austerity are simply material. > Since conditioned souls are obliged to follow the rules and > > regulations of varnashram dharma, WHICH PRESCRIBE THAT SANNYASIS BE GIVEN >> ALL RESPECT, AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY, Yes, we can't expect them to perform the austerity of forgoing their daily dose of adoration and distinction. > > > > > They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive > > behaviour bears fruit. > > > > ys Anonymous das Here an offense, there an offense, everywhere an offense offense. ISOFCON. The International Society of Offense Finding Consciousness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 1999 Report Share Posted November 22, 1999 Hare Krsna, Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. I have wondered if there was anything that I could add to this lengthy, lengthy, discussion about the position of women, sannyasis, etc......I must say that I can only appreciate the article below, in it's succinctness and straightforwardness, and it's use of scripture to support a conclusion. These types of presentations are much needed, as so many of us, myself included, tend to act on our emotions so often. To my sense of justice, this particular offering strikes as extremely well presented and conclusive. Thank you very much.....but why anonymous? Sincerely, Mata Mahalaksmi Dasi - Christopher Shannon <cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net> COM: Babhru (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) <Babhru.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; COM: Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) <Bhadra.Balaram.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; Maria Ekstrand <ekstrand (AT) slip (DOT) net>; COM: Tirtharaj (das) TKG (Brisbane - AU) <Tirtharaj.TKG (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; William R. Reed <wreed (AT) mail (DOT) sdsu.edu>; COM: India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum) <India.Open (AT) bbt (DOT) se> Cc: COM: DMW (Dharma of Men and Women) <DMW (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; COM: ISKCON India (news & discussion) <ISKCON.India (AT) bbt (DOT) se>; COM: Prabhupada Disciples <Prabhupada.Disciples (AT) bbt (DOT) se> Monday, November 22, 1999 5:46 AM Sannyasis Must Get Preferred Treatment > [Text 2798865 from COM] > > This is for the benefit of those who cannot browse the internet: > > Sannyasis Must Get Preferred Treatment > by Anonymous > November 20th, 1999 > > Just recently, Srila Prabhu had written a response to Mahaman Prabhu's side > of the Vrindavan Temple controversey. In his response, he querried: > > >The personal PRIVILEGEs of a few sannyasis automatically outweighs and can > >DISTURB the worship for the entire rank of ladies??? > > With regard to Srila Prabhu's query, I would have to unequivocally answer > that yes, the "personal PRIVILEGEs" of even one sannyasi outweighs the > personal privileges of an entire rank of ladies. That is the Vedic standard. > If there is a question of who should have "first darshana", get the > ghee-lamp first, sit on a more elevated platorm, then preference is ALWAYS > given to sannyasis. Why? > > Because the sannyasi is the spiritual master for those in all other varnas > and all other 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. A brahmana is considered to be the spiritual > master of the three other sections of a society, namely, the ksatriyas, the > vaisyas and the sudras, but a sannyasi, who is on the top of the > institution, is considered to be the spiritual master of the brahmanas > also." (BG 16.1-3 purport) > > Please note that the so-called "personal PRIVELEGE" is offered by Lord > Vishnu Himself, through varnashrama dharma. So disrespecting this personal > privelege is disrespecting Lord Vishnu's personal desire. > > Another point is that this respect offered to sannyasis is not simply > because "Lord Vishnu said so", but because sannyasis, by virtue of their > renunciation, are entitled to such respect: > > "The brahmacaris, the grhasthas, the vanaprasthas and the sannyasis all > belong to the same mission of life, namely, realization of the Supreme. > Therefore none of them are less important as far as spiritual culture is > concerned. The difference is a matter of formality on the strength of > renunciation. The sannyasis are held in high estimation on the strength of > practical renunciation." (SB 1.7.2 purport) > > But ladies need "protection", "house", "bank balance", "beautiful saris", > "jewelry", "children", etc. Is this also "practical renunciation"? The > prostitute who became a disciple of Haridas Thakur gave up all her > belongings, shaved her head, etc., so women should not think that with all > their material possessions, saris, jewlry, earings, etc., that they are as > renounced as sannyasis. Even Queen Kunti prayed like this: > > tatha paramahamsanam muninam amalatmana bhakti yoga vidanartha katham > pasyema hi striayah > > "You Yourself descend to propagate the transcendental science of devotional > service unto the hearts of great transcendentalists and mental speculators. > How then can we women know you perfectly?" > > Of course, she is greater than any worldly sannyasi, no matter what his > level of renunciation is, but her humility is as great as her renunciation. > Our liberated ladies should imitate this behaviour before claming exemption > from varnashrama duties, which Queen Kunti never did. > > Now, we come to a practical issue: what is the spiritual status of the > members, in general, within our vaishnava society? Are most devotees > (includinging senior devotees (non-female or otherwise), sannyasis, and > women) liberated or materially conditioned (even if "ever-so-slightly"). Is > Parvati Mataji exceptional? > > For a moment, let us assume that the sannyasis have some material > conditioning (a safe position to assume) but are nonetheless true to their > vows. After all, sannyas IS a material designation. The bottom line is that > they are functioning as proper sannyasis, according to the principles of > varnashrama dharma. > > Now, to the ladies: The demand for protection, as in the most recent outcry > of Parvati Mataji, et al., etc., although it is a legitimate demand for > ladies, designates them as materially conditioned souls. > > Why? Because a liberated soul is firmly convinced that wherever she may be, > the Supreme Lord Krishna will protect her. > > "For a sannyasi, the first qualification should be fearlessness. Because a > sannyasi has to be alone without any support or guarantee of support, he has > simply to depend on the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one > thinks, "After I leave my connections, who will protect me?" he should not > accept the renounced order of life. One must be fully convinced that Krsna > or the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His localized aspect as Paramatma > is always within, that He is seeing everything and He always knows what one > intends to do. One must thus have firm conviction that Krsna as Paramatma > will take care of a soul surrendered to Him. "I shall never be alone," one > should think. "Even if I live in the darkest regions of a forest I shall be > accompanied by Krsna, and He will give me all protection." That conviction > is called abhayam, fearlessness. This state of mind is necessary for a > person in the renounced order of life." (BG 16.1-3 purport) > > One might say that this injunction applies to men, and not to women, because > women are a special case. Not so: > > vipada santushta shashvat tatra-tatra jagad gurau bhavato darsanam yat syad > apunar bhava darshanam > > "I wish that all those calamities would happen again and again, so that we > could see you again and again, for seeing you means we will no longer see > repeated births and deaths." (From prayers of Queen Kunti) > > And Goddess Laxmi prays: > > striyo vratais tva hrsikesvaram svato hy aradhya loke patim asasate 'nyam > > tasam na te vai paripanty apatyam priyam dhanayumsi yato 'sva-tantrah > > "My dear Lord, You are certainly the fully independent master of all the > senses. Therefore all women who worship You by strictly observing vows > because they wish to acquire a husband to satisfy their senses are surely > under illusion. They do not know that such a husband cannot actually give > protection to them or their children. Nor can he protect their wealth or > duration of life, for he himself is dependent on time, fruitive results and > the modes of nature, which are all subordinate to You." (SB 5.18.19) > > "[from the purport] In this verse, Laksmidevi (Rama) shows compassion toward > women who worship the Lord for the benediction of possessing a good husband. > Although such women desire to be happy with children, wealth, a long > duration of life and everything dear to them, they cannot possibly do so. In > the material world, a so-called husband is dependent on the control of the > Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many examples of a woman whose > husband, being dependent on the result of his own fruitive actions, cannot > maintain his wife, her children, her wealth or her duration of life. > Therefore, factually the only real husband of all women is Krsna, the > supreme husband." > > The bottom line is that because Parvati Mataji and others have made such a > hue and cry about their protection, it is to be understood that they are > still materially conditioned souls, even if they think otherwise. > > If you are liberated, then follow in the footsteps of liberated ladies and > depend on the Lord. But we see otherwise, and many so-called liberated > ladies remarry and go through two, three or more husbands in the name of > seeking protection but at the same time claim that they are not bound to be > submissive, chaste, etc., as prescribed by varnashrama principles. Such > liberated ladies would have us believe that every divorce that happens is > the mans fault. I suppose we could say this--after all, even Srila > Prabhupada "left his wife." And this was Srila Prabhuapda's opinion on > "who's generally at fault:" > > Woman reporter: What happens when women are not subordinate to men? > Prabhupada: Then there is disruption. There is disruption, social > disruption. If the woman does not become subordinate to man, then there is > social disruption. Therefore, in the western countries there are so many > divorce cases because the woman does not agree to become subordinate to man. > That is the cause. > Woman reporter: What advice do you have to women who do not want to be > subordinate to men? > Prabhupada: It is not my advice, but it is the advice of the Vedic knowledge > that woman should be chaste and faithful to man. (Television Interview: July > 9, 1975, Chicago) > > [some devotees nowadays (even some of whom are in managerial positions) are > even saying that Srila Prabhuapda was a chauvanist, and that his books have > to be purged of this wrong understanding he had.] > > One might challenge that "What about Draupadi, was she a conditioned soul? > Why was she demanding protection?" She, as well as the Pandavas, were still > acting according to the designations of varnashrama, inspite of their > liberated status. Even Krishna, the Supreme Lord Himself, performs > prescribed duties, although He is not obliged to: > > utsideyur ime loka na kuryan karma cedaham sankarasya ca karta syam > upahanyam ima prajah > > "If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to > ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would > thereby destroy the peace of all living beings." (BG 3.24) > > Draupadi could successfully take care of 5 husbands. But we see that many of > today's ladies can, if at all, barely take care of 1 husband. Many like to > imitate the pastime of Draupadi chastising her husbands for failing to > protect her in the rigged gambling match, but they will not imitate > Draupadi's continuing to server her husbands so nicely, inspite of the fact. > > Draupadi is exhibiting the symptoms of a liberated soul because she is > performing her prescribed duties, inspite of whatever else happens: yogah > stha kuru karmani sangam tyaktva dhananjaya / siddhy-asiddhyo samo bhutva > samatvam yoga ucyate, "Perform your duty equipoised, abandoning all > attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga." (Bg Ch. > 2) > > That is why this popular slogan, "If the ladies are treated well, they will > respond in kind--if you will be like Rama, we will be like Sita", is just so > much "balderdash." > > Why was Srila Prabhuapda's former wife uncooperative? Was she mistreated? Or > Ramanajuacarya's former wife? What did Ramanujacarya do to make her > unsubmissive? And there are other examples. One thing many women (and men > who are also feminists) wrongly consider is that women will "automatically > reciprocate" with their partners. This is wrong because women also have free > will, and are also subject to the actions and reactions of their activities. > They are not simply some automatic soda machine that you put 50 cents in and > get your soda. > > Of course, reciprocation is there. But IF YOUR DEVOTIONAL SERVICE IS > DEPENDENT ON YOUR MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW OTHERS DEAL WITH YOU, ETC., > THEN YOU ARE A CONDITIONED SOUL. Therefore, besides bhagavata marg, you also > have to follow duties prescribed for conditioned souls. > > The point is, just because the whole world falls down, it does not mean we > should fall down. The best example is that of Mandodari. Her husband was > Ravana, but she is nonethless considered one of the world's all-time most > chaste women--she was not giving up her religious principles because of her > husband (and she never divorced her husband, either): > > "Not only was mother Sita powerful, but any woman who follows in the > footsteps of mother Sita can also become similarly powerful. There are many > instances of this in the history of Vedic literature. Whenever we find a > description of ideal chaste women, mother Sita is among them. Mandodari, the > wife of Ravana, was also very chaste. Similarly, Draupadi was one of five > exalted chaste women. As a man must follow great personalities like Brahmi > and Narada, a woman must follow the path of such ideal women as Sita, > Mandodari and Draupadi. By staying chaste and faithful to her husband, a > woman enriches herself with supernatural power." (SB 9.10.27 purport) > > So, let's be realistic, the ladies who are making this big stink are still > conditioned souls. As such, they are obliged to follow the rules of > varnashrama dharma. If they DONT follow, then the material energy will > penalize them. All divorces, woes, lack of protection, etc., are all > deserved--both for men and women. And yes, this is what the shastra > concludes: > > rajaovaca > dharmam bravisi dharam-jna dharmo 'si vrsa-rupa-dhruk yad > adharma-krta-sthanam sucakasyapi tad bhavet > > "Pariksit Maharaj said, Oh you who are in the form of a bull, you know the > truth of religion and are speaking according to the principle that the > destination intended for the perpetrator of sinful acts is also intended for > the one who indentifies the perpetrator. You are none other than the > personality of religion." (SB 1, Chapter 17 text 22) > > I leave it to the readers to go through the purport of this verse, which > also beautifully describes the difference in behaviour between a liberated > soul and a conditioned soul, but here is a small excerpt: > > "The cow and bull never placed any complaint before the King for being > tortured by the personality of Kali, although everyone lodges such > complaints before the state authorities. The extraordinary behavior of the > bull made the King conclude that the bull was certainly the personality of > religion, for no one else could understand the finer intricacies of the > codes of religion." > > So we see that Parvati Mataji, et al., by their behaviour, are ordinary > souls, not liberated souls. And Parvati Mataji is not extraordiary, either. > Since conditioned souls are obliged to follow the rules and regulations of > varnashram dharma, WHICH PRESCRIBE THAT SANNYASIS BE GIVEN ALL RESPECT, AND > PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY, Parvati and others > are obliged to offer the special respect that is due to those in the > sannyasa ashrama. > > They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive > behaviour bears fruit. > > ys Anonymous das > > > > © 1999, GHQD.org > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.