How does the GBC propose to engage senior Vaisnavis in devotional

November 22, 1999

>Opposite side of the question is, if the men aren't acting in an ideal

way,

>should the women still be held to that ideal standard?

Should someone give up dharma because another person gives up dharma? No.

The sequence that will naturally follow from your question (and my

subsequent answer) is this:

Men had used force on the women

Men using force on women is adharmic

Therefore, the men had acted adharmically. QED

But the second premise is not true under all circumstances. We see in

shastra that in circumstances where women are adharmic and unruly

(particularly when they are physically agressive), the second premise is not

always true.

When the Earth took the form of a cow (and therefore a woman) to avoid

punishment, Prithu Maharaja's determination to chastise her was undetered

unless she immediately acted appropriately.

When Suparnakha attacked Sita, Laxman cut off her ears and nose.

In both circumstances both the Earth and Suparnakha were acting adharmically

and were unruly. In both circumstances, they were subject to corporeal

chastisement.

So, since a section of women in Vrindavan were disrespectful to the temple

management and the sannyas order, and they became physically agressive,

their expectation for protection was unreasonable. You can say that the

Temple's policies had provoked them, but then it comes down to a question of

whether or not the temple's policies were fair or not, which is the real

issue.

The women were not barred from coming foward for darshan, but they were

asked to stand back until after the ghee lamp was offered, in order to give

the men, particularly the sannyasis, a chance to offer their obeisances at

the begining of arati. Then they could come forward.

Why do you think that a sannyasi should not be given the first opportunity

to offer obeisances to the Deities, etc., when a sannyasi is to be regarded

as the spiritual master of all varnas and ashramas (including women)?

November 22, 1999

In a message dated 11/22/1999 12:00:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Madhusudani.Radha.JPS (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

<<

Prabhupada set up ISKCON for us. We're all free to choose if we want to

join Prabhupada's ISKCON or the GHQ. I know what I'm choosing.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

>>

I agree. I will follow Prabhupada's ISKCON. The GHQ is a cult.

YS,

Prtha dd

November 23, 1999

>I do not see any sense in continuing this correspondence...

Mataji; after reading this & the rest of your response to my letter...

I agree.

Goodbye and goodluck.

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

B€su Ghosh D€s

November 23, 1999

> >

> > The point is this, if men: grihasthas, sannyasis, gurus, etc., are

> > expected to act in an ideal way (even if they aren't), then why not the

> > women? Unless they truly want to be second-class citizens.

>

> Good point, and well put forth.

>

> Opposite side of the question is, if the men aren't acting in an ideal

> way, should the women still be held to that ideal standard?

So the implied logic here is that we should all remain like animals - all

neglecting to develop the behavior recommended in vedic literatures?

November 23, 1999

>>So the implied logic here is that we should all remain like animals - all

neglecting to develop the behavior recommended in vedic literatures?>>

No the men should develop qualities in accordance with their dharma so that

the women will feel protected and no longer have to stand up for themselves.

Then many of their qualities that you're looking for will most likely manifest

too. But you're putting the cart before the horse. As long as women are

unprotected, they will have to take care of themselves. We're not like the

cows who had no option but to allow themselves to be led to slaughter.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

November 23, 1999

"COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)" wrote:

> [Text 2800634 from COM]

>

> > >

> > > The point is this, if men: grihasthas, sannyasis, gurus, etc., are

> > > expected to act in an ideal way (even if they aren't), then why not the

> > > women? Unless they truly want to be second-class citizens.

> >

> > Good point, and well put forth.

> >

> > Opposite side of the question is, if the men aren't acting in an ideal

> > way, should the women still be held to that ideal standard?

>

> So the implied logic here is that we should all remain like animals - all

> neglecting to develop the behavior recommended in vedic literatures?

I wouldn't have been able to twist that out of there. The intent was to convey

that we should judge one class by a standard and condemn them, while exempting

another and glorifying them.

The idea is that we need to help bring people up, not push people down.

Become exemplary by raising our own standard, not make our standrd the de

facto best by pushing other's down.

November 23, 1999

> At 5:54 -0800 11/22/99, COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) wrote:

> >

> >How about "managing" to organize ladies in a particular area to engage in

> >various devotional activities, i.e. making clothes, garlands, jewelry,

> >etc., for the Deities? Along these lines I'm sure that there are

> >unlimited engagements in the service of the Lord for the female members

> >of our society.

>

> Sure, for those women who have talents in these areas. However, again,

> Prabhupada's program was not to limit his female disciples in their

> devotional service. Rather he engaged each of his disciples according to

> *individual* talents and skills.

A better way to go about expressing your personal opinions would be to

"suggest" rather than "state" them as if they were already conclusive - or

saying that they are "Prabhupada's program".

As the purports written by Srila Prabhupada below clearly indicate, there is

something amiss with your conception of SP's instructions regarding the role

of females. That is why a number of devotees have already protested your

expressed desire, which was revealed in the VAST conference texts, to

"rewrite" Srila Prabhupada's purports to more reflect your personal views.

> GHQ wants to limit and control women and keep them submissive.

Guess we'll have to change Srila Prabhupada's name to GHQ, eh? :-)

According to your logic, oh respected, revered and most wise Mataji. After

all, you ARE holding a PhD, no? :-)

"Here are some of the qualities of a great husband’s great wife. Kardama

Muni is great by spiritual qualification. Such a husband is called

tejiyasam, most powerful. Although a wife may be equal to her husband in

advancement in spiritual consciousness, she should not be vainly proud.

Sometimes it happens that the wife comes from a very rich family, as did

Devahüti, the daughter of Emperor Svayambhuva Manu. She could have been very

proud of her parentage, but that is forbidden. The wife should not be proud

of her parental position. She must always be submissive to the husband and

must give up all vanity. As soon as the wife becomes proud of her parentage,

her pride creates great misunderstanding between the husband and wife, and

their nuptial life is ruined. Devahuti was very careful about that, and

therefore it is said here that she gave up pride completely. Devahüti was

not unfaithful. The most sinful activity for a wife is to accept another

husband or another lover. Chanakya Pandita has described four kinds of

enemies at home. If the father is in debt he is considered to be an enemy;

if the mother has selected another husband in the presence of her grown-up

children, she is considered to be an enemy; if a wife does not live well

with her husband but deals very roughly, then she is an enemy; and if a son

is a fool, he is also an enemy. In family life, father, mother, wife and

children are assets, but if the wife or mother accepts another husband in

the presence of her husband or son, then, according to Vedic civilization,

she is considered an enemy. A chaste and faithful woman must not practice

adultery—that is a greatly sinful act." (SP in SB 3.23.3 Purport)

"A wife is always supposed to be submissive to her husband. Submission, mild

behavior and subservience are qualities in a wife which make a husband very

thoughtful of her. For family life it is very good for a husband to be

attached to his wife, but it is not very good for spiritual advancement.

Thus Krsna consciousness must be established in every home. If a husband and

wife are very much attached to one another in Krsna consciousness, they will

both benefit because Krsna is the center of their existence. Otherwise, if

the husband is too much attached to his wife, he becomes a woman in his next

life. The woman, being overly attached to her husband, becomes a man in her

next life. Of course, it is an advantage for a woman to become a man, but it

is not at all advantageous for the man to become a woman." (SP in SB 4.28.19

Purport)

"This is an indication of the relationship between husband and wife. A great

personality like Cyavana Muni has the temperament of always wanting to be in

a superior position. Such a person cannot submit to anyone. Therefore,

Cyavana Muni had an irritable temperament. His wife, Sukanyä, could

understand his attitude, and under the circumstances she treated him

accordingly. If any wife wants to be happy with her husband, she must try to

understand her husband’s temperament and please him. This is victory for a

woman. Even in the dealings of Lord Krsna with His different queens, it has

been seen that although the queens were the daughters of great kings, they

placed themselves before Lord Krsna as His maidservants. However great a

woman may be, she must place herself before her husband in this way; that is

to say, she must be ready to carry out her husband’s orders and please him

in all circumstances. Then her life will be successful. When the wife

becomes as irritable as the husband, their life at home is sure to be

disturbed or ultimately completely broken. In the modern day, the wife is

never submissive, and therefore home life is broken even by slight

incidents. Either the wife or the husband may take advantage of the divorce

laws. According to the Vedic law, however, there is no such thing as divorce

laws, and a woman must be trained to be submissive to the will of her

husband. Westerners contend that this is a slave mentality for the wife, but

factually it is not; it is the tactic by which a woman can conquer the heart

of her husband, however irritable or cruel he may be. In this case we

clearly see that although Cyavana Muni was not young but indeed old enough

to be Sukanya’s grandfather and was also very irritable, Sukanya, the

beautiful young daughter of a king, submitted herself to her old husband and

tried to please him in all respects. Thus she was a faithful and chaste

wife." (SP in SB 9.3.10 Purport)

> Prabhupada wanted to empower women to serve Guru and Krsna according to

> their individual propensities.

This statement simply doesn't stand in view of Srila Prabhupada's clear

instructions in his books... right here above.

Again; "and a woman must be trained to be submissive to the will of her

husband. Westerners contend that this is a slave mentality for the wife, but

factually it is not; it is the tactic by which a woman can conquer the heart

of her husband" (SP in SB 9.3.10).

My most humble entreaty to you and those who's unreasonable opinions

blatantly contradict these clear teachings is this; please change your

opinion. Just as all of us westeners changed our opinions about so many

other things when we became disciples of Srila Prabhupada or "disciples of

his disciples". (notice the plug for the new "Disciple of my disciple"

video that is now available from ITV, Los Angeles).

> Prabhupada set up ISKCON for us. We're all free to choose if we want to

> join Prabhupada's ISKCON or the GHQ. I know what I'm choosing.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

Honestly, Mataji, you've chosen the "Madhusudani Radha dasi Society for

Eclectic Consciousness". Kindly consider the facts in light of Srila

Prabhupada's instructions so clearly given in his purports presented above

for your true welfare. Females, as I had written earlier (that you have so

kindly quoted above) indeed can engage in multifarious services to the Lord.

But their demeanor ought be modelled after the ideal examples presented to

us by Srila Prabhupada in Srimad Bhagavatam.

And that IS NOT one of political activism for "gender equality" in the name

of Srila Prabhupada... of all people!

Honestly I wish you well; I feel no ill will towards you whatsoever.

Your well wisher,

Basu Ghosh Das

November 23, 1999

At 6:51 -0800 11/23/99, COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) wrote:

>

>As the purports written by Srila Prabhupada below clearly indicate,

Hmmmm..... I thought you and your group told us that you had superior

intelligence to us mere women. How disappointing. However, that first

batch of quotes were *eaxctly* what I had previously mentioned would not

hold up as evidence. There is *not a single quote* in there in which

Prabhupada said that his female disciples or granddisciples can't serve

according to their individual skills and talents. In the absence of such

evidence we must use his personal example and we have lots of those

instances which show that he thought everyone's individual propensities

should be used in the service of Guru or Krsna, regardless of bodily

designation.

The later quote you provided (SP in SB 9.3.10) simply talked about women

being submissive to their husbands and many of your previous quotes

addressed this point too. What does that have to do with their right to

perform the devotional service according to their propensities? Or are you

trying to argue that a married woman can only perform the devotional

service allowed by her husband? If so, I guess that means that none of you

men in the GHQ can tell any women, except your own wives, what service we

can and can not perform. What a relief!

My request to you still stands. Please show us quotes in which is

Prabhupada says that ISKCON girls can not study at universities (current or

future generations), and that there is/will later be a policy saying that

female devotees in ISKCON will be limited from certain types of devotional

service, based on their sex.

Until then, the logical error is yours and Prabhupada can obviously not be

given GHQ membership. Just wishing it was so won't make it true. ;-)

I won't even address your ridiculous notion that these are simply my ideas

or feminist ideas. That's a very common tactic to try to split your

opposition when you feel that they're too strong.

Besides, the notion that devotees in women bodies are entitled to do the

devotional service for which they are skilled or talented is not in any

book on feminism that I've ever seen. But then again, I haven't read that

many. So if you're so up on the feminist literature, maybe you can supply

us with those quotes too. That would be a nice service.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

November 23, 1999

In a message dated 11/22/99 8:02:44 AM Central Standard Time,

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

<< And by going on & on about "abuse" - which in fact, as I pointed out, is

NOT

the subject of this discussion, a diversionary tactic is being raised by

which it is hoped that the "separation of the sexes" will end!

Do you think this is what Srila Prabhupada and vedic culture really desires?

I ask this without a bit of sarcasm; honestly.

>>

What I am seeing more and more here in America, (maybe this was obvious

before but I was blind to it), is that westerners, including initiated

devotees, do not adapt so well to many vedic principles. I am not saying this

is good, I am only saying that this is how it is and I can only see this

trend increasing. So my previous post was written from this perspective. So

although this or that vedic cultural etiquette of activity may be better, if

devotees really can't fully embrace them even after 30 years in the movement,

we have to acknowledge this and deal with it accordingly. Thus some will say

these vedic principles are not better, meaning that they may alienate people

and discourage them in devotional service. Sounds like a paradox, but it is

real.

Often times I think, "This is not what Prabhupada wanted," but this is how

things are going. Even I look at myself and see basically a western man

practicing devotional service with all kinds of western ideas and very little

real vaisnava culture. And I can see how certain western ideas are better

suited to westerners i.e it just works for them. I can see, on the other

hand, that you were defintiely an Indian in your past life and are basically

one in this life. Thus, you are full of appreciation for its culture and how

it works. This, I think, is why we tend to see things on slightly opposite

sides of the scale. I notice the way Prabhupada adjusted his preaching to

adapt to the western world and mentality and you notice the things Prabhupada

said and did to establish vaisnava and vedic culture. They are both there.

The bottom line is whatever makes us and world the world KC, we have to

accept. And that is probably going to be different for different people.

Your servant,

Mahatma dasa

November 23, 1999

In a message dated 11/22/99 10:10:53 AM Central Standard Time,

cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net writes:

< Since many (or most) women in Iskcon were neither raised in India nor

live in India, we cannot expect all of them to react in the ideal vedic way

to situations where they feel their rights are being minimized.>>

Why is this exception made for women and not for men, many of whom also

never grew up in India, nor live in India?>>

You gave the example of a man going with a woman other than his wife. I was

not referring to such extreme behavior. I was just thinking of how it is

difficult to be totally vedic for many westerners.

You also said that if we are to =be more leberal with women we should be

more liberal towards sannyasis if they are not ideal. I think we are, at

least by the standards that Bhaktisiddhanta set for sannyaisis.

I think the reality is that most westerners are not ideally suited to be

overly vedic. Bhurijana Prabhu had once mentioned this in regards to western

boys trained in India. He saw that in most cases, they were just different

than the Indian boys and would never really be like them.

Your servant,

Mahatma dasa

November 24, 1999

>

> "COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)" wrote:

>

> > [Text 2800634 from COM]

> >

> > > >

> > > > The point is this, if men: grihasthas, sannyasis, gurus, etc., are

> > > > expected to act in an ideal way (even if they aren't), then why not

> > > > the women? Unless they truly want to be second-class citizens.

> > >

> > > Good point, and well put forth.

> > >

> > > Opposite side of the question is, if the men aren't acting in an

> > > ideal way, should the women still be held to that ideal standard?

> >

> > So the implied logic here is that we should all remain like animals -

> > all neglecting to develop the behavior recommended in vedic literatures?

>

> I wouldn't have been able to twist that out of there. The intent was to

> convey that we should judge one class by a standard and condemn them,

> while exempting another and glorifying them.

>

> The idea is that we need to help bring people up, not push people down.

> Become exemplary by raising our own standard, not make our standrd the de

> facto best by pushing other's down. Wise words... well put.

For once I agree with you fully, MG Prabhu...

And yet if certain agressive ladies try to smash the traditions that are

intact in Vrindavan without resorting to a dialogue... trying to force a

change right there in the Mandir by fighting... should we remain quiet?

November 24, 1999

>despite what Madhusudani Radha dd

>may write here, I for one have no desire to take anything or rather "the

>right to engage in devotional service" from the ladies as she rather

>baselessly accuses me of doing time & again.

I'm very happy to hear that, although it wasn't quite what I said. However,

I won't quibble over words, but assume that my accusations were unjust. I

said that you wanted to *limit* women's devotional service and that you

didn't want us to be engaged according to our individual skills and

talents. So I'm assuming that those statements were wrong and for that I

apologize. So I can then conclude that if women have managerial talents,

you have no objection to them utlizing those in Krsna's service by managing

His temples, His regions, or by sitting on the GBC?

Further, if a woman has scholarly talents, you have no problem with her

studying to be a doctor to work in the Mumbai Bhaktivedanta hospital, where

she would be treating devotees, or with her studying law to become a lawyer

for ISKCON in Krsna's service (and God knows we need them so we can relieve

child molesters of this task)? Similarly, if a woman is very good at

philosophy and is a good speaker, you have no problem with her giving SB

class? And if a woman has a wonderful voice, you don't mind her leading

kirtana?

Thank you! I guess we have nothing left to fight about.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

November 24, 1999

Mahatma Prabhu stated:

> What I am seeing more and more here in America, (maybe this was obvious

> before but I was blind to it), is that westerners, including initiated

> devotees, do not adapt so well to many vedic principles. I am not saying

> this is good, I am only saying that this is how it is and I can only see

> this trend increasing. So my previous post was written from this

> perspective. So although this or that vedic cultural etiquette of activity

> may be better, if devotees really can't fully embrace them even after 30

> years in the movement, we have to acknowledge this and deal with it

> accordingly. Thus some will say these vedic principles are not better,

> meaning that they may alienate people and discourage them in devotional

> service. Sounds like a paradox, but it is real.

>

> Often times I think, "This is not what Prabhupada wanted," but this is how

> things are going. Even I look at myself and see basically a western man

> practicing devotional service with all kinds of western ideas and very

> little real vaisnava culture. And I can see how certain western ideas are

> better suited to westerners i.e it just works for them. I can see, on the

> other hand, that you were defintiely an Indian in your past life and are

> basically one in this life. Thus, you are full of appreciation for its

> culture and how it works. This, I think, is why we tend to see things on

> slightly opposite sides of the scale. I notice the way Prabhupada adjusted

> his preaching to adapt to the western world and mentality and you notice

> the things Prabhupada said and did to establish vaisnava and vedic

> culture. They are both there. The bottom line is whatever makes us and

> world the world KC, we have to accept. And that is probably going to be

> different for different people.

----------

I would like to make a couple of comments on his points:

I am thinking that Srila Prabhupada knew that most of his disciples were not

able to follow the Vedic culture, or even Four regs.& 16 rounds, but still

he want that to be the standard. We should be intelligent enough and honest

enough to adjust things without compromising this standard.

Sometimes Srila Prabhupada said that you won't become, neither your children

will become, but your children's children they can become pure devotees.

It is true that we are so poluted by our culture and upbringing that it is

almost impossible for us, like trying to wash coal. Nevertheless we

shouldn't obscure the actual standard. This is what I am afraid Mahatma's

thinking may lead us to. We may confess are inability, but still keep the

ideal in the front, otherwise future generations will not have a chance to

attain this standard.

Srila Prabhupada (Conv.Book V-37 pp397)

Srila Prabhupada:"Just like they say, a change of theories by the rascals.

Change means rascal."

Harikesa: "But as soon as the government changes....."

Srila Prabhupada: "Anything change means it is the domain of rascals,

pandemonium. Just like in Manu-samhita it is said that, nasyam svatantratam

arhati, women should not be given independence. Once said, that is a fact.

If you want to change, you suffer. That's all."

My point is that if we can establish the actual Vedic culture then we will

be happy, otherwise in some way or another we will experience some kind of

disatisfaction. This is my belief, so why should I give up trying to

practice it or preach it.

Your servant

Trivikram Swami

November 24, 1999

At 1:50 PM +0100 11/24/99, COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

>I would like to make a couple of comments on his points:

>

>I am thinking that Srila Prabhupada knew that most of his disciples were not

>able to follow the Vedic culture, or even Four regs.& 16 rounds, but still

>he want that to be the standard. We should be intelligent enough and honest

>enough to adjust things without compromising this standard.

>

>Sometimes Srila Prabhupada said that you won't become, neither your children

>will become, but your children's children they can become pure devotees.

>

>It is true that we are so poluted by our culture and upbringing that it is

>almost impossible for us, like trying to wash coal. Nevertheless we

>shouldn't obscure the actual standard. This is what I am afraid Mahatma's

>thinking may lead us to. We may confess are inability, but still keep the

>ideal in the front, otherwise future generations will not have a chance to

>attain this standard.

>

>Srila Prabhupada (Conv.Book V-37 pp397)

>

>Srila Prabhupada:"Just like they say, a change of theories by the rascals.

>Change means rascal."

>

>Harikesa: "But as soon as the government changes....."

>

>Srila Prabhupada: "Anything change means it is the domain of rascals,

>pandemonium. Just like in Manu-samhita it is said that, nasyam svatantratam

>arhati, women should not be given independence. Once said, that is a fact.

>If you want to change, you suffer. That's all."

>

>My point is that if we can establish the actual Vedic culture then we will

>be happy, otherwise in some way or another we will experience some kind of

>disatisfaction. This is my belief, so why should I give up trying to

>practice it or preach it.

>

>Your servant

>Trivikram Swami

Excellent point Maharaja! The issue isn't that everyone must immediatley

come to the ideal platform (although that is the goal), the point is that

everyone must at least accept that the objective is a the revival of Vedic

culture.

Ys. JMd

November 24, 1999

In a message dated 11/22/99 12:40:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

<<

In a message dated 11/21/99 4:52:27 PM Central Standard Time,

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

<< But since you've never lived here in India... guess you might not have 1st

hand experience of that. >>

Since many (or most) women in Iskcon were neither raised in India nor live

in

India, we cannot expect all of them to react in the ideal vedic way to

situations where they feel their rights are being minimized. Maybe you feel

this is a compromise, but I think that if we don't acknowledge the need for

adjustment to accomodate different mentalities, we will not succeed in

attracting a broad base of people. And we will discourage some of the

devotees we have. It is not just women who become discouraged. Men often

become discouaged by the way that some temples deal with women.

I don't mean to say that we whimsically throw out vedic principles. But we

need to evaluate what needs to be adjusted to produce a more desireable

result. After all is said and done, Prabhupada wanted all of us to be

happily

engaged in devotional service. Sticking too strictly to traditional values

may not always bring about this result.

Your servant,

Mahatma dasa

>>

Dear Mahatma Prabhu,

Dandavats! Jayasrila Prabhupada! Thank you for your insightful comments. I

always look forward to reading your posts!

YS, Kusha mata

November 24, 1999

> My point is that if we can establish the actual Vedic culture then we will

> be happy, otherwise in some way or another we will experience some kind of

> disatisfaction. This is my belief, so why should I give up trying to

> practice it or preach it.

>

> Your servant

> Trivikram Swami

How does the Maharaja propose to "establish the actual Vedic culture"

without following Srila Prabhupada's advice to start varnasrama colleges in

EVERY center of his movement? Does not the "actual Vedic culture" fully

embrace the training of humans according to their natural nature and work;

varnasrama dharma? Has varnasrama ever been a priority in the 'management

plans' of the leaders of ISKCON? Our failure to prioritize varna training

for EVERY devotee in EVERY center, EVERYDAY has lead to gross abuse and

murder of Krsna's citizens; women and cows. How can we consider ourselves

even close to "actual Vedic culture" when we have not given any true

dedication to establishing varnasrama training in the society of devotees?

Perhaps this failure on our parts has lead to the dissatisfaction which the

Maharaja has mentioned?

November 25, 1999

> At 1:50 PM +0100 11/24/99, COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

>

> >I would like to make a couple of comments on his points:

> >

> >I am thinking that Srila Prabhupada knew that most of his disciples were

> >not able to follow the Vedic culture, or even Four regs.& 16 rounds, but

> >still he want that to be the standard. We should be intelligent enough

> >and honest enough to adjust things without compromising this standard.

> >

> >Sometimes Srila Prabhupada said that you won't become, neither your

> >children will become, but your children's children they can become pure

> >devotees.

> >

> >It is true that we are so poluted by our culture and upbringing that it

> >is almost impossible for us, like trying to wash coal. Nevertheless we

> >shouldn't obscure the actual standard. This is what I am afraid Mahatma's

> >thinking may lead us to. We may confess are inability, but still keep the

> >ideal in the front, otherwise future generations will not have a chance

> >to attain this standard.

> >

> >Srila Prabhupada (Conv.Book V-37 pp397)

> >

> >Srila Prabhupada:"Just like they say, a change of theories by the

> >rascals. Change means rascal."

> >

> >Harikesa: "But as soon as the government changes....."

> >

> >Srila Prabhupada: "Anything change means it is the domain of rascals,

> >pandemonium. Just like in Manu-samhita it is said that, nasyam

> >svatantratam arhati, women should not be given independence. Once said,

> >that is a fact. If you want to change, you suffer. That's all."

> >

> >My point is that if we can establish the actual Vedic culture then we

> >will be happy, otherwise in some way or another we will experience some

> >kind of disatisfaction. This is my belief, so why should I give up trying

> >to practice it or preach it.

> >

> >Your servant

> >Trivikram Swami

>

> Excellent point Maharaja! The issue isn't that everyone must immediatley

> come to the ideal platform (although that is the goal), the point is that

> everyone must at least accept that the objective is a the revival of Vedic

> culture.

>

> Ys. JMd

Yes. Jivan Mukta Prabhu, your statement is quite reasonable. It's just

that the "western mindset" - as SRILA PRABHUPADA HIMSELF pointed out in his

purports... is just too attached to the bogus conception of "female

independence".

Which is simply meant FOR CHEATING THE FEMALES... yes, by unscrupulous

males!

It's unfortuanate that some of our female devotees have fallen into the trap

& are defending the position, yes, of being in maya! And they have help

from "university eclectics"... some of whom are ex-ISKCON preachers... who

themselves have fallen into the trap! The trap of maya that Srila

Prabhupada warned about TIME & AGAIN.

Too bad in our discussions with them here on the impersonal internet... they

choose to avoid Srila Prabhupada's "clear as the sky is blue" (plain

vanilla) instructions in this regard...

VaiŠava d€sanud€s,

B€su Ghosh D€s

November 25, 1999

> In a message dated 11/22/99 8:02:44 AM Central Standard Time,

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

>

> << And by going on & on about "abuse" - which in fact, as I pointed out,

> is NOT

> the subject of this discussion, a diversionary tactic is being raised by

> which it is hoped that the "separation of the sexes" will end!

>

> Do you think this is what Srila Prabhupada and vedic culture really

> desires?

>

> I ask this without a bit of sarcasm; honestly.

> >>

> What I am seeing more and more here in America, (maybe this was obvious

> before but I was blind to it), is that westerners, including initiated

> devotees, do not adapt so well to many vedic principles. I am not saying

> this is good, I am only saying that this is how it is and I can only see

> this trend increasing. So my previous post was written from this

> perspective.

One of my (humble) observations is that it's going to be difficult to "adapt

to many vedic principles" in the modern "urbanset-up" ANYWHERE; either in

India or in the West...

City life makes you "rajasic"; puts you straight into the mode of passion

and the only way to get out of that is literally to get out of the city,

which is what Srila Prabhupada indeed recommended for householders. Only we

are all too attached to take those instructions to heart & follow them;

itinerent preachers excluded (from these remarks).

> So although this or that vedic cultural etiquette of activity

> may be better, if devotees really can't fully embrace them even after 30

> years in the movement, we have to acknowledge this and deal with it

> accordingly. Thus some will say these vedic principles are not better,

> meaning that they may alienate people and discourage them in devotional

> service. Sounds like a paradox, but it is real.

Yes, Prabhuji, I understand what you're saying... and agree that it holds

true to a certain extent. "It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks" as the

saying goes. Some of us are just so attached to our ways.

But what about the idealism that this movement was started with? The

idealism that had westerners adopting Indian dress, food, religious

practices, etc.?

In past discussions on COM (& even recently in New Delhi with a Western

devotee - although I don't know how Western an Eastern European is

considered... but it's West of India, anyway...) I've observed that many

"funny" concepts and attachments linked with our lives before we "came to

KC" still exist subtly within us.

And these attachments are in reality that which desires to reject the path

of the vedas/vedic culture.

> Often times I think, "This is not what Prabhupada wanted," but this is how

> things are going. Even I look at myself and see basically a western man

> practicing devotional service with all kinds of western ideas and very

> little real vaisnava culture.

Whew! That just confirms what I've written. No?

Aren't we here to "purify", literally "change" our consciousness? And get

rid of the "western ideas" and adopt "real vaishnava culture"? And I'm not

"demanding" perfection in that at all. Just that we ought to adopt it! At

least make the attempt. Isn't that what the KC movement is really about?

> And I can see how certain western ideas are