How does the GBC propose to engage senior Vaisnavis indevotional

[Guest guest]

>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.

 

 

The unfortunate fact is that, even within our vaishnava society

(particularly among westerners), this is not uncommon. Since westerners

have a difficult time relating with anything Vedic, I used an example which

is within the experience of westerners (and, as pointed out, is not

uncommon, even among devotees).

 

There are many Vedic customs which devotees have no problem accepting, even

first time. For example, eating with the right hand, vegetarian diet, etc.

Who ever objected to any of these, even first-time around?

 

The Vedic customs that are most difficult for westerners to accept are those

that restrict association with the opposite sex. For example, women don't

like to cover their heads, men dally with women, etc. It just shows how

difficult it is to transcend sex desire. But although the restrictions with

regard to seggregating the sexes is difficult, it must be done, otherwise it

is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

 

The basis of Vedic culture is restricting this sex desire, which is why you

have an entire social system (varnashrama) wherin the occupational duties

are segregated by gender. Please note the following verse and purport:

 

"My dear brother, by the influence of destiny you have already killed many

babies, each of them as bright and beautiful as fire. But kindly spare this

daughter. Give her to me as your gift." (SB 10.4.5)

 

[PURPORT] Here we see that Devaki first focused Kamsa's attention on his

atrocious activities, his killing of her many sons. Then she wanted to

compromise with him by saying that whatever he had done was not his fault,

but was ordained by destiny. Then she appealed to him to give her the

daughter as a gift. Devaki was the daughter of a ksatriya and knew how to

play the political game. In politics there are different methods of

achieving success: first repression (dama), then compromise (sama), and then

asking for a gift (dana). Devaki first adopted the policy of repression by

directly attacking Kamsa for having cruelly, atrociously killed her babies.

Then she compromised by saying that this was not his fault, and then she

begged for a gift. As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or

"Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas,

knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post

of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of

Manu-samhita, but unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being insulted, and the

Aryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature

of Kali-yuga."

 

Please note that (1) Devaki knew politics, diplomacy, etc., and she was

expert in applying them; (2) that she is a woman; and (3) inspite of points

1 and 2, Srila Prabhupada still insists, on the basis of Manu Samhita, that

a woman is never to take up the occupational duties of an administrative

head.

 

This means that the segregation (or the "oppression", as some women call it)

is not based on qualification, but on gender, and the reason for segregating

duties on the basis of gender is to minimize the chances of mingling with

the opposite sex.

 

When men and women mingle, the progression of degredation is described by

Arjuna in the 1st chapter of the Bhagavad-gita. Women are very highly

protected because when they aren't, they give rise to unwanted population

(no matter how much university education they may have), which creates a

hellish situation. (And how difficult it is to practice Krishna

consciouness when the situation is hellish!)

 

So, why in the name of Krishna-consciousness do we want to propagate a

hellish situation?

 

>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.

 

 

What do you think were his standards?

 

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

>overly vedic.

 

So then they suffer. You can't touch fire and not expect to be burned.

Also, there is no such thing as "overly vedic", in the sense of over doing

it. I think what you mean is "overly vedic" in the sense of

"veda-vada-ratah", or those who practice the rules and regulations of the

scriptures without understanding their true basis.

 

>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.

 

 

Yes, and when they grow up, they also have a more difficult time with

aspects of life, like marriage. Generally, Indian couples usually get along

well with each other. And even if they don't, they still somehow manage to

pull through.

 

Westerners, however, suffer through marriage after divorce after marriage

after divorce, etc. Not all of them, but certainly much more than their

Indian counterparts.

 

This demonstrates that following the Vedic rules, even if we are not

inclined to follow them, is for our benefit.

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

>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.

 

 

The unfortunate fact is that, even within our vaishnava society

(particularly among westerners), this is not uncommon. Since westerners

have a difficult time relating with anything Vedic, I used an example which

is within the experience of westerners (and, as pointed out, is not

uncommon, even among devotees).

 

There are many Vedic customs which devotees have no problem accepting, even

first time. For example, eating with the right hand, vegetarian diet, etc.

Who ever objected to any of these, even first-time around?

 

The Vedic customs that are most difficult for westerners to accept are those

that restrict association with the opposite sex. For example, women don't

like to cover their heads, men dally with women, etc. It just shows how

difficult it is to transcend sex desire. But although the restrictions with

regard to seggregating the sexes is difficult, it must be done, otherwise it

is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

 

The basis of Vedic culture is restricting this sex desire, which is why you

have an entire social system (varnashrama) wherin the occupational duties

are segregated by gender. Please note the following verse and purport:

 

"My dear brother, by the influence of destiny you have already killed many

babies, each of them as bright and beautiful as fire. But kindly spare this

daughter. Give her to me as your gift." (SB 10.4.5)

 

[PURPORT] Here we see that Devaki first focused Kamsa's attention on his

atrocious activities, his killing of her many sons. Then she wanted to

compromise with him by saying that whatever he had done was not his fault,

but was ordained by destiny. Then she appealed to him to give her the

daughter as a gift. Devaki was the daughter of a ksatriya and knew how to

play the political game. In politics there are different methods of

achieving success: first repression (dama), then compromise (sama), and then

asking for a gift (dana). Devaki first adopted the policy of repression by

directly attacking Kamsa for having cruelly, atrociously killed her babies.

Then she compromised by saying that this was not his fault, and then she

begged for a gift. As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or

"Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas,

knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post

of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of

Manu-samhita, but unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being insulted, and the

Aryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature

of Kali-yuga."

 

Please note that (1) Devaki knew politics, diplomacy, etc., and she was

expert in applying them; (2) that she is a woman; and (3) inspite of points

1 and 2, Srila Prabhupada still insists, on the basis of Manu Samhita, that

a woman is never to take up the occupational duties of an administrative

head.

 

This means that the segregation (or the "oppression", as some women call it)

is not based on qualification, but on gender, and the reason for segregating

duties on the basis of gender is to minimize the chances of mingling with

the opposite sex.

 

When men and women mingle, the progression of degredation is described by

Arjuna in the 1st chapter of the Bhagavad-gita. Women are very highly

protected because when they aren't, they give rise to unwanted population

(no matter how much university education they may have), which creates a

hellish situation. (And how difficult it is to practice Krishna

consciouness when the situation is hellish!)

 

So, why in the name of Krishna-consciousness do we want to propagate a

hellish situation?

 

>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.

 

 

What do you think were his standards?

 

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

>overly vedic.

 

So then they suffer. You can't touch fire and not expect to be burned.

Also, there is no such thing as "overly vedic", in the sense of over doing

it. I think what you mean is "overly vedic" in the sense of

"veda-vada-ratah", or those who practice the rules and regulations of the

scriptures without understanding their true basis.

 

>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.

 

 

Yes, and when they grow up, they also have a more difficult time with

aspects of life, like marriage. Generally, Indian couples usually get along

well with each other. And even if they don't, they still somehow manage to

pull through.

 

Westerners, however, suffer through marriage after divorce after marriage

after divorce, etc. Not all of them, but certainly much more than their

Indian counterparts.

 

This demonstrates that following the Vedic rules, even if we are not

inclined to follow them, is for our benefit.

 

ys KKdas