Varna first, then Asrama

[Guest guest]

> On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

> > Do you know what is varna?

>

> I have a harder one: how does Vedic literature define "species"?

>

> MDd

 

I don`t know who you are but this one is a tuff one!

[Guest guest]

> Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get

married

> if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is

not

> a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

 

First of all, in my own study on the topic I found mostly that SP only

wanted his female disciples to get married. But, he would not force. He

wrote one mataji asking her to concider marriage, but did tell her if she

did not want to she did not have to. In other words, he wanted them to

marry, and he preached that they 'should', but,, yes, if they didn't want to

he didn't force it. At least that was my impression.

 

And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and in

1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So, where does

Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of brahmacarini ashram is

he speaking about? There were widows ashrams, and mother Deva Huti told me

that SP instructed her, regarding opening such a widows ashram, is that the

seperated or widowed mothers with daughters would live in that ashram to

train their daughters how to become submissive wives of their future

husbands. But, where is any shastric evidence that young girls, 5 and up,

the father would hand them over to a guru to go live in his ashram to be

trained as celebant student? Or even an ashram where unwed teenage girls

go to learn from a guru in such an ashram?

 

My understanding is that SP started it as a stop-gap measure for the current

situations. He originally only wanted to have male students. But, young

girls also came to his lectures and also wanted to stay in his ashram. What

to do? They were living on their own, not with parents - but they wanted

to become devotees, Vaishnavis. So, what to be done? When he went to hold

the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

[i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

referrences right now]. SP considered, if he did not take them in, there

was no one else, so he did so. Also, even though the guru may tell his

brahmacaris never to marry, guru also knows that the majority of men will

marry. So, who will his disciples marry? Non-devotee women? This was

America and outside of those who came to SP, there were no other Vaishnavis.

If he didn't take in these girls and train them, who else would and who else

would his male disciples marry when they were ready for marriage?

 

> I think the point is that one standard may be for the general populace in

a

> "vedic" social system and another standard for the devotees who are

> preachers

> and educators.

 

Vedic scripture, upon which Vedic culture is based, is for all mankind.

Where did SP say that the instructions of Narad Muni to Maharaj Yudisthira

regarding the qualities of a chaste woman and wife only apply to

non-devotees? Where did SP say that his instructions regarding how 'we' are

to train our daughters in the Dallas gurukula in 2 things, how to become

first-class cook and how to submissively serve their husbands somehow not

apply to our daughters but to the non-preachers?

 

> Otherwise, if women are not meant to be trained

> brahminically, why did Prabhupada give them brahminical initiation, have

> them

> attend classes, encourage them to preach, to deity worship, etc.?

>

> Ys, Mahatma dasa

 

Then, what was the meaning of the statement (no time to look up now, so

paraphrasing), when he spoke that his female disciples are not agitated for

'equal rights' because they are satisfied, being Krsna Conscious. He said

that they don't ask him to travel and preach like he does. They are

satisfied cooking and cleaning.... I guess SP must have been in maya

when he said that.

 

Here is where I do agree that SP did make room for 2 standards. The women

who were joining off the streets, who had modern schooling and modern ideas,

he did try to teach them to become submissive wives, and did want to see

they were all married. But, he also saw that some were agitated by their

Western training, so he engaged them as well.

 

Yes, Deity worship in the temples in India is only by men, but at home, it

is the duty of the husband to see that the wife is always engaged in

religious activities. At home the wife can do more direct pujari service.

So, in America, why not train them in this way. But, SP did not allow such

loose standards in the temples in India. Since enough people there

understood the higher standards, SP wanted that in India we also follow

those higher standards. In the West he made some consideration.

 

But, where he made a second and totally different standard was in what he

taught how we must train our daughters. In my study on this all I found

was that he instructed us to teach them the more strict and proper Vedic

culture. This is where he said, in regards to building a girls' ashram in

Vrndaban, that such brahmacarini ashrams are artificial. It was a mistake

to have school for girls, for girls (and he was speaking of our daughters)

there should be no school. Girls should remain at home, trained by the

mother, how to cook, how to sew, clean, take care of babies, serve their

husbands. They don't need big big education for this.

 

I have not found one referrence where SP instructed that our daughters must

be trained to become like men. To become social leaders, or what ever.

But, many times he stated they are to be taught to become first-class cooks,

how to clean, how to sew, and how to submissively serve their husbands.

And I say that this is also what he wanted for his direct disciples who

joined older in life as well, but due to the extra baggage they carried in

with them, due to their Western upbringing, some concessions had to be made.

But, as he spoke in one lecture, and asked his lady disciples not to get

angry with him, but he said that shastra is actually only for the men.

Those who have large enough brain capacity to understand. Those with

smaller intelligence, the women, they must get married and serve their

husbands, but shastra and philosophical understanding, that is for the men.

You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

 

So, yes, Plato, Soccratees, Pythagorus, Kant, Narad Muni, Chanakya,

Einstien, Edison, Ben Franklin, Issac Newton, De Vinci, SP, to name a few

off the top of my head, they are all men. What great female thinkers are

there in hisotry (outside of very unique and special Vaishnavis, such as

Sarasvati)? So, he told his own lady disciples that actually shastra and

philosophy is mostly only for the men.

 

So, yes, I have found really only one standard that he preached, the Vedic

standard. And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed -

train them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a

mistake - but, for these older women who were joining, for those he started

the brahmacarini ashrams, for those mataji's he made some concessions - if

they could not fully accept and follow the more strict Vedic standards.

 

ys ameyatma

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Harsi das wrote:

 

> > You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history, any

big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said, you will

not find. All are men.

>

> Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

> "Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

 

 

What of Queen Elizabeth I, or Queen Victoria. Catherine the Great was another

prominant monarch. Curiously, this statement attributed to Prabhupada appears

to be culled from a conversation as compared to something written in his

books, which we claim to be our lawbooks for the coming generations.

Conversations, letters and lectures are also important, though they are often

directed to a specific audience according to time and place.

[Guest guest]

>

> > Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

> > "Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

>

> "Behind every great man is a woman telling him he's wrong!" (author: some

comedian whose name I no longer remember)

>

 

How about 'buzzing around every women trying to make an offering of 'external'

significance is a pack of naysayers who claim it can't be done'?

 

Actually, that doesn't apply only to woman, when you think about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 9 Dec 1999, Jivan Mukta Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> There was Indira Gandhi in Prabhupada's time. And what did he call her? A

whore.

>

> ys. JMd

 

 

Yeah, that's all she was. I bet when he met her in private he explained to her

why she was nothing but a useless.....

 

You know, Prabhupada could attract even boorish misoginists, he was so great!

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

>

> Then, what was the meaning of the statement (no time to look up now, so

> paraphrasing), when he spoke that his female disciples are not agitated for

'equal rights' because they are satisfied, being Krsna Conscious. He said

that they don't ask him to travel and preach like he does. They are

satisfied cooking and cleaning.... I guess SP must have been in maya when

he said that.

>

 

 

 

Yes, these may be our Vedic ideals as taught by Srila Prabhupada, but he

wasn't a boorish fanatic when it came time to get down to the real business of

engaging real live people in the real world of Krsna consciousness.

 

 

 

 

>

> I have not found one referrence where SP instructed that our daughters must

be trained to become like men. To become social leaders, or what ever.

>

 

 

 

This is all great stuff, no doubt. Still, considering our current social

situation, I agree that it would be a big step forward if we can learn to

train our men to act like men -- and then the woman can learn from their

husbands, right?

 

 

 

>

> So, yes, I have found really only one standard that he preached, the Vedic

standard. And for our children, our own daughters, that he instructed - train

them to become submissive wives - no school, school for girls is a mistake -

but, for these older women who were joining, for those he started the

brahmacarini ashrams, for those mataji's he made some concessions - if they

could not fully accept and follow the more strict Vedic standards.

>

> ys ameyatma

 

 

One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is that

they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the fantasy of

scoring a teenage wife. I wonder if it is better that certain woman stay at

home, or that certain men stay at home.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

>

>Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so..

>"Behind every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

 

Marie Curie (co-discovered radium), Amelia Erhardt (aviator), Clara

Barton (founded the American Red Cross) - or maybe they were really

men...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/99 7:20:59 AM Central Standard Time,

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

 

<< I think if you did a little research into this subject on

an SP Vedabase Folio, you might reconsider such an opinion. SP's

instruction above sounds like a "time & circumstance" instruction, rather

than a prinicple of vedic dharma & culture; which seems to be the opposite.

>>

It is interesting to note that in 1974 Prabhupada was so fed up with marriage

problems in Iskcon that he said that no one should ask him if they can marry.

This didn't mean no one could marry, but it sent a message that it is best to

avoid marriage. At least Prabhupada wasn't gong to give his blessings for any

more marriages.

 

Add to this Prabhupada's statement in the CC where he said all men should

remiain single. And he told the RDTSKP men that it is best if you don't

marry. If marriage is so vital a thing for women it seems ironic that

founder-acarya would encourg all it's male members to remain single making it

all the more difficult for women in Iskcon to find a husband.

 

I bring this up not because I think marriage is bad or to encourage women to

revolt against men, but to question your statement that Prabhupada was coming

to establish vedic dharma and culture in its entirety, particularly within

Iskcon. It seemed that Prabhupada was coming to establish whatever he felt

was best for making us KC.

 

Another example. Girtiraj Swami tells a story that when they were designing

the Bombay temple (I think was Boimbay, it could have been somewhere else),

someone mentioned (I think Bhakti Caru Swami) that the Deities were not

facing the proper direction and it was inauspicious. Prabhupada said

something like any direction Krsna is facing is auspicious. So he wasn't

overly concerned about this vedic standard.

 

I don't mean to say he wasn't concerned about culture and dharma, but we can

take it too far and this could make it counter productive. I think we have to

look at the subject more deeply than just saying that an insturction which

was not completely in line with vedic dharma and culture was a time and

circumstance instruction. It may have been but it may have not been. It may

have been an insight from Krsna how to spread KC.

 

Your servant,

 

Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/99 7:00:49 PM Central Standard Time, Harsi.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se

writes:

 

<< What would be Krsna without Radharani, his better half... >>

 

Prabhupada said Krsna is not so beautiful on His own.

 

Ys, Md

[Guest guest]

>

>I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy. Prabhupada

>jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

>don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

>something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

reflected the state of science at the time. Srila Prabhu once

supplied us with more current numbers pointing out that 64 oz is

actually *gigantic* and not found in any humans. Apparently, the

male brain size is closer to 46 oz and that of the female about 42

oz, but as earlier pointed out here, a larger brain does not

necessarily equal greater intelligence.

 

ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and

> in 1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So, where

> does Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of brahmacarini

> ashram is

 

Dear Trivikrama Maharaja

 

Please accept my respectfull obeisances

The comment you where sending from Ameyatma prabhu apeared without any

comment by you, does that mean that you support everything he said hearin

fully?

 

Your servant

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/1999 8:10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

> How many brahmacarinis from the 70's remained brahmacarini? Why did

>Prabhupada call it "artificial? Actually this question is answered in

>section 3.6.1 (Brahmacarini is artificial) of the paper entitled

>"Vaisnavism and Social Responsibility" which can be found at

>http://www.ghqd.org in both downloadable zip and on-line formats.

 

Mataji,

 

How many brahmcaris remained brahmacari? How many took sanyasa and remained

in that ashram? How many took wives and stayed with the same wife? What is

your point?

 

The brahmacari / brahmacarini ashram is a temporary one for most devotees

and the fact that there are few if any brahmacarinis left in the ashram from

the 70's does not diminish the fact that Srila Prabhupada initiated it. If

the fact that there are not 50 year old brahmacarinis indicates the ashram is

artificial it appears that in this age remaining in the brahmacari ashram (

and the sannyasi ashram for that matter) also rather artificial .

 

<Every human being is supposed to come to the brahminical platform. This is

<further discussed in sections 1.2 (Vedic Culture), 1.5.2 (Stricter Policies

<for Sannyasa and Brahminical Initiation), and 3.5.2 (Brahmana on Spiritual

<Platform Only) of the VSR paper.

 

In this lifetime? Slinging around these designations in the form of judgement

is what really appears to be artificial. What if your husband is a vaisa or

a sudra? Mine appears to be and I find it a daily exercise to control my mind

and not be disatisfied with that designation because he is a good man and is

actually trying to be a vaisnava. Actually in this day and age rising to the

platform of sudra or vaisa is an accomplishment. All of this emphasis on

varna rather than devotional is detrimental to our community. Self

rightousness is not a brahminical quality that I have heard of. If you feel

you are in the Brahminical varna act like it. ys, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

> >

> > And in SP's own words, both in his first letters asking to start it, and

> > in 1977, SP said that the brahmacarini ashram was artificial. So,

> > where does Mahatma get his discoveries from? And, what sort of

> > brahmacarini ashram is

>

> Dear Trivikrama Maharaja

>

> Please accept my respectfull obeisances

> The comment you where sending from Ameyatma prabhu apeared without any

> comment by you, does that mean that you support everything he said hearin

> fully?

>

> Your servant

> Harsi das

 

Not necessarily. Just facilitating the debate.

Ys TS

[Guest guest]

> >Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so.. "Behind

> >every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

>

> Marie Curie (co-discovered radium), Amelia Erhardt (aviator), Clara

> Barton (founded the American Red Cross) - or maybe they were really men...

 

Mummies inhabited ancient Egypt and they all wrote in hydraulics. They

lived in the Sarah Dessert and travelled by Camelot. The climate of the

Sarah is such that the inhabitants have to live elsewhere.

 

Moses led the Hebrew slaves to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread

which is bread made without any ingredients. Moses went up on Mount Cyanide

to get the ten commandments. He died before he ever reached Canada.

Solomon had three hundred wives and seven hundred porcupines.

 

The Greeks also had myths. A myth is a female moth.

 

Actually, Homer was not written by Homer but by another man of that name.

 

Socrates was a famous Greek teacher who went around giving people advice.

They killed him. Socrates died from an overdose of wedlock. After his

death, his career suffered a dramatic decline.

 

History calls people Romans because they never stayed in one place for very

long.

 

Magna Carter provided that no man should be hanged twice for the same

offence.

 

Another story was William Tell, who shot an arrow through an apple while

standing on his son's head.

 

Sir Walter Raleigh is a historical figure because he invented cigarettes and

started smoking. And Sir Francis Drake circumcised the world with a 100

foot clipper.

 

Writing at the same time as Shakespeare was Miguel Cervantes. He wrote

Donkey Hote. The next great author was John Milton. Milton wrote Paradise

Lost. Then his wife died and he wrote Paradise Regained.

 

The winter of 1620 was a hard one for the settlers. Many people died and

many babies were born. Captain John Smith was responsible for all this.

 

One of the causes of the Revolutionary War was the English put tacks in

their tea. Also, the colonists would send their parcels through the post

without stamps. Finally the colonists won the War and no longer had to pay

for taxis.

 

Franklin discovered electricity by rubbing two cats backwards and declared,

'A horse divided against itself cannot stand.' Franklin died in 1790 and is

still dead.

 

Abraham Lincoln became America's greatest Precedent. Lincoln's mother died

in infancy, and he was born in a log cabin which he built with his own

hands.

 

Gravity was invented by Isaac Walton. It is chiefly noticeable in the

autumn when the apples are falling off the trees.

 

Johann Bach wrote a great many musical compositions and had a large number

of children. In between he practiced on an old spinster which he kept up in

his attic. Bach died from 1750 to the present. Bach was the most famous

composer in the world and so was Handel. Handel was half German half

Italian and half English. He was very large. Beethoven wrote music even

though he was deaf. He was so deaf he wrote loud music.

 

The sun never sets on the British Empire because the British Empire is in

the East and the sun sets in the West.

 

Queen Victoria was the longest queen. She sat on a thorn for 63 years. She

was a moral woman who practiced virtue. Her death was the final event which

ended her reign.

 

COMPILATION OF ACTUAL STUDENT GCSE ANSWERS IN THE UK

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> > "Behind every great man is a woman telling him he's wrong!" (author: some

> comedian whose name I no longer remember)

> >

> How about 'buzzing around every women trying to make an offering of

'external'

> significance is a pack of naysayers who claim it can't be done'?

>

> Actually, that doesn't apply only to woman, when you think about it.

 

Geez, is the JOKES conference the only one where attempts at humor are

allowed? I thought that the word "comedian" above was sufficient to tip off

the reader that the comedian's quoted words were meant as *humor*.

 

OK, I know what to do:

 

"Behind every great man is a woman telling him he's wrong!" (author: some

comedian whose name I no longer remember)

 

DISCLAIMER: The above quote ***should not be misconstrued!!!*** as misogynist

pathology, but rather as a benign attempt at humor.

 

--gkd&

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is

that

> they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the fantasy of

> scoring a teenage wife.

 

Interesting observation, prabhu. Perhaps you will provide more details for the

assembled readers.

 

>I wonder if it is better that certain woman stay at

> home, or that certain men stay at home.

 

No need to wonder. It is certainly better for women stay at home, and it

certainly also better if certain men can earn their livelihoods by staying at

home.

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

"COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2846027 from COM]

>

> >

> >I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy. Prabhupada

> >jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

> >don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

> >something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

>

> Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

> reflected the state of science at the time.

 

Wasn't this professor Urquarht? What sampadaya was he from?

 

If Srila Prabhupada quotes the TV weather announcer, I personally don't take it

on the same level of seriousness as I do when he quotes saddhus from the

Gaudiya

sampradaya.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

 

 

> Srila Prabhu once

> supplied us with more current numbers pointing out that 64 oz is

> actually *gigantic* and not found in any humans. Apparently, the

> male brain size is closer to 46 oz and that of the female about 42

> oz, but as earlier pointed out here, a larger brain does not

> necessarily equal greater intelligence.

>

> ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

"COM: Kanti (dd) ACBSP (Florida - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2846723 from COM]

>

>

> ...Mataji,

>

> How many brahmcaris remained brahmacari? How many took sanyasa and remained

> in that ashram? How many took wives and stayed with the same wife? What is

> your point?

>

> The brahmacari / brahmacarini ashram is a temporary one for most devotees

> and the fact that there are few if any brahmacarinis left in the ashram from

> the 70's does not diminish the fact that Srila Prabhupada initiated it. If

> the fact that there are not 50 year old brahmacarinis indicates the ashram is

> artificial it appears that in this age remaining in the brahmacari ashram (

> and the sannyasi ashram for that matter) also rather artificial .

 

A number of the sannyasis who fall down are among our best devotees. Maybe if

we

are honest with ourselves, it is time to reconsider the instructions of Sri

Caitanya Mahaprabhu, as cited by Srila Prabhupada:

 

***********************************

As stated by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

asvamedham gavalambham

sannyasam pala-paitrkam

devarena sutotpattim

kalau panca vivarjayet

 

“In this age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in

sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order of

sannyasa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a man’s

begetting children in his brother’s wife.” (Cc. Adi 17.164) Such sacrifices are

impossible in this age due to the scarcity of expert brahmanas or rtvijah who

are

able to take the responsibility. In the absence of these, the sankirtana-yajna

is

recommended.

 

============ REF. SB 5.7.5

 

What is our goal? Maintaining pre-Kali-Yuga Vedic standards, or elevating as

many people as possible to the platform of Krsna consciousness. If the main

goal

is the latter, perhaps an increase in chanting Hare Krsna on sankirtan would

prove a more effective means of reaching it than increasing the number of

devotees we attempt to place in the sannyasa asrama.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> > Yes, it was his biology professor from the Scottish college and that

> > reflected the state of science at the time.

>

>Wasn't this professor Urquarht?

 

Yes, thank you. I didn't have his name handy.

 

 

>What sampadaya was he from?

 

Probably a long line of science teachers, each having no problem

adding to the general body of knowledge based on recent findings.

 

>

>If Srila Prabhupada quotes the TV weather announcer, I personally

>don't take it

>on the same level of seriousness as I do when he quotes saddhus from the

>Gaudiya sampradaya.

 

 

Excellent point. Besides, he never said he expected us to, did he? I

remember seeing a letter from Srila Prabhupada to two disciples who

wanted health advice. He told them to go see a medical professional,

commenting that he was their guru, not their doctor.

 

Prabhupada was perfect because he gave us Krsna, because he followed

the orders of his spiritual master, and because he didn't deviate

from the teachings of the previous acaryas in our sampradaya. We're

not following him because he was a perfect meterologist, physician or

biologist. Or am I mistaken? If so, I'd like to see quotes by

Prabhupada to that effect.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> > One problem we've found with brahmancarini ashramas for our daughters is

> >that they seem to attract certain balding middle aged men with the

>fantasy of

> > scoring a teenage wife.

 

>Guru-Krsna wrote:

>Interesting observation, prabhu. Perhaps you will provide more details for the

>assembled readers.

 

 

Personally, I have no interest in the sordid details of others'

private lives. But since Guru-Krsna apparently finds this kind of

information interesting, maybe you could supply him with it

privately? (if you decide to comply, that is)

 

ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/99 2:12:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

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

 

<< I know many ladies in Iskcon who have good brains for philosophy.

Prabhupada

jokingly told Jadurani that when women join Iskcon their brains grow. BTW, I

don't think that 32 ounce thing is a Vedic statement. I think it was

something Prabhupad learned in school. Does anyone know anything about this?

 

>>

Subj: Re: Brain-size 2

97-04-18 00:24:06 EDT

srila (AT) com (DOT) org (WWW: Srila (Dasa) ACBSP (Berkeley CA - USA))

vrinda (AT) aol (DOT) com

 

Brain Size 2

 

I want to thank the contributors to this "Brain size discussion, as they have

raised several cogent points, Jivan Mukta Prabhu, Murari Prabhu and Mother

Sita devi. However, I am thankful that Mother Sita has brought back to the

table the PRECISE reason I started this subconference-- to settle conclusively

this "64-36 ounce" debacle as much as our conditioned natures allow. Then we

can proceed to other points, "What is meant by "less intelligent" etc.

 

Particularly I wish to hear Jivan Mukta's conclusion. THIS POINT IS NOT A "RED

HERRING" except for those who wish to slither away from the issue. THIS

SPECIFIC QUOTE HAS BEEN THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE FOR DEEP-SEATED IGNORANCE AND

HARM TO THE WOMEN OF THIS MOVEMENT, INCULCATES GRAVE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ON THE

PART OF THE MEN, AND HAS SEVERELY CRIPPLED OUR PREACHING POTENTIAL OVERALL.

Sincere souls become attracted to participate in this movement when they see

it can separate truth (reality) from illusion. When they observe otherwise,

that our so-called preaching compounds illusion and increases a bodily concept

of life, they shy away -- as many have already done from this conference.

 

This abuse of this quote has become the greatest travesty of Vedic philosophy

since the caste system began. Admittedly, there are differences in the brain

between the sexes. But they are not nearly as pronounced as people think,

especially what we in ISKCON have presumed. Even a preliminary understanding

of gender differences, physiology, etc, this would become readily apparent. A

woman's brain size (ie, head) is clearly NOT half of a man's. The idea of it

seems preposterous. Prabhupada is free to say whatever Krsna inspires him. Our

duty is to intelligently understand it.. or admit there are some things we

will never understand. The general principle however is that we don't go

around repeating what we aren't sure of. Such a practice will only prove our

own foolishness.

 

What I want to highlight here is that a year and a half after Prabhupada's

publicized talk with the woman reporters in Chicago, in a room conversation

with Srila Prabhupada, one senior ISKCON leader repeated how he had understood

this 64-36ounce misinformation: the difference between a woman's brain and

man's brain is, "half the size." (Mayapur, Feb. 1977) That means this leader

had and continued to propagate his misconception amongst all those under his

leadership and thereby expanding a culture of further ignorance.

 

The mind necessarily rationalizes from *first principles,* processing

information, often unconsciously, inasmuch as we possess "intelligence." By

such cognitive deduction, if a woman has "half a brain," how do we treat such

an inferior creature? How do we treat anything with half a brain? (Like a dog,

of course.) Order it. ("Hutt!"). Yell at it ("Bad dog!"). Kick it! ("Stupid

woman"). Beat it into submission. ("Do what I say!") This is where we end up

with such a fundamental attribution error and compounded with bad logic. The

premise itself, "a woman has a half a brain" is the original fault. I

therefore implore all devotees to please correct these insidious

misconceptions and dispel them from their minds. Prabhupada never intended

such a misconstrual of Vedic culture as his "conclusion" about women,

especially about Vaisnavis.

 

Mother Sita wrote:

> People are still making offenses to Prabhupada by rejecting and demanding

others to reject some of his statements.

 

Reply:

It is the duty of a disciple to correct his spiritual master if required

(Narahari Thakura). Prabhupada expected it. Ramanuja accepted it when

dictating his commentaries to his disciple-secretary. There are so many

examples. Even more preliminary to such enlightened correction done in a

respectful spirit is the elementary duty of a disciple to make INQUIRY from

the spiritual master.

 

"In this verse BLIND FOLLOWING and absurd inquiries are CONDEMNED. ONE SHOULD

NOT ONLY HEAR FROM THE SPIRITUAL MASTER, but one must also get a CLEAR

UNDERSTANDING from him, in submission and service and INQUIRIES." (Bg 4.34

purpt)

 

By rereading these conversations about brain-sizes, it's obvious from the

devotees' reactions that it is ourselves, as Prabhupada's naive and immature

disciples, who are guilty for not getting a clear understanding from

Prabhupada on these issues in the first place. Ignorance, naievete, is no

excuse. Therefore, we continue to maintain many misconceptions to this day.

Let's soberly address these issues and then resolve them. I make this urgent

appeal for some sanity.

 

Old ideas don't die easily, it seems.

 

I propose 1) either the information Prabhupada quoted from his teacher in 1918

is obsolete, and/or 2) we don't understand what Prabhupada meant. In either

case, it behooves us to not repeat something that is untrue or something we

don't understand, especially given the extremely negative repercussions this

kind of mechanical mimicry of Prabhupada's words has had. I don't personlly

claim to fully understand what Prabhupada ultimately meant by these quotes,

but it is clear from their result we should avoid them.

 

Can Jivan Mukta Prabhu also admit his inability to fathom them?

 

Mother Sita also wrote:

> There was a more recent study done a few years ago at the University of

> Western Ontario (Canada).

Fine. There have been so many studies since Dekaban's 1978 LANDMARK study.

What does it say? Give some reference please. What is your point?

 

Otherwise, I will be more than willing to go on to other issues, such as what

I understand as Prabhupada's general conclusion. First, let's stick to the

issue of this subconference, BRAIN-SIZE in terms of OUNCES, without becoming

distracted by other arguments (eg, some magical "brain substance" which defies

gravity and our puny attempts to measure it).

 

I wrote:

> >I appeal to the presumed higher intelligence of all male devotees and

implore them to retire these quotes completely from our repertoire of

repeatable knowledge.

 

Sita replied:

> Why don't you suggest that to the Bhaktivedanta Archives?!

 

My Response: What's on file with the BBT archives is not what I am contesting,

HOW WE UTILIZE THIS INFORMATION is the problem.

 

 

On 26 Mar 1997, Murari Dasa wrote:

> Thank you, Srila Prabhu, for your in-depth report on brain sizes. Of

course, I have no interest in studying the size of people's brains nor do I

beleive that brain size has anything to do with intelligence.

 

My reply: It is implicit within Srila Prabhupada's argument that brain-size

correlates very strongly with intelligence (ie, brain-size has a lot to do

with it). It is the duty of a truly faithful disciple, however, to suggest a

need for correction when it is required. Prabhupada, unfortunately, is no

longer physically present (prakrta) to answer our queries. These issues will

continue to be the cause for considerable confusion unless "intelligent" and

faithful disciples can come to some proper consensus.

 

You have rightly addressed the other issue, "What does Prabhupada mean by less

intelligent." I'll have more to say about that later.

 

Respectfully,

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

> >> You will not find, HE said (not me, SP said), in all of human history,

> >> any big scientist, big philosopher, etc., who was a woman. No, he said,

> >> you will not find. All are men.

> >

> >Madeline Albright, oops but she is just foreign minister or so.. "Behind

> >every great man is a great woman" autor unknown

>

> There was Indira Gandhi in Prabhupada's time. And what did he call her? A

> whore.

>

> ys. JMd

 

I can imagine the headline in the US newspapers:

 

"Is State Department head Madeline Albright a whore?"

 

"Hare Krsna monk, inspired by the guru,s statement about Indira Gandhi calls

Minister of State Department a whore, since she is managing the US Ministry

of Foreign Affairs instead of her own at the stove at home, cooking and

taking care of the "inner management" of her husbands home."

 

What a delight would that be for the newspapers and their reporters, and

what that would mean for ISKCON in the USA one can vividly imagine.

 

Maybe someone from our learned members of this forum can enlighten us a

little bit why and under which circumstances Prabupada may have used such a

sexist expresion in relation to I. Gandhi. Was it because she was a woman in

a management position or did it had also another cause?

 

yours

Harsi das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/1999 8:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

> There was Indira Gandhi in Prabhupada's time. And what did he call her? A

> whore.

 

But was that because she was Prime Minister or because she was indeed a

whore? Your assumption that one automatically equals the other is, as usual,

astounding. ys, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

At 2:04 AM -0500 12/10/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

>Prabhupada acknowledged that some women would not want to marry and thus did

>not force them to marry. This has nothing to do with how many women remained

>brahmacarinis. It was an allowance for those who wanted to do it. And some

>did it and are still doing well to this day.

 

Mahatma Prabhu, you had made the point that Prabhupada did not always

designate women as servants of their husbands; that they were sometimes

trained to be brahmacarinis and brahmanas. However, most, if not all women

who became brahmacarinis in Prabhupada's time were not virgins and were

living independently. To say some of these women have remained single to

this day is not proof that the brahmacarini asrama is not "artificial" nor

is it proof that Prabhupada wanted women in ISKCON to be trained as

brahmanas. If Prabhupada had wanted that, he would have allowed women to

attend varnasrama college. Prabhupada made allowances, yes, but he also

wanted us to more forward with the next generation. Are we in agreement

here?

 

Ys, Sdd

Here are a couple of quotes for those who are interested:

 

Prabhupada: Woman brahmacarini, this is artificial.

Tamala Krsna: In our centers, though, there are so many brahmacarinis, and

even sometimes they're encouraged to remain brahmacarini.

Prabhupada: That they cannot. As soon as they will find opportunity, they

will become vyabhicarini.

Tamala Krsna: They'll become what?

Prabhupada: Vyabhicarini. For woman, protection.

Tamala Krsna: So you don't advocate this remaining sing..., these women

remaining brahmacarinis.

Prabhupada: Therefore polygamy was allowed. Let them be taken care of, one

husband, three wives. Therefore the ksatriyas were taking hundreds of

women. They had money. (Morning Conversation April 29, 1977, Bombay)

 

Prabhupada: Actually, there is no... Brahmacarini is not allowed in the

sastra. Where is the question of brahmacarini? Because according to Vedic

system, as soon as a girl is fourteen years old or sixteen years old, she

is at once married. According to Vedic system, no girl should be allowed

remaining unmarried. So there is no question of brahmacarini. Every girl is

supposed to be married. That is the Vedic system. A father's duty is that

as soon as the girl is grown up, she must be married. She must be given in

charge of a suitable boy. That is Vedic system.

Striyah sudras tatha vaisyah. A woman is meant for being protected. So long

she is not young, she is under the protection of the father. And as soon as

she is young, she is given in charge, in charity. Kanya-dana. Dana means

charity. He should find out some suitable boys and give in charity: "My

dear boy, take charge of this girl. So long she was under my charge. Now it

is under your charge." So where is the brahmacarini? There is no question

of brahmacarini. (Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.1.2-5 Montreal, October 23, 1968)

[Guest guest]

COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

 

> [Text 2845423 from COM]

>

> > Yes. In the early 70's Prabhupada said that women didn't have to get

> married

> > if they didn't want to. Also, I discovered that a brahmacarini asrama is

> not

> > a new creation but actually existed in ancient times.

>

> When he went to hold

> the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

> the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

> [i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

> referrences right now].

 

The history is that Srila Prabhupada gave women first initiation. Then when it

came time for second initiations he gave it to the men one day, the women the

next. The women did not plead for him for first or second initiation.