Varna first, then Asrama

[Guest guest]

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

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

 

> 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?

 

Whether or not a woman's brain is 34 ounces or less is a detail and not the

principle Prabhupada was trying to convey. One can easily pick up that

principle in the following conversation. The truth inherent in Prabhupada's

statement is valid even if scientists disprove the brain sizes he gave.

 

Prabhupada: All right, trying. But you women, you cannot see that this

so-called equal right means cheating the woman. Now I say more clearly that

a woman and man meets. Now they become lover. Then they have sex, and the

woman becomes pregnant, and the man goes away. The simple woman, she has to

take charge of the child and beg from government alms, "Please give me

money." This is your independence. Do you admit this is independence, that

the man makes the woman pregnant and he goes away without any

responsibility, and the woman cannot give up the child, she maintains,

begging from the government or she tries to kill the child? Do you think it

is very good independence? What is your answer?

Woman: To... Whether or not it is good to kill a child? Is that the question?

Prabhupäda: Yes, they are killing now, abortion.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: He wants to know that kind of independence.

Woman: For the child?

Ravéndra-svarüpa: For the woman.

Prabhupäda: For the woman.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: This is liberation. She has an affair with a man, and she

gets pregnant. The man leaves. Then she has to beg alms from the government

to support the child...

Prabhupäda: Or kill.

Ravéndra-svarüpa: Or she kills the child. So is that good or bad?

Woman: Well, she has made the choice to have...

Prabhupäda: That means, *that is 34 ounce*. You have made your choice to

kill your own child. Is that very good choice?

Sandy Nixon: It's the worst crime you could commit.

Jayatértha: Her brain is getting larger. (laughter)

Prabhupäda: Do you think it is very good business?

Woman: I think this is a very complicated question.

Prabhupäda: Therefore I say they are cheating you in the name of

independence. That you do not understand. *Therefore 34 ounce.* They are

cheating you, and you are thinking you are independent. (Room Conversation

with writer, Sandy Nixon, July 13, 1975, Philadelphia)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/99 3:01:55 PM Central Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

<< 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?

>>

 

I think the problem is that Iskcon will always have women who want to join.

So will we allow them to join and be trained as devotees or will we say you

have to be married because this is your nature and living in the temple is

artificial? I don't suspect that most preachers would feel right doing this,

at least not in the West.

 

What do you think we should preach to women because when one goes out to

preach, one will certainly meet women. And if they get a book they may be

encouraged to move into a temple.

 

Within a vedic social structure things would be different. You mentioend that

Prabhupada said a brahmacarini asrama was artificial, but still he created it

because he wanted to give women shelter. Do you suppose today he would not

want to give them that shelter?

 

But as I said on another post, even if we try to raise our children to the

ideal vedic standard, it may not completely work without a vedic social

system in place. In fact, it may backfire since they are surrounded by

antithetical views in western society. Often children raised in devout

religious families completely reject their parents religion because they were

given more of it than they wanted. Obvioiusly, we are not immune to these

problems.

 

So when devotees talk of strictly adhereing to vedic principles while living

in the midst of a non vedic social system, I don't see how it can be

entirely possible unless they create a vedic village and do not mix with the

secular society.Because this was not the case, Prabhupada made adjustments.

Yet at the same time, he preached the vedic ideal. Now if any devotees can

show how to make the ideal work, hats off to them. And this would be the

stongest argument for their cae and cause.

 

And it is important to note that in some cases this attempt has produced

contradictory results. Many arranged marriages didn't work, our gurukulas

have been great failures, and the list goes on. So many compotents are needed

to make the vedic social model a success. And if those components are not

there, it can backfire.

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

touchy, touchy -- I was only attempting a joke as well! Unfortunately it was

true and not very funny.

 

 

 

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> 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]

> 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.

Don't worry. Brahmacari ashram is also artificial.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

> But as I said on another post, even if we try to raise our children to the

> ideal vedic standard, it may not completely work without a vedic social

> system in place. In fact, it may backfire since they are surrounded by

> antithetical views in western society. Often children raised in devout

> religious families completely reject their parents religion because they

> were given more of it than they wanted. Obvioiusly, we are not immune to

> these problems.

>

> So when devotees talk of strictly adhereing to vedic principles while

> living in the midst of a non vedic social system, I don't see how it can

> be entirely possible unless they create a vedic village and do not mix

> with the secular society.Because this was not the case, Prabhupada made

> adjustments. Yet at the same time, he preached the vedic ideal. Now if any

> devotees can show how to make the ideal work, hats off to them. And this

> would be the stongest argument for their cae and cause.

This is true!

If we cannot listen to those who have the experience and grown up children.

Lets just wait 20 years and see where we are all at then, with all the big

talk.

 

What is obvious right now, right here in the reality of our lifes, is that

a illiterate young lady would not do very well, neither on the spiritual nor

on the material side. She would suffer.

Because she is not living in a society where she is protected no matter

what. Any etnic family coming from India, Africa or whereever unto the west,

know this. No matter how traditional they are.

Thats why they also put their kids to school.

Those who become allieniated by society often ends up as criminals in order

to survive. Often they end up as belonging to neither there own tradition

nor the modern society, not good enough for any of them. The sad thing is

that they had no choice.

It is our duty to train our children not only to our ideals, but also to

the world they will have to face, and aknowledge their precare situation

without looking down at them, because they need our support. Srila

Prabhupadas father and mother raised a vaisnava that way.

 

We all have to strugle, why do some assume that others are simply taking

it light? I dont see any reason for anyone to make that strugle even harder

for others by constantly putting them in the nose how unqualified they are

as westerners, women or whatever. If that is an example of protection then I

would rather stay without. But I know it is not. Because it is completely

unrealistic.

 

How do I know?

I tried to train my children to a society which did not exist, myself.

 

Your servant Gunamani d.d.

[Guest guest]

At 11:59 PM -0500 12/10/99, COM: Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Vrindavan - IN) wrote:

 

>I think the problem is that Iskcon will always have women who want to join.

>So will we allow them to join and be trained as devotees or will we say you

>have to be married because this is your nature and living in the temple is

>artificial? I don't suspect that most preachers would feel right doing this,

>at least not in the West.

 

Therefore we need women's asramas.

 

>Within a vedic social structure things would be different. You mentioend that

>Prabhupada said a brahmacarini asrama was artificial, but still he created it

>because he wanted to give women shelter. Do you suppose today he would not

>want to give them that shelter?

 

Nobody has ever proposed to deny them shelter.

 

>So when devotees talk of strictly adhereing to vedic principles while living

>in the midst of a non vedic social system, I don't see how it can be

>entirely possible unless they create a vedic village and do not mix with the

>secular society.Because this was not the case, Prabhupada made adjustments.

>Yet at the same time, he preached the vedic ideal. Now if any devotees can

>show how to make the ideal work, hats off to them. And this would be the

>stongest argument for their cae and cause.

 

Yes. Prabhupada made adjustments but he always preached the highest; he

never preached that it's ok to divorce and remarry, that it's ok for women

to live with men in the temples etc. etc.

 

Ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Trivikrama Swami wrote:

 

> > >

> > > 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

 

 

 

Hey, I can relate to that!

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna 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.

>

 

 

 

Out of respect for the author of the original comment that was posted, I

won't.

 

 

 

> >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

>

 

 

I believe that occupation is sometimes called 'housewife'.

 

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...

>

 

 

Margaret Thatcher is often held as one of the most significant world leaders

responsible for the decline and fall of the former Soviet Union.

 

Anyway, if someone has a talent that can be utilized for the benefit of

others, that could very be something useful in Krsna's service as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Harsi das wrote:

 

>

> 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

 

 

 

Kinda makes our Gurukula system of education seem almost together!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>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.

 

Until this happens, varnasrama (and homeschooling for daughters) will not

start to happen. But first the men must provide finacially for their

families (at home or outside the home) to facilitate this.

 

Ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

>

> Yes. Prabhupada made adjustments but he always preached the highest; he

> never preached that it's ok to divorce and remarry, that it's ok for women

> to live with men in the temples etc. etc.

>

I never heard that one before. I mean that he never preached that is Ok

for women to live together with men in the temples. Why did he then put them

together in the same temple?

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/99 2:11:36 PM Central Standard Time,

Sraddha.HKS (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<< Yes. Prabhupada made adjustments but he always preached the highest; he

> never preached that it's ok to divorce and remarry, that it's ok for women

> to live with men in the temples etc. etc.

> >>

 

There were cases in which women wanted to remarry and Prabhupada gave his ok

if this was the only way they could stay in KC. We should always remember

that despite whatever Prabhupada preached, he would bend the rules if that

would help someone become more KC.

 

Ys, Md

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > 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

 

Does anyone else note the irony that ISKCON got started because a woman gave

Srila

Prabhupada a free ride to America?

[Guest guest]

Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> [Text 2849328 from COM]

>

> >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.

>

> Until this happens, varnasrama (and homeschooling for daughters) will not

> start to happen. But first the men must provide finacially for their

> families (at home or outside the home) to facilitate this.

>

> Ys, Sdd

 

I suppose that no one wants to hear this, but according to Marxian analysis,

for

the most part in the world economy as it stands now, both women and children

will

have to work outside the home. The purpose is to have a "reserve army of the

unemployed" who will help keep wages down for capitalist employers. (Also, as

a

matter of practice, things have not worked out any better in the so-called

communist countries -- which is why many people call them examples of "state

capitalism.")

 

To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which

only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since individuals

from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women at

home

to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some

countries, so will the children.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote:

 

>To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in which

>only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since

>individuals

>from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women

>at home

>to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in some

>countries, so will the children.

 

Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to their

lower class family's income by working *within* the family enterprise or

earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their work was

considered part of their educational training.

 

YS, Sdd

[Guest guest]

Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote:

>

> >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in

which

> >only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since

> >individuals

> >from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of keeping women

> >at home

> >to tutor their children. Rather, those women will have to work. And in

some

> >countries, so will the children.

>

> Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to their

> lower class family's income by working *within* the family enterprise or

> earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their work was

> considered part of their educational training.

>

> YS, Sdd

 

For thousands of years, the market-oriented, capitalist, global economy did

not

exist. Now we have a different set of rules. It is a fundamentally unfair set

of

rules. And it is a set of rules which is fundamentally opposed to the

development

of spiritual life.

 

That's why Srila Prabhupada said -- a number of times -- that we must

"thoroughly

overhaul" society.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi

[Guest guest]

> At 5:32 PM -0500 12/13/99, Noma Petroff wrote:

>

> >To begin with demanding home schooling, means to propose a revolution in

> >which only wealthy and middle class can meaningfully participate -- since

> >individuals from the lower economic strata will not have the luxury of

> >keeping women at home to tutor their children. Rather, those women will

> >have to work. And in some countries, so will the children.

>

> Not so. For thousands of years women and children have contributed to

> their lower class family's income by working *within* the family

> enterprise or earning their keep as an apprentice to someone else. Their

> work was considered part of their educational training.

But, you see, women didn't for tousands of years live in this kind of

demoniac ugra-karma industrialized society. This started to happen only some

hundred years ago. And we have to take in a consideration which kind of

society we are living in. Or, are we supposed to live in some non existing

vacuum?

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

On 13 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

 

>

> Does anyone else note the irony that ISKCON got started because a woman gave

Srila Prabhupada a free ride to America?

>

>

 

 

And an extremely successful business person at that. She respected Vedic

culture, one of the motivating factors behind her assistance to Srila

Prabhupada. Curiously, she seemed to do more than most for Srila Prabhupada

during a difficult time.

[Guest guest]

> .

> But, you see, women didn't for tousands of years live in this kind of

> demoniac ugra-karma industrialized society. This started to happen only some

> hundred years ago. And we have to take in a consideration which kind of

> society we are living in. Or, are we supposed to live in some non existing

> vacuum?

> Ys. Sraddha dd

 

There was no paper money in Vedic society. If you use paper money, you aren't

Vedic.

 

There were no automobiles or yantra airplanes in Vedic Society. If you use

them, you aren't Vedic.

 

Noone drank blood milk in Vedic society. If you drink blood milk, you aren't

Vedic.

 

There were no computers in Vedic society. If you use computers, you aren't

Vedic.

 

There were no educated outspoken women managers in Vedic society. Educated

outspoken women managers aren't Vedic.

 

It is not Vedic to pass stool into water. If you pass stool into water , you

aren't Vedic.

 

As soon as the men drink only milk from protected cows, don't use cars,

airplanes, computers or paper money, and get their stool together, I too will

agree that women shouldn't be managers.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/17/1999 12:50:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Madhava.Gosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

> As soon as the men drink only milk from protected cows, don't use cars,

> airplanes, computers or paper money, and get their stool together, I too

> will

> agree that women shouldn't be managers.

>

 

Thank you prabhu for your usual down-to-earth perspective. Either they can

lead or get out of the way and let anyone willing and capable do it. At this

point in the fledgling era of KC in the west, no talented and willing

administrator should be rejected because of gender. As our society evolves

over generations I am sure women will be satisfied to remain the organizers

of a happy home, but to expect us to jump to that at this point and

circumstance or limit our daughters, is unrealistic and unproductive. yhs,

Kanti dasi