Varna first, then Asrama - comments by Ameyatma Prabhu...

[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]

Thank you, my dear Lord Krishna, for giving me such a magnanimous and kind

spiritual master as Srila Prabhupada, who is distributing the mercy of

Mahaprabhu to the entire world, even to lowly women.

 

In response to Ameyatma Prabhu's post, I'd like to offer this quote from my

elevated Godsister, Visakha prabhu's, recent paper:

 

"A devotee is not challenged or threatened by another’s growth in Krsna’s

service, but rejoices in it. A devotee does not impose gender consciousness

on aspiring Vaisnavas. Such superficial cutting and clamping is the behavior

of those who lack understanding, who confuse Srila Prabhupada’s words with

their own conceptions. Allow all to grow in their areas of interest. Let us

all blossom for Krsna’s pleasure. Srila Prabhupada writes, “No one should

try to check a person, no matter what his present position is, from coming

to the platform of a brahmana or a Vaisnava.” (Bhag., 5.26.23 purport)

And,“Vaisnave jati-buddhih. If anyone considers a Vaisnava, a devotee of the

Lord, in the categorical estimation of birth, then that is hellish

consideration.” (Bhag., 6.1.41-42 lecture), and, “So far as your question

regarding women, I have always accepted the service of women without any

discrimination…” (letter to Gurudasa, 1972)"

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

aspiring to serve,

Mamata devi dasi

 

 

 

 

On Thu, 9 Dec 99 22:14 +0400, COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)

wrote:

 

> [Text 2844573 from COM]

>

 

 

>

> 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.

 

 

>

> 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

 

 

 

 

 

______________

Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com

Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com

[Guest guest]

On 9 Dec 1999, djwarre (AT) excite (DOT) com wrote:

 

"A devotee is not challenged or threatened by another's growth in Krsna's

service, but rejoices in it. A devotee does not impose gender consciousness on

aspiring Vaisnavas.

 

We can toss around phrases like "imposing gender consciousness" and readily

appeal to the emotions of those who may have actually been mistreated, yes.

But wouldn't it also be insidious to imply that *any* discrimination based on

gender is a "...superficial cutting and clamping ...[of] the behavior of those

who lack understanding, who confuse Srila Prabhupada's words with their own

conceptions"? How could any one of us know for certain that Mother Visakha or

the IWM or anyone else isn't also confusing Srila Prabhupada's words with

their own conceptions?

 

>Allow all to grow in their areas of interest.

 

Can this proposal be supported by guru-sadhu-sastra? If my wife wants to

pursue an outside career against my desire, then can she quote Mother Visakha

above as binding authority? She cannot. Above Mother Visakha is

guru-sadhu-sastra, all of whom state that the wife must obey, follow, serve

the husband. Not that in the name of "growing in their areas of interests"

have wives been granted such freedom. Who can deny this?

 

Srila Prabhupada writes, "No one should try to check a person, no matter what

his present position is, from coming to the platform of a brahmana or a

Vaisnava." (Bhag., 5.26.23 purport)

 

Let us not wrongly interpret that, either. Wives may not rebel against their

devotee husbands on the plea that they are being checked "from coming to the

platform of a brahmana or Vaisnava."

 

>And,"Vaisnave jati-buddhih. If anyone considers a Vaisnava, a devotee >of the

Lord, in the categorical estimation of birth, then that is >hellish

consideration."

 

So what is the purport? Was Vyasadeva "considering hellishly" when he made

distinction (and which was explained by SP to be a *necessary* requirement for

a grhasta) between the naked bodies of young girls and the spirit souls within

those naked bodies?

 

>(Bhag., 6.1.41-42 lecture), and, "So far as your question regarding >women, I

have always accepted the service of women without any >discriminationI"

(letter to Gurudasa, 1972)"

>

> All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

All glories indeed, for who but such a rare soul as Srila Prabhupada could

actually accept "the service of women without discrimination" and yet

also *without* unfortunate ramifications?

 

ys,

gkdas

[Guest guest]

In remarks attributed to Ameyatma das, Basu Gosh prabhu posted the

following paragraph:

 

>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.

 

Such silly rubbish. Einstein, whom Ameyatma prabhu cites, actually

published as his own a lot of maths which were actually worked out by his

wife. Pierre Curie and Marie Curie were very much a team of scientific

collaborators. And Aristotle famously maintained, utterly without

foundation, that women had more teeth than men, but he never asked his

wife to open her mouth.

 

No doubt there were many great thinkers in history other than the men

usually cited in such lists. Many of these thinkers were certainly women.

A lot of feminine lore was, no doubt, passed on via oral tradition rather

than through writing. But because the contributions of women, even if of

excellent calibre, have historically been undervalued or devalued by the

men who compiled the surviving histories, the cycle of men valuing only

the contributions of other men goes on, self-perpetuating and

unquestioned. Ameyatma provides no useful information when he writes a

message like the above, which essentially reduces to nothing more

thoughtful than, "It is so, because it is so."

 

Best wishes,

Ananda das