A/ Women in leading positions.

[Guest guest]

On 07 Dec 1999, Harsi das wrote:

 

> > O, boy, arn't we in a MESS?

>

> And who is the root cause of all this mass... one can only guess I think.

 

 

 

Ummmm, I know -- my mother!

 

ys,

 

Sthita- 'I think I've got it' dhi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

[Guest guest]

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

 

>Maybe but he did seem to enjoy telling his disciples about how he grew >up as

a Vaisnava. In other words, Gour Mohan De, his pure devotee >father, didn't

appear to have philosophical coniptions about this >particular activity.

 

> Sthita- 'kick the ball' dhi

 

Thanks, Sthita. I don't mind giving a good swift kick at the ball:

 

When long-haired "disciples" argumentatively cited Srila Prabhupada's

mustachioed "madhya-lila" as bona fide precedent for their own long hair,

Srila Prabhupada told them that he wore mustache *before* his initiation--not

after. Our founder-acarya has clearly differentiated between the prior and

post life of an initiated Vaisnava. So is it not now very clear that after

intiation, disciples of Srila Prabhupada may not contradict his instructions

by claiming to be following in the footsteps of his pre-initiation lila?

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> When long-haired "disciples" argumentatively cited Srila Prabhupada's

> mustachioed "madhya-lila" as bona fide precedent for their own long hair,

Srila Prabhupada told them that he wore mustache *before* his initiation--not

after. Our founder-acarya has clearly differentiated between the prior and

post life of an initiated Vaisnava. So is it not now very clear that after

intiation, disciples of Srila Prabhupada may not contradict his instructions

by claiming to be following in the footsteps of his pre-initiation lila?

>

> --gkd

>

 

 

Of course, we consider Prabhupada as someone born a pure devotee Vaisnava, so

that can also be considered. Further, Prabhupada's disciples at the time were

basically brahmanacaris, where they not?

 

In any event, I am not a particular fan of mustaches. But for the most part,

the children playing soccer might also be considered 'pre-initiated'.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi

[Guest guest]

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

 

> On 07 Dec 1999, Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> > The men will forever be apathetic to protect women and to serve in

> > managerial roles when women are there like this.

> I think if the individual shows actual qualifications for doing the service

successfully, people with find something to respect

 

The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that statement

is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as constituted by bodily

frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

 

So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the other,

vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get protection

by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't no fun" for a

man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And they won't get power

either, because the power of a woman is her shyness. If that weren't already

bad en

[Guest guest]

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

 

> On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> Of course, we consider Prabhupada as someone born a pure devotee >Vaisnava,

so that can also be considered.

 

Of course. But that pure devotee Prabupada made a distinction with regard to

his own life--to set a clear example to his disciples, no doubt--between the

pre- and post-initiation stages.

 

Further, Prabhupada's disciples at the time were

> basically brahmanacari

 

I gave the example to illustrate the principle: to follow the order of the

guru, as opposed to following some particular behavior of his during an

earlier portion of his life which he himself clearly and significantly

distinguishes from a later portion.

[Guest guest]

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

> On 07 Dec 1999, Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

> > The men will forever be apathetic to protect women and to serve in

> > managerial roles when women are there like this.

> I think if the individual shows actual qualifications for doing the service

successfully, people with

find something to respect

 

The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that statement

is corroborated by

SP himself, by his saying that "as constituted by bodily frame" a man wants to

be in the superior

position.

So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the other,

vying for power--a

guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get protection by competing with

their protectorates,

because it "just ain't no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded

subordinate. And they

won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness. If that

weren't alr

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

> > The men will forever be apathetic to protect women and to serve in

> > managerial roles when women are there like this.

> I think if the individual shows actual qualifications for doing the service

successfully, people with

find something to respect

The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that statement

is corroborated by

SP himself, by his saying that "as constituted by bodily frame" a man wants to

be in the superior

position.

So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the other,

vying for power--a

guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get protection by competing with

their protectorates,

because it "just ain't no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded

subordinate. And they

won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness. If that

weren't already bad enough, she'll also be sorely lacking in femi

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

[Please excuse the multiple submissions of this, but it kept getting cut off.

The last line sentence below is finally included intact this time.]

 

So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the other,

vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get protection

by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't no fun" for a

man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And they won't get power

either, because the power of a woman is her shyness. If that weren't already

bad enough, she'll also be sorely lacking in feminine beauty,since *nari-rupam

pati-vratam* (the beauty of a woman is how much she if firmly devoted to her

husband).

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

At 6:02 PM -0500 12/9/99, COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA) wrote:

>[Text 2845168 from COM]

>

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

>

>>Maybe but he did seem to enjoy telling his disciples about how he grew >up as

>a Vaisnava. In other words, Gour Mohan De, his pure devotee >father, didn't

>appear to have philosophical coniptions about this >particular activity.

>

>> Sthita- 'kick the ball' dhi

>

>Thanks, Sthita. I don't mind giving a good swift kick at the ball:

>

>When long-haired "disciples" argumentatively cited Srila Prabhupada's

>mustachioed "madhya-lila" as bona fide precedent for their own long hair,

>Srila Prabhupada told them that he wore mustache *before* his initiation--not

>after. Our founder-acarya has clearly differentiated between the prior and

>post life of an initiated Vaisnava. So is it not now very clear that after

>intiation, disciples of Srila Prabhupada may not contradict his instructions

>by claiming to be following in the footsteps of his pre-initiation lila?

>

>--gkd

 

Very nice answer!

 

ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> I gave the example to illustrate the principle: to follow the order of the

guru, as opposed to following some particular behavior of his during an

earlier portion of his life which he himself clearly and significantly

> distinguishes from a later portion.

>

 

 

All well and good. Still, to be or not to be clad in a mustache appears

something less than an entirely significant when considered besides the

tremendous volume of teachings Prabhupada left us to ponder on. No doubt,

though, based on that one conversation there will be some who will find

themselves enthused to judge the significance of the devotees devotional

offering based on the amount of peach fuzz revealed on the upper lip.

 

Thank God I am not an old lady with a mustache -- what could possibly be

worse -- either materially and spiritually? As a loyal participant in

Prabhupada's institution, I remain a close shaver.

[Guest guest]

On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

>

> The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as constituted by

bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

>

 

But why just men? Every conditioned soul wants to be in a superior position --

that's why we're all here.

 

That men want to be in a superior position may be a psycological

consideration, but it is harldy the cornerstone for our being disciples.

[Guest guest]

> So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the other,

vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get protection

by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't no fun" for a

man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And they won't get power

either, because the power of a woman is her shyness. If that weren't already

bad enough, she'll also be sorely lacking in feminine beauty,since *nari-rupam

pati-vratam* (the beauty of a woman is how much she if firmly devoted to her

husband).

>

>

 

Well, I guess there must be alot of ugly women in the world, according to

certain GHQers. No wonder they're so renounced!

 

No matter how stupid we wish to make certain parties out to be, I am still

inclined to let them judge for themselves how genuinely protected they feel

under whatever situation they may find themselves in. Frankly, I find myself a

little more concerned how 'submissive' I am to Krsna's desire that I become a

pure devotee and so on, rather than obsessing on the submissive feminime

beauty of Western womanhood.

 

Yes, it is very nice when a married couple finds a balance that is satisfying

to both parties -- but that wasn't always gauranteed even in Vedic cultures

glory days.

[Guest guest]

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

 

> On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

>

> >

> > The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

> statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as constituted

by

> bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

> >

>

> But why just men? Every conditioned soul wants to be in a superior

position --

> that's why we're all here.

 

Everyone may want tobein a superior position, but it takes only a little

common sense to realize that in order for a family, community, society,

nation, etc. to function, some individuals will assume superior positions,

others subordinate. That's the idea. In the family, "as constituted by [both

subtle and gross] bodily frame," the man naturally becomes the superior

member. Or, if the women or children unnaturally

try to or succeed to usurp his role, then we have (as Srila Pra

[Guest guest]

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

 

> On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> > The point wasn't about respect; it was about *protection.* And that

> statement is corroborated by SP himself, by his saying that "as constituted

by

> bodily frame" a man wants to be in the superior position.

> >

>

> But why just men? Every conditioned soul wants to be in a superior

position --

> that's why we're all here.

 

Of course. So man practices subordinating himself to guru, and woman practices

subordinating herself to husband (pati-guru).

 

> That men want to be in a superior position may be a psycological

> consideration, but it is harldy the cornerstone for our being disciples.

 

We do not raise these points only in the context of "our being disciples."

Devotees discuss such issue out of genuine concern for the overall well-being

of society, both within and without of ISKCON.

 

It

[Guest guest]

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

> Well, I guess there must be alot of ugly women in the world, according to

> certain GHQers. No wonder they're so renounced!

 

The opinion as to what constitutes actual beauty in a woman is given

by *sastra*, by Canakaya, and by Srila Prabhupada himself. As it is said in

English, "Beauty [meaning physical beauty] is only skin deep." Thus, the

below-skin-deep beauty of a woman is her devotion to Krsna, as manifested

through her devotion to her husband, her *pati-guru*.

 

> No matter how stupid we wish to make certain parties out to be,

 

Who is "we"? And what "certain parties" do *you* wish to make out as "stupid,"

I wonder?

 

>Frankly, I find myself a little more concerned how 'submissive' I am to

>Krsna's desire that I become a pure devotee and so on, rather than >obsessing

on the submissive feminime beauty of Western womanhood.

 

Yes, best to be obsess

[Guest guest]

> On 9 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna das wrote:

>

> >

> > Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever

> > instruct

> any of his disciples to play soccer?

> >

>

>

> Maybe not, but he did seem to enjoy telling his disciples about how he

> grew up as a Vaisnava. In other words, Gour Mohan De, his pure devotee

> father, didn't appear to have philosophical coniptions about this

> particular activity.

 

 

And why? Maybe because as srila prabhupada said, "I can't remember a time

when I didn't remember Krsna". One can remember Krsna during any activity.

That's the idea I think. we can remember Krsna when we are playing soccer,

or digging ditches, or being a prostitute or killing our relatives and

gurus. We have to remember we are engaged by material nature in so many

activities due to our past desires which MUST be fulfilled. One cannot deny

ones nature. One must only remember Krsna as much as one is able to at their

present state of advancement. Getting into the shower is the only

qualification Krsna looks at; it doesn't matter how dirty one is before

getting in nor how long a time one stays in the shower. (Does anyone really

know what time it is?)

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Maybe not, but he did seem to enjoy telling his disciples about how he

grew up as a Vaisnava. In other words, Gour Mohan De, his pure devotee

> > father, didn't appear to have philosophical coniptions about this

> > particular activity.

>

>

> And why? Maybe because as srila prabhupada said, "I can't remember a time

when I didn't remember Krsna". One can remember Krsna during any activity.

That's the idea I think. we can remember Krsna when we are playing soccer, or

digging ditches, or being a prostitute or killing our relatives and gurus. We

have to remember we are engaged by material nature in so many activities due

to our past desires which MUST be fulfilled. One cannot deny ones nature. One

must only remember Krsna as much as one is able to at their present state of

advancement. Getting into the shower is the only qualification Krsna looks at;

it doesn't matter how dirty one is before getting in nor how long a time one

stays in the shower. (Does anyone really know what time it is?)

>

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly, certain GHQers must be remembering Krsna when they are dumping on

their favorite Vaisnavis. I mean how else could you explain their superior

escotericism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

> On 09 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

> [Please excuse the multiple submissions of this, but it kept getting cut

> off. The last line sentence below is finally included intact this time.]

>

> So on the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the

> other, vying for power--a guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get

> protection by competing with their protectorates, because it "just ain't

> no fun" for a man to try to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And

> they won't get power either, because the power of a woman is her shyness.

> If that weren't already bad enough, she'll also be sorely lacking in

> feminine beauty,since *nari-rupam pati-vratam* (the beauty of a woman is

> how much she if firmly devoted to her husband).

>

> --gkd

That's alright. But what does that has to do with woman's varna? You see,

the qualified ksatriya lady would be somebody who is able to manage, is

married, is nicely assisting husband and is chaste. Is that alright with

you?

But you know, if there are no qualified husbands available and ksatriya

ladies grew up in a completely demoniac culture and are trained to be

independent, than you got a problem. They would still be able to manage,

because that's their nature, and they wouldn't be that shy. Because they

have desire to serve Krishna they would still go on managing no matter what

you do. And those are the one's who know how to protect themselves even

without a husband.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> Everyone may want tobein a superior position, but it takes only a little

common sense to realize that in order for a family, community, society,

nation, etc. to function, some individuals will assume superior positions,

others subordinate. That's the idea. In the family, "as constituted by [both

subtle and gross] bodily frame," the man naturally becomes the superior

member. Or, if the women or children unnaturally

> try to or succeed to usurp his role, then we have (as Srila Pra

>

 

 

For some mysterious reason Krsna keeps cutting the message above short. While

I can certainly appreciate the beauty of our KC philosophy, possibly the

essential problem at hand is the difficulty created by people who relentlessly

claim to hold a superior position through exploiting the philosophy in an

attempt to justify their own boorish and often abusive behaviour. Some might

catatorize this kind of mentality as 'offensive' to the point of being

'destructive'.

 

As we have all experienced, any computer can quote Srila Prabhupada, but it

takes a Vaisnava to apply it beneficially.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

"COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2844707 from COM]

>

> On 9 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

>

> > Therefore I see that I will have to play much more soccer to make up for

> that. (Have fun quoting that one, GHQers)

>

> Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct

> any of his disciples to play soccer?

 

Did he ever instruct them not to?

[Guest guest]

On 16 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> "COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote:

>

> > [Text 2844707 from COM]

> >

> > On 9 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

> >

> > > Therefore I see that I will have to play much more soccer to make up for

> > that. (Have fun quoting that one, GHQers)

> >

> > Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever

instruct

> > any of his disciples to play soccer?

 

> Did he ever instruct them not to?

 

That is no answer to my question, prabhu--just a typical diversionary tactic,

I humbly submit. But I'll answer the question for you: He did not instruct his

disciples to play soccer. Beyond that, in so many ways he also instructed us

"not to." For, if we even *try* to follow even a *fraction* of the many direct

instructions which he *did* give us, then we barely have time to eat or sleep,

what to speak of wa

[Guest guest]

>>> Did Srila Prabhupada ever instruct any of his disciples to play soccer?

>

>> Did he ever instruct them not to?

 

He wrote "no frivolous sports" on his posted notice to initiated disciples

at 26 Second Avenue.

 

(Check out the header - is this a great match, or what?)

[Guest guest]

>

> > >

> > > Better to follow, not imitate, isn't it. Did Srila Prabhupada ever

> instruct

> > > any of his disciples to play soccer?

>

> > Did he ever instruct them not to?

>

> That is no answer to my question, prabhu--just a typical diversionary tactic,

> I humbly submit. But I'll answer the question for you: He did not instruct

his

> disciples to play soccer. Beyond that, in so many ways he also instructed us

> "not to." For, if we even *try* to follow even a *fraction* of the many

direct

> instructions which he *did* give us, then we barely have time to eat or

sleep,

> what to speak of wa

 

Here, you owe one. This could be used to imply we shouldn't play soccer if

you

felt strongly to make such a case.

 

Although we are part and parcel of God, mamaiväàço jéva-bhütaù, because we

have cyuta, fallen down from our spiritual atmosphere... Just like spiritual

atmosphere, Kåñëa’s friends, cowherd boys, they’re playing with Kåñëa. That

is also playing. And here in this material world the boys they also play

football play. But these two plays are different. One is spiritual and

another is material.

9/14/76 VRNDAVAN

[Guest guest]

On 17 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> Here, you owe one. This could be used to imply we shouldn't play soccer if

> you

> felt strongly to make such a case.

>

> Although we are part and parcel of God, mamaiväàço jéva-bhütaù, because we

> have cyuta, fallen down from our spiritual atmosphere... Just like spiritual

> atmosphere, Kåñëa's friends, cowherd boys, they're playing with Kåñëa. That

> is also playing. And here in this material world the boys they also play

> football play. But these two plays are different. One is spiritual and

> another is material.

> 9/14/76 VRNDAVAN

 

You punted?

 

(But seriously, prabhu, I thank you for the quote.)

 

We'll run it back for a quick...v

v

v

<

<

[Guest guest]

>

> > Did he ever instruct them not to?

>

> That is no answer to my question, prabhu--just a typical diversionary

> tactic, I humbly submit. But I'll answer the question for you: He did not

> instruct his disciples to play soccer. Beyond that, in so many ways he

> also instructed us "not to." For, if we even *try* to follow even a

> *fraction* of the many direct instructions which he *did* give us, then we

> barely have time to eat or sleep, what to speak of wa

 

Your question is meant for zombies, that's the point.

 

If a zombi attempts to do something on his own, then you surprise

him with "have you ever been instructed to do so, my dear zombi?".

And then a zombi gets caught up, starts scratching his head, not

finding the "right" *answer*, spinning around aimlessly not knowing

what really to do next... till the programer redirects him

to somewhere that a zombi can be able to identifiy and

recognize as an already given instruction what to do.

 

How long we'll be insisting in creating a mental wracks through

such similar odd zombi programs?

 

 

- Mahanidhi das