Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 > > Its a matter of understanding I guess, I may be also wrong in my > understanding of what Prabhupada is saying. > OK. I will explain what Prabhupada is saying. In the system of varnasrama dharma, marriages are made that way that a woman is always less qualified than a husband. This has to do with male and female natures. Female nature is to be submissive and male nature is to be appreciated. A woman can be easily submissive if her husband is more qualified, she would appreciate her husband. If a woman is more qualified than her husband she would have difficult time to be submissive and appreciate him. Female needs to be accepted in order to feel that she is loved. Male needs to be appreciated in order than he feels loved. When a woman appreciates her husband he accepts her and she feels loved. He feels appreciated and he feels loved, so the relationships works nicely. Now, if a woman is more qualified this breaks this kind of relationship. If she all the time has to explain things to her husband, because she is more intelligent, that breaks that smooth male-female relationship. That is why in the varnasrama system marriages are made that way that woman of higher varna doesn't marry a man from a lower varna. Those kind of marriages where woman is more qualified are called pratiloma and they are considered degraded, children born from this kind of marriages are called varna-sankara. You see, varna-sankara comes from the improper mixing of varnas in a marriage relationship. The thing is here that Srila Prabhupada is looking from above and he is saying that woman is always less inteligent. That's true in the system of varnasrama-dharma and any other system, were people have some knowledge of the male-female relationship. That a woman is always less inteligent doesn't mean that all women are all the time less inteligent than all the men (that we can realize ourselves). It means that in a marriage relationship woman is less inteligent than her husband. This kind of arrangement is made purposly to keep the male-female relationship smoothly running. I hope that helps. Ys. Sraddha dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 17, 1999 Report Share Posted December 17, 1999 > On that basis, when Srila Prabhupada says, "However great a woman may > be, she must be ready to carry out her husband's orders and please him in > all circumstances. Then her life will be successful" I take that as perfect > instruction for the kala-patra-desa in which we now happen to live. And what would the equivelent instruction for a man be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 On 17 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > On that basis, when Srila Prabhupada says, "However great a woman may > > be, she must be ready to carry out her husband's orders and please him in > > all circumstances. Then her life will be successful" I take that as perfect > > instruction for the kala-patra-desa in which we now happen to live. > > And what would the equivelent instruction for a man be? Men and women being perenially inherently nonequal, distinct, dissimilar, diverse, disparate, divergent, opposite, from Mars/from Venus, and above all *nonequivalent* (yet somehow complementary): There is no equivalent instruction for a man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 "COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA)" wrote: > [Text 2867073 from COM] > > On 17 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > On that basis, when Srila Prabhupada says, "However great a woman may > > > be, she must be ready to carry out her husband's orders and please him in > > > all circumstances. Then her life will be successful" I take that as > perfect > > > instruction for the kala-patra-desa in which we now happen to live. > > > > And what would the equivelent instruction for a man be? > > Men and women being perenially inherently nonequal, distinct, dissimilar, > diverse, disparate, divergent, opposite, from Mars/from Venus, and above > all *nonequivalent* (yet somehow complementary): > > There is no equivalent instruction for a man! > > Or a desire by men to not have to take up the responsibility of having an equivalent instruction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 1999 Report Share Posted December 18, 1999 > > On that basis, when Srila Prabhupada says, "However great a woman may > > be, she must be ready to carry out her husband's orders and please him > > in all circumstances. Then her life will be successful" I take that as > > perfect instruction for the kala-patra-desa in which we now happen to > > live. > > And what would the equivelent instruction for a man be? I think most men that have inferiority complexes and need to find someone "lower" than themselves do not ask such questions. It seems we should be much more concerned about our own duties as men. Why are these guys who are so worried about women in positions worried at all? If, as they say, women are not potent nor qualified, why are they worried? They shouldn't have to say anything at all if these women cannot become anything anyway. Maybe we could convince them to just stop talking about women completely and instead get them to talk about the unqualified men who are posing as "leaders" of this movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.