Sexism and related topics

[JRdd]

Hare Krsna dear prabhus,

 

I can not post for another hour but just came here quickly to move this post from the True Association thread to a new one, before the topic gets diverted. I feel that we are making good ground on that thread, and there should be a separate thread for these other discussions.

 

I see that in the meantime Rishi prabhu has posted, which I haven't had time to read yet, but judging from his signature (the msot deplorable) I am making some assumptions as to how this psot affected him. Just for the record I think that he is being dealt with much more harshly than he deserves, and that we all are tainted with varying degrees of sexism or misogeny of some kind. It may be useful to point these out when they occur or when we suspect their occurrence, but these are delicate matters and they should be treated sensitively. Otherwise communication shuts off. And I personally have been very much encouraged by Rishi's honest and respectful posts, which are very useful in my opinion.

 

There are ways to communicate with each other, ways to treat each other without disrespect, and I am not pointing the finger at Suryaz here, just saying in general that we will not ever make bridges if certain modes of basic respect are not adhereed to. I myself have been treated most insensitively this week, and while it is useful to have one's eyes opened, good to know who behaves like a jerk and who doesn't, it has not helped in the way of unification of the Vaisnavas, which is what I aim for myself, don't know about the rest of you all. Talk about rudeness, I could tell you stories. But who wants to hear. Just gotta move on, and know when some's association has proved unuseful. I will pick out some points relating to msiogeny from these recent experiences, including some men's hatred of the soft emotions of women. More later, keep your chin up Rishi, you are a good soul. Maybe this discussion here will becme useful too. But not while someone is picking at or on someone else.

 

All glories to Sri Sri Guru and Gauranga!

 

ys, Jayaradhe dasi

 

 

Originally posted by rishidas:

Thankyou for your kind words, Suryaz.

 

I was just catching up on all the posts here and ready to reply in length to Mother JayaRadhe dasi's excellent, well-thought out postings. But I was very surprised to see this attack. As JRdd has pointed out, it is beneficial to view these discussions from various viewpoints. Thus, I attempted, (rather miserably it appears), to add some food for thought, based upon my own experiences and from observing the experiences of others.

 

It appears that you are reading into my words what you will. It is a shame, as these are rather sensitive matters to discuss openly, (perhaps confidentially would be best, as Maitreya prabhu seems to be hinting.) I am willing to accept correction, (if I have erred) as well as some degree of reasonable and mild chastisement. (I have no interest in continuing this dialogue openly if such hostile attacks are to continue.) Not out of humility, (if I were actually humble, I would probably just ignore this attack instead of trying to defend myself!), but with a sincere mood of attempting to address many of these important issues, (which all too often seem to degrade into either extreme mysogeny or it's opposite, unrelenting male-bashing, neither of which will serve any positive, constructive purpose for illuminating the topic under discussion.)

 

As far as your example above, no, I was not at all blaming my fiance for the falldowns. If anything, she was by far the better devotee, being that she felt more guilty and depressed about the falldowns than did I. For that, I respect her, and am able to understand why she would feel the need to find a scapegoat, to blame me for the falldowns. Yes, I did use the word "seduce". But I did not mean that in the sense that I was blaming her or faulting her in any way. I clearly mentioned that the falldowns were mutual. Yes, I was seduced several times, and there is no need for me to go into any further detail about this. But I was not angry with her, nor was I blaming her, nor have I ever blamed her. I *allowed* myself to be seduced, and as they say, "it takes two to tango." The difference was, I didn't scapegoat her, nor did I blame her or become angry with her for the falldowns. I was not disappointed with her, nor did I consider her to be any less of a devotee because of the falldowns. My mood was that we pick ourselves back up and get on with our devotional service. In striking contrast, her mood was to become so utterly depressed and disappointed over the falldowns that she would become bitter with me, greatly disappointed in me, that I was not strong enough to "protect her" from the falldowns, and I would therefore become the scapegoat, which as JRdd has pointed out, was simply denial. After the engagement was broken off, (her decision), she bad-mouthed me pretty good to the devotee community we were connected with. I was described by her to be nothing but a rascal, and someone who had "one thing on his mind, and one thing only." I honestly do not believe that this was an accurate depiction of our engagement. I was attached to her, and was trying to make the relationship work, and despite what you may think of me, was quite heartbroken that our friendship/engagement ended as it did. Despite all this, I easily forgave her, as I know that these were nothing more than knee-jerk reactions to her despondency over breaking the regulative principles while in my rotten association.

 

I've never thought of myself as a mysogenist, as you say. In fact, 20 years ago, when most husbands were ordering their wives around to "do this", "do that", "get me this", "get me that", I used to try to encourage my friends to ask nicely, instead of ordering and demanding, often treating their wives like slaves.

 

I'm sorry you have misunderstood my words. I wonder if this isn't a result of your own conditioning? There are, after all, people who are outright male-bashers and truly believe that 95% of the devotee men are incorrigible abusers of women. While I fully acknowledge that abuses and mistreatment have been committed, I also like to think that most devotee men, in my age group anyway, (note that I use the word devotee here, as I am not referring herein to those who may externally *appear* to be devotees) have matured over the years and have perhaps learned some valuable lessons, the hard way, (usually through painful divorces) that if they want a happy marriage, they'd better get their act together and treat their wives with honor, love, and respect.

 

I am by no means a humble devotee. Nor did I ever state or try to convey that I was a "protector". Quite the opposite, I failed miserably in protecting my fiance from our falldowns, as I have already admitted. But I am trying to be honest in these discussions. If I'm going to be viciously attacked while speaking honestly, as I try to share my input as JRdd has asked us to, then I will have to agree with Maitreya prabhu that some things are probably best discussed confidentially.

 

To Mother Jaya Radhe prabhu, I apologize, but I have temporarily lost interest in adding to the discussion, at least for today, despite the fact that I had just returned home from work all ready to reply in depth. At this time, all I can offer in the way of a reply is that I greatly *greatly* appreciate your deep and thoughtful insights and realizations. Especially on the subject of love, friends and/or mates giving of themselves freely with Krsna at the center. Your quotes from Scott Peck were much appreciated, although I have never read his material before. But I do share these ideals, as much as I may have fallen short of the mark in the past.

 

Begging for forgiveness for any offenses commmitted,

 

The most deplorable,

 

rishidas

 

 

 

[mahak]

Haribol. All "isms" spring forth from a basic misconception of actual identity. It is not a problem of a particular group (the very word group indicates a common tainted viewpoint based on false identification of the body (and mind) as the self), the problem is very widespread.

 

Many folks of the civil; rights movements refuse to consider that black folks cannot be racists. Their reasoning is that they hold no power, therefore their prejudices are not holding others down as they are held down. But, the fact remains that many blacks falsely identify those in white bodies as different from themselves by dint of this pigmentation, therefore, "racism does apply.

 

Sexism is the same type of beast. There are certainly a huge number of mysogenistic cultures and individual mindsets. Islamic fundamentalism is the most public demonstration of this horrible treatment based on gender, but fundamental Hinduism is not that far away, nor is fundamental Christianity. Women are seen as lesser beings, and protection is misconstrued as a right to apply bondage of the worst infringement of basic human rights.

 

Individuals come in both sexes. The womanizer is a woman hater because his mental picture of femininity is based in lust only, and the being in that opposite gender is of no consequence. Conversely, the woman who views all men as sexists is no dofferent, for they fail to judge the content of character. They may not hold the power to adversely affect the male by their discrimination, yet the illusion is front and center and the consciousness is seen to be underdeveloped.

 

Bottom line is the words of the sadhus and acaryas that recomment that all bodily designations are not necessarily false, but are temporary and not applicable to the actual person suffering the effect of one's unfortunate and mistaken feelings.

 

I hope folks have imput here. I view the various "isms", especially sexism and mysogeny, to be the singlemost reason for the Vaisnava community disfunction. If we cannot get rid of these various obstructions to our spiritual quest, then all other, much more difficult anarthas will be impossible to face and transcend.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Caitanyachandra]

IF (Sexism is Discrimination of gender);

THEN

{anyone with a mind is sexist potentially};

 

[M-dd]

Mysogenism. My 'pet' topic. Hehe.

 

What is mysogenism? Hatred of the female.

 

Where does it come from? Well pop-psychology has explainations of how the soul is conditioned into it from childhood. But we know that that conditioning comes by special arrangement to fill the criterias of our particular multi-plex combinations of karma.

 

So is there a deeper root? I think so.

 

Consider this, the soul is ultimately female. The fallen jiva is envious of Krsna and wants to play at being Krsna in this here material world. Thus she needs to dis-identify with the feminine nature of her existence. To the degree that 'feminism' rears her ugly head, to that degree the covered soul must deny. Sure, we take birth as females too, but maybe that is in a more covered state even than the male who is trying to be Krsna. Maybe it is double denial. I don't think that's very important, just mentioning it so no one thinks I'm trying to say a female body is more spiritual in some way, as I'm not.

 

What is important is this hatred of the feminine. It manifests in our little boy's upbringings when they are taught not to cry, not to have feelings. The modern civilization as a whole is obsessed with denying the feminine. Soon women will even be drafted. Truth is the 'women's lib' movement has not only done nothing to help the plight of women, outside of maybe a token here or there, but it has also greatly harmed us.

 

Women also means children. How much child-hatred do we witness in our greater society? Just look at the abortion numbers and you have your answer. But what about devotee societies? My experience is that temple devotees hate children quite as much as their non-devotee counterparts, and that goes for women as well as men, but more in quantity from men. Especially the ones in that orange color.

 

Compare this to the shining example of Srila Prabhupada. One godsister told me how in Vrndavana when Srila Prabhupada was cooking for his beloved Deities, he would not hesitate if a child appeared at the kitchen door to take a chapati right off the fire and give it to the child! This same devotee told me Srila Prabhupada called her five year old son 'chapati face', and once said to her, 'he should always be eating'. How does that compare to a husband who takes food out of his own children and pregnant wife's mouths? Oh no one would do that, you say? Thank goodness some people can believe that for not having been exposed.

 

Ok, enough of my theory of the root of mysogeny. How about examining it's phenomenon. Would it surprise anyone if I were to say women can also be mysogenistic? Take the woman who kisses up to the men by putting other women down. That is also mysogenism.

 

Mysogenism is an annartha, which, like pride et al, resides in the seeds of the heart and can sprout at any time and must be cleared out by the good gardener like any other weed. We don't get all in a ruffle about admitting other annarthas, so why so much defensiveness surrounding this particular one? I won't try answer that, except to suggest that perhaps it is the deepest enviousness, to deny the feminine self in the desire to be Krsna.

 

How is it manifest? Many many ways. Most often reckognizable in men, for obvious reasons. I think that it is a particular challenge for men, and perhaps that is because their particular birth is beyond the lower coverings that exist for us women. But in society, the problem of mysogenist behaviour is mostly manifest in men abusing and exploiting women and children. What really saddens me is to hear in other places devotee men who are still trying to say that ISKCON marriages were disasterous due to the lack of submission of the women, when the truth is that many many women submitted to mysogenistic abuse to please Srila Prabhupada and ended up endangering their spiritual lives in the process due to the heavy duty chains of entanglement abuse fosters, it is negative conditioning. I have yet to hear even one man say publicly that these assessments are wrong and that the vast majority of Srila Prabhupada's daughters did in actual fact take willingly and enthusiastically to the humble role of submissiveness.

 

aspiring to serve and share,

Madhavi-devi dasi

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by M-dd (edited 09-25-2001).]

[Maitreya]

Every material comtaminated soul wants to usurp Krishna's position as the Supreme Enjoyer, the Supreme Male.

 

While trying to dominate and exploit others we sometimes we find ourselves getting the short end of the stick.Tough for us.

 

When we stop trying to exploit we will find that our own experience of being exploited will vanish in due course.

 

From a lecture on Bg13.1-2 Lect. 9-24-73

 

Therefore those who are actually intelligent, they should not neglect this movement, Krsna consciousness movement. It is the greatest welfare movement for the whole human society to make people God conscious, Krsna conscious, without which there will be so many troubles. It is already there. So everyone is trying to enjoy the prakåti, the material nature. Therefore the question is prakåtià puruñaà caiva kñetraà kñetrajïaà eva ca. This is material nature and anyone who is trying to enjoy this material nature, he is called purusa. Purusa means enjoyer and prakrti means enjoyed. Just like in ordinary life we see a man is supposed to be enjoyer and the woman is supposed to be enjoyed, similarly, prakrti is feminine gender and purusa is masculine gender. Anyone who is trying to enjoy, he is purusa. It doesn’t matter, outwardly he’s dressed as man or women; if he has got the desire to enjoy, that is called purusa. And his object that is enjoyed, that is called prakrti.

 

 

[M-dd]

When we stop trying to exploit we will find that our own experience of being exploited will vanish in due course.

Yes, and the opperative words here are 'in due course'. This, in a nutshell, is the kernel of all the ISKCON false shame, or toxic shame, that devotees beat themselves up with.

 

Why?

 

Because, it is turning into the shaming idea that IF YOU ARE NOT TOTALLY FREE OF "BEING EXPLOITED", THEN IT IS ASSUMED, BY PROCESS OF DEDUCTION(black & white), THAT YOU HAVE NOT TAKEN TO THE PROCESS!

 

Then you go beat yourself up, and let others do it for you, feeling in the end unable to meet the task. This is why it's so important to reckognize abuse and all of its factors, culturing knowledge as well as nescience----per NoI, so that we can see it for what it is, stop beating ourselves up, and free our minds from this entangling conditioning. It's a bit like freeing the mind while still in prison, and feeling genuinely free, as opposed to the 'free' citizen who is a slave to his boss, etc.

 

'In due course' means it takes time, and one must offer the sufferings along the way up to Krsna and move beyond them, digging up, ever deeper the very roots of the annnarthas.

 

M-d.d.

[Maitreya]

 

TRANSLATION

In this world, there is nothing so sublime and pure as transcendental knowledge. Such knowledge is the mature fruit of all mysticism. And one who has become accomplished in the practice of devotional service enjoys this knowledge within himself in due course of time. Bg 4.38

 

 

[stonehearted]

 

Originally posted by M-dd:

Yes, and the opperative words here are 'in due course'. This, in a nutshell, is the kernel of all the ISKCON false shame, or toxic shame, that devotees beat themselves up with.

 

Stonehearted: "Toxic shame." I llke that; it show how it's clearly distict form actual humility, which is nourishing, nurturing. Tripurari Maharaj points out that feeling oursleves lower than a straw in the street is not a pose, but a realization of our actual position.

 

Madhavi: 'In due course' means it takes time, and one must offer the sufferings along the way up to Krsna and move beyond them, digging up, ever deeper the very roots of the annnarthas.

 

Stone: Yep, and that's not always easy, not always fun.

[swan]

Hare Krsna. I'm new to this forum but have been reading for a little while. I'm a young Mum and although I'd like to participate in these forums I don't feel at all qualified to really make a worthwhile contribution and my time is little. But I'd like to comment on what I've read in this thread about mysogenism. It seems every philosophical or religious path in the world to some degree, except buddhism, from my own personal understanding, is to some degree mysogenistic, or should I say gives the impression to the aspiraant studying it that women are indeed inferior, lesser in various way, especially those ways the men feel are the most important, eg intelligence, discernment, women are deceitful etc. etc. etc. Is it little wonder that the male gender grows to take on board these conceptions, colour them with their own viewpoints and consider them truth, because 'the book' says so. Mysogeny in females, i.e. hatred towards men, I personally feel develops from being treated and seen as inferior, ie exploited,it's a defence mechanism. Women exploit too but they don't have the position or power to exploit big time like men do. I feel myself after years of emotional and mental abuse that I too unfortunately are developing a mistrust of men. OK I've exploited obviously like everyone else to some degree, but a lot of men, and devotee men just as much as karmi men, seem to think that their monopoly on exploitation is excuseable.

[suryaz]

Reply by Suryaz: This is an interesting post and a very interesting use of language. . Otherwise put – For the most part of it, it is full of egotism, chauvinism and misogynistic intent of the most deplorable sort. It is full of adhasya. You present yourself as compassionate, humble and of course ever forbearing, the protector etc. etc., but you forgot the most basic thing, and your use of languages magnifies such. It is called honesty.

“To thine own self be true”. Even Shakespeare knew that.

 

The following is just one example from the post; but the whole post is set in the same linguistic framework and approach, at both macro and micro levels.

 

“My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.”

“not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi

 

If your were truly honest to yourself, forbearing, humble and as perfect as you wish the reader to believe (although you do not directly say this), you would have said “not allow myself to be overcome to my own lust”. Instead you shifted the focus onto the female (creating the “other” as the character of lust) blaming her for your fall down (although you try to manipulate the language so that by common consent it appears, you so humbly say the opposite). Your chauvinism and misogynistic influences are evident here. You manipulate language to pull the wool over the eyes of most readers. Essentially you blame your girlfriend, although you say you do not. The first quality of a Brahman is satyum, is it not?.

Read Foucault for some inspiration on this. He might teach you a thing or two about honesty and language usage.

 

The use of language has had much to do with the way male-female relationships have been constructed in our society. Moreover is has much to do with the marriage breakdown and a relationship of mutual love (or the lack of it). To create a sense of the “other” as a form of lust, instead of being true to oneself, is to use the art of deception as an instrument of love (in your justification) - (which in itself is a contradiction in terms. It’s results are far from the art of love. More importantly, how can marriage (or any relationship for that matter) be fruitful if there are faulty foundations – whether gross or subtle.

Can there ever be true renunciation or true association if honesty is not built into the discourse?

Suryaz

....................................

Thankyou for your kind words, Suryaz.

 

Rishi: “…As JRdd has pointed out, it is beneficial to view these discussions from various viewpoints. Thus, I attempted, (rather miserably it appears), to add some food for thought, based upon my own experiences and from observing the experiences of others”.

 

Suryaz: As mentioned previously “To thine own self be true” (satyam). Is this not the first quality of a Brahman?

Suryaz: It seems you again missed this very basic point Rishi. The fact is your use of language is WRONG. You repeatedly make symbolic confusions and this indicates your willingness to accept something less than truth as a stance for justifying violence against others. The violence against another person is evident throughout your writing as you continue to shift the focus onto the other to secure your stance. Let us take a look.

 

Rishi: It appears that you are reading into my words what you will.

 

Suryaz: No Rishi, I do not read what I will into your words. I simply read your words. Your use of language is simply WRONG. It is WRONG, INACURATE, AND DISHONEST to shift the focus onto the “other” as an instrument of seduction to account for your own inbuilt seduction VIZ: your own libido.

 

Rishi: I am willing to accept correction, (if I have erred) as well as some degree of reasonable and mild chastisement. (I have no interest in continuing this dialogue openly if such hostile attacks are to continue.) Not out of humility, (if I were actually humble, I would probably just ignore this attack instead of trying to defend myself!), but with a sincere mood of attempting to address many of these important issues, (which all too often seem to degrade into either extreme misogyny or it's opposite, unrelenting male-bashing, neither of which will serve any positive, constructive purpose for illuminating the topic under discussion.)

 

Suryaz: Hummmm I wonder why?

 

Rishi: As far as your example above, no, I was not at all blaming my fiance for the fall downs. If anything, she was by far the better devotee, being that she felt more guilty and depressed about the fall downs than did I. For that, I respect her, and am able to understand why she would feel the need to find a scapegoat, to blame me for the fall downs. Yes, I did use the word "seduce". But I did not mean that in the sense that I was blaming her or faulting her in any way.

 

Suryaz: That is just the point Rishi, Why even use such violations in your use of language? It seems you do not even realise the root of your injustice. It seems you are oblivious to the root structure of your own deception. In so doing your self-deception becomes your justification. Instead of working towards creating such ‘justification’ why not challenge the origin of your stance; a stance that has caused much suffering for the “other”. A stance that not only ultimately violates the self, but is the origin of violence itself.

 

Suryaz: Words and consciousness are so intricately related – Yes Rishi so intricately relate that reality follows on from them. Moreover they are reality.

 

Rishi: I've never thought of myself as a misogynist, as you say. In fact, 20 years ago, when most husbands were ordering their wives around to "do this", "do that", "get me this", "get me that", I used to try to encourage my friends to ask nicely, instead of ordering and demanding, often treating their wives like slaves.

 

Suryaz: What ??????????? And why should such abuse even be present? And you can begin to rectify yourself and others by not using deceptive language.

 

Rishi: I'm sorry you have misunderstood my words. I wonder if this isn't a result of your own conditioning?

 

Suryaz: This is an old argument – let us keep to facts VIZ it is WRONG to shift the gaze so as to create a more deceptive view – even if you were unaware of it. You are aware of it now.

 

Rishi: There are, after all, people who are outright male-bashers and truly believe that 95% of the devotee men are incorrigible abusers of women. While I fully acknowledge that abuses and mistreatment have been committed, I also like to think that most devotee men, in my age group anyway, (note that I use the word devotee here, as I am not referring herein to those who may externally *appear* to be devotees) have matured over the years and have perhaps learned some valuable lessons, the hard way, (usually through painful divorces) that if they want a happy marriage, they'd better get their act together and treat their wives with honor, love, and respect.

 

Rishi: I am by no means a humble devotee. Nor did I ever state or try to convey that I was a "protector". Quite the opposite, I failed miserably in protecting my fiance from our fall downs, as I have already admitted. Rishi: (Is it possible that you are the one who is "manipulating" the language here?) But I am trying to be honest in these discussions.

 

Suryaz: Yes here we go again Rishi. Did you know it is not unusual for people obsessed with loyalty to “X” (whether it be sexism, racism etc.)? to wear pins proclaiming themselves "X-ists". This is an indication, of course, of the lack of seriousness with which X is treated.

 

Cheers

 

Suryaz

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 09-26-2001).]

[valaya]

All conditioned souls are continually exploiting the material energy in their attempts to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. Body after body, pain inflicted becomes pain received and vice versa until finally, by causeless divine mercy, the association of a pure devotee is granted. Then the identification with the body as enjoyer begins to fade and understanding of true identity and purpose is naturally aquired.

 

Seldom does this process happen overnight, therefore a certain amount of patience, tolerance and forebearance is generally required. The choice is always there whether to drag our heels or embrace Divine Grace wholeheartedly. Blaming others will not help us. Humbly accepting the lowest position as servant of all will.

 

Ultimately, there is no escape from the pain, in fact we're told that eventually it's transformed into bliss, as devotional conciousness matures. It seems the question is whether we're in this for the long run, eternity, or merely looking for some temporary improvement in our material position.

 

From bhakti comes more bhakti. Anything else is simply not bhakti and only bhakti will end this cycle once and for all. The responsibility to commit to pure devotion resides with us alone. It is a personal decision of the heart for each individual. Having taken that step, however, there is no turning back...

 

The husband belongs to the wife and the wife belongs to the husband, but both belong to God. So what then is the real obligation of each towards the other? Those who seek others to assist them in fulfilling their personal obligations themselves become debtors. Surrender must be done all by oneself, whether one is alone or within a family.

 

I would like nothing better than to discuss such topics as pure devotion, surrender and Srimati Radharani. Unfortunately, most appear to have other priorities and those that don't are too busy performing their own sadhana and service to allow themselves to become entangled in these endless me-vs.-you and us-vs.-them what-is-truth and who-is-responsible squabbles.

 

Actually, they tend to avoid these forums like poison, as I myself have been advised to by everyone I've approached for help in these matters, so-called karmis and devotees both. They can see how the conflicts distress me. Only a complete fool whose miserable empty life consists only of pain would continue rehashing all this over and over again, without any evident benefit to anyone. Talk after all is only talk, isn't it?

 

For now I see you all as my family and thus a personal responsibility I've taken on, but should I be presented a way to extricate myself from all this, I surely will. That, along with every other aspect of my fallen existence in this wretched body, depends on the One to whom I belong.

 

Guess that's my way of evading personal responsibility, eh prabhus? At least it's not getting dumped on any other embodied soul. The muck stops here!

 

valaya RR

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-26-2001).]

[JRdd]

Excellent post, Swan. And welcome to the forums. Seems you have the skeleton for it, keep 'em em comin'.

 

Interesting post too, Suryaz. It might be useful to develop the discussion of how we use language.

 

Great other inputs too. I just wrote a post offline, I'm putting on the true association thread, so do not have time to respond to anything here now.

 

later, JR

[mahak]

Haribol, a contributor from this topic writes:

 

IF (Sexism is Discrimination of gender);

THEN

{anyone with a mind is sexist potentially};

 

 

This is not at all a fact. The power rests in ego, for that is the strongest of the subtle elements. Purified consciousness is swarup, realization of actual ego, but in the material strata, the ego is represented as identification of the body as the self, therefore, the material element is false ego.

 

The false ego is still stronger than the other subtle elements, and one utilizing the potential of ego has control of intelligence and mind. The intelligence is dictated by the ego to take all the stuff the mind has to offer, and decide on which dictates to follow or reject. The intelligence is the controller of the mind, so the statement that anyone with a mind being potentially infected by all "isms" is not a fact. The mind can reject without complicity all bad imput coming to the intelligence. So when we see one grossly infected by racism, sexism, nationalism, fundamentalism, etc., we can see a disease.

 

The diseased condition is where the mind overrides the intelligence, and karmic reaction is produced. Just because a picture appears on the monitor of the mind, the ego does not have to submit as if the manifestation is real, it is just a proposal, and the intelligence is the acceptance or rejection.

 

So the mind may well have prejudices and discriminate, like the fear of Arabs rampant in out present society. Our mind may produce a gender based superiority complex or religious elitism, or even a victim consciousness, but in a healthy state of being, the mand is brought under control by the intelligence, and all these mundane feelings will not affect the ego.

 

Haribol, for now, ys, mahaksadasa

[valaya]

Suryaz:

That is just the point Rishi, Why even use such violations in your use of language? It seems you do not even realise the root of your injustice. It seems you are oblivious to the root structure of your own deception. In so doing your self-deception becomes your justification. Instead of working towards creating such ‘justification’ why not challenge the origin of your stance; a stance that has caused much suffering for the “other”. A stance that not only ultimately violates the self, but is the origin of violence itself.

 

Prabhu, with all due respect, any realization is enabled through His Divine Grace acting as the via medium, due to perfect purity achieved by complete surrender unto their lordships Sri Sri Radha-Krsna.

 

It is not our position to read into each other's words lack of realization on their part, nor should we believe that we may somehow be capable to help them in that regard. Although we ourselves may have some realization, and surely we all have a glimmer at least, we are not necessarily empowered to share it with anyone else.

 

Inevitably we end up just attempting to beat it into each others' `thick skulls`, usually to the detriment of whatever it was we were trying to accomplish in the first place.

 

Often we men come to the conclusion that women will never be satisfied with our `performance` and since you mean SO much to us, more than we are ever likely to be capable of expressing, it can be completely dispiriting. In other words, you can end up destroying whatever it is you're attempting to perfect in us.

 

In some ways, we never really `grow-up`, only older and more set in our ways. Men are seldom comfortable communicating intimate emotions, although they may need to desperately.

 

Madhurya-lila includes all the others. The mother-child relationship must also be there sometimes. No offence intended, Suryaz, but for Rishidas to question your gender speaks volumes...

 

It would be a real shame if this thread went the way of the one on VNN, which might actually have cost us the entire forum there. Thank you for your consideration of these points, prabhus.

 

valaya RR

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by valaya (edited 09-26-2001).]

[JRdd]

Originally posted by rishidas:

Wow.

 

Uh oh. what's that supposed to mean?

 

I hope you didn't misunderstand me, Rishi prabhu, when I suggested developing the discussion of how WE use language. No way does that mean I take issue with anything you have said or are offended by antyhing you said. I don't even understand what was meant by "violence" in the context, nor other points being made.

 

I tend to stay out of the fray, well as much as I can manage to, because I find discussions using "I" statements are less volatile that those which point the finger outward. In your resp[onses, you are using "I" statements. You are explaining yourself, your reasons and motivations. And I want to reiterate once again that I and others very much appreciate your input. You shed light on many important issues. Very rarely do we get such open stories from the men, and as a result, the discussion may appear also to be a malebashing fest, even when that is not the intention. We are all so sensitive, in different areas.

 

So I hope you did not think I was trying to encourage anyone to bash you. I was thinking to pull it away from the personal into a more general discussion, which may or may not be as useful as the one currently under play here. I know that I could use an adjustment in the way I use language. That's all.

 

Please keep them coming prabhu.

 

ys, Jayaradhe

 

[JRdd]

Right on Valaya, another wonderful post from you. I love how you are right here with us, on these forums, giving it all you've got, not half-hearted, and this is how we go places in our discussions. This cyberspace is a real gift from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, a facility to inspire ourselves and others as we skip dance and stumble along the path back to Godhead. You are a good mediator and I like how you encourage the discussion to progress and not digress, when you make the points you have made here.

 

I may not say much on this thread myself, but I am reading it.

 

ys, Jayaradhe

 

 

[swan]

This thread has become very interesting, there's a lot of stuff coming out and I can't help but feel that even though Rishi Prabhu seems to be getting a bit of a thrashing from some quarter, I also applaud his courage in revealing himself and his sincerity and strength of character is shining through despite his dilemma.

 

And your post valaya has moved me to tears, so open and honest,it's given me a big stick which I sorely need. I spend so much of my life beating my poor husband up because he doesn't seem to perform to my requirements, when in fact he is a good and honest man and deep down I feel he wishes me no ill and has deep affection for me, although like you say, like most men has difficulty in expressing intimate emotion, but I'd sure love him to try. Men dodn't like to feel vulnerable, it goes against their instinct. But you are right, they definitely need to, if not for them for the women in their life. A man's strong and loving involvement in the life of his partner speaks thunderbolts to her. Even though there is so much exploitation in the world from both genders, I appreciate the qualities of men very much when they're well-adjusted, and I'm sure the men feel the same way about the women. My father was a great man in my eyes,with wonderful qualities. In your post you say, we mean so much to you (men), how I hanker to hear those words from my husband. But no matter, your post has enlived me to try again to be a better wife, I wish to be like a swan (my sentimental aspiration) for him, not a crow or raven. But the genders do speak a different language at times, I do believe it, notso much literally of course, but the intent behind it. But I want to be there for him, to give support seeking to undertand him, we have to try and understand each other. We need to let each other know that we ar precious to each other and to really be precious. I wish him joy and all spiritual success and if I can be an instrument to help bring about any of those then Lord let me be it.

 

Getting back to Rishi Prabhu I like some, think from your posts that your girlfriend has found it rather easy to put the responsibility of your 'falldown' on your shoulders, taking responsibility for our own lust is not easy and her own responsibility for her own lust is obviously too much for her to bear, hence better you wear it. But I was thinking that the Lord puts us into distress to purify us, teach us lessons. You're ready for this lesson, she is not, and it may even happen again with her in another relationship down the track. I doubt whether it will happen to you, unless the Lord has some other purpose for it. You're learning your lesson and you will gain a little more entrance into a higher and deeper understanding. Srimad Bhagavatam says learned devotees accept even conditions of distress just to relieve or purify the devotee from the contamination of the material world. While one is within this material world one is in various conditions and therefore a devotee sees a condition of distress as but another feature of the Lord.This cannot be understood by non-devotees but the devotee can see this because he is vipascit, or learned. It's sometimes a huge ask to see the Lord in all our distressed conditions, because some times it feels as if due to so much distress, that we want to turn away, or worst still feel that it is killing our spiritual life in small increments, because we cannot focus with equipoise on keeping steady on the path until the hurricane blows over. This one will blow over Rishi Prabhu and you'll be the wiser. Thanks megaheaps for sharing your life. And also thanks to Jayaradhe for welcoming me to these forums. As you can see my contribution is not profound but I love to speak my heart with kind devotees and I can see that most everyone here are beautiful people.

In your service

Swan

[talasiga]

Originally posted by rishidas:

Hello again, Suryaz!.....May I kindly ask you what your gender is.........

 

 

No No No No NO No No No No

No No No No NO No No No No No NO

NnnnnnnnnnooooOh !

 

Wrong question my dear Rishi......

 

You should ask,

<u>"What is your agenda ?"</u>

It is more politically correct

and more meeting like,

if you know what I mean.

 

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Maitreya]

 

Suryaz said [quoting Rishi]:

My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.”

“not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi

 

Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation.I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious.

 

If you want to be real and honest then at least admit that women do try to seduce men.I know men try to seduce women.If that fact isn't the most obvious basic thing to someone then this discussion has no hope.

 

Admitting to that is not admitting to hatred of the opposite sex.It is just admitting to something every 11 year old already knows.

 

Forget it Rishi.You tried.

 

Suryaz,I could be wrong, but I hear you speaking through Rishi to someone else in your past.We all do this.Rishi is not your enemy.He is just a nice person who put himself out there and got a swift kick in the face with a spiked shoe for his trouble.Unlike you from what I have read in your many other posts.

 

Here is a fact that I have noticed and I'm sure the world may have seen an exception or two, maybe even three.

 

The woman wants to change the man.If the man changes she will lose respect for him.If he doesn't she will keep trying and complaining that "Oh woo is me,I've tried so hard in this relationship but he is so insensitive,he just won't improve the way I want him too.I guess I just love too hard.I just care too much."

 

Contemplating the sense objects breeds lust.Lust brings frustration and anger.[For both sexes]Then bewilderment of memory intelligence is lost and we fall down deeper into the material muck.

 

By not nderstanding this sequence when we experience the anger then the blame for that rotten feeling gets shifted to the opposite party.They failed to make one happy.It works both ways.

 

Nectar in the beginning and poison in the end.[remember this is sexism thread and not the relationship one].

 

A deep dark forest of bewilderment.

 

Alfred

 

[rishidas]

Hello again, Suryaz!

 

Originally posted by suryaz: Reply by Suryaz: [....]You repeatedly make symbolic confusions and this indicates your willingness to accept something less than truth as a stance for justifying violence against others. The violence against another person is evident throughout your writing as you continue to shift the focus onto the other to secure your stance. Let us take a look. [.....]

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "violence" here. I wasn't aware of committing any violent acts towards women, let alone justifying such behaviour. Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

Your use of language is simply WRONG. It is WRONG, INACURATE, AND DISHONEST to shift the focus onto the “other” as an instrument of seduction to account for your own inbuilt seduction VIZ: your own libido.

As far as "shifting focus", actually, the focus was on myself. Again, if I may politely mention, you have taken my statements out of context and are extracting quite a different meaning than what was intended. In my conversation with Mother Jayaradhe, I was elaborating on my hesitancy to re-enter marriage, based upon the fact, as well as my fears, that I may very well be a source of disappointment to a prospective mate, based in part upon the example given above regarding my ex-fiance. I was sharing a personal example of how men have feelings as well, that men are vulnerable to feeling deep hurt as well, that men are also susceptible to experiencing the "once bitten twice shy" syndrome which many of the women have expressed, which has caused them to become cynical about the prospects of ever finding a compatible marriage partner in this lifetime. I was sharing an example of how I was unable to fulfill my fiance's expectations of me as her "protector". Perhaps the word "seduce" was inappropriate or in bad taste. If it has offended you, and apparently others, I apologize. The point was not to attack her or to cast her as some sort of "mayadevi" because of our falldowns, but to illustrate how I was faulted, blamed, belittled, and eventually tossed away like a piece of garbage because I did not possess the spiritual strength to resist her charms and to protect her from her own natural desires.

Cheers

 

Suryaz

May I kindly ask you what your gender is? Mother Madhavi dasi has assumed that you are a woman, and one who has suffered some abuse, and she has kindly requested that I be like a spongue if you feel the need to lash out at me as you have. I am more than willing to allow you this, if it will help heal your wounds. But first, I would like to know if in fact you are in a female body. To be honest, I have assumed from your writing, (perhaps falsely so), that you are a man. I am not at all trying to pry into your personal life, and I do respect any wishes you may have to remain anonymous. However, I think if we are to continue in this discussion, it would be helpful if I at least knew your gender.

 

Thankyou,

 

 

rishidas

 

 

 

[JRdd]

Maitreya said:

 

Suryaz said [quoting Rishi]:

quote:

 

My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.”

“not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi

 

Maitreya:

Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West....If you want to be real and honest then at least admit that women do try to seduce men.I know men try to seduce women.If that fact isn't the most obvious basic thing to someone then this discussion has no hope.

 

I'm glad you brought this out. I too felt the injustice in Suryaz's accusations, which is why I did not feel like jumping into the discussion. Sometimes even when we think we are being fair we are often too much affected by our pasts to give an objective analysis of the situation. So I think it is good when more speak up about this. The mind does funny twisty things, and I think we shoud be careful how we say things so that a whole gender does not feel unfairly attacked. Not because anyone needs to save face, but because as you say the conversation will not be useful otherwise.

 

I think it would be good to discuss what seduction is, and also what can be interpreted as seduction by someone who may simply be flattering himself (or herself) or have wishful thinking. I know someone whose teacher told her they would not be having any intimate relationships because he was married. She was flabbergasted as, though she very much appreciated his inputs, and thought of him like an older brother, not once did intimacy ever cross her mind. No, that was not me, but I have had it happen too, where a man will accuse me of leading him on when such is not the case. Even when I would out and out tell them I have no intentions, they are too young for me (I'm not ageist but I have had men young enough to be my sons want me to be their girlfriend, and there is something to be said for maturity and experience), I am not interested in them that way, etc. etc., they still objectified me and projected their own intentions into their plans for me. Lust can blind one. Lust can also anger a person. These things I have seen.

 

Admitting to that is not admitting to hatred of the opposite sex.It is just admitting to something every 11 year old already knows.

 

Here is a fact that I have noticed and I'm sure the world may have seen an exception or two, maybe even three.

 

Just because you have noticed it doesn't make it a fact. It means that has been your own observation, from your own point of reference, and not necessarily untainted by your own previous experiences. A woman who has been raped can not say men are rapists. Unless she is still dealing with her own sickness due to the abuse, and thus sees the wrold through those glasses.

 

The woman wants to change the man.If the man changes she will lose respect for him.If he doesn't she will keep trying and complaining that "Oh woo is me,I've tried so hard in this relationship but he is so insensitive, he just won't improve the way I want him too.I guess I just love too hard.I just care too much."

 

Wow. Sounds like you yourself are bringing up things from your past. Maybe projecting it into your present. I only say this because you accuse women of doing this, as well as stating that there may be a couple of exceptions.

 

But leaving aside the unfair assertion that only women do this, and that most women do this, I would like to agree with the fact that the attitude of wanting to change someone else is the biggest mistake anyone ever made in any relationship, and it is something I have always been aware of and have always rebelled against, myself. That is why my daughter gets to be who she is, and evolve as she will. Guidiance, sure, being there for her, sure, even concern, sure--but not being disatisfied with the way she is for goodness sake! And I have never done this in ANY relationship I have been in, never tried to change any of my friends, or my husband, though I have had plenty try to change me. So here is one woman who doesn't do what you accuse us of doing, and I am sure I represent many more. Women, in fact, are generally known for having a yielding nature.

 

That is not to say someone may not be hurt when someone does not treat them as they think a friend would. That is not the same as wanting to change a person. That is when the alarm bells go off, and one gets the heck out of there. And if the person ever does change, then maybe they can be friends again. That is not the same as trying to make the person change. It is being disappointed in the level of the friendship. Just like, when one person in the relationship feels distrusted by the other, then that person is no longer interested in the friendship. Doesn't that make sense? Because even though a lot of men like to ascribe to the principle of "Don't expect anything" (my ex always said this, and always withheld affection, respect, decent courtesy, and anything else he had), one DOES expect at least certain fundamental elements in any relationship, which includes trust, and reciprocation, and respectful treatment. I myself find it very easy to walk away from such a bereft relationship, as I always go for the heart. what's the point, otherwise?

 

Contemplating the sense objects breeds lust.Lust brings frustration and anger.[For both sexes]Then bewilderment of memory intelligence is lost and we fall down deeper into the material muck.

 

That is another reason I did not feel so attracted to this thread, although it could be a very useful discussion. I like the relationship thread because its starting point is where we could all really be by now. Not still stuck on all this bewilderment stuff all the time. Of course, not everyone will agree with that. But from where I stand at this point in my life, I find it more useful to discuss how to BRING devotees together, not all this angst about your gender is this, and mine is that. And I would like to add to that that seeking a suitable partner to share a life of Krishna consciousness with is NOT contemplation of the objects of the senses. It is maturely and honestly and even humbly recognising the present condition and seeking to make the most of it, to offer it to Krsna in the most dovetailing way possible, by associating and serving and enthusing one another in a spiritual way.

 

By not nderstanding this sequence when we experience the anger then the blame for that rotten feeling gets shifted to the opposite party.They failed to make one happy.It works both ways.

 

Yes, and that is why in any relationship the principle of no mental speculation is always most wise, for often people assume they know how another person is thinking, and this is an utter waste of time. One will inevitably project their own way of thinking into the other person's feelings of hurt, and that is where the real illusion lies. Best to dialogue, not accuse. And focus on one's own need for advancement.

 

Nectar in the beginning and poison in the end.[remember this is sexism thread and not the relationship one].

 

A deep dark forest of bewilderment.

 

Alfred

 

So then how about poison in the beginning and nectar in the end? That is what the process of developing a higher taste, developing taste for the Holy Names, is about.

 

ys, Jayaradhe

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by JRdd (edited 09-27-2001).]

[rishidas]

Originally posted by JRdd: Interesting post too, Suryaz. It might be useful to develop the discussion of how we use language.

 

later, JR

Wow.

 

[valaya]

Am I wrong in thinking that, although this is only virtual reality, we are becoming increasingly real to each other, or at least trying our best to? If so, I am most grateful, prabhus. Of course there are limits to what can be accomplished here, but miracles are possible, are they not?

 

If only we can keep faith in our real selves and the eternal relationship between us, birth after birth. There is so much to digest, I must chant and pray for awhile until hopefully the right words appear and I can reply in kind. Then again, maybe if I just sleep on it... ALL GLORIES TO THE ASSEMBLED DEVOTEES!!! RR

[suryaz]

 

Rishi: My "fire and butter" analogy was rejected outright. I was "the man" and I was supposed to "protect". Well, okay, so I decided I would muster up all the strength that I could, to not allow myself to be seduced.”

 

Suryaz: “not allow myself to be seduced”. What ????? poor victimized Rishi

 

Maitreya/Alfred: Nooo, women don't practice seduction ,no way. Ha ha ha. That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West. Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation. I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious.

Maitreya: If you want to be real and honest then at least admit that women do try to seduce men.I know men try to seduce women. If that fact isn't the most obvious basic thing to someone then this discussion has no hope.

Maitreya: Nooo, women don't practice seduction,no way.Ha ha ha.That is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation.I'm a lusty dog so I'm not complaining just stating the obvious.

 

 

Surya: Maitreya/Alfred,

 

Suryaz: You also do not get it? -- “seduction… is evident in the chaste way they dress here in the West.” Tight, low cut, see through blouses, look at me look at me.Titilation nation What?????????.

 

Suryaz: If you believe an object pollutes your mind (titillation notion you addressed it as –this is again symbolic confusion and the shift in gaze to the “other” as an instrument of blame for the functioning of your own biological makeup: libido) – then we have to ask if your mind was not already polluted. You have to remember the notions belong to you. The object does not pollute? The conceptual pollution comes from the perceiver; not the object

 

Suryaz: “To thine own self be true”

 

Suryaz: (YES! I AM SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISBELIEF).

 

Suryaz: It is an ethical principle we are talking about here. It can be projected onto race, gender, or onto any object or subject. Its aim is to use the “other” as a scapegoat; at the extreme it ends up as what is commonly called a “witch-hunt” (and the phrase “witch-hunt” is another example of the female cast-off as the “other”. – Do we ever address the attack on the “other” as a “wizard-hunt” – ask your self why?). (PS I use the term “witch-hunt” specifically to illustrate something of this –however this example is at another level of analysis)

 

Suryaz: The discourse is about the deceptive use of language, the promotion of it, acceptance of it’ and even more shocking is the obvious non-compusmentus of it, so sadly displayed by many.

 

Suryaz: Yes Telasiga you are right, Rishi is asking the wrong question. The agenda is to elucidate the course of deception not when it is in full bloom i.e. when it fully functions in the socio-cultural realm as accepted action or inaction (as the norm), but where it appears as a bud; i.e. in the realm of sound. Such use of language is the violation of truth in its very utterance. It sets a faulty foundation for the pursuit of truth. It cannot bring about honesty. Its only logical result is abuse (the scandalisation of the “other”), degradation (hypocrisy), deception (it carries with it a distorted idea of resolvence) i.e. misrepresentation (adhasya) etc., etc.

 

Suryaz: As mentioned previously to Rishi,

 

…It is WRONG, INACURATE, AND DISHONEST to shift the focus onto the “other” as an instrument of seduction to account for your own inbuilt seduction VIZ: your own libido. …it is WRONG to shift the gaze so as to create a more deceptive view – even if you were unaware of it.

 

Suryaz: It is simply WRONG.

 

Rishi: I'm not sure what you are referring to by "violence" here. I wasn't aware of committing any violent acts towards women, let alone justifying such behaviour. Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

 

 

Suryaz: As mentioned above, the violence is in the use of language, and all that brings to bear.

 

Madhu: Ok, enough of my theory of the root of misogyny. How about examining it's phenomenon. Would it surprise anyone if I were to say women can also be misogynistic? Take the woman who kisses up to the men by putting other women down. That is also misogynism.

Madhu: Misogynism is an annartha, which, like pride et al, resides in the seeds of the heart and can sprout at any time and must be cleared out by the good gardener like any other weed. We don't get all in a ruffle about admitting other annarthas, so why so much defensiveness surrounding this particular one? I won't try answer that, except to suggest that perhaps it is the deepest enviousness, to deny the feminine self in the desire to be Krsna.

 

Suryaz: Yes Madhavi, I agree, “Misogynism is an annartha, which, like pride et al, resides in the seeds of the heart and can sprout at any time and must be cleared out by the good gardener like any other weed.”

 

Suryaz: And where to begin? We begin with sound. Through correctness in linguistic representation abuse can be nipped it in the bud. Through speaking honestly we created honest notions and/or rectify those notions left over from former disfigurations, conditionings (whatever). But the main thing is to breathe honesty not distortion. In so doing violence is curbed and ahimsa is restored.

 

Suryaz

 

[dasanudas]

One thing is certain,

When Mr.& Mis ogenist

come together.

They never gonna make happy little bhaktas