Men and women in ISKCON

[Guest guest]

 

Well, now you are talking about New Vrndavana (NV), and that wasn't even an ISKCON temple, not really. For years ISKCON refused to even put the NV address in BTG, books, etc. Bhaktipada was in charge and he was/is bogus. So of course they had a bad experience! It was not really Prabhupada's temple, or teachings, anymore. I dont deny that this goes on to some degree, sometimes, in other temples, but nothing has ever been as bad as NV!

 

 

 

NV was an ISKCON temple when they started going there. It was run by ISKCON devotees before it left ISKCON. The people who dragged it down were originally ISKCON devotees.

 

My point is that this is a recurring theme. ISKCOn devotees don't follow standards, then they wonder why Hindus don't like coming to their temples, and conclude that the fault is entirely on the Hindoos, calling them mayavadis, karmis, fault-finders, etc. Nevermind their own weird activities.

 

 

"It's all nice and good to criticize Smaartha brahmins. But smaartha brahmins, for all their craziness, don't have a 55% divorce rate "

 

No, they stay in abusive marriages and pass it down from generation to generation that abuse must be accpeted if it manifests, instead of divorce.

 

 

 

This is nothing more than a racist stereotype. Given the more than 700 million Hindus out there, do you even know 1% of them? I think not. ISkcon people blow so many truths out of proportion just to convince everyone that their situation is better or at least no worse. If you say you know 100 couples who had an abusive marriage, there is no science in generalizing it to the Hindu population at large, or even the majority of Hindus.

 

On the other hand, ISKCON householders do have a 55% divorce rate. This is according to Anuttama das, who was quoted in Hinduism today about 5 years ago, and even admitted to me in person that he did say this. And this goes on even with devotees who stay in the movement, and even though Srila Prabhupada compares divorce to prostitution in his 1st canto purports.

 

[Guest guest]

Where would you rather associate - 1) where there is Krsna katha going on and devotional service being praciced but where there are some clear cases of moral or ethical lapses 2) with very strict moralists who never have any lapse either morally or ethically but who don't regularly hear and chant about Krsna?

 

Personally, I think you (guest) are making too much of the fualts you have encountered. Try to overlook peoples faults and engage yourself in Krsna bhajana. Of course if you find someone's association to be lacking then keep your distance.

 

I'm curious about your overall problem though. I mean, afterall, we are worshiping Krsna who is known all a thief and a womanizer and his most intimate and surrendered associates broke all social and religious vows in order to serve him. My own opinion on the matter is that you should try to see the good in others and live in such a way that your own example speaks for itself. Everyone comes to Krsna consciousness with some social and religious conditioning and it takes time to change.

 

Ultimately if you want to advance in Krsna consciousness you must seek out association with those who are involved in the same pursuit - otherwise in the name of moral purity and following 'vedic' culture what have you gained?

 

You should certainly seek to associate with those who are serious practicioners, but you should (at least in my opinion) have more regard for those of lesser moral standing because they are rightly disposed to Krsna and it is only a matter of time before Krsna corrects them.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

I prefer to associate with devotees who practice what they preach.

 

Such devotees should be far better than their non-Devotee Hindu counterparts when it comes to following ordinary regulative principles. This is only reasonable since one of the symptoms of a Krishna-conscious person is his lack of interest in materialism.

 

If you can show me where such a society exists, I would be very happy to check it out. That way I can tell my wife and family members, "See, these people are following our Vedic culture so nicely. This proves that what they are teaching is indeed bona fide and should be emulated by us. Now you can feel comfortable associating with them since their habits are good."

 

Krishna being a "womanizer" (according to you) does not excuse devotees molesting women. I'm sorry if I am making too much of this, but any "devotee" who tries to touch any woman in my family (unless he is touching their feet and calling them mother) is going to get a black eye, fast, sacred thread or no.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This "touching" is the tapping on the shoulder of your wife (that you mentioned in another thread) to get her attention. That is a very rare standard. Is it even found in many Indians now days?

[Guest guest]

Pure devotees whose actions are in concert with their ideals and are thus rightly called acharya are very rare indeed.

 

My point is really quite simple - try to see the good in others and try to progress yourself in terms of service and surrender to Krsna and his devotees. The first item in vaishnava achar is to constantly hear about and chant about the glories of Krsna. This is what we should all strive to be deeply involved in.

 

I agree with you that setting a standard in terms of proper action is necessary for effective preaching. The only problem is that suddha bhakti is VERY rare. So while you are disdainful of Iskcon and it's members who fall short in your eyes due to moral depravity (BTW, in principle I agree with this - but it is, afterall, a big mission and it embraces the ideal of Mahaprabhu - that everyone is welcome and, as you have pointed out - there are many wonderful devotees in the institution who do live up to a very high standard) - who are the associates that you have at present? Are they better situated? Do they have faith in Krsna nama?

 

I'm not associated with the Iskcon mission in a formal way either but for different reasons than yours. I appreciate the mission very much. While I recognize the many short-comings of many of it's members, I prefer to focus on the positive side of the equation which is their pursuit of a higher ideal. You should know that Mahaprabhu set the standard for all his followers in this regard - he did not judge a person based on their past or even their present, but rather he showed us the standard of judging a person based on their ideal.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

How do you get conservative Hindus to identify with temple devotees and attend temple programs regularly if you become an apologist for their lack of following regulative principles?

 

I mean, giving lectures on seeing the positive side is all nice and good, but eventually iskcon people are going to have to stop making fun of Hindus who stop coming to iskcon temples. Instead of thinking the fault is in the Hindus, maybe they should consider, quite possible, in at least some cases, that the fault might be in themselves.

 

"Gee, what drove that nice, brahminical couple away even though they liked the philosophy? Could it be that the head pujari's girlfriend offended them? Could it be the temple president's son who was trying to hit on their daughter? Could to be the senior devotee who called Lord Shiva a rascal? Could it be the brahmacari who offered cockroach-infested food to the Deities?"

 

Looking inward is a process that works both ways. Only one would think that someone who had made it to the stage of initiation would already be quite good at it, so that they could teach the rest of us by example. Our culture stresses the need to find good association. When the association is not good, cultured Hindus** will look elsewhere. They aren't insincere. They are following a principle that even Prabhupada himself recommended - avoid bad association and take good association.

 

** of course, most Hindus, like most people these days, aren't cultured, so you can always satisfy yourself that at least the music masala types will never be offended no matter what you do...

 

 

[Angekela]

Bravo! I agree with you prapbu ! The greatest illusion or maya is thinking that the wooden doll would bring the feeling of lust to the person. I am not a devotee but I salute your community for behaving strictly to avoid the presence of lust. Lust actually strikes on a deeper level and will make us more addicted to it. On the other hand, the idea of not touching the wooden doll becasue it is in the form of a woman legs.. Geeeeeeeeeee that's what we call paranoia!!!

 

Instead pray to the Lord to remove all the unpleasing characters in us. He even hear the crying of the birds, why can't he hear you if you ask His mercy with all your heart?

[Priitaa]

I wasn't going to reply because it seems you have gone beyond needing help, and have crossed the line into fault finding, but I made the mistaken of clicking on this link and reading. :-)

 

ME: "Well, now you are talking about New Vrndavana (NV), and that wasn't even an ISKCON temple, not really. For years ISKCON refused to even put the NV address in BTG, books, etc. Bhaktipada was in charge and he was/is bogus. So of course they had a bad experience! It was not really Prabhupada's temple, or teachings, anymore. I dont deny that this goes on to some degree, sometimes, in other temples, but nothing has ever been as bad as NV!"

 

YOU: "NV was an ISKCON temple when they started going there. It was run by ISKCON devotees before it left ISKCON. The people who dragged it down were originally ISKCON devotees. "

 

Wrong. Your are speaking to soneone who lives In NV right now, lived her for a short time in 1977, and when I lived at other temples, "everyone" knew NV was a problem! You are on the outside looking in. Even when NV was legally under ISKCON'S name, it was a constant worry, how to fix NV! Matter of fact, I did not want to return here, and only after 20 years and the promise that Bhaktipada is not even on the property anymore, did I return. The point is, NV should not be compared to other ISKCON temples, at least not its past. It was a cult.

 

YOU: "My point is that this is a recurring theme. ISKCOn devotees don't follow standards, then they wonder why Hindus don't like coming to their temples, and conclude that the fault is entirely on the Hindoos, calling them mayavadis, karmis, fault-finders, etc. Nevermind their own weird activities."

 

I don't know what ISKCON devotees you are associating with, but you will find what you are lookng for. No one is perfect. I am sure you have your faults as well. I do agree there are ISKCON devotees who don't follow 'our' ISKOCN standards, but I also know many who do. You simply must choose your associaiton wisely.

 

YOU: "It's all nice and good to criticize Smaartha brahmins. But smaartha brahmins, for all their craziness, don't have a 55% divorce rate "

 

ME: "No, they stay in abusive marriages and pass it down from generation to generation that abuse must be accpeted if it manifests, instead of divorce."

 

YOU: "This is nothing more than a racist stereotype."

 

I take offeense that you cal me a racist. If anyone is racist, its a Hindu who has a problem with white ISKCON devotees. And my comment is based in fact, not prejudiced.

 

YOU: "Given the more than 700 million Hindus out there, do you even know 1% of them? "

 

You keep making comments that I dont know this, or I dont know about that, and I'm unaware of yada yada, when in fact I know about these things. So yes, I do know at least 1 % of Hindus. Surprise. And for that mater, more. My teenagers best friend, when we lived at a different temple (as we relocated), was Hindu. But I don't judge who should be my friend by their external body, rather by how they treat me.

 

YOU: "I think not."

 

Exactly my point. You think I know so little. You are speculating.

 

YOU: "ISkcon people blow so many truths out of proportion "

 

So now I'm an ISKCON person and fit in your mold. Who is prejudiced now?

 

YOU: "just to convince everyone that their situation is better or at least no worse. "

 

If you have a problem with certain ISKCON deovtees, or if some have been harsh or unjust toward you, I feel you should go speak to them about it. But do not lump us all in, which it appears you are doing, and continue to do like that. And do not take it out on me.

 

YOU: "If you say you know 100 couples who had an abusive marriage, there is no science in generalizing it to the Hindu population at large, or even the majority of Hindus."

 

It appears you can't stand the truth to come out. Nor did I ever say 100 anything, you did. I have, however, been spoken to by Hindu ladies who confided in me they were most definitely being abused and didn't know what to do. So I am not making this up out of the air. Its hard to face such a truth, I understand. One lady, it was serious abuse. He was hitting her daily, and sometimes bad. She told me, "There is no divorce with Hindus. I dont know what to do." They had a child and it was a mess. I realize this is not always the case, but you need to reazlie it is more often the case than you know or are willing to believe. After all, women are more inclined to confide in other women. Please do not try to blame her either, or indicate it is an isolated incident. But if you want to do the 'traditional' brushing it under the carpet, that Hindus seldom have this problem -- there's nothing I can do about that. Look, all I am saying is it works both ways and you should take the humble position instead of bragging that Hindu divorce rate is so low, just look at us fallen ISKCON devotees. What did you expect? After all, you brought this topic up.

 

YOU: "On the other hand, ISKCON householders do have a 55% divorce rate. This is according to Anuttama das, who was quoted in Hinduism today about 5 years ago, and even admitted to me in person that he did say this. And this goes on even with devotees who stay in the movement, and even though Srila Prabhupada compares divorce to prostitution in his 1st canto purports. "

 

And again, its just cuz westerners that you so much dislike, won't stick around and get beaten or let their sons learn from their fathers they should beat when they marry, or the daughters learn they should take it from their future husbands. Numbers mean nothing, it just means its being dealt with in a different, more hidden method. It is, after all, kali yuga in India (and with Hindus) too. Please stop bragging and let us drop this topic.

 

I probably won't to read your reply because from what I see, many have tried to help you and explain things to you, but since we won't reform to your way of doing things, you keep fault finding. But I hold no hard feelings and if anything, I wish you well. Hare Krishna.

 

[livingentity]

but a verse from Srimad Bhagavatam; Eleventh Canto; Chapter 8; verse 13:

 

A saintly person should never touch a young girl. In fact, he should not even let his foot touch a wooden doll in the shape of a woman. By bodily contact with a woman he will surely be captured by illusion, just as the elephant is captured by the she-elephant due to his desire to touch her body.

 

 

[livingentity]

I am going to follow your example and not click into this thread again. Another nice informative thread has degenerated into a pile of nonsense.

[Guest guest]

 

I take offeense that you cal me a racist.

 

 

 

Well then maybe you should watch what you type. All I said was that your comments were based on a racist stereotype.

 

 

If anyone is racist, its a Hindu who has a problem with white ISKCON devotees.

 

 

Are you referring to anyone in particular? Maybe you should just jump out and say it. Might as well pull off the gloves.

 

 

It appears you can't stand the truth to come out.

 

 

 

It seemed to me that you passed up on truth long ago. All you are doing now is casting accusations on Hindu society to cover up for your own society's faults.

 

No doubt there are innumerable faults in Hindu society, but since they are, as you have so elegantly put it, "karmis," it seems odd that you would choose to compare your people to them when you supposedly have higher standards.

 

 

Nor did I ever say 100 anything, you did.

 

 

?

 

 

I have, however, been spoken to by Hindu ladies who confided in me they were most definitely being abused and didn't know what to do. So I am not making this up out of the air.

 

 

 

I have had iskcon devotees confide to me about child abuse, wife abuse, and many other abuses rampant among initiated devotees. But even I never said anything to imply that such heinous activities were therefore generalizable to the majority of iskconites.

 

On the other hand, your comment that:

 

"No, they stay in abusive marriages and pass it down from generation to generation that abuse must be accpeted if it manifests, instead of divorce."

 

...is racially stereotypical and prejudiced against Hindus. For the above statement to even make sense, it would have to be applicable to the majority of the "they" you were referring to. But since you know only a few unfortunate Hindu ladies (not even 0.001% of all Hindus), you can't realistically generalize their plight to any number of Hindus. That is, unless, you presume to judge those other Hindus without knowing them. Therefore I have correctly pointed out that this is prejudice.

 

And by the way, your attempt to change the course of the discussion does not change the fact that ISKCON devotees do have a 55% divorce rate. This isn't "fault-finding." It is the truth according to ISKCON's own leadership. And it is repugnant to those who know what the position of Vedic culture is in this matter.

 

Another remark you have made which was also quite prejudiced:

 

 

Well, yes, but women outside iskcon are considered (oooo that bad word folks) "karmis." Before anyone blasts me :-) I do not mean it as a put down, simply that there is a difference between the deovtee and the nondevotee. However, this applies to men too.

 

 

 

I found this very objectionable. Who are you to say that women outside iskcon are karmis? According to you, a karmi is one who does not accept Krishna as God. So you think that women outside of ISKCON don't accept Krishna as God? I can think of many mothers outside ISKCON whom I have met who do worship Krishna as Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are entire Vaishnava traditions that preceeded ISKCON, which is relatively young by comparison.

 

I respectfully submit that you and your peers should maintain a sense of perspective of your society (including those like you who no longer claim to be a part of it) and their shortcomings.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Bollywood music???? Perhaps it's time to toss out the money changers.

 

I can only hope this was not at a temple but the presence of senior devotees and a GBC member is disconcerting wherever it may have been held.

 

 

 

Believe me, you have no idea how disappointed I was. At least it was not at a temple.

 

Every time I think, "I've seen it all, now it can't possibly get any worse than this," something else happens which totally bursts that bubble. Eventually I get the feeling that I should come to temple to see Krishna only and just ignore the bad association of these devotees. But at the same time, Srila Prabhupada writes in Nectar of Devotion that those who appreciate the Deity only and not the devotees are kanishtha adhikaris. I don't want to be seen like that. I mean, yes I'm a neophyte, but I do appreciate bona fide devotees - probably more than I appreciate the Deity.

 

[theist]

The good the bad and the ugly. Krsna shows it all. But these things shouldn't surprise us, although they most often seem to.

 

We have taken up residence on the exploitative side of the tracks. These things are absent on the devotional side. We need to change addresses.

 

Here we develop faith in so many things that disappoint us, even religious organizations. Our faith is meant for Krsna.

 

There are good solid devotees to associate with. Ask Krsna and He will reveal them to you. But don't become fixated on someone else's shotcomings. If you don't want to hear from them, just be friendly and respectful and keep a little distance.

[Guest guest]

I said I would not read, but when one first posts something, they reread their post. Unforutnatley that is when I saw your reply.

 

ME: I take offeense that you cal me a racist.

 

YOU: Well then maybe you should watch what you type. All I said was that your comments were based on a racist stereotype.

 

WOW Expert at twisting words. You made the offense and can not even apologize, but instead try to make it out as if it were me who made the offense. I wonder if you are one of those who can never admit they ever are wrong, or feel no iskcon devotee should dare instruct you! And to think I started posting to you in an effort to help and get you to feel better. "ALL" you said about racism and sterotyping was indeed offesnive. Nor was my comment not sterotyped. Where do you think I got that information from? I do not get my so called 'sterotyped racists' opinion on smarta brahmana's from myselsf. Prabhupada instructed us about them, their lack of qualification. What I have asid, I learned from the pure devotee. My only fault here is he also said some Hindus are very attached to them. But you presented yourself as a follower of his, at least to some degree. Therefore I thought you knew his instruciton on this or at least would be open to it. I now see otherwise and for presenting something that agitated your mind, I apologize. However, I will not tolerate any offenses regarding anything Prabhupada has said, even if he says something that goes against Hindu tradition.

 

ME: If anyone is racist, its a Hindu who has a problem with white ISKCON devotees.

 

YOU: Are you referring to anyone in particular? Maybe you should just jump out and say it. Might as well pull off the gloves.

 

I was not trying to be coy. No gloves on. Just reread your many posts and countless criticisms of us.

 

ME: It appears you can't stand the truth to come out.

 

YOU: It seemed to me that you passed up on truth long ago.

 

I said it 'appears' you can't stand it. You could have replied that this appearance is incorrect. But instead you asnwer as you did.

 

YOU: All you are doing now is casting accusations on Hindu society to cover up for your own society's faults.

 

I am not even known within ISKCON for covering up anything. lol I use to run an online newsletter for two years to expose the various woman and even child abuse that went on. I was not too popular with the authorities. :-) So that comment doesn't hold water. And I have no qualms with Hindu society, whereas you seem to think you have the right to criticize Prabhupada's ISKCON. Don't misunderstanding, I am not saying things dont go wrong, it is this "right" you appear to view yourself as having that I do not understand.

YOU: No doubt there are innumerable faults in Hindu society, but since they are,

 

It seems again that you can let those faults slide in Hindu society, but zero in on our ISKCON. Interesting.

 

YOU: as you have so elegantly put it, "karmis," it seems odd that you would choose to compare your people to them when you supposedly have higher standards.

 

I dont know what all this higher standard stuff is you are accusing me. But the other point about the use of the word "karmi," is a large part of the reason I bothered to reply. First, I all ready answered this accusation that I called anyone a karmi who would lived outside of ISKCON. I did not. Yet you try to accuse me of it again. Or maybe you did not read my first reply. In which case please go back and reread. I was jokingly using the word (do you ever laugh?), and did not use it in relationship to ANY type of devotee at all. I clearly pointed out that I knew, since I joined the movement, there are devotees who are NOT in ISKCON, and I that have never once, not once, referred to them as karmis. If you think I have, then this is a misunderstanding at best. Nor have I ever, ever said we have higher standards. I feel you are taking all your agressions out on me that belong to those who did something to you.

 

ME: I have, however, been spoken to by Hindu ladies who confided in me they were most definitely being abused and didn't know what to do. So I am not making this up out of the air.

 

YOU: I have had iskcon devotees confide to me about child abuse, wife abuse, and many other abuses rampant among initiated devotees. But even I never said anything to imply that such heinous activities were therefore generalizable to the majority of iskconites.

 

Good for you! There need not be any competition here. Now if we can all work together we can come forward with all the child abuse and woman abuse and other attrocities that are going on in the name of God, and being shoved under the carpet so there is never punsihement to the abuser. Now really, what makes you think I dont know about this? Or that I want to hide it? If anything, I am always quick to point out such suspicions, nor do I hide any maya nonsense of the past, such abuses. I do not believe shoving anything under the rug purifies anyone. I never denied any henious activities, nor did you even ask me about them. If you had, I would have told you the truth. I wish you would stop generalizing about the majority of iskconites. Rather, I hope you are getting activity involved in putting a stop to all the things that bother you.

 

YOU: On the other hand, your comment that:

 

"No, they stay in abusive marriages and pass it down from generation to generation that abuse must be accpeted if it manifests, instead of divorce."

 

(YOU): ...is racially stereotypical and prejudiced against Hindus.

 

No its not. You just like the power you get from calling me prejudiced or rasict. ha I just figured that out. The fact is, I know too much about Hindu abuse, so dont go there. And yet it is ME saying, again, lets drop this topic. After all, no sense in meditating on the nonsense.

 

YOU: For the above statement to even make sense, it would have to be applicable to the majority of the "they" you were referring to. But since you know only a few unfortunate Hindu ladies (not even 0.001% of all Hindus),

 

I knew you'd say it was only a few. ha

 

YOU: you can't realistically generalize their plight to any number of Hindus.

 

But its ok for you to generalize the plight of any number of ISKCON devotees.

 

YOU: That is, unless, you presume to judge those other Hindus without knowing them.

 

You mean like you are doing to me? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

YOU: Therefore I have correctly pointed out that this is prejudice. "

 

Sorry, you may have a need to always be 'correct, but in this case it just wont work. I have lived around Hindus for over 20 years. And I am not juding anyone. You seem to be doing alot of judging on the other hand. And are not responding the way most devotees would. Maybe you never lived in an iskcon ashrama, or you would respond differnetly. But instead you want to give instruction. I wont check back this time for an answer, so say what you will. I'll be asleep. And that will help me detach from the way you have repeatedly hurt my feelings, by morning.

 

YOU: And by the way, your attempt to change the course of the discussion

 

You lost me here. If you feel I was doing some sneaky thing, or 'trying' to change anything, it was not what was going on in my mind.

 

YOU: does not change the fact that ISKCON devotees do have a 55% divorce rate.

 

Let me clear this up. To 'focus' on this rather than chanting Hare Krishna is something I really dont care about.

 

YOU This isn't "fault-finding." It is the truth according to ISKCON's own leadership.

 

So go tell the ISKCON leaders. I hold no power, most and probably all devotees on these message boards hold no power. If you are trying to make changes, why post here? Its just complaining.

 

YOU: And it is repugnant to those who know what the position of Vedic culture is in this matter.

 

Ahhh repugnant, now there's a Vaisnava word. :-) Humble too. :-) :-)

 

Look, no one denies it is the truth. All devotees knew this was goiong on, even before Anuttama put them out. You're not informing of anything we dont all ready know, and this is why it seems like you are either bragging or putting us down. But ultimatley, just complaining. I keep telling you we know these varoius things, but you keep replying as if we are ignorant of them. Then what could your purpose be? To rub it in? To brag? Please say no. Anyhow, I just find there are more important things in life then mediating on eveyrone elses faults. In this age of kali, life span is so short, we could die tomorrow, I dont want to be disturbed by who is doing what wrong things.

 

YOU: Another remark you have made which was also quite prejudiced:

 

You are the one who is prejudice, you started your very first post of this thread based in prejudice. But it makes you feel empowered to say I am. Fine. Say what you say. I dont care anymore. I know otherwise, and Krishna knows my heart. Thats all that matters. If you are not prejudice, why you spend so much time critizing ISKCON vs Hindu trandtion? In any case, the answers are yours and you have the right to live your life your way. As do ISKCON devotees.

 

YOUR QUOTE OF MY PREVIOUS POST: Well, yes, but women outside iskcon are considered (oooo that bad word folks) "karmis." Before anyone blasts me :-) I do not mean it as a put down, simply that there is a difference between the deovtee and the nondevotee. However, this applies to men too.

 

YOU: I found this very objectionable. Who are you to say that women outside iskcon are karmis?"

 

The ones who dont worship Krishna as God, the ones who eat meat, the ones who have illicit sex, the ones who wear necklines going down their waist, the ones who are irreligoius. Not who you are indicating I said.

 

YOU: According to you, a karmi is one who does not accept Krishna as God. So you think that women outside of ISKCON don't accept Krishna as God?

 

I never ever said that. Ever.

 

YOU: I can think of many mothers outside ISKCON whom I have met who do worship Krishna as Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

So can I.

 

YOU: There are entire Vaishnava traditions that preceeded ISKCON, which is relatively young by comparison.

 

Again, I know this. And said something similar myself in a previous post on this thread.

 

YOU: I respectfully submit that you and your peers should maintain a sense of perspective of your society (including those like you who no longer claim to be a part of it) and their shortcomings.

 

I respectfully ask that you let Prabhupada be the guru and be the one to give us instruction, and for those who do not follow him properly, the karma is theirs.

 

It is now Janmastami. Let us simply chant Hare Krishna and let this go. Hare Krishna.

 

YS,

Prtha d.d.

 

[vanamali]

"In fact, he should not even let his foot touch a wooden doll "

Sorry to be rude theistji, but I think we are trying to get out of illusion and not go into more delusion.

 

 

You wouldn't touch money or a temple murti with your feet because it's "Just paper" or "just stone" Likewise you shouldn't touch dolls or other things with your feet not just because it represents a woman or something like that, but because according to our culture, the feet are dirty and you should not touch anything with your feet besides shoes and ground.

 

Become less "aware" of the material world is not about seeing everything as not existing, but learning to see the Lord everywhere, and thus respecting all people and things. That is my view on the subject!

[theist]

vanamali, sorry I don't understand how your post relates so I can't respond. I do understand your point however.

 

You are responding to a past post where I posted this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam:

SB 11.8.13: A saintly person should never touch a young girl. In fact, he should not even let his foot touch a wooden doll in the shape of a woman. By bodily contact with a woman he will surely be captured by illusion, just as the elephant is captured by the she-elephant due to his desire to touch her body.

 

This is an old thread and we need to catch the context of the previous posts which were about not touching woman and temple ettiqute.

 

Hare Krsna

 

[Guest guest]

"Sorry to be rude theistji, but I think we are trying to get out of illusion and not go into more delusion."

 

I think what that statement was trying to imply is that we are not trying to be body conscious, we are trying to be soul conscious, as we are all servants of krishna. So, we should not differentiate ourselves to such an extreme that we are too worried about it and it is ok we are all the servants of krishna.

 

The illusion is that we identify with our bodies too much. This should be lessened to an extent that we see Krsna in all our hearts.

[Guest guest]

 

I think what that statement was trying to imply is that we are not trying to be body conscious, we are trying to be soul conscious, as we are all servants of krishna. So, we should not differentiate ourselves to such an extreme that we are too worried about it and it is ok we are all the servants of krishna.

 

The illusion is that we identify with our bodies too much. This should be lessened to an extent that we see Krsna in all our hearts.

 

 

 

By misuse of philosophy, one can produce an apparently reasonable excuse to justify any breech of etiquette.

 

The point here, however, is that for all our talk of trying to not be "body conscious," we in fact are conscious of the bodily differences. This is why, when left to our own base desires, we behave differently towards people in different bodies. This is also why our scriptures prescribe certain rules and regulations for us to follow, regarding interactions with people based on their body.

 

It isn't a question of looking down on anyone or disrespecting anyone. On the contrary, it is a matter of controlling the senses (instead of falsely thinking oneself to be more elevated than he is) and showing respect to others. It is very disrespectful to a chaste lady to be touched by a male other than her husband. That the differences are on the bodily platform is a given; but the likelihood is that the individuals making such complaints have only intellectual understanding rather than practical realization of this - the latter is what distinguishes those who have attained Self-realization from those who are still striving for it.

 

Similarly, when one goes to the bathroom to pass urine or stool, he or she should bathe before returning to temple, performing worship, or preparing bhoga. Again, one could argue that it is only the body that is unclean, but the point remains that it is by that very body by which we perform our devotional service - and so we should keep it clean.

 

[Guest guest]

It was pointed out later by the original poster that the "inappropriate contact" he was referring to was someone tapping his wife on the shoulder to get her attention.

 

His exact quote was:

 

"When it happened (a tap on the shoulder - many Westerners wouldn't think anything of it), she told me about it quite frankly, and more or less indicated with her facial expression that she would prefer never to have to go to an iskcon temple again."

[Guest guest]

I am not against following the rules, I am against following them to such an extent that it becomes ridiculous.

 

[Guest guest]

 

I am not against following the rules, I am against following them to such an extent that it becomes ridiculous.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what "ridiculous" means in this context, but the principles mentioned by the Guest previously (men not touching women, maintaining cleanliness before going into worship) are easy enough to follow. Indeed, there is no excuse not to follow them for someone who is a devotee of Krishna. These principles are followed even by traditional Vaishnavas and even non-Vaishnava Hindus from traditional families.

 

There are many, many regulative principles in sAstras. But one should at least be able to follow some basic ones in order to live in a society of devotees. One shouldn't try to make excuses that being a devotee makes him somehow exempt from these principles.

[Guest guest]

Yes , I agree with what you say. we all have to follow them and they are not hard to follow.

 

"I am not against following the rules, I am against following them to such an extent that it becomes ridiculous. "

 

I said this because it just seemed ridiculous to me that some one would prefer to not go to a Sri Krishna's temple just because they were tapped on the shoulder by some one to get their attention or to give something etc

 

I don't think people who have committed their lives to krishna are perverted in any way...( I am not one of those people though)... but I cannot believe that a person who lives in harsh conditions for krishna, in humility tries to preach for krishna, wakes up every day 4:30 in the morning in the shivering cold only for krishna is perverted in some way, And I have heard that people who live in the temple do these things. I admire them and don't think that it is not their fault that this person didn't want to go to the krishna temple after that insignificant incident. Yes, they too have to follow the rules, but doesn't it sound ridiculous to you that people make such a big of a deal out of something as insignificant as touch?

 

-I_L_K

[Guest guest]

 

I said this because it just seemed ridiculous to me that some one would prefer to not go to a Sri Krishna's temple just because they were tapped on the shoulder by some one to get their attention or to give something etc

 

 

 

These things rarely happen in a vacuum. I somehow suspect that the person in question was offended by many things regarding the temple devotees, of which this was probably just one.

 

As far as not going to a Hare Krishna temple --- most likely it's because there are other alternatives to Hare Krishna temples in many countries. It's all nice and good to preach all this high-sounding philosophy by which to convince people to come preferentially to Hare Krishna centers where there are "devotees" of Krishna. But the bottom line is that if those devotees cannot control their senses, they will almost certainly not be looked at with great regard by laymen.

 

Keep in mind that it's usually the conservative ones who would be offended in such cases. Many Westerners and Westernized Indians would not be.... so what if some devotees are smooching in the back room? So what if the pujari is flirting with the life member's daughter? So what if the wives of the pujaris wear blue jeans during arati? People who don't appreciate Vedic culture certainly don't mind such things.... is this to their benefit?

 

I would rather argue the reverse - that it's good that some Hindus maintain their values even if Hare Krishna devotees try to downplay the importance of such basic virtues or make fun of them because following them is "not practical" for them. It all gets back to earning respect, rather than demanding it. In the end, many lay Hindus don't yet have the philosophical acumen to properly evaluate what bhakti is. But they can at least begin to understand what it is to control the senses and follow certain basic principles - if they see these things, they will be attracted. If not, they will go elsewhere. In the latter case, perhaps a little more introspection would be fruitful, rather than the whole "oh it's their fault they are so misguided, foolish," routine one so often hears instead.

 

 

I don't think people who have committed their lives to krishna are perverted in any way...( I am not one of those people though)... but I cannot believe that a person who lives in harsh conditions for krishna, in humility tries to preach for krishna, wakes up every day 4:30 in the morning in the shivering cold only for krishna is perverted in some way, And I have heard that people who live in the temple do these things.

 

 

Well, I have seen these things first hand. Many Hare Krishnas I know in the West have televisions in their houses, do not wake up at 4:30, and are warm and well cared for. Their living conditions may seem humble by comparison to American white-collar professionals, since many don't have high-paying jobs, but it's hardly the picture you have painted. The ones who follow the strict sadhana you describe - usually new brahmacharis - often have a very high attrition rate. Though I can only speak for a handful of temples I have seen in the West... maybe things are different in India.

 

 

 

 

[Haridham]

Now I am from an eastindian background and I know what you are stating about devotees flirting and other things which they shoudnt do. Heck I agree with that and I dont like when they do such things.

 

However, I do kinda disagree with you on somethings as I have to say that many devotees in the west wake up at 4:30in the morning and practicing their sadhana the best they can.

 

The reason why I mentioned earlier that I am from an Eastindian background is to say that I know first hand how a lot of these "hindu" people are. Sure they come to the temple and act all cultured and such but as soon as their feet leave the temple its all back to "normal"

 

I just dont like extensivly finding faults in devotees when they are living a much harder lifestyle then most of these "hindus" who are in nice mentions, big if not bigger tv's and great cars. I mean when devotees have such a strict lifestyle in Kaliyuga they are bound to relasp here and there. Dont look for that to much as I think we should always encourage each other in our bhakti.

 

I mean if all your goal is to make money and become a billionare then sure you can be all cultured for a few minutes of coming to the temple.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guest guest]

 

The reason why I mentioned earlier that I am from an Eastindian background is to say that I know first hand how a lot of these "hindu" people are. Sure they come to the temple and act all cultured and such but as soon as their feet leave the temple its all back to "normal"

 

 

My point is that I see the same trend among many Hare Krishna devotees as well. Frankly, I even notice the "back to normal" trend even within the temple itself. In reality, many Hare Krishnas have absorbed a lot of the contemporary Hindu culture, including the "Sunday Hindu" syndrome. You know exactly what I'm talking about - coming to Sunday feast all ecstatic and devoted, wearing nice clothes and tilak, only to watch karmi TV program X the next day on Monday prime time.

 

No one is innocent. Many Hindus in the Hare Krishna congregation do things that irritate me beyond belief. But since they are the unenlightened "karmis" as some Hare Krishnas call them, the HKs should have a better standard - after all, it's the HKs who have got Prabhupada's books.