sharing my story with devotees

[Myra]

 

 

You must learn how to let go. You have to accept that your beloved is now married. Isn't Krishna good? Why are you holding onto things which God wants you to let go of? Sometimes, it's hard to see what is in the other door or not willing to move forward but do believe this one thing, God will never take away something without giving you something better in its place.

 

God can mend your broken heart but He must have all the pieces.

 

Hare Krishna!

Myra

[Guest guest]

 

Ummmmmm Krishna doesn't get envious. Maybe you meant something else?

 

 

 

Oh! He does , He does!!! especially concerning girlfriends!!!!

[Guest guest]

 

Oh! He does , He does!!! especially concerning girlfriends!!!!

 

 

We are not in the same category of His girlfriends. That would be sahajiya. Krishna is not an envious God. Those are human qualities. What you are speaking of are transcendental pastimes. Different.

[stonehearted]

Guest: Polygamy is just a male fantasy and has nothing to do anymore with honest spiritual life or a man who is so advanced he is guru. The fact that he even considered it, extra lust, not less lust. Daydreams of two women.

 

Here’s something about polygamy I thought you all might find interesting. This was excerpted from a tract called “The Marriage System of Bengal,” written by Kedarnath Datta (Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura) around 1857.

 

“Polygamy is the bane of native [indian]society—a curse that enslaves many of the softer sex. The Kulina Brahmins are inseparable companions of polygamy. In their society it is as firmly advocated as is American slavery in the Southern States. The Kulina women are no better off than the African blacks. But an African black has many advocates around: he has a voice in the “Anti-Slavery League,” whilst a Kulina Brahmini has no zealous friend to tell of her sorrows and relieve them. The legislature ought to hear the cries of the people as far as their interest is concerned. Reform in everything is sought for and as the first movement we desire the removal of polygamy by an enactment.”

 

And here are a couple of articles I wrote some time ago in response to a devotee's criticism of Pritha for arguing against polygamy.

 

Lord Ramachandra’s Example: “Only One Wife”

 

Ameyatma prabhu’s lengthy response to Prtha’s complaints about polygamy seems to miss one important source: a verse and purport in the Ninth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Chapter 10, verse 54 says, “Lord Ramacandra took a vow to accept only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in His life was good, untinged by qualities like anger. He taught good behavior for everyone, especially for the householders, in terms of varnasrama-dharma. Thus He taught the general public by His personal activities.”

 

In his purport, Srila Prabhupada explains this further: “Eka-patni-vrata, accepting only one wife, was the glorious example set by Lord Ramacandra. One should not accept more than one wife. In those days, of course, people did marry more than one wife. Even Lord Ramacandra’s father accepted more wives than one. But Lord Ramacandra, as an ideal king, accepted only one wife, mother Sita. When Mother Sita was kidnapped by Ravana and the Raksasas, Lord Ramacandra, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, could have married hundreds and thousands of Sitas, but to teach us how to be faithful He was to His wife, He fought with Ravana and finally killed him. The Lord punished Ravana and rescued His wife to instruct men to have only one wife. Lord Ramacandra accepted only one wife and manifested sublime character, thus setting an example for householders. A householder should live according to the ideal of Lord Ramacandra, who showed how to be a perfect person.”

 

Srila Prabhupada makes abundantly clear in this purport his desire that we establish daivi-varnasrama-dharma by marrying only one wife and remaining faithful to her throughout our lives. Since Ameyatma invests much in dates, let’s note that this volume was published in 1977. Ameyatma’s research shows that, in the abstract, we should have little objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasarath. We should also note, however, that even Dasarath’s household was not perfectly peaceful. If men less qualified than he try to care for more than one wife, we can expect just the sorts of problems we have experienced over the years.

 

In fact, our godbrothers’ attempts at “polygamy” were really meant for increasing their sense gratification, regardless of their attempts to rationalize their behavior. I know of no such arrangements in which the “wives” were all equally satisfied with the results over the long run. In the conversation Ameyatma cites as Srila Prabhupada’s “last and final instruction on the matter,” Srila Prabhupada says another wife would be allowed “if the woman allows husband.” He imposed the same restriction on acceptance of the sannyasa ashram by his married disciples. This shows the wife’s importance in the family and underscores Srila Prabhupada’s assertion that both husband and wife should be faithful.

 

In trying to introduce spiritual culture to the world, we need to be bold, as Srila Prabhupada showed by his own example. We must also be humble and honest enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding of varanasrama’s cultural manifestations, as well as the limits of our understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s desires. Otherwise, we risk minimizing his significance and missing the richness of genuine spiritual culture.

 

Srila Prabhupada’s Desire: No Sense Gratification

 

I have no intention of becoming embroiled in a tit-for-tat argument with Ameyatma prabhu about the propriety of polygamy; however, I do want to respond to a few problems I found in his reply to my article, “Lord Ramachandra’s Example.”

 

First, it should be clear to anyone who reads my article carefully that it does not disparage polygamy, either as a principle or in its correct practice. It argues for careful consideration in argument. That’s all. In the article to which I responded, Ameyatma simply ignored any views other than his own. As I teach even my first-year college students, any successful argument must take into consideration other sides of an issue, including any questions or objections that may be raised. Ameyatma’s didn’t, and I simply wanted to point out that if we intend to include this practice in our understanding of establishing varnashrama-dharma, we should do so carefully. “We must also be humble enough to acknowledge the limits of our actual understanding,” is what I actually said. I stand fast by my advocacy of humility.

 

Further, anyone who reads my article can also see that nowhere in it do I attack Ameyatma’s character or his motives for repeating Srila Prabhupada’s words. I met Ameyatma when he lived in Los Angeles and Three Rivers, and never had any impression of him except that he is a serious, sincere devotee. And since an interlocutor’s character is an important element of classical rhetoric, maybe I should mention my own track record: I have been a faithful disciple since early 1970 and a faithful husband to my wife for 26 years. Ask anyone who knows me.

 

Since Ameyatma finds it appropriate, however, to question my motives, let me deal with that section of his recent article first. He asks, “Are you trying to create a generation of young prostitutes so you can enjoy them?” Not at all. I’m strictly monogamous, and at 51 I’m done with sex and headed in the other direction. I’m probably more upset than Ameyatma is that so many of our devotees’ daughters aren’t properly situated; many of them were my students. Moreover, as far as I know, no one has ever before suggested such a flaw in my character. I find it insulting to Srila Prabhupada, to my vaishnavi wife, and to my godbrothers’ daughters. More to the point, though, such character attack, although it’s certainly his prerogative to indulge in it, weakens Ameyatma’s argument.

 

Early in his article, Ameyatma misstates my comments. Regarding the June 28, 1977 conversation, Ameyatma says I’m “reading things that just aren’t there and putting words in SP’s mouth that he didn’t say.” This is simply not true. Even in Ameyatama’s quotation in this most recent article, right where he tries to prove I’m making things up, Srila Prabhupada says, “If the woman allows husband, ‘He likes.’ . . .” I didn’t say this; Srila Prabhupada did. His main point here is, as Ameyatma points out, that a chaste wife who is properly protected ought not to object. But Srila Prabhupada does say that a second wife would be permitted “If the woman allows.” Ameyatma says, “I only read that SP says the wife must not mind very much if her husband takes more than one wife.” Then read it again, more carefully this time, prabhu, because you seem to have missed a sentence. “If woman allows.” One more time—those are not my words, but Srila Prabhupada’s own. Ameyatma should read his own article more carefully, or at least be careful enough to edit out what he doesn’t want us to see.

 

He says I claim the Ninth Canto purport says “that Srila Prabhupada does NOT want us to take more than one wife.” That is just not what I write there. What I do say is that it expresses his desire that his male disciples accept only one wife and remain faithful to her.

 

He claims that I see this verse “as some sort of absolute dictum that is so strong and powerful that it totally overpowers and over shadows [sic]” all instructions that favor polygamy. But that’s not what I say, either. Nowhere do I even imply that it nullifies any other instruction. One could make a case that instructions in Srila Prabhupada’s books should carry more weight than comments made in his room, on a walk, or even in a letter. I read a letter to a godbrother named Sadhanananda in which Srila Prabhupada wrote that devotees say, “Srila Prabhupada has said this, or said that.” This is another form of cheating, he said. “If it is not in my books,” he wrote, “I did not say it.” I won’t make such a case. I will, however, present some of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in the matter, from his books and other sources, to show that this is not an isolated statement that runs counter to his real desire.

 

In the purport to SB 4.26.4, Srila Prabhupada writes, “One should be satisfied with his married wife, for even a slight deviation will create havoc.” Then he continues, “A Krishna conscious grihastha should always remember this. He should always be satisfied with one wife and be peaceful simply by chanting the Hare Krishna mantra.” In a 1972 Bhagavatam lecture in Los Angeles, he said, “So to become Krishna conscious means immediately--that is the test--immediately he will become free from lust and greediness. If he's not free from lust and greediness, he is making a show; he's not Krishna conscious. This is the test. If one is actually advanced in Krishna consciousness, then these two symptoms will be visible in his character: no more lusty, no more greediness. He should be satisfied with one wife or one husband. Why hankering after others? That is lusty. That means it is not on the stage of Krishna consciousness; it is in the material platform.” In a 1974 Bhagavatam class, he said, “a person should be so nicely trained up that the one wife with religious, by performing religious ceremony, is given to him, he should be satisfied with her, not to see other women, adulteration. This is Kali-yuga.” In 1975 he told us, “If anyone can maintain a family--family means one wife and one or two children--then he is to be considered very expert, successful,” and in 1976 he said, “Tapasya begins with brahmacarya, life of celibacy, or accepting one wife only. That's all.” Years before, in 1971 he said, “We recommend our students not to have illicit sex. We don't stop sex, but regulate. . . . What is the difficulty? No illicit sex means don't be cats and dogs. Be married man and have one wife, one husband, and be satisfied.”

 

In 1974, he wrote Sukadeva prabhu, “No, devotees are not allowed more than one wife. Devotees should have no wife if possible, but those who cannot maintain celibacy, they can marry one wife. At the present moment people are so unfortunate they cannot maintain even one wife. First of all at the present moment they are not married and remain mostly unmarried. So for such persons even one wife is a great burden. Under the circumstances how one can think of more than one wife? This is stupidity.” There are more, but this just shows that, although I don’t claim this one purport supersedes all others, it is also not an isolated instruction.

 

Ameyatma objects to my saying that his research shows that, “in the abstract, we should have little objection” polygamy practiced by men as qualified as Dasharath. He’s particularly upset by “little objection” and suggests we should have “NO” objection. He also doesn’t like “in the abstract.” I agree. I’m happy to change it to “In principle, we should have no objection to the kind of polygamy practiced by men with qualifications similar to King Dasharath’s.” Despite Ameyatma’s cleverness, I have no desire to obstruct our understanding of varnashrama-dharma, but to encourage careful understanding and even more careful application.

 

At one point, Ameyatama concedes that, so far, experiments with polygamy have failed. Then he suggests that “most” monogamous marriages have failed as well, so perhaps we should give up on marriage altogether and just couple like animals. I’m sorry he wasted any of his time energy, and space on this unfortunate point. This is a clear case of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad absurdum.

 

Although Ameyatma claims that polygamy is not meant for increasing sex life, Srila Prabhupada seems to have another opinion. In a 1973 letter to Rupanuga, he wrote, “After conferring with my various GBC representatives I have concluded that polygamy must be strictly prohibited in our society. Although it is a Vedic institution still there are so many legal implications. Neither are many of our men fixed up enough to tend for more than one wife. Polygamy will simply increase the sex life and our philosophy is to gradually decrease the sex life till eventually there is no sex life.” Of course polygamy is ideally meant for protecting women. But that’s not its only purpose, as we see in a Srimad-Bhagavatam purport: “A man is allowed to keep more than one wife because he cannot enjoy sex when the wife is pregnant. If he wants to enjoy sex at such a time, he may go to another wife who is not pregnant. These are laws mentioned in the Manu-samhita and other scriptures” (SB4.26.4, purport). And in a Bhagavatam class, he said, “According to Vedic civilization, because man is very aggressive, so he's allowed to accept more than one wife.”

 

Finally, Ameyatma invokes examples different from Lord Ramachandra’s that he seems to think Srila Prabhupada wanted us to follow. Bhima, Arjuna, and other devotees, he points out, had more than one wife. Of course, they were rich kings and perfect devotees. Lord Nityananda had more than one wife, Ameyatma says. Maybe, but the example of Nityananda Prabhu’s Srila Prabhupada wants us to follow is his compassion and tireless preaching of the holy names, not his disregard for social conventions. Even Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu, he says, ignored Lord Rama’s example by remarrying after his first wife’s passing. In fact, He did, but only at the insistence of his widowed mother. He also left his wife at age 24 to go preach all over India.

 

Ultimately, as evidenced by Ameyatma’s title, he suggests we follow the example of Lord Krishna, who had 16,108 wives. However, when Srila Prabhupada discusses the Lord’s household, he doesn’t suggest it as a model for ours, except that, despite lying comfortably next to our wives, we should rise early in the morning, bathe and meditate on Krishna. Instead, Srila Prabhupada points out that Krishna accepted 16,108 wives to demonstrate His opulence as the full-fledged Personality of Godhead. This is one way Krishna shows He is not one of us!

 

Once more, in case it’s not clear to some, I’m not opposing polygamy. I’m only suggesting that we discuss the issue fully and apply it carefully. In fact, I expect this to be my last article on the subject. I’m much more interested in how we discuss it than in whether Ameyatma or anyone else has more wives than I. Neither do I suggest that anyone with an opinion different from mine is an atheist or infected with sinful desires of some sort. I only advocate careful and civil discourse among devotees, especially in public.

 

Perhaps we should follow Srila Prabhupada’s example. If necessary, marry one wife or husband, conduct our home lives according to the instructions of our spiritual master, gradually give up all material endeavor and sense gratification, and immerse ourselves in distributing prasadam, protecting cows, and chanting and broadcasting the glories of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan movement. After all, Narada Muni testifies that “those who are always full of cares and anxieties due to desiring contact of the senses with their objects can cross the ocean of nescience on a most suitable boat—the constant chanting of the transcendental activities of the Personality of Godhead.”

 

Babhru das

 

[Kulapavana]

generally speaking one has enough problems with one wife. why multiply your misery? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[anadi]

In times of distress the intelligent hears from sadhu.

 

sadhu-sanga-krpa kimva krsnera krpaya

kamadi 'duhsanga' chadi' suddha-bhakti paya

 

"One is elevated to the platform of devotional life by the association with pure devotees (sadhu-sanga), and by the special mercy of Krsna. On that platform, one gives up all material desires and the association of unwanted people. Thus one is elevated to the platform of pure devotional service.

 

 

sat-sangan mukta-duhsango

hatum notsahate budhah

kirtyamanam yaso yasya

sakrd akarnya rocanam

 

The intelligent, who have understood the Supreme Lord in the association of pure devotees and have become free from bad materialistic association, can never avoid hearing the glories of the Lord, even though they have heard them only once.'

 

 

Six Vows Favourable for Bhakti

 

utsAhAn niScayAd dhairyAt

tat-tat-karma-pravartanAt

saNga-tyAgAt sato vRtteH

SaDbhir bhaktiH prasidhyati

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

We are not in the same category of His girlfriends. That would be sahajiya. Krishna is not an envious God. Those are human qualities. What you are speaking of are transcendental pastimes. Different.

 

 

 

The distance between you and your God is your own doing. Good luck!!!

[Guest guest]

 

The distance between you and your God is your own doing. Good luck!!!

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada --

 

"The class known as prakrta-sahajiya, who consider the transcendental pastimes of Lord Krsna something like the behavior between a man and a woman in the material field, artificially think that hearing the rasa-lila will help them by diminishing the lusty desires of their diseased hearts. But because they do not follow the regulative principles but instead violate even ordinary morals, their contemplation of rasa-lila is a futile attempt, which sometimes results in their imitating the dealings of the gopis and Lord Krsna. To forbid such habits of the prakrta-sahajiyas, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has excluded their material intelligence by using the word visvasa ("faith"). In Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.33.30), Srila Sukadeva Gosvami says:

 

naitat samacarej jatu

manasapi hy anisvarah

vinasyaty acaran maudhyad

yatha rudro 'bdhijam visam

 

"Certainly one who is not the Supreme Personality of Godhead should never, even within his mind, imitate the activities of the transcendental rasa-lila of Krsna. If out of ignorance one does so, he will be destroyed, just as if he were to imitate Lord Siva, who drank poison produced from the ocean." Antya lila 5.47

 

Another:

 

 

According to Vedic civilization you cannot mix with any other woman except your wife. That is not allowed. So, according to the Vedic conception of life, it was not right thing that Krsna danced with other's wife or other's daughter. This question was put. Pariksit Maharaja said that Krsna, because He is God, He cannot do anything wrong. Just like in England, the constitution says, "The king can do no wrong." King cannot be subject to any law. Similarly, when Krsna danced with the gopis, it has got a deep meaning. Because they are all devotees, they did not know except Krsna, and they prayed to the Katyayani, although they are married, they prayed to Katyayani before they were married, that "Let Krsna become our husband." Krsna is so beautiful. Naturally there is attraction. Krsna means all-attractive. So... And they were not ordinary women. They are eternal consorts or associates of Krsna. Ananda-cin-maya-rasa-pratibhavitabhih. They are expansion of Krsna; they are not ordinary women. Expansion of Krsna. Radha-krsna-pranaya-vikrtih hladini-saktih asmad. The gopis, Radharani, they are expansion of the spiritual energy of Krsna. Don't think they are ordinary women. They are Krsna. Saktih saktimator abhedah. They are not different from Krsna. But to give Krsna pleasure, Krsna expands Himself by His spiritual energy, ananda hladini, spiritual energy, sandini hladini. That is the expansion of His pleasure potency. It is not that to imitate gopis. That is sahajiya. That is sahajiya. They are ananda-cin-maya-rasa-pratibhavitabhis tabhir ya eva nija-rupataya kalabhih goloka eva nivasaty akhilatma-bhuto. When Krsna wants pleasure, He is full spiritual, His pleasure is full spiritual. There is no question of material.

It has been very broadly described by Sri Jiva Gosvami. Read all this. Don't try to imitate. That is sahajiya. We should know the position of Krsna. His expansion of pleasure potency. Therefore Krsna's lila is put into the middle of the Tenth Canto. First of all, try to understand Krsna from the very beginning. Janmady asya yatah. What is Krsna? Vasudeve, om namo bhagavate vasudevaya. So what is Vasudeva? Janmady asya yato. Here is the original source of everything. Aham sarvasya prabhavah mattah sarvam pravartate. First of all, try to understand Krsna. So therefore Vyasadeva has dedicated full nine cantos for understanding Krsna. Bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate. Manusyanam sahasresu kascid yatati siddhaye. (break)...siddhis, they think of gopis. That is recommended in Caitanya-caritamrta, siddha-deha. Where is siddha? And siddha-deha means there is no more any material lusty desires. That is siddha-deha. Yad-avadhi mama cetah krsna-padaravinde nava-nava-rasa-dhamany udyatam rantum asit tad-avadhi bata nari-sangame smaryamane. So long we shall think of nari-sanga, association, unity with woman, we must consider this is material body. Not siddha body. Siddha body means anyabhilasita-sunyam. All material desires, zero. That is siddha body. So therefore it is very confidential. But to clear it, that "How Krsna accepted to dance with so many gopis," this was for clearance.

In that question, you'll find, Sukadeva Gosvami has answered that unless one is liberated, he should not think of it even. Should not think of it. And he has given the example that, you have read, that Lord Siva, when there was churning, the poison came out, he took it and kept it. But if we imitate Lord Siva, that "He kept, he also drunk, so let me drink also, let me smoke ganja," no. You cannot do. Tejiyasam na dosaya. The example is given: those who are very, very powerful, they are not contaminated. Just like the sun. Sun is so powerful that it can soak water from the urine, or from the stool, but it still is sun. But if you imitate sun and you... Nowadays, it is going on. The urine is turned into water and they drink. And from stool they are getting fat. So these things are going on. But we should not try to imitate. The sum and substance is Krsna cannot be contaminated. Apapa-viddham. In the Isopanisad, you'll find. Tejiyasam. Just like sun is never contaminated. From the whole universe, the sun is soaking water from any filthy place. But the filthy place is becoming purified by the sun rays. That is possible by the sun.

So similarly, we cannot imitate Krsna. That is papa, adharma. Dharma is to abide by the orders of Krsna. That is very simple. And if we do that then we become qualified to go back to home, back to Godhead. Very simple thing. It doesn't require much education. Simply it requires a purified mind, that "I shall execute it honestly." That much qualification is sufficient. Man-mana bhava mad-bhakto mad-yaji mam namaskuru. This is Krsna's law and order. Krsna does not say anything which is very difficult to execute, because we cannot do it. Krsna asks from you very simple thing. Not that Krsna is asking from you very things which we cannot supply. No. We can supply. Anyone, any poor man, any illiterate man, any poor man or any rich man. Everyone, it is open to everyone. Mam hi partha vyapasritya ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah. Krsna consciousness is not forbidden to anyone, even papa-yoni." Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.45 lecture, LA CA,June 11, 76