Tattva-viveka
The Words of Srila Prabhupada on women
Swami - May 7, 2008 9:00 pm
Nitaisundara brought this article to my attention.
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05...torials2935.htm
Brahma dasa has done a good job of representing me and then some in the spirit of the Baktivinoda Parivara. Apparently this topic is again surfacing in Iskcon with regard to a proposal to footnote Prabhupada's controversial statements in his books, seeking to explain what he means.
It's an absolute/relative issue. Good to be ahead of the curve, but don't expect anyone to acknowledge that we have been.
Gandiva Dasi - May 8, 2008 2:14 pm
What an excellent , comprehensive and balanced article. Very nice concluding paragraph too .
I did hear about the footnoting idea, I was frankly really surprised that it would be seriously considered given the current climate in Iskcon,
I think there were something like three options proposed, footnotes, endnotes or completely editing out certain statements.
I can't imagine any of these actually coming to pass , at least not any time soon.
Well, I'm fowarding this article to some friends.
Babhru Das - May 8, 2008 2:37 pm
Excellent! Thank you, Brahma, for addressing this. I'm afraid I have a tendency to not want to engage much in discussions based on what I perceive as silliness, but you go after these with flair.
I've also seen a discussion recently about how to address women. Some devotees seem to think that it's essential to our practice to address all women as Mother. I can't imagine Tadiya or Gaurangi being comfortable if I called them Mother. Common sense is far too uncommon. We can thank God for our Swami.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 8, 2008 2:57 pm
Many people from ISKCON who are real SP loyalists have actually opposed GBC resolution 311 which talks about introducing anecdotes for some purports in S.B. They feel SP books should be same
others should write their own books to address this issue but SP books should be kept same as it is.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 8, 2008 3:33 pm
Obviously there is sarcasm in use of the term "real " SP loyalists.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 8, 2008 3:36 pm
The GBC wants that those quotes of SP be presented like anecdotes and not like concrete sastra. Sorry if I was not clear in the use of term anecdotes before.
Bhrigu - May 8, 2008 5:23 pm
I heard from Krishna-kshetra Prabhu earlier that they would write essays about these "controversial topics" and include a link in the book. I thought that sounded like a more realistic idea, but if they could pull off the endnotes that would of course be better. But like Gandiva, I doubt it.
Swami - May 8, 2008 7:35 pm
One problem is where they will draw the line. There are social, psychological, cosmological, scientific, and philosophical issues that require clarity.
The real solution is guru parampara. It is the task of the successor(s) to clarify the words of the previous acarya. If the successor does this properly, there is no need to go back and footnote the previous acarya's books. They will be seen for what they are, important ground breaking books that explain Gaudiya siddhnata that also include some outdated notions and lack clarity on issues that were not pertinent enough at the time the books were written to warrant such clarity or detail. Of course this means that the successors must make a significant literary contribution themselves, as Prabhupada expected them to do. He said the the foremost business of the acarya is to make a literary contribution to the sampradaya. In the least that means commentaries on the core texts. Heaven forbid!
Thus the claim to Iskcon's fame, as they see it, is coming to bite them in the rear. How many times have we heard "Everything is in Prabhupada's books," etc. backed by little or no realization as to how this is so and how it is not so. Fanaticism may work for a while, but it's life is limited. It can go on forever, but it represents a lifeless understanding of the teaching of the acarya.
Madan Gopal Das - May 8, 2008 11:59 pm
The real solution is guru parampara.
This is exactly what I said in a comment on Dandavats regarding this resolution to footnote the books. Of course my already tempered comment was met with a call for editing by the moderator. Iskcon's central philosophy of Prabhupada centeredness will always create difficulty because they are fighting the inevitable time factor. The time factor and "lawbooks for the next 10,000 years" do not work well together. Then throw in the spreading of spiritual authority across the ranks and you will never get anywhere but bureaucracy. What is really required is "self-effulgent" acaryas and freedom of faith. In faith, all contradictions will be resolved and Prabhupada can be properly honored as the founder-acarya of iskcon.
Swami - May 9, 2008 12:59 am
Ironically, words like the ones I have written above are often deemed "pandering to the politically correct," rather than preaching boldly and speaking controversially as Srila Prabhupada did. I find such evaluations amusing. Preach boldly, and preach to the devotees.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 9, 2008 2:02 am
I believe that for any substantial change a new generation of devotees must come and rework that institution inside out.
Devotees who are more open to suggestions, who actually experience the reality of the world we live in and who undoubtedly feel the consequences of the mistakes done before. New sensible people.
Writing footnotes will not change anything, but writing all new chapters for the future may help. Accept the task and responsibility for once, become a guru. Make a brave step and don't just throw everything childishly in Srila Prabhupada's corner; stop looking for excuses of your own mistakes in your father's life.
That's called coming of age.
Bijaya Kumara Das - May 9, 2008 4:15 pm
"Srila Prabhupada was devotionally perfected not perfect or infallible in any mundane sense."
This is so relevant and thanks to Guru Maharaja we get the essence of this perfection directly explained to us.
Syamasundara - May 10, 2008 1:20 am
This whole self-effulgence is such a convenient shield. To how many devotees at the same time does this acarya have to self-effulge? Ask Ramacandra Puri if Sri Krsna Caitanya is a self-effulgent acarya; he'll say he looks pretty dim to him....
The footnotes would sound like there is something to patch up, otherwise what would people think of us/otherwise people will realize the truth about us.
The Jehova's Witnesses' literature is written in such a way that many statements have footnotes that are nothing more than questions, the answers to which are the very statements they refer to. So, in the long run, a simple person that keeps reading, will put down the booklet thinking: "Wow, they really have all the answers, these witnesses."
Our footnotes would have the opposite effect, making us, well, them, look nervously apologetic and faulty, while the fact of the matter is that the Gaudiyas have a lot to be proud of, i.e. the whole Absolute.
A healthy and living parampara is obviously the only solution. Krsna himself says the weirdest things throughout the scriptures. Take the verse bhoktaram yajña-tapasam sarva-loka-mahesvaram. The first time I read that verse many years ago I was on the bus, and I remember looking around nervously, to see if someone else could read those words that struck me as so arrogant, or primitive, meaning like a Hawaiian god that says things like that through the totem before (and justifying) his demand for a human sacrifice. Or something. However, the parampara gave me the proper perspective.
So, let's keep the parampara alive. The onus is on each and every one of us. Parampara is usually described as a chain of master and disciple, but it's more like chain maille.
The funny thing is that all those unbridled fanatics out there feel the same onus, so the best way for us to keep the parampara alive in us, for us and the whole world is by focusing on our practice, so that realization comes, we see things for what they are, no matter what the issue, and we can approach them from that vantage point.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 10, 2008 6:53 pm
Many people from ISKCON who are real SP loyalists have actually opposed GBC resolution 311 . . .
It's ironic that the the books, the vehicle that is supposed to turn our faith from tender, unenlightened faith to mature, rational, informed faith too often become another source of fanatical flag-waving, e.g., the sector of devotees who want only the original manuscripts of SP's books published, incorrect English and all. The fanatical mentality can't (or won't) recognize the difference between relative and absolute, which is particularly unfortunate because it is the deep deliberation on that very idea that causes immature faith to grow into mature faith. But it also occurs to me that many devotees, and not just the fanatical types, avoid examining the relative/absolute, form/substance issues because it forces them back into an unsure position for a while, which can be very uncomfortable, especially after one has come and gotten the answer to the question of the meaning of "Life, the Universe, and Everything." It's far safer psychologically to not go there, to not have one's faith challenged. Thus the lifeless understanding of the teaching of the acarya lives on in its zombie sort of way, well-meaning and ignorant, seeking to turn others into spiritual zombies. Sad.
Brahma Dasa - May 11, 2008 4:21 pm
Thanks to Swami and all for their kind words about my recent submission to the SUN --‘Srila Prabhupada’s Words on Women’. The article was first published on VNN in November of 2004 and about a year later it was posted on Vaisnavi.org. Vaisnavi.org posts a lot of Sanga Q and A concerning women’s issues.
When the article first appeared on VNN I received a few appreciations, but I was surprised to find that overall the Internet response has been rather negative. To my knowledge no one posted anything on the news sites to cheer me on, but now I feel somewhat vindicated that the GBC has passed the ‘footnote’ resolution.
Anyway, here are some rebuttals to the article if anyone cares to read them.
Prabhupada: Foretelling Practical Eperiances
http://www.dipika.org/2004/11/30/23_sr_pra...ells/index.html
Defending the Words of Srila Prabhupada
http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/iskcon-...prabhupada.html
Brahma
Swami - May 11, 2008 4:55 pm
The response articles Brahma posted betray a huge misunderstanding of sexism on one hand and our philosophy on the other. The authors are not grounded in the world nor have they risen above it. Dravinaksa's article is an extremely simplistic approach to a subject he knows little about, while containing factual errors. Hari-vilasa's article is simply pathetic. He does not understand our philosophy. Again, wonderful article Brahma. I welcome the comments of others.
Prema-bhakti - May 11, 2008 4:56 pm
I am so sick of these flimsy rebuttals and how they resort to such a low level to personally criticize the author rather than deal with the philosophical points raised. As GM says, "weak faith needs an enemy."
These people need a lesson in GV 101. They don't even understand the core philosophy. They represent to the extreme bhara-vahi seeking.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 11, 2008 5:14 pm
Like Guru Maharaja said, clearly neither of the authors of the articles are in touch with the modern world--at least not in a way that a normal person can relate to. They view the modern world through the skewed lens of their conception of the perfect Vedic society and so avoid having to deal with the complexities of what is actually going on here and now. Hari-vilasa's characterization of Brahma's arguments as "disingenuous" I found repugnant--he's basically saying that if we seek to apply logic to the words of our guru to resolve contradictions we find in them then we are dishonest and want to undermine the guru's absolute authority. The irony is that they're using logic--twisted though it be--to defend their understanding of SP's statements.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 12, 2008 12:32 am
Again, wonderful article Brahma. I welcome the comments of others.
Brahma's great article continues his and Swami's labour of love set up through Sanga Q&A for many years now and I congratulate them on such a wonderful work. I know sometimes is difficult to see the outreach of your efforts, but if it means something to you, yes, your words of reason and sanity do reach people out there. They make difference. It is the best thing that has happened to this devotional world during the last 30 years.
What do you think about an idea to wrap up all your articles (like this one) onto Sanga's website, so people who come there can have everything at hand and see where you post, in which debates, issues around the globe you're participating and which problems you try to solve. People then can experience the true dynamics and relevance of many topics.
If the original article disappears, people would have no clue what you've spent your time on. In this way you preserve it.
Babhru Das - May 12, 2008 2:30 am
I agree that these two articles show a lack of understanding of sexism, as well as paucity in understanding of Krishna consciousness. I may have read Dravinaksa's years ago when it appeared on Dipika, but I could see no point in responding, I guess. It's not well thought out and not very clearly written. I don't think I've see Hari-vilasa's before, even though I often participated in Krishna-kirti's discussions. It shows the weakness of understanding among many of ISKCON's leaders. These two articles do create a stark contrast between the tender faith we see too often and the clear thought and firm understanding evident is Brahma's article and Swami's Sanga. How fortunate we are!
Kamalaksa Das - May 12, 2008 12:00 pm
It seems clear to me that change is something every tradition has to terms with - be it a secular school of thought or something aiming at trancendence. I would like to share with you one quote I came upon in my continuous studies into the realm of graphic design. (Who would have guessed...?)
The quote is lifted from an essay by Mr Keedy entitled Zombie Modernism*, but the person quoted is someone closer to our realm of thought, namely Alfred North Whitehead. His words relating to the matter read as follows:
"Mere change without conservation is a passage from nothing to nothing... Mere conservation without change cannot conserve."
The sentences are lifted from a slightly longer passage I googled up, also worth reading:
"There are two principles inherent in the very nature of things, recurring in some particular embodiments whatever field we explore - the spirit of change, and the spirit of conservation. There can be nothing real without both. Mere change without conservation is a passage from nothing to nothing... Mere conservation without change cannot conserve. For after all, there is a flux of circumstance, and the freshness of being evaporates under mere repetition."
Another very befitting quote I found from Mr. Whitehead, which also seems to closely echo the sentiments expressed within this discussion reads like this:
"The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order. Life refuses to be embalmed alive. The more prolonged the halt in some unrelieved system of order, the greater the crash of the dead society."
Now is it just me or do these thoughts sound like they describe a certain society to you?
* Those interested in the essay by Mr. Keedy can find it in the collection Texts on Type - critical writings on typography, edited by Steven Heller and Philip B. Meggs. I expect quite a rush at amazon.com after this shameless promotion...
Brahma Dasa - May 12, 2008 1:28 pm
I had to look up paucity.
Here is what Webster says: paucity |?pôsit?| noun [in sing. ] the presence of something only in small or insufficient quantities or amounts; scarcity : a paucity of information.
I think that in relation to Krsna consciousness this word would apply to most of us. (myself included)
Thanks for the new word! I can't wait to use it.
Madan Gopal Das - May 12, 2008 9:51 pm
Here is a comment I barely got on to Dandavats:
Sita-pati - “I haven’t had anyone in the public ask me about it either. I asked Kaisori dd to send me the kind of inquiries that the BBT gets on this issue in order to write something to it. For the most part they consisted of ISKCON devotees wringing their hands and saying: “What will people think of this?”Is it really that big an issue, from an external public relations perspective?”
Madan Gopal - It seems everyone tends to comment on this issue from the perspective of “how will Prabhupada’s controversial statements effect the preaching”. I think the answer to this hinges on what you consider preaching to be. Yes, it is quite unlikely that someone on the streets will receive Prabhupada’s 4th canto, open it up to the rape quote and right then and there resolve never to follow this path because we are a socially backwards religious sect. However, I would argue from the evidence coming back in response to this resolution that DEVOTEES are uncomfortable with this, DEVOTEES need this explained, DEVOTEES need to be reassured as to what Prabhupada’s perspective on this is… The proof of this is that the issue of Prabhupada’s statements about women continues to linger without resolve for decades. I will say that I am offended by these statements and several of Prabhupada’s statements about women, minority groups, even sometimes general comments about non-devotees. How did I get over it? The continuation of parampara; inquiry from a devotee who could put Prabhupada’s statements in perspective, guide me to the essentials of the philosophy of bhakti, and offer his own social commentary that was up to date.
The very sad thing is that just when some discussion could get going about this subject on a gbc biased website, they discontinue the discussion and won't allow more comments. Then to top it off they allow the last comment to be from Locanananda (a ritvik) who points out to everyone that there is a conversation with Prabhupada which seems to imply that Prabhupada did believe what he asserts in the 4th canto about women and rape, and that it was not just a bad choice of words. I'm not sure what Locanananda's agenda is (probably against changing the books) but it just brings to the forefront the conflict of faith in accepting 100% of Prabhupada's words as absolute and timeless. To leave the masses of devotees without any facility for discussion and philosophical dialog is so damaging. And so it goes... Whatever!
Babhru Das - May 12, 2008 10:27 pm
And so it goes, indeed. Well, if they want to accept 100% of Srila Prabhupada's words without considering context, etc., maybe that's okay. Then they would have to accept that it is Srila Prabhupada's earnest desire that everyone have facility to hear from Srila Sridhar Maharaja, that our Swami is the incarnation of book distribution (which, at least at the time it was spoken, was identical with preaching), that Babhru surely must be a great devotee, that all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are pure devotees, [pick your quotation], etc. So far, I just don't see much sense in their perspectives on such issues.
Brahma Dasa - May 12, 2008 10:55 pm
Once Prabhupada discussed a rape case in India where the accused was acquitted because the woman said (or was coerced into saying by the defense attorney) that she enjoyed being raped. Some devotees say that he was refering to this case when he said in the Bhagavatam that women like a man who is expert at rape.
I believe the conversation is in the Vedabase if someone would care to find and post it.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 12, 2008 11:21 pm
Well, if they want to accept 100% of Srila Prabhupada's words without considering context, etc., maybe that's okay.
They may say they want to (or do), but of course in reality they don't--they pick and choose which ones they will follow or not. So it seems that if one is in Iskcon that's okay, but if one is not it's not.
I think the resolution to put in footnotes is not a good solution. To use the rape statement as an example, to footnote it will only call more attention to it, and how will they explain such a statement? It could easily make Srila Prabhupada look worse, not better as they intend. Far better in my opinion to just edit the books in consideration of today's sociopolitical climate and weather (or ignore) the squawking of the fanatics--as long as the spirit of the message is preserved then what could be the harm?
Brahma Dasa - May 12, 2008 11:33 pm
In this particular case editing may be a better choice, but its a little late now as tens of thousands of copies have already been distributed.
Here's what I wrote about this in the article:
"I personally feel that his editors, in a spirit of humble service to him, might have done him a disservice by not bringing to his attention the negative side of some of the controversial things that he wrote about women. In his book The Hare Krsna Explosion, Hayagriva dasa relates that Srila Prabhupada told him to edit his Bhagavad-gita so that it would be acceptable to the academic community. In our present social climate writing that women are less intelligent, untrustworthy, or like men who are expert at rape, is certainly not acceptable to anyone in the academic community. Therefore I believe that Srila Prabhupada would have wanted to be advised how statements like this would affect appreciation for his books, as we know that he wanted his books to serve future generations by helping to bring them to essential Krsna consciousness."
Babhru Das - May 12, 2008 11:42 pm
They may say they want to (or do), but of course in reality they don't--they pick and choose which ones they will follow or not. So it seems that if one is in Iskcon that's okay, but if one is not it's not.
Of course they're selective; that's why I made such outrageous suggestions. Even those in ISKCON need to be wary of which of Srila Prabhupada's words they emphasize and which they discount. The lines between different factions in the institution are often sharply drawn, from what I can see.
I think editing may be the best choice, but I think I heard Jayadvaita Maharaja say the other day that we simply need to be thoughtful enough to be able to present things in a way others will appreciate. I'll have to go back and listen to the class, of which I only heard parts, but I think he said something along those lines.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 13, 2008 1:04 am
... In his book The Hare Krsna Explosion, Hayagriva dasa relates that Srila Prabhupada told him to edit his Bhagavad-gita so that it would be acceptable to the academic community. In our present social climate writing that women are less intelligent, untrustworthy, or like men who are expert at rape, is certainly not acceptable to anyone in the academic community. ...
I remember the words Swami told in a lesson once, that Srila Prabhupada said once God has given him grandchildren, but not sons and daughters. Prabhupada was referring to their young age and (lack of) experience. So they couldn't provide him good advice on many important issues. Fighting against the boring society, not caring about the consequences and not trusting those above 30 is quite normal when you're in 20's.
Madan Gopal Das - May 13, 2008 1:20 am
Once Prabhupada discussed a rape case in India
This is what Locanananda was referring too. I hate to present Prabhupada like this, but for the sake of critical thinking and discussion of spiritual vs. material relativity I submit this quote. Put your context filters on folks... here goes!
Devotee (1): They swear on the Bible in the court. And I was reading in the paper the other day that now in England they have passed a law whereby a man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to be raped.Prabhupāda: Eh? What is that? Woman?
Devotee (1): They said that the man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to his raping her.
Prabhupāda: Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And that's a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That's a psychology. It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology.
:Black Eye: 
Brahma Dasa - May 13, 2008 2:19 am
So basically Prabhupada is saying here that rape means--without consent.
However there are women with a particular psychology who (willingly) enjoy aggressive sexual encounters . (His language is confusing, but in todays world of free sexual expression there is really no big deal here.) Thats how I read it. What do you think?
This brings up another point I mentioned in the article:
"All considered, understanding Krsna consciousness in terms of absolute and relative is especially helpful in this information age when anyone can scrutinize Srila Prabhupada's exact words on any subject, words that in every case might not have been for consumption by the general public."
Madan Gopal Das - May 13, 2008 3:22 am
However there are women with a particular psychology who (willingly) enjoy aggressive sexual encounters . (His language is confusing, but in todays world of free sexual expression there is really no big deal here.) Thats how I read it. What do you think?
Anyway I read the quote, it just sounds really bad to me. Everybody feels relief of the itch, willing or not?? #1, it seems as if Prabhupada is suggesting that women are constantly sexually lusty and therefore someone aggressively taking advantage of that is really doing them a favor in scratching the itch. #2, some people may have a thing for aggressive sexual relationships, but that has nothing to do with unwillingness/lack of consent. If sex is not consensual, it is exploitative and potentially very damaging. And it is so typical in the history of sexism for men to try to hold sexual power with these type of arguments "you know she liked it", denying the woman her own voice and interpreting for her. In Prabhupada's defense, this was the culture he grew up in, related to, and even the more liberal areas of the world were nowhere near as progressive during his lifetime as they are today. I am conditioned by my cultural circumstances also, and that is why I don't even bother trying to span the cultural and historical differences except in relation to bhakti tattva.
To me it all comes down to this central point again: If your primary guru/siksa guru's every word is absolute, and that person existed in this world of limited time and space, you are going to be in trouble with some of his words. Iskcon makes both these mistakes - making Prabhupada an absolute authority and making his absoluteness primary in people's lives who live 40 years later in a different time/space/culture. He should be revered as a great acarya, as a revolutionary preacher with enormous historical importance for future generations... But why a cultural commentator for the present?
Zvonimir Tosic - May 13, 2008 5:12 am
Thats how I read it. What do you think?
Anyway I read the quote, it just sounds really bad to me.
Thank you all. This brings one question: how far we'll go in understanding others and how hard we'd try to examine other people's words in best light possible?
For example, I feel what Brahma Prabhu wants to convey about this quotation and I can agree with him. After years spent reading Srila Prabhupada's books, I can say he actually respected women highly. Anyone truly indulged in consciousness of Krishna and Radha cannot be otherwise.
However, if that was someone else and not Srila Prabhupada, how far we'd go in our understanding, our comprehension of people's statements? Would we find that sometime challenging venture worthwhile at all and would we dismiss some good people simply by their accidental statements, which don't reflect their true heart?
Brahma Dasa - May 13, 2008 6:11 am
Yes, my tendency would be to consider the comments in the best possible light. Thus my reading gives Prabhupada a lot of leeway—after all he was born in 1896, (112 years ago). He made those comments when he was nearing 80 and was conversing in English, his second language, and it was apparent that he was struggling with what he was trying to say. Furthermore the comments were in a private conversation, which goes back to my point that not everything that he said should have been published— to be scrutinized by the public.
But that was then and this is now! Back then we hung on every word that he said—accepting everything he said as if it were manna from heaven. Our faith in Prabhupada was in many ways innocent and childlike. A little child has no capacity for objective analysis in regard to his father’s words of wit, wisdom, and encouragement.
Of course now we have to discriminate, ---but with love.
Audarya-lila Dasa - May 13, 2008 6:12 am
I think it all boils down to cultural differences. It seems to me that Srila Prabhupada is saying that rape means 'force' - that is universally agreed. The idea that anyone likes to be violated would only be put forward by a perverted person. That is clearly, as far as I can tell, not at all what Srila Prabhupada meant. I agree with Brahma, he seems to be talking about consensual sex. The way I read it is that he is talking about a situation where a woman (you could replace that with a man) outwardly doesn't want to agree to sexual intercourse but inwardly wants to. That is obviously never the case with rape and at the very beginning of the quote Srila Prabhupada makes that distinction clear.
The fact that an itch is scratched and provides relief does not speak to the extreme violation of consciousness, and in that, the quote appears somewhat callous, but I believe that Srila Prabhupada was merely making a point about the material condition and not suggesting that a violated person is really consenting if they experience any pleasure (or relief).
At any rate I think we all know that Srila Prabhupada was a great acharya and a very compassionate and thoughtful person. The quote presented above has to be reconciled with who we know Srila Prabhupada to be. His command of English was good, but that doesn't mean that he knew all the nuances of the language and understood how to always express himself correctly so that his words would be understood unequivocally.
I think the whole quote is misunderstood due to it being a mixed expression. On the one had Srila Prabhpuada is talking about a court case in India where the lawyer tricked the violated woman into agreeing she felt some pleasure and he thereby got his client clear of the charge of rape and on the other hand Srila Prabhupada is speaking about how strong the urge to enjoy the senses is.
Madan Gopal Das - May 13, 2008 11:23 am
Our faith in Prabhupada was in many ways innocent and childlike. A little child has no capacity for objective analysis in regard to his father’s words of wit, wisdom, and encouragement.
What is so unfortunate is that most people do not want to grow up, but rather remain childish forever. The two articles from several years ago responding to you are childish, and people still have the same tantrums today:
"As It Is" - With a Few Caveats
by Nrsimhananda das
Posted May 12, 2008
"He really means..." is perhaps a well-intentioned, but ultimately dangerous new effort to interpret Srila Prabhupada's vani by the GBC. Prabhupada's own words written in the Bhagavatam are not enough, it seems. Now, we, the conditioned souls - or, to be correct, an elite appointed few - will annotate and comment on their meaning in future editions of Prabhupada's books. There will be no editions without these "authorized" commentaries. Gosh, how did I or any other devotee, male or female, get past these declarations below without annotations? Could it be that the understanding of Krsna consciousness is imparted in the heart, not in the mind? Is it possible that the pure devotee gives his mercy to the conditioned soul without the need of filtration. "The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth." BG4.34 Check it out the latest:
311. End Notes or Appendices in Srila Prabhupada's Books
Whereas some of Srila Prabhupada's books contain sentences such as the following, which when taken in isolation may be considered derogatory to and offensive against women:
Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape. (SB 4.25.41, p.)
When a husbandless woman is attacked by an aggressive man, she takes his action to be mercy. (SB 4.25.42, p.)
Generally, when a woman is attacked by a man -- whether her husband or some other man -- she enjoys the attack, being too lusty. (SB 4.26.26, p.)
Whereas some ISKCON devotees may have used these statements out of context as an excuse to offend, neglect and abuse women;
Whereas some people who read such statements may consider them to be derogatory or offensive, may misunderstand what Srila Prabhupada actually means, and may not want to further read those books, notwithstanding the many other beneficial statements in them;
RESOLVED: That the GBC Body recommends to the BBT Trustees that the above quotes, and other such statements as determined by the BBT, be explained in endnotes or in appendices.
Swami - May 13, 2008 3:01 pm
I think the whole quote is misunderstood due to it being a mixed expression. On the one had Srila Prabhpuada is talking about a court case in India where the lawyer tricked the violated woman into agreeing she felt some pleasure and he thereby got his client clear of the charge of rape and on the other hand Srila Prabhupada is speaking about how strong the urge to enjoy the senses is.
Yes, he waxes from discussing a particular incident to a point he makes throughout his books: the urge for sex is strong in human society.
Otherwise I always took his statement about rape to be synonymous with the idea from the 1950's in the US that "when a women says no to sex she means yes." This was quite a common misunderstanding among men regarding women's psychology. It did not help that sometimes it was true, but when taken as a universal it gave men a license (men thought) for sexual harassment (a legal term nonexistent at the time) and actual rape in some cases. The ugly nature of rape has only come to light in more recent times here in the US. As women gained courage and a voice in society this misunderstanding has been being cleared up. A study of how rape has been delt with over the last 50 years would prove interesting.
This country (US) is still troubled by sexism. In fact it continues to permeate the society, although in more subtle ways than in the past. Men who are not at all racist are often still sexist to some extent. And for that matter all great spiritual teachers of the past were sexist to some extent by today's standards.
However, it is also clear that Prabhupada himself did not indulge in any form of sexual harassment, nor did he condone men raping women. His comments on rape are simply remarks that reflect a common notion widely held regarding women's psychology. Indeed, a consensus of concern regarding his remarks is only really coming to the surface today, three plus decades after he wrote what he did.
We were recently discussing this and found that other spiritual traditions are also dealing with the sexism (by today's standards) of their founders, Buddha included. Jesus seems to have had the best record. Still all of them were progressive for their time. Prabhupada was also progressive with regard to his tradition (and criticized for it), although a bit behind for his time in the West. Then again, he gave us a license to use our own intelligence as his extensions. Unfortunately this is what is lacking. Indeed, there is resistance to the idea.
Prema-bhakti - May 13, 2008 5:08 pm
Yes, he waxes from discussing a particular incident to a point he makes throughout his books: the urge for sex is strong in human society.
Otherwise I always took his statement about rape to be synonymous with the idea from the 1950's in the US that "when a women says no to sex she means yes." This was quite a common misunderstanding among men regarding women's psychology. It did not help that sometimes it was true, but when taken as a universal it gave men a license (men thought) for sexual harassment (a legal term nonexistent at the time) and actual rape in some cases. The ugly nature of rape has only come to light in more recent times here in the US. As women gained courage and a voice in society this misunderstanding has been being cleared up. A study of how rape has been delt with over the last 50 years would prove interesting.
In recent history women in this country were seen as property of the husband to do what he wishes and if a girl was raped by a boy it was generally seen as the girl's fault for putting herself in such a situation in the first place. Today such crimes as date rape and domestic rape (within marriage) can be prosecuted, not sure how successfully though.
In the corporate world there is so much concern about sexual harassment that it is addressed proactively. It seems these cases must be prosecuted sucessfully to some degree for such concern. Rasaraja told me that he recently attended a seminar for higher level management and they discussed proper elevator etiquette. They were basically instructed to look at the floor and not to make too much eye contact or the person may think you are "checking them out" and acting inappropriate. This was across the board for the opposite sex as well as same sex. Hmmm.
However, I cannot imagine that the "pleasure" argument would be used as a viable argument for rape being consensual nowadays. Much has been examined about the pain and guilt such feelings of bodily pleasure have caused victims of sex crimes.
Prema-bhakti - May 13, 2008 5:32 pm
What is so unfortunate is that most people do not want to grow up, but rather remain childish forever. The two articles from several years ago responding to you are childish, and people still have the same tantrums today:
"As It Is" - With a Few Caveats
by Nrsimhananda das
Posted May 12, 2008
"He really means..." is perhaps a well-intentioned, but ultimately dangerous new effort to interpret Srila Prabhupada's vani by the GBC. Prabhupada's own words written in the Bhagavatam are not enough, it seems. Now, we, the conditioned souls - or, to be correct, an elite appointed few - will annotate and comment on their meaning in future editions of Prabhupada's books. There will be no editions without these "authorized" commentaries. Gosh, how did I or any other devotee, male or female, get past these declarations below without annotations? Could it be that the understanding of Krsna consciousness is imparted in the heart, not in the mind? Is it possible that the pure devotee gives his mercy to the conditioned soul without the need of filtration. "The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth." BG4.34 Check it out the latest:
311. End Notes or Appendices in Srila Prabhupada's Books
Whereas some of Srila Prabhupada's books contain sentences such as the following, which when taken in isolation may be considered derogatory to and offensive against women:
Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape. (SB 4.25.41, p.)
When a husbandless woman is attacked by an aggressive man, she takes his action to be mercy. (SB 4.25.42, p.)
Generally, when a woman is attacked by a man -- whether her husband or some other man -- she enjoys the attack, being too lusty. (SB 4.26.26, p.)
Whereas some ISKCON devotees may have used these statements out of context as an excuse to offend, neglect and abuse women;
Whereas some people who read such statements may consider them to be derogatory or offensive, may misunderstand what Srila Prabhupada actually means, and may not want to further read those books, notwithstanding the many other beneficial statements in them;
RESOLVED: That the GBC Body recommends to the BBT Trustees that the above quotes, and other such statements as determined by the BBT, be explained in endnotes or in appendices.
:Big Grin: 
Well, it seems that ISKCON may be treading on thin ice with these appendices. Personally, I think they may fail miserably trying to explain what these statements mean and draw more attention to these few controversial passages. Better let them stand as they are and disciples take up the service of writing commentaries in modern language and reference. If no one in ISKCON is willing or qualified to do such seva, maybe they should just edit out these statements. Gasp! 
Instead of digging themselves deeper into an archaic abyss.
Swami - May 13, 2008 6:31 pm
Prabhupada, to his credit, was prone to cite authorities. In this case he does not refer to sastra but to a legal case, one that seems to confirm another legal case cited by his student—one from England and one from Calcutta. So it appears that the courts were establishing this precedent. At least this is how it appeared to Prabhupada, and he is citing their opinion, one that makes some sense to him. However, should further evidence from legal cases be cited contradicting this opinion, and doing so definitively, are we to think that Prabhupada would obstinately and irrationally hold on to an opinion he held earlier on the basis of less definitive legal evidence?
Do people like Locanananda actually believe that women like to be raped, or that such was a deeply held and spiritually absolute opinion of Srila Prabhupada? I certainly hope not.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 13, 2008 6:47 pm
My two cents on the point Brahma raised:
"All considered, understanding Krsna consciousness in terms of absolute and relative is especially helpful in this information age when anyone can scrutinize Srila Prabhupada's exact words on any subject, words that in every case might not have been for consumption by the general public."
I would say that understanding our philosophy in terms of relative and absolute is not just helpful but is essential--at any time, and even more so in this information age.
Guru Maharaja once said that the people who recorded Srila Prabhupada would have followed him into the toilet if he would have allowed it. They recorded things that should not have been, and then interpreted his words in ways they should not have been. They clearly didn't have the discrimination to see that much of what he said was context-specific and was not to be applied to other cases. The solution of course is to learn how to discern relative and absolute under the guidance of an acarya. Srila Sridhara Maharaja was the perfect person to help them do that, but we know how that turned out.
Prema-bhakti - May 13, 2008 7:03 pm
Guru Maharaja once said that the people who recorded Srila Prabhupada would have followed him into the toilet if he would have allowed it. They recorded things that should not have been, and then interpreted his words in ways they should not have been.
A very enthusiastic bunch it seems.
Madri (Tamal Krsna Goswami's widow) had intimate association with SP in India when she was a grhasta. They lived with Prabhupada with only a sheet separating their spaces. She told me how she and others drank from Srila Prabhupada's spitoon and ate the mud from his shoes.
Prema-bhakti - May 13, 2008 7:06 pm
There is such a long history of sexual crimes in ISKCON against children, women, and men and which have been dealt with in a less than adequate way. Surely in instances these statements served as some perverse way to justify these actions.
Syama Gopala Dasa - May 13, 2008 7:17 pm
Isn't it unbelievable that of all that Srila Prabhupada has to offer, people zoom in on one comma?
And that discussion on that comma rages on and on even though it could be easily understood by following the guru parampara, using one's intellect and attempting to read into the spirit of the words.
It still blows me away.
(of course, granted, easily said when you are a white middle class boy)
Babhru Das - May 13, 2008 7:31 pm
There is such a long history of sexual crimes in ISKCON against children, women, and men and which have been dealt with in a less than adequate way. Surely in instances these statements served as some perverse way to justify these actions.
Indeed. There's one ISKCON leader who famously replied to a mother's complaint about abuse of her child. "Sex is sex!"
Babhru Das - May 13, 2008 7:44 pm
My two cents on the point Brahma raised:I would say that understanding our philosophy in terms of relative and absolute is not just helpful but is essential--at any time, and even more so in this information age.
Guru Maharaja once said that the people who recorded Srila Prabhupada would have followed him into the toilet if he would have allowed it. They recorded things that should not have been, and then interpreted his words in ways they should not have been. They clearly didn't have the discrimination to see that much of what he said was context-specific and was not to be applied to other cases.
Oh, yes. So much has been presented out of context--"Prabhupada said." I once read a letter to a godbrother in which Prabhupada wrote something to this effect: "They say Prabhupada has said this or that; this is simply another cheating process. If it is not in my books, I did not say it." This would seem to indicate that he didn't really approve of all this quoting, often used as a sort of club to subdue someone we disagree with. There's much, of course, that wasn't recorded, and it isn't given the same weight as something that can be confirmed by VedaBase pramana. Still, a couple have taken on the status of axiom, even though they're not in the VedaBase.
I had a private conversation with Srila Prabhupada in 1973. He meant it to be private, and to have published a recording would have been a travesty (even though he gave an instruction I find very inspiring: Devotees and devotional service cannot be stereotyped. There is nothing that cannot be engaged in Krishna's service.However, we need guidance from the expert spiritual master how to engage everything in Krishna's service; that is the only catch.) And even though I was one of the editors of the first effort to publish Srila Prabhupada's letters, I have misgivings about how statements from many letters are taken out of their context and misused.
Swami - May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
A very enthusiastic bunch it seems.
Madri (Tamal Krsna Goswami's widow) had intimate association with SP in India when she was a grhasta. They lived with Prabhupada with only a sheet separating their spaces. She told me how she and others drank from Srila Prabhupada's spitoon and ate the mud from his shoes.
Alone with Prabhupada and asked to empty his spitoon once, as I went to empty it the thought of drinking it entered my mind. Such were the times. But I reasoned wisely, I believe, that this was not what he was teaching. I guess I have not changed that much.
Prema-bhakti - May 13, 2008 8:35 pm
And even though I was one of the editors of the first effort to publish Srila Prabhupada's letters, I have misgivings about how statements from many letters are taken out of their context and misused.
This seemed to be the phenomenon with Srila Prabhupada's individual letters to disciples. They were read publicly and then subsequently published and then often interpreted to be applied in a broad way. Problematic.
The duty of the guru is to instruct the disciple in terms of his individual needs for personal growth in devotional life which can take so many shapes and nuances in terms of how to individually apply standards, etc.
This is also a dilemma of sorts in present day ISKCON as most disciples are not able to receive or follow individual instructions from their guru because they are subject to institutional conduct and the guru is under pressure to administer such standards across the board. Many times the propagated standards of conduct are often far from the reality of what is actually the practiced standard by the majority or what is best for an individual's progress. This creates a sort of accepted practice of dishonesty and often shame and guilt on the part of many. There are also various authorities that the disciples must work under who serve as authorities or "surrogate gurus" . In such an environment the institutional needs are weighed more heavily at the expense of the individual.
Babhru Das - May 13, 2008 8:53 pm
Alone with Prabhupada and asked to empty his spitoon once, as I went to empty it the thought of drinking it entered my mind. Such were the times. But I reasoned wisely, I believe, that this was not what he was teaching. I guess I have not changed that much.
Sudama told me of a similar experience, and he asked Srila Prabhupada if it would be okay. Srila Prabhupada said he should not do so: "After all, I'm not Chaitanya Mahaprabhu."
Babhru Das - May 15, 2008 10:27 am
The much-discussed proposed annotations are not going to happen. Jayadvaita Maharaja said a couple of weeks ago that the BBT is "not gonna do" them. So that aspect of the discussion is moot.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 15, 2008 2:11 pm
Jayadvaita maharaja, with due respect to his devotion, is still very rigid in conservative in some ways.
Swami - May 15, 2008 2:57 pm
The much-discussed proposed annotations are not going to happen. Jayadvaita Maharaja said a couple of weeks ago that the BBT is "not gonna do" them. So that aspect of the discussion is moot.
What is their reasoning? Do they have another idea as to how to resolve the issue?
Incidentally I found an online review of Prabhupada's Bhagavatam that said the sexist and anti science remarks were off putting.
Babhru Das - May 15, 2008 3:14 pm
What is their reasoning? Do they have another idea as to how to resolve the issue?
Incidentally I found an online review of Prabhupada's Bhagavatam that said the sexist and anti science remarks were off putting.
I haven't had a chance yet to spend any time with Maharaja (I'm just starting to get around a little), but I'll ask him if I can. It may be because the GBC didn't direct the BBT just what sort of notes should be made. He did make a remark to the effect that today's preachers need to be able to discuss these things in a way that others can understand them, process them. He also favors the Web site that we've discussed sometimes as more appropriate because it will provide more room to discuss different ways we might understand the various controversial passages.
Could please send me a link to that review? I hope they've seen it at BBT.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 15, 2008 3:19 pm
Prabhupada's extremely literal interpretation of scripture and the insistence on this point in the purports can really throw off many people. But most devotees feel that prabhupada is speaking the truth uncompromisingly and that is why his institution is unique. It doesn't need to change to placate the public; just follow everything as it is without any compromise.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 15, 2008 3:44 pm
It doesn't need to change to placate the public; just follow everything as it is without any compromise.
Such a rigid approach is the antithesis of Srila Prabhupada's preaching spirit and practice. If they really believe that then they are doomed to descend further and further into obsolescense. What a pity they can't look at the example of acaryas like BSST and see how he was so radical (by Indian standards of the day) in his preaching, which was, as all good preaching, outwardly entirely shaped by time and circumstance. Yet he, like all good preachers, preserved the spirit of the message. To follow everything as it is without compromise sounds good on paper, but breaks down in the real world, as we see. And of course, interpretations of what exactly "as it is" means vary, all to often tending toward fundamentalist interpretations. Dynamism intimidates them.
Swami - May 15, 2008 4:38 pm
Could please send me a link to that review? I hope they've seen it at BBT.
Well, here it is by Melody Green in 2000 (it's not pretty)
"Although the stories are fascinating for individuals interested in Indian culture, Bhaktivedanta's purports, which are inserted throughout the books, detract from their continuity and make them harder to follow. His preachy style is reminiscent of a born-again Christian and his racist and sexist statements are very bothersome. His negativity re. family life and all aspects of modern science also give one a bad taste. It would have been much better just to let the stories speak for themselves. No wonder the Hare Krishnas have a hard time even giving this one away at the airports."
All the other reviews (Amazon) are by devotees, and it is so obvious that they are Bhagavata enthusiasts and students of Srila Prabhupada lacking objectivity. Their "reviews" are merely pitches to sell the book. I find this unbecoming in this particular format.
Melody's review is pretty accurate, one that could be expected in today's world. Thus the need, again, for guru parampara. Of course the review fails to understand Prabupada's intentions and thus the strength of his approach in terms of what he wanted to accomplish, a strength that is validated by the results he got. Time and circumstance is also relevant. We did not hear these kinds of comments 40 years ago when the books were written and university scholars were endorsing them, etc. 40 years in today's world is an eternity. This change rapidly.
Overall I just think that it is best to be honest about issues like this one. That will being the best result. Satyam eva jayate!
I suppose someone could ague that racism and sexism are overrated, attachment to family is illusion, science is nescience, etc. and Prabhupada is merely telling it like it is. Personally I do not buy a response of this nature. Even though it contains an element of truth, I think it is symptomatic of religious fanaticism in this context, and in my opinion it will not achieve the result of causing this reviewer to look differently, more deeply at Prabhupada's commentary. Still I love my guru and know that my entire spiritual life is a result of his mercy. He is my ideal, my everything. I just have a different idea from the majority of my guru bhai/bon of what it means to follow his example in this world and the next.
Babhru Das - May 15, 2008 5:37 pm
I don't find anything surprising in Green's review. It looks like an honest response from someone who took the time to investigate the Bhagavatam. So it's our responsibility as Srila Prabupada's followers to develop our own understanding deeply enough that we can help others see what we see in his books, and to do so means growing beyond the kanishta-adhikari defensiveness with which we're so familiar.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 15, 2008 11:04 pm
We did not hear these kinds of comments 40 years ago when the books were written and university scholars were endorsing them, etc. 40 years in today's world is an eternity. This change rapidly.
As an example of this, lets read the excerpt from an article on bullroarer I've found in Encyclopaedia Britannica's 1911 edition:
BULLROARER, the English name for an instrument made of a small flat slip of wood, through a hole in one end of which a string is passed; swung round rapidly it makes a booming, humming noise. Though treated as a toy by Europeans, the bullroarer has had the highest mystic significance and sanctity among primitive people. This is notably the case in Australia, where it figures in the initiation ceremonies and is regarded with the utmost awe by the "blackfellows."
There's no way this article could pass today. Now, although the whole article tells some true facts about the origin and use of the bullroarer, the tone and style are reflecting a bygone age and for a European-born naturalised Australian from 21st century it's pompous and irritating. However, my point was: as in every encyclopaedic and scientific work, the views on spiritual science have to to be updated regularly as well.
Otherwise, we may read articles similar to this one forever and we'll struggle hard to learn what's important in them. The language, the examples in purports and the commentator's tone have to be up to date and engaging in order to be relevant.
Bijaya Kumara Das - May 18, 2008 4:30 pm
It's ironic that the the books, the vehicle that is supposed to turn our faith from tender, unenlightened faith to mature, rational, informed faith too often become another source of fanatical flag-waving, e.g., the sector of devotees who want only the original manuscripts of SP's books published, incorrect English and all. The fanatical mentality can't (or won't) recognize the difference between relative and absolute, which is particularly unfortunate because it is the deep deliberation on that very idea that causes immature faith to grow into mature faith. But it also occurs to me that many devotees, and not just the fanatical types, avoid examining the relative/absolute, form/substance issues because it forces them back into an unsure position for a while, which can be very uncomfortable, especially after one has come and gotten the answer to the question of the meaning of "Life, the Universe, and Everything." It's far safer psychologically to not go there, to not have one's faith challenged. Thus the lifeless understanding of the teaching of the acarya lives on in its zombie sort of way, well-meaning and ignorant, seeking to turn others into spiritual zombies. Sad.
I was one of those fanatics to His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta even while under the care of my Gurudeva. Then when I asked Gurudeva about the subject of the As It Is version of the Bhagavata Gita Guru Maharaja said it was a good version, but thought that His Gurudeva would have preferred the corrected version as he does. This was the end of the discussion for me and the fanaticisim went away. Thank you Gurudeva. Once again common sense (which I am known to lack) prevails.
I think it comes from the innate need for an authority and we found that in His Divine Grace and would follow using our understanding how ever wrong it may have been and out of line with the Guru Paramapara, shastra and sanga. We made it up as we went along until we were corrected as in my case.
Bijaya Kumara Das - May 19, 2008 1:20 pm
This is what Locanananda was referring too. I hate to present Prabhupada like this, but for the sake of critical thinking and discussion of spiritual vs. material relativity I submit this quote. Put your context filters on folks... here goes!
Once again the people are taking Him out of context because he certainly states that this is the psychology. Just like the persons who are kidnapped and eventually become part of the team of kidnappers or the victim becomes attached to the victimizer like happened to Patty Hearst. This is the psychology. Not that he approved of what happened. There is no indication that he approves of this behavior. He is just making a point of why it is so and the law up held for the preditor
Syamasundara - May 19, 2008 11:02 pm
Somehow I missed a couple of posts from May 12th, including SP's words.
To me it just seems that he's pointing out the cunningness of lawyers in general.
As far as the itch statement, whenever sex is involved, things always acquire a different intensity: more serious, more interesting, etc.
It's just a physical reaction. You can say the same about tickling; you see the person laughing, so some pleasure is there, euphoria, "happiness" even if the tickled one is saying no.
The case of rape is a little different, because if there is no consensus, the body doesn't respond with lubrication, and the act itself can be very painful, let alone the psychological damage.
Still, the physical act is the same, and the body parts that are involved are full of nerve endings connected with pleasure that get stimulated.
There was the case once of a gynecologist, who, by destiny's irony, had a nervous tick, or twitch, in his thumb, and one day he found himself sued by a mother who said that her teenager daughter told her she was being molested during every visit, and he had (allegedly) no knowledge of that!
I don't know, in general I don't find SP's words so outrageous, plus it wasn't a purport or a class, although I understand he did say similar things in his purports.
Gandiva Dasi - May 20, 2008 10:39 am
As far as the itch statement, whenever sex is involved, things always acquire a different intensity: more serious, more interesting, etc.It's just a physical reaction. You can say the same about tickling; you see the person laughing, so some pleasure is there, euphoria, "happiness" even if the tickled one is saying no.
The case of rape is a little different, because if there is no consensus, the body doesn't respond with lubrication, and the act itself can be very painful, let alone the psychological damage.
Still, the physical act is the same, and the body parts that are involved are full of nerve endings connected with pleasure that get stimulated.
I get the point about tickling but I was thinking of another analogy ; compare it to someone forcibly injecting you with some pyschedelic drug , you could have a good trip, or you could have an horrific and excruciatingly painful trip, but regardless no one would argue a grave crime was not commited that
put your health, both mental and physical, at serious risk.
Gandiva Dasi - May 20, 2008 11:00 am
Prabhupada's extremely literal interpretation of scripture and the insistence on this point in the purports can really throw off many people. But most devotees feel that prabhupada is speaking the truth uncompromisingly and that is why his institution is unique. It doesn't need to change to placate the public; just follow everything as it is without any compromise.
I sure you're all very familiar with this but I just discovered this in the inspiring foreword by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur, to the book The Search for Sri Krishna, (by Srila B.R. Sridhar Maharaj) he writes
"Thought is progressive. The authors thought must have progress in the reader in the shape of correction or development. He is the best critic who can show the further development of an old thought; but a mere denouncer is the enemy of progress and consequently of nature. Progress certainly is the law of nature and there must be corrections and development with the progress of time. But progress means going further or rising higher. The shallow critic and the fruitless reader are the two great enemies of progress. We must shun them.
1869
Swami - May 20, 2008 5:00 pm
I have looked at this issue again and reached the conclusion (for now) that what Prabhupada is saying abut rape is that because some women may experience some pleasure during rape, to that extent such women like it. The obvious fact remains, however, that this notion lacks understanding of the nature of rape and womens' psychology. It is hardly a comprehensive, absolute, final word on women and rape, as some would like to think—or perhaps "not think."
Citta Hari Dasa - May 20, 2008 8:21 pm
It is hardly a comprehensive, absolute, final word on women and rape, as some would like to think—or perhaps "not think."
It seems that fuzzy thinking (or not thinking, as Guru Maharaja said) and fanatacism are inseparable partners. The shades of gray become apparent if a few simple questions are asked:
ALL women like rape? In EVERY case?
Obviously the answers are no and no--unless one wants to get into convoluted rationalizations that yes they do, even if they think they don't, etc., ad nauseum.
Prema-bhakti - May 21, 2008 7:19 pm
I have looked at this issue again and reached the conclusion (for now) that what Prabhupada is saying abut rape is that because some women may experience some pleasure during rape, to that extent such women like it. The obvious fact remains, however, that this notion lacks understanding of the nature of rape and womens' psychology. It is hardly a comprehensive, absolute, final word on women and rape, as some would like to think—or perhaps "not think."
This is a resonable and dignified response to SP's statements. I have personally never heard a thoughtful or satisfying response to this statement from ISKCON devotees and such statements have been disconcerting personally for me at times.
I don't know how these statements of SP's on rape as well as references to phrenology, etc., can be addressed otherwise without looking ignorant. Such statements reflect a commonly held belief in very different times although some may still appear in our culture. Movies, books, and pornography often address themes of women's "rape fantasies". In the context of the present day such ideas about sexual crimes are debunked as uniformed, ignorant, sexist, and as myths.
"Rape fantasies" are not rape. The act of rape is forced. From the rapist's point of view it is an act of control, power, and violence. From the victims point of view it involves trauma and fear.
From my understaning I personally don 't accept there are "grays" in regards to whether rape in ever pleasurable whether the victim is a woman, man, or child. The body is designed to respond to sexual touch in a particular way, as I posted previously such reactions are often a source of guilt and shame for the victims not pleasure.
Prema-bhakti - May 22, 2008 1:19 am
I read a quote about Golda Meir when she was the Prime Minister of Israel and was asked to impose a curfew on women because there were many rapes going on. Her response was if it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay home. It reminded me of Prabhupada responding to complaints that the women were agitating the bramacaris and he turned it on the men and said to the affect they should go to the forest then.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 22, 2008 1:30 am
From my understaning I personally don 't accept there are "grays" in regards to whether rape in ever pleasurable whether the victim is a woman, man, or child.
I see now that I inadvertently implied in my statement that some who are raped do find it pleasurable in some way, which is fuzzy thinking on my part: it's oxymoronic that someone would find pleasure in something that is against their will.
Syamasundara - May 22, 2008 2:46 am
it's oxymoronic that someone would find pleasure in something that is against their will.
Or you can even leave the oxy out 
Gaura Krsna Dasa - May 22, 2008 3:10 am
In conversations with non-devotees here in America I've found that "Hare Krsna" attitudes towards sexuality can be a barrier to attracting interest to GV. How often have you heard: "What's your religion's take on sex/women/homosexuality/divorce/abortion/etc., etc.?" I feel that in the past I have done some disservice to Sri Guru and Gauranga in offering incorrect, inappropriate, and/or badly articulated responses. Therefore I feel that at least in my own mind I should really think these things out so I can progress towards more interesting topics.
Part of the problem seems to lay in the huge disconnect between Indian cultural mores and those of the developed West and our equally developed and stunningly complex sense of self. To me anyway, Indian attitudes towards gender and sex seem crude, unnatural, even brutal.
Devotees seem to suggest (I'm probably wrong but I don't recall sastra addressing it) that sex is solely for reproduction. Anything else is termed "illicit sex."
Although I agree that reproduction is the primary purpose for sex, I find the idea of "illicit sex" hugely problematic. Insisting that the only legitimate function of sex is to induce pregnancy reduces sexual expression to that of an animal. In this kind of expression there is no scope for any emotional, social, or psycho-energetic content. I guess you're not supposed to fall into any of that; just get it over with and clean up. Sex in this view is a "brutish, repugnant piece of business" as I've heard it described by a humorless and unpleasant source.
If you believe in this then men are predators and women prey. Society will therefore have to work to separate men and women and it will become difficult for the two to know one another. Evidence of this abounds in all the weird things preachers say about women. Women's only redemptive value will be in their service to men in producing babies. If a man wants to respect a woman he will have to think of her as a mother, or pretend that she is one even if she is not. How could women be worthy of respect otherwise? Men will be unable to truly know and love womanhood, and instead fear it, and women will need to cultivate cunning and vindictiveness to get things done, further reinforcing men's negative stereotypes of them. Since men are degenerate brutes, women will need to be protected from them. In this way women will be no different from livestock, money, or any other kind a wealth- an asset (a good wife or mother) or a liability (a bad wife or a daughter). In other words: property.
So, from the concept of illicit sex arises sexism (and from sexism, homophobia).
In the West rape is defined as sex without mutual consent (whether between men, women, or children). In my opinion this is what illicit sex SHOULD mean. But if in the "authorized" view, legitimate sex is merely to induce pregnancy, then what does consent matter? If you marry a woman than inflict your brutish, repugnant business on her without her consent, all to a make a baby, then it's authorized right?
For this reason (and for others which for brevity I'll leave be), I personally cannot accept the idea of "illicit sex."
I suspect Prabhupada had no reason to examine any of this because he was personally long finished with these concerns. He had already passed through the fire of his social environment and his mundane ego was fully adjusted into Krsna consciousness. For him there was no problem and no danger. For many of us this is nowhere the case. The problem does not lay in Prabhupada but in the long-term dialog between East and West, traditional and modern. This is our responsibility to address.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 22, 2008 2:45 pm
Devotees seem to suggest (I'm probably wrong but I don't recall sastra addressing it) that sex is solely for reproduction. Anything else is termed "illicit sex."
I think the term illicit is used in the sense that it is done for the pleasure of the senses and is thus in opposition to the spirit of service. To present it in that way to new people sets up a huge gap between how one is expected to be as a practitioner and where one is now, thereby rendering it less accessible and relatable. If one somehow gets by that and joins anyway, then at some point the idea will end up fostering guilt that one can't live up to "the standard", and that gets in the way of accepting where one is at here and now and doing what her or she needs to do to make realistic progress.
Swami - May 22, 2008 4:15 pm
Here is what the Bhagavatam says,
dyutam panam striyah suna. Wherever these things go on Kali (as in kali-yuga) is facilitated.
In this context striyah is often rendered "prostitution." Prabhupada looks at it differently, but was found to be flexible in certain instances. So he has by his example left us some room to think about this word, and if our interpretation can be supported by scripture and such interpretation fosters enthusiasm for sadhana-bhakti and a well balanced ethically and morally sound life, I believe such an interpretation is faithful to the spirit of the text.
Citta Hari Dasa - May 22, 2008 4:42 pm
(For Sanga)
Devotees told me of a few instances where Prabhupada was flexible when certain disciples told him that they could not strictly follow his prohibition regarding 'illicit' sex within thier marriage. Can someone search the vedabase to see if they can find any written evidence of this?
And what is the number of this verse---dyutam panam striyah suna
Brahma
Swami - May 22, 2008 10:31 pm
(For Sanga)
Devotees told me of a few instances where Prabhupada was flexible when certain disciples told him that they could not strictly follow his prohibition regarding 'illicit' sex within thier marriage. Can someone search the vedabase to see if they can find any written evidence of this?
And what is the number of this verse---dyutam panam striyah suna
Brahma
SB 1.17.38
Syamasundara - May 23, 2008 12:30 am
When I first came in contact with GM, I remember being impressed by his thoughtful choice of words (which is still going on), among which there was "unrestricted" or sometimes "unregulated sex" instead of illicit sex. That is a preacher, I remember thinking with delight, and I would have that thought pretty much every day about something or other he'd say or do.
Then I forgot about my luck, until I went back to Europe and at some Sunday feast I heard that phrase again, illicit sex. At a Sunday feast!
rasa-varjam raso 'py asya
param drstva nivartate (Bg 2.59)
For people who don't know about the transcendental alternative, sex is the highest thing. Naturally they're into it. It is much more than rubbing skin (although that aspect alone would be enough to support my point), it happens at subtle levels, in one sense it permeates this whole world, and makes it go around. This whole material dimension follows the binary code of linga-yoni, siva-sakti.
When someone, by his great fortune happens at a Sunday feast, or anyway in contact with Krsna bhakti, how out of touch is it to refer to sex as illicit, without giving them the higher taste perspective of Krsna's beauty, and Gauranga's kindness?
No wonder the attendance at any Sunday feast is 60% Indians.
For those of you who don't know, I am working with 5 Indian Iskcon devotees, making energy bars, and just yesterday they were saying how in America you should never trust the 3 Ws: Weather, Work, and Women. And then they quoted Canakya Pandita, who said something similar about women. The mood is pretty much like that all the time. They keep asking me if I am/was/will get married (riiiiiight....), and as Gaura Krsna pointed out in his nice analysis, their worldview is so simple and linear compared to ours. You just come to life, and get married. In their case, they are also very nice Vaisnavas, but I'm talking on a mere cultural level.
I'm really curious to see their reaction when it comes out that I am a homo (sapiens sapiens).
So, yes, it's really important that we keep our buddhi sharpened and train each other by entertaining our minds with these issues. With bad guidance, or without good guidance, things can get out of control pretty fast.
Back to my coworkers, the other day at lunch they told me not to leave leftovers in my topperwear, because it's muci (I guess a brahmana won't even eat food that's been contaminated by his own saliva). "It's the process, prabhu." "Process??" "Yes, I'm telling you because you are asking me all these things [just improving my Bengali with them; I guess to them], and I see you are interested in Vaisnavism..."
I said: "Vaisnavism is about serving the Vaisnavas and Krsna Prema, not smarta brahmanism."
And he sealed everything with Prabhupada's "Cleanliness is next to godliness."
So, there you go. I am upping my standards after that, why not, but I can't believe they said it was part of becoming Krsna conscious.
Babhru Das - May 23, 2008 1:45 am
Devotees told me of a few instances where Prabhupada was flexible when certain disciples told him that they could not strictly follow his prohibition regarding 'illicit' sex within thier marriage. Can someone search the vedabase to see if they can find any written evidence of this?
I've heard the same thing, and we know he was also flexible about divorce, his many well-known statements against divorce, especially among devotees, notwithstanding. On the other hand, I also remember a Godbrother confiding to me that he had written Srila Prabhupada about the difficulty he had restraining himself with his wife, and Prabhupada's reply was something to the effect of, "What's the question of calling yourself a vaishnava if you can't control sex desire?" The flexibility, though, seems to be more the norm in his personal dealings, as Swami has often pointed out.
Babhru Das - May 23, 2008 1:54 am
When I first came in contact with GM, I remember being impressed by his thoughtful choice of words (which is still going on), among which there was "unrestricted" or sometimes "unregulated sex" instead of illicit sex. That is a preacher, I remember thinking with delight, and I would have that thought pretty much every day about something or other he'd say or do.
I was struck by the same thing myself. I had stopped using "illicit" and had gone to "unrestricted" and "unregulated." When I heard it from Swami, that was one of the many resonances that assured me I had found the best association.
Oh, dear! I remember a former sannyasi who was temple president in Honolulu who would go on and on about "bodily fluids" at Sunday feast lectures. What a trip.Then I forgot about my luck, until I went back to Europe and at some Sunday feast I heard that phrase again, illicit sex. At a Sunday feast!
For those of you who don't know, I am working with 5 Indian Iskcon devotees, making energy bars, and just yesterday they were saying how in America you should never trust the 3 Ws: Weather, Work, and Women. And then they quoted Canakya Pandita, who said something similar about women.
Yeah, I remember that one. Don't trust a river, an animal with claws, a politician, or a woman. I can't remember the Sanskrit any more. (Maybe I should be grateful for that.)
Madan Gopal Das - May 23, 2008 4:21 am
Devotees told me of a few instances where Prabhupada was flexible when certain disciples told him that they could not strictly follow his prohibition regarding 'illicit' sex within thier marriage. Can someone search the vedabase to see if they can find any written evidence of this?
As far as I know there are only second hand stories like the one I will cite below. This is from Jayapataka Maharaj when he went to see Harikesa during his departure time...
He said the biggest problem was with the principle of NO ILLICIT SEX. That it should be changed to NO SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. That this was the standard in the sampradaya. He didn't know why Srila Prabhupada stressed this point so much, but he couldn't blindly follow it. He said a young man and woman in their twenties need physical relations and it was artificial to not allow that. That one of his disciples had sex with his wife, but not according to garbodhana samskara and was feeling so guilty that he committedsuicide 2 months ago. He was disgusted by this and felt it had to be changed. It was impractical and creating an abnormal situation. Devotees figure out they can't have much sex anyway so remain brahmacaries or sannyasis, and when they get 40 years old they can't sustain it so they get married. Then their marriages are abnormal and end in divorce. He said that people have children only to have sex and don't really care about the children so the children are some kind of varna-sankara or unwanted progeny.
That instead they should have healthy sex lives and have children when they want them. I mentioned to him that I personally heard Srila Prabhupada tell householders that they shouldn't go outside of their marriage for sex and it wasn't sinful for a householder to have sexlife in marriage. However excessive sex life in marriage would make one more attached to the body and then risk that if one dies in that consciousness then wouldn't get back to Godhead. Harikesa Maharaja said he doesn't see devotees going back to Godhead anyway.
I have seen discussions around this topic before where devotees mention Jayapataka maharaj's story as well as one other devotee who heard Prabhupada say something similar. In his books though Prabhupada generally gives no such leniency:
And then again there are a few quotes that could be interpreted more liberally:Although he has a wife, a householder should not use his senses for sex life unnecessarily. There are restrictions for the householders even in sex life, which should only be engaged in for the propagation of children. If he does not require children, he should not enjoy sex life with his wife.
For the intelligent men, controlling the senses is the most essential qualification. It is the basis of morality. Sex indulgence even with a legitimate wife must also be controlled, and thereby family control will automatically follow.
In other words, sex life with one’s wife is equal to prostitution if the regulations are not properly followed.
All the rules and regulations apply equally to the householder and the sannyäsé, the member of the renounced order of life. The gåhastha, however, is given permission by the spiritual master to indulge in sex during the period favorable for procreation.
PURPORT
It is sometimes misunderstood that a gåhastha, a householder, is permitted to indulge in sex at any time. This is a wrong conception of gåhastha life. In spiritual life, whether one is a gåhastha, vänaprastha, sannyäsé or brahmacäré, everyone is under the control of the spiritual master. For brahmacärés and sannyäsés there are strong restrictions on sexual indulgence. Similarly, there are strong restrictions for gåhasthas. Gåhasthas should indulge in sex life only in accordance with the order of the guru. Therefore it is mentioned here that one must follow the orders of the spiritual master (guru-våttir vikalpena). When the spiritual master orders, the gåhastha may accept sex life. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gétä (7.11). Dharmäviruddho bhüteñu kämo ’smi: indulgence in sex life without disobedience to the religious rules and regulations constitutes a religious principle. The gåhastha is allowed to indulge in sex life during the period favorable for procreation and in accordance with the spiritual master’s order. If the spiritual master’s orders allow a gåhastha to engage in sex life at a particular time, then the gåhastha may do so; otherwise, if the spiritual master orders against it, the gåhastha should abstain. The gåhastha must obtain permission from the spiritual master to observe the ritualistic ceremony of garbhädhäna-saàskära. Then he may approach his wife to beget children, otherwise not. A brähmaëa generally remains a brahmacäré throughout his entire life, but although some brähmaëas become gåhasthas and indulge in sex life, they do so under the complete control of the spiritual master. The kñatriya is allowed to marry more than one wife, but this also must be in accordance with the instructions of the spiritual master. It is not that because one is a gåhastha he may marry as many times as he likes and indulge in sex life as he likes. This is not spiritual life. In spiritual life, one must conduct one’s whole life under the guidance of the guru. Only one who executes his spiritual life under the direction of the spiritual master can achieve the mercy of Kåñëa. Yasya prasädäd bhagavat-prasädaù. If one desires to advance in spiritual life but he acts whimsically, not following the orders of the spiritual master, he has no shelter. Yasyäprasädän na gatiù kuto ’pi. Without the spiritual master’s order, even the gåhastha should not indulge in sex life. (S.B. 7.12.11)
A devotee should observe the vow of celibacy. Celibacy does not necessitate that one be absolutely free from sex life; satisfaction with one’s wife is permitted also under the vow of celibacy. The best policy is to avoid sex life altogether.
One should remain satisfied with one woman, being duly married. One can satisfy one’s lusty desires with his wife without creating disturbances in society and being punished for doing so.
Finally, a nice conversation (1968) where Prabhupada sets a wonderful preaching example of encouragement and focus on the positive goal, rather than falling short of a standard:
Guest (2): Let me try to delineate that a little more precisely. I haveknown people who have said, “Well, yes, you know I don’t like birth, and I
don’t like death, and I don’t like old age. But I have a tremendous driving
need, and I don’t know how to deal with it. You see, I must have sex. I must
have sex. And I’m tormented. I’m stuck in the trap. I’m ensnared.” You see?
That is the individual I’m... Now if you can already reach the person
through jnana and convince him, and he can act on the decision of his will,
then he’s obviously already in a high state. But what do you do with the
sort of person who is split, who is torn by his instinctual physical needs
and they drive him? You see? And yet he wants to do something. How can you
deal with such a person without forcing him to contain himself in such a way
that he will resent it? Or must he be allowed to expend his energy until he
is convinced by experience?
Prabhupada: No. Just like amongst our students there are many married
couples also, and there are brahmacaris also. That I barred from this? He is
not barred. Nobody is barred. Simply following some regulation. That will
gradually train him. And the main principle is that as you go on hearing
about this transcendental message, then you gradually become attached to
these transcendental things. And the more you become attached to these
transcendental things, the more you forget these material things.
Guest (2): So it’s an evolutionary process, and one need not force.
Prabhupada: No. There is no question of force. There is no question of
force. We don’t force. There is no question of force. Force cannot act. If I
force you, then it will not act. You have to evolve yourself, from this
platform to this platform. That is possible for everyone.
Guest (2): So if someone feels he has an overwhelming need, he shouldn’t try
to hold back to the point at which he suffers pain, but he should also chant
or do something that will elevate him. And gradually he will...
Prabhupada: Yes, yes, yes. First thing is... Suppose a man is too much
sexually addicted. If he hears that “This is impediment to my spiritual
advancement,” if he hears repeatedly, then he thinks of his weakness, that
“This should not have been done, but I am so weak.” So with this knowledge
he can advance. You see. At least, he must know that “This is not good for
my spiritual advancement.” Then it will be... Then Krsna, or God, will help
him. There is an English proverb, “One who helps himself, God helps.” Yes.
God’s help will come. So there is no question of despair. Anyone can begin,
and the simple beginning is chanting Hare Krsna. So all our students, they
were also addicted to such things, but by following this process they are
also now free. So it is not impossible. There is no such program which is
impossible to be performed. No. Practically this program is the simplest and
the easiest process, and it can be adopted by anyone in any condition of
life. That is the beauty of this process.
Zvonimir Tosic - May 23, 2008 6:05 am
For those of you who don't know, I am working with 5 Indian Iskcon devotees, making energy bars, and just yesterday they were saying how in America you should never trust the 3 Ws: Weather, Work, and Women. And then they quoted Canakya Pandita, who said something similar about women.
IYeah, I remember that one. Don't trust a river, an animal with claws, a politician, or a woman. I can't remember the Sanskrit any more. (Maybe I should be grateful for that.)
This is very interesting.
Perhaps we can say everyone has different standpoints but, unlike pandit Canakya, in my experience I found it otherwise: women are trustworthy, confidential and much more devoted friends than men. They can reflect some extraordinary perspectives on many (personal) issues which I appreciate a lot. They're more open and sensitive. I trust them more because their nature reflects that one of Radha -- true sincerity.
Prema-bhakti - May 23, 2008 1:53 pm
As far as I know there are only second hand stories like the one I will cite below. This is from Jayapataka Maharaj when he went to see Harikesa during his departure time...I have seen discussions around this topic before where devotees mention Jayapataka maharaj's story as well as one other devotee who heard Prabhupada say something similar. In his books though Prabhupada generally gives no such leniency:
And then again there are a few quotes that could be interpreted more liberally:
Finally, a nice conversation (1968) where Prabhupada sets a wonderful preaching example of encouragement and focus on the positive goal, rather than falling short of a standard:
Hmmm. I heard about this conversation with Harikesa too. This is probably the most balanced statement he had ever made and on his way out and when faced with his own frailities. He was the biggest grhasta basher in the movement.
I really feel there is a need to interpret Prabhupada's words in the context of his audience in these cases because he was dealing with issues of having grhastas in the asrama and followers who were coming from a very promiscuous culture even more so at that time in America than probably any other. He was strategizing widespread preaching and there seemed to be a blur between renunciates and grhastas at that time as there was no lay congregation except for maybe Indians. I think it was SP who coined the expression "grhasta bramacari".
When I joined many of my friends were coming from the straight edge hardcore scene following a lifestyle of no intoxication, no meat eating, and sex only in monogamous relationships; almost the antithesis of the hippie culture. They found the devotees quite odd in their inordinate emphasis on sex life and the separation of the sexes. Many joined and soon left because of it.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 23, 2008 2:42 pm
Even in India girls are outsmarting boys in their performance in education. Here it is http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/CBSE_Cl...how/3066099.cms
So when a tell a devotee about it and he says it is because girls are agitating boys and they can't study. right?
So soon after 20 years in India also the official ISKCON stand of women being less intelligent may backfire unless the country in under depression like eastern europe. Also I had posted instance in the past where women were even Vedic rishis but due to foreign influence things changes substantialy.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - May 23, 2008 4:31 pm
I had posted instance in the past where women were even Vedic rishis but due to foreign influence things changes substantialy.
Gaura-Vijaya makes an interesting point. I wonder to what degree these attitudes are the effect of outside pressures from Victorian English authority, or perhaps more importantly, Islam. I've heard it said (can't remember the source, sorry) that prior to Muslim conquests in India, women would commonly work topless as men do. Thousands of gorgeous temple carvings seem to attest that this was no big deal. This indicates a very different mood and society than what we've been led to think of as "Vedic." I question the influence of Islamic authority from medieval times forward as it has always been misogynous (as I vaguely understand it).
I also wonder if the numerous descriptions in Bhagavatam of family life as a "hell" or "dark well" show it's centrality in the lives of the pious at the time Bhagavatam was put into its current written form. Bhagavatam is spiritual dynamite (along with many other less violent things of course). If householder life was not the undisputed norm, why would Bhagavatam attack it?
It seems the acaryas express themselves according the the environment they are born into but also to where the diciples are coming from and what they're up against. I think of Bhaktisiddhanta. For a long time I could NOT relate to him. Then I visited his samadhi in Mayapur and had one of the most profound experiences in my life. Now I see him as flawless but still have to keep context in the front of my mind when I read stuff he wrote or said.
Prema-bhakti - May 23, 2008 5:53 pm
Even in India girls are outsmarting boys in their performance in education. Here it is http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/CBSE_Cl...how/3066099.cmsSo when a tell a devotee about it and he says it is because girls are agitating boys and they can't study. right?
So soon after 20 years in India also the official ISKCON stand of women being less intelligent may backfire unless the country in under depression like eastern europe. Also I had posted instance in the past where women were even Vedic rishis but due to foreign influence things changes substantialy.
Gaura Vijaya, this is an excellent point. I thought about this topic a lot while in India with GM and him mentioning to me while we were riding the new subway system in Delhi how this was India's century.
The topic of women leading kirtana at the Krsna Balarama mandir and SP's more conservative policies in regards to women in India came up recently in a disccussion I had with some devotees. Here were some of my thoughts although perhaps a bit tangential.
It is interesting to note that there are many Vrndavana temples where women are leading kirtanas in the temple room and there are many groups where women are spiritual leaders. Also many more traditional groups are adjusting their standards to accomodate wider acceptance whether they are in the direct line of Mahaprabhu or another tradition, the influence is there.
The Vrndavan/India spiritual landscape is changing rapidly and so I think there is scope for KB mandir to take that into consideration. It seems that the 21st century is India's century and its spiritual wealth as well as its other more worldly contributions are being felt widely. Vrndavan is offically on the map and so many groups are setting up camp there for better or for worse.
We also have to look at why SP made the adjustments in India in the first place which was to facilitate the preaching not to uphold some traditional standards. Preaching is the essence. So that dynamic idea has to extend into the 21st century India as well as the world and that certain adjustments may have been made by SP in certain circumstances to preach in India effectively and now in consideration of the times they may have become static standards maintained simply because SP established them.
Gaura Krsna, I think it is a valid point that many of these customs/social roles have been influenced by the Muslims. One example that comes to mind is women covering their heads. Srila BR Sridhara Maharaja specifically stated that this was a Muslim influence and women in his matha did not cover their heads. Srila Prabhupada may or may not have instituted it for many reasons including to influence some chastity in the society which was lacking in the backgrounds of most of his disciples both men and women.
Srila Prabhupada stated at one point in time that his adjustment of allowing women to live in his temples (a standard not found in India and Gaudiya Matha in particular) was one of the reasons for his success. When asked how one can determine what can and cannot be adjusted, Prabhupada replied that it requires a little intelligence.
Prema-bhakti - May 23, 2008 6:50 pm
These posts about India reminded me of an experience I had with Akincana bhakta, Giri Swami and our didi Vrndaranya in Vrndavana.
I was with Vrndaranya the first time she had seen in many years the wonderful pure vaisnava Giri Swami (granddisciple of BSST, a preacher in his GM's matha and now elderly doing his bhajan in his room at Radha Damodara). She mentioned to me that she was a little hesistant wondering how he would react never having seen her with a shaved head and saffron. When she entered his room, he immediately recognized her and after greeting her warmly he laughed and said, "What happened to your hair?". He looked at her and noticed the saffron vesa, etc., and smiled. I can't quite remember the response Vrndaranya gave but it seemed more an emotional response than with words. Giri Swami smiled and rubbed her head and responded that she had given everything for her Guru Maharaja (I wish I could remember his exact words) and he blessed her. As far as I know it was never mentioned again. It really impressed upon me that when one is a genuine sara-grahi vaisnava all these details and nuances are fully reconciled.
At the same time it made me sad to think that so many devotees take a holier than though attitude about these issues without really remembering who they are and where they came from. They should be the liberal ones even from a less than perfectly transcendental perspective.
Swami - May 23, 2008 7:47 pm
These posts about India reminded me of an experience I had with Akincana bhakta, Giri Swami and our didi Vrndaranya in Vrndavana.
I was with Vrndaranya the first time she had seen in many years the wonderful pure vaisnava Giri Swami (granddisciple of BSST, a preacher in his GM's matha and now elderly doing his bhajan in his room at Radha Damodara). She mentioned to me that she was a little hesistant wondering how he would react never having seen her with a shaved head and saffron. When she entered his room, he immediately recognized her and after greeting her warmly he laughed and said, "What happened to your hair?". He looked at her and noticed the saffron vesa, etc., and smiled. I can't quite remember the response Vrndaranya gave but it seemed more an emotional response than with words. Giri Swami smiled and rubbed her head and responded that she had given everything for her Guru Maharaja (I wish I could remember his exact words) and he blessed her. As far as I know it was never mentioned again. It really impressed upon me that when one is a genuine sara-grahi vaisnava all these details and nuances are fully reconciled.
At the same time it made me sad to think that so many devotees take a holier than though attitude about these issues without really remembering who they are and where they came from. They should be the liberal ones even from a less than perfectly transcendental perspective.
Later Vrindaranya, Nitasundara and I were sitting with Giri Maharaja (me on the bed with Maharaja and the other two on the floor). Mahaprabhu's picture looking at us all from Maharaja's altar. As we chatted I mentioned something about Vrindaranya's seva and Maharaja reached down and hugged Vrindarnya, exclaiming "Guru-priya." It was a happy moment for all of us—real, human, intimate, and very spiritual.
Syamasundara - May 23, 2008 10:54 pm
I bet you in the most remote countryside that's still the case with women. No coli, and they wear their sari like a dhoti, between their legs. I've seen some, I don't know if it's a regional thing, or it facilitates working in the fields.
If you see the miniatures, the gopis (or Putana) may wear a veil on their head, for the sun, that can wrap around their upper body when needed, but for the most part, all they wear on their breasts is a splash of kunkuma. The breast is auspicious. In the West we were born and bombarded with the idea of its sexual appeal, but anciently the body and figure of a woman were associated with fertility and nourishment. Their bodies have periods or phases like the moon (that has a lot to do with fertility), they create food, nourishment and life with their own bodies. Almost magic creatures. But I'm sure everybody has watched the same documentary on Discovery
Maharaja Yudhisthira says that a brahmana is determined by his behavior, not his birth or erudition. That can be extended. We see that Maharaja Dasaratha had a ksatriya wife (Kaikeyi, who saved him in battle), and a brahmani one (Kausalya, who performed a yajna at some point; never read it myself). Also, when Rukmini was getting ready to marry, she went to a temple of Devi run by women.
I also remember reading in Amara's articles that in many civilization, from the Vedic to native American, those who were homosexual were just treated like women, and that was the end of it. Well, it was a touch more complex than that, but no fuzz, really.
As far as Giri maharaja, not only he didn't care for Vrndaranya's appearance, but he touched her head and hugged her! (I know, big deal.) I remember watching a video of Paramadvaiti maharaja on youtube, where he gets off a plane and there were female disciples waiting for him with folded hands, he clasps his palms on their hands in a gesture of blessing and respect, takes their babies in his arms. It really felt like a sadhu being magnanimous, and it contrasted a bit with the artificial and dry behavior of other sannyasis I've known.
I mean, there are guidelines for sannyasis, and Mahaprabhu wouldn't even hear the name of a woman, etc. But once those guidelines have been assimilated, what is most important is spiritual life and values. I remember seeing a brahmacari in Vrndavana leading a group of mostly women pilgrims through town, I was passing by on a riksa and saw how natural he was, they were in Vrndavana, they were touring holy places, they were absorbed in Krsna's lilas to some extent or another... like when I spend those two or three days at Audarya after months, who is a female or male is the last thing I could think about.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - May 24, 2008 9:40 pm
I bet you in the most remote countryside that's still the case with women. No coli, and they wear their sari like a dhoti, between their legs. I've seen some, I don't know if it's a regional thing, or it facilitates working in the fields.If you see the miniatures, the gopis (or Putana) may wear a veil on their head, for the sun, that can wrap around their upper body when needed, but for the most part, all they wear on their breasts is a splash of kunkuma. The breast is auspicious. In the West we were born and bombarded with the idea of its sexual appeal, but anciently the body and figure of a woman were associated with fertility and nourishment. Their bodies have periods or phases like the moon (that has a lot to do with fertility), they create food, nourishment and life with their own bodies. Almost magic creatures. But I'm sure everybody has watched the same documentary on Discovery
Maharaja Yudhisthira says that a brahmana is determined by his behavior, not his birth or erudition. That can be extended. We see that Maharaja Dasaratha had a ksatriya wife (Kaikeyi, who saved him in battle), and a brahmani one (Kausalya, who performed a yajna at some point; never read it myself). Also, when Rukmini was getting ready to marry, she went to a temple of Devi run by women.
I also remember reading in Amara's articles that in many civilization, from the Vedic to native American, those who were homosexual were just treated like women, and that was the end of it. Well, it was a touch more complex than that, but no fuzz, really.
As far as Giri maharaja, not only he didn't care for Vrndaranya's appearance, but he touched her head and hugged her! (I know, big deal.) I remember watching a video of Paramadvaiti maharaja on youtube, where he gets off a plane and there were female disciples waiting for him with folded hands, he clasps his palms on their hands in a gesture of blessing and respect, takes their babies in his arms. It really felt like a sadhu being magnanimous, and it contrasted a bit with the artificial and dry behavior of other sannyasis I've known.
I mean, there are guidelines for sannyasis, and Mahaprabhu wouldn't even hear the name of a woman, etc. But once those guidelines have been assimilated, what is most important is spiritual life and values. I remember seeing a brahmacari in Vrndavana leading a group of mostly women pilgrims through town, I was passing by on a riksa and saw how natural he was, they were in Vrndavana, they were touring holy places, they were absorbed in Krsna's lilas to some extent or another... like when I spend those two or three days at Audarya after months, who is a female or male is the last thing I could think about.
We have to respect the fact not everybody is on the level where they do not care for male and female body but the obsessive patriarchal representation of our tradition is obviously not in tune with the times. There is a strong identification with gross sexual pleasure in most sections of society today, so some talk about the destruction of material exploitative ego needs to be done, albeit in a gender neutral manner. Else people will not be able to realize their inability to rise above sensual cravings and they will feel that they have advanced by just theoretically knowing the subject matter of GV.
Syamasundara - May 25, 2008 12:05 am
Sure, I agree with you. In fact, I don't quite understand how your post is in reply to mine.
Oh, for the last line?
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 1, 2008 9:42 am
If householder life was not the undisputed norm, why would Bhagavatam attack it?
The Bhagavatam is written for us the less intelligent and most of us can not control our senses and the Bhagavatam is there to help and guide us towards the true ideal of direct service to the Guru (living Bhagavatam) and the book Bhagavatam.
For most the path of a householder is full of perils at every step and more so then that of a brhamacari. I beleive the householder ashram is there for those of us who can not control our senses and we need a place for coming forward from in our spiritual path, so that we do not end up as bipeds (2 legged animals) allowing us a way of getting back to godhead.
The father is always trying to give good advice and some times it seems to be a form of attack to us. Some learn by listening, some by experiencing and some never learn.
Wilfredo Flores - June 3, 2008 11:44 pm
I would appreciate it if you all would indulge me for a bit, and allow my two cents on the matters of “illicit” sex, women, people of color, and sexual identification. For the longest time these matters have raised questions in my mind about Iskcon and how much relevance the scriptures have to today ways of thinking. I was raised in a family in which the majority of the members are women. I was taught to always respect women and to see all as equal to me. This is not to say that I have my own biases that I discover every now and then, but to simply say that this thought a looking at anyone as inferior to me, has always been anathema to me. By the way, I also don’t like the term “illicit”. Unregulated is so much better a term.
I feel I could speak frankly here. First, I am a devotee. Mundanely, in this body, I identify as a gay male, with a black body, and who is of Puerto Rican heritage. I have desired to serve sincerely for many years now. And feel that my love for Srila Prabhupada has always been steady and have been appreciative of what he has done for us in the west. Despite the controversial issues spoken about in this thread, I conclude that my admiration for Srila Prabhupada continues. That has never changed.
Frankly, I don’t want to point blame at anyone in Iskcon, as I think we’re all trying to serve to the best of our ability. Having said that, I have to say that we, or what some might consider more progressive thinking devotees, owe it to Srila Prabhupada to speak up and support reformation, or at least an attempt for evolution in thinking about these issues.
I agree with what many have said here that to be consistent and to remain relevant, Iskcon has to become more lenient and be able to look at Prabhupada’s word as they are, but still keeping in mind that the man was born in a different time and place in our history and was influenced by the period he lived in. For instance, although my parents were very accepting and loving to us, they were born at during the early 20th century, and held very different thought about things their children took for granted and were very comfortable with. It didn’t mean they were unwilling to change their thought. Or thought we would burn in hell. Srila Prabhupada, as far as I know and what I’ve heard from some devotees that served him, was also flexible when it came to building our capacity to serve Krsna and follow Sri Gaura’s teachings. Otherwise he would have not been successful here in building Iskcon.
Although I have been very hurt by some of the things I’ve heard in temples and have only recently returned to service. I’ve done so only because I’ve found, through the wonder of the internet, many others who have had similar experiences and have left the movement because of the rampant fundamentalism in Iskcon. Gladly we find some change is going on.
I find it interesting that the devotees pushing strict adherence to the scriptures are most often also the ones that are conveniently in bodies that are white, male, and heterosexual. I almost think it’s funny that so many have forgotten what this movement is about. I may be wrong, but the impression I have gotten from reading Sri Caitanya’s teachings is he himself appeared in this world to shake things up, as people then were incapable of following scriptures strictly and were falling by the way side. He himself broke from the tradition of excluding anyone and accepting all who wanted to love Krsna. Moreover, we also all know the criticism that Srila Prabupada experienced from his Godbrothers when he altered Vedic tradition to fit the needs of western devotees. Why is there so much resistance to change in Iskcon? I could only wonder the resistance stems from insecurities of their faith.
Gladly, I have met many devotees, some women, others people of color from this and other cultures and of all sexual identifications, and even some that are white, male heterosexual, all devotees that are more thoughtful and open to the idea that these states we find ourselves in this world are not only temporary, and who remember that we are all jivas truly yearning to serve sincerely.
Sadly there are so many devotees that still feel they have to hide their personalities in this world in order to be accepted. I know one devotee who identifies as gay, who is suffering so much, because he wants to serve, but feels he cannot because he’d be ostracized. It’s his choice of course to not serve for this reason, he should serve as he is regardless of what he’s heard in temples, but I do understand his pain.
Personally, I am in a relationship, we are monogamous, we are happy, and I serve despite my partner is not a devotee (yet! I’m working on him. He now makes yogurt to offer to Krsna). As I have said to my other gay Godbrothers and sisters, I can’t believe Krsna will not accept my determination to serve him. I can’t believe that Sri Gaura will turn his back from one who wants to learn to love Krnsa. Nor will I accept that Srila Prabhupada will do so either. Denying myself a relationship when I feel the stability of which can help me advance spiritually, will not work. It will not work for devotees that identify as heterosexual, why would we, as gays, be forced to do so.
I recently had an experience with an advanced Iskcon devotee who showed me that some members of Iskcon still have a long way to go. Not because of what Srila Prabhupada has taught, but because they themselves continue to hold biases that inhibit progressive thought, or attitudes that can be welcoming seem welcoming to the sincere seeker.
tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth. (BG - As It Is 4.34)
I fully understand that I continue to identify with this body, and that I still have much to learn. I am willing to learn, and I pray that I am given the time to do so. But to live in denial of my material identification would be a lie. And aren’t we taught that to become a vaishnava, one has to be true to oneself first? Isn’t it true that if one is sincere, Krsna will hear our prayers, and the rest will follow?
Please forgive me if I have offended anyone.
Hare Krsna,
Jai Gaura Hari!
Bhakta Wil
Syamasundara - June 4, 2008 12:43 am
You mentioned persons of color twice. Are you really trying to say that some devotees actually bring up that story of the king that gets put in oil after his death, and some brahmanas get all kinds of things and people out of his body, and condense all the bad stuff about the king in a little black man, that runs and disappears into the forest and SP says that all the black people stem from him??
Say it ain't so.
Wilfredo Flores - June 4, 2008 3:51 pm
You mentioned persons of color twice. Are you really trying to say that some devotees actually bring up that story of the king that gets put in oil after his death, and some brahmanas get all kinds of things and people out of his body, and condense all the bad stuff about the king in a little black man, that runs and disappears into the forest and SP says that all the black people stem from him??
Say it ain't so.
Hare Krsna Syamasudara,
Are you referring to King Vena, in Srimad Bhagavatam 4:14:43-46? I wasn't referring to it, but now that you mention it, that story is a fine example of what could possibly turn some people off to Vedic scriptures. I've heard from other devotees some other things SP had said, about attitudes toward people of color, especially blacks, that have made me feel uncomfortable; I've read some of these quotes myself. But I do know that despite what he said, SP loved his disciples regardless of body hue. As far as I know he also explained that we should strive to become brahmana-vaishnavas, in doing so, one should look at everyone as equal: SB 4:14:41. I believe SP showed us this is possible by way of example.
I was more coming from my own experience with some lingering beliefs in the Indian culture itself, where having visited there myself, still for many, skin color determines one's status as either superior or inferior. And I'm afraid black skinned people are considered as being inferior, that was my experience and has been for others as well. It's sad that people still think this way, but it's a fact. Sorry, I didn't make it clear in my earlier entry.
But I do think it would be foolish to deny that some people's attitudes toward blacks and other minorities, are less than welcoming, but this is a condition of this world. Also to deny that SP made these statements about minority groups, that to many of us may be cringe-worthy, would be disingenuous.
Many of SP's quotes used by some devotees, may have been taken out of context, and are sometimes used to promote their own agenda. But again SP did say them and we have to accept that. But I keep in mind that SP, had he still been with us in body today, would probably look at these purports and statements and have the conviction to amend them. I have to believe that SP would not intentionally hurt anyone. And that his focus would still be to make as many as he could Krsna conscious.
So again, I'm sorry for not making myself clearer earlier. And hope that I don't offend anyone by speaking frankly about these matters. But we should be able to do so, if we intend to keep serving sincerely and evolving toward a more inclusive movement.
Jai Gaura Hari!
Sri Sri Radha Krsna!
Srila Prabhupada!
BW
Prema-bhakti - June 4, 2008 5:55 pm
But I do think it would be foolish to deny that some people's attitudes toward blacks and other minorities, are less than welcoming, but this is a condition of this world. Also to deny that SP made these statements about minority groups, that to many of us may be cringe-worthy, would be disingenuous.
Many of SP's quotes used by some devotees, may have been taken out of context, and are sometimes used to promote their own agenda. But again SP did say them and we have to accept that. But I keep in mind that SP, had he still been with us in body today, would probably look at these purports and statements and have the conviction to amend them. I have to believe that SP would not intentionally hurt anyone. And that his focus would still be to make as many as he could Krsna conscious.
Wilfredo,
I agree for the most part with your assessments here particularly that SP would have made adjustments to his presentation and adjusted perhaps his very literal presentation of the Bhagavatam.
That said, I feel that for the most part very few devotess come to the ISKCON movement and after reading such statements of SP suddenly became racist, sexist or what have you. As you say, these statements became justifications for such conditioning. Most of my peers grew up in metropolitan cities with more broad minded and open views so that has also affected our reactions to such statements although in a very different manner and perhaps more favorable for presenting GV to people at such a point in time.
Nevertheless, we all need to be free of our conditioning whatever it may be and make progress toward suddha-bhakti.
Gaura Krsna Dasa - June 6, 2008 1:12 am
Wilfredo, thank you for the nice posts.
I very much appreciate what you say about Caitanya Mahaprabhu and the way in which his example leads us beyond the inequities of society.
India, like America, is profoundly racist and no doubt has been for centuries, even millenia, perhaps since the Vedic Northerners conquered the indigenous population and subjected them to the social control tactic of Varnashrama dharma. Some devotees will defend this system but I doubt they really understand it. Let's just call it what it is: the caste system. It's an institutionalized system of social control and inequality and it is racist to the core. For Indians to transcend this must truly be a mark of sainthood.
Mahaprabhu, while behaving in a "respectable" manner in accord with this society for the sake of his own lila, certainly laid a groundwork by which we can leave this and the consciousness it represents behind. I am reminded of this each morning when I chant "Naham vipro na ca narapatir naipi vaisyo na sudra..." In the wake of Mahaprabhu we can leave exploitation, oppression, and deceptions and trickery behind.
Perhaps like you, I was attracted to Gaurahari in part for these reasons.
And as a gay man I have always felt that Mahaprabhu's religion is the gayest religion in existence. Everything is in Gaura-lila. Everything that matters. Again, devotees may object, but their opinions are entirely unimportant to me and I see no need to explain and defend myself. I look to Gaura-lila -to Mahaprabhu and his associates- for all the inspiration, encouragement, and reassurance I need. Of course our Gurudev and his parampara have made this accessible and real, and their inspiration, encouragement, and reassurance are indistinguishable from that of Gauranga and his parisads.
Syamasundara - June 6, 2008 3:08 am
India, like America, is profoundly racist and no doubt has been for centuries, even millenia, perhaps since the Vedic Northerners conquered the indigenous population and subjected them to the social control tactic of Varnashrama dharma. Some devotees will defend this system but I doubt they really understand it. Let's just call it what it is: the caste system. It's an institutionalized system of social control and inequality and it is racist to the core.
I was so surprised to find the encyclopedia version in a devotional context. That same source states that those white people that colonized India from the Caucasus used to have Indra as the supreme deity, because in the Rg Veda or wherever he is glorified left and right. Then, the idea of an even higher form of God became more popular, as the Aryans evolved, so Visnu kicked in, conveniently at first as Indra's brother (Vamana), then as a self-standing God, as Rama... Oh, and Siva comes somewhere between Indra and Visnu. I mean, what the heck??
The varnashrama system was perfect in a world and era when people's psychologies and their bodies were aligned, if that makes any sense. Births were controlled with samskaras, consciousness in the action had a big part in everything. From the garbhadhana on, everything was just in place. All the injunctions about the varnas and ashramas were just as sensible as a lady now on TV saying: "People with blond hair and blue eyes should stay away from the sun radiations between 11am and 4pm. They should use a sunscreen before being exposed to the sun, and avoid the eye area."
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 6, 2008 8:50 pm
I was so surprised to find the encyclopedia version in a devotional context. That same source states that those white people that colonized India from the Caucasus used to have Indra as the supreme deity, because in the Rg Veda or wherever he is glorified left and right. Then, the idea of an even higher form of God became more popular, as the Aryans evolved, so Visnu kicked in, conveniently at first as Indra's brother (Vamana), then as a self-standing God, as Rama... Oh, and Siva comes before Indra and Visnu. I mean, what the heck??
The varnashrama system was perfect in a world and era when people's psychologies and their bodies were aligned, if that makes any sense. Births were controlled with samskaras, consciousness in the action had a big part in everything. From the garbhadhana on, everything was just in place. All the injunctions about the varnas and ashramas were just as sensible as a lady now on TV saying: "People with blond hair and blue eyes should stay away from the sun radiations between 11am and 4pm. They should use a sunscreen before being exposed to the sun, and avoid the eye area."
Well said, Syamu.
Nitaisundara Das - June 7, 2008 3:53 pm
It's an institutionalized system of social control and inequality and it is racist to the core. For Indians to transcend this must truly be a mark of sainthood.
Let us not forget that the creator of Varnashrama himself was a black man and a vaisya!!
In all seriousness though I think everyone should read GM's commentary of BG v. 4.13
Spiritual life is by nature a whole different substance but if I understand correctly that does not mean a sadhu cannot have "socially backward" ideas.
Syamasundara - June 7, 2008 5:46 pm
It's an institutionalized system of social control and inequality
Actually it is very true. Varnashrama is a system aimed at recognizing that isvarah paramah krsnah, and its message is: "If you want to live on the bodily platform, then get ready for a lot of diversity and inequality, based on guna and karma; but if and when you get to see the equality in all souls, you are above all this."
Nitaisundara Das - June 7, 2008 6:10 pm
Actually it is very true. Varnashrama is a system aimed at recognizing that isvarah paramah krsnah, and its message is: "If you want to live on the bodily platform, then get ready for a lot of diversity and inequality, based on guna and karma; but if and when you get to see the equality in all souls, you are above all this."
Well said
Wilfredo Flores - June 7, 2008 9:14 pm
Actually it is very true. Varnashrama is a system aimed at recognizing that isvarah paramah krsnah, and its message is: "If you want to live on the bodily platform, then get ready for a lot of diversity and inequality, based on guna and karma; but if and when you get to see the equality in all souls, you are above all this."
Hare Krsna,
Yes, I agree with you. This is a very nice premise for our service. It's also a goal that I aspire to. To see everyone as equal, and to offer everyone the same respect. By practicing humility, we will, with Gaura Hari's mercy, serve sincerely.
vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah
"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle bramanah, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste). (BG-As It Is 5.18)
Sri Krsna himself tells us we should see all as equal. To strive to see beyond body and guna and see the soul, where our equality lies. My understanding of this is to try and strip away my misconception of arrogantly identifying as this body. But to see this body as a result of my actions, but not me. Ultimately seeing Krsna as the absolute.
I am no where remotely near that stage, I have so much to learn that I simply try to remember Sri Krnsa Caitanya's instruction to stay as humble as a blade of grass. As such try to understand that perfection is far from within grasp. And to be as tolerant as a tree, to try and withstand all the obstacles thrown in the way of service. Whether I'm successful as any of this is yet to be seen. But more importantly for me is to keep trying. And who am I to consider anyone inferior to me? Honestly, can any that we can't learn anything from anyone? In some way or the other, I think something can be learned in every situation, and from any source. It's up to us to accept or reject.
I hear and read of all the controversy in Iskcon and elsewhere these days and become a little disillusioned by it all, and honestly, I realize then that all I want to do is serve and love the Lord and anyone that could help me with that desire. I feel encouraged in meeting devotees of like mind, and hope to be able to learn more from them. The devotees here seem to be of that mindset, happy to serve and learn with a practical approach. Guru Maharaja's teachings are sensible to me, I hope to learn more.
In the mean time, thank you for all of your comments.
All glories to Gaura Hari.
BW
Zvonimir Tosic - June 8, 2008 12:08 pm
Actually it is very true. Varnashrama is a system aimed at recognizing that isvarah paramah krsnah ....
Dear Syamu,
Are you certain about this?
Although Krishna says in Gita that he's the creator of social systems (and as well a creator of everything else, to make it short), why did he destroy the Varnasrama system then, if it aims towards isvarah paramah krsnah? I think we're going into something more elusive here.
Syamasundara - June 8, 2008 2:37 pm
why did he destroy the Varnasrama system then
That's news to me.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 8, 2008 4:40 pm
Krsna created varnasrama, but he does not destroy it, as we see in the second sentence in the translation of Bg. 4.13: "Although I created this system, you should know that I am imperishable and not responsible for the results derived from it."
Entropy is a fundamental characteristic of time and space, and so anything within it, varnasrama included, tends toward disintegration as time goes on. Krsna is not responsible for this--it just comes with the territory. And that is why he says in 4.2 that the divya-jnana he is speaking of in the Gita needs to be reestablished due to the vitiating nature of time. If transcendental knowledge can become obscured by the gunas, then the varnasrama even more susceptible to it, and needs to be revitalized as well. And just as Krsna comes to reestablish the guru-parampara, avataras like Parasurama responded to discrepancies in the varnasrama.
Syamasundara - June 8, 2008 6:18 pm
Dear Syamu,Are you certain about this?
Although Krishna says in Gita that he's the creator of social systems (and as well a creator of everything else, to make it short), why did he destroy the Varnasrama system then, if it aims towards isvarah paramah krsnah? I think we're going into something more elusive here.
Can you possibly be referring to Mahaprabhu disturbing the corrupted cast system and smarta brahmanism of his time?
That's different. Varnashrama dharma is a dharma. You can't avoid people having tendencies, and feeling happier or more functional in certain environments instead of others.
Zvonimir Tosic - June 9, 2008 1:47 am
That's news to me.
Well, I've been thinking about this for some time because I couldn't but observe some problems these questions impose.
I reflected on some of Swami's thoughts and also on some understandings I got when reading the Gita and Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.
We have to start with some chronology to explain the story. What I've found difficult is that when explaining the Vedic knowledge, people jump from Śrī Caitanya way back to the creation of cosmos, putting everything in the same bag. But for some studies it just creates illogical mess and heaps of inconsistencies.
Swami once said that Varnasrama ceased when a brahmana cursed the king. That was after the battle of Kurukṣetra. This is very important. And after that moment, we have a Srimad Bhagavatam taking place. And the age of Kali.
You said Varnasrama is about isvarah paramah krsnah. If I'm not mistaken, those are the words from Brahma Samhita, which (according to tradition) Brahma recited in the beginning of creation. However, they beautifully describe Krishna, a charming boy from Vraja by whom he was deceived. So, for the sake of logic, how could Brahma forget about Krishna when he saw him in that same form and shape as long ago? [brahma is often presented as a silly old grandpa, definitely not leaving an impression of a guy who is supposed to tie quarks, hadrions and myriad of other particles and infinitely complex forces within the visible and invisible universe]. I'm afraid people will say we have a problem here. The easier one is exactly as described above: a problem in the timeline, which is common to Vedic issues. (Let's leave quantum physics and other issues aside for the moment).
So, I think in that beautiful poem Brahma reflects back and forth through time, and describes the wonders of Govinda, the Lord whom he has recognised now as the primeval God and whose words he heard long ago, before the dawn of creation. This song is about Brahma's own revelation.
However, Krishna comes at the end of the Dvapara yuga, as never seen before God. This is clearly stated so many times. A boy from Vraja who puzzles everyone. He is more beautiful, more charming than Narayana. He's challenging old rules of the old system (adoring Indra, as one of them), creates beautiful chaos wherever he goes. Wherever he goes he challenges the very breath of the current social system (Varnasrama dharma).
Let's construct a timeline: Varnasrama existed before his descent. But how long ago? The way it's popularly presented, it seems it extends to the moment of creation. That's one problem because it's impossible. Further, if the principles of Varnasrama ceased after the brahmana cursed king Pariksit, then it means that social caste system is not left long after Krishna. Logic says Krishna witnessed its last days, then.
Krishna also says he comes from time to time to establish dharma -- but which one he is to establish if the Varnasrama dharma is perfect, as many today believe? Somehow Krishna doesn't strike me as someone who talks nonsense or irrelevant things. On the contrary: his words are amazingly lucid, precise and deep. Why would he mention that? He clearly says he comes to establish the principles of religion .. but which one? What dharma is left after him? I haven't found an answer to that; it seems people just skip over that statement, taking it for granted but does anyone actually stop there? One more unanswered puzzle (but which makes sense if we call a help from the future).
Krishna is also all-knowing and sees the future. At the end of his conversation with Arjuna, he says those famous sarva dharman parityajya, mam ekam saranam vraja* words and shortly after them everything is veiled in a brief silence ... As Sridhara Maharaja hinted many times and Swami presented in his Gita edition, Krishna is reflecting upon so many intimate images during the course of Bhagavad-gita and it came to me that Krishna at that very moment reflected upon the future again**; where dharma, which doesn't lead to him, will be abandoned. (And a new one installed, for us to follow the examples of his beloved from Vraja). Krishna is seeing something yet to be seen. And he is also seeing himself coming again -- to install that real dharma in our hearts -- as Sri Caitanya.**
That couldn't happen overnight, of course, but after so many years and generations after, when world has changed enough and every hint of the old system is gone and forgotten and people are left facing the new.
So, what was Krishna thinking about then, which dharma he's to establish in the seemingly perfect Vedic system? Definitely not Varnasrama (because it was already there). Rather, as I believe now, it's Bhagavata dharma expressed through "param vijayate sri krishna sankirtanam". The conclusion of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. Krishna did everything (aranged the war, saved young king Pariksit) to cease the old and wrinkled dharmic system and those who represent it that don't lead to him; thus he made brahmana curse the king to give us the gift of Srimad Bhagavatam -- the seed of the Bhagavata dharma. Now Krishna's statement makes great sense!
Let's pause for a moment: what's best climate to cherish Bhagavata dharma? The summit of that dharma is Krishna prema and the only way to reach it is through raganuga bhakti (following ragatmikas, the footsteps of Krishna's beloved in Vraja). That's what Sri Caitanya teaches us. Swami said it many times, Sri Caitanya didn't come to give us dasya rasa, and we are not talking about adoring a God in reverence, or some heavenly hierarchy, which was the case in Varnasrama.
Bhagavata dharma is about love for Krishna, ecstatic love, all-forgetting and all-embracing love, in which pronounced social structures and a formal way of praising the God only impose barriers of its self expression. They're more burden than a help. Bhagavata dharma, I think, can better express itself among equals. In other words, today's democracy is much better system to spread Krishna sankirtana than Varnasrama. (But it took time to develop democracy. Modern democratic ideas developed mostly during and after the Humanism and Renaissance, when Śrī Caitanya appeared.) When devotees today call upon Varnasrama dharma, to me it resembles the rebuilding of the tower of Babel -- completely unnecessary task and a waste of time. (There's some romantic chord to it, I admit.)
I welcome all your thoughts and corrections, but I hope you see what logic leads me to think this way. There's also a brave mention of Sri Caitanya in the scope of conversation in the Bhagavad-gita, a reflection I'll try to defend further if needed. As I'm reding Bahagavad-gita, I see many questions unanswered and the only key that makes this story fulfilling is Sri Caitanya. Then many odd statements simply get a new meaning. Krishna's descent is tied with Sri Caitanya's and they cannot be separated, it seems to me; one is needed to understand the other, to fulfill the other completely.
_____
* Which dharma Krishna refers to when he suggests Arjuna to quit them? Varnasrama, for sure. In a way he's saying to Arjuna, I have already abandoned it, so you do the same if you want to follow me. In modern jargon, Krishna is sick of it.
** I think this reflection of his future coming starts even before, in Bg 4.7-8 with sambhavami yuge yuge, but it's also emphasised at the very end.
Syamasundara - June 9, 2008 3:40 am
I reflected on some of Swami's thoughts and also on some understandings I got when reading the Gita and Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.
I can see you could apply your diacritic software here on TV. That is a good use of your creativity in service. If you screw up that timeline, you end up serving your creativity, and call it logic.
Zvonimir Tosic - June 11, 2008 6:11 am
I can see you could apply your diacritic software here on TV. That is a good use of your creativity in service. If you screw up that timeline, you end up serving your creativity, and call it logic.
Yes, thanks It works wonderfully but it's very time consuming task filling in DB with words and all the different ways you want to write them. Brute force dictionary attack, they call in cryptography, but the term is quite applicable here too. Uh.
Rathi Krishna Dasa - June 20, 2008 12:08 pm
BBT turns down GBC recommendation, will not add "explanations" to Prabhupada's books
BBT turns down GBC recommendation, will not add "explanations" to Prabhupada's booksSubmitted by jswami on June 19, 2008 - 11:35pm.
Today the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust released this statement.
The ISKCON Governing Body Commission has recommended to the BBT trustees that we insert endnotes or appendices into Srila Prabhupada’s books to explain statements Srila Prabhupada makes in Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.25.41, 4.25.42, and 4.26.26 concerning a woman’s attitude towards the aggressive advances of a man and towards a man who is “expert at rape.” The GBC has also recommended that the endnotes or appendices explain “other such statements.”
The BBT directors, at their annual meeting in June of 2008, considered these recommendations and decided to turn them down.
The directors have in fact discussed the relevant issues at length during several BBT meetings over the past few years. We have listened to opinions from concerned devotees and nondevotees. And additionally we have sought and received written advice on these issues from a selection of senior devotees, both male and female.
The directors have considered several suggested approaches to the issues, including deleting or revising the controversial passages, adding footnotes, adding appendices, publishing free-standing explanatory inserts, publishing separate books of commentary, and doing nothing at all.
As a result of our deliberations, we decided that the best approach would be to set up a site on the web where readers can go to get a better understanding of statements from Srila Prabhupada’s books that may be controversial, contrary to prevailing social norms, or otherwise difficult to comprehend or digest.
As we reprint Srila Prabhupada’s books, we plan to include on the copyright page a brief note directing readers to that site for guidance on such matters. This web site was already in development long before the meeting at which the GBC passed their resolution.
Addressing these issues on a website offers the following advantages, among others:
It allows us to include explanations from several different viewpoints, not just one.
It gives the authors space to write at whatever length they feel they need.
It keeps Srila Prabhupada’s books free from editorial intrusions.
It avoids needlessly highlighting statements that many readers may not find disturbing.
It spares us from having to publish “official explanations” for statements about which even Srila Prabhupada’s leading disciples and followers have divided opinions.
It saves us from the danger of publishing in Srila Prabhupada’s books an explanation with which he himself might disagree.
It keeps us from embarking on the treacherous path of “explaining” more and more of Srila Prabhupada’s controversial or potentially controversial statements.
We foresee that Srila Prabhupada’s followers will eventually write many books of commentary to directly explain and elaborate upon the teachings found in his books, and we welcome this. We see the website as an initial step in that direction.
In this letter we also wish to respond to the specifics of the GBC’s recommendation.
The GBC’s resolution gives three reasons for their recommendation. Two are these:
“Some of Srila Prabhupada’s books contain sentences [like those cited]which when taken in isolation may be considered derogatory to and offensive against women.”
“Some people who read such statements may consider them to be derogatory or offensive, may misunderstand what Srila Prabhupada actually means, and may not want to further read those books, notwithstanding the many other beneficial statements in them.”
Regarding these two reasons, we recognize that Srila Prabhupada’s books sometimes make statements that some readers may consider offensive—offensive to women, to science and scientists, to democratic ideals, to other Gaudiya Vaisnavas, to scholarship and scholars, to homosexuals, to pacifists, humanitarians and philanthropists, to people of various nations or races, to followers of various spiritual or supposedly spiritual paths, to individuals widely revered as saints or incarnations of God, and much more. And we recognize that such statements may discourage some readers from reading further.
Nonetheless, we think that adding notes or appendices to explain what Srila Prabhupada intended would be unwise, and potentially disastrous, especially if the purpose of the explanation were to soften the impact of Srila Prabhupada’s words, to explain that he “didn’t really mean” what he appears to have said—that is, not just to explain but to “explain away.”
The GBC’s remaining reason is this: “Some ISKCON devotees may have used these statements out of context as an excuse to offend, neglect and abuse women.”
We agree that this is true. But we believe that providing guidance and instruction on such matters is the responsibility of the GBC and ISKCON’s leaders, not the BBT or its editors. And we believe that Srila Prabhupada’s books are the wrong place for his followers to insert corrective guidance on morals, ethics, or proper attitudes and behavior. We think that annotating Srila Prabhupada’s books to keep ISKCON devotees from going off track is simply a bad idea.
We are concerned, also, that the GBC has asked us to insert endnotes or appendices to explain not only the statements they quoted but also “other such statements as determined by the BBT.” That is not a road we think it wise for us to set off on. Once we get started, where does it end?
In conclusion: We do not intend to add anything to Srila Prabhupada’s books, or subtract anything, or change anything Srila Prabhupada says, to make his controversial or potentially controversial statements more acceptable to readers or less vulnerable to misuse by ISKCON devotees. We believe that this would be unwise, contrary to our prescribed duties, and potentially disastrous. We also strongly urge whoever our successors may be to preserve Srila Prabhupada’s books intact and reject all proposals, however well intentioned, for softening the impact of his words.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 20, 2008 12:38 pm
Jayaadvaita Maharaja is certainly the lead person in BBT.
Syamasundara - June 20, 2008 11:27 pm
Say what you will about SP, in the very least he was smart enough to make Iskcon, BBT and Spiritual Sky as 3 separate entities.
Brahma Dasa - June 21, 2008 1:32 am
I agree with Jayadvaita.
I think he makes his case very well.
Rathi Krishna Dasa - June 21, 2008 2:02 am
Although, there are many things I don't care for in regard to the BBT, to which I had a longish discussion with Jayadvaita Maharaja about, when they get things right, they nail them. When my GM basically got the boot, he was still being asked to give and giving Srimad Bhagavatam classes at the BBT Sanskrit school at Govardhana. He was even approached by the BBT to write a contemporary book on bhakti despite his dubious institutional status. The BBT's reasoning? Paraphrased, "We're not the GBC but the BBT. We can do what we want."
Zvonimir Tosic - June 21, 2008 4:45 am
Say what you will about SP, in the very least he was smart enough to make Iskcon, BBT and Spiritual Sky as 3 separate entities.
I'd also like to see them thinking as separate, mature personalities as well.
I think BBT can have more impact on public and the spreading of good vibes in Kṛṣṇa Consciousness than the GBC and ISKCON together if it acted more independently and freely. Say, they suddenly decide to publish valuable woks by Swami Tripurari and other authors. Introduce new and modern ways of communication between people, not just books (whilst they're essential). So it can become a BCT, Bhaktivedanta Communication Trust. Or whatever else.
BBT could be a publishing trust of all Gaudiyas and the creative force that unites them together. It's all about vision and having enough heart to spear through initial difficulties. But it can be a source of ginormous fun, good time and a lighthouse rising over a sea of changes.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 21, 2008 6:03 am
BBT could be a publishing trust of all Gaudiyas and the creative force that unites them together.
This, among other things, is exactly what Guru Maharaja told Jayadvaita Maharaja in Vrndavana in 1998. There Guru Maharaja was invited by J. Maharaja to articulate this vision to the BBT trustees at their annual meeting in L.A. later the same year. Guru Maharaja went, and said his piece, but unfortunately his vision was not appreciated by some of the trustees, and we can see that to this day they have not moved in that direction at all. So I'm not holding my breath for the BBT to do it--I would look to Audarya Publishing to do it if anyone is going to.
Prema-bhakti - June 21, 2008 4:53 pm
I agree with Jayadvaita.
I think he makes his case very well.
Is this JS's case? I thought it was the BBT's and JS just posted it on his website. As far as I know JS has no position on the BBT or GBC, he is just a disgruntled traveling sannyasi.
Rathi do you know JS's status?
Babhru Das - June 21, 2008 7:02 pm
I think JSwami is on the BBT's editorial board. That's my best guess. Maybe Rathi knows more.
Wilfredo Flores - June 21, 2008 8:14 pm
I think JSwami is on the BBT's editorial board. That's my best guess. Maybe Rathi knows more.
I always had the feeling from HH Jayadavaita as being level headed. Hopefully, with time, this will all work itself out. I think this is probably a good move.
BW
Gaura-Vijaya Das - June 21, 2008 11:59 pm
But most people in ISKCON think that this resolution by BBT is a approval of their fundamentalist position. It does little to help clarify the guru tattva in ISKCON
Prema-bhakti - June 22, 2008 12:01 am
But most people in ISKCON think that this resolution by BBT is a approval of their fundamentalist position. It does little to help clarify the guru tattva in ISKCON
Totally true.
Rathi Krishna Dasa - June 22, 2008 1:24 am
Rathi Krishna Dasa - June 22, 2008 1:38 am
I'm not positive whether or not Jayadvaita Swami is still a full time trustee. I know that he is still on the editorial board. It seems these past few years he has been getting away from official positions.
Babhru Das - June 22, 2008 2:18 am
But most people in ISKCON think that this resolution by BBT is a approval of their fundamentalist position. It does little to help clarify the guru tattva in ISKCON
What Prema said. Based on the rash of letters that found their way to my In box, the fundamentalist types will take this as some sort of validation.
Babhru Das - June 22, 2008 2:20 am
Not sure when this link popped up.
I'd guess it's very new. They've been eager to get it up, and it looks as though they've done so without having all the essays they expect.