In the comments of the Reality Check post Radhapada wrote something which I think should be looked at a bit closer, he wrote:
For the most part, traditional Sri Caitanya Vaisnavism is family oriented. The ascetic renounced sector is a small portion of the Tradition’s community. Within the disciplic lineage of various parivars there are women who acted as diksa gurus for their disciples. Bhaktivinoda’s own guru pranali of Sri Jahnava-Nityananda had some women diksa gurus who serve as parts of the chain in channeling the flow of bhakti from Sri Vraja dhama’s eternal associates of Sri Radha-Krishna into the hearts of present day devotees here in the material work.
An inconvenient truth is that some of the elements within the culture of misogamy and slighting of women within ISKCON can be traced back to Bhaktivinoda’s son Bimal Prasad Datta (aka Bhaksiddhanta Saraswati) and his Gaudiya Math Missions. Bimal Prasad did not have respect towards Bhaktivinoda’s diksa guru, Bipin Bihar Goswami who represented a family gosai disciplic lineage from Sri Jahnava Thakurani via Vamsivadananda Thakur, an associate of Lord Gauranga. Nor did Bimal Prasad wanted to take Vaisnava diksa from his own father Bhaktivinoda as his brother Lalit Prasad had done. Bimal Prasad unsuccessfully tried to seek diksa from the ascetic Gaura Kishor das Babaji. Not wanting to go further with the issue, Bimal Prasad started his own lineage by initiating disciples in a fabricated ritual and concocting a sannyas doctrine. The practice of the ritual taking of sannyas, the danda, the additive names (bhakti what-not swami) and saffron colored cloth is not practiced by followers of Lord Gauranga. Saraswati Maharaja’s solo acceptance of sannyas without Vaisnava consent is steeped in controversy, having changed his clothes to saffon color similar to the clothes worn in the Rama Krishna Mission of his time. Saraswati Maharaja’s Gaudiya Math mission was a male based institution which gave special recognition to celibate sannyasis as ISCKON does today. The ideas of creating a varnasrama system outside of India’s caste system is another fabrication with no teaching of the Six Goswamis to support it
I don’t really have a problem with Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati creating something new with the addition of sannyasis. There was precedent in Mahaprabhu taking sannyasa. The reasoning was that sannyasis would be revered in Hindu society and respected and taken as authoritative in the Gaudiya Matha proselytizing mission, and therefore attract a lot of people to come hear “the swami” speak. This was seen to actually work, as it did and still does with ISKCON as well.
I don’t think that sannyasa in gaudiya society automatically leads to denigration of women, or even grhasta men, which also I have seen taught by some gaudiya acaryas. It depends on how sannyasa is taught: what is it’s true purpose within gaudiya society, what age men should be when they take it, and how the positions of women and grhasta men are taught about. If women and grhasta men are taught as being in an inferior position, then that is bogus and not part of traditional gaudiya teachings. The sole purpose of Mahaprabhu’s sannyasa was in order to get respect because sannyasis were respected and seen as authorities on Vedic teachings. The idea in the head of an average person that sannyasis are actually in a superior position of knowledge and purity and spiritual advancement is what the taking of sannyasa is for in gaudiya society. It is to convince non-gaudiya vaisnavas to come and hear from “the swami”. It is the idea that people have about a swami, not that gaudiya vaisnavas should actually believe that swamis actually are in a superior position just because they are swamis. Spiritual advancement, purity, and knowledge are not dependent on total renunciation of family, society, nor celibacy. The idea that renunciates are more advanced comes from the mystic and tantric yoga and Buddhist traditions which were and are interrelated to the Advaita traditions. In those traditions it is taught that spiritual advancement is made through material processes – through tapasya, through celibacy, through vairagya, etc. Their idea is that through some material process they will gain mystic siddhis and moksa or nirvana. This is because they do not believe in a personal God who is in control of their minds and lives and who has the ability to give enlightenment and spiritual advancement. The bhakti traditions are supposed to be about the reception of divine grace. Realization of our relationship with the personality of Godhead is what bhakti is all about. The Gita and the Bhagavatam talk about reception of divine knowledge and devotion to the cultivation of our relationship with that knowledge and it’s source as the means and the ends to spiritual advancement, purity, and enlightened jnana. It’s a transcendental process of the reception of divine grace, not a material process dependent on tapasya, brahmacarya, or vairagya.
Also the idea that Mahaprabhu and the previous acaryas had as their mission the rebuilding of some type of “Vedic culture” was never taught before Prabhupada. Mahaprabhu, Sri Rupa, Sri Sanatana, Sri Jiva, etc spoke and wrote about developing Krishna consciousness, suddha bhakti, not about changing the world into some kind of Vedic society. In ISKCON we get this idea taught that Krishna consciousness comes inherently with so many cultural aspects and taboos. That is not a fact. Indian culture or Vedic culture or varnashrama-dharma was rejected by Mahaprabhu as what he was bringing.
In Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 8 Mahaprabhu asks Ramananda Raya
“Recite a verse from the revealed scriptures concerning the ultimate goal of life.”
Ramananda replies that by acting in ones prescribed dharma then that is vishnu-bhakti, he then quotes a sloka from the Vishnu Purana which states that only by following varnasrama-dharma is Vishnu pleased. This is what follows:
The Lord replied, “This is external. You had better tell Me of some other means.”Ramananda replied, “To offer the results of one’s activities to Krishna is the essence of all perfection.”
Ramananda Raya continued, “‘My dear son of Kunti, whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer in sacrifice, whatever you give in charity, and whatever austerities you perform, all the results of such activities should be offered to Me, Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.’”
“This is also external,” Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said. “Please proceed and speak further on this matter.”Ramananda Raya replied, “To give up one’s occupational duties in the varnasrama system is the essence of perfection.”
Ramananda Raya continued, “‘Occupational duties are described in the religious scriptures. If one analyzes them, he can fully understand their qualities and faults and then give them up completely to render service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such a person is considered a first-class man.’
“As stated in scripture [Bg. 18.66], ‘After giving up all kinds of religious and occupational duties, if you come to Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and take shelter, I will give you protection from all of life’s sinful reactions. Do not worry.’”
After hearing Ramananda Raya speak in this way, Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu again rejected his statement and said, “Go ahead and say something more.”Ramananda Raya then replied, “Devotional service mixed with empiric knowledge is the essence of perfection.”
Ramananda Raya continued, “According to the Bhagavad-gita, ‘One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.’”
Mahaprabhu rejected everything Ramananda Raya said as being “external” until Ramananda said
prabhu kahe, “eho bahya, age kaha ara”
raya kahe, — “jnana-sunya bhakti — sadhya-sara”prabhu kahe — the Lord said; eho — this; bahya — external; age — ahead; kaha — speak; ara — further; raya kahe — Ramananda Raya replied; jnana-sunya bhakti — devotional service independent of logic and empiric philosophy; sadhya-sara — the essence of the perfection of life.
TRANSLATION
After hearing this, the Lord, as usual, rejected it, considering it to be external devotional service. He again asked Ramananda Raya to speak further, and Ramananda Raya replied, “Pure devotional service without any touch of speculative knowledge is the essence of perfection.”
jnane prayasam udapasya namanta eva
jivanti san-mukharitam bhavadiya-vartam
sthane sthitah sruti-gatam tanu-van-manobhir
ye prayaso ‘jita jito ‘py asi tais tri-lokyamSYNONYMS
jnane — in gaining knowledge; prayasam — unnecessary endeavor; udapasya — setting far aside; namantah — completely surrendering; eva — certainly; jivanti — live; sat-mukharitam — declared by great realized devotees; bhavadiya-vartam — discussions about You, the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sthane sthitah — situated in their own positions; sruti-gatam — received aurally; tanu-vak-manobhih — by the body, words and mind; ye — those who; prayasah — almost always; ajita — O my unconquerable Lord (beyond perception and unlimitedly independent); jitah — conquered; api — indeed; asi — You are; taih — by such pure devotees; tri-lokyam — within the three worlds.
Basically Ramananda is saying that the path of the jnani should be given up and that people who take up bhakti and surrender to or honor hearing about the Lord, that they conquer the unconquerable Lord. This was the first thing from Ramananda which Mahaprabhu didn’t reject as external or superfluous. Mahaprabhu said eho haya — this is all right, age kaha ara — speak something more; raya kahe — Raya replied; prema-bhakti — is–sarva-sadhya-sara — the essence of all perfection.
Then Ramananda was prodded by Mahaprabhu to go deeper and deeper into what is the highest thing, saying that what he was describing was good, but go further, deeper.
Mahaprabhu rejected everything until Ramananda spoke about pure bhakti. Mahaprabhu rejected varnashrama, karma yoga, renunciation of ones occupational dharma, and the path of the impersonal jnani mixed with bhakti. We are being taught that these things are external to what Mahaprabhu has come to teach. But Prabhupada made varnasrama and the renunciation of ones occupational dharma, as cornerstones of his teachings. ISKCON was taught as being for the creation of some kind of reborn version of Vedic society. Also ISKCON is for trying to change the larger society into a reborn version of a perceived type of perfect Vedic society. Of course the Vedic society Prabhupada envisioned was a totalitarian state headed by a theocratic dictator who enforced his “regulative principles” on everyone, where blacks could be forced into slavery, where women would be denied freedom and education, where kids would be forced into gurukulas,etc.
Lecture on BG 1.4-5 — London, July 10, 1973:
So up to that point, Mahārāja Parīkṣit, the whole planet was very nicely governed by dictatorship. So we can bring in such dictatorship, provided that dictator is perfectly Kṛṣṇa conscious.
Press Conference at Airport — July 28, 1975, Dallas:
So dictatorship is good, provided the dictator is highly qualified spiritually.
Room Conversation — August 21, 1975, Bombay:
I like this position, dictatorship. Personally I like this.
Mahatma Gandhi was practically a dictator, but he was a man of high moral character, so people accepted him. Dictatorship can be good provided the dictator is spiritually developed.
Morning Walk — January 12, 1976, Bombay:
Dr. Patel: Now she is not going to have any more elections. “Elections are not necessary. People have given me the mandate to rule over them.”
Prabhupāda: Yes, that’s nice. If the dictator, executive officer, is very nice, religious, then there is no need of this election.
Real Vedic society was not like that. Real Vedic society can be read about in the Mahabharata. It is not a society where there is a dictator enforcing “regulative principles” where everyone is forced to be and do what the dictator tells them to be and do e.g follow Prabhupada’s program and vision for society and spiritual advancement. He envisioned a neo-Vedic society were everyone followed his teachings only–and ISKCON society is it.
In the above verse by Ramananda Raya where Mahaprabhu first accepts what he says without rejection, Prabhupada’s translation of what Mahaprabhu accepts from Ramananda tells a lot about how Prabhupada sought to change the message of Mahaprabhu. Look at the word for word compared to the final translation of Prabhupada:
jnane prayasam udapasya namanta eva
jivanti san-mukharitam bhavadiya-vartam
sthane sthitah sruti-gatam tanu-van-manobhir
ye prayaso ‘jita jito ‘py asi tais tri-lokyamSYNONYMS
jnane — in gaining knowledge; prayasam — unnecessary endeavor; udapasya — setting far aside; namantah — completely surrendering; eva — certainly; jivanti — live; sat-mukharitam — declared by great realized devotees; bhavadiya-vartam — discussions about You, the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sthane sthitah — situated in their own positions; sruti-gatam — received aurally; tanu-vak-manobhih — by the body, words and mind; ye — those who; prayasah — almost always; ajita — O my unconquerable Lord (beyond perception and unlimitedly independent); jitah — conquered; api — indeed; asi — You are; taih — by such pure devotees; tri-lokyam — within the three worlds.
TRANSLATION
Ramananda Raya continued, “Lord Brahma said, ‘My dear Lord, those devotees who have thrown away the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth and have therefore abandoned discussing empiric philosophical truths should hear from self-realized devotees about Your holy name, form, pastimes and qualities. They should completely follow the principles of devotional service and remain free from illicit sex, gambling, intoxication and animal slaughter. Surrendering themselves fully with body, words and mind, they can live in any asrama or social status. Indeed, You are conquered by such persons, although You are always unconquerable.’”
In the verse there is nothing about the “They should completely follow the principles of devotional service and remain free from illicit sex, gambling, intoxication and animal slaughter.” Surrendering themselves fully with body, words and mind has to do with attitude towards bhakti – sthane sthitah – situated in their own positions. He has translated a verse telling us that the Lord is conquered by those who fully devote themselves to hearing about the Lord from surrendered souls, into the Lord is conquered by someone who follows 4 regulative principles and surrenders full time to nothing but bhakti practice, in other words implying that the verse is saying that the Lord is conquered by someone who surrenders to Prabhupada, his program, his organization, full time.
Radhapada also wrote:
Had Abhoy Caran De not disregard his diksa guru from early youth that his father had faithfully arranged for him, he would more than likely have had a broader impact upon the world when it came time for him to preach in the west. He would have not been influenced by the institutional structures modeled after the Gaudiya Math which in the west translated into providing shelters for stray hippies and uprooting young people from family and school, many to serve as beggars for the ISKCON society. I believe women would have been more acceptable since there was no need to demeanor them in order to perpetuate a prominent celibate based asrama institution. He would have most likely outreached the more stable and successful lot of western people as did other yogis and Hindu teachers in the 1960’s and 70’s and not just target young people who where going through transitions and instabilities in their life (which by the way many anti-cultist claim are ripe candidates for cult indoctrination). I am sure many would agree that complexities of organized religions with its hierarchies and bureaucracy seem spiritually unwholesome compared to a community of devotees who simply enjoy doing bhajan to Sri Radha-Krishna, be they men, women or kids, as Abhoy Caran De experienced in his childhood.
Well, as they say, hindsight is 20/20. We shouldn’t forget that the Lord is in control over what everyone does, including the things that may not be correct, even if they are done by a pure devotee of the Lord. What Prabhupada did was done according to the plan and design of the Lord. So is what I am doing, or you, or anyone else. The Reverend Sun Myung Moon has built a huge powerful influential spiritual empire, even though it is completely bogus in that he claims he is Jesus reincarnate, still that is all arranged and sanctioned by the Lord – according to the teachings of Sri Krishna in the Gita and Bhagavatam. There are no accidents and no one is independent from the control of the Lord. Destiny is a foregone conclusion.
P.S – If you want to see how average people react to the type of devotees who are severe in their criticism of what I say (Pandu Das calls me a blaspheming atheist) check this out Pandu Das get banned by the Huffington Post It’s at the most popular and influential online newspaper/blog in the world (started and run by a “less intelligent woman”). It’s an article about rape where Pandu Das decides to start preaching what he learned from Srila Prabhupada about women in the comments to the article. The first comment and many after are by Pandu Das (he uses his name). He explains on his own blog that he was banned from the Huffington Post because of those comments.
Pandu Das has this to say about me on his blog
Not that we make a so-called “Reality Check,” where the idea of reality is material nature, maha maya. For example, Mother Vrajabhumi says:
There are countless women who are very intelligent and have proved so by having won science awards for their discoveries in physics, mathematics, biology, etc. There are countless women scientists and professors today working in all fields of science, math, physics, biology, high tech etc. There are women intellectuals of all types who prove that what Srila Prabhupada said about women not being very intelligent is simply wrong. In fact more women go to college then men in the west.
Is that what Srila Prabhupada considered intelligence, winning science awards, going to college, etc.? This verse (10) from Isopanishad comes to mind:
The wise have explained that one result is derived from the culture of knowledge and that a different result is obtained from the culture of nescience.
One who is intelligent cultivates the knowledge that enables himself to be free from material nature and go back to Godhead. The unintelligent cultivate nescience to enable themselves to obtain another material body, often in the lower species of life, at the time of death.From the purport to Isopanishad, Mantra 10:
The universities are, so to speak, centers of nescience only; consequently scientists are busy discovering lethal weapons to wipe out the existence of other countries. University students today are not given instructions in the regulative principles of brahmacarya (celibate student life), nor do they have any faith in any scriptural injunctions.
If Pandu Das is so spiritually intelligent then I wonder how he could have missed that what he quoted from me was in response to the many times when Srila Prabhupada would claim:
“No, no. You cannot have equal rights because your brain is thirty-four ounce.” Actually that’s a fact. Where is woman philosopher, mathematician, scientist? Not a single.
People like Pandu make these grandiose claims of superior spirituality because they accept everything a guru says as correct even if it is obviously wrong. They then accept themselves as superior to all who question their guru’s wrong pronouncements. They then make fools out of themselves in trying to prove their points. They usually end their supercilious rants with threats of eternal damnation which showcases their “advanced spiritual consciousness”:
Seeing the writing ability of Mother Vrajabhumi on her Hare Krishna Women blog, she would seem quite intelligent by mundane standards. Unfortunately she uses her intelligence to blaspheme Srila Prabhupada, and therefore is duskrtina:
The atheistic plan-makers are described herein by the word Duskritina, or “miscreants.” Kritina means one who has performed meritorious work. The atheist plan-maker is sometimes very intelligent and meritorious also, because any gigantic plan, good or bad, must take intelligence to execute. But because the atheist’s brain is improperly utilized in its opposition to the plan of the Supreme Lord, the atheistic plan-maker is called Duskritina, which indicates that his intelligence and efforts are misdirected.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => 15: Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, lowest among Mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who are of the atheistic nature of demons, do not surrender unto Me.
An atheist is one who rejects Vedic knowledge, which is received through guru parampara.Again:
“So anyone who has got unflinching faith in God and similar faith in guru, then the Vedic purpose becomes revealed to him. Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau, tasyaite kathita hy arthah. The Vedic mantras and their artha becomes revealed. This is the process.”
We have to have unflinching faith in Srila Prabhupada. Each time apply our mundane so-called knowledge and judge Srila Prabhupad unfavorably by it, we take in the direction of atheism. By that process, our “intelligence” delivers us to hell. Without unflinching faith in God and guru, the best we can get is repeated birth and death.
Sanyas can be given to women as well. That would probably help the situation.
If it is given soley to men then it remains a sexist tradition.
Pandu’s constantly making pronouncements about people he doesn’t know and about things he knows nothing about. Who cares?
“From the purport to Isopanishad, Mantra 10:
“The universities are, so to speak, centers of nescience only; consequently scientists are busy discovering lethal weapons to wipe out the existence of other countries.”
I do not agree with this. Universities have also helped produced brilliant people in this world who are making the quality of life better for all of us. Discoveries in medicine, computer science, travel, communications. The only people who do not have access to these are tribal people in the forests or Amish folks. Do you want to live like that? If everyone like Pandu and others like him really believe in this purport then why be a hypocrite by utilizing computers, cell phones, and medical treatment in hospitals, since it is all produced from nescience? Get real people. Even if you take the above referrence of ‘discovering lethal weapons’, so? Sometimes you need it for survival. Good thing we have some nukes to help fend off fanatics who want to destroy our life of freedom in the west.
There is much talk about ‘vedic culture’, but what is it really like? Has anyone experienced it or is it just in books? Personally, I do not want to go back to ‘vedic culture’. Historicly, life has been under the laws of the jungle and brute survival. Only the strong survived and dominated, everyone else was enslaved or killed. I am very happy living in a country with freedoms and rights and a democratic government. Sure they make mistakes, but it is sure better than worrying about beligerent kings and their armies coming to lay siege on ones kingdom, killing everyone, raping the women and taking the young for slavery. That was life in ancient times. What fool wants to go back to that? Ironicly, Swami Bhaktivedanta told his disciples in Vrindavan that when ISKCON gets strong that his followers would have Gita in one hand and a gun in another and if someone does not accept, then ‘pow’. Scary!
Even though some rascals may point out that the flourishing of Prabhupada and ISKCON was only possible under a democratic and secularist society that respects the rights of different religions to flourish, such people are fools. Prabhupada’s criticism of the very system that helped his movement was correct because modern civilization cannot be compared to Vedic theocracy. In Vedic theocracy, women are confined to the kitchen. Just see…now that women are free to roam the world. There is so much chaos. If only we could go back to the past!
Radhapada you make some good points. Although I do remember reading about travelling Chinese Buddhist monks who wrote about their travels in India when they came for pilgrimage to India before the start of the muslim conquests. That would have been back past 1500 years ago. From what I remember the monks described India as a paradise, where travellers could stay and were welcomed with free accomodations on the main roads. They described it as a very safe and very refined culture. They were really amazed at the opulent advanced civilization they found. Even back to Alexandar the Great’s time India was described as paradisical. There were wars occasionally, but they had rules of warfare. One of the things about the “Harappan” civilization, which was the actual Vedic civilization of it’s time, is that almost no weapons have been found by archaeologists. That is very unusual for such a large civilization and large number of excavations.
Indian monarchs weren’t supposed to be dictators, they were supposed to be concerned about law and order, not about controlling all aspects of society, which is what a dictator does. Ksatriyas were supposed to be concerned with administration of justice, not in social engineering through force. Nor were they supposed to impose their religious beliefs on the population. Of course if your religious belief was to cause you to harm others, then that harming would not be allowed. The Islamic invaders were the actual dictators and they did try to social engineer and impose their religious beliefs on the population of India. In fact the modern Hindu attitudes towards women and sexual inhibitions and taboos can be traced to the imposition of Islamic standards, and then later to the imposition of Victorian standards by the British. Did you know it was common for women to go topless in Indian culture? In fact not long ago this was still true in many parts of India and Sri Lanka. That is why in countless temple carvings the female devatas are always topless. Compare that to modern India where you could go to prison if you showed a breast in a picture or TV or movie. Vedic culture produced the Kama Sutra of Vatsyayana Muni.
Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti Thakur writes in his Surata-kathamritam (7)
smara-narapati-vara-rAjye dharmaH zarma-prado’yam AdiSTaH
vatsyAyana-muni-nirmita-paddhaty-uktAnusAreNa hi
“This is the most beneficial dharma that rules in this, the great kingdom of Cupid, the god of love. It has been ordained in accordance with the rules of the rulebook composed by Vatsyayana Muni.”
Also from Sri Surata-kathamrta of Srila Vishwanath Chakravarti:
Radharani: “My Lord, You are fond of tasting the nectar of these transcendental mellows by speaking in this way. These pastimes of Yours exactly follow the descriptions of the kama-sastra. You are the original author of the kama-sastra. I therefore offer My respectful obeisances unto You.”
Krishnadas Kaviraja describes in his Govinda-lilamritam:
tAruNya-bhaTTa-gurutaH samadhIta-kAma-
nyAyAdi-zAstra-cayayA sa sa-tIrthayApi |
citraM na tan-nija-jayAya tayodagRhnAn
naiyAyiko hi guruNApi vivAdam icchet || 9.21 ||
“Radha and Krsna went to consult Tarunya Bhatta, the professor of kama sastra, eager to study under Him. Although They were classmates, they still wanted to argue with each other. There is no fault in this, nor is this astonishing, for students of logic want to argue even with their own teacher!”
From Garb of Innocence
This etching is of an area in Nadia somewhere near Navadvip done by Scotsman James Moffat in 1804. You can see women bathing without tops surrounded by all types of people.
http://www.turboimagehost.com/p/448602/nadia2.jpg.html
The point is that the role of women in society and the concomitant sexual and bodily taboos which are followed and believed in by most Hindus to be “Vedic” – and propagated by Srila Prabhupada as “Vedic” – are not part of real Vedic culture. Those ideas and cultural norms have been forced onto India by Islamic and British rulers.
Vrajabhumi said “Did you know it was common for women to go topless in Indian culture? In fact not long ago this was still true in many parts of India and Sri Lanka.”
Yes, I think the real vedic civilization although religious was not puritanical in regards to sexuality as many are led to believe. As you pointed out, as evidenced by carvings in Indian temples.
Swami Iconoclast says, “If only we could go back to the past!”
You’re already there, bro!
Radhapada is wrong. We are now living in the clutches of a demonic society. We must follow the example of the perfect guru Srila Prabhupada and aspire to create a Vedic society. Following His Divine Grace’s infallible logic, all educated women should stop working, burn their university degrees and return to the kitchen to help serve their husbands sumptuous prasadam. Then the world will be peaceful again.
Prabhupada’s solution is totally realistic and it will only be a matter of time before all the educated women realize what is good for them and stop working. This will make the men (who find it very hard to compete with intelligent women and therefore embrace transcendental teachings that relegate women to subservience) will no longer be agitated. Wouldn’t this be perfect?
Swami Iconoclast singles up Prabhupada but the fact is misogyny was and still is a widely shared belief. Why blame him alone? Every religion has always promoted it.
Swami Iconoclast likes a woman slave to cook nice hot puris in ghee along with sugar soaked gulab jamuns for his aching belly. Anybody wants to sign their life away in his service?
Nandini says,
“Swami Iconoclast singles up Prabhupada but the fact is misogyny was and still is a widely shared belief. Why blame him alone? Every religion has always promoted it.”
Most, to some degree or other.
About 28 years, when I used to sell books in an airport I gained the confidence of a women working there. She was educated, successfull and independent. She found interest in topics we had discussions on regarding reincarnation, karma, and bhakti. She was showing lots of interests till I presented the portion of Swami Bhaktivedanta’s teachings on women. That was the end of the preaching. She never came back to talk with me.
These teachings on women is one of the foundations of what Bhaktivedanta Swami presented as spiritual life style in bhakti. If it were a minor or passing comment, it would not have been an issue, but they were delivered again and again in writings, conversations and lectures? Why? Because he felt it was important, and therefore his disciples followed suit.
Their are many blogs and forums critizing fundamental religious teachings like the FLDS, Islam, and fundamental Christianity. They all get their share of receive critique.
Radhapada,
More to the point, even though there are indeed many blogs and forums exposing misogyny in other religions, in Gaudiya Vaishnavism it is only charged to Iskcon and Prabhupada. But the fact is that misogyny in Gaudiya Vaisnavism wasn’t and isn’t monopoly of Prabhupada and his Iskcon. I have seen that the tradition in its many babaji camps is even more misogynistic than Iskcon or the Gaudiya Math at large. Those who think they have it though in Iskcon/GM should go try promote equal treatment for women in Radhakunda or Navadvip. Better don’t expect much.
govindanandini,
Maybe there is worse discrimination in India or by some other Gaudiya groups.
In India discrimination towards women in the more traditional sectors has become culturally entrenched besides being seen as spiritual and sanctioned by God. Even though it can be shown to have originated during muslim rule. For example you don’t see any ancient vedic sculpture with women wearing modern saris, modern saris were created due to muslim influence. The idea that women need to be always totally covered so as not to disturb men and cause the downfall of society is a muslim idea. The first time you see modern saris is in paintings after the muslim conquests. In traditional vedic sculptures women are either wearing a type of dhoti or a type of lungi with only jewelry above the waist, or they have some small top band, or they wear no clothes at all – only jewelry. Sometimes there is something which kind of looks like a sari, wrapped around the legs like pants, but without the same modern style of top. But thats from northern Indian where there is a colder climate. The modern sari came into existence with the conquest of the Mughals and they became even more covering with the conquest of the British. Attitudes towards women changed due to the influence of the ruling sexist Muslims and sexist Christians and became seen as “traditional” and bona fide Hinduism over time. Not only did the Muslims and Christians impose their morality and culture on Indian society it is also well documented that they also interpolated vedic scripture in the hopes of converting Hindus to their religion.
“Traditional” (Islamic influenced) Hindu discrimination is not as culturally entrenched among most followers of Prabhupada and ISKCON since they either grew up in modern society or they come from wealthier or better educated or more modern Hindu backgrounds. It is easier for them to see the difference between what Prabhupada or Hindu/Islamic traditions teach as pure and sanctified teachings about women, versus the reality of women and spirituality and what is actually the true vedic tradition and teaching.
I am not saying that Prabhupada’s outrageous statements should be excused. I am saying that looking objectively into what may have led him speak as he did may be a more throughout method of dealing with this impasse.
You claim there was a time in India when women were free. But is this factual history or theory? Do the sculptures and other forms of art depicting women not covering the upper part of their bodies comprise evidence of this alleged history or is there other evidence. And if so, what evidence is that?
By the accounts of Srimad Bhagavatam and other sastras for example, women have always been strongly at the mercy of men in India. Vide the story of Krsna marrying the 16,108 kidnapped princesses. The main reason given in that story for Krsna having accepted all those brides at once was due to them have become contaminated by the kidnapping, a criminal act by the way, but one that did not prevent those women of being considered unfit to return to their families. This clearly does not depict a society where women are treated with proper justice, what to speak of enjoying larger freedoms.
govindanandini
I know you aren’t saying Prabhupada should be excused.
My point about dress is to show how women were viewed back then versus how they are viewed today. Today they are seen (By Prabhupada and many other Hindu teachers) as dangerous because of their attractiveness to men and therefore should be covered up as much as possible. Because women are seen as dangerous to spiritual life that leads to fear of women as the cause of the suffering of material life. Fear of women leads to hate and anger of women, which leads to discrimination and violence as acceptable.
The ancient art shows that women in Vedic culture before Islam were not covered up, therefore their attractiveness to men was not seen as a problem, they were not seen as dangerous to spiritual life.
That doesn’t mean that women were able to be totally equal with men in Vedic society like they can be today. But it was not about women being second class citizens to be denied freedom, or seen as dangerous to spiritual life and less intelligent. It was about practical reality in a society without modern technology. In modern society women can be equal because of modern technology. There are weapons women can use to protect themselves that don’t depend on physical size or strength. There is modern communication technology which women can use to protect themselves. There is modern police and government which protect women. There is a currency based economy and a modern economic system where women can easily compete with men to make money through modern education. In modern society women can easily be fully independent and totally equal with men. Take all these modern technologies away and women are at a disadvantage in society.
There are many reasons for that. First is the physical strength of men and the difficulty of the enforcement of law and order in a non-technological agrarian pre-industrial society. Then there is the lack of a modern economic system which is based on modern communication technology and modern educational systems, without these modern technologies women have a harder time making and keeping their own income when in competition with men – in a pre-industrial society physical strength is going to be a competitive edge.
In a pre-industrial society like Vedic India, women are not fully equal with men because of being the weaker sex. Women cannot compete well with men when it comes to making an income in a pre-industrial economy because physical strength is a big advantage when there are no machines. Women cannot defend themselves as well as men in a society without firearms or other modern weapons – therefore they need protection from men by men – physical protection against being robbed, raped, kidnapped, etc. The idea that women need to be protected from themselves because they are less intelligent and more materialistic then men, and that men need to be protected from the seductiveness of women which causes their material bondage, is not true Vedic teachings. If those teachings are found they are not the bona fide teachings of Krishna. They are later interpolations by interested parties seeking control, or seeking to have their actions condoned by scripture, or seeking to put others in a lower position sanctioned by sastra, etc.
The idea that women need to be protected from themselves because they are less intelligent and more materialistic then men, and that men need to be protected from the seductiveness of women which causes their material bondage, is not true Vedic teachings. If those teachings are found they are not the bona fide teachings of Krishna. They are later interpolations by interested parties seeking control, or seeking to have their actions condoned by scripture, or seeking to put others in a lower position sanctioned by sastra, etc.
I don’t have a problem in agreeing with you that Krsna’s teachings must be sensible and reasonable, otherwise they are not Krsna’s. But I am sure you must provide evidence if you are going to make the case that there were interpolations in Krsna’s teachings and that “interested parties seeking control” have tampered with the original teaching. All I am asking is, is it fact or theory? And if fact, where is the evidence. Where are the texts, the researchers and their work? Dates and other evidence. Is there any source you can refer to for this?
Nandini it is easy to see interpolation and the reasons for it. It is commonly accepted not only by non religious scholars that vedic scriptures are full of interpolations, but also by religious teachers. For example the Bhavishya Purana is considered to be full of interpolation by one and all. See
http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/jesus-in-vedas.html
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Hindus-946/Said-prophecies-Islam-Hindu.htm
See chapters 31-41 at http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/site_map.htm
The Vishva Hindu Parishad, or VHP, one of the leading Hindu organizations in India also claims there is extensive interpolation, see
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=139&page=33
Also look at the Ramayana, there are hundreds of versions, each with different stories, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versions_of_Ramayana
It is easy to see how Vedic scriptures could be interpolated extensively in a religious tradition without a central church or central tradition. When the muslims invaded they had as one of their goals conversion of the Hindus to Islam. They were not shy about using whatever was at their disposal to attain that goal. Creating scriptures which were against traditional Hindu beliefs would cause confusion and a lack of faith and make conversion easier. It was easy for them to force Brahmins to interpolate scriptures to add anything they wanted and then have those scriptures copied profusely and distributed. The British did the same things with the same goal.
The situation of the widowed women in Vrindavan is deplorable. It is cruel that after a mother gives birth to a child, nutures them, see to their education and marriage, that eventually they are dumped to fend for themselves in the form of begging and so forth. This is not the spirit of Caitanya Vaisnavism. Mahaprabhu advised Raghunath Bhatta to care for his aging parents and after their death he had approval to join the other Goswamis in Vrndavan. Mahaprabhu’s mother was cared for by a servant and the devotees in general after he took sannyas. I know a babaji in Radha Kunda whose mother lives there and she is not amongst the disgarded widows.
Many Bengalis come from very poor backgrounds which may attribute to this social disfuction. What can we do? Are these widows there because there is really no one to care for them, no family, can’t afford decent old age homes? Do they take to Vaisnavism or the garb of it because there is an existing system where they can live through begging that somehow makes it possible to survive? Careful examination of the social issues in play are needed in order to understand how and why this is happening.
The big question close to your home is this: where is the enlightened thinking of the founder of ISKCON and his followers who proposed a fate for women in the west similar to this? Think about it, no education for women, no jobs? How can you get a decent social security check after the age of 65 with this type of lifestyle that the founder has proposed for you. Look at your often pleads for help in Chakra of someone in need of money to help in medical emergencies and living. Isn’t that the same, or almost the same?
Someone mentioned that babajis foster this. From my personal experience although my Baba in Radha Kunda is very conservative in regards to bhajan and ascetic lifestyle he does not suggest to western women to give up eduction and work behind a kitchen. My wife has a nack with languages and easily picked up Sanskrit while we were there. She asked Baba for guidence since he himself is a scholar. He suggested she study Jiva Goswami’s Harinama Amrata Vyakarana and suggested a Vaisnava scholar in Vrndavan who could teach her Sanskrit very well. He told her how long it generally takes to learn well. He never discouraged her and relegated kitchen duites and sewing to her.
The muslims were SHOCKED by sati when they came to India.
Also, the Prophet forbade killing of infant girls in his homeland, a practice that is still common in India – sex selective abortions.
Radhapada,
Home is where truth is.
We don’t know whether a babaji of the tradition would have done better than AC Bhaktivendanta, we will never know for sure. No babaji came, Prabhupada did, and history is what it is. Ananta Das Baba has expressed admiration at AC Bhaktivedanta for pioneering, btw.
The fact is that these ideas were not Bhaktivedanta Swami’s alone. They are ingrained in Indian thinking since a long time ago. Was a once golden India polluted gradually by Islam and Christianity, its sacred texts interpolated? Wasn’t Indians already prone to such thinking regardless of outside influences? Personally I doubt the accuracy of this before and after theory. Its too simplistic. I don’t believe in a Vedic formula that can solve everything, if only it can be restored to its former golden existence.
Govindanandini says,
“No babaji came, Prabhupada did, and history is what it is. ”
There is Baba Premananda Bharati (1868-1914), a Bengali Vaishnava teacher who came to the United States in 1902, founded the Krishna Samaj in New York City, published a well-received devotional book “Sree Krishna, the Lord of Love,” (translation available on Amazon.com) and established the first Sri Krishna temple in the United States at Los Angeles in 1907.
Many people have never heard of him. Do people associate his name and mission to a mindless cult? None whatsoever.
Govindanandini says,
“I don’t believe in a Vedic formula that can solve everything, if only it can be restored to its former golden existence.”
I do not believe so either. Modern times are here to stay. It’s former golden existence exists in books. The Bhagavata and other Indic literature extol devotion, the virtues and piety of a vedic culture. However, people are people whether they lived thousands of years ago or today, meaning greed, violence, lust, ignorance, tyrany and exploitation are ever present. That is what the material world is. In Indic civilations there were many forms of worship and deities as it still exists today in India. Not all people were devouts of Vishnu. The Rig Veda glorifies Indra, not Vishnu. If people were so enlightened on the ultimate goal of life in vedic civilizaton, why does the Rig Veda, the first veda, not describe bhakti to Krishna?
Ancient history compared to today is very frighening. Societies centered on one main religion is no answer, it breeds intolerance. Despite the evils of Roman civilization, many of the Roman emperial administrations were very tolerant of various cults and religions. It was only when it caused insurrections that they were clamped down or crushed. The Jewish revolts of the second century and its subsequent destructions by the Romans were caused by militia insurrections in Judea, interesting enough by a leader whose followers claimed to be a Jewish messiah. Otherwise, Roman civilation overall was quite multicultural for their time.
Islam on the other hand would conquer a people, and gave the conquered people choices: accept Islam, if not get killed, or if Christian or Jew, were allowed to be, but would accept a lower status and pay taxes as a result of their lower status. The conquered people would lose their entire cultural lifestyle and everything would become Islamic culture. That’s what happened to the once Christian lands and cultures of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey.
To recap, secular governments are better than religious centered ones.
You can read the books of various babajis and see for yourself if they put misongynistic ideas in writing.
Like I said before, there are so many books out there that do not have such ideas, so if such ideas bother you when you read them in books, then read books that don’t contain them.
Sharanagati said,
“You can read the books of various babajis and see for yourself if they put misongynistic ideas in writing.”
All the ones I have read praise Sri Radha’s glories and the manjari’s love for Radha and her service.
Well Radhapada I should have said, “no babaji came and started a campaign of the magnitude of that of Bhaktivedanta Swami“, but I thought it wasn’t necessary to spell it out thus. My point is that, prior to Bhaktivedanta Swami, no one had aimed as high and broadly. Or if aimed so, did not succeed. The point is that, regardless of who is at its command, a mission of such proportions in such a short time is very likely to get out of control, as in fact this one did.
Another point to reiterate here is that even if the books of all babaji authors may not contain objectionable ideas, in practice the tradition keeps misogynystic practices just as Iskcon or GM do. Actually even more so.
Success is in the eye of the beholder.
Would Swami Bhaktivedanta have had the same level of success without the assistance of George Harrison? What were the affects of George Harrison’s sponsership on ISKCON. Did George Harrison know about Indian religious philosophy first from Swami Bhaktivedanta, or was he exposed elsewhere?
He was exposed to it by Ravi Shankar and the Mahesh Yogi. His first wife Patty Boyd was very inclined to Indian mysticism. Alan Ginsberg brought the maha mantra from India and was a counter-culture hero in the beatnic and early hippie era. They all participated directly or indirectly in the brigde between east and west. There was an unpopular war and discontent in America. Swami Bhativedanta came in a time which was very conducive for peoples receptivity to Indian thought and teachings. Had he come some other time, would things be different without these external and environmental inputs? Could this be compared to the climate in America in 1902? Did they even have radio back then?
Success is in the eye of the beholder.
Or perhaps in the mind of the actor? I agree that it may be a relative concept, it depends where you chose to call success. So what are we talking about here after all: Bhaktivedanta Swami wasn’t successful because he aimed for too big a number, or babajis were successful because they did not aim for any number at all? Or both?
This feud is actually useless in my opinion. Big or small, babaji or GM, in practice both camps equally live by problematic ideas. But profess on the other hand a quite reasonable, attractive and as complete as can be found an ideal. A synthesis is in order, obviously.
“This feud is actually useless in my opinion.”
I see no feud. Just attempts at leveling the playing field.
Prabhupada did it his way. Had someone else done it, would it look different today? Of course! Everyone is unique and does things in their own unique way.
Imagine if instead of a male vaishnava sanyasi from a midde class and middle caste background, a FEMALE vaishnava of the lower castes would have been the first vaisnava to leave India and spread bhakti in a major way around the world?
Would it look different?
Logic tells us so.
I see no feud. Just attempts at leveling the playing field.
One would expect that attempts at leveling the playing field would imply action rather than rethoric point makings.
The point is, History has a way of being there on record and nothing that anyone can theorize about changes this fact.
That Prabhupada was the one individual who made the Hare Krsna faith widely known in the West, that is the fact. That misogyny, casteism and other questionable traits are there in the tradition since at least the time of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, that is also a fact.
What will we do about these facts, if we want to do anything at all, if we believe something needs to be done at all, those are the questions.
[...] ideas. These are comments I made a while ago on this blog. Read my comments starting from this one: Let’s talk about sex and on to ones following [...]
Comment #15 by Vrajabhumi is quite correct. Muslim invaders will take away beautiful women. Therefore, system of hiding body of women started to protect them.
In Western world, women can easily travel at night safely. It wouldn’t have been possible without cars. Since they are in car, they are safe. But if they are supposed to walk a mile or two at night, their safety can be in danger.
I agree with this comment – “Take all these modern technologies away and women are at a disadvantage in society.”
I have a request. I see mixed view expressed by Vrajabhumi. She has regard for Vedic culture and at the same time, disagrees with modern concepts of Vedic culture. My question is –
– How was Vedic culture?
– How it was different from what Swami Prabhupada presented?
Can you give detailed answers?
GM
Vedic culture can be read about in the Mahabharata or similar books, although you have to be careful, if something doesn’t sound right, if it goes against principles of justice and freedom, then interpolation is possible. What Prabhupada described as Vedic culture can be shown to be not factual. He had the idea that Vedic society was led by a Rajarshi who acted like a dictator, who controlled all aspects of society, enforcing Prabhupada’s theological and social vision on everyone by threat of violence or death (like slavery for black people). He often would use stories from the Bhagavatam or other sastra to prove that his vision of Vedic culture was authentic. But when looked at closely, you can see that usually the translations have been altered to support his vision i.e. either the translations don’t match the word for word synonyms, or the word for word synonyms from sanskrit into english are not accurate.
For Prabhupada, ISKCON is Vedic culture, but not as strict or controlling or racist or sexist as he would really like, he made “concessions” for the “fallen westerners”. Everyone has to follow his “4 regulative principles” or they are liable to be punished or ostracized. There would be no entertainment (music, theatre, etc) allowed if it wasn’t directly and explicitly bhakti related (like in officially sanctioned ISKCON temple society and culture). He taught that in Vedic culture women are fully covered by saris with their head covered, and that “high class” women usually lived in harem type environments their whole lives where they wouldn’t be seen by anyone outside of their family. In actual Vedic society saris didn’t exist (there is no depiction of modern saris in Indian art or culture until long after the muslim conquests) and women were usually scantily clad at best, unless it was cold. The gopis are the highest class women yet what was their life like?
Prabhupada was trying to create a dedicated missionary force who were 100% sold out to expanding his mission. So he mischaracterized whatever would aid in that agenda as “Vedic culture” e.g. women are kept covered and in the background, family life is taught as a dark well one falls into, children are treated like soldiers in the army during war time, all activities not directly serving the expansion of ISKCON are sinful and will cause you to “fall into maya”, etc. etc. etc. The idea was to keep everyone afraid of doing anything but serving Prabhupada’s agenda of expanding ISKCON with 100% of their time and energy.
Prabhupada considered Indian or Hindu culture to be totally bogus if it in any way deviated from his teaching and ISKCON culture (unless it was more racist or sexist).
This is from Bhaktivinoda Thakura:
I agree with you. Very nice explanation.
I also came to similar conclusion.
Padma Puran states –
Smartavyah satatam visnur
Vismartavyo na jatucit
Sarve vidhi nisedhah syur
Etayor eva kinkarah
Vishnu should always be remembered and never forgotten at any moment. All the rules (actions to be performed) and prohibitions (actions not to be performed) should be the servants of these two principles. (Padma Purana)
I rejected teachings of Prabhupada which decreased my remembrance of Krishna. What I found was that Iskcon devotees lectures & preachings mainly contains topics which are not good for my bhakti.
Position of women, moon controversy, guru controversy, SP as infallible, more focus on worshiping jivas than Krishna, forcing Prabhupada mistranslations and wrong statements as truth, insistence on 16 rounds and 4 regs, criticisms of other philosophies etc were not conducive for my bhakti. So, I rejected those principles and focused on what is good for my bhakti.
Devotee is very humble. He does not want any honor and worship. He respects others. If we accept Vedic books, then Hanuman, Vyas etc are still on earth planet.
SB 12.2.37-38: Devāpi, the brother of Mahārāja Śāntanu, and Maru, the descendant of Ikṣvāku, both possess great mystic strength and are living even now in the village of Kalāpa. At the end of the age of Kali, these two kings will return to human society and reestablish the eternal religion of man, characterized by the divisions of varṇa and āśrama, just as it was before.
Devapa and Maru who will be kings in the future are still there. Why they don’t come and preach Bhagavatam? They don’t do it because Bhagavat dharma is not missionary dharma. It is more personal.
Prabhupada did not act as pure devotee. He accepted worship, honor and fame which are against the principles of bhakti. He may be internally pure and his actions are not example of great devotee. He was successful in conversion of Western people to his principles. But Christians are even more successful than him. Even in India, Christianity is growing at a very high pace than membership of Iskcon.
Ability to convert others or other external features are not measure of our devotion. Our internal consciousness is measure of our devotion. This basic concept is very clearly explained in Gita which focuses more on internal consciousness of surrender and equanimity instead of external actions of killing.
FYI: I have been reading Swami Ramsukh Das. According to him, papa-yoni does not refer to women and vaisya. Your understanding of papa-yoni not referring to women is correct.
Swami Ramsukh das never made any disciple. He did not allow any to worship his body. No one could take any photo of him. No one could even touch his feet. He did not take single penny from any person. He did not form any organization. I see these as representative qualities of exalted devotee in sannyas ashrama.
He said that we should accept good teaching from everyone. He wrote a book “can one get mukhi without guru”. In this books, he emphasizes that in Kali-yuga, we should accept Krishna as guru and He will guide us from within. We should associate with devotees and accept good instructions and ignore bad. He clearly said that in Kali-yuga, no person is perfect. He never claimed himself as perfect. He requested audience to hear his viewpoints with humility and respect. Therefore, he never made any disciple. He was also against organized religion.
He also made comments about women etc which don’t seem appropriate. But as he said himself, I do not find anything wrong in rejecting those comments with which internal guru or consciousness doesn’t agree.
Similarly, I don’t agree with statements made by Gosvami Tulsi Das (author of Ram Charit Manas) about caste system and women. But again in the beginning Tulsi Das states that he and his book have infinite faults. He says that he is very fallen. But his book has the name and lila of Ram. Intelligent people will nectar of Ram naam and Ram’s pastimes from Ram Charit Manas and they will ignore the faults. So in spirit of author, I enjoy pastimes of Ram and ignore statements about caste system and women. They might have been even added by other people and Tulsi das might not have even written them.
My disagreement with Tulsi Das and Ramsukh Das does not diminish my bhakti and it is not anyway negative towards them. It even makes it sweeter. When I came in touch with Iskcon, I will feel very uncomfortable when foolish Iskcon devotee will keep on criticizing Tulsi Das etc. But later on, I thought that Tulsi Das has criticized himself even more than what this foolish devotee is criticizing. So, if Tulsi Das was here, he would have agreed with him. Who am I to disagree? Tulsi das wants me to become devotee of Ram. Currently, this devotee may help me. So, I continued associating with that preacher even though he was offensive to the person who gave me seed of bhakti.
Imagine this with Praphupada follower. Will he/she hear lectures and associate with a person who is critical of Prabhupada? Never. Most probably, he will start fighting and create more chaos. Why? They don’t know the basics of bhakti.
[...] 15, 2008 by Vrajabhumi On the Missionary Men post GM has written an interesting comment, this is my [...]
“The gopis are the highest class women yet what was their life like? ”
Highest class as in “first class”? LOL.
What exactly do you mean by “class” here?
I don’t know if they had a “class” system in India back then, but the caste system existed and the gopis, being cowherds, being vaisyas, were not of the highest caste.
The lives are cowherds are still quite rustic. I imagine back then it would have been somewhat rustic as well.
Chand
I meant in terms of Gaudiya theology i.e. they are held in the highest esteem. Obviously I don’t mean class in the context of the current Hindu caste system. In the authentic vaisnava dharma based culture a person is not supposed to be judged as high class or low class based upon that person’s occupation, nor by birth. Vaisnava culture is supposed to be a classless culture where everyone is respected as equal in the eyes of God. In Gaudiya theology the gopis are a manifestation of women’s roles in the perfect society i.e. the topmost Vaikuntha society. My point was that if ISKCON devotees walked into Vraja without knowing where they were, the gopis would be seen as low class and prostitutes, that is “Vedic truth” according to ISKCON dogma about women’s roles in society. They judge women not according to actual Vedic standards, they judge women according to muslim influenced bogus standards.
I think it is so great that women are finally free of Prabhupada’s bigotry so they can watch these incredible stuff from you tube you post here Vrajabhumi. Its really worth it.
Jambavan
In your attempt at sarcasm you reveal the truth you don’t think you are revealing. You think that your attempt at sarcasm will show that since I post videos meant for entertainment – that my critique of Prabhupada and ISKCON leads to the neglecting of the all important non-stop meditation on “Krishna-Katha” for the essentially evil pursuit of “sense gratification” (Even though it is my experience that many, or really most devotees, especially ISKCON types, rarely talk about Radha-Krishna, and in fact pursue “sense gratification” regularly, but are quick to become hypocrites when it comes to judging others)
In reality what you say is literally true, the sarcastic intent is typical ISKCON propaganda. People should be free from the fear of enjoyment. Enjoying the music or comedy videos I have posted does not lead you to “maya” and it doesn’t anger God. In fact if you learned anything from Gaudiya Vaisnavism then you should be reminded of and see Radha-Krishna in those videos. Who do you think supplies inspiration and ability? A person actually educated – by the Bhagavatam or by a bona fide guru – will know that everything is a manifestation of Radha-Krishna’s design, control, and purpose.
Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13.24
manasa vacasa drstya
grhyate ‘nyair apindriyaih
aham eva na matto ‘nyad
iti budhyadhvam anjasa
SYNONYMS
manasa — by the mind; vacasa — by speech; drstya — by sight; grhyate — is perceived and thus accepted; anyaih — by others; api — even; indriyaih — senses; aham — I; eva — indeed; na — not; mattah — besides Me; anyat — anything else; iti — thus; budhyadhvam — you should all understand; anjasa — by straightforward analysis of the facts.
TRANSLATION
Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.28.6-7
ātmaiva tad idam viśvam
srijyate srijati prabhuh
trāyate trāti viśvātmā
hriyate haratīśvarah
tasmān na hy ātmano ‘nyasmād
anyo bhāvo nirūpitah
nirūpite ‘yam tri-vidhā
nirmūla bhātir ātmani
idam guna-mayam viddhi
tri-vidham māyayā kritam
SYNONYMS
ātmā — the Supreme Soul; eva — alone; tat idam — this; viśvam — universe; srijyate — is created; srijati — and creates; prabhuh — the Supreme Lord; trāyate — is protected; trāti — protects; viśva-ātmā — the Soul of all that be; hriyate — is withdrawn; harati — withdraws; īśvarah — the supreme controller; tasmāt — than Him; na — no; hi — indeed; ātmanah — than the Soul; anyasmāt — who is distinct; anyah — other; bhāvah — entity; nirūpitah — is ascertained; nirūpite — thus established; ayam — this; tri-vidhā — threefold; nirmūlā — without basis; bhātih — appearance; ātmani — within the Supersoul; idam — this; guna-mayam — consisting of the modes of nature; viddhi — you should know; tri-vidham — threefold; māyayā — by the illusory energy; kritam — created.
TRANSLATION
The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else. The appearance of the threefold material nature, which is perceived within Him, has no actual basis. Rather, you should understand that this material nature, composed of the three modes, is simply the product of His illusory potency.
Jambavan, “these incredible stuff” is grammatically incorrect. At least get your English right if you’re going to chastise and insult the author of the blog.