William G BenedictI would like to comment but I’m driving the car and it’s dark and I’m tired so I’ll try to come in at a later point. However I think the words of His Divine Grace are quite clear.The Vedic instruction is quite clear I don’t think anyone should argue about that.
Sadly in the age we are in hardly anyone is familiar with the purpose and goals of human life; or how to achieve them; and everything is just the interaction of the senses with the objects, basically the attraction of male and female.
REAL education is required from youth hood, and the girls need training too as Srila Prabhupada has recommended.
Jayamadhava DasI was with Srila Prabhupada and devotees,(July- 1975 Phila airport),He made quite BLUNT -CLEAR-”-Woman-ALL woman (even in Iskcon) Need Protection and are Not to be Independent- ” -I heard him personally,,,Prabhhupada told us the TRUTH= Vedic TRUTHs-,,,Howver uncomfortable to some peoples mundene Conceptions Hippe seeds in Iskcon and are still exist in us……Prabhupada warned us this fact,HIS FINAL REQUEST was ” DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.”….Sounds Clear to me.. Some people REFUSE to Accept it,,,,Thats Maya…..Illusion….Not being Humble and being able to surrender and accept Srila Prabhupada’s instructions.. This is All- Being Done in Prabhupads Physical Abssence-,,Thats a Fact-They would have NEVER Dared have Pulled this woman feminist Vasinavi -agenda Woman leader/guru TRIP — on Srila Prabhupada when he was on the Planet,,Because,They know he would reject it..,So,,,Thats Dishonest to do this feminist iskcon agenda – behind his back,,Back Stabbing Prabhupada- and His words when he is NOT HERE Personally to Defend them. The old hippes seeds grew back with some Senior Leaders in Iskcon- and some are women.
Sankirtana Devi DasiThank you Jayamadhava Das. You’ve made my point! Prabhupada said woman should be PROTECTED! Then they wouldn’t need to go rogue, and take it upon themselves to survive. I have seen and personally experienced it on every level within our society. Mentalities and actions need to change with both sexes.
William G BenedictBasu Ghosh Das Prabhu, I can drive and SPEAK into the microphone which records my words, obviously imperfectly. Thank you for letting me know about this “typo” which is now corrected….
Sankirtana Devi DasiWilliam G Benedict
I remember my husband asking once, after 20 years of psychologically abusing me (and our children), “Whatever happened to that sweet, shy, submissive girl I married?”…. to which I promptly replied, “You killed her….”Women may not think they want to be protected, having had bad experiences of abuse disguised as protection. This age of Kali has contaminated all of us. Women do want to be protected! It just must be real, loving, thoughtful protection. It does not mean lording over a woman and treating her as a cow or housekeeper.
I believe it begins with a loving father-daughter relationship. If we as a society, put importance on protecting our children, both sons and daughters, we will build a society of strong men and chaste women.
Nrsingha HgTpThe Vedic shastra explain that all of us in Kali yoga,women Vaisya and sudra are less intelligent.
This is why men cannot protect and fulfill the needs of women.
Actually, Sankirtan is correct, it is never really the fault of the women. They are innocent creatures.
As men, we are not qualified. In times of ore, chivalrous Noblemen crated a chivalrous society when females were respected and protected like Queens.
Now we have no Nobility or Aryans left.
So men no longer bring out the best in feminine nature, because we are so low-cost,in comparison to Aryan civilisation.
Krishna Kirti DasVedic shastras do in fact say that men must protect women. Manu 9.6 says imam hi sarva varnanam pashyanto dharmam uttamam, yatante rakshitum bharya bhataro durbala api, “Thus it is seen that the highest duty of all the varnas is the protection of ones wife, such that even weak husbands must strive to protect them.” The reason for this injunction is given in verse 9.2 (Manu), in which he declares that women should not be independent, na striyam svatantryam arhati, a verse that Srila Prabhupada himself often quoted when explaining women’s duties.To say that men in kaliyuga cannor protect women because the men are unqualified is rejected because Manu says that even weak husbands must strive to protect their wives (bhataro durbala api) – even weak husbands.
Because this is coming from shastra, we must accept it. For example, although shastra says stool is impure, it also says the stool of a cow is pure, and we must accept that it is. Similarly, although the shastras say that in kali yuga the intelligence of people is diminished, the shastras nonetheless say even weak husbands must strive to protect their wives. We have to accept it in the same way.
Also, our acharya has accepted this. Not only does he quote Manu (na striyam svatantryam arhati), in innumerable instructions to his male disciples to protect their wives and dependents. To conclude that men cannot protect women is to ignore the extensive instructions from not only shastra but Srila Prabhupada.
Nrsingha HgTpI agree with you, Krishna kirti, prabhu. That’s the point because men are weak their quality of protection is weak. Therefore they cannot inspire the submission side of refined feminine nature. Like that.
Krishna Kirti DasThe problen is you don’t know what you are talking about. I had a look at your picture on your FB profile, and you appear to be a very young man. You have very litrle knowledge of either the world or our parampara siddhantas.You should get some more experience and educatiion before trying to talk about these things. Right now you are saying atupid things.
Sankirtana Devi DasiKrishna Kirti Das I am shocked at your disrespect of a vaisnava expressing an opinion. It appears as though simply because he is saying something different than you. He simply stated that in Kali Yuga men are less able to offer proper protection to wom…See more
Krishna Kirti DasDear Mother Sankirtana, I have been in ISKCON for thirty years, since 1986, and have been married for the past 23 years to the same woman, my first and only marriage. I have done my due dilligence as a husband and know a thing or two about protecting women, both in terms of practical experience and in terms of our shastras. There is in Vaishnava society such a thing as seniority, and observing that is part of Vaisnava etiquette. There are devotees on this thread who are much senior to me; you may be one of them,.Nevertheless, the young man I rebuked is considetably junior to me and clearly lacks experience in this matter. You will notice I did not rebuke him until it became clear that he was unable to offer a proper reply to my question, which I asked to ascertain his actual experience.
(A proper answer would have been something along the lines of the things we have to do every day to support a family, like cheerfully working every day in a job we hate just so our wives and children can sleep without worrying about having to sleep on the streets.)
Furthermore, our young friend does not quote shastra to back up what he is saying. Anyone can say, “The sastras say this,” “the Vedas say that” without actually quoting them. Children do that, they use words that sound intelligent but are nonsense. In the same way, I did not appreciate this boy’s vague non-references to Vedic literature, as if there is some Vedic injunction that I have to accept his word without question. That is not our process.
Our process is that an opinion is accepted if it also in line with the Lord’s opinion. Hence, svadhyaya-bhyasanam (see Gita 17.15), on which Srila Prabhupada remarks, ” The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back up what he is saying.” And to be fair, in this discussion I have done my own due dilligence in quoting shastra. I don’t expect even a boy to accept my word only because I say something.
So on two counts, I felt a rebuke was necessary. First, our young devotee was just speaking as if he were some independent authority, not quoting shastra. And second, I think it is just irresponsible to proffer the opinion that no man is qualified to protect women, even if it is Kali-yuga. If no one is qualified, then why bother? Just like Jatayu. He could not protect Sitadevi from being kidnapped by Ravana because he was old and inferior in strength and fighting skill to Ravana. Yet Jatayu nonetheless sacrificed his own life in trying to protect her. THAT is the qualification of a man who is fit to give shelter to women.
Unfortunately, too few women appreciate that qualification and instead equate “protection”with an unlimited supply of sense gratification. And they usually leave a good man because he does not give her the house and wealth and social status she thinks she deserves. I’ve seen many marriages in our society in which a materialistic wife and her Vaisnava tilak leave a good man. Hence, Vedic principles are for women, too. They are called stri-dharma, and women bear respinsiblity for their own dissatisfaction if they do not abide by them. Dharmena hina pashubhir samana. Without dharma, one is no better than an animal.
So, in summary, what occaisioned my rebuke of the young devotee is his loose talk, not quoting shastra and posing himself as someone with experience in a subject he has very little experience of. Rebukes can be well intentioned and beneficial, and I hope our young devotee takes it in the right spirit.
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special cas…
Nrsingha HgTpOften, ad hominem attacks are used subtly in order to influence the views of spectators. This is often termed poisoning the well where it occurs before an argument has been made, and is a form of psychological priming. One could point out bad things th…See more
Sankirtana Devi DasiKrishna Kirti Das, with all due respect, from where I stand, you are the “young devotee”, having only joined ISKCON in 1986. This makes you possibly devoid of certain important experiences in earlier ISKCON necessary to speak on this topic.
(I also s…See more
Krishna Kirti Das“The Vedic shastra explain that all of us in Kali yoga,women Vaisya and sudra are less intelligent.
This is why men cannot protect and fulfill the needs of women.”“As men, we are not qualified. ”
Mother Sankirtana Devi, why don’t you, or the comments’author, explain how these statements are not saying “there are no good men who are giving protection to women”?
by Jyotirmayi Devi Dasi Reposted November 29, 2002 [Originally posted on Chakra on January 22, 1998] Historical Report: From about 1965 up to 1974, when Srila Prabhupada had to get less and less involved in temple management because of translating work and the tremendous increase of disciples and te…
Krishna Kirti DasMother Sankirtana Devi Dasi said, “No one is attacking you, or saying there are no good men who are giving protection to women. It’s a broader statement. Think of it as though he said that in Kaliyuga people’s intelligence has diminished greatly. . . “.So what you are saying is that even if there are good men protecting their wives, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Like a black swan. The fact that black swans exist does not invalidate the statement “All swans are white.” In other words, the general case is that in Kali yuga, men cannot properly protect women, and that men who are capable and do so are the exceptions that prove the rule. Is that what you are saying?
Sankirtana Devi DasiKrishna Kirti Das
Just as not all women are feminists, not all men are misogynists.
In general, men in Kaliyuga are debilitated in their endeavor to give protection, just as we women are debilitated in our endeavors to properly submit to our protecto…See more
Krishna Kirti DasWell, Mother Sankirtana Devi Dasi, thank you for trying to nuance your statements.But you are still of the opinion that men who are competent to “protect” women are rare, like men with “two PhDs”, right? If you really believe that, however, you have …See more
Sankirtana Devi DasiKrishna Kirti Das, you have successfully beat me into frustrated silence. (No more casting of pearls…)
Your type of stubborn blindness is the greatest reason for the problem in the first place, but you’ll never admit to its existenc…See more
Nrsingha HgTpHatred of women occurs when we can no longer inspire them to follow Sri Dharma,their natural feminine instinct. As men we have to lead by chivalrous example.
Of course, chivalry is dead and all we are left with is our lower misogynistic nature. In gene…See more
Krishna Kirti DasNrsingha HgTp, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. You are too young, wet behind the ears. What women have you maintained in your short life? Girlfriend on date, maybe?Go do something useful like distribute SP’s books, and please do read them on occasion and try to learn something from them.
Nrsingha HgTpYou attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to …See more
Nrsingha HgTpThat envy manifests as hatred of female,also. We have to rise above this if we truly want to inspire them to imbibe Sri Dharma.
Otherwise, our ordinary efforts may be counter-productive. As can be seen.
Not part of the solution then one is part of the problem. Make sense? Krishna Kirti Das prabhu
Nrsingha HgTp“The blazing fire of material nature is supervised by Durgā. Often she is portrayed with weapons in her hands. She has ten hands, and each holds a different type of weapon. This indicates that she is ruling all ten directions of this universe. She wiel…See more
Krishna Kirti DasNrsingha HgTp, an ad homiem attack is known as a fallacy of irrelevance because the attribute attacked is irrelevant to the actual argument being put forward. In your case, however, the attribute being attacked is your inexperience with regard to the protection of women. Experience is relevant, as that comes under pratyaksa (direct perception), which is one of three pramanas followers of the Vedas accept as valid sources of evidence.For example, in introducing the shortcoming of the attonement process prescribed by the Vedas, Srila Prabhupada notes the ways in which one according to his own intelligence learns: “Experience is gathered by hearing and seeing. One who is less intelligent gathers experience by seeing, and one who is more intelligent gathers experience by hearing.” So we accept experience as a valid means of insight, especially in practical matters such as we are diacussing. How should women be protected? Experience counts; people who have more experience in this generally know more than people who do not.
So, your inexperience being singled out as a disqualification for your argument is not an ad hominem attack, since experience is in fact relevant.
In this regard, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and first asked you to describe specific characteristics in a man that might inspire a woman to take shelter of a man (according to your argument), but you could not describe even one. If you cannot do even that much, why should anyone believe that you have any kind of useful insight on the matter? Because experience is relevant, pointing out your inexperience is not an ad hominem attack.
Your inexperience with the conclusions of our disciplic succession has also been on display.
For example, you wrote:
“Hatred of women occurs when we can no longer inspire them to follow Sri Dharma,their natural feminine instinct. As men we have to lead by chivalrous example.
Of course, chivalry is dead and all we are left with is our lower misogynistic nature. In general.”
And then you ask, rhetorically, “Does that make sense?”
So, from the perspective of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, let’s unpack your little ditty on “Sri Dharma”.
First, a correction. By “Sri Dharma” you meant “Stri-Dharma”, prescribed duties for women. “Stri” means woman, so “stri-dharma” means prescribed duties for women. I am assuming “Sri Dharma” was a mispelling.
“Hatred of women occurs when we can no longer inspire them to follow Sri Dharma, their natural feminine instinct.”
While it is a fact that women’s prescribed duties are centered on their husbands (see SB 7.11.25-29), “hatred of women occurs” does not necessarily follow from a husband’s not being able to “inspire them [women] to follow Stri Dharma.”
Sva-dharma (one’s prescribed duties) are prescribed according to one’s sva-bhava (one’s nature) (see BG 18.47 synonyms and translation for these. So you are correct in inferring that stri-dharma has something to do with women’s “natural feminine instinct”, but in writing “Sri Dharma, their natural feminine instinct”, you have made the mistake of equating “stri-dharma” with “stri-bhava”. Dharma and instinct (nature), are not the same, for while one may indeed have a particular nature, one may nonetheless choose to follow some duties other than those prescribed for one’s own nature.
As per SB 7.15.12 (and also BG 18.47 on para-dharma), this is called adharma. That is, one may choose to follow irreligious principles rather than religious ones. One can choose to act irreligiously, against one’s nature, instead of religiosly.
What this means in practical terms is that even in spite of having a good husbsnd, a woman may not feel like being religious. It’s her choice. She can commit adultery, do drugs, injure or kill a good husband, or just divorce him regardless of how good he is.
But if that is not the case, and we believe that women ALWAYS act according to their prescribed duties, then we have accepted the principle of qualification by birth.
Now we have some direct experience as to why caste brahnanism has been so deeply entrenched for so long in India. It feels really, really good to believe yourself qualified merely on birthright. So when women (and quite a few men) say that women just act according to their nature and are therefore without fault in their dealings with their husbands they have made the same claim about women that caste brahmanas make about themsreves: we are qualified by birth.
The complement of this odious belief is that men are irredeemable woman-haters. As Nrsingha HgTp wrote,
“As men we have to lead by chivalrous example. Of course, chivalry is dead and all we are left with is our lower misogynistic nature.”
And on a final note, it is worth observing that Srila Prabhupada did not buy into the “man = misogynist” idea: “Sannyasid should never associate with women, but that does not mean that one who is in the lower stages of life, a young man, should not accept a wife in the marriage ceremony” (BG 18.5 purport). Srila Prabhupada did not buy into the belief that men in general are misogynists.
So, Prabhu Ji. You are a young man who has come to Krishna. But because you are young you are also inexperienced, both in terms of the ways of the world and in terms of the shastras. This is not a crime or something to be ashamed of. But you shouldn’t pretend to be more experienced than you are. It’s not an ad hominem attack to point this out because experience is indeed relevant to your argument, either by pratysksha or sabda.
Good luck to you in your career in Krishna consciousness. ys kkd
Krishna Kirti DasYour youth and inexperience is offered only as an explanation for your foolish statements. (It’s an abductive argument.) For example, what shastra says “chivalry is dead” and “all we are left with is our lower misogynistic nature”? Well, where are you getting them from? What is your pramana?
Krishna Kirti DasOne last thing I want to address before moving on is this statement from Mother Sankirtana Devi Dasi“Most of the men I’m talking about are not the husbands. The main culprits are temple presidents, GBC and gurus. I can provide many examples.”
This shows why experience, though an accpted pramana, is not enough by itself to convey correct knowledge. Even if you see something correctly, tou might still come to wrong coclusions about it.
Nrsingha HgTpIn your mind my statements are foolish. Because of your own cognitive bias and arrogance any statement that does not agree with your dogmatic conclusions must therefore be deemed foolish. 😃 You are like the Pharisee who upheld the letter of the law only. They were always right,blinded by their own sense of triumphalism.😉 People like that can never give credit where credit is due. They are like the guy who makes the scissors sign even when he is drowning. 😂
Krishna Kirti DasYour statements are conidered foolish because they are not supported by our shastras or acharyas. Yes, it is possible to follow the letter of the word but not the spirit, but our standard is that the spirit of the words must also be supported by the letter. The spirit is not indepemdent of the letter.That’s our standard.In our sampradaya, our statements are expected to conform to the words of sadhu, shastra, and guru. sadhu shastra guru vakya cittete kariya aikya, as per Narittama das Thakura. That is what SP taught us.
Unfiotunately, your words don’t conform to any of the words of these sources.
At the afternoon class here at the Delhi temple, we read from Gita 18.5, purport: “Vivaha yajna, the marriage ceremony, is meant to regulate the human mind to become peaceful for spiritual advancement. For most men, this vivaha-yajna should be encouraged even by most persons in the renounced order.” But here you are saying men in general hate women. Obviously, SP doesn’t agree that men are generally misogynists. Otherwise, why encourage most men to marry? Nothing Srila Prabhupada says supports your gospel.
Moreover, when asked to support your remarks with shastra (“chivalry is dead” and “all we are left wirh is our lower miaogynistic nature”), you just can’t do it. That’s why what you say is unacceptable.
If you want to continue saying such things, at least don’t also call yourself a follower of Srila Prabhupada. Otherwise that would be cheating.
Basu Ghosh DasVery well presented, Krishna Kirti Das Prabhu! It’s amazing — and very, very sad, that so-called devotees don’t understand the basic premise that ISKCON is supported by!Srila Prabhupada wrote in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 7.11.7:
“The purport is that to become a devotee one must follow the principles laid down in śruti and smṛti. One must follow the codes of the Purāṇas and the pāñcarātrikī-vidhi. One cannot be a pure devotee without following the śruti and smṛti, and the śruti and smṛti without devotional service cannot lead one to the perfection of life.”
Foolish Nrsingha HgTp! He wants to be politically correct according to modern “liberal” social values. Instead of adhering to what Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, and vedic shastra teach! He should do some serious introspection, and have a rethink about the validity of the liberal narrative, i.e. feminism, egalitarianism, etc.
William G BenedictFeminism is demonic. This is clear from the Vedic injunctions and from the written and verbal guidance of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.Yes it is very difficult to fight this as it is difficult to fight so much of the so-called liberal progressive agenda. It’s the time for Kali Maharaja and he is twisting the minds of all who are not taking shelter of the Hari Namam.
This is a non-gaudiya math, non-ritvik, pro-bookedits, pro-JAS, anti-feminism, anti-egalitarianism website for Iskcon members under the GBC(in principle). All anti-iskcon persons remove your demoniac presence from my site! Haribol! TY!