->

Vrindavana Dear Vaisnavas (Journal Subscribers),

October 6th, 2003

Vrindavana

Dear Vaisnavas (Journal Subscribers),

Hare Krishna! All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

In three days I will be headed to Govardhana to spend the month of Karttika. It is especially recommended to perform Karttika-vrata in Vrindavana:

“In the Padma Purana it is said, “The Lord may easily offer liberation or material happiness to a devotee, but after some devotional service has been executed, particularly in Mathura during the month of Karttika, the devotees want only to attain pure devotional service unto the Lord.” The purport is that the Lord does not award devotional service to ordinary persons who are not serious about it. But even such unserious persons who execute devotional service according to the regulative principles during the month of Karttika, and within the jurisdiction of Mathura in India, are very easily awarded the Lord’s personal service. (NOD 103)

Although there is special potency to executing devotional service in Vrindaban, the potency of devotional service cannot be limited by time or space. In fact, the most potent Karttika I ever observed was in America at Gita Nagari in 1995.

I am thus writing this to encourage you to increase your devotional service in Karttika in some practical way and to reap the benefit of Srimati Radharani’s special month. As Mother Yasoda was able to bind Krishna in this month with the ropes of her affection, a devotee who honors Srimat Radharani in her special month by increasing their devotional service certainly attracts Sri Radha’s mercy.

It is especially pleasing to the Lord to sing the Damodarastakam prayers and to offer a lamp to Sri Sri Radha Damodar in whatever manifestation the Lord appears in your home.

My journals have increasingly taken the form of essays. For Karttika, however, I will again keep a regular daily journal. I have arranged that it be sent regularly and promptly during Karttika. In my journal I will share my meditations and experiences and hopefully invoke remembrances of Vrindaban to enhance your own Karttika observance.

In the service of the Vasinavas,

Dhanurdhara Swami

Below is a correspondence that I would like to share with you on my last journal entry “Be faithful”.

You said in your 8/23 journal entry, “Is what I said clear? No? Then get a clear understanding. I’m eager to hear from you.” Therefore, I am saying that I’m still not clear on the difference between submissive hearing and blind acceptance. In my view, just because someone has enough faith in guru to enable him to try to get a clear understanding of the guru’s instruction, this does not preclude blind acceptance since the disciple can blindly accept an instruction that he has properly understood from guru.

A non-submissive hearer will say, “Based on my very limited experience, I will accept this instruction as true or reject that instruction as false.” A submissive or faithful hearer will instead say, “Based on the fact that a particular instruction is coming from a bona-fide guru, I will accept it as true regardless of whether I presently have realization of that truth, and I will try to get a clear understanding of the truth that is being spoken by guru.” This is my understanding of the difference between a submissive and non-submissive hearer. My problem is that my perception of a submissive hearer does not prevent him from the pitfall of blind acceptance because it seems to me that to the extent that a person accepts but does not have realization of a truth is the extent to which he blindly accepts that truth. Please untie this knot for me.

It is not so clear what your point is here. In answer to what I think is your question, a submissive hearer accepts with faith, but that is not blind following. Blind following is when you accept something without trying to understand it clearly, even to the extent of not questioning that which appears outrageous or immoral. So blind following is accepting something without trying to understand it, while the submissive hearer respectfully questions what he doesn’t understand

Faith is always required in learning and to be submissive in that way is a far cry from blind faith. In the Chandogya Upanishads (7.19.1) it says:

“When a person develops sraddha (faith), he can think about a subject and understand it, wheareas one cannot do so without sradhha. Indeed only a person with sraddha can reflect on anything.”

I hope this answers your question.

Wishing you well,

Dhanurdhara Swami

  • Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Vrindavana Dear Vaisnavas (Journal Subscribers),

Does ISKCON Have A Moral Theology?

September 25th, 2003

September 25, 2003
Vṛndāvana

 

When my friend Reverend William Muldin, a Catholic priest, humbly commented, “I have been reading Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, but I don’t find a moral theology,” he struck upon something I was pondering. I probed further.

“Certainly, in Śrīla Prabupada’s books there is a very clear conception of right and wrong,” I replied.

“That’s true,” he said, “but I don’t see the science of how conscience is formed, the tools by which the reader can make moral decisions.”

We discussed the matter for some time. He also kindly sent me an interesting book called Reason Informed by Faith: Foundations of Catholic Morality.

Don’t worry, I am not going to become a Catholic. But Bill has a point, and it doesn’t minimize Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books. The Bhāgavatam deals with transcendence. It secondarily describes a highly defined culture, varṇāśrama, which outlines the elaborate laws and duties that purify one in support of devotional service. The setting in which a Vaiṣṇava finds himself today, however, is quite different. The question that Bill was alluding to arises from this point: Does the Bhāgavatam overtly give us the tools to apply those codes of behavior to the ever-changing and often complex situations of today’s world?

For example, I essentially avoided contact with my parents for years based on the principles of sannyāsa-dharma and those injunctions against associating with non-devotees. There are precedents of slight concessions to the rule—Śaṅkarācārya returning home to perform his mother’s funeral rites or at least one occasion where Lord Caitanya visited Mother Śacī, for example—but these are exceptions. The rule for Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa is that such relations are discouraged, especially with non-devotees. As a result of my aloofness, my parents naturally suffered. Because they had no concept of sannyāsa-dharma, my coldness didn’t help them or their friends appreciate Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

Especially after my father died five years ago, I began to feel somewhat guilty about this. I resolved that I was being too insensitive and decided to visit my mother more regularly, but not without questioning my shift in conscience. Was I neglecting my duty or more deeply understanding it? Was I being sentimental or compassionate? Was I falling from transcendence or moving toward it? Was there a verse, direct instruction, or story in the Bhāgavatam to justify my decision?

I did make a decision, but looking back, I am not sure what guidelines I used. I also see how my dilemma supports Bill’s humble perception that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books do not outline a comprehensive moral theology, although it became clear to me later how the Bhāgavatam does offer the resolution to this and other tough moral decisions. I will discuss this later.

I think I recognize how my shift in determining conscience came about. It developed at around the same time that I was suffering the effects of my contribution to the pain of those who attended gurukula. I began to realize how their distress was at least in part caused by my rigidity to the adherence of rules to the exclusion of their effects; my strict application of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions to the overlook of their intention.

By seeing the effects of a morality exclusively adherent to law in my own life, and reflecting on the ill effects of this mode on the development of early ISKCON, I unconsciously, for better or worse, shifted the development of my conscience from one that was based exclusively on rules to one based on how my behavior affected me in terms of the type of person I was becoming. In other words, I made the decision to regularly visit my parents based on how it affected my character and influenced others, rather than its strict accordance with prescribed rules. The determination for how I basically led my life and made moral decisions, however, fundamentally remained the same: through faithful observance to the principles of śāstra.

Although my convictions concerning the basis of morality remained the same, the adjustment in my thinking came from the understanding that the development of conscience in today’s rapidly changing world needed just a little more finesse than a strict application of codes of law. I was still not certain exactly where the Bhāgavatam trained us to do this.

By the same token, I began to reflect on areas where my own views and the views of others in regard to the development of conscience may have needed refinement. One area was in the role of women in ISKCON. Was the stringent application of varṇāśrama in this regard correct? Did it help us and others develop the qualities of a Vaiṣṇava? Is it morally more important to consider a woman’s role in terms of how it matches the highest ideals of Vedic culture or how it affects the distribution of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s mercy to the modern world—or a careful juxtaposition of both? Where in Bhāgavatam can we find reference to make such fine adjustments properly without neglecting the principles or rendering them impractical?

I am not necessarily advocating feminism; there are differences and a social order needs to be cognizant of them. I did, however, question whether or not these principles needed to be applied with a clearer cognizance, considering the country and culture in which they are implemented, for us to make the best moral decision in this regard.

I think Indian-born parents living in America have had to face similar considerations in determining what their American-born children could and could not do, especially their daughters.

Cultured Indians have a very refined and admirable social culture based on principles of śāstra. They have every reason to want their children to follow those mores. Should they totally ignore, however, the society in which their children are living? I would think that, in making choices for their children, the more successful parents, while indoctrinating them with their own core values, could take into consideration that their children are living in a culture different from their ideals. I presume that, for many Indian parents, it was an unexpected and perhaps difficult shift in child-rearing to go from an absolute obedience in the norms of Indian culture to one of occasionally accommodating the effect of those customs on the emotional and social development of their children. It is unexpected, perhaps, because such moral dilemmas hardly arose in their own youth, where the values of their parents and the society in which they all lived were basically the same.

If we think sincerely about the matter, the circumstances in which we confront tough decisions concerning the application of Kṛṣṇa consciousness are quite pervasive. I have even witnessed advanced devotees, leaders in ISKCON, wrestle with the question of whether their strict attendance at Śrīla Prabhupāda’s morning program best served their Kṛṣṇa consciousness. On what basis, for example, could they alter their participation for their own individual needs without violating Prabhupāda’s instructions and their responsibilities as leaders?

Now back to Bill’s question. The Bhāgavatam is based on nitya-dharma, the eternal duty of the living entity, love of God. It is thus more concerned with transcendence and less concerned with provisional religious duties (varṇāśrama) based on temporary designations. One obvious reason here for the Bhāgavatam’s lack of concern, besides its lofty focus, was that the text was spoken in a culture already sustaining and stressing those duties. It does at times, however, allude to the importance of secondary duties in relation to supporting devotional service, for it is important in spiritual life to make sound decisions in all matters.

Whether it concerns these duties directly or indirectly related to devotional service, there are often subtleties in their application based on the circumstances under which they are to be executed. Because the multiplicity of those circumstances is so vast, especially in today’s ever-changing world, no scripture can possibly directly address every situation with an exact statement or parable. Therefore, more than ever, people require a mechanism for making sound decisions based on śāstra.

From Bill, I understood that the main mechanism for doing this in the Catholic Church was the system of confession, where the priest aims to help the parishioner understand the nature and extent of his sin. Priests are trained for this work in seminaries, which before Vatican II, consisted almost exclusively of studying Catholic law. I also understood that one of the purposes of Vatican II was to address the increasing shortcomings of this almost exclusively rule-based system by shifting the focus and worldview of Christian moral development. The focus began to shift from observance of Christian law to the effect of one’s actions on character and Christian faith— the worldview to one accommodating the interpretation of morals within their context and audience. Within this shift of focus and outlook, however, the core values and laws of the Church for the most part were to remain intact.

I know very little about Vatican II, so I am not qualified to comment on the effect and efficacy of their endeavor, and I am certainly not recommending such a council for ISKCON. I am only commenting that the Catholic Church saw a necessity for a shift in the application of their core principles to keep Christ’s teachings relevant for their congregation. I am also discussing the Catholic Church here in order to clarify what Bill meant by “moral theology.”

One of the six principles unfavorable for devotional service is niyamāgraha, which means both neglecting the rules of devotional service and practicing them without serving their intent. The bhakti-śāstras thus certainly recognize the need to negotiate the laws of religion with their objectives when at variance. The Bhāgavatam recommends ācārya puruṣa veda—that the purport of śāstra is revealed by realized teachers.

Ācārya literally means “one who selects.” The realized teacher extracts and emphasizes principles of śāstra according to time, place, and circumstance. Śrīla Prabhupāda allowed women in the West to join his āśramas to be trained, which was unprecedented in our tradition. I assume he made this bold move because he understood that not doing so, under the circumstances, would belie compassion—one of the main principles of Vaiṣṇavism. What was religiously wrong in one circumstance, the traditional culture of the East, was thus religiously correct in another circumstance, the unfortunate culture of the West. It was the ācārya who negotiated such refinements.

The moral theology of the Bhāgavatam is carried within the system of spiritual authority recommended therein, where not only ācāryas, but realized brāhmaṇas and mature elders, advise the society on the nuances of śāstra so that, when necessary, things may be adjusted for practicality without contradicting its principles.

Thus in answer to Bill’s sincere inquiry, there is a comprehensive moral theology in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books, but its practical application in a young religious movement has one glaring impediment: It’s a young religious movement! In this regard, Ravīndra Svarūpa Prabhu gave a simple and brilliant description of the difficulty Śrīla Prabhupāda faced in establishing ISKCON as a functional and mature society: “Śrīla Prabhupāda was the only adult in ISKCON!”

His Holiness Jayādvaita Swami made a similar analysis years ago during a conference discussing the role of women in ISKCON. After days of witnessing the sincerity and validity of variant concerns, he offered an unusual, but discerning resolution. “ISKCON needs grandmothers,” he said. This is insightful. Until a society matures with the full range of generations, especially those learned and experienced in life, moral dilemmas will remain especially difficult to resolve, despite śāstra.

The want of established spiritual communities with mature guides has a conspicuous effect on our development as Vaiṣṇavas. Without deeply understanding our moral theology, we, too, often make bad decisions—either falsely adhering to principles beyond our realization, even when they contradict the principles of compassion and love, or thoughtlessly accepting certain aspects of modern life in the name of practicality and corrupting our families.

In the fervor of ISKCON’s early days, I sense we tended toward the former: a renunciation of things needed for an overall healthy development. Unfortunately, at the present, we seem to be leaning toward the latter. In some ways, the effect of the latter could be even worse. Without proper discernment, practical concessions often grow into lifestyles that bury our devotional life. Only a discerning person, learned in śāstra and experienced in years, can carefully balance the strict principles of spiritual life with their practical application in modern life and inspire others to do the same. We need such people in our lives and communities.

When Bill raised his question concerning moral theology it struck me how relevant this issue was to the development of ISKCON. As a result, I am currently reading the book he gave me to understand how their tradition dealt with such issues.

Meditating on the problem increased my appreciation for Śrīla Prabhupāda’s vision to create a brāhminical class of men. It also heightened my sadness, for in the necessity of establishing the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement quickly, this aspect of our mission was naturally somewhat neglected.

As ISKCON becomes more of a congregational movement and the lives of devotees become more complicated, it is even more crucial that we educate qualified brāhmaṇas and develop a culture to accept and support them. If we don’t have regular access to people of wisdom, whether they are brāhmaṇas or “grandmothers,” it will be difficult for us to negotiate the fine line between practicality and principles needed to keep us socially healthy and devotional.

The test to see if we are making sound judgments, despite a lack of guidance, is specifically whether or not we are becoming healthy individuals and moving forward in our spiritual life. One sure sign that we are is that our attraction for the holy name is increasing despite our situation. The sure sign that we’re not is that compromise made in the name of so-called realism gradually snowballs into materialism, and our taste for the holy name begins to wane.

In trying to become Kṛṣṇa conscious, and especially in trying to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness, I am more clearly realizing the Bhāgavatam’s prophecy that the age of Kali will be surcharged with an increasing opposition to spiritual life. I sense we are all experiencing this. Therefore, I think that—while it is essential that we culture our lives with sound decisions and have the proper guidance to do so—the most important decision to ponder is whether or not we are developing a culture of kīrtana, despite whatever situation we find ourselves in. In this regard, the Bhāgavatam ends with a penetrating insight and our ultimate theology:

“My dear King, although Kali-yuga is an ocean of faults, there is still one good quality about this age: Simply by chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, one can become free from material bondage and be promoted to the transcendental kingdom.” (Bhāg. 12.3.51)

(The aforementioned verse is from the third chapter of the Twelfth Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and reflects its conclusion. The final verse in the Bhāgavatam states: “I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme Lord, Hari, the congregational chanting of whose holy names (ma-saṅkīrtana) destroys all sinful reactions, and the offering of obeisances unto whom relieves all material suffering.”)

 

Be Faithful

August 23rd, 2003

Vrndavana

Note: Every year when my disciples celebrate my Vyasa Puja, I write a separate series of journal entries for them (one a day for a week) to be read on Vyasa Puja. I am including one of the entries for the subscribers of the journal. It is therefore dated last month when it was written.

– Dhanurdhara Swami

Be Faithful (Through Submissive Hearing)

To learn truth, one must submissively hear from a bona fide teacher. This is a tough one for the modern mind, even for devotees. Faith, however, is the precursor to all knowledge. Unless you seriously consider a truth, how will you ever understand it?

For example, if you enter a classroom to learn about the composition of water but do not have enough faith in your teacher to perform the experiment under his guidance, then how will you be able to confirm that H2O is water? At the gurukula in Vrndavana, there is a master teacher of mrdanga named Bablu. Serious students learn from him with unquestioned faith. They accept what he says implicitly and learn quickly. Could they possibly learn what he has mastered without unquestioned faith?

The same process of faithful hearing holds true for spiritual knowledge. Without implicit faith in a spiritual master, can we learn spiritual truth and become realized?

Our problem is that we are conditioned to filter whatever we hear though our intelligence, which is blindly faithful to the cumulative experience of our upbringing, education, emotions, fears, and so on. It?s a highly limited method of processing information and it will certainly not help us to see God in the world, the highest perception of reality.

We must therefore hear with faith from a bona fide guru, to be molded in mind and heart through his instructions. There is no other way to accurately process what we perceive as the highest reality. If we are habituated by pride, however, constantly judging the validity of those instructions through the filter of our conditioned intelligence, we are doomed to our present worldview. Are we happy with that vision? Is that a vision that is giving us success in life, freeing us from fear and suffering?

I can hear your filter of knowledge protesting my instructions: ?I will not be a blind follower!? Yes, if you heard me recommend blind following, then you should immediately question what I said, because a guru does not want blind followers. If you hear without proper understanding, then what is the benefit of your hearing? It is the responsibility of the guru to encourage thoughtfulness and to clear all doubts, but if in the name of thoughtfulness we block the ability of the teacher to help mold our intelligence by a higher process of understanding, then we are wasting our time in spiritual life.

Srila Prabhupada explains this brilliantly in Bhagavad-gita, 4.34, the verse about approaching a spiritual master. Please read this short excerpt carefully. There?s a lot here:

?In this verse both blind following and absurd inquiries are condemned. One should not only submissively hear from the spiritual master, but one must get a clear understanding from him, by submission and service.?

Prabhupada tells us to ?get a clear understanding,? but don?t become your own authority. Hear with faith and submission. Otherwise, you will never learn the truth.

I can this say with conviction, because I have accepted guru with faith. Yes, there are things that Srila Prabhupada said that I have difficulty understanding and won?t accept blindly. I wish he were here so that I could question him to get a clear understanding. But I won?t let a few details obstruct his teachings, my faith in them, or my desire to mold my heart and mind by them.

I discussed the concept of submissive hearing with Mahamuni in relation to his studies of the Anglican Church. He sent me something written by John Henry Newman, one of their great scholars, which profoundly expresses the same point. It went something like this. Please just try to grasp the essence of this statement without being sidetracked by the details:

?Even if the local priest says something wrong, it?s better to be molded by the tradition than to get stuck on the details and not see God. Afterward, we can discuss the details.?

Is what I said clear? No? Then get a clear understanding. I?m eager to hear from you.

The Big Black Snake Again: Entering the Dhama 2003

August 19th, 2003

Vrndavana

We live in a world that we falsely view as a productof our desires and fears. Because everyone sees theworld differently, we conflict with those who share
our world.

For example, before getting married, the husband and wife have exclusive control of their living space. But after marriage, they are thrust into a shared space.
The question then arises: How should that space look, especially when the husband and wife come from varied backgrounds with opposing tastes and wants? A fight frequently ensues for control until the stronger partner wins. Sometimes one of the partners comes to the conclusion that their mate no longer matches what they had envisioned them to be at the time of their fleeting romance. Frustrated, they might even try to transform their partner or seek a new one more agreeable to their conceit.

Entering the dhama means relinquishing such narcissism?the tendency to see the world as if it only exists for oneself?for Vrndavana is an eternal reality
moving exclusively for the pleasure of Sri Sri Radha and Krishna. To reside here is to implicitly make the claim, ?I will live in the dhama only for service!?

To test the integrity of our assertion, the Lord, through His internal potency, sometimes moves things in the dhama against our self-absorbed interest. We are forced to question ourselves: Do I want to stay in a place where I have no control, a place that exists solely for the pleasure of God?

My test usually comes on the first day with the appearance, real or imaginary, of the big black snake at Kesi-ghata (see my previous journals, dated October 24-31, 2001 and October 5, 2002, for an explanation).

First Test
This year it wasn?t a big black snake, but there was definitely something black. It started with a dream: I was standing by a great ocean, something like the one in Puri. Bhurijana Prabhu was there along with a revered unknown Vrndavana sadhu, a person I wanted to please. The waves of that ocean continually washed up a huge black fish the size of a dolphin. Thinking that the sadhu would be entertained, I tried to show him this phenomenon, but I could not catch his attention.

In my waking state, I asked Bhurijana Prabhu what he thought this meant. He said that he didn?t know much about dreams, but from what little he did know, he thought the ocean might represent the subconscious and the black fish could be the shadow, or dark side of the subconscious. The black fish coming to shore is thus the dark side of oneself emerging from the subconscious.

His analysis made sense to me. Coming to Vrndavana means to become purified of the false ego, the pretentious self. We think we are devotees, but scratch beyond the mask of pretension and the ugly face of egocentrism arises.

If by coming to Vrndavana I can identify and rid myself of the false ego, the sadhus will be pleased and I may gain entrance into the dhama.

Second Test
Coming here on the plane, Mikey told me how he wanted to arrive in Vrndavana with nothing as a sign of his insignificant position. Nice thought. Saci-Suta, his friend and well-wisher, however, insisted that he take Saci?s sleeping bag. Mikey was very appreciative, but he told me that he would have been happier if he could have come with nothing.

You get the karma of those that you are with. When we alight from our plane in Delhi I see my name, ?Dennis Winiker,? on the Passenger Service Board, requesting me to report to their desk at baggage claim. We are informed that none of our luggage made the plane in London. We are entering Vrndavana, on the wish of Mikey, with only the clothes on our back.

Third Test
I am sitting in my room, chanting japa. Fatigued from jetlag, I sit in an uncharacteristic pose for japa?lying in a bamboo chair with my feet resting on the bed. Clunk! Something lands on the thin cotton chadar just over my right shoulder. On first thought, I assumed it was a ?tik-tik,? the small harmless lizard. On second thought, however, I thought, it?s much too big! I bolt from my seat and whip my shoulder forward, thrusting the creature to the floor. It was a huge gruesome black bat! The bat, which seems to represent the shadow of my subconscious, then flies hideously around the room and mysteriously disappears. In 30 years I have never seen a bat in a room. What is Krishna telling me?

Fourth Test
Mikey comes to help me with my Giriraja-puja. I ask him to go downstairs to pick tulasi and flowers. I am peacefully halfway through my prayers, enjoying the first worship of Giriraja in Vrndavana, when I hear a rumble outside my door followed by a scream. ?Krishna! Krishna!? I leap from my asana, grab my cane, and open the door. Mikey is backed into a corner by a horde of vicious monkeys and he is barely keeping them at bay by wildly flailing the front of his dhoti before them. I flail my own cane and miss the monkeys, grazing Mikey?s nose, before quickly pulling him inside, bolting the door as the mad monkeys try to push their way in.

Evidently, while going downstairs, Mikey passed a baby monkey crying on the stairs. The mother of that monkey, thinking that Mikey was the cause of the baby?s cries, became livid and returned with two friends to confront him.

?It was pretty scary,? Mikey said. ?More scary then when my head was busted open and bloodied last December with a three-foot crowbar when I was walking through the ghetto in North Philadelphia.?

I told him the little monkey attack reminded me of Alfred Hitchcock?s ?The Birds,? the scariest movie I ever saw. ?Yeah, like that,? he said.

Quite an entrance test, but Mikey humbly assures me that he?s passed the rites of passage by invoking the attitude for entering Vraja: ?Whatever it takes, Maharaja. Vrndavana is my only hope.?

Note: Srila Prabhupada said that, in terms of visiting Vrndavana, a devotee should stay for ?three days or three years.? I take that to mean that it is easier to maintain a humble service mood if you visit for a short pilgrimage, but for those who stay longer, there should be a serious commitment to service. I find that these tests often come when one makes the claim to reside longer and not on short pilgrimages, where it is exciting and easy to keep focus. On our short pilgrimage, we also enter Vrndavana by first going to through Mayapur, where offenses are forgiven. This is the recommended method for going to Vrndavana.

  • Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on The Big Black Snake Again: Entering the Dhama 2003

New York City When New

August 14th, 2003

New York City

When New York Turned Into Vrndavana
When I was a young child, not more than six years ofage, my father would occasionally show up at my door at bedtime, poke his head in, and ask in a fatherly manner, ?Where was Moses when the lights went out?? Whether I responded reasonably??In the dark!??or remained silent in protest, the result was the same: I was soon in the dark. And no matter how much my desire to stay up late was foiled, deep down I enjoyed the affectionate exchange with my dad.

Affectionate exchanges are life. Without them, the heart closes and the soul dries; neurosis consumes us. Therefore, the perfect place is Vrndavana?an anti-psychotic world where everything moves for the purpose of selfless intense affection, called rasa.

In contrast, New York is devoid of rasa. Here, the selfless loving spirit is overwhelmed by the vain pursuit of wealth, fame, and sex appeal. Even those intelligent enough to escape this frenzied passion are certain to be distracted from meaningful relationships by the lure of the lonely world of computers, the busy chatter of cell phones, or the insanity of multimedia. How unfortunate to mistake such loneliness for real community?

Today I sat peacefully on the Upper East Side as the plug of passion was pulled in New York and much of the Northeast?something to do with a malfunction on the Northern Grid.

Factually, however, the Northern Grid is a glitch on normal life. I thus celebrated today as the day when non-electricity was restored to the world. With great relief, I observed:

* A peaceful and quiet environment
* With people sitting on their stoops
* Talking to their neighbors
* Helping one another
* Sharing meaningful relationships
* Manifesting community
* Enjoying real life as New York turned into Vrndavana

A final thought: Today?s power outage ironically blossomed with rasa?just as the ?lights off? of my childhood incongruously flourished with affection.

We Shall Overcome (Our Weaknesses by Honesty and Humility)

August 1st, 2003

Recently, while visiting Towaco, Bhurijana Prabhu was asked a question on how to rid oneself of personal weaknesses. I liked his thoughtful reply. ?The first thing is to recognize them,? he said, ?and then decide which ones we can renounce. We should be humble about the weaknesses we are sincerely unable to give up and proceed in our efforts to become Krishna conscious.?

It was a simple answer, but it made me question my own approach. Do I at times inadvertently preach the ideals in a way that makes Krishna consciousness seem impractical and ridden with guilt? Are there sincere devotees who become overtly disturbed by their inability to practice Krishna consciousness strictly, even when particular injunctions may be beyond their realization to follow at this point in time? I recalled a thoughtful question asked of me at recent lecture:

?Should we judge righteousness as the impeccable practice of Krishna consciousness or the sincere endeavor to move toward that goal from our present platform of realization??

In this regard, another incident came to mind. While I was living in the Brooklyn temple in the mid-?90s, some of the asrama devotees were going across the street every Sunday morning to join a basketball game. A visiting sannyasi, who saw them playing, gave a heavy class the next morning indicating that these devotees had broken the regulative principles. After all, he reasoned, one of Srila Prabhupada?s early lists of the regulative principles associated frivolous sports with gambling. Afterward, I had to comfort one poor soul who was very shaken by the class, assuring him that their mistake was not the same as if they had eaten meat or taken intoxication. However, I was also upset that the devotees had violated the standards of asrama life.

I see things a little more liberally now. There have been too many examples of devotees prematurely renouncing aspects of their life only to be haunted by those same attachments years later.

We cannot gain deep spiritual realization, however, until our determination is unwavering. A few months ago, I had a nice talk with a ?pandit? who highlighted this point by sharing an interesting analysis on the seminal verse from the Padma Purana that states that?atah sri krsna namadi?Krishna can only be known by devotional service, not the blunt material senses. Commenting on the words ?sevon mukhe? (the term used for devotional service in that verse), he put his hands like blinders on the sides of his head and moved them back and forth. Indicating an unwavering fixedness on a goal with this hand motion, he said, ?Srila Prabhupada stressed determined service focused on the order of the spiritual master.? Therefore, ?sevon muhke? refers to service that unswervingly faces the directions of the spiritual master. (Mukhe literally means ?in the face? or ?directly.?) He stressed his point further by moving his head left and right, indicating a confused or irresolute mood, while remarking, ?Devotional service is sevon mukhe, not bahir muhke!? (Bahir means ?external? or ?turning the face away?).

The acarya must therefore set spiritual standards to help us remain fixed on the goal. They also know the nature our minds; that we want to enjoy independent of God without guilt. We thus seek justification for our lack of surrender by using concessions as sanctions to avoid renunciation. Therefore, the acaryas preach the proper standards without compromise.

Although Bhurijana?s answer was, in one sense, an allowance for certain failures, it is not a compromise. In many ways, it demands tough surrender (if we are sincere). We have to be honest enough to recognize and rid ourselves of the indulgences we can relinquish and humble enough, without cheating, to admit our helplessness to surmount those we can?t. It also offers an effective means that empowers us to not only conquer those frailties, but the root of all failings, our own pride?namely, the humble mood of a Vaisnava that enables us to depend on Krishna and beg His mercy. I liked his thoughtful reply, but in good conscience I can?t conclude my article here at its natural ending without a final word of caution.

The test for whether we may have to humbly accept a concession to the strictest standards of Krishna consciousness is whether or not one?s decision to do so is supported by a strong desire to please guru and Krishna. In other words, is it a humble step back to help us move forward with strength toward pure devotion? Or is it a selfish and lazy indulgence?

  • Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on We Shall Overcome (Our Weaknesses by Honesty and Humility)

Are Vaisnavas Democrats or Republicans? Part II

June 7th, 2003

For the last month I have been traveling throughout the northeast to get the association of my visiting Godbrothers. I gained many realizations in their association, but the constant traveling, late nights, and irregularity made writing very difficult. As a result, I haven’t sent my journal in a while. You can expect, however, to again receive regular journal entries. I’ll start by sharing some of the responses to my last few entries.

Someone wrote, “I thought your article was going to be about politics, not critical thinking.”

My article was about critical thinking. The reference to politics was just a convenient example to explain the need for critical thinking. Krishna consciousness is about “what to do and what not to do.” In that sense, it couldn’t be more about critical thinking. Of course, we shouldn’t misunderstand critical thinking to be analytical ability. One can be very analytical and still not be a critical thinker if one is unable to approach an issue neutrally. I’ve seen so-called broad-minded people parrot phrases like “pro-choice” without ever broaching the obvious issue at hand–whether or not that “choice” is usurping another’s right to life–or apparently educated people men espousing “the right to life,” only to walk under the golden archway the next minute joining the ranks of “93 billion served.”

Critical thinking, however, does not contradict faithfulness; both attitudes are essential to learning. To master any subject one must both faithfully follow the directions of the appropriate experts in the field of that study and raise doubts if their teachings appear equivocal. My recent article, however, saw more of a need to focus on thoughtfulness–the necessity to honestly question our prejudices in the pursuit of knowledge. (In following blindly, there is always a chance that whatever one has accepted faithfully is not actually what the teacher has espoused, but those teachings skewed by our conditioning. Similarly, if one tries to understand things independent of authority solely by analysis, one’s conclusions will certainly be distorted by imperfection and bias. Therefore, Bhagavad-gita advocates submission and inquiry [4.34], and the Bhagavatam recommends faithfulness and thoughtfulness [1.2.13].)

I received the following excerpt from a feminist magazine in response to my article “Are Women Less Intelligent?”:

From the psychologist JoAnn Deak (author of ‘Girls Will Be Girls: Raising Confident and Courageous Daughters’):

“The new information has staggering implications. All brain research before the year 2000 is dated. There is now enough research to show there are significant differences between male and female brains. Male and female brains also process differently. The male brain is more compartmentalized, using one part of the brain for a singular task. In contrast, the female brain uses many parts for a singular task and also engages both hemispheres. What’s more, the limbic system, which houses the brain’s emotional center, is more sensitive and more active in females. While researchers now say that all thought is attached to emotion, in females the emotional component is more intense and more integrated with the rational brain. Not that every male and female fit these predispositions, but research supports the theory that 80% of the sexes follow the pattern.”

Another devotee contributed an interesting insight on the same issue from the prominent social scientist Eric Fromm:

“In contemporary capitalistic society, the meaning of equality is transformed. By equality one refers to the equality of automatons; of men who have lost their individuality. Equality today means ‘sameness’ rather than ‘oneness.’ It is the sameness of abstractions, of the men who work in the same jobs, who have the same amusements, who read the same newspapers, who have the same feelings and the same ideas. In this respect, one must also look with some skepticism at some achievements which are usually praised as signs of our progress, such as the equality of women. Needless to say I am not speaking against the equality of women; but the positive aspects of this tendency for equality must not deceive one. It is part of the trend toward the elimination of differences. Equality is bought at this very price: women are equal because they are not different anymore. The proposition of Enlightenment philosophy l’ame n’a pas de sexe, the soul has no sex, has become the general practice. The polarity of the sexes is disappearing, and with it erotic love, which is based upon this polarity. Men and women become the same, not equals as opposite poles. Contemporary society preaches this ideal of unindividualized equality because it needs human atoms, each one the same, to make them function in a mass aggregation, smoothly, without friction; all obeying the same commands, yet everybody being convinced that he is following his own desires.”

And finally, I received an an interesting political analysis in reference to my article “Are Vaisnavas Republicans or Democrats?”:

“Vaisnavas are republicans (conservative) with themselves and democrats (liberal) with others.
“Republicans are democrats (liberal) with themselves and republicans (conservative) with others.”
“Democrats are democrats (liberal) with themselves and democrat (liberal) or republican (conservative) with others depending on which gets them the vote.”

  • Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Are Vaisnavas Democrats or Republicans? Part II

Are Women Less Intelligent?

May 31st, 2003

Note: The following is a letter I wrote entitled “Are Women Less Intelligent?” Because this is a controversial subject, I sent it out to a few devotees for feedback. One thoughtful lady wrote back in response. Over the next week, we will be sending our back and forth correspondence on this subject.

March 31, 2003
Saratoga Springs, NY

I saw some newer people at our monthly Sunday program. After prasadam, I found one young lady sitting alone. I thought I remembered her from a previous program. I greeted her like I would any visitor, especially if no one else was sitting with them.

“Thank you for coming again.”

“Thank you, but this is the first time I’ve come.”

“How did you like our program?”

“Very much. I’m a Hare Krishna.”

“Where did you meet the devotees?”

“I never have. This is the first time and it’s wonderful!”

“How did you become a devotee if this is the first time you’ve ever met the devotees?”

“Nine years ago, when I was 12, I got a book, Sri Isopanisad, on the streets of Boston. Even then I was an avid reader, but I never read anything like that before. It had such an impact.”

“How did you not come to meet any devotees after becoming a Hare Krishna?”

“Well, I’m from a very strict family of Irish and French Catholics. My grandparents are especially religious. My father warned me how disappointed they would be, so I kept things pretty much to myself.”

“Did you ever order books from the BBT?”

“No. But my friends would find books about Krishna. They weren’t interested, so they would give them to me.”

“How did you find us here?”

“Oh, I work for Kurt [Kirtan Rasa, the devotee who hosted the program]. I’m studying law nearby at Russell Sage. He hired me part-time for his law firm. One day, during a break, I was listening to George Harrison. He came over to me and casually mentioned that George Harrison was a Hare Krishna. I said, ‘Yes,I know. That’s why I’m listening to him.’ When Kurt told me that he, too, was a Hare Krishna, I spontaneously responded in amazement, ‘No way!’ To say the least, I was pleasantly shocked.”

“By the way, what is your name?”

“Victoria.”

“Victoria, what do you think now that you’ve met the devotees?”

“It’s so wonderful. I’m at a loss for words.”

“Do you have any questions?”

She thought very deeply for some time. “They are so clear, Prabhupada’s books.”

“Are you sure? Anything?”

“Well, one thing. In Prabhupada’s books women seem almost like a caste. I’ve read somewhere that that’s been adjusted now, but I’m not sure I understand the basis of it.”

I spoke with Victoria for quite some time about Srila Prabhupada’s teachings concerning the role of women and why I felt his teachings were misunderstood. She was satisfied with my answers. Our discussion brought up an interesting perspective on a sensitive controversy that I felt could be helpful in understanding it. After all, it is an issue that comes up again and again with intelligent women in relation to Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and as such, it often poses an obstacle toward their full embrace of his instructions. That evening, I tried to record several of the points that came up in our conversation, to the best of my recollection, and compiled the following essay:

Are Women Less Intelligent?

Often, in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings about the position of women in society, he strongly stressed their more domestic and subordinate role. At the same time, Srila Prabhupada did not limit a woman’s initiative in devotional service. This apparent contradiction is resolved by understanding the mode of expression of the acarya, but before considering this, it’s important to understand why Srila Prabhupada unequivocally emphasized the more traditional roles of a lady.

A mother has the most important role in society. Unless children are nurtured properly they will not likely develop into stable citizens. Instead, they may tend to grow up resentful and anxiety-ridden. I’m sure most people are grateful for a loving mother at home. Since a mentally healthy citizenship is so dependent on how its children are nurtured, and the body and mentality of women are more suited for motherhood, the domestic and subordinate role of women is promoted in a proper culture. In contrast, due to their more analytical temperament, it would be more difficult for the man to adopt this important and demanding task as the primary nurturer of young children.

Because of a woman’s more emotional and affectionate nature, they also require protection from a qualified husband. This is especially important so that their feminine nature is not exploited by men to satisfy their own lust–an injustice which also has great social implications. Since one’s nature is primarily determined by the consciousness of the parents at the time of conception, if children are produced irresponsibly out of passion, unwanted and problem children will likely be born. The chastity and submissiveness of women is therefore promoted to ensure that children are reared in families where the parents have committed, not casual, relationships, and where children are wanted and cared for properly.

The mother is also the first guru of the child. Her submissiveness to her husband, who is generally senior to her and cultured to be protective, also teaches the children a healthy respect for authority and specifically for the father, which is especially important as the father becomes more of the child’s guru as they grow older.

Every institution requires some system of effective decision-making. This is especially important in the institution of marriage because children require a peaceful home life for their development. A qualified and protective husband with a chaste and cooperative wife has proven to be an efficient means of family decision-making. Of course, any hierarchical system is susceptible to abuse, and this does raise serious questions about the feasibility of such a system when transplanted in a society that has lost its culture. However, this does not discount the fact that there is a need for consultation and consideration in the decision-making process, and that there may be adjustments necessary considering the nature and strengths of each partner.

Finally, the need to express affection, nuture children, and to be protected, is also very much part of a woman’s nature. A system that promotes the motherly side of a woman, and thus encourages her faithfulness to a responsible husband, is also a system that satisfies their essential needs. For these reasons, the Vedic culture actively promotes the more dependent and domestic role of a women, and Srila Prabhupada followed suit. After all, he grew up in that system and saw enough of its success to be confident that this family model was as good as any in the world, and certainly superior to that of the modern family.

To understand deeply, however, what Srila Prabhupada said about women, I think it is also essential to understand the difference in the mode of expression between the Eastern and Western mind. The Eastern-oriented mind, especially those of powerful spiritual teachers, tend to express themselves in what I call “contextual relevance.” In other words, both the speaker and hearer of Eastern orientation tend to assume that strong statements refer to a specific context, even when that context is not specifically stated, whereas the Western mind tends to assume all statements are universal and literally applied. Thus when Srila Prabhupada, the acarya, says that women are less intelligent, it was not a blanket condemnation of their intellectual abilities, but a statement that referred more to the context of practical decision-making, where the more detached and analytical mind of a man has somewhat of an advantage over women of equal stature. Seen in the light of “contextual relevance,” there is no contradiction in Srila Prabhupada calling women less intelligent and referring to Bhagavad-gita, where intelligence is specifically listed as a feminine opulence. Nor is there any contradiction in Caitanya-caritamrita, where the author, Krishna dasa Kaviraja, describes the great lady devotee Madhavi-devi as ardha-jana (half a person) and parama-vaisnavi (the topmost devotee) in the very same paragraph.

Because the Eastern-oriented mind is more likely to interpret things in contextual relevance, strong statements about women by a person of an Eastern mind does not necessarily lead them to limiting a women’s place in society by disregarding their individual needs and abilities. For example, even though Srila Prabhupada spoke of a woman’s subordination and domesticity, he still treated them with basic equality–giving them the gayatri-mantra, honoring them as top preachers, and even ordaining them as priests (pujaris). Similarly, in this regard, despite the strong cultural mores of domesticity, Indian-influenced countries like India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have all raised qualified women to the heads of their country, where, ironically, America has not.

I think it is worth investigating if the inherent tendency of Srila Prabhupada’s Western disciples to interpret his statements literally, and perhaps beyond his intended application, is at the root of the misunderstanding of the role of women in ISKCON–both by those who are inflexible in ascribing women rigid traditional roles, and those who overly minimize it. In other words, have those who unbendingly professed rigid traditional roles for women applied Srila Prabhupada’s teachings beyond their context, where they might stifle a woman’s social and occupational needs, in contrast to Srila Prabhupada who accepted them in the ashram and made them preachers? Similarly, have those who profess innate equality in the sexes also skewed Srila Prabhupada’s teachings by extending his teachings on women to a place he never intended, making his instructions look impractical and even oppressive?

My firm belief is that if we understand Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the role of women through the context he intended, we will appreciate, just as he did, both the glory of a woman’s dharma and the limitations of its application. And we will understand his mode of thinking as the acarya, and thus strongly promote the glory of a woman’s dharma without stifling the individual needs of women to work and perform devotional service according to their abilities.

[The above essay is a paraphrase of my answer to Victoria’s question that will hopefully raise new perspectives in viewing Srila Prabhupada’s position on the role of women in ISKCON. This subject, however, is a very sensitive–especially since Srila Prabhupada’s teachings have often been exploited and abused–and deserves a more comprehensive analysis to deal with the subject in all its complexities. Hopefully, we have added important insight for that study.]

Are Women Less Intelligent? Pt. 2

Dear Dhanurdhara Swami,

Dandavats. Glories to Prabhupada.

First, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to analyze and offer an interesting perspective on this thorny issue.

However, I think I’m not the right person to offer comments on this topic, since our grha is, and always has been, pretty atypical. Nevertheless, I’ve read and reread your paper carefully, and I’ll try to offer my insights, for whatever they’re worth.

You write:

<>

Domestic role, yes. That is natural and comes with the body. But subordinate in what sense? Does the psychological effect of subordination ever result in anything positive? If one starts with the premise of subordination it will stifle women that have the potential to go further.

<>

The implication here is that there is no level of analysis required in child-rearing. Having gained some experience in this area, I would say it involves decision-making on a minute-by-minute basis. The mental gymnastics in trying to appease and not kowtow to a child are intense. Hey, maybe men would be better suited to child-rearing, since they are so analytical. If by analytical, you mean more inclined to philosophical, scholarly pursuits, how many men, even in our movement, would fit into that category?

<>

What about promoting the chastity of men? It couldn’t hurt. Also, I don’t think a relationship depends on submissiveness for commitment.

<<...which is especially important as the father becomes more of the child's guru as they grow older.>>

I don’t think that’s necessarily or generally the case from what I’ve seen.

<>

Wouldn’t two chaste, qualified, and cooperative individuals “prove to be an efficient means of family decision-making”? Maybe we have lost our culture, but I think we have to work with the reality of what is, instead of hearkening to some idealized and impractical state that will never be.

<>

To me, this is the crux and the resolution of the issue, in a nutshell. Mutual consideration and consultation are the key, as well as not being bound by the idealized dictates of what a man and woman should be, but the realistic analysis of what each individual is, and each afforded opportunities accordingly. I don’t think we should join this point with subordination as you did earlier.

<>

I like the concept of contextual relevance and it needs to be applied more often in issues in ISKCON, but how it applies here is confusing to me. What is the context that Prabhupada is speaking of when he says that women are less intelligent? Are you saying it applies solely to women’s decision-making abilities? I don’t see how that can be validated. Does Prabhupada define it as such? Also, when you say ” women of an equal stature,” what do you mean? If a man and a woman are equal in intellectual abilities, a woman, by virtue of her gender, somehow has less acumen in decision-making? It’s no wonder then that women are not considered guru or GBC worthy.

<>

What context did Prabhupada intend and what context did the rigid definers go beyond? Is contextual relevance another way of saying “time, place, and circumstance”? We start with some very general principles regarding the differences between men and women but in our interrelating we should look to the individual and not the gender as the basis for our actions.

Forgive me for being so negative. It’s a touchy subject, and one that I feel I’ll never be satisfied with. Thanks for trying.

YS,
Bhakti-devi

Are Women Less Intelligent? Part 3

Note: This is my response to Bhakti-devi’s thoughtful letter in response to my article.

Dear Bhakti-devi,

Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you for responding. As you know this point comes up again and again in our preaching so we must deal with it.

<>

You are the proper person to answer because you know how frustrating the application of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the role of women has been for intelligent women.

<>

I see how the word “subordinate” does nothing to add to my essay and likely distracts the reader at this point. Thank you for pointing that out. The mood of subordination does have many positive effects in the relation of students toward teachers, children toward parents, citizens toward a righteous government, and living entities toward God. Perhaps the problem is that authoritarian dynamics (the tendency to abuse power) is so prevalent, especially in a dysfunctional culture, that the word has taken on a negative connotation in the same way as the word ” surrender.” I am using the term subordinate in the sense of submission to authority. Isn’t it good for a student to be submissive to his teacher, a child to his parents, and the living entities toward God? The question, however, is if there is any benefit in a wife following the authority of her husband. Srila Prabhupada thought there was, but the principle needs to be carefully applied in modern culture and perhaps in many circumstances today it is not applicable at all. It’s a given that ISKCON has been plagued by authoritarian dynamics. My paper was meant to show why Srila Prabhupada stressed the traditional role of women and how it was misunderstood in the West–not to support its abuse. By stressing the traditonal role, one doesn’t necessarily have to wind up stifling women. From there, one can show how it has to be applied according to time, place, and circumstance.

<>

That’s not the implication I was making. My point was that men are generally more analytical–not that women are not analytical. It does take a lot of thoughtfulness to raise a child. Maybe I used the wrong word. This is what I meant and where I got the idea:

“By nature women are soft-hearted, kind, tolerant, and affectionate. The human brain has basically two aspects: the logical and analytical aspect, and the emotive, affectionate side. The general tendency is that men are more logical and women more affectionate. God has designed women like this so they will be able
to care for their children.

“The father only gives the seed, but the mother has to carry, nurture, and raise the child. If women were ruled strictly by logic, they would not be able to perform that tremendous task properly. They would think, ?What is the use of carrying this burden? What will I gain from this for myself?? and probably decide not to have children. Thus women are naturally ruled more by affection so they can tolerate the burden of child rearing. The word “mother” signifies loving sentiment. It is a very difficult task for a man to raise children because they generally do not possess this deeply affectionate nature.” (Yoga of Dejection, by Satyanarayan dasa)

Don’t men and women have different natures that are generally more suitable to different services? I did not mean to say that men are more scholarly, since obviously there are different types of men. Women definitely have a more domestic nature. Men have a more…?

(A side point.) In terms of the knowledge of child-rearing, in a proper culture where a child is raised in an extended family and a real community, the proper psychology and principles of child-rearing are automatically imbibed. It’s not that the parent has to raise the child by being a deeply analytical person.

<>

The faithfulness of men is also certainly promoted. I guess your question asks why there is so much stress on the women’s responsibility and not the man’s. I think there is plenty of stress on the man’s respect for women and their adherence to duty in sastra, but the point here is that because of a woman’s more emotional side they can be exploited by men. Do you think that is true? I’ve found that many of the younger women I have preached to have come to Krishna
consciousness in part because of exploitation by men. Unfortunately, for many, the same thing happened in ISKCON. I am surprised by that, but it makes me believe that there is some truth to what Prabhupada said about women in general needing protection. I agree with you that, in ISKCON, there was almost an exclusive emphasis on the woman’s duty and not the man’s responsibility. Did I imply that submissiveness is necessary for commitment? It’s not, but adherence
to authority is certainly a factor in maintaining commitments. In fact, that’s why Arjuna was reluctant to go to war. He saw that if the elders were gone, the youth would become less committed and whimsical.

<< You wrote: "which is especially important as the father assumes more of the role of guide as the child grows older." I don't think that's necessarily or generally the case from what I've seen.>>

I think the family structure in the West is very much broken and the children are thus growing up with many anxiety disorders. I think if we look to the West for the norm, we may not be viewing the ideal. I think we have to first settle the point of whether men and women in general have different natures and are generally suited for different roles before we can deal with this point.

<>

My point was about what Srila Prabhupada said and why he said it. I don’t remember ever promoting any system. First let’s decide on whether what he promoted is the ideal and then we can decide how it is to be practically applied–or whether it is worth applying today at all. My observation of “the two chaste, qualified, and cooperative individuals” is that the husband and wife fight like cats and dogs in front of the children until the stronger one wins. I think the Indian family structure that has practical guidelines for decision-making is much more effective. I agree that this structure may be practically impossible to implement in the West, but that doesn’t make it ineffective in a proper culture where the man is taught to respect women and to apply the principles of his authority carefully and practically. And I’m not sure that we can’t learn something from it.

<>

The question the girl asked was why Srila Prabhupada promoted the traditional role of women and not how ISKCON should resolve the issue. I think the point of the value of nurturing mothers at home is a powerful one that intelligent Western women can also understand as long as it is applied with consideration for their individual abilities. I don’t agree that because the principle was misapplied and abused that we should discount it. Rather, we should think of its proper application. In other words, the ideal should be a consideration in the equation, as should mutual consideration and consultation. I think the most mature adults would discuss amongst themselves how the principles that Srila Prabhupada taught can be applied to their family considering that in a Western culture the women have been reared differently, the marriages were not arranged where the man was older and at least from an equal or higher class, and that in many marriages, the woman is in many ways more qualified. To make my paper more effective I can just use the example of the domestic role and leave out the part of
submission to authority if this is such a sensitive point that it prevents some of the readers from going further.

<>

I am trying to write this paper knowing that two very emotionally charged sides will be reading it. I admit that this is a weak part of the paper because Srila Prabhupada seemed to talk about women’s inferior intelligence beyond the range of just decision-making, but I do feel that he made his point in a more contained context than we apply it. I think I made a good case for that. Any suggestions?

By the term, “women of an equal stature,” I was trying to show that all women are not less intelligent than all men, but that the comparison is made between men and women that are from the same culture and class. I think there is something to the point that, by virtue of gender, the brains of women and men generally think differently along the lines that Satyanarayan spoke of in the reference I gave in the beginning of my response. What do you think? Does gender have any effect on the way one thinks and views the world? For example, would a woman generally be more suited to child-rearing than a man of equal stature? What would a man be more suited by virtue of his gender?

<>

Is there no role for gender at all? Again I agree with you that in the present structure of society we have to look almost singularly at the individual and not the gender, but I agree with Srila Prabhupada that the difference in gender is an important factor in social organization and that problems arise when we neglect it.

From your input I think that perhaps I need to stress somewhere that, considering the present nature of society, organizing it on the basis of gender in many or most cases brings up more problems than it solves. Can we proceed in our reasoning from there that it must be neglected totally for all people in all cultures? That’s what you seem to imply.

<>

Thank you for your input and I welcome more.

In the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Dhanurdhara Swami

Are Women Less Intelligent? Part 4

Note: Below is Bhakti Devi’s response to my letter yesterday.

<>

I agree with the above in totality.

<<"By nature women are soft-hearted, kind, tolerant, and affectionate. The human brain has basically two aspects: the logical and analytical aspect, and the emotive, affectionate side. The general tendency is that men are more logical and women more affectionate. God has designed women like this so they will be able to care for their children. "The father only gives the seed, but the mother has to carry, nurture, and raise the child. If women were ruled strictly by logic, they would not be able to perform that tremendous task properly. They would think, 'What is the use of carrying this burden? What will I gain from this for myself?' and probably decide not to have children. Thus women are naturally ruled more by affection so they can tolerate the burden of child rearing. The word "mother" signifies loving sentiment. It is a very difficult task for a man to raise children because they generally do not possess this deeply affectionate nature." (Yoga of Dejection, by Satyanarayan dasa) Don't men and women have different natures that are generally more suitable to different services? I did not mean to say that men are more scholarly, since obviously there are different types of men. Women definitely have a more domestic nature. Men have a more...? (A side point.) In terms of the knowledge of child-rearing, in a proper culture where a child is raised in an extended family and a real community, the proper psychology and principles of child-rearing are automatically imbibed. It's not that the parent has to raise the child by being a deeply analytical person.>>

I agree with all of the above. I think it would be wise to incorporate Satyanarayana’s comments into your paper.

<>

The above is certainly true.

<>

Good points. They should be included in your paper.

You misunderstand me. Maybe I came off a bit strident but I would never say we should discount the ideal. It’s there to use as a gauge. It’s all a question of emphasis. Don’t you agree?

<>

I don’t know if it should be left out, it just needs to be worded carefully.

<>

Of course gender has an effect on the way one views the world, but so does family, class, environment, education, and so on. Why do we emphasize gender? If you can show why gender should be more of a focus than these other things, your case would be stronger.

<>

Absolutely true.

<>

No. Why is this a necessary consequence of the prior statement? I am not saying to totally neglect gender considerations, I am simply saying they should be de-emphasized. There are other similar considerations that should be de-emphasized as well. For example, if a person joins a temple and they are poor, are they banned from certain services? Is a person from a wealthy background not allowed to wash pots? Clearly, while social status cannot be totally neglected, and does affect a person to some degree, bhakti helps one transcend such material limitations. This philosophical point, I believe, would also apply to gender. We’ve made too much of it.

In conclusion, I think what you’re trying to do is really important and I’m honored that you’re allowing me to vent, no, I mean discuss this important issue.

YS,
Bhakti-devi

Are Women Less Intelligent? Part 5

Note: My response to Bhakti-devi and her final response to me?

<>

My case is that Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on women were in a context and not to be universally applied. I think it is a valid question to ask why it seems that everything else but gender was more or less considered transcended by Krishna consciousness in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada not only gave women the gayatri mantras, but the brahma-gayatri mantra, which no other Gaudiya Math gives to ladies.

<>

Absolutely true.>>

I am now going to extend my paper and see how these points can be worked in.

<>

No. Why is this a necessary consequence of the prior statement? I am not saying to totally neglect gender considerations, I am simply saying they should be de-emphasized. There are other similar considerations that should be de-emphasized as well. For example, if a person joins a temple and they are poor, are they banned from certain services? Is a person from a wealthy background not allowed to wash pots? Clearly, while social status cannot be totally neglected, and does affect a person to some degree, bhakti helps one transcend such material limitations. This philosophical point, I believe, would also apply to gender. We’ve made too much of it.>>

My observation is that gender considerations have now been de-emphasized in ISKCON. Of course, I am not sure that this is for me to say as I am not a woman. The point of my paper was–considering that the application of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings regarding women had to be adjusted–how do we understand his original statements regarding women? My point was that they are valid in context and are still relevant if carefully applied according to time, place, and circumstance. Your point, I believe, is that the traditional role of women is such a sensitive issue, and one that has been so abused, that one can not discuss its validity without making clear the limits of its application based on the history of ISKCON. I thought I did that, but I can see that this will have to be brought out more to make my paper more effective.

<>

My journal is about sharing my realizations as a preacher and practitioner as they naturally arise in my life. Although you say you “vented” your feelings, as a thoughtful lady in ISKCON, your strong emotions about this issue are a reality and communicate to me a lot about the depth of the mistakes ISKCON has made in dealing with women. At the same time, your points made me consider more deeply the role of women’s dharma in modern society. For example, today I shared our discussion with the family I am staying with. The husband made a very interesting point about how the nuclear family just doesn’t work, especially in regards to this issue. There is already so much pressure on the relationship of a husband and wife divorced from an extended family to share their lives and emotions that the artificially imposition of a traditional hierarchical structure is almost certain to cause more pressure on the relationship–unless, of course, that type of relationship is natural and mutually accepted.

My purpose in writing the article was to protect the glories of sastra as Srila Prabhupada presented it, and in this case, the glory of a woman’s dahrma. If to do that I need to bring out more clearly the problems that misinterpretation have caused, that endeavor is certainly worth the effort.

In the service of Srila Prabhupada,
Dhanurdhara Swami

***

Maharaja,

Obeisances. Jai Prabhupada.

I think our back and forth has some valuable points that should be added to your article. I particularly like this new point about the nuclear family. It is relevant to the issue and important for your paper.

I enjoyed our discussion and would like to encourage you to pursue the fine tuning of your paper–it is an important subject that needs clarification.

YS,
Bhakti-devi

Are Women less Intelligent? ? Concluding Remarks

I did not write about this to speak on a controversial topic. My journal is to just share my realizations as they naturally arise in my preaching. I never before, however, got so much feedback on any other journal entry. I want to share that feedback with the readers. As I have not asked the contributors permission to do so, I have maintained their confidentiality:

Respondent 1:
I very much appreciate the comments about the intelligence of women. They have a different intelligence than men. Different does not necessarily mean inferior. In my experience, women have a different kind of “emotional intelligence” which is often of more use than the way a man generally thinks in certain situations.

From a male perspective, sometimes women are crazy. From a female perspective, men can be crazy. They are both right. Humans are nuts. It is a wonder that the world goes on.

Govinda dasi (Prabhupada’s Govinda dasi) once told me a story. She and Jadurani were talking to Prabhupada and they asked if it was true that women were less intelligent. Prabhupada said that if they thought that they were women, they were less intelligent. I believe that the same is true for men.

Respondent 2 :
Hari Bol. Interesting topic. My understanding has been that as we are in Kali yuga most of these bodily and social designations go out the window. A good point was made not to look at a person as merely what they appear to be on the outside, i.e. man, woman, bhakta, sannyasi, etc.

Another thing would be to clearly define limitations. A limitation has its counter part in a qualification. Although someone may be limited in one aspect, it is almost certain that they are qualified in others.

Am I wrong here?

Respondent 3:
Women issue…. is it worthy of discussion anymore? In any context, Eastern or Western, the statement is irrelevant. A particular man can be less intelligent and a particular woman can be less intelligent. But generalizing to such a degree, in this highly personal philosophy? Why?

Saying that every women is less intelligent…Less intelligent than who? What is the goal of such a statement?

And than we try to “smoothen it out” and explain that this is what he meant, that it is old English (e.g. women like to be raped) etc.

Let’s make it simple, Srila Prabhupada meant what he said. And God gave me independence (Thank you, Krishna), so I keep a right not to agree with it.

Respondent 4:
I’m afraid I’m not certain about the proper, respectful, or at least, expected, way to greet you, so I’m going to begin by introducing myself. My name is ????. I was, until recently, in a relationship with ???, and therefore am under the impression you have heard about me, or at least recognize my name. If not, this is far more foreign than I intended and I sincerely apologize for my assumptions and my rudeness. I do not mean to be so.

In any case, ??? has been forwarding me the e-mails concerning your paper “Are Women Less Intelligent?” He has been doing so because he understands how immediate this topic is in my life, and the undeniable role it plays in keeping me just outside the temple doors. I hope you do not mind his sharing with me your words and those of the devotees you are corresponding with. I have read each letter and response closely and repeatedly. Under normal circumstances I would take my reactions, my questions and concerns to ???, hoping for a discussion that would put me one step closer to being comfortable with the subject, with the teachings of the religion, and with the devotees themselves. But after reading the letters and responses, and given the fragile turn my relationship with ??? has taken, I would like to put forward my questions and concerns to you.

I hope this is not too forward. I honestly don’t want to impose, or make mistakes I am blind to and end up coming across as anything less than respectful, deeply appreciative, and open to learning more about that which I know so little of at this point in time. If this is the case, I apologize for any offenses I have committed and please do not take the time to write back. However, if you wouldn’t mind answering even one of my inquiries, please let me know. I would be very grateful.

Respondent 5:
I like your article. The issues needs definitely more investigation, and I like the ” contextual evidence” principle that you mentioned. I also think that what Prabhupada said in certain circumstances assumed some fundamental cultural values about gender roles on the part of the listener which are absent or not very developed in the Western mind.

This is a very nice way to bring the issue on the table in a sensitive and clear fashion. It is required in order to clarify the issue especially for the congregational members and the public. Keep up the good work.

Respondent 6:
I have read them all in advance and think that they make some very good points. I am sure that any woman who has issues with the position of women would have their mind put “more” to ease. The reason I write “more” is that some women will just never be totally satisfied with the explanation…

I was thinking about why that is the case. Why some women are more hung up on it than others? I thought that maybe since I was not preoccupied with the whole issue that maybe I was a “sell out” to the female cause. I mean, I considered myself quite a vocal feminist in my early years.

There was not one certain explanation regarding women’s position in ISKCON that made me feel okay about how women were viewed. I just think that I gained faith in Srila Prabhupada and knew that since he valued his female disciples (and even told some of his godbrothers that he would give up his life for one in particular…I believe it was Malati.), I inherently felt comfortable with being a Vaisnavi.

Everyone has his or her attachments. For some devotees or aspiring devotees, I believe some are more overly attached to the gender they were assigned. But, that’s just my opinion.

Are Vaisnavas Democrats or Republicans? Part I

May 31st, 2003

After reading my article on “women,” people came up to me and said, in earnestness, “I really don’t like Bhakti-devi.” Others told me, “I really like Bhakti-devi.” Some even called to voice strong opinions, only to admit they really never read the article, but just the title. In dealing with controversies like the women’s issue or the war on Iraq, it dawned on me how prone we are to pre-judge subjects based on a particular political mindset, as if truth was exclusively conservative or liberal. Embracing truth requires both a liberal and conservative attitude, because both conservativeness (opposing change because it alters reality) and liberality (championing reform when it brings us closer to reality) are equal components of truth. Just as an exclusive conservative is sure to back traditions and support values that no longer represent truth, a diehard liberal will also certainly advocate change that distorts reality. A seeker of truth must be free from constricting preconceived attitudes in order to see truth within the shadow of debate.

How then does a Vaisnava approach controversy? A Vaisnava accepts that the resolution of all debate rests in sabda-brahmana, reality transmitted in sound (sastra). He thoughtfully, without liberal or conservative prejudice, judges the arguments at hand to the standard of revealed scriptures and embraces the conclusion.

Is a Vaisnava a democrat or republican? He is neither, because to embrace or reject either ideology means to accept a world view outside of the Absolute Truth, truth for all times and in all circumstances. Srila Prabhupada was thus a democrat and not a republican (championing reform) when deciding whether women in the West could live in the temples and worship the Deities, and a republican, not a democrat (opposing change) when outlining their role in an ideal society. He tackled issues thoughtfully and independently and then judged their merit in terms of sastra. And so should we.

(Note: I am using the terms “republican” and ” democrat” for argument’s sake, in terms of conservative and liberal, as traditionally defined. In fact, few politicians today have ideologies based on ideals.)

  • Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Are Vaisnavas Democrats or Republicans? Part I

New Jersey Jack and Kirti

March 8th, 2003

New Jersey

Jack and Kirti pick me up and take me to New York. I settle in my room. The ashram is very well maintained?an oasis of spiritual life in the desert of Manhattan materialism. Manhattan is passion. One who is ambitious can almost walk down the streets, breathe, and feel the illusion of conquering and enjoying the world enter one’s blood. The passion is that thick.

I settle in, sit at my desk, and feel an inspiration. I spontaneously write a short essay, ?The History of New York City According to the Three Modes of Material Nature?:

?The material world facilitates the conditioned soul?s desire to enjoy separate from God through the three modes of material nature. The three modes of nature thus pervade everything in this world, and in fact, everything is composed of these modes, internally and externally.

Internally, the modes exist within us as three basic psychological dispositions to enjoy the world?goodness, passion, and ignorance. These dispositions and their unlimited combinations compose the full gamut of selfish desire. Goodness is the spirit to enjoy peacefulness and knowledge, passion is the spirit to enjoy fruitive activity and sex life, and ignorance is the impulse to enjoy inactivity and sleep. Due to our past karma and present association, the modes of nature are transforming within us in a competition for predominance over our consciousness.

Externally, the modes are manifest in the various forms of sense objects, which according to their various compositions within the modes, have potential to incite corresponding dispositions for enjoyment. For example, for a man, the form of a woman is in the mode of passion and internally nourishes one’s disposition of passion. Uncleanliness is a form of ignorance and stirs inactivity and sleep. When cleanliness is the object of vision, peacefulness and enlightenment are roused.

Similarly, the sense objects of sound, touch, sight, taste, and smell manifest in various modes, and according to their composition, induce various corresponding psychological temperaments of enjoyment. For example, music, which is a sense object of sound, manifests either in goodness, passion, or ignorance and accordingly nourishes an equivalent mode within us. One seeking to enjoy the sense object of sound, therefore, chooses music that suits his modes and similarly selects other sense objects?the shapes, sounds, and tastes of his immediate environment?to commensurate with that spirit.

Now to our main topic: ?The creation of New York City according to the three modes of nature.? New York City is uniquely situated as a rock solid island a very short distant from the mainland of North America. It is thus uniquely conducive to trade?especially hundreds of years ago when the main means of trade was shipping. Ambitious people, therefore, have traditionally thrived there, which naturally attracted others with a passion for success. As people construct their environment according to their disposition to enjoy, the sounds and sights of New York gradually became more and more conducive to those in passion. Because of this, New York has become a magnet for ambitious people from all over the world seeking to nourish their passion. The passionate were also born in New York as, by karma, one generally takes birth to one of similar modes. In the late twentieth century, as communication developed, it became easier and easier for people to hear about places that the media popularized?like New York. As transportation modernized, it also became easier to visit and move to such places. As a result, a continuous influx of industrious souls flocked to the city and the neighborhoods of New York became more and more gentrified with success-oriented people seeking to fulfill their ambitions and nourish their passion. The development of New York City, therefore, as a bastion of passion, was and is a cyclical development?a passionate place, which attracts passionate people, who create an environment of passion, which attracts passionate people and so on.?

Where does this leave me?sitting at my desk right in the heart of New York City in a somewhat weakened condition? The symptom of passion is viksepa, or distraction, which makes sadhana-bhakti, the focus of the mind on Krishna, difficult business. What to do? I’m not a paramhamsa. A paramhamsa has no internal psychological disposition to enjoy. He remains uninfluenced by the objects of the senses no matter the nature of their composition or his proximity to them.

To stay absorbed in Krishna consciousness here, without being distracted, I need to teach and preach. A preacher’s consciousness is actively focused on engaging the material energy in Krishna’s service. He sees matter as Krishna’s energy rather than an object of his enjoyment, a spiritual vision that weakens?even destroys?the potency of matter to stir one for material enjoyment.

Writing this essay brings a practical recollection. I left India to serve in New York after spending my whole devotional life?over twenty years in Vrindaban. I didn’t know what to expect, but I came to New York and tried to preach vigorously. At the time I remember viewing the city skyline as I was driving over the Manhattan Bridge on my way to speak at 26 Second Avenue and distinctly seeing it in a very enlivening way as Krishna’s energy. It gave me a sense of relief from my separation from Vrindaban by giving me the confidence that, by strict spiritual practices and the mood of Srila Prabhupada’s mission, I could stay here in New York in a vision of spirituality.

In a sense, I have more obstacles in my path as a preacher now than five years ago, but I if I stay for a prolonged time in New York, I am determined to adopt and maintain the mood of a teacher of Krishna consciousness.

I finish my essay and pray for the mercy of Srila Prabhupada, that while I am here, I may be of service to him.

« Prev - Next »