We have upgraded Pariprashnena! Login is done with email OR username + usual password now.
Any problem or doubt please email pariprashnena@gmail.com
How would you explain the "rape" quotes and "other such statements"?
-
"In the Bhagavad gita SP explains that the book should be read WITH devotees."
Should. I first bought Bhagavad-gita As It Is (paperback) in a new age bookstore in college, and I put it aside when I couldn't understand it. About a year later, after I graduated and was seriously into yoga, I found Bhagavad-gita As It Is (hardcover, 1983 edition) at a used bookstore, and traded in my paperback copy for the hardcover, just to study the Sanskrit. I read this three times in the next six months before going to meet devotees (once reading the whole book aloud to my wife-to-be), visiting the local temple three times before moving to another city. There, again I began buying assorted books by Srila Prabhupada in a used bookstore, and the nearest temple was more than 100 miles away, in another country.
So I was relatively new at reading Srila Prabhupada's books. I had gotten only a little devotee association, and had more experience with the Himalayan Institute, had taught Kundalini Yoga for 3HO (indeed I had even worn a turban with a big beard for a while), had extensively studied the writings of all the most prominent impersonalists, and was socially liberal. My Kundalini Yoga teacher advised me that I should pick one path and focus on it. Bhakti Yoga, as I was being exposed to it through Srila Prabhupada's books seemed possibly the best but also a little strange. Maybe the few mystical experiences I had with B.G. the year before were just hallucinations or something, or were related to my other yoga practices; I wasn’t sure and wasn’t having them now.
Suppose (this part is a slight mix-up of actual events for the sake of the question, but the rest is an accurate personal summary) I found a book from Srimad Bhagavatam containing the rape quotes in question, had read them, and was having second thoughts about this "cult" I thought I liked but now am thinking maybe (please excuse me) this Bhaktivedanta fellow had a few screws loose. I'm walking down the street to sell this book back to the bookstore, and there you are, packing to move to a distant devotee community. I tell you that I've been reading these books but am now having doubts because of these rape quotes “and other such statements,” and am thinking perhaps it's not safe to get involved. I have no knowledge of ISKCON’s history, only what I’d read in B.G., TLC, Lord Caitanya in Five Features, a handful of small books, and a few assorted books from S.B. (my actual collection at that time).
You (any one of you) are now on the spot to explain these quotes so that I will feel that I can not only trust Srila Prabhupada with my spiritual life, but that it’s the best thing I can do. What do you say? -
I read a long time ago a book on a real rape case. The two were young, the boy was a little intoxicated and the girl was wearing shorts. The act was not committed under life risk, the boy did not have any weapon but his male strength and the act was consummated in the car, after she agreed to a car ride. They knew each other, were from the same town and university.
The parents of the girl pushed rape charges and the girl of course played the role of victim.
The boy´s barrister presented evidence that a women is able to intercept the male intercourse by their parts muscles strength. So simple. So, in this case, consent is there and that is what SP is talking about, not a criminal brutal knife menacing one which is clearly against the law and scriptures- alike.
Why the girl "agrees" to be taken lies in the animal conditioning we all have, the psychology that a female wants aggressive strong leader of the pack to perpetuate the purity of the species, so unconsciously agrees to be taken "forcefully" and takes that as a sign of the male´s strength.
Does that satisfy your intelligence, dear Pandu? -
The question started with "should be read WITH devotees" - this is the key to the answer. I know that if i was to write annotations as well some of the above explanations will all clearly be below the standard. So I would welcome a standard view to have from a balanced body such as BBT.
I know people who have signed the petition that will have a certain quality about them, nice to have the list to discriminate whose association to take. Like for example there is Harisauri and Srutakirti - both were Prabhupadas servants for a while, but one gives such a different picture on all the major issues to another; without going into details PKripa swami will not be the person I would love to associate with as well as some other devotees on the list of signatures starting the petition with Hindu fundamentalist views. So choose your association and THEN discuss krishna katha in the association. The above explanation will then automatically be dismissed by a little more intelligent person who has a better association.
Certainly I am sure that this 'criminal mentality view' will not form part of the annotations by the BBT. Even you will agree with that. -
still conditioned souls inserting comments within a pure devotee`s book.
The name BBT or GBC does not automatically qualify one to tamper.
If someone feels qualified to do that, let them write their own separate book as even acaryas do. Name it, BBT footnotes and commentaries to SP such and such book. -
I find it completely unhumble and unvaishnava to hear remarks - there are 'no liberated persons in ISKCON', therefore any comments will be that by a conditioned soul. What is your basis for it in terms of sastra, leaving aside the fact that you are so advanced that you can judge who is conditioned and who is not?
While I agree with the fact that just because one is in BBT it makes a person representing Prabhupadas publishing, but certainly BBT as a whole represents his will. (GBC has nothing to do with BBT so the argument is just faulty.) -
Based on both modern law and Manu Samhita injunctions, rape is an extremely serious offense. In Manu Samhita the guardian of a woman has the right and the duty! to kill such an assailant. The notion that somehow the rape is enjoyed be the woman is not even remotely supported by the modern research.
It might have been Prabhupada's opinion on this subject matter, but that is about all you can say here. -
Or it just maybe that he did use a word that for some who graduated from the prestigious Scottish Churches College could have different meaning when written. He may refer to a different word meaning then just forced sexual intercourse. You should know that in some jurisdictions rape refers to other forms of sexual assault as well and considering in his education his primary meaning will closely relate to latin rapio, "to abduct or seize by force.".
-
From "GBC Resolution 311: Raping Srila Prabhupada's Purports":
(can be read in its entirety here: http://www.gopala.org/node/229 )
I read one devotee's well-meant attempt to rationalize Srila Prabhupada's use of the word ‘rape'. He explained that what he meant was different from how we interpret ‘rape'. According to his explanation, Srila Prabhupada's idea of ‘rape' was simply passionate intercourse. Due to a linguistic shift from British colonial English to contemporary English the semantics attached to the word ‘rape' have changed.
This explanation isn't consistent with what Srila Prabhupada said in a morning walk May 11, 1975, in Perth, Australia (bolding and underline added):
Devotee (1): They said that the man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to his raping her.
Prabhupada: Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And that's a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That's a psychology. It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology.
Devotee (1): So what this law means is that anybody can rape anybody.
Prabhupada: There is no law; it is all lusty desire. All law or no law, these are all nonsense. The sastra has... It is lusty desire, that's all. Everyone wants to fulfill a lusty desires. So unless one is not in the modes of goodness or transcendental, everyone will like.
I included the rest of the selection so that the statement can be read in context. In no way is Srila Prabhupada condoning the act of rape. To take that meaning from this passage or his purports is cheating. Who would want to anyway? Unfortunately, I've heard that some supposed members of ISKCON have used such passages to justify horrendous acts to women. -
Mishra prabhu, Hare Krishna. Your explanation seems reasonable to me. To my understanding, one who is NOT "expert at rape" needs a knife or other threat of violence. Someone who is expert can get a girl to willingly do something that her conscious mind says not to do, or which she might regret later. Just like sometimes in the marketplace we buy something influence by charisma or trickery and later regret it.
CCD prabhu, Hare Krishha. We're aware that Bhagavad-gita and other sastra should be studied with devotees, but my point was that sometimes that is not the situation. I presented a scenario only very slightly modified from my actual experience, where I didn't have the luxury to select the cream of the crop of many devotees. I was making a decision and by Krishna's arrangement I found one devotee I could speak with.
(In the situation as it actually occurred, I was living in Buffalo with my wife and baby daughter and wanted to move to a farm community, but didn't know whether to go to Gita-nagari or New Vrindavana. I met a disciple of Srila Prabhupada who had a bad experience with HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami, and was advised that New Vrindavana would be a better choice. After getting to new Vrindavana we gradually learned about all the crazy stuff that happened there, and left in haste. Several years later we made it to Gita-nagari, where we found its own unique set of problems but learned to accept them [after a pretty tough ordeal] and things are going pretty well for us there now, although we have to do our farming at home.)
I'm not one to argue on one side of an issue or another. I want to explore both sides. I realize the results of my question can point either in favor or against annotations. It seems that you would prefer to be able give an official answer to a difficult question. However, life is such that not every explanation is covered in sastra. As I recall, Bhisma said that while giving his discourse on morality from a bed of arrows. We have to be able to use our intelligence to explain things.
Srila Prabhupada used the word, "rape," many times to describe forced sexual intercourse. Can you find even one time he used it to indicate an abduction? Did he say that Krishna raped Rukmini, or that Arjuna raped Subhadra? If you have examples like these, it would make your argument much more convincing.
I also agree that it is not very nice to assume there are no liberated persons in ISKCON. However, most of us recognize Srila Prabhupada as liberated, and we do not have nearly the same degree of agreement about anyone else. If anyone is in such a pure condition, one would expect ISKCON to perform better under his leadership. Perhaps another question can address who is liberated in ISKCON, but it could get messy.
Srila Prabhupada condoning rape? No, I very much disagree. He said a woman may enjoy it, but he also said that rape must be punished. In every case I was able to find him talking of rape, it was described in the context of demoniac activities. People enjoy eating meat, intoxication, illicit sex, and gambling; but that does not mean he condones it. People enjoy being cheated by bogus yogis, but does that mean Srila Prabhupada condones that we pretend to be God and cheat the public?
Kula-pavana prabhu, Hare Krishna. Modern researchers have imperfect senses, are illusioned, commit mistakes, and they cheat. Srila Prabhupada is a Vaishanva acarya and pure devotee giving knowledge by the descending process. As devotees in Srila Prabhupada's line, we should accept his authority. -
Modern researchers have imperfect senses, are illusioned, commit mistakes, and they cheat. Srila Prabhupada is a Vaishanva acarya and pure devotee giving knowledge by the descending process. As devotees in Srila Prabhupada's line, we should accept his authority.Pandu das:
Hare Krsna, Pandu-ji,
In the matters of understanding women's psychology Srila Prabhupada often followed the theories of his psychology college Professor, Dr. W. S. Urquhart, very often quoting him in public. Uruquhart was actually British and his views were in no shape or form based on the shastra. He was exactly the 'modern researcher' from your quote. -
[br/][br/]Kula-pavana:
Hare Krsna, Pandu-ji,
In the matters of understanding women's psychology Srila Prabhupada often followed the theories of his psychology college Professor, Dr. W. S. Urquhart, very often quoting him in public. Uruquhart was actually British and his views were in no shape or form based on the shastra. He was exactly the 'modern researcher' from your quote.
Dear Kula-pavana prabhu, Hare Krishna. I've heard other devotees marginalize Srila Prabhupada using the same kind of argument, but I have problems with it. As I've understood Srila Prabhupada's teachings, we are to take knowledge from Krishna through bona fide disciplic succession. If he did not do this himself, then he was not a proper acarya. [br/][br/]
Srila Prabhupada sometimes used mundane "authorities" to support his arguments, but I've never understood them to be his primary sources of knowledge on any subject of instruction. For example, he may have cited a judge as making some appropriate statement, but that does not mean that the judge is a real authority -- he may be wrong on another subject, or a different judge may contradict him. Being a judge does not make one a real authority, nor does being a psychology professor, although they may have a little knowledge by circumstance. So I take it that Srila Prabhupada referenced different mundane authorities for the sake of example, based on his own reliable knowledge received by the descending process. Otherwise I could not trust him, for it is cheating to play the role of guru while giving imperfect knowledge. As I see it, if we open up this can-of-worms saying that various statements by Srila Prabhupada are subject to confirmation by nondevotee mental speculators, then we're back at square-one (except burdened by the offense of having rejected a bona fide guru), apparently having no need to surrender to a guru and having no certain basis for knowledge. If I were to accept the view you've stated, then to me a guru would be the most dangerous kind of person, to whom we should never serve, much less surrender. Who would knowingly entrust his spiritual life to a faulty person?[br/][br/]
If, as we all know, Srila Prabhupada repeatedly taught about the defects of materially contaminated intelligence, then to me it makes no sense to think that he based his knowledge on statements by atheistic mental speculators. I find it very uninspiring to think of Srila Prabhupada that way. -
I think the following quote from a lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.44, Vrindaban, Oct 4, 1976, supports the points I made a few minutes ago:
"You cannot overrule acharya. Acharya... Acharyopasanam. Acharya should be always worshiped. Even if you, by ABCD, you have become more learned than the acharya... That is not possible, but if you foolishly think like that, still, you should not exhibit your foolishness, that you know more than the acharya. That is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's... By His life example, He has taught us that the more we remain ignorant, foolish before the acharya, or before the guru, that is more we advance. Real success is how one is faithful to his guru. That is real success. Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau. It is not by education or grammatical knowledge you can learn anything. No. It is by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And that grace comes down through the grace of guru. That grace also does not come directly. We should not be neglecting this point.
yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
prakashante mahatmanah
"Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed." [Shvetasvatara Upanishad 6.23]
"Things become revealed by devotion, not by so-called education." -
Having gotten a little sidetracked, I want to reiterate that wrote this question looking for devotees' explanations to increase the faith of a doubtful person and inspire him want to surrender to Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
For example, Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.8 seems relevant to the question. In the purport, Srila Prabhupada describes what he calls "a coating, a pleasure-giving substance, on the surface of the genitals." This suggests to me that sexual pleasure is not entirely dependent on one's mental state.
Hare Krishna. -
Prabhupada did not want blind followers. He wanted his disciples to be 'independently thoughtful' (".. our Krsna consciousness movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful.."). Acaryopasanam does not mean blind following. Just as Prabhupada was independently thoughtful in so many ways, so should be his followers.
The issue of understanding women's psychology has nothing to do with our siddhanta or spiritual knowledge. It is relative and subject to change. To pretend that somehow what Prabhupada said about women is absolute and true under all circumstances just because Prabhupada is a Vaishnava acharya, is actually detrimental to Prabhupada's mission. You are presenting to people a myth which can easily be disproven. That in turn causes people to lose faith in both Prabhupada and the process he is promoting. -
Hare Krishna.
I have been saying that we need to understand how to address the difficult questions ourselves based on Srila Prabhupada's teachings, rather than waiting for a canned response from those whose spiritual purity is unknown to us. That is independently thoughtful and not blind following. I know that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, so how is accepting his authority "blind following"? My understanding of blind following is to accept an authority whose real qualifications are unknown or potentially doubtful, such as an unnamed BBT employee. What to speak of unknown devotees, almost everyone in this world is captivated by maya, with all their so-called knowledge founded on illusion. Accepting the methods of those who have not once uttered with sincerity, "om ajnana-timirandhasya jnananjana-salakaya caksur unmilitam yena tasmai sri-gurave namah" is the most blind following.
A stated fact may be disproven by consulting a superior authority. If there is some statement in question, one looks to a higher authority for confirmation. If you accept the empirical process of accumulating knowledge through experimentation as superior to Srila Prabhupada's statements, then that's your choice. Then you can also say that there is genuine love in this world, as well as happiness (which of course everyone captivated by maya knows), and so on, which will certainly help you to relate to nondevotees.
I don't believe that contradicting Srila Prabhupada helps his mission. Our job as disciples in his line is to try to understand what he has said, with intelligence purified through devotional service, and to preach the knowledge he has given. That is the process of disciplic succession. If I'm going to knowingly preach contrary to what Srila Prabhupada has taught, I would first cut off my sikha and wipe the tilak off of my head, so as to not give the false impression that I am acting as a disciple. Then I can speak as an independent authority, however illusioned, drawing from whatever sources make sense to me at the moment.
Hare Krishna. -
prabhu,
> your criticism of "sweeping statements" implies an inherent concept that
> there are no absolutes ("black and white") in these issues, which is not
> true.
That is another misquote from my letter. I said to Isvara, in paraphrase,
"You say that the GBC are all ill-motivated. Dont make such a sweeping
statement. You, not being Supersoul, should not be so presumptuous as to
claim you know the minds and hearts of everyone."
As I explained in my previous letter, I signed the petition almost a week
ago, so I am not arguing for annotation. But I will not descend to the
ungentlemanly act of public GBC stoning.
> Because you (or others) had/have a hard time explaining certain concepts
> from Srila Prabhupada's purports (smrti) or from sastra (sruti) in no way
> implies that those concepts are therefore open to the
> comments/speculations/changes/additions/subtractions or whatever of those
> NOT on the uttama platform.
Prabhupada's purports are certainly open to our comments. That's what we do
in Srimad Bhagavatam class. That's what Srila Prabhupada asked us to do:
Read his purport and explain it in our own words.
As far as changing his words, that is not an issue here. Why bring it up?
But for the record, I am fully in favour and have implicit faith in
Jayadvaita Swami's life's mission as Srila Prabhupada's editor. But don't
change the subject. We're talking about annotations, which I don't agree
with.
> Can you explain the cosmological concepts described in the 5th canto? Or
> do those not pose a problem in your in Bhagavatam classes or
> conversations to guests? Perhaps we should annotate Prabhupad's books with
> modern scientists explanations of the universe.
Don't be so sarcastic Ganesa, it is very unbecoming. You know me well enough
to not ask me that stupid question.
> It is not a matter of reading the minds of everyone nor of being the
> Paramatma. It is matter of CHANGING Prabhupada's books (or teachings) ONCE
> AGAIN and insinuating the ideas of conditioned souls (us) into the
> perfect & pure teachings of the samparadaya acarya.
The matter of annotation is clear in my mind: don't do it. State your views
as firmly as you like, as many others have done in this issue. I say "do
not offend your Godbrothers in the process. You might need them one day.
Hate the sin, not the sinner".
Hoping this exchange meets you well,
Your old friend,
Kurma das -
I know that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, so how is accepting his authority "blind following"? My understanding of blind following is to accept an authority whose real qualifications are unknown or potentially doubtful, such as an unnamed BBT employee.Pandu das:
Blind following is following with your eyes closed. If your eyes are closed, you are bound to get lost, even if you are trying to follow a proper authority. Keeping yout eyes open means examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning and intent, examining the outside reality to see how these instructions apply to it, and examining the results of our application of these instructions in order to correct the course if needed. -
If you read the story I gave leading up to my question, you would see that I obtained a science degree and immersed myself in a variety of philosophies and practices of self-realization before finding and studying Bhagavad-gita As It Is. After college I set out on the path of renunciation and self-inquiry with determination to understand the absolute truth, and almost immediately I found Krishna by Srila Prabhupada's grace and mercy. Srila Prabhupada's purity as Krishna's devotee is proven to me, and I know from experience that surrender to Krishna gives perfect knowledge, whereas rejection of Krishna places the soul immediately into illusion. I accept Srila Prabhupada as Krishna's representative based on Krishna's certification of his authority. That is why I have firm faith in Srila Prabhupada and no faith in the knowledge of atheistic mental speculators. I am simply trying to gradually overcome my bad habits to increase my ability to follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions. I am naturally very contemplative and cannot recall any instance when I have preached something without personal experience or understanding of the subject. No one has ever accused me of blind following, and I find the notion quite ridiculous. I don't have time for such nonsense.
-
I am naturally very contemplative and cannot recall any instance when I have preached something without personal experience or understanding of the subject. No one has ever accused me of blind following, and I find the notion quite ridiculous. I don't have time for such nonsense.Pandu das:
Please forgive me if what I said offended you. I do not know you but I have met many blind followers of Srila Prabhupada, or blind followers of his disciples. They usually use the same arguments of 'following the perfect authority in all respects'. I admire their faith but do not share their logic. -
Dear Kula-pavana Prabhu,
Hare Krishna. Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Indeed I got a little angry in my last response, as you noticed. Thank you for your apology. Humility is the ornament of a Vaishnava, and so I happily offer my obeisances to you. I'm a little embarrassed about losing my cool. I wasn't going to come back to this discussion, but after I got home I got a chance to look up what Srila Prabhupada had said about blind following and wanted to relay what I found. The purport to B.g. 4.34 doesn't say much about this. Most of the Vedabase references were simply quotes of that purport, and many others were part of others inquiries in conversations that didn't result in a direct explanation. I found three that seemed relevant:
Prabhupada: Yes. That just like the father and the child. The father says, "You do this." So that is all-comprehensive. The father's idea is complete; it is good for the son. But the son says, "No. I want to act in this way." That is his folly. Similarly, what God says, that is religion, and... So there is no question of blind following. If you know, "Here is God. He is all-perfect, and whatever He is saying, that is all-perfect. Let me accept it," then you are gainer. And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Blaise Pascal (Philosophy discussions with Hayagriva prabhu)
My understanding of what Srila Prabhupada is saying here is that a proper authority has complete knowledge, and when such an authority is known then it is most beneficial to accept whatever he says. He is speaking of God here, but in many places Srila Prabhupada has explained that the spiritual master is as good as God because he is God's representative, like an iron rod in fire develops the properties of fire. His final sentence I think speaks directly to the subject that is in question regarding the proposed annotations: "And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer."
Disciple: Aquinas concludes that if the laws of God and man conflict, we should obey the laws of God.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. We can also obey the man who obeys the laws of God. It is useless to obey an imperfect person. That is the blind following the blind. If the leader does not follow the instructions of the supreme controller, he is necessarily blind, and he cannot lead. Why should we risk our lives by following blind men who believe that they are knowledgeable but are not? We should instead decide to take lessons from the Supreme Person, Krsna, who knows everything perfectly. Krsna knows past, present, and future, and what is for our benefit.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => TQE 6d: Thomas Aquinas: In Search of Divine Essence
In this statement he is not exactly talking about blind following (in our discussions the phrase is adverb-verb, but here it is noun-verb), but find here the same point that I tried to make earlier. "It is useless to obey an imperfect person." If I thought Srila Prabhupada was mistaken about anything, I would never have taken initiation in his line. Some years ago I found a moral discrepancy with my diksa guru and after that I felt so ill that it took me almost two years before I could complete two rounds of japa in a row and another six months before I could accept my full vows again. Although my obedience is not very good, I pray that my faith will get me there. Another point about Srila Prabhupada's statement here that is relevant to our discussion is that he says we should take lessons from Krishna, who knows everything perfectly. If Srila Prabhupada was taking lessons from a psychology professor as the basis for his teaching, then he was not following his own instruction, which would invalidate the notion of him as acarya. The only way I can accept the various mundane references he gave is to see them as examples given according to the authorities accepted by his audience. One who accepts an imperfect person as an authority for giving knowledge gets imperfect knowledge and gives imperfect knowledge to others. I couldn't trust such a person with my spiritual life.
...oops, 455 characters too long. Looks like this is Part 1. Part 2 follows... -
Prabhupada: Yes. Blind following and absurd inquiries. These things are condemned in this verse. Blind following means: "Oh, there is a swami. So many thousands of people are following. Let me become his disciple." This is called blind following. You do not know what is that swami, whether he is a swami or a rascal. You do not know. But because everyone is going, "Oh, let me become his disciple." This is blind following, without any knowledge, blind following. The swami says that "You give me money. I make you immediately God." So this is blind following.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.34-39 -- Los Angeles, January 12, 1969
Here he specifically describes what he means by "blind following," which is to accept a guru without testing him, based on such flimsy evidence as popularity or foolish promises.
Again, thank you for pacifying my temper. I'll sleep better now, and it's about that time. I've said in another discussion here that I really don't like debating against devotees, but if we can have a hard debate and emerge as friends based on appreciation for each other's desire to please Krishna in various ways, then it is well worth it. Hare Krishna.
Sincerely, your servant,
Pandu das -
[quote]Kula-pavana:
I know that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, so how is accepting his authority "blind following"? My understanding of blind following is to accept an authority whose real qualifications are unknown or potentially doubtful, such as an unnamed BBT employee.Pandu das:
Blind following is following with your eyes closed. If your eyes are closed, you are bound to get lost, even if you are trying to follow a proper authority. Keeping your eyes open means examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning and intent, examining the outside reality to see how these instructions apply to it, and examining the results of our application of these instructions in order to correct the course if needed.[/quote]
I think that annotations issue does show both - there is large number of devotees who are blind followers of Prabhupada and that there is a large number of devotees who are not. The examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning is the purpose of that resolution 311, in a way its a great resolution, as it actually did what it supposed to do - stimulate the debate... -
Please do not put offense where no offense is intended. Again examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning is good even for blind followers (since that changes them too).
GBC intended to provoque debate? Yeah, right.mishra:
Congratulations, you have commited thousands of offences in one go, by naming all opposed to 311 "blind followers". -
Pandu das:
Prabhupada: Yes. That just like the father and the child. The father says, "You do this." So that is all-comprehensive. The father's idea is complete; it is good for the son. But the son says, "No. I want to act in this way." That is his folly. Similarly, what God says, that is religion, and... So there is no question of blind following. If you know, "Here is God. He is all-perfect, and whatever He is saying, that is all-perfect. Let me accept it," then you are gainer. And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Blaise Pascal (Philosophy discussions with Hayagriva prabhu)
My understanding of what Srila Prabhupada is saying here is that a proper authority has complete knowledge, and when such an authority is known then it is most beneficial to accept whatever he says. He is speaking of God here, but in many places Srila Prabhupada has explained that the spiritual master is as good as God because he is God's representative, like an iron rod in fire develops the properties of fire. His final sentence I think speaks directly to the subject that is in question regarding the proposed annotations: "And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer."
Many people claim that their religion and their scripture is the all-perfect word of God that must be accepted without question or reasoning. The Bible thumpers proclaim that in every church, the Koran thumpers proclaim it in every mosque, the Torah thumpers proclaim it in every synagogue. We are not supposed to be like them. Krsna consciousness is supposed to be the SCIENCE of God.
The idea that the spiritual master is as good as God because he is God's representative should not be extrapolated too far. No guru will ever spring universes out of the pores of his skin. There are limits to this 'as good as God' qualification. Only Krsna has all the knowledge, and only Krsna's knowledge is all perfect. Prabhupada never claimed to be omniscient, or above making an error.
Anyway, this is my understanding of this subject matter. -
< it doesnt matter what they write.>ccd:
I suggest writing actual words of Prabhupada (from a different source or book) in this way nobody will object. (again not talking about blind followers...)
I definitely would not object to that. Elucidating author's intent by quoting his own words on the same subject matter is the most faithful form of a commentary, a gold standard of scholarly explanations. -
There are no limits to appreciation of Guru to be as good as God, but again not independently, but because he represents the science of Krishna and Krishna himself. Not that we will make our guru in all perfect incarnate of God, like all the bogus sampradayas do, Swaminarayana, Rajnesh, Sai Baba etc. So there are limits, to our understanding but that should not stop one's appreciation. But we should stop misunderstanding of his position as omnipotent or all-perfect god. As he said, if you make me into god, I will turn my back on all of you. There is no place of democracy on the issue.
What happens now is symptomatic of devotees' accepting Prabhupada to be 'the final truth', where as he is a representative of that truth. First makes it impossible to offer any interpretation or even a footnote, the second one asks for ever fresh and new approach to the scriptures and adaptation of Prabhupadas message to the current times.
But at least one thing we should accept, annotations to his books already exist. Commentary on his books already exist. He encouraged devotees to edit his words, if you do not believe me - read the transcripts of lectures on Queen Kuntis prayers and then read the book itself, Prabhupada wanted his message to be presentable. He never asked ANYONE to publish his morning walks unedited. He was very intelligent and knew well the difference between written word and a talk you can have with a few friends or disciples. And this is the intent of the 311 and some devotees refuse to understand it and that is symptomatic of misunderstanding of the position of a guru. While I accept that devotees who sign this unfortunate and misinformative petition do that with some good intentions, but they are based on largely wrong philosophical understanding. So we need to put limits on this schism of Prabhupada-all-perfect-god, that was the purpose of GBC in the first place! -
No one is suggesting that the spiritual master can create universes. His primary qualification as guru is that he speaks Krishna's message received through disciplic succession, without changing the meaning with additions or deletions. The fact that other faiths misrepresent God's message does not preclude us from boldly speaking the truth. Actually it increases our responsibility.
-
No one is suggesting that the spiritual master can create universes. His primary qualification as guru is that he speaks Krishna's message received through disciplic succession, without changing the meaning with additions or deletions.Pandu das:
And where does Krsna say that women enjoy being raped? -
duryodhana-sutāṁ rājan lakṣmaṇāṁ samitiṁ-jayaḥ
svayaṁvara-sthām aharat sāmbo jāmbavatī-sutaḥ
O King, Jāmbavatī's son Sāmba, ever victorious in battle, kidnapped Duryodhana's daughter Lakṣmaṇā from her svayaṁ-vara ceremony.
vṛtaḥ svayaṁ-vare sākṣād anaṇgo 'ṇga-yutas tayā
rājñaḥ sametān nirjitya jahāraika-ratho yudhi
At her svayaṁ-vara ceremony, Rukmavatī herself chose Pradyumna, who was the re-embodiment of Cupid. Then, although He fought alone on a single chariot, Pradyumna defeated the assembled kings in battle and took her away. -
duryodhana-sutāṁ rājan lakṣmaṇāṁ samitiṁ-jayaḥccd:
svayaṁvara-sthām aharat sāmbo jāmbavatī-sutaḥ
O King, Jāmbavatī's son Sāmba, ever victorious in battle, kidnapped Duryodhana's daughter Lakṣmaṇā from her svayaṁ-vara ceremony.
vṛtaḥ svayaṁ-vare sākṣād anaṇgo 'ṇga-yutas tayā
rājñaḥ sametān nirjitya jahāraika-ratho yudhi
At her svayaṁ-vara ceremony, Rukmavatī herself chose Pradyumna, who was the re-embodiment of Cupid. Then, although He fought alone on a single chariot, Pradyumna defeated the assembled kings in battle and took her away.
With all due respect... these kshatriyas took away these women in an act of chivalry commonly accepted among kshatriyas at the time, winning the hearts of such women in the process, and MAKING THESE WOMEN THEIR LAWFUL WIVES. This has very, very little connection with rape as an illigal act of forced sex which is what arguably Srila Prabhupada is talking about here.
If you, or Srila Prabhupada, said (or wrote) that 'kshatriya women enjoy being forcibly taken for a wife' we would not be having this discussion. Of course there are some notable exceptions to that 'rule', and the story of Amba is very instructive in that regard. Did Bhisma rape Amba? And did she enjoy it?
It is very important to use precise language when discussing controversial subject matters. Otherwise we are inviting trouble, perhaps for the next 10,000 years. -
I think you should read the whole purport...ccd:
here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand:
Devotee (1): They said that the man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to his raping her.
Prabhupada: Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And that's a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That's a psychology. It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology. -
I hope nobody is going to put their annotations here:
SB 4.25.41 Purport:
Every husband is certainly a great hero to his wife. In other words, if a woman loves a man, that man appears very beautiful and magnanimous. Unless one becomes beautiful in the eyes of another, one cannot dedicate his whole life to another. The husband is considered very magnanimous because he gives as many children to the wife as she likes. Every woman is fond of children; therefore any husband who can please his wife by sex and give her children is considered very magnanimous. Not only does the husband become magnanimous by begetting children, but by giving his wife ornaments, nice food and dresses, he keeps her completely under submission. Such a satisfied wife will never give up the company of her husband. Manu-saṁhitā recommends that to keep a wife satisfied a husband should give her some ornaments because women are generally fond of home, ornaments, dresses, children, etc. In this way the woman is the center of all material enjoyment.
In this regard, the word vikhyātam is very significant. A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape. -
[quote]ccd:
[quote]Kula-pavana:
I think you should read the whole purport...ccd:
here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand.[/quote]
This is not the purport.[/quote]
It is an explanation (purport) to the use of the word 'rape' by Srila Prabhupada, not the purport in the sense of 'tika' or scholarly commentary to the shastra. -
[quote]Kula-pavana:
[quote]ccd:
[quote]Kula-pavana:
I think you should read the whole purport...ccd:
here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand.[/quote]
This is not the purport.[/quote]
It is an explanation (purport) to the use of the word 'rape' by Srila Prabhupada, not the purport in the sense of 'tika' or scholarly commentary to the shastra.[/quote]
I know and have read the transcript. It is not a purport of the use of the word in the Purport. The Purport is posted above. -
[quote]Kula-pavana:
No one is suggesting that the spiritual master can create universes. His primary qualification as guru is that he speaks Krishna's message received through disciplic succession, without changing the meaning with additions or deletions.Pandu das:
And where does Krsna say that women enjoy being raped?[/quote][br/][br/]
I don't know everything Krishna has said. However, Srila Prabhupada has said this:[br/][br/]
"Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas. That is not spiritual master. Spiritual master is he who speaks exactly the words which is spoken by Krsna. That is the secret. You cannot change."[br/]
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974[br/][br/]
The question then is whether we accept Srila Prabhupada as a spiritual master. If we do, then we must accept that he is telling Krishna's words. "Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas." -
Pandu das:
I don't know everything Krishna has said. However, Srila Prabhupada has said this:[br/][br/]
"Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas. That is not spiritual master. Spiritual master is he who speaks exactly the words which is spoken by Krsna. That is the secret. You cannot change."[br/]
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974[br/][br/]
The question then is whether we accept Srila Prabhupada as a spiritual master. If we do, then we must accept that he is telling Krishna's words. "Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas."
Krsna's words are recorded in the shastra. That is recognized by all Vaishnavas as the standard. Commenting on various things in this world Prabhupada would sometimes employ his own 'educated guesswork', as he openly admits here:
SB 5.20.13. PURPORT
"From the descriptions in this verse, we can make an educated guess about the nature of the flames on the moon."
I see nothing wrong with making educated guesses on such topics. And to me, Srila Prabhupada is still my guru, even if he may be wrong on some of such guesses. These things do not diminish his value to me. But we should not pretend such statements are "absolute truth" if he himself reveals their true nature. -
Dear Kula-pavana Prabhu,
Because one story in Srimad Bhagavatam is mentioned as allegory, shall we assume any story that conflicts with our imperfect senses is also allegory? My understanding of the quote you have given is that if Srila Prabhupada is making an educated guess, he will say so. Not that we take this as evidence that he guesses about many things and presents it as fact with all the weight of an utterance by the spiritual master and Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. That would be cheating. Hare Krishna. -
My understanding of the quote you have given is that if Srila Prabhupada is making an educated guess, he will say so. Not that we take this as evidence that he guesses about many things and presents it as fact with all the weight of an utterance by the spiritual master and Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. That would be cheating.Pandu das:
I respect your understanding and position but I do not share it. Nor do I believe that making such educated guesses without explicit admission of doing so in every case constitutes cheating.
One of the main reasons the book "Easy Journey to Other Planets" is not being printed and distributed anymore is that Srila Prabhupada's statements regarding the nature of antimatter discovered by the scientists have turned out to be incorrect. Antimatter is not spirit, it is simply a different form of matter. Some of Prabhupada's teachings are absolute, and some are relative. When you have to struggle real hard to show that a particular statement is true, it is quite clear that that teaching is in the relative category. And the 'rape' case discussed on this thread is a perfect example of relative teachings.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions1,259
- Health59
- Other127
- Philosophy728
- Sadhana73
- Social217
- Tech55