Comments Posted By Balakrsna das
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 29 Comments
Thank you very much for posting this article. We often hear persons who pick out one reference or quote to dismiss or promote astrology depending on their pursuasion. This however is an informative, balanced and useful to any devotee; it really puts Vedic Astrology in a Krsna Conscious perspective.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 29.09.2014 @ 11:48
A man‚Äôs role is to protect and provide.
But Manu says a woman can not be protected by force. Why does he say that? Because to protect a woman means that the man has to be able to control everything she does. Just like a mother cannot protect her child unless she can control the child. You cannot protect that which you do not control.
So a woman has to voluntarily allow her husband to control her in every way if she wants to be actually protected. But is that happening? Rarely.
Protection is now interpreted as meaning man is bodyguard while woman acts independently so the wife can be “happy.” And of course if something goes wrong the man gets blamed.
And “provide” now means that man = ATM.
No wonder men in the West don’t want to get married any more.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 04.09.2014 @ 07:21
Recently the GBC published a paper ‚ÄúA GBC Foundational Document - Srila Prabhupada: The Founder-ńÄcńĀrya of ISKCON‚ÄĚ by Ravindra Swarupa Prabhu http://www.dandavats.com/?p=12375
In the introduction the GBC EC writes:
‚ÄėSrila Prabhupada did not simply carry the message of Lord Caitanya and Lord Krishna to us. While that in itself is a glorious task, Srila Prabhupada, as our Founder-Acarya , created the very foundation, function and vision of ISKCON as a global community aiming for the ‚Äúrespiritualization of the entire human society.‚ÄĚ Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs role, as you will read, is ongoing. His presence is to be felt in the life of every ISKCON devotee today, and in the lives of devotees many centuries into the future.‚Äô
Yet Mahatma Prabhu an initiating guru in ISKCON publicly contradicted Srila Prabhupada in his text, thus undermining Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs position. If the GBC is serious about its commitment to Srila Prabhupada as the founder acarya then some public correction of Mahatma Prabhu needs to be made so the message is clear.
As Bhaktivikasa Swami pointed out:
‚ÄúSurely the main qualification of a husband as guru is that he himself be a strict follower of his own guru. Only a faithful disciple is fit to be a guru; to uphold the opposite to one‚Äôs guru places one outside the parampara and renders one disqualified to instruct anyone. To misuse the status of being a disciple of Srila Prabhupada to instruct others contrary to Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs teachings is clearly a type of cheating and a betrayal of Srila Prabhupada.‚ÄĚ
If Mahatma‚Äôs egregious behavior of betraying his guru is not publicly corrected then the whole statement of the GBC EC is a farce.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 05.06.2014 @ 04:04
Regarding the book ‚ÄúDid Srila Prabhupada want Women Diksa Gurus‚ÄĚ the following email was circulated earlier this year.
Please accept my humble obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I roughly went through the book “Did Srila Prabhupada Want Women Diksa-gurus?”
I just want to share a point which might be useful.
Kaunteya prabhu had depicted some images of Goddesses’ statues from Tamilnadu and says that women in the past had [sacred] threads. I read somewhere an argument that we cannot compare the goddesses with ordinary women. That’s fine. However, I had a doubt about those strands.
Thus I contacted a Tamil stapati who makes this kind of sculptures. As per his statement, these three strands has nothing to do with upavita [Brahmin thread]. It is called sannaviram. It is a designed ornament made with pearls or similar material and worn by women for decoration. Women in traditional Indian culture used to wear so many ornaments and this is just another ornament.
It is funny that our devotees decide something just by seeing some image without doing even cursory research about it.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 26.11.2013 @ 21:48
In the December 1931 issue of the Harmonist, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wrote an article entitled “Thakur Bhaktivinode” therein he addressed the issue of how to understand the life and teachings of Bhaktivinode. The following are some pertinent excerpts:
“There have, however, already arisen serious misunderstandings regarding the proper interpretation of the life and teachings of Srila Thakura Bhaktivinode. Those who suppose they understand the meaning of his message without securing the guiding grace of the acarya are disposed to unduly favor the method of empiric study of his writings. There are persons who have got by heart almost everything that he wrote without being able to catch the least particle of his meaning.
“… The personal service of the pure devotee is essential for understanding the spiritual meaning of the words of Thakur Bhaktivinode.
“…The present editor has all along felt it his paramount duty to try to clear up the meaning of the life and teachings of Thakur Bhaktivinode by the method of submissive listening to the transcendental sound from the lips of the pure devotees.
“…Thakur Bhaktivinode is acknowledged by all his sincere followers as possessing the above powers of the pure devotee of Godhead. His words have to be received from the lips of a pure devotee. If his words are listened to from the lips of a non-devotee they will certainly deceive. If his works are studied in the light of one’s own worldly experience their meaning will refuse to disclose itself to such readers. His works belong to the class of eternal revealed literature of the world and must be approached for their right understanding through their exposition by the pure devotee. If no help is sought, the works of Thakur Bhaktivinode will be grossly misunderstood by their readers.”
Essentially we understand Bhaktivinode Thakura through the guru parampara, that is, Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati and Srila Prabhupada. Not by jumping over them. Thus if we want to understand the relevance and application of texts such as Manu Samhita we do it via the guru parampara not our speculation of what Bhaktivinode Thakura meant.
If there is a contradiction in Manu Samhita and the teaching of the Gita or Bhagavatam regarding varnashrama then we can assume it is an interpolation and only accept the conclusions of the Gita and Bhagavatam. But regarding the teaching of Manu on women, there is no contradiction with the Gita or Bhagavatam.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 11.02.2013 @ 22:07
Urmila Mataji what is the meaning of your enigmatic statement? Will they not have internet or what? Why will they not be able to read such article? No electricity? Decreased literacy? What exactly are you driving at?
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 19.01.2013 @ 04:30
Thank you for this text Maharaja it is much appreciated.
Regarding devotees rejecting VAD based on that conversation with Ramananda Raya, if one were to carefully read it and see all the other things that Lord Caitanya rejected as external then one would not be so quick to just pick on VAD. For example when Ramananda Raya quoted Gita 18.66 sarvadharma parityajna … Lord Caitanya said that was also external! This puts a whole new perspective on what “external” means. It means the processes required for someone (all of us) who are located outside (external) of the spiritual realm and trying to return back to Godhead. Lord Caitanya was inquiring from Ramananda about the mood of those who are already in the internal realm and not trapped in material bodies.
What may be external for someone on the stature of Lord Caitanya (Lord Krsna in the mood of Radharani Who is definitely not to be imitated) is essential for us foolish souls lost in this material world. Why? Because we have material bodies and we are stuck in material consciouness and we need those processes to bring us into the correct position. But if one is already perfectly spiritually situated they are not necessary but should still be followed to show others the correct process.
Again thank you for reminding us that Srila Prabhupada was concerned that ISKCON establish VAD as a practical way to make spiritual advancement and thus avoid sahajiyaism. The majority of sannyasis would not have fallen down if they had followed VAD culture in regards to how sannyasis behave vis a viz women, and of course the rest of the societies duty is to also protect the sannyasis by following the same culture. Only in ISKCON (among legitimate sampradayas) do you hear of sannyasis with female secretaries, cooks, masseuse etc. It is not an accident that they fell it is inevitable because this is completely at odds with Vedic norms for sannyasis. Much more could be said on this topic.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 21.12.2012 @ 17:13
It may just be that there is a valid distinction between initiating gurus and important acaryas. Maybe there were many bona-fide female spiritual masters in Gaudiya Vaisnava history who were competent to initiate devotees into the sampradaya, but very few who had the stature of great acaryas like Jahnava-devi. We have many male initiating gurus in ISKCON but how many would Sridhar Maharaja recognize as important acaryas?
The key word here is “maybe.” This is not a solid basis for building a whole theory.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 13.12.2012 @ 02:19
In comment #15 Candrashekharacarya Prabhu takes offense to the following sentence:
Now to save face you divert to a different topic, which has nothing to do with the original topic. By this method no conclusion can be arrived at.
He believes that my faculties of perception are all wrong, that I have to intimately know him for years to be able to make such a judgement. That would be like saying that if someone took something of mine without my permission I would have to intimately know them for years before I could call them a thief. I do not have to know the person to call them a thief because their pattern of behavior matches that of thieves since the recorded annals of history.
In a similar vein, I have been in discussions on different fora either as a participant or viewer long enough to know why people change topics when they are losing. I do not need to intimately know them to understand their motivations for what they do because it is a common tactic of certain types of people who are losing the debate and for the same motive I mentioned.
Having said that I will rephrase my last sentence:
“Now you divert to a different topic, which has nothing to do with the original topic. By this method no conclusion can be arrived at.”
This is not FB, here you will meet people who will strongly challenge your opinions. Therefore I ask you to refrain from insulting the intelligence of the readers and myself by resorting to red herrings.
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 11.12.2012 @ 19:23
In # 11 HH Swami B.A Ashram wrote:
“Traditionally, there are many examples of women giving diksa.”
This should be changed to: “Traditionally, there are many examples of women giving diksa in apasampradayas.”
Comment Posted By Balakrsna das On 09.12.2012 @ 15:06