Comments Posted By Somayaji
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 44 Comments
One of the subtexts of Mahatmaâs article was that the majority of men in ISKCON are sub-human jerks that need to be domesticated and civilized by their long-suffering but morally superior and saintly wives. But, as Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport to Bhagavad-gita 16.7:
âBut modern education has artificially devised a puffed-up concept of womanly life, and therefore marriage is practically now an imagination in human society.â
And, in Srimad Bhagavatam 9.3.10: âIn the modern day, the wife is never submissive, and therefore home life is broken even by slight incidents.â
Srila Prabhupada had abundant experience of dealing with his discipleâs marriages. As Srila Prabhupada warned Gopala Krsna Swami (then Prabhu) when he wanted to get married to a devotee girl.
âAnother difficulty is that in modern civilization everyone is independent spirited. The girls are no longer very much humble and submissive to their husbands.â
Letter to: Gopala Krsna, 26 November, 1969
The message is clear — modern women — devotee or not, are not inclined to be submissive making peaceful marriage an imagination. Thus, Mahatma Prabhu is flagrantly contradicting the founder acarya by saying the opposite and putting himself in a superior position that Srila Prabhupada as rightly pointed out by BVKS. He may hope to become popular with a certain group of women but this is not the behavior of someone dedicated to preserving the teachings of the guru parampara. I hope that the GBC EC will take steps to correct Mahatma Prabhuâs deviant teachings or stop him from being a guru, a role he seems unqualified for.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 05.06.2014 @ 03:48
Dear Mataji I have very much appreciated your original text plus comments and agree with almost everything you have written. For example I could not understand what you meant when you wrote:
“The point is that womenâs emotional nature can cloudy [sic] their vision, especially in challenging situations. And of course also menâs vision and intelligence can also be clouded, especially by their false ego. Indra is a good example for this.
Men have a stronger gross body (broader shoulders, bigger muscles, bigger feet), and also their subtle body is stronger as well: stronger mind, more (material!) intelligence and bigger false ego. This enables them to fulfill their purifying duty of protecting, providing and taking charge. And their ego often gets in their way and bewilders their intelligence and vision of things.”
Could you please explain with sastra pramana how it is that males have bigger false ego (ahamkara) than females.
It is ahamkara, which binds us to the material conception of life that “I am the gross and subtle material body.” I have nowhere read in any sastra that maleâs identification with material body is greater than that of females.
Awaiting your response.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 26.11.2013 @ 15:41
Regarding courses on Vaisnava Spiritual culture, HH Bhaktividya Purna Swami has been giving such courses since at least the mid to late 1990s.
You can find a whole series on Vaisnava etiquette and culture at ISKCON Desire Tree
There are many other classes and seminars by him at this site.
And, for the record I am not a disciple of His Holiness but appreciate his efforts that have been on going through thick and thin for several decades.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 26.11.2013 @ 19:54
Are the great warrior devotees the Pandavas “feminine?” Are Krsna’s male gopa friends in Goloka Vrndavana feminine?
In the 3rd canto it is described that the Vaikuntha vasis have wives.
It is self evident that the great devotee Bhimasena is not feminine like his equally great devotee of a wife Draupadi.
It is obvious that the concept of “feminine” in the spiritual context is not properly understood.
Such a childish man (which most men are today) is not very strong.
There are over 3 billion men in the world today, how do you know that most of them are childish? #2 is.
You said :
This is also the reason why they are not considered very intelligent (in the Vedic culture an intelligent person is one who can distinguish between matter and spirit, and women are more easily swayed to identify with their material body on account of its external beauty).
So only “hot” women are less intelligent but ugly one’s are smart? No. (The time factor will make all of us ugly.) The real reason is because the function of the female material form is to create more material forms - babies. For that to succeed means she must always be conscious of acquiring material facility to enable her “nesting” instinct. This happens even if she never has children, she is naturally materially acquisitive. Economists will tell you that more than 80% of all consumer purchases are done by women. That is a lot of material acquisition. So such focus on material things is by the Vedic definition –less intelligent.
The feminist trope is that women are spiritual. What about men’s spirituality.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 09.10.2013 @ 18:49
In #37 Mother Visakha Priya dd wrote:
âFrom my point of view, using the same words, phrases, and expressions as someone else to make a different point doesnât constitute a breach of etiquette as long as it is not attributed to the person from whom one borrows the terminology. Does this refutation make sense to you, my son?â
I donât know if it makes sense to Krishna Kirti Prabhu but it doesnât make sense to me. Kauteya did not specifically attribute the lexically engineered text to Krsna Kirti Prabhu but he did attribute it to his opponents, which is just as unethical.
Kaunteya Prabhu purposely kept everyone in the dark as to who or what he was quoting so that you could not check his sources to see if he did so correctly. We would not have known this if Krsna Kirti Prabhu had not pointed out what Kaunteya had done to his writing, slicing and dicing it to fit his needs. That is unethical. Who knows what else he has done. Such lack of transparency certainly makes it justifiable to doubt his motives, especially since this seems to the modus operendi of the pro-FDG camp.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 11.03.2013 @ 08:58
regarding comment #8 by “bbd” (who is bbd?) I would have to whole heartedly agree with Nitai Prabhu’s comment #9 bbd’s comments are complete speculation or wishful thinking and have no support in sastra. It’s as if “bbd” never read any of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Just last night I was reading in Krsna book about the marriage of Usa and Annirudha and the great efforts that were taken by Usha’s father to keep her away from boys. This was not a singularity but the theme of the sastras. So we find it very strange that “bbd” comes to the exact opposite conclusion regarding the mixing of the sexes than that of Vedic culture as explained in sastra and by our acaryas and sadhus.
Regarding the so called influence of Islam and the British regarding mixing of the sexes a study was done which showed that for North Indian girls they began to feel uncomfortable if an unknown male came within 2 meters, whereas in South India where Vedic culture is much stronger because of little Islamic influence because of the Vijayanagar Empire which kept them out the S Indian girls feel uncomfortable if an unknown male comes within 4 meters, twice that of the N Indian girl. So in areas of India where Vedic culture is strongest (S India) there is stronger aversion for free mixing of the sexes.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 01.01.2013 @ 16:12
Acyuta Prabhu wrote:
I donât believe it has yet been mentioned that the GBCâs Sastric Advisory Council has already (nearly ten years past) completed an investigation of this issue.
Though not available as a download there is a paper commissioned by the Indian RGB that resoundingly rebuts the SAC paper. It is widely distributed on the net in different locations. If you google “A Reply to the GBC Action Order 305 (2009)” including the “” you get about 900 results on the SERP.
To quote you “I urge all devotees interested in this topic to take the time to read it.”
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 06.12.2012 @ 08:54
Dear Antadwipa Prabhu,
I had been following the discussion on http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10661 and was eagerly awaiting this article, it is really excellent. It successfully and conclusively deprecates the idea of using Tropical zodiac in Vedic astrology. You have provided excellent pramana from many authoritative sources like Surya Siddhanta Siddhanta, Srimad Bhagavatam, Brahat Samhit and Brhat Jataka.
You have shown that sastras mention both sidereal and tropical systems and when they are to be used. It was a breath of fresh air to see the actual facts presented in a convincing manner by someone who actually knows the subject.
I want to also thank Shyamasundara Prabhu for encouraging Antardwipa Prabhu to write this article I am sure it will be read by many astrology students such as myself in the future to clear their heads from the fog of confusion that others have created.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 21.10.2012 @ 14:27
As Sitalatma Prabhu points out according to sastra one should approach a guru, it is not enough to simply read books. This is true even for material subjects like medicine or law; simply reading the books do not qualify you to practice medicine or law. So even if we accept your unproved statement:
âHowever, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the idea that there are astrological âgurusâ with bona-fide astrological âparamparaâ is just a dream, a fantasy.â
We should still accept a teacher for subjects like jyotisa after carefully studying their qualifications.
I notice that on Shyamasundara Prabhuâs website http://shyamasundaradasa.com/jyotish/main/about_shyamasundara_dasa.html he gives a list of all his teachers. I would assume that all his teachers also had teachers who themselves had teachers and so on, so this is a parampara. And other astrology teachers also had teachers. Perhaps they do not keep lists like we do of the 32 previous acaryas, (they donât keep such lists in law or medical schools either) but still it is expected that one have a teacher or guru and that one is not self taught for as it is said âone who has himself for a student has a fool for a teacher.â
As members of ISKCON we are supposed to be presenting Vedic culture. That includes the concept of accepting a teacher, a superior authority, and studying under them. So the question arises: who is your teacher?
Vraja Kishore wrote:
Therefore where is the âguruâ who has the bile to say that it is âVedicâ to use a sidereal zodiac.
Maybe you should wait till after Antardvipaâs article is published before making such statements. Aside from that Shyamasundara Prabhuâs articles mentioned in #1 has already demolished the concept of using Tropical Zodiac, you have not even begun to respond to that, your comment in #34 can hardly be called a response.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 19.10.2012 @ 20:33
In #35 Vraja Kishore wrote:
It is not accurate to depict me as a lone maverick championing an oddball cause. I am merely doing my part and carrying the torch. Many, many important personalities before me have discovered and advocated the same reform I am championing. Similarly there are many others who currently share this opinion with me.
There have always been people who have been against Vedic Siddhanta. Bhaktisiddhanta was well aware of various calendar reform movements that existed in the past. He argued against tropical zodiac and accepted sidereal calendars in vogue during his stay on the planet.
You quote Dieter Kochâs article where it says:
It is hoped that at not a distant date, further reforms for locating the lunar and solar festivals in the seasons in which they were originally observed will be adopted.â
This shows the whole fallacious reasoning behind their desire to change it to tropical zodiac, to keep it according to the seasons. As Shyamasundara Prabhu showed in http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10570 this creates the absurd position of having to define two different zodiac meanings for the northern and southern hemispheres because they run opposite to each other. So according to the idea that the calendar should be according to the season then when should Gaura Purnima be in Australia? Gaura Purnima in the north is just at the beginning of spring, but that would be the fall in Australia. So to make it in the spring in Australia you would have to move it by six months, likewise for everything else. So this idea of keeping in tune with the seasons shows that it is not universal in application. You would have to have a whole different Vaisnava Calendar for the southern hemisphere to keep it in tune with the season that that particular personality appeared in. This calendar would be out of phase with the north hemisphere calendar by six months, this is completely absurd and unacceptable. Thus the argument for tropical zodiac is absurd and unacceptable.
Comment Posted By Somayaji On 19.10.2012 @ 13:36