Comments Posted By Sugriva das
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 36 Comments
I am not justifying divorce or condoning women who leave their husbands. As Prabhupada said, divorce doesn‚Äôt exist in Manu Samhita; it is a modern invention.
I just quoted 2 verses from Manu that do indicate that a man can reject a wife and take another. There are also some regarding when it is lawful for a woman to reject a husband and remarry. They are not trivial reasons.
I will not quote them but leave them for homework.
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 04.09.2014 @ 08:04
Moreover, it is much more difficult for a woman to tolerate a bad husband than it is for a real man to tolerate a bad wife.
Actually “real men” don’t tolerate bad wives, they reject them — Manu gives several examples of bad wives worthy of rejecting. Here is just one such quote, there are others.
She who drinks spirituous liquor, is of bad conduct, rebellious, diseased, mischievous, or wasteful, may at any time be superseded (by another wife). A barren wife may be superseded in the eighth year, she whose children (all) die in the tenth, she who bears only daughters in the eleventh, but she who is quarrelsome without delay. Manu Smriti 9.80-81
Note that Manu tells us not to tolerate quarrelsome women (or women who are spendthrifts and have other unhealthy qualities.)
Dasaratha publicly disavowed Kaikeyi.
And, this is what Lord Visnu says about henpecked men who tolerate bad wives.
In the house where the woman acts like a man or where the man is controlled by a woman, one’s spiritual life is fruitless and the place becomes inauspicious. For one whose wife is harsh in speech and action and who loves to quarrel, the forest is more favorable than the home. Since it is easy to get water, fruits, and peace in the forest, it is considered more auspicious than being with a mean wife. Those who are puppets in the hands of their wives are never sanctified, even by cremation. A henpecked husband is not liable to receive the results of any auspicious activities that he performs. The demigods and people of earth always criticize him and he is bereft of fame and glory, so he should be considered dead, though living in the body.
(spoken by Lord Visnu in Brahma-vaivarta Purana, Prakrti-khanda 6.62-63)
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 04.09.2014 @ 07:59
Yes; ‚Äúthe qualification has to be there‚ÄĚ (which is a principle for both men and women), who could disagree on this?
Does this mean that women in the past didn‚Äôt rise to the high standards of devotional service like our ISKCON women? That women like Pishima what to speak of Kunti, Draupadi, and Devahuti were only kanisthas and not on the level of our ISKCON women and hence were not qualified to be FDG. Or, were there some other reasons that mahabhagavatas in female bodies didn‚Äôt take up the service of being a diksha guru?
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 02.12.2013 @ 10:53
Keshava Krsna said:
Due to general male weakness, females of all ages are often abused under the guise of so-called tradition and protection. World and News statistics reveal how males are hardly living up to protection status. If this tide continues, people will start to lose faith in the male species. It is already happening.
When weakened males demand a return to, or a creation of male-dominated strictures in the face of suspicion and doubt, it is for males to prove their capabilities first. And yet we speak optimistically of a coming Golden Age.
I find your statement here to be offensive and absurd. You have generalized that all men have become weak and abuse women. Does that apply to you as well? Are you speaking about yourself? Who are you speaking about? The real fact of the matter is that as sastras tell us since time immemorial there have always been good men and bad men and that women need to be protected from bad men (and themselves) by good men.
Your words are like a mangina reading from a feminist script and that I just cannot accept. If you believe it then you are also one of those weak men so why should we listen to you. Your whole attitude contributes to an adversarial attitude between men and women as you can see by my reaction. From the way you write men are all abusive, rapist, monsters. What kind of effect does that have on women? And what kind of man would want to be associated with women who have been affected by such rhetoric?
In general I find the the members of ISKCON are several years behind the curve on these issues. In the mundane world there is already much greater awareness of the pernicious effects of feminism and there is a growing backlash to it. While the rest of the world has grown wary of the social disease called feminism we in ISKCON are more than willing to drink the “purple kool-aid.”
Also please explain to me how it is that the pernicious effects of Kali yuga are gender specific and only affects men but not women. You need to go back and read SB 12 canto about what it does to women.
This desire for so called equality is a by product of the failed Marxist doctrine of which modern feminism is definitely and on off spring and like Marxism it will self destruct and that self destruction will take many down with it. This desire for equality is a manifestation of our envy of Krsna and wanting to be equal to Him.
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 17.01.2013 @ 06:44
@ Keshava Krsna Prabhu #9
‚ÄúThat reference was written in early 1969. During those times, as Govinda Mataji can attest, Iskcon was still in the ‚Äėclose family‚Äô mode. Indeed, Govinda Mataji was Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs secretary for a while. Three disciple couples were to travel to London to set Iskcon history. Can we see why Srila Prabhupada was optimistic? (Of course he always was) ‚ÄúBy 1975‚Ä¶‚ÄĚ he wanted Bhaktivedanta namesakes. Did things happen this way? No.‚ÄĚ
Srila Prabhupada saw that many of disciples had fallen down and by 1977 he ordered that Varnashrama Dharma was to implemented and started specifically in ISKCON (Feb 14, 1997 Mayapura‚ÄĒVarnashrama Dharma conversation)
It should also be noted that Srila Prabhupada penned the Suniti could not be a diksha guru purport in the 4th canto in 1974, several years after that letter to Hamsadutta.
Thus his later instruction in 1974 supersedes that of 1969.
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 06.12.2012 @ 19:35
Dear Antardvipa Prabhu,
Hare Krsna. I wanted to thank you and also Shyamasundara Prabhu for your very nice explanation it is by far much more authoritative and convincing than that of the antagonist. After reading your explanation Vrajakishore‚Äôs text by comparison was nebulous at best, disorganized, simplistic and unscientific. I also found his comments to be of the hairsplitting variety and unable in any way to nullify your presentation. In fact they made your case even stronger.
Again I thank both you and Shyamasundara Prabhu for your efforts to enlighten us and remove the doubts created by others.
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 09.11.2012 @ 06:05
Dear Vraja Kishore Prabhu,
In #23 you wrote:
‚ÄúThe book itself repeats a well known fact that Bhaktisiddhanta was not a Jataka, ever. The topic under discussion here is Jataka Jyotisha. Therefore even once we know confidently what Bhaktisiddhanta‚Äôs opinion on the definition of the zodiac starting point; still we have to take that point into careful consideration.‚ÄĚ
It appears to me that you are implying that astronomy is dependent on astrology and not the other way around. How is that? Without astronomy there is no astrology. What am I missing here? Please clarify, you seem to be saying even if as Vedic astronomer Srila Bhaktisiddhanta favored sidereal zodiac then this would still not be sufficient for you unless he were an astrologer as well. If he was not an astrologer then it would as you say require ‚Äúcareful consideration.‚ÄĚ Why?
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 14.09.2012 @ 06:30
Then on the other extreme are those who come into astrology from the sciences but have no sadhana. (This is especially common in India.) They get caught up in mathematical analysis without developed intuition via spiritual practices. This type is less prevalent than the former. If they were to practice a regular sadhana of japa and other basic principles of Bhakti yoga then they have good potential for being excellent astrologers. And, while it is possible for anyone to take up the sadhana of bhakti yoga, it is not really possible for the mathematically challenged to become good mathematicians.
The conflict that you have seen in the comments in this and other jyotish related articles in the last few months has been (IMHO) between those who want jyotish to be presented as a real Vedic science with the required balance of intellectual rigor and spiritual sadhana versus the ‚ÄúPop‚ÄĚ presentation of jyotish which tarnishes the subject and makes it an object of ridicule as you and others have commented.
I am glad to know that the devotees who are taking up this field of Vedic knowledge are doing so responsibly and thoughtfully. I really did mean what I said about encouraging you to write articles about it.
Unfortunately that is not the case for as we have seen there are the serious students who want to follow the actual tradition and the others.
I am only a student of jyotisa it would be better if someone like Shyamasundara Prabhu who has dedicated his whole life to this science would write. Much of what I have written above is from him and can be found on his site at:
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 14.04.2010 @ 05:11
Astrology also suffers under a stigma or reputation of being not actually scientific, full of superstition and lore to lure gullible people.
Astrology is a great science that has been degraded for various reasons. Now a days many people think that they are astrologers if they can punch the birth data into their computer program but would be lost without their computers being unable to do the basic math required to draw up a chart.
In the past to be a qualified astrologer in India required proficiency in Sanskrit, mathematics and astronomy before one could even study jyotish texts. So you can imagine that this would eliminate most people from the study because they would not be intelligent enough to master the pre-requisites. These pre-requisites would give the student a razor sharp mind and keen intellect required to deal with jyotish the hetu sastra dealing with cause and effect. Make no mistake about it jyotish is a super-science, it is a multi-disciplinary study and the most complicated of all material sciences. But because it is a super-science, such intellectual training though necessary is not sufficient. Because they were brahmanas they also studied sastra, practiced tapasya, chanted japa, meditation, yoga etc all of which are important to increase the person‚Äôs intuition making them sensitive to the message of param atma. So this combination of intellectual rigor and refined intuition resulted in master astrologers. Both sides are important if one is missing then it doesn‚Äôt work.
Unfortunately the introduction of calculation aids such as ephemerides and lately computers has drastically lowered the bar to the point that the mathematically challenged take up astrology after reading a few books. Therefore disrupting the necessary balance of rigor and logic on one side and spiritually developed intuition on the other. Their thinking is fuzzy and characterized by reliance on their so-called ‚Äúpsychic abilities,‚ÄĚ lack of real depth of understanding of the subject, no intellectual rigor and a shallow approach. They are ‚Äúpop‚ÄĚ astrologers with no scientific training.
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 14.04.2010 @ 05:08
Regarding text 54
I am sincerely interested in the philosophical issue raised by Sugriva about whether Brhaspati is like a barometer (i.e., a predictor, not a causal agent).
I got it and a lot more from a Jyotish seminar that Shyamasundara Prabhu gave in the Soho temple last year. I downloaded it from his website.
You should know that Brhaspati is only one of many synonyms for the planet Jupiter. He is also called Jiva, Angirasa, Suraguru, Mantri, Vachaspati, Arya, Suri and Vagisa. (Hora Sara chapter 2) Angirasa and Brhaspati are two different people though related to each other. Similarly Venus has multiple names such as Sukra, Bhrigu, Asphujit, Sita, Usana, and Kavi. Again Brghu and Sukra are not the same person.
In Sanskrit all the planets have multiple names. So simply taking the name Brihaspati and identifying the planet as the person will get you in trouble. Rather Jupiter‚Äôs qualities would best be described to be like Brhaspati when Jupiter is manifesting his best qualities. In other words the planet is named according to articles that share similar symptoms. Also every planet has a huge portfolio of things that it represents in the case of Jupiter it represents Brhaspati and persons like him, as well as people of great knowledge (Vachaspati), power of speech (Vagisa), sattva guna, and wise minister (Mantri). He also represents the liver, and fat in the human body. So it is not that Jupiter is fat or your liver or even the deva guru Brhaspati, but rather he represents such things. One should not be confused in thinking that because one of many synonyms for the planet is Brhaspati that he is actually the person Brhaspati, by that reasoning he would also be Angirasa who is a different person altogether. There is a personality ruling the planet Jupiter who is described in sastra and you will often see pictures of him along with the other navagrahas but as far as I know that person is not Brhaspati or Angirasa.
The actual person controlling Jupiter/Brhaspati/Guru/Angirasa is Vamanadeva and He is supremely independent.
I hope this helps.
As for your other comments I have been traveling and don‚Äôt always have time for such things.
Comment Posted By Sugriva das On 10.04.2010 @ 21:21