Comments Posted By Visakha Priya dasi
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 102 Comments
Sorry, Ananda devi dasi. I thought that you had written this article and therefore your name appears–completely out of place–in my yet-to be- approved and posted comment.
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 06.08.2014 @ 14:18
Simple for the simple, complicated for the crooked. After reading Dushyanta Prabhu’s excellent article currently posted on Dandavats, any simple person who claims to follow Srila Prabhupada would conclude that drinking milk produced on non profit, Krsna conscious, farming communities is THE answer, not just ONE answer. Although there are many good points in Ananda devi dasi’s article, many of them are besides the point for us. We are not meant to become vegan but to protect cows, because the whole Vedic society is based on cow protection and Srila Prabhupada wanted us to try to revive that culture, live on farms, produce our own grains, weave our own cloth, etc., and send the surplus to our city preaching centers. The problem is, we don’t want to do it. It is too much of a sacrifice, too much of a leap of faith. I remember reading somewhere in Prabhupada’s books–but can’t trace it in Folio. Somebody please help me–that one acre of land and a milk cow is enough for a family of five to meet its daily necessities. Understandably,those of us born and brought up in cities probably can’t bear the hardships of country live, but the children can. We are working not just for our own generation but for many generations to come, so we should make plans to raise our kids on Krsna conscious farming communities. Not that we drop the whole thing and become vegan. That’s a cop out! Not for vegans themselves, of course, but for us, Hare Krsna devotees. For meat eaters, veganism is a big step forward, but for us it’s a step backward.
Visakha Priya dasi
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 06.08.2014 @ 11:03
But now, here you come, full of youthful vigor and fanaticism, with a comment which pertains to another context altogether. And what is an uneducated, unintelligent, or psychopathic person supposed to conclude from it? ‚ÄúWomen like to be raped? Yahoo! Let‚Äôs go for it.‚ÄĚ You have acted foolishly and done a disservice to Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs preaching mission by publicizing on the web a conversation that Prabhupada held among a small group of disciples. Not only that, but your comment doesn‚Äôt contribute anything to the discussion. In that conversation, one devotee mentioned that there was a new law in England whereby a man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to be raped, and Srila Prabhupada agreed that ‚ÄúRape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. Then he speaks about the rape case in Calcutta‚ÄĒhow the intelligent lawyer 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‚Ä¶‚ÄĚ ‚Äú‚Ä¶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.‚ÄĚ
Here again, there are two points. One is that ‚ÄúIF there is itching, everyone feels relief itching it‚ÄĚ, but what if there is no itch but just savage, gruesome, deceitful, unexpected aggression (a far cry from vikhyatam), as we hear every few days in India‚ÄĒand I am sure in other countries as well? It is not ‚Äúwillingly‚ÄĚ and it often ends in death or injury, not in relief. The other point, the psychology of women, is again quoted by you out of context. Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs statement applies in the case of Puranjana‚Äôs story but not in the Calcutta one. Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs statement refers to a love play between avowed lovers, as mentioned in Cc M 8.111: ‚Äú‚ÄėThe progress of loving affairs between a young boy and a young girl is like the movement of a snake. On account of this, two types of anger arise between a young boy and girl — anger with cause and anger without cause.’‚ÄĚ
What more can I say? You should be more thoughtful instead of barging in like a puppy, anywhere and everywhere.
Visakha Priya dasi
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 12.06.2014 @ 10:53
Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs statement that ‚ÄúIt is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape‚ÄĚ is found in SB 4.25, wherein King Puranjana, eager to enjoy life to the fullest, meets a beautiful young woman in a beautiful garden. ‚ÄúShe was very beautiful and young, and she appeared very anxious to find a suitable husband.‚ÄĚ (SB 4.25.21) ‚ÄúPuranjana, the hero, became attracted by the eyebrows and smiling face of the very beautiful girl and was immediately pierced by the arrows of her lusty desires. When she smiled shyly, she looked very beautiful to Puranjana, who, although a hero, could not refrain from addressing her.‚ÄĚ (SB.25.25)
So he starts chatting her up and then, in text 32, ‚ÄúNarada continued: My dear King, when Puranjana became so attracted and impatient to touch the girl and enjoy her, the girl also became attracted by his words and accepted his request by smiling. By this time she was certainly attracted by the King.‚ÄĚ So she starts speaking, right up to text 41 (which contains the controversial statement), and nothing in her speech indicates that she is not consenting to the King. Rather the opposite. So, when Srila Prabhupada, seemingly out of the blue, makes that statement in relation to the word vikhyatam, which means ‚Äúfamous,‚ÄĚ it has nothing to do with the revolting stories we keep hearing in Uttar Pradesh these days. It is a fact that women in general are attracted to handsome, wealthy, powerful men, and if the man shows them some attention, they willingly respond, even if the so-called aggression takes place before they had time to re-powder their nose or whatever. But this is not what is known as rape in modern society! And as I mentioned in my previous post, according to old dictionaries (19th century or earlier), a synonym for the word ‚Äúrape‚ÄĚ is ‚Äúkidnap.‚ÄĚ
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 12.06.2014 @ 10:52
Hare Krsna! If you are as young and inexperienced as you look in your picture, then I forgive you for your out-of-place comment number 16 and will try to explain why it is not just out of place but harmful as well.
As I am nearing the age of seventy, more and more I see the necessity of reconciling contradictory statements in a peaceful mood, with the aim of achieving a higher state of understanding, not assuming that I‚Äôve understood everything and am now setting out to prove it to all of you guys!
Our philosophy emphasizes simultaneous oneness and difference. There will always be different points of view because we are persons, not just dazzling atoms. We may both be sitting in the same country, the same province, the same city, the same street, the same house, the same room‚ÄĒand describe reality in completely different ways just because you are looking out the window that faces east and I am looking out the window that faces west. You may think that this example is too simplistic but the fact is that we have to have some realization of what we speak. Everything has to be seen, heard, and spoken in a particular context for us to agree fully on whatever it is we are theorizing about.
In the particular context of H. H. Bhaktivikas Swami‚Äôs reply to Mahatma Prabhu‚Äôs article, I happen to know both parties and did some service for both of them at different times of my life. I posted two comments: one on Mahatma‚Äôs article, which was meant to be a positive addition to his writing, and one on Maharaja‚Äôs reply, which was meant to reinforce the idea that as Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs followers, we must accept his teachings in toto, not just pick and choose according to our likes and dislikes. At the same time, I wanted to demonstrate that although some of Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs statements may seem outrageous by contemporary standards, they actually describe a different situation. This is not a speculation on my part.
Continued in next post
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 12.06.2014 @ 10:51
… SB 7.11.28. Purport continued:
It is recommended, therefore, that a chaste wife not associate with a fallen husband. A fallen husband is one who is addicted to the four principles of sinful activity — namely illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling and intoxication. Specifically, if one is not a soul surrendered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he is understood to be contaminated. Thus a chaste woman is advised not to agree to serve such a husband. It is not that a chaste woman should be like a slave while her husband is naradhama, the lowest of men. Although the duties of a woman are different from those of a man, a chaste woman is not meant to serve a fallen husband. If her husband is fallen, it is recommended that she give up his association. Giving up the association of her husband does not mean, however, that a woman should marry again and thus indulge in prostitution. If a chaste woman unfortunately marries a husband who is fallen, she should live separately from him. Similarly, a husband can separate himself from a woman who is not chaste according to the description of the sastra. The conclusion is that a husband should be a pure Vaisnava and that a woman should be a chaste wife with all the symptoms described in this regard. Then both of them will be happy and make spiritual progress in Krsna consciousness.
Hare Krsna Hare Krsna
Krsna Krsna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare
Visakha Priya dasi
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 05.06.2014 @ 06:06
Thank you, Your Holiness, for your comments on the article ‚ÄúGuru as Husband.‚ÄĚ Certainly, it is hard for Western minds to always cheerfully accept Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs comments on women. But then it usually comes from not understanding the context in which his statements are made‚ÄĒfor example, the famous (or rather infamous) statement that women like to be raped. I discussed the matter with Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs disciple Visakha Devi, and she told me that in one of her old dictionaries, one of the synonyms for the word ‚Äúrape‚ÄĚ is ‚Äúkidnap,‚ÄĚ which perfectly fits in with the story Srila Prabhupada comments on. From another point of view, I always took solace in Srila Prabhupada‚Äôs response to Jadurani and (I think) Govinda dasi when they inquired from him whether it was true that they couldn‚Äôt make as much advancement as the men because they were women. And Srila Prabhupada replied, ‚ÄúYes!… If you think that you are women.‚ÄĚ
One thing I would like to emphasize is that although Srila Prabhupada is sometimes considered to be a chauvinist by certain standards, it is actually not the case, as exemplified in the following verse and purport of Srimad-Bhagavatam (SB 7.11.28):
A chaste woman should not be greedy, but satisfied in all circumstances. She must be very expert in handling household affairs and should be fully conversant with religious principles. She should speak pleasingly and truthfully and should be very careful and always clean and pure. Thus a chaste woman should engage with affection in the service of a husband who is not fallen.
According to the injunction of Yajnavalkya, an authority on religious principles, asuddheh sampratiksyo hi mahapataka-dusitah. One is considered contaminated by the reactions of great sinful activities when one has not been purified according to the methods of the dasa-vidha-samskara. In Bhagavad-gita, however, the Lord says, na mam duskrtino mudhah prapadyante naradhamah: [Bg. 7.15] “Those miscreants who do not surrender unto Me are the lowest of mankind.” The word naradhama means “nondevotee.” Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu also said, yei bhaje sei bada, abhakta-hina [Cc. Antya 4.67], chara. Anyone who is a devotee is sinless. One who is not a devotee, however, is the most fallen and condemned.
Continued in next post
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 05.06.2014 @ 06:04
The Duty of Married Couples
After his wedding, a rich man from Calcutta, who had taken shelter at the lotus feet of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, wished to know how he could utilize his time in hari-bhajana while situated in married life. With that purpose in mind, he approached Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura for instruction. The wealthy gentleman became very depressed when he was informed by Sarasvati Thakura that there might well be various obstacles in his attempt to perform hari-bhajana as a householder. Later on, this gentleman, accompanied by Srila Sarasvati Thakura, went to meet Srila Gaura-kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja on the riverbank at Kuliya. When it was mentioned to Srila Babaji Maharaja that the gentleman had married, Babaji Maharaja commented, “Yes, it is all right that he has married. From this time on he will daily cook and offer foodstuffs to Lord Visnu. After offering it to Him, he will serve the prasada to his wife, and then as a Vaisnava he will take her prasada remnants. He will consider her as Krsna’s servitor and his spiritual master. He will not think of her as an object for sensual gratification. Everything in this world: wealth, jewelry, men and women, are all for worshipping Krsna: That which is meant for Krsna’s service should be utilized as such. Do not consider your wife as one meant for your service. Instead, respect her as a servitor of Krsna.”
Here is the purport to Babaji Maharaja’s foregoing discussions with householders. The sense of proprietorship of one’s spouse is to be eschewed, and the conception of one’s spouse as Krsna’s worshipable servitor is to be nurtured. When one regards one’s mate as the servitor of the Lord and thus suitable for His enjoyment only, one can easily transcend the urge to indulge in illicit sex which so bedevils many a married couple.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => BM 39: The Duty of Married Couples
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 27.05.2014 @ 07:25
Hare Krishna. Having joined ISKCON in 1978 I am familiar with the whole history and whatever is written in this summary is pretty much correct. However, I distinctly remember being initiated in May 1979 by Jayatirtha das Adhikari, then again in 1982 by Bhagavan das ex-Goswami, finally in June 1989 by His Holiness Giriraj Swami Maharaja. However, you state in your History that Giriraj Maharaja became initiating guru in 2003. Kindly check your records, please.
Visakha Priya dasi
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 27.05.2014 @ 06:54
It was Purnima and I was standing in front of Radhe-Shyam dressed in their moonlight outfit. I was appreciating Their beauty to my limited capacity when suddenly a man stood in front of me, not really obscuring my darshan, but close enough for me to perceive that there was a stain at the back of his shirt. So I focused my attention on his back for a few seconds and ascertained that it was not a blood stain and then I again looked up at Radhe-Shyam, as beautiful as ever. Nevertheless, for some unknown reason, my mind was trying to get me to look at that shirt again to see whether there were more stains. I had to make a conscious effort to resist looking at it again, aware that there was no point in looking at a soiled shirt, especially in front of the beautiful Lords I was facing. And then I got the idea that this was it, the initial free will. It is not that I lacked knowledge of the fact that the shirt was useless whereas Radhe-Shyam were the real thing. But this wanting to look at the shirt was my personal choice and I was free to continue looking at Radhe-Shyam or concentrate my attention on the shirt. So, I concluded, this is free will. I know it’s useless (and even offensive actually), but still I want to do this. What an appalling situation! Free will has to be there, I understand. But it is so dangerous. Clearly, the only refuge is the holy name. Kindly help me get the strength to focus on chanting Hare Krsna, please.
Comment Posted By Visakha Priya dasi On 24.05.2014 @ 09:32