Answer BY HIS HOLINESS ROMAPADA SWAMI
Question: In the Srimad Bhagavatam – Third Canto, Chapter 15: Description of the Kingdom of God – we find some verses and purports with language I find problematic. For example, SB 3.15.17: “In the Vaikuntha planets the inhabitants fly in their airplanes, accompanied by their wives and consorts, and eternally sing of the character and activities of the Lord.”
In these verses it seems that the archetype of spiritual identity is characterized as inherently male (”The inhabitants” of the Vaikuntha planets) and the female form, even in spiritual perfection, is relegated to the role of sidekick (”accompanied by their wives and consorts”). The subject/object framing of the male/female forms and the inherent implication of relative status appears to contradict the assertions of absolute equality in a pure, spiritual atmosphere amongst all beings, moving and non-moving, to be found in other verses (such as SB 3.15.16: “everything in the Vaikuntha planets is spiritual and personal”) and numerous purports.
However, Srila Prabhupada’s wording in the purport to this verse seems to reinforce this understanding and sets us up for an even greater implication of inequity in verse 20– SB 3.15.17p: “The inhabitants of Vaikuntha give first preference to the service of the Lord, not their own sense gratification. Serving the Lord in transcendental love yields such transcendental pleasure that, in comparison, sense gratification is counted as insignificant.”
SB 3.15.20: “The inhabitants of Vaikuntha travel in their airplanes made of lapis lazuli, emerald and gold. Although crowded by their consorts, who have large hips and beautiful smiling faces, they cannot be stimulated to passion by their mirth and beautiful charms.”
Between the purport to verse 17 and the text of verse 20 we find the implication that even in this archetype of spiritual perfection the female form is relegated to a second-class position and is intended to function as a “passion stimulator”, a function the male-formed spiritual archetype is presumably immune to.
Despite considerable time given to the concept of spiritual equality of all Jivas in both verses and purports, the problem remains that an educated person may reasonably assert that a society’s biases are revealed in its language and when the language of gender inequality is found in a religious scripture, particularly one meant to be understood literally and even more particularly when the literature is describing the ultimate spiritual archetype to be aspired to by the faithful, then you have to expect a culture, a society, or a religious institution whose values are derived from such literature to instill in its members a sense of righteousness in the devaluing of the female form; a glaring imperfection that invalidates any claim that the literature itself is the word of God (since God would never countenance such inequity) as opposed to the word of a patriarchal power structure comprised of fallible human beings – men who contrive a misogynous theology to assuage their gynophobia and justify their social domination.
I know the issue of institutionalized sexism is not new to ISKCON, but this is the first time I’ve noticed the implication of the language found in verses directly referring to spiritual archetypes (no doubt the result of my education by a discerning cynic predisposed to feminist politics and testimony to 30 years of poor study habits that I’m trying to rectify). Do you have any suggestions as to how I may properly understand the nature of the language in these verses for myself and for the sake of explaining it to others as transcendental literature that informs a transcendental culture?
[*** End of question***]Answer: You are to the point in stating that Srimad Bhagavatam is a transcendental literature that is describing a transcendental culture. Therefore, to understand it we have to be free from biases and preconceptions that come with our own material culture and upbringing. We can admit, to begin with, it is quite likely that we are imposing the biases of our conditioning upon a transcendental literature, as opposed to presuming that the literature is reflecting the society’s bias. If we are seeing through red glasses, the world appears red! Thus it is quite possible that the perceived inequality is most likely springing from our own predisposition and sensitivity to this subject as you acknowledge, and the connotations we provide to the language based on our present social context. If we carefully reflect, we can understand that in reality the Bhagavatam is describing a totally different cultural paradigm – we have to have some appreciation of this culture to understand its conception of equality.
There is certainly Absolute equality in Vaikuntha but not homogeneity; there is all variety and even hierarchy – we have discussed this in previous digests in different contexts. (see Digests 184, 194)
Let us try to just explore the theme of these verses in question from another perspective … suppose that a similar idea was conveyed in the following context: “the inhabitants of Vaikuntha were attended to by their ’servants’, and although they were given all sorts of comforts by these ’servants’, there was no sense of exploitation and the residents found no pleasure in these indulgences. They were simply absorbed in service to the Lord, indifferent to the attentions given by their servants.” Were such statements to be made, should it be taken to indicate that there are relative distinctions of master and servant and the position of servant is in some way inherently inferior? Not for those of us who understand the spiritual concept of servitorship. But the very mention of such a concept would be abhorred by someone who is sensitized by a proletariat idea of exploitation of working class and sympathetic to the cause of abolishing all distinctions between social classes. But those of us familiar with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings know well how he dismantled such ideologies of classless society as impractical and unnatural.
There is no claim of artificial equality in the spiritual world in some sense of utopian uniformity. The equality lies in the fact that everybody is engaged to their full capacity and full satisfaction in the service of the one Supreme Enjoyer, Lord Krishna – spiritual communism as Prabhupada would say. One in a subordinate position does not feel belittled or deprived in some way compared to a direct servitor of the Lord, nor does Krishna make such distinctions. Rather, in Vaikuntha consciousness, one prays to be servant of the servant of the servant, many times removed – such a position is more cherished than even direct service to the Lord. For example, the manjaris in Vrindavana whose service it is to assist the gopis do not feel inherently inferior in some capacity nor deprived of Krishna’s direct attention; rather they enjoy greater bliss in enhancing the service of the gopis. The gopis are very eager for Radha to meet Krishna, and Radharani in turn is eager to arrange the gopis’ meeting with Krishna, and so on. (Cc. Madhya 8.207-214) Although by material yardstick a bumblebee is not considered highly attractive, in Vaikuntha the cuckoo birds admire the song of the bumblebee. (SB 3.15.18) Thus the real basis of no-discrimination lies in the fact that there is no envy or exploitation in the spiritual world, not that there are no hierarchies and categories. If a soul, by constitution, has such a disposition of assisting their male counterpart in service to Krishna, they are provided with a suitable female form – there is no denigration in this.
Material world is simply a perverted reflection of the spiritual world – thus the categories and hierarchies we find here also exist in the spiritual sky, minus the inebriety found in this realm. The reflecting surface that perverts everything is the desire to enjoy and predominate. Here, those who have male bodies want to enjoy and thus exploit the female form rather than perform their designated service of offering protection; likewise, those with female bodies also want to enjoy and thus rebel against their subordinate position. The solution lies not in reversing the exploitation sequence by asserting oneself as equal and merging their respective roles, but in transforming the consciousness of both parties from the mood of enjoyment to service. The spiritual archetypes portrayed in the Bhagavatam – whether they are that of a male, female, bumblebee or lotus flower – highlights this perfection of the mood of service.
Not to speak of the Vaikuntha planets, even within this world there are illustrious examples of this paradigm in the Vedic culture. We do not find that powerful personalities such as Queen Kunti, Draupadi, Devahuti or Archi (the consort of King Prithu) were contending for equal rights and opportunities! Although in one sense they did enjoy equal footing with their respective husbands, they happily, willingly and gracefully accepted their roles as a dependent and subordinate, and as a fortress of support to their husbands. Did that diminish their qualifications or accomplishments in anyway or affect the Supreme Lord’s disposition or dealings with them? Not in the least. These ladies were fully content doing their specific services. Each of them also faced uniquely difficult challenges in their roles as wives and queens, which they faced very competently. They were grateful for the protection offered by their respective husbands and by the society. In turn, their exalted husbands were equally grateful for their extraordinary sacrifices and services. There was no sense of domination or exploitation, nor was there an artificial attempt at sharing of each other’s roles. The husbands saw themselves as humble servants of the Lord playing their part as a husband in extending to their wives the protection of the Lord. Thus they perfectly complemented and enhanced each other’s service to the Lord, who alone is the Supreme Master and Maintainer of everyone.
Quite contrary to giving room for minimizing womanhood, Vedic literatures and culture give tremendous emphasis and importance to respecting them as highly valuable members of the society even in this world, and as members deserving protection just as the brahmanas, cows, children and elderly deserve protection. An observant reader would not fail to notice this deep respect and importance given to women in the pages of Bhagavatam and Bhagavad-gita. We find powerful statesmen and world emperors such as Arjuna and Maharaja Yudhisthira giving considerable time and deliberation to the special interests of the women in society and the irreparable social consequences of neglecting their needs. If it should be considered that those performing the role of housekeeping, raising and training God-conscious children, protecting family tradition and offering much-needed support for the men constitute subordinate, unimportant roles, such an outlook reflects inequality in fact, because we are relegating these most crucial services to a denigrated position. This is not the outlook of Bhagavatam, for if it were so there would not be such concern expressed for their welfare. By Krishna’s natural arrangement, the female body is equipped to fulfill these roles which demand, in their own way, as much competency, resourcefulness and dedication as do the services traditionally assigned to men in a Vedic society. When the value of their roles is duly recognized and appreciated, competition for the latter’s role or for the form of respect offered to them is rendered meaningless and unnecessary.
We find this spirit also in Srila Prabhupada’s personal example – although he spoke quite candidly and openly about the myths of women’s liberation, in all of his dealings with the matajis (he trained us to see the women as mothers deserving the highest respect!) he treated them with utmost dignity and respect. It was unthinkable for him to neglect women as insignificant or secondary, what to speak of minimizing or exploiting them. Actual protection and dissemination of Vedic culture calls for imbibing this spirit.
Artificial attempts to create equality are bound to fail. In our attempts to negate the disparities and injustices found in this world, we seek to homogenize everything — not much different from the impersonal school of thought which aspires to “make everything zero” – but such a conception of equality is unnatural even in the spiritual world. Our expectation to find such uniformity in the pages of Bhagavatam leaves us disappointed and amounts to imposing our limited material conceptions on spiritual reality. Real equality lies in acknowledging that there are indeed differences in the natures and capacity of different classes of living entities and facilitating optimal engagement of everyone in their natural service to the Supreme.
I hope this helps to alleviate your discomfort on this subject!
—————–
184: If Krishna can perform His hearing with His eyes, for example, then what is the purpose of His having eyes and also ears? Do jivas have the same capabilities?
Answer: The ability that Krishna can perform the function of any sense through any other sense organ is an indication that He is Absolute, that His body is not compartmentalized like ours but Absolute, Omnipotent and Independent. If we lose our eyesight, for instance, we would become dependent and cannot see anymore. But Krishna is not dependent like that, He does not need a particular bodily part to perform a particular action – every limb of His body is absolutely potent and complete as His Original Self — purna. Another way of saying the same thing is that Krishna is not different from His body and His different bodily limbs are non-different from His Self.
Although Absolute and undifferentiated, yet simultaneously Krishna’s spiritual body is full of variegatedness. He has variegated senses simply for His enjoyment, not because He is dependent on them for different functionalities. The common mistake that students of transcendental science often make in trying to understand the Absolute Realm with the help of their limited intelligence is that when they hear descriptions such as this of Omnipotence and all-pervasiveness, they imagine that the Absolute Truth to be some form of homogenized, uniform Energy without any form or features and without any variegated senses. These are the impersonalists whom Krishna declares in Bhagavad-Gita to be mistaken in their understanding. Krishna is the Supreme Enjoyer and as the saying goes, “Variety is the mother of enjoyment”. The inconceivable potencies of His spiritual body are meant for His enjoyment, and His Spiritual abode is full of variety for the same reason.
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura points out that although the Lord can perform any function with any one of His senses, in His transcendental pastimes as Sri Krishna He generally sees with His eyes, touches with His hands, hears with His ears and so on. Thus He behaves like the most beautiful and charming young cowherd boy. (Cf. SB 10.14.2 p) And whenever He uses His limbs in extraordinary ways, that is also to enhance His enjoyment and thus He enjoys in many unlimited ways. At the same time, He is exhibiting his supremacy by these acts; e.g. entering Mathura, Krsna straightened Kubja’s hunchback with his fingertips and toes, AND with the same fingertips he separated the the head of the washerman from his torso!
The living entities do not possess such omnipotence constitutionally – this is the distinction between the Supreme Lord and the minute living entity; but Krishna may choose to invest such capability upon some living entity who can attain such mystic powers by His grace.
194: In this context, how are things absolute in the spiritual world? Even in the spiritual realm, the gopis are dearer to Krishna than anyone else, and even amongst the gopis, Radharani is most dear to Him. So, therefore there is relativity in the spiritual realm too.
Answer: There is certainly variety in the spiritual world, but not relativity as we speak of it in the mundane realm. As we have discussed in previous digests, Absolute is quite so often confused, by beginning transcendentalists, with some sort of homogeneous entity without any variegatedness, but this is not so. Those who are impersonalists have difficulty accommodating this because of their frustrated experience in the material world. Here, variety or multiplicity almost always brings quarrel, discrimination and misery, and so out of frustration and a poor fund of knowledge, they conclude that the Absolute must be devoid of any kind of variety or hierarchy.
But Krishna enjoys varieties of pleasures, and they are all of the same absolute nature – sat, cit and ananda. There are hierarchies in the spiritual world, as well – perfect, more perfect, and most perfect; pure, purer, purest, and even further ever-expanding degrees of purity and intensities of love. But they are all pure, and in that sense absolute. There is even so-called separation and lamentation in spiritual world, and even day and night, but these are all just different varieties of absolute pleasure.
The variegatedness of the Absolute is *VERY DIFFICULT* to understand from our present conditioned nature, and with a materially conditioned mind, but it is possible to understand by adopting a humble mood of service to the Absolute Supreme and by submissively hearing from those who know Him, the tattva-darshis. (BG 4.34)
Romapada Maharaja. PAMHO AGTSP!
Thanks for presenting such an articulate response to a difficult query. I am confident that Srila Prabhupada would be pleased with your answer which is sastrically based and enlivening to all who are non envious.
Ys TS
Jai Maharaja! Very clear, very well said. Perfect questions perfect answers.
Romapada Maharaja,
Obeisances. Jaya Srila Prabhupada. IMHO, your answer to the question posed to you has to be counted as one of the best ever stated on this subject. This specific and very important topic has unfortunately been misunderstood by many within our Movement for years and has consequently been the cause of much friction among devotees. I hold strong hope that your cogent words on this subject will have an uplifting and purifying effect on the understanding of all devotees who read your post. You presented it so nicely that it would seem indeed difficult for anyone to find any fault in your statements. Thank you for your clarifying words. Our beloved Srila Prabhupada also explained this same important point in a similarly wonderful way as follows:
Take instruction from Bhagavad-gita and make everything useful. Then the human society will be perfect. Otherwise you’ll go on manufacturing ideas, you’ll never be successful. Because nature’s law is working, you cannot interfere with the nature’s law. That is not possible. You may think yourself very much advanced in science, but nature’s law, you cannot interfere. Just like now there is movement, man and woman, equal.
Nityänanda: Women’s liberation.
Prabhupäda: Yes, but how the nature’s law is strong. Woman has to become pregnant, not the man. Why equal right? Let the man become pregnant once. Woman became pregnant once. The right. Where is that law? So why equal right? Brahmänanda was saying one day they’ll not mix with man.
Nityänanda: Yes, they want to become not dependent sexually, even on the men. Just on themselves.
Prabhupäda: So you have to study first of all what is nature’s law. You cannot surpass the nature’s law. That is not possible. Prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvasah [Bg. 3.27]. Nature’s law will go on. Best thing is, let the hand… the hand can typewrite, but if you say “No, the leg will typewrite,” that is not possible. Take hand’s business, take leg’s business, and combine them cooperatively. Then the body will be nice. If the leg says “Why hand will type? I shall type,” that’s not possible. “Legs, all right, you walk, and hands that you type.” Then combine together. Then it will be nice. You cannot change the different capacities. There is God’s law, nature’s law. Let the man and woman combine together, live peacefully. The woman takes charge of the household affairs, the man may take charge of bringing money, and they meet together, have Deity at home, together chant Hare Krsna. Where is the difficulty? That is unity. Combine together, working differently but for the same purpose, for pleasing Krsna, then you will become happy. That is equality. Unity in variety. That is wanted. Variety is enjoyment. Variety is not disturbing. Just like Krsna gave, all of them fruits, but variety. They are coming from the same source, earth, but Krsna is so intelligent—varieties of fruit, varieties of flowers, varieties of grain, varieties of brain. That is enjoyment. So, take instruction from Krsna. Why He is sending so many varieties? He could have given one fruit, the coconut. With great difficulty to chop it you can get out the water, no? There are so many nice fruits. Just see Krsna’s intelligence. So Krsna has made the varieties. Why should you disturb? Let the variety be united, just like these varieties are united, and it looks nice, and if you eat that will be nice. Why you want to stop the variety? That is Mayavada. Equality does not mean to stop variety. All the varieties combine together for the same purpose. That is required. Is it not? One must know how to put the variety to look very (indistinct). If all the vases have only rose flowers it would not have been so beautiful. Rose is costly, but the leaves are not costly. But the leaves and the rose fit together, it becomes very good variety. That art is required, how to keep varieties together for Krsna consciousness, and look very beautiful. This art is known to the Krsna conscious person, not to the fools and rascals. Why Krsna has made varieties? Why you should try to change? That is lack of Krsna consciousness. When Krsna has made so many varieties there is some purpose. That one should understand. That is intelligence.
Conversation July 31, 1975 New Orleans
Wow. Thank you for that glimpse into the spiritual world. Your answer is so incredibly sweet. Thanks also to the devotees who have left comments so far.
Service… that is the key. Indescribable joy is achieved through such a relationship. Since my childhood as a daughter of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada’s instuctions relating to duties for and relationships between various peoples in a functional spiritual society have only been confirmed by my attempts to follow those instructions. Service… it all comes down to an attitude of service, or better yet… an intense craving to be a servant of the servant… the *need* to be ‘taken’ by Krsna and ‘used’ for His pleasure.
“I know no one but Krsna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles Me roughly by His embrace or makes Me brokenhearted by not being present before Me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always My worshipful Lord, unconditionally.”
-Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu
Imagine! Krsna is desiring to become a servant of Himself! Why? Because, it’s the most wonderful place to be. Servant of the servant of the servant…
HIS HOLINESS ROMAPADA SWAMI: Understanding and accepting that there is spiritual hierarchy
“Real equality lies in acknowledging that there are indeed differences in the natures and capacity of different classes of living entities and facilitating optimal engagement of everyone in their natural service to the Supreme.”
—————————
Dandabat pranams, Maharaja. This is just a minor comment to your excellent answer.
The spiritual hierarchy (and I am not sure if the word “hierarchy” properly reflects the spiritual relationships described in the above quoted verses) is based on the needs of devotional service. A devotee accepts a particular form of a male or a female servitor based on their mood of service to the Lord and subsequent needs of that service – which is both voluntary and natural. I am sure no devotee would have a problem with such “divisions” if they were able to freely chose which role they can play.
However, here in this world our bodies are the result of our past karma and past material desires and in general have nothing to do with our devotional aspirations. If we – as a society of devotees – promote sex-based barriers in execution of devotional service, some devotees may feel trapped in a body that does not reflect their devotional needs and wants. They may feel inferior and inadequate. Out of humility they may accept their position as a part of the purification process, but if they find that these barriers do more harm than good, they will object to such divisions.
We should understand the needs of service in this world as well and try to find a position where we can do the most for Krsna with what we already have – a particular type of body, a particular talent or skill, a particular ability. Yet the sex-based barriers we erect should be kept to a minimum, and used only if they actually facilitate better service.
y.s. Kula-pavana dasa
Romapada Swami – “The equality lies in the fact that everybody is engaged to their full capacity and full satisfaction in the service of the one Supreme Enjoyer, Lord Krishna”
This is a great synthesis of opposing points of view. Why can’t we just act on this platform? When you clarify your point of view later you’ve lost me…
“If it should be considered that those performing the role of housekeeping, raising and training God-conscious children, protecting family tradition and offering much-needed support for the men constitute subordinate, unimportant roles, such an outlook reflects inequality in fact… (space) By Krishna’s natural arrangement, the female body is equipped to fulfill these roles which demand, in their own way, as much competency, resourcefulness and dedication as do the services traditionally assigned to men in a Vedic society.”
If you ask a feminist what their complaint is, it is not that women’s roles are not given as much importance, it is the idea that women are “naturally” disposed to certain roles; the roles you suggest – housekeeping, raising children, etc. THIS is the problem. Equality means equal opportunity also. Modern society demonstrates quite well that women excel in roles that were not traditionally given to them in patriarchal societies. Men can also function quite well in housekeeping and child-rearing roles. So, why be unequal in giving service? If the jiva is inclined to render a particular service to Krsna and is good at it, they should be encouraged right?
Societies that cling to old cultural models tend to die out. In the least they lose the respect of the dominant culture. Could this be a problem for the Hare Krsna movement???
Thank you Maharaja, for your thoughtful answer to this question. Thank you, also, Narottama Prabhu, for your insights. I just feel compelled to ask, in light of your observations, Narottama Prabhu, where were you when the fur was flying in the “Out of the woman comes the man…” discussion?!?
Narottama Prabhu makes a compelling point. Most would agree that modern woman has proven herself capable in most, if not all areas traditionally dominated by males. But at what cost? Family, the most basic, quintessential building block of a smoothly functioning society has deteriorated rapidly since women turned their attention away from the home. Granted, a woman can do it all as well as (or perhaps better than) a man. But is that really a legitimate reason for a woman to pursue a career over and above her duties at home?
Lord Sri Krsna says in the Bhagavad-Gita, 2.47: “It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.”
And this is where the attitude of service really comes into play. We are obligated to perform our given duty for the sake of peace and harmony in society even if we feel more inclined to do the duty of another. That is what service is all about – doing what is right as opposed to what feels good.
I have yet to hear a person complain of insecurities relating to a mother who stayed home making her husband and children a priority over all other pursuits whereas it is quite common that children of career-oriented women struggle with anger and abandonment issues for most of their lives.
Naturally, the topic of dharma and duty is never cut and dry. Every situation has its particulars and nuances. And that’s where a living guru whether siksa or diksa is very important. A bonafide guru can help a woman decide what her duties are depending on her particular circumstances.
And as always, an attitude of service is the key.
Your servant,
Campakalata devi dasi
Campakalata: “We are obligated to perform our given duty for the sake of peace and harmony in society”
Where does our “given” duty come from? Are we born with a nature; likes, dislikes, inclinations, etc., or does our society dictate one for us according to our birth? The latter sounds like caste system to me… Don’t we always preach that the caste system was supposed to be based on guna/karma, qualities possess and work that you actually do?? Why are women any different? For them it is according to birth?
The Gita verse that Champakalata cites has a context. That context is varnasrama. My context is Kali yuga western “civilization.” In this modern world people have many different “natures.” Everything is mixed up, unpredictable and out of the ordinary. So how do I respond to that world and the people in it? Two choices: I can tell people to be who they are and do it for Krsna, or I can tell people to be what I think they should be and do that for Krsna. The result of the second choice is frustrated people, often guilt ridden because they just aren’t that nature that society, religion, parents, media try to force on them. They have not acted according to their nature, they have tried to do others duties perfectly and because it was out of duty, it didn’t last. Love is a much stronger motivation than duty. Like it or not, people in this time do not fit into stereotypical roles. Can people still be engaged in Krsna’s service and attain perfection? Or, do they have to fit a societal role first?
This is asking a big question… Do we value varnasrama or bhakti more? Trying to follow varnashrama is laudable, but turning all of society backwards just ain’t gonna happen in our short lifetimes. I personally don’t think it will ever happen. Bhakti can and will manifest in any circumstance because it is the nature of the soul, everyone’s most confidential possession. Let’s foster that, and the best society will manifest automatically!
Your assertion that the downfall of the family is the result of women’s lib is one opinion. There are many other opinions also. What about the whole modern structure of society, industrial revolution, economics, etc.? Ever consider how hard it is financially to live in this world in a “traditional” way, with the mom staying home taking care of the children? Practically impossible, at least in the U.S. If you can pull it off, there is probably something else untraditional going on, quite possibly the man’s means of livelihood. So, even if the woman is inclined to be a housewife, maybe she has to work a second job just to keep the family unit together. To attribute family disintegration to women going out and working strikes me as short-sighted, in not unfair.
The world I live and work in everyday is not traditional at all. Some women do not want to have anything to do with pregnancy, children, and family maintenance. According to your values, you may or may not like that. I say, let them act according to their “nature”, and not someone elses. I know that there are also women who’s nature it is to be housewives. They should act according to their nature also. I think this is what Krsna is getting at – both persons will be doing the best for themselves and who they “serve”, AND the whole of society if they act according to their nature (Prabhupada sometimes said psychophysical nature.) Finally, as Romapada Swami suggested, all roles should be given equal glory. It is after all, service to Krsna. There is no question of inferior service.
Understanding one’s nature and acting in that role while offering loving service to Krsna is perfection. Respecting other’s natures as their own is a giant leap towards that perfection. I agree with you whole-heartedly 108% that a competent guru is required. That person can extract bhakti from a soul in any situation in this age and direct that bhakti towards the Lord. What a blessing.
Lalita Madhava: Where was I? Honestly, I find cultivation of bhakti much more interesting than arguing about the makeup of society. There is more hope for harmony there. I must extract myself from this one before I get going. Priorities!! Thanks for the food for thought Campakalata and others. If you ate any of my food and thought it tasty, I’m happy. If I gave you thought indigestion I apologize. One mans (or woman’s!!!) food is another’s poison.
Narottama Prabhu, thank you for your many thought-provoking points. You are absolutely right. Devotional service is about dovetailing our psychophysical natures in Krsna’s service. Everyone should be encouraged in whatever capacity he or she wants to serve.
My real purpose in commenting was to show appreciation for HG Romapada Swami’s preaching. I feel that he has been a transparent via media effectively representing Srila Prabhupada’s mood. He answered the question with flawless reasoning based entirely on Prabhupada’s books and yet with the loving compassion that Srila Prabhupada communicated both through his books and example. Srila Prabhupada was rigid in terms of absolute truths and ideals, but flexible when it came to inspiring and motivating individuals.
The point is to encourage people to chant the Holy Name and serve Prabhupada’s mission in any way they can.
Your servant,
Campakalata devi dasi