VNN Editorial - In Hope Of Setting The Record Straight (Part 2)

EDITORIAL

January 11, 1999 VNN2824 See Related VNN Stories

In Hope Of Setting The Record Straight (Part 2)

BY JAYA TIRTHA CHARAN DASA

EDITORIAL, Jan 11 (VNN) — Continued from part 1 - WHAT I SAID THAT SOME FOUND OBJECTIONABLE

First, please allow me to say that I find it extremely distasteful to have to justify to others words that were written in private (for the receivers' eyes only) yet now being scrutinized by an unfriendly lynch mob. But who cares what I think? (the theme of the day) As an Internet user and not primarily on COM, I wrote many texts via Internet that would now give credence to my present statements but are not available on COM for the gossip tabloids. To really understand many of my comments, one would need to have seen the previous messages to the receiver and also the particular messages sent to me from some feminists, which directly prompted those remarks.

In short, there is a general understanding--among people who are without motive to misinterpret my words--that to have "no soul" simply means to have no soft heart, no mercy, no sensitivity for others, etc. It is an obvious figurative use of words that both parties of the private discussion understood:

(Please note that my comment refers both to men and women who fit the mode of having "no soul." I repeat, IT IS NOT A SLUR AGAINST WOMEN, as some are taking my words to mean. Nor is it a philosophical statement. We are talking behaviour, and attitude and in a light hearted manner between friends.)

>"Mmmmmmmm! I must admit although they appear to be spirit souls like those
>of us either wearing male or female bodies, in actually they have no soul."

Or this statement:

>Yes, you guessed it, I really can't stand them, and as you may have seen
>in my chart too, it predicts that I'd have trouble with "these fellows".

This simply means as it says: that I've had numerous run-ins with these people over the years. And just as I'm entitled to dislike fruit salad or sloppy kitri, I also cannot tolerate pushy, loud-mouthed, domineering women (or men for that matter).

I also said:

>To me they defy nature!!! I did start writing a paper on feminism, some
>years ago, but came to a conclusion that even if one of these arrogant
>personalities did in fact read it, they'd only use the excuse that I was
>sexist, or the like."

Possibly this provides some significant background information. For many years I had recognised the deviant philosophy of feminism creeping into ISKCON, disguised as liberalism, reform, anti-abuse, equal rights, etc. And again, I say that this is my opinion. (Or is it only feminists and their supporters that are authorised to express opinions - and in private?)

I reasoned: >Are they really in Srila Prabhupada's Iskcon, or have they started their
>own philosophy within Iskcon???"

And I sincerely believe it to be true (!!!), despite their having support even at the GBC level.

I also said:

>One of my friends summed it up in a similar matter of some indigenous
>people in New Zealand, whose crime rate, alcohol consumption, domestic
>violence, etc., far exceeds the others in NZ. He made the point it's not
>that I'm racist, I just find a certain kind of behaviour unacceptable. It
>doesn't matter what the colour they're Niggers!!!

The reader may take the above in several ways:

(i) I'm commenting upon a friend's realisation regarding social problems in many parts of the world. Note that actually there should have been quotation marks around "it's not that I'm racist, I just find a certain kind of behaviour unacceptable. It doesn't matter what the colour they're Niggers!!!" Please check and re-check this; it's you who are accusing ME of saying this!

(ii) We are not actually talking of a particular race of people, the poor fellows of whom were abused as slaves in the USA. Indeed, it remains a sensitive issue to date.

(iii) The context is addressing low-class behaviour, i.e. the unethical way that certain feminists will do such things as publicise private mail, publicly abuse devotees, and say or do whatever they can in order to bring down their opponents. In some social-issue movies, such as "Boyz in the Hood," there are many scenes where "Black African Americans" (also a ridiculous term) shout at each other, calling other Black African Americans "nigger!" The word was used to mean that they were low, that they had no integrity, dignity or self-respect, etc. And the movie is based on real-life people of South Central Los Angeles in 1991 (directed by John Singleton).

(iv) Some of you may remember that former Beatle John Lennon wrote a song called "Women Are the Niggers of the World." The essence of the song is that women are exploited by men who themselves are slaves! Even if you're not fond of his music (I no longer am), still it is definitely worth looking at the words:

"Woman is the nigger of the world, yes she is, think about it! Woman is the nigger of the world, yes she is, do something about it!

We make her paint her face and dance, But she won't be a slave to say she don't love us If she's free to say she's going to be a man 'n' put me down with terms so hard that she's above us.

Women is the nigger of the world. (If you don't believe me take a look at the one you're with.)

Woman is the slave of the slave (If you believe me you better scream about it!)

Make our bed and raise our children. Then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen. We tell her home is the only place you should be, Then complain she's too unworthy to be our friend.

Woman is the nigger of the world. (If you believe me take a look at the one you're with.) Woman is the slave of the slave.

We insult her every day on TV, Knock her when she has no guts or confidence. When she's young we kill her will to be free By putting her down for being dumb-- We put her down for being..." [unclear, moves away from the microphone]

Is this so different from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, wherein he says that devious men are manipulating women enmass for their own sensual gratification only? (SSR 1, Discussion with Ms. Nixon) No, it is not. Rather, these words of John Lennon's clearly support most of His Divine Grace's teachings, with a few exceptions due to Lennon's being under the influence of "a third-class Japanese girl." (Room Conversation, 12-13-70)

As for this: >In the same way these feminists in my opinion are the ones who due to
>their transgressing the shy and pure nature of real womanhood, are
>bringing, and have brought society to above their knees."

Is there something wrong with this statement? If you think so, then please read the following Purports, wherein Srila Prabhupada explains that:

i) Shyness is the real nature of womanhood (SB 1:10:16 purport), and

ii) "A prostitute generally dresses herself in various fashions intended to attract a man's attention to the lower part of her body. Today it has become a much advertised fashion for a woman to go almost naked, covering the lower part of her body only slightly, in order to draw the attention of a man to her private parts for sexual enjoyment. The intelligence engaged to attract a man to the lower part of the body is the intelligence of a professional prostitute." (SB 6.5:14. purport)

(You can try to make something else of that if you like!)

Regarding this:

>We used to have one in our group here, she was a constant pain in the...not
>just for the men, but also for the women too. She ended up misleading a
>few, but then her husband left her, and she took off to another temple. Now
>she's in the process of marrying a REAL eunuch--he's totally enamoured, and
>she's wearing the pants already."

You should know that this is MORE than true. We did have such a woman in our midst. She broke up a relationship while the male devotee's partner was traveling, then moved in and took over. It happened. Sure, it takes two to tango--we don't allow the male to come to our programs either. Now, some have accused me of using the term "eunuch" unfairly, but shastra refers to certain kind of men as being eunuchs (and not necessarily meaning that part of their anatomy has been removed).

In the Gitamrta tapes of Purnacandra Prabhu, Krsna chides Arjuna, "People will call you a eunuch." And Srila Prabhupad states that such a selfish person may even be killed by the king (SB 4:7:26 Purport) who is "under the protection of an unworthy husband, who is a coward and a eunuch although he thinks himself a great hero." (SB 9:14:28) (Or is Vyasadeva wrong, or just a sexist male also?)

(One feminist supporter who used to be what I considered a close friend sent me an e-mail, accusing me of pointing the finger at one of her friends, to whom she thought I had been referring, but when I revealed the actual name, then SHE herself proceeded to say some quite heavy words against her.)

My request to the receiver of this mail is clear, but again totally neglected by "Ardhabuddhi" otherwise motivated:
>For God's sake don't distribute this to any of them.......! I've spent
>years fighting with these people, and their onesided "libralism"........!

·And further more, even though this must have been read by many, it was not mentioned by EVEN ONE devotee to date!!! Maybe it's my ethics that need re-evaluating??? Maybe I should "cut-loose", "keep up with the nineties" and get rid of that stuffy Vaidika life-style I live by and follow.

Frankly I would rather follow as many of the guidelines as I can, even where they get in the way of and stop my material propensities. After all our directive is as I understand, to attain to spiritual ethics, and not merely those that are pleasing to me at a given time in this world.

In the following Purport (SB 9:14:36), Srila Prabhupada warns us about such materialistic women and what will happen if the man is lax to control the senses (and in this fallen age I would even say the same applies if a man is caught in the pursuit of materialistic goals; fame, adoration, distinction, re-inforcement of the bodily concept of life, etc):

"Chanakya Pandita has advised, visvaso naiva kartavyah strisu raja-kulesu ca: 'Never place your faith in a woman or a politician.' Unless elevated to spiritual consciousness, everyone is conditioned and fallen, what to speak of women, who are less intelligent than men. Women have been compared to sudras and vaishyas (striyo vaishyas tatha sudrah). On the spiritual platform, however, when one is elevated to the platform of Krsna consciousness, whether one is a man, woman, sudra or whatever, everyone is equal. Otherwise, Urvasi, who was a woman herself and who knew the nature of women, said that a woman's heart is like that of a sly fox. If a man cannot control his senses, he becomes a victim of such sly foxes. But if one can control the senses, there is no chance of his being victimized by sly, foxlike women. Chanakya Pandita has also advised that if one has a wife like a sly fox, he must immediately give up his life at home and go to the forest ·.mata yasya grhe nasti etc.(Canakya-sloka 57) (SB 9:14:36., Purport)

Anyone who behaves as a "sly fox", man or women should be pulled up by the authorities and reprimanded (not appointed as a leader). Someone please tell me that a sly fox did NOT steal my mail and publicise it! I whole heartedly agree that equality is there among those who are cent percent OFF of the bodily concept and free from political agendas--that Srila Prabhupada says. But now the "foxes" are saying that Srila Prabhupada was sexist. No, he was a transcendentalist, and certainly not a fool! He knows better than you or I why we NEED to keep the fire and the butter separated.

This is also why he says that "one should never place your faith in a woman or a politician." - it is self evident in what has happened here. That is not the kind of leadership that is required!!! We NEED to know what His Divine Grace teaches in his books, not that we merely sentimentally or emotionally, or angrily propound quotes to mean this or that--out of context--motivated for material gain.

(I've received comments to my texts by some of ISKCON's leading female devotees, including Malati, Prtha, Hare Krsna Dasi, Tulasi Maharani; and others like Madhusudhani Radha, etc., and even Mukunda Goswami; however, it seems that none of them have either understood or properly read my texts. All primed ready to shoot, and shoot they did···!)

Our ISKCON society is sorely NEEDing role models--both male and female--ideal role models who are able to inspire devotees to again develop love and trust in each other, who are level headed, uninfluenced by public opinion and not looking only for a fight to support PERSONAL CAUSES. Such LEADERS lead by example and not in the manner conducted herein - which is counterproductive to the cause of pure Krishna consciousness. I sincerely believe that the smear campaign against members of GHQ (who were simply preparing to draft a proposal to the GBC with the aim to establish such REAL KRSNA CONSCIOUS ROLE MODELS), was designed specifically to undermine the endeavour and pursuit of fairness, and in the long term to have the exact opposite effect of introducing, an accepted watered down philosophy based on materialistic feminism. You are entitled to believe as you like.

NOW, THE BOTTOM LINE:

If a mail service, or some of its staff or co-users, were to intercept other people's private mail, read it, and then PUBLICISE it, there would be quite a hue and cry, isn't it? But in our case, a person of no integrity ("Ardabuddhi das") did just that and thereby exposed you, the innocent public, to expressions of ideas between one person and another of similar thoughts and experience. In so doing, he/she violated all acts of privacy (of civil law and netiquette) simply to propagate the selfish ends of the feminist bloc. WE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED! (Yes, it can happen to males also!)

Unfortunately, this is how such one-sided, materialistic philosophy works, and this is why it should not be accepted or condoned in ISKCON. We NEED spiritual ethics based on the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. We NEED a recognised process through which to present ideas, petitions, papers, and the like to the GBC--to assist in maintaining the purity of the society.

I'm VERY upset in the way that WE have been treated in this whole matter. It will take some time for me to get over this one. The amazing thing is some I've heard are already saying that my crying hurt doesn't count. THANKS!!!

In response to this posting, I don't expect to get any favourable results from some sectors of our society; many of you have made your minds up long ago, as I also did. Your thoughts and experiences cannot be denied, but neither can mine. The fact of the matter is that whatever any of us GHQers might have said that a feminist could disagree with certainly would have been interpreted in the same negative way. That's the way it tends to be for most people when reading something: one derives what one is looking for, and only according to one's own realisation. This is why pratyaksha pramanam (sensory perception) is not accepted alone as being a bona fide source of evidence (To err is human; we have those four defects...). But if that pratyaksha parallels the Vedic conclusion (Shruti pramanam) then it can be and is accepted.

Now, sometimes anumanam (logic and argumentation) leads one, in fact, to make downright absurd conclusions. A funny instance of how anumana went astray was once recounted by a friend who was told the following story by his "manaseega-acharyan," Sri Mukkur Swamy II of the Sri Vaishnava sampradaya (and it will bear recalling here as we indeed relate it to the events at hand):

"One early but bright marghashi morning, many years ago," he began, "I was proceeding from home in Mambalam to Lord Parthasarathy's temple at Tiruvellikeni. Unable to engage an auto-rickshaw immediately, I strolled over to the nearest bus stand. Along with about a half-dozen others gathered there, I began the long and patient wait for the rare privilege of Chennai's (Madras) public transport.

"After about a quarter of an hour, I witnessed a most unusual event. (It was so unusual that a few of my fellow passengers-in-waiting also were drawn to it.) About a hundred yards from where we stood at the bus stop, Usman Road turned sharply into Doraisamy Road. Suddenly an auto-rickshaw pulled up at this same street corner. Eager to engage it, a few of us quickly proceeded towards the rickshaw until what we saw abruptly halted us in our tracks.

"I saw an elderly brahmin gentlemen alighting from the auto-rickshaw. His deportment and demeanour indicated that he was an orthodox vaidika brahmin. He wore his dhoti in the traditional pancha-kaccha style; a roughhewn shawl was draped around his shoulders; he wore the tuft on his head; and on his body and limbs were displayed proudly the twelve marks of the Urdhva-pundram (tilak), shining forth with dazzling brahma-tejas (the lustre of religious grooming)! He looked extremely venerable, indeed--every inch the man given to observing the puritanical discipline of impeccable Vedic conduct.

"As I watched him alight from the rickshaw, I saw this vaidika gentleman pull out some currency from under his shawl and give it to the rickshaw-man. 'The fare perhaps,' I thought. A moment later, I saw him mutter a few words to the same rickshaw-man, and then to my utter surprise--and to all those gathered there at the bus-stop--I watched the venerable brahmin suddenly stride across to the other side of the road and enter Radha Bhavan, the wayside restaurant!

"We were simply aghast. I was speechless, dumbstruck. I could not believe my eyes! Here was I--it flashed across my mind--here was I watching the living proof of Vedic degeneration in the age of Kali!

"As if echoing my own mortification, another gentleman who was standing beside me in the bus stop, who too had just witnessed what I had, began to mutter under his breath to himself but within earshot:

"'Oh, dear, dear,' he said, 'What a sorry sight! Oh "tempora"! Oh mores! What a fall indeed for the Vedic ideal! Why should it surprise us that it doesn't rain enough in the land? Why should it surprise us that there is hunger, poverty, and disease in this land? Why should it surprise us that the gods themselves curse this land of ours? This accursed land where a vaidika-brahmin--in full brahma-vesham and regalia, including his twelve namams (Vaishnava tilaks), his face radiating Vedic tejas-- a brahmin like that thinks nothing of striding boldly, without the least compunction, into a filthy, wayside restaurant for commoners; that too in the broad daylight of an auspicious marghashi morning! Oh dear, dear, dear me! What have we come to in this hallowed land of the Vedas? I wonder what the vaidika gentleman is up to now? Feasting on what the restaurant serves him perhaps? Yesterday's rancid medu-vadai turned into today's steaming special vadai-curry perhaps?'"

Mukkur Swamy continued, "When I overhead my companion's anguished but derisive remarks, a great sadness enveloped me too. The sight of a vaidikan caught 'in flagrant delicto,' transgressing the Vedic code, caught entering a wayside restaurant--just like that!--it pained my heart to see one of our faithful brethren, one of our own, commit the unspeakable!

Unable to tolerate this blatant act of Vedic trespass," Mukkur Swamy continued, "I decided then and there to confront the 'vaidika gentleman.'

"As he came out of the wretched Radha Bhavan, I strode up to him and accosted him in a very belligerent manner. 'What a shame you are, sir, to the Vedic community! You who look so venerable, so full of brahma-tejas, how could you stoop to such low behaviour?

"The poor elderly brahmin turned to me," said Mukkur Swamy, "and looked at me with obvious perplexity.

"'Pray tell me, sir, what have I done now, at this auspicious hour, in the month of marghashi, at this spot here at the intersection of Usman Road and Doraiswamy Road, in the good neighbourhood of Mambalam, in this big city of Chennai. Pray tell me what have I done that has brought shame on the Vedic community and which has moved you to such indignation that it has brought you here with gods-speed to pick a fight with me first thing in the morning!' said the old man equally belligerently. "I then confronted him with the evidence," said Mukkur Swamy, "with the fact of his visiting Radha Bhavan, a commoner's wayside restaurant, unclean and un-vedic.

"How do you explain your conduct, sir? Is it becoming of you to do this? You who have obviously had pancha-samskara, samashrayanam too!" (the purificatory rites of initiation)

At this point in the narration, Sri Mukkur Swamy paused and looking askance at us with a mischievous twinkle in his eyes, and asked:

"Do you know what the old vaidika brahmin did next? He drew his shawl over the shoulders and drawing himself up to his full height, hands on hips, he shouted at me: 'Oy, hold it right there! Hold it! Your anumana has gone all awry!'"

Later it was explained what the old vaidikan meant by saying that Mukkur Swamy's anumanam had gone awry:

"It seems the poor old brahmin on alighting from the auto-rickshaw had handed out the fare with fresh currency notes. The rickshaw-man, however, had expressed difficulty in returning change, for he did not have the necessary denominations of coins. The old man had then pleaded with the rickshaw-man to go over to Radha Bhavan and convert the currency notes into change at the restaurant's cash counter.

"The rickshaw-man however had had better ideas. 'Swamy, these restaurateurs are very rude fellows,' he had said. 'If I go at this early hour in the morning and ask the Radha Bhavan cashier for small denomination change, believe me, he will scream and throw me out! On the other hand, you oh venerable Swamy--you who look so holy, so full of Vedic piety--if you went up to Radha Bhavan and asked for change, I am sure they would not turn you away; they dare not shoo away a good brahmin, as they surely will an auto-rickshaw man like me. So I beseech you, sir, kindly proceed yourself to Radha Bhavan to procure the change and settle my fare!'

"And that was how the poor old vaidika-brahmin had come to pay a visit to Radha Bhavan!"

And that was how, too, Mukkur Swamy's anumanic inference--that the old brahmin had travestied and disgraced the whole Vedic community--that was how, in the end, the anumana of Mukkur Swamy was rendered absurdly erroneous! (·those restaurateurs among you readers do not get up in arms, as I'm only relating a story, and am not making a personal attack on you··)

Srila Prabhupada gives the example that if one sees Lord Nityananda going into a drinking establishment, he should think that He's going there for preaching. Unfortunately, the tendency has arisen in our society to immediately try to drag another down, and especially if he be opposed to your presentation (the tall poppy syndrome).

Congratulations on your attention span for making it this far, I'm almost done. Before finishing I'd like to mention one other important story that actually happened in a park in Amritsar, Jhulianwala Bagh (if I recall correctly), during the time of the British Raj in India. One Indian fellow was standing upon a soap box, arousing the emotions of the people gathered in the walled park for nonviolent action against the British. The park was surrounded on three sides by a ten- or twelve-foot-high wall, and the only opening or exit was where the British soldiers stood with their rifles. And being outnumbered by the influx of people in the park, the 'British rifles' were becoming nervous.(They had been ordered not to shoot.)

Incited by the constant shouts from the soap box, the crowd grew exceedingly loud, and some of the soldiers felt very much threatened. Amid the tension, one soldier squeezed his trigger and a shot rang out. The other soldiers immediately concluded that they were being fired upon, and as panic enveloped them, some of the soldiers began to fire into the crowd; with the sound of that gunfire, the others all followed suit.

Inside the park, the people ran to climb the walls as their only means of escape. But alas, as anyone climbed the walls, their former cohorts would pull him down with the aim of themselves getting out. As fate would dictate, none of them survived.

Had they employed the principle enunciated by Rupa Goswami, then instead of trying to pull others down to place themselves up, they would have, been they united, catapulted some to the top, who could have reached down to rescue those still within. At least some would have escaped.

(Likewise with us in ISKCON:) Trying to defame me or anyone else is not the significant issue. The essential issue is to find a functional manner in which devotees who presently feel unprotected will be protected, so that they may pursue their spiritual development in a manner to which we are all entitled. What must be done is to address issues in a proper manner and then present suggestions--not conclusions or ultimatums or political affronts--to the GBC. The objective must be that devotees remain under the shelter of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON, which was his now famous stated desire that we work cooperatively to keep his institution together after his departure.

That, prabhus, was the purpose of GHQ. You can believe it or not, as you like. I could have kept quiet easily enough, but no, I insist that the truth be heard. And this is it.

I'm sorry if some of you refuse to accept what I have to say, but what can I do? I would humbly suggest that we become more objective in our interactions with each other, so that my feelings of repulsion for certain individuals and the same feelings of repulsion that some have for me, may be understood for what they are and dealt with properly. Then, instead of my trying to force something on you, or vice versa, let us empathise and try to appreciate another's subjugation. Such subjugation, be it by those of us thinking we are male, or by those thinking they are female (or by their male supporters), is not required, nor will it unite us in the harmony required for working together cooperatively.

Nor is that the means to accomplish it, that is called daiva-varnashrama. In that system each of us has a prescribed duty, function, and role to execute. Honesty is required for us to participate therein, and humility too. There's more to being a brahmana than simply one's inclination, desire, or wearing some thread, as also there's more to being a vaishya than simply doing business. And of course there's much more to being a husband or a wife than merely cohabiting, as there is also much more to being a guru than having disciples. Qualifications are not based on academic achievement, but rather on how one lives his life (...karma svabhava-jam, Bg 18.41-44)

Thank you for giving me further faith in devotional interactions between devotees, and for all the kind words and feelings toward me. Not a blade of grass moves without the hand of the Lord. This is not meant to be sarcastic, I really mean this. I've learned a lot about the kind of devotees I want to associate with from all of this.

For the record I don't expect a formal apology, rather I trust that Krishna will give those of us who are responsible some appropriate punishment to help rectify words and our actions. Having said that I wish you ALL well.

If you don't mind, those of you who want to send hate-mail AGAIN (or Even for the first time) need not bother--I won't read them or reply. When an unwelcome or unrequested "gift" is presented but its reception is rejected, it remains with the sender. I'm sorry if this fact causes further upset to anyone, for actually it is not meant to. However, I don't expect to make some happy ever; some never will be happy (even though possessing all the "toys" or facility or attention in the world).

However, I hope to appeal to those who have studied Srila Prabhupada's books, are open-minded, and are faithful to his ISKCON. And in all sincerity I humbly apologise for my part to those whose devotional service has been disrupted in any way by any of this, as it was not my intention or doing.

Please excuse me if you think my attitude stinks, I'm just fried with all this.

I beg to remain eternally in the service of Sri Guru and Gauranga,

ys, Jaya Tirtha Charan Dasa

See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story

This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9901/ET11-2824.html

NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP

Surf the Web on