Srila Prabhupada

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

Agreed. Now if you could kindly apply that standard to ALL members, I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks,
AG

This is our intent... if we have been remiss and missed a post where one's ire has been raised due to some name calling ( verbal abuse , insults, etc) point us to the post and we will address it.

iti śivaṁ

[Atheist Guru]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�


This is our intent... if we have been remiss and missed a post where one's ire has been raised due to some name calling ( verbal abuse , insults, etc) point us to the post and we will address it.

iti śivaṁ

Thank you kindly, sir...

[philosoraptor]

This is the last I'm going to post about this. You have grossly misrepresented my position by making all kinds of false allegations about me and the world-view you seem to think I have. So this is to put things straight. I've read what you have to say on this and this is my final response. After this, I hope we can just agree to disagree on this.

You may post or leave as you wish. I will repeat what I have said earlier. Culture does not just consist of those attitudes which are politically-correct. Attitudes about gender-relations and class-relations are also very much a part of culture, and Vedic culture was no different in this regard. The idea that some races are fallen due to their having adopted sinful habits, and that women should have certain duties different from men, etc are undisputed truths about ancient Hindu culture that are mentioned in a wide variety of mainstream texts. That you may not like them, or that modern people may not like them, does not change the fact that they exist. Frankly, I think Hindu culture is very liberal in some ways because it acknowledges that anyone, regardless of his class, caste, race, or gender, can attain the highest spiritual perfection, a fact which also comes out in numerous texts. But in any case, Vedic culture is what it is. Now, you can either acknowledge that those attitudes exist, and try to understand them according to the assumptions of the venerable sages who held them, or you can dismiss them as irrelevant and then attack the few conservative representatives of the tradition as "racist" and "sexist" because they do not conform to your myopic view of how things should be.

No, I disagree with his social views, which do not fly with a lot of Hindus either.

Agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant. Neither he nor any other genuine Hindu teacher is interested in making disciples at the cost of having to change the principles. Dharma is what it is. This is what you cannot seem to understand.

I actually give Hindu culture a lot more credit than SP's monolithic interpretations. And my intelligence isn't what's being discussed here, so I can only assume that this was a cheap way to discredit my opinion. So thank you for that.

Your opinion is not credible. The arguments against Prabhupada's "racism" and "sexism" were refuted earlier in this thread, which then became inactive. If you really wanted to discuss those remarks in an intelligent way, you could have picked up where it left off and we could have had an intelligent discussion. Instead, you ignored what was said earlier and simply repeated the same, one-sided arguments in support of your position that he is racist and sexist. If you objected to being called out for making cheap attacks, my suggestion would be for you to refrain from making cheap attacks in the first place.

Again - I'm NOT disagreeing with Hindu culture or Vedic standards; I disagree with SP's social views.... as in S-O-C-I-A-L... in case you didn't get it the first time. I particularly disagree with his views involving women and blacks. This is not the same as disagreeing with Hindu or Vedic culture, so stop accusing me of this.

Prabhupada's social views have their basis in several Hindu smRitis. You cannot honestly claim to disagree with his social views without disagreeing with those smRitis, and thus the culture. I for one have no problem if you want to admit that you dislike Vedic culture. Lots of people hate Vedic culture, including many so-called Hindus. But call it what it is, instead of masking your contempt for the culture's standards as criticism for one guru.

SP has reiterated several times including interviews that women are intellectually and culturally inferior to men because of maximum brain size between men and women. SP believed that women are also not deserving of the same education as men and should be subordinated to the wishes of their husband to please them at all times. They should also not hold any positions of leadership nor should they be given equal rights to men - even in Western society. He quotes Professor Urquhart as being the source of this 'scientific fact' involving brain mass, from 1918.

Again, I will just point one that your arguments are one-sided. You ignored the numerous statements he made extolling the virtues of several female devotees, including some of his own female disciples, and you ignored the cultural and theological context in which he couched these arguments. You also ignored the fact that he initiated his female disciples into performing puja, which was largely unheard of in Hinduism up until that point. Hence, one-sided.

Personally, I don't care much for his brain-size argument. In fact, I find many of his "scientific" arguments on this issue less than convincing. In my view, he would have been better off simply stating the conclusions of dharma-shAstras regarding the position of women, and how this is spiritually uplifting, rather than trying to come up with biological justifications for it. But like I said, I'm not a Prabhupada follower.

And by the way, how exactly does that make me prejudiced for pointing that out?

Because an intelligent person can try to be objective, look at both sides of the evidence, and have a discussion that is stimulating instead of accusatory. There are plenty of seemingly contradictory remarks Sri Prabhupada made on the subject of women and race, and many, many comments in which he argues against bodily identification which cast legitimate doubt on his so-called "racism" and "sexism." Yet, you had no use for any of that as it contradicted your preexisting agenda. This thread was largely inactive until you came back and tried to start a flame-war.

SP said that women SHOULD not be given equal rights to men. Is that plain enough?

No, it is not. Prabhupada was not a politician and probably was not speaking about government or law. And even if he was, he has written many comments about how the ideal king must protect all sections of society, which would contradict your belief that he wanted the State to specifically oppress women.

Blacks abandoned Vedic values? What evidence do you have that Africans or African Americans as a whole, were once devout followers of Vedic values?

Prabhupada, and most others who believe in the Puraanic accounts of Vedic history, are of the belief that Vedic culture was once world-wide, and that its influence shrunk over time with the progression towards Kali-Yuga until it was primarily centered in India. Now, you may ridicule those views, and that is fine. What I'm telling you, however, is that the belief in other races as having fallen from the Vedic standard is perfectly in accord with that view. His criticism of those races is not based on their skin color, but on their having adopted habits considered barbaric and sinful according to Vedic standards. He made many similar caustic remarks about Americans, too. Again, if this can be obvious to someone like me who is not a Prabhupada follower, then it should have been obvious to anyone making a serious attempt to read his writings. But like many things, it may not be obvious to someone whose agenda predisposes him to one-sided readings.

To SP - blacks WERE sudras, even if they drove a Rolls Royce he would refer to them as 'third class negroes driving a first class car'. So it wasn't a matter of status, it was purely about race. Now what do you call somebody who labels an entire race as 3rd class, irrespective of social status?

You aren't listening. Social status in the vedic context is based on the adoption of prescribed dharmas, not on material wealth or power. It is certainly believable to me that he would call Blacks "third class" for all the same reasons he called Americans "animals" and Chinese all sorts of things. Because the reality was, these people in general had adopted grossly sinful habits as their own cultural norm, and he considered them low-class regardless of how much wealth and influence they commanded. This is in contrast those who followed the principles he taught, and dedicated their lives to worshiping Sri Krishna, whom he repeatedly called as "first class" regardless of their race or gender. He even called several of his female disciples "first class" for various things they did. He once even told them in a spirit of humility that he was only good because his disciples were good - this in front of a primarily Western crowd including women!

Like I said, I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you. It's clear we're not going to agree on this, so if you're going to post unilaterally - feel free.

I never agree with those who engage in unfair and one-sided attacks of anyone, not even if those are attacks on people whom I might disagree with. I have previously defended Adi Shankara, Madhva, Shaivites, Shaktiites, and a whole lot of other religious people in the past whose ideas were very different from mine, from over-zealous people who made unwarranted accusations against them. I have long held to a principled stance that criticism should consider all of the facts, be measured, and delivered with some culture. Your remarks were not in keeping with any of those criteria, hence this discussion.

However I am going to report any lies or misrepresentations of my opinion to Satay should I encounter any more.

Coming from the guy who earlier said, "I still feel that opinions should not be suppressed in the interest of critical thinking," this is indeed humorous.

regards,