Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Daughters are rather useless;-) just like the older sister of Ram, Satya.[/quote]

(leaving aside that if you will talk like that about women, this will get you to take birth in a female body - and then heaven help you! :p)[br]

[br]What do you think that Satya/Santa should have done?

Feel lucky... by far better option is to be a woman really. No responsibility, no need for austerity, nobody will be envious of you and assured liberation by chanting of the holy names...

> will get you to take birth in a female body - and then heaven help you! :p)

Actually it is my prayer. But tell it to others/;-) But seriously, there is absolutely nothing wrong of taking up this kind of body in the spiritual world of Goloka or even in Ayodhya.

I dont know if that would be a bona fide explanation but it is not hard to notice that Puranic language is full of obvious exagerrations to emphasize the point being made.

It is what I felt (but did not say I think), now that I look at Sanskrit it says: sahasranam-of thousands; sahasrani-thousands; dasa-ten; -- sounds poetic (kavya) to me. Please keep me updated:-)

Taken literally, if he would try to have children with each of them, one per day, then it would take 10 000 000/365 = 27 397 years. So it would be theoretically possible for a superman in Satya yuga with lifespan of 100 000 years. Puranic Enc. gives no details on Citraketus wives.

Most stories from the Bhagavatam that relate to the age of Satya Yuga are difficult to comprehend in this age of Kali, that is why I prefer to focus on Chaitanya Caritamrta. The pastimes of Lord Chaintainya took place in the age of Kali Yuga and many of the topics are so relevant even today. His protest marches, defying the Kaazi, his rejection of the caste system, relations between two opposing religions.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]Taken literally, if he would try to have children with each of them, one per day, then it would take 10 000 000/365 = 27 397 years. So it would be theoretically possible for a superman in Satya yuga with lifespan of 100 000 years. Puranic Enc. gives no details on Citraketus wives.[/quote]

But at what point was a woman declared "barren"? If, after the first copulation, she did not conceive a child (or a son, because daughters dont really seem to count?!)?[br]
And what about the length of the menstrual cycle for women back then?[br]
Also, it is common that in a female population that lives together, all females tend to menstruate by the same cycle.
[br]
[br]Anyway, the sheer logistics of actually trying to calculate how to impregante 10 000 000 women ...

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]During a Bhagavatam class I was asked for explanation. I obviously did not know if there is one.
SB 6.14.11 clearly states: Citraketu had ten million wives, but although he was capable of producing children, he did not receive a child from any of them. By chance, all the wives were barren.

The question was (from rather a senior devotee) who said that it came up on a previous class, and the estimate they did was rather alarming, for it takes a long time.
[/quote]

This could be coming close to what was discussed in the room conversation from June 26, 1975 in Los Angeles, http://prabhupadabooks.com/d.php?g=162062 , about King Ugrasena and his four billion personal servants.

...
Devotee (1): But then because so many things they have to accept on faith without knowing, it then weakens their faith as to what they should accept and why should they accept Kuc0u7771 u7779 u7751 a, who they cant see any more than King Ugrasenas four billion bodyguards.

Prabhupu257 da: Dont accept. Dont accept.

Devotee (2): But we want them to accept. The point is, if we say to a scientific man, "There was four billion," and if our statement is wrong...

Prabhupu257 da: But our position is that if some portion we cannot understand, it is our incapability.

Devotee (2): That is all right. But since we are...

Prabhupu257 da: Thats all. Unless we have got this faith we cannot use these Puru257 u7751 as. In the Puru257 u7751 as there are many such statements.

Devotee (2): Yes, but we just want to understand.

Prabhupu257 da: Therefore many people, they do not accept Puru257 u7751 as. So what can be done?
...

Prabhupu257 da: You should do your business. Thats all. Earn money and enjoy.

Devotee (2): No, I mean what should we do Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a consciously?

Prabhupu257 da: You give up Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a consciousness, I say. That is my advice.

Devotee (2): Why should we do that?

Prabhupu257 da: Then that I cannot say.

Devotee (1): Isnt there a middle of the road?

Prabhupu257 da: If you are finding so many faults, you give it up.

Devotee (1): No. Were not finding fault.

Prabhupu257 da: Then there is no other advance, alternative. No alternative. Either you accept or reject it.

Devotee (1): We accept, but we would like some instruction on...

Prabhupu257 da: No. I have no such knowledge to convince you.

Devotee (1): No, we accept Ku7771 u7779 u7751 a consciousness philosophy...

Prabhupu257 da: Thats all right. Accept, or if you reject, reject.

Devotee (1): We accept.

Devotee (2): We want to apply it.

Devotee (1): We want to apply it to the world as it is now.

Prabhupu257 da: No no. You cannot. You are not authorized.

Devotee (1): Well, who is authorized?

Prabhupu257 da: The authorized... You are not authorized. Who is authorized, that is not your business.

...

It is very dangerous to suspend critical thinking when studying the shastra. If you do, pretty soon you are redy to accept just about anything on your blind faith. At that point you are no longer STUDYING shastra. A study implies application of reason, logic, and critical analysis with respect to the subject of your study.

Then how do you view Srila Prabhupadas reply to those disciples who had troubles with understanding how King Ugrasena had four billion personal servants?

Even if we did manage to somehow get all the information to calculate how to impregnate ten million women or how a king could have four billion personal servants - what would that really help?
And what if our calculation would show that the numbers given in the scriptures are wrong? Would this be grounds for us not to take any scriptures seriously anymore?

Are we to set ourselves up as arbiters on what in scriptures is merely poetic exaggeration, and what is fact?

Baker, the text doesnt elaborate so I dont want to speculate.

> But at what point was a woman declared "barren"? If, after the first copulation, she did not conceive a child (or a son, because daughters dont really seem to count?!)?
> And what about the length of the menstrual cycle for women back then?

This may be stated in dharmasastras or ayurvedic texts but I dont remember anything specific.

Its not true that daughters didnt count. If there was no son, daughter had to take care of e.g. funeral rites for parents. Look up Manusamhita for details.

> Also, it is common that in a female population that lives together, all females tend to menstruate by the same cycle.

Therere still differences though.

> Anyway, the sheer logistics of actually trying to calculate how to impregante 10 000 000 women ...

To analyze these things by our present and limited experience and material logic can be misleading. The quoted conversation is one notorious example of this. Ive met some devotees, or rather former devotees, who became victims of this approach. One of them just yesterday.

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite]> Anyway, the sheer logistics of actually trying to calculate how to impregante 10 000 000 women ...
[br]
To analyze these things by our present and limited experience and material logic can be misleading.[/quote]

I agree. Perhaps I should have added an ironic or sarcastic smiley to my post, I had thought it was apparent from my wording that I wasnt serious about the efficacy or accuracy of such calculations. :)

[br][br]
[quote]The quoted conversation is one notorious example of this. Ive met some devotees, or rather former devotees, who became victims of this approach.[/quote]

I agree - trying to independently / neutrally / objectively verify scriptural statements is an endeavor doomed to failure.

> an endeavor doomed to failure.

In the very least, its as inconclusive as every anumana. Imho, Prabhupada told them Forget about it and do your stuff because papa is better than aparadha.

[quote][cite] Baker:[/cite]Then how do you view Srila Prabhupadas reply to those disciples who had troubles with understanding how King Ugrasena had four billion personal servants?
[/quote]
Baker... there is SO MUCH MORE to this conversation between Prabhupada and Kanupriya& Jamadagni, read about it, as it is very informative... anyway SP was a literalist when it came to shastra and demanded the same from his direct disciples (rather forcefully at times), but Thakura Bhaktivinoda was NOT, thus establishing more than a sufficien precedent for us, his grand-disciples.

Kula-Pavana - Baker... there is SO MUCH MORE to this conversation between Prabhupada and Kanupriya& Jamadagni, read about it, as it is very informative...


This so much more to the conversation can you pls put a link to it or is it
the same link that Baker has given above. Tks.

A bit about the background of this conversation:
http://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/989/should-we-have-liberal-spiritualismmarriagesas-proponded-by-hridayanada-maharaja/

[quote][cite] VEDA:[/cite] Imho, Prabhupada told them Forget about it and do your stuff because papa is better than aparadha.[/quote]
That is one possible take on this conversation. IMO it was a case of guru establishing a principle of obedience for those who claimed to be his disciples: "you do it my way, or you can hit the highway".

Here is a link to what I consider a very thorough analysis of this incident: http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/index.php?showtopic=2911

'93These things are not very important, we may not waste our time with these insignificant questions. There are sometimes allegorical explanations [in the Bhagavatam]. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krsna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavata, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam.'94 (Letter 72-11-07)

I found this at http://www.swami.org/pages/sanga/2001/2001_44.php

Thanks Baker. I also take it to be that it is a discussion about sons only, as he sacrificially requiring the son. Daughters are rather useless;-) just like the older sister of Ram, Satya.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Feel lucky... by far better option is to be a woman really. No responsibility, no need for austerity, nobody will be envious of you and assured liberation by chanting of the holy names...[/quote]

You wish!!

I would still like to know why you think Ramas older sister was "useless", and what you think she should have done?

I researched this a bit - Some accounts claim Lord Rama didnt have an older sister, and some say He did. Namely, that Ramas father first married a woman who was actually a relative of his, and the daughter they had, Santa, was handicapped, then given away to foster parents which healed the handicap.
I have also read that in brahminical culture, an older sister has the privilege to chastise her younger brother.
There are songs, sung from the womens perspective, where Rama behaves unruly, the women are upset, and Santa comes in to stand up for Sita.

Is this what you were referring to?

Valmiki Ramayana, at least Bala Khanda which I read in full, doesnt mention her. Which version you mean?

SANTA. - Daughter of Dasaratha, son of Aja, but adopted by Lomapada or Romapada, king of Anga. She was married to Rishyasringa.
Shanta is said to be the daughter of Dasharatha and given to Romapada in adoption, and Rishyasringa marries her alone. -

Ref: The two most significant stories in the early books of Valmikis Ramayana are the birth of Dasarathas sons and Kaikeyis evil plot to send Rama away to the forest. In the first story women have no role to play except as passive bearers of children; in the second, the evil nature of women is highlighted in the descriptions of Kaikeyis adamant demands to have her son Bharata invested as the heir to the kingdom and to banish Rama to the forest for fourteen years.

The narrative in "Santagovindanamalu" ingeniously transforms both these events so that women acquire the credit for the birth of sons and the evil nature of Kaikeyis demand is eliminated. First, according to this song, Kausalya advises Dasaratha that they should adopt Santa as their daughter. This daughter will bring good luck to the family and they will have sons. This is a powerful change indeed. The usual Brahmin family belief is that the firstborn should be a son. A firstborn daughter is greeted with disappointment, though it is not always openly expressed. This story suggests that a firstborn daughter is actually preferable because she, as a form of the goddess Laksmi, blesses the family with prosperity, which then leads to the birth of sons. Moreover, it is significant that the whole strategy is planned by a woman'97whereas in the Valmiki Ramayana , for example, the sage Rsyasrnga performs a sacrifice for Dasaratha which leads to the birth of sons. What is interesting here is that Dasaratha listens to his senior queens advice. Kaikeyi, however, initially refuses to go along because she will gain nothing from the plan. But Sumitra convinces Kaikeyi, who finally accepts the plan on the condition that Bharata, her son, will inherit the kingdom. Santa is duly adopted and brought to Ayodhya with great honors, where she is received as the very goddess of wealth. When she grows of age she is married to Rsyasrnga, again on the advice of Kausalya. The song then describes in fine detail the festivities of the wedding and the harmonious atmosphere of the palace, where the women are in control.-
Source(s):
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga11/bala_11_prose.htm

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft3j49n8h7&chunk.id=d0e7108&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e7108&brand=eschol

So its Shanta, not Satya. And shes the daughter of King of Anga adopted by Dasaratha as the first link says:

"A king named Dasharatha will be born into Ikshwaku dynasty who will be very virtuous, resplendent and truthful one to his vow." Said Sanat Kumara, the Sage."King Dasharatha will befriend the king of Anga and the king of Anga will beget a fortunate girl named Shanta.

Shanta is said to be the daughter of Dasharatha and given to Romapada in adoption, and Rishyasringa marries her alone.

Well, you must remember that Krishnas powers are inconceivable.
Hey, imma tell something that Krsna done for me with my wives(which are a alot).
All given to me by him.
Instead of seeing them one at a time he put them in one body
and I enjoy the beauty all those different personalities at one time.