Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

related question:
http://www.pariprashnena.com/discussion/640/woman-likes-a-man-who-is-very-expert-at-rape-comments/

every quote has a distinct explanation,
I guess you need to ask specific questions for specific answers.
I recommend this one http://www.dandavats.com/?p=600 for the "women less intelligent" one.

I read a long time ago a book on a real rape case. The two were young, the boy was a little intoxicated and the girl was wearing shorts. The act was not committed under life risk, the boy did not have any weapon but his male strength and the act was consummated in the car, after she agreed to a car ride. They knew each other, were from the same town and university.
The parents of the girl pushed rape charges and the girl of course played the role of victim.
The boy'b4s barrister presented evidence that a women is able to intercept the male intercourse by their parts muscles strength. So simple. So, in this case, consent is there and that is what SP is talking about, not a criminal brutal knife menacing one which is clearly against the law and scriptures- alike.
Why the girl "agrees" to be taken lies in the animal conditioning we all have, the psychology that a female wants aggressive strong leader of the pack to perpetuate the purity of the species, so unconsciously agrees to be taken "forcefully" and takes that as a sign of the male'b4s strength.
Does that satisfy your intelligence, dear Pandu?

I actually consider that its important to select devotees you want to discuss Gita with. Not that just because one is a devotee he can give an acceptable explanation on the difficult to understand passages.

ccd: why do you change subject? It is so plain logic you will select your association.

The question started with "should be read WITH devotees" - this is the key to the answer. I know that if i was to write annotations as well some of the above explanations will all clearly be below the standard. So I would welcome a standard view to have from a balanced body such as BBT.

I know people who have signed the petition that will have a certain quality about them, nice to have the list to discriminate whose association to take. Like for example there is Harisauri and Srutakirti - both were Prabhupadas servants for a while, but one gives such a different picture on all the major issues to another; without going into details PKripa swami will not be the person I would love to associate with as well as some other devotees on the list of signatures starting the petition with Hindu fundamentalist views. So choose your association and THEN discuss krishna katha in the association. The above explanation will then automatically be dismissed by a little more intelligent person who has a better association.

Certainly I am sure that this criminal mentality view will not form part of the annotations by the BBT. Even you will agree with that.

still conditioned souls inserting comments within a pure devotee`s book.
The name BBT or GBC does not automatically qualify one to tamper.
If someone feels qualified to do that, let them write their own separate book as even acaryas do. Name it, BBT footnotes and commentaries to SP such and such book.

I find it completely unhumble and unvaishnava to hear remarks - there are no liberated persons in ISKCON, therefore any comments will be that by a conditioned soul. What is your basis for it in terms of sastra, leaving aside the fact that you are so advanced that you can judge who is conditioned and who is not?

While I agree with the fact that just because one is in BBT it makes a person representing Prabhupadas publishing, but certainly BBT as a whole represents his will. (GBC has nothing to do with BBT so the argument is just faulty.)

While some are hard at work debating "rape quotes", heres a reality check of what rape has become, courtesy of the new york times:

worldhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15kristof.html?th&emc=th

Based on both modern law and Manu Samhita injunctions, rape is an extremely serious offense. In Manu Samhita the guardian of a woman has the right and the duty! to kill such an assailant. The notion that somehow the rape is enjoyed be the woman is not even remotely supported by the modern research.
It might have been Prabhupadas opinion on this subject matter, but that is about all you can say here.

Or it just maybe that he did use a word that for some who graduated from the prestigious Scottish Churches College could have different meaning when written. He may refer to a different word meaning then just forced sexual intercourse. You should know that in some jurisdictions rape refers to other forms of sexual assault as well and considering in his education his primary meaning will closely relate to latin rapio, "to abduct or seize by force.".

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite] Like for example there is Harisauri and Srutakirti - both were Prabhupadas servants for a while, but one gives such a different picture on all the major issues to another;[/quote]

CC Prabhu, please could you elabotare on this?
Thank you.

From "GBC Resolution 311: Raping Srila Prabhupadas Purports":

(can be read in its entirety here: http://www.gopala.org/node/229 )

I read one devotees well-meant attempt to rationalize Srila Prabhupadas use of the word '91rape. He explained that what he meant was different from how we interpret '91rape. According to his explanation, Srila Prabhupadas idea of '91rape was simply passionate intercourse. Due to a linguistic shift from British colonial English to contemporary English the semantics attached to the word '91rape have changed.

This explanation isnt consistent with what Srila Prabhupada said in a morning walk May 11, 1975, in Perth, Australia (bolding and underline added):

Devotee (1): They said that the man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to his raping her.

Prabhupada: Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And thats a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. Thats 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.

Devotee (1): So what this law means is that anybody can rape anybody.

Prabhupada: There is no law; it is all lusty desire. All law or no law, these are all nonsense. The sastra has... It is lusty desire, thats all. Everyone wants to fulfill a lusty desires. So unless one is not in the modes of goodness or transcendental, everyone will like.

I included the rest of the selection so that the statement can be read in context. In no way is Srila Prabhupada condoning the act of rape. To take that meaning from this passage or his purports is cheating. Who would want to anyway? Unfortunately, Ive heard that some supposed members of ISKCON have used such passages to justify horrendous acts to women.

<In no way is Srila Prabhupada condoning the act of rape.> Of course he does, Its exactly because of such conclusions that people do (falsly) that some form of annotations needed. As you know there is a difference in a written word and spoken transcripts.

Good annotation, Ekendra P.

Imho, the key point is "They like sometimes." This was generalized by some and the result is known. I wonder if that lawyer was that smart also before Yamaraja...

Mishra prabhu, Hare Krishna. Your explanation seems reasonable to me. To my understanding, one who is NOT &quot;expert at rape&quot; needs a knife or other threat of violence. Someone who is expert can get a girl to willingly do something that her conscious mind says not to do, or which she might regret later. Just like sometimes in the marketplace we buy something influence by charisma or trickery and later regret it.

CCD prabhu, Hare Krishha. Were aware that Bhagavad-gita and other sastra should be studied with devotees, but my point was that sometimes that is not the situation. I presented a scenario only very slightly modified from my actual experience, where I didnt have the luxury to select the cream of the crop of many devotees. I was making a decision and by Krishnas arrangement I found one devotee I could speak with.

(In the situation as it actually occurred, I was living in Buffalo with my wife and baby daughter and wanted to move to a farm community, but didnt know whether to go to Gita-nagari or New Vrindavana. I met a disciple of Srila Prabhupada who had a bad experience with HH Bhakti Tirtha Swami, and was advised that New Vrindavana would be a better choice. After getting to new Vrindavana we gradually learned about all the crazy stuff that happened there, and left in haste. Several years later we made it to Gita-nagari, where we found its own unique set of problems but learned to accept them [after a pretty tough ordeal] and things are going pretty well for us there now, although we have to do our farming at home.)

Im not one to argue on one side of an issue or another. I want to explore both sides. I realize the results of my question can point either in favor or against annotations. It seems that you would prefer to be able give an official answer to a difficult question. However, life is such that not every explanation is covered in sastra. As I recall, Bhisma said that while giving his discourse on morality from a bed of arrows. We have to be able to use our intelligence to explain things.

Srila Prabhupada used the word, &quot;rape,&quot; many times to describe forced sexual intercourse. Can you find even one time he used it to indicate an abduction? Did he say that Krishna raped Rukmini, or that Arjuna raped Subhadra? If you have examples like these, it would make your argument much more convincing.

I also agree that it is not very nice to assume there are no liberated persons in ISKCON. However, most of us recognize Srila Prabhupada as liberated, and we do not have nearly the same degree of agreement about anyone else. If anyone is in such a pure condition, one would expect ISKCON to perform better under his leadership. Perhaps another question can address who is liberated in ISKCON, but it could get messy.

Srila Prabhupada condoning rape? No, I very much disagree. He said a woman may enjoy it, but he also said that rape must be punished. In every case I was able to find him talking of rape, it was described in the context of demoniac activities. People enjoy eating meat, intoxication, illicit sex, and gambling; but that does not mean he condones it. People enjoy being cheated by bogus yogis, but does that mean Srila Prabhupada condones that we pretend to be God and cheat the public?

Kula-pavana prabhu, Hare Krishna. Modern researchers have imperfect senses, are illusioned, commit mistakes, and they cheat. Srila Prabhupada is a Vaishanva acarya and pure devotee giving knowledge by the descending process. As devotees in Srila Prabhupadas line, we should accept his authority.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] Modern researchers have imperfect senses, are illusioned, commit mistakes, and they cheat. Srila Prabhupada is a Vaishanva acarya and pure devotee giving knowledge by the descending process. As devotees in Srila Prabhupadas line, we should accept his authority.[/quote]

Hare Krsna, Pandu-ji,

In the matters of understanding womens psychology Srila Prabhupada often followed the theories of his psychology college Professor, Dr. W. S. Urquhart, very often quoting him in public. Uruquhart was actually British and his views were in no shape or form based on the shastra. He was exactly the modern researcher from your quote.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
Hare Krsna, Pandu-ji,
In the matters of understanding womens psychology Srila Prabhupada often followed the theories of his psychology college Professor, Dr. W. S. Urquhart, very often quoting him in public. Uruquhart was actually British and his views were in no shape or form based on the shastra. He was exactly the modern researcher from your quote.[/quote][br/][br/]

Dear Kula-pavana prabhu, Hare Krishna. Ive heard other devotees marginalize Srila Prabhupada using the same kind of argument, but I have problems with it. As Ive understood Srila Prabhupadas teachings, we are to take knowledge from Krishna through bona fide disciplic succession. If he did not do this himself, then he was not a proper acarya. [br/][br/]

Srila Prabhupada sometimes used mundane "authorities" to support his arguments, but Ive never understood them to be his primary sources of knowledge on any subject of instruction. For example, he may have cited a judge as making some appropriate statement, but that does not mean that the judge is a real authority -- he may be wrong on another subject, or a different judge may contradict him. Being a judge does not make one a real authority, nor does being a psychology professor, although they may have a little knowledge by circumstance. So I take it that Srila Prabhupada referenced different mundane authorities for the sake of example, based on his own reliable knowledge received by the descending process. Otherwise I could not trust him, for it is cheating to play the role of guru while giving imperfect knowledge. As I see it, if we open up this can-of-worms saying that various statements by Srila Prabhupada are subject to confirmation by nondevotee mental speculators, then were back at square-one (except burdened by the offense of having rejected a bona fide guru), apparently having no need to surrender to a guru and having no certain basis for knowledge. If I were to accept the view youve stated, then to me a guru would be the most dangerous kind of person, to whom we should never serve, much less surrender. Who would knowingly entrust his spiritual life to a faulty person?[br/][br/]

If, as we all know, Srila Prabhupada repeatedly taught about the defects of materially contaminated intelligence, then to me it makes no sense to think that he based his knowledge on statements by atheistic mental speculators. I find it very uninspiring to think of Srila Prabhupada that way.

I think the following quote from a lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.44, Vrindaban, Oct 4, 1976, supports the points I made a few minutes ago:

"You cannot overrule acharya. Acharya... Acharyopasanam. Acharya should be always worshiped. Even if you, by ABCD, you have become more learned than the acharya... That is not possible, but if you foolishly think like that, still, you should not exhibit your foolishness, that you know more than the acharya. That is Chaitanya Mahaprabhus... By His life example, He has taught us that the more we remain ignorant, foolish before the acharya, or before the guru, that is more we advance. Real success is how one is faithful to his guru. That is real success. Yasya deve para bhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau. It is not by education or grammatical knowledge you can learn anything. No. It is by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And that grace comes down through the grace of guru. That grace also does not come directly. We should not be neglecting this point.

yasya deve para bhaktir
yatha deve tatha gurau
tasyaite kathita hy arthah
prakashante mahatmanah

"Unto those great souls who have implicit faith in both the Lord and the spiritual master, all the imports of Vedic knowledge are automatically revealed." [Shvetasvatara Upanishad 6.23]

"Things become revealed by devotion, not by so-called education."

Having gotten a little sidetracked, I want to reiterate that wrote this question looking for devotees explanations to increase the faith of a doubtful person and inspire him want to surrender to Srila Prabhupadas teachings.

For example, Srimad Bhagavatam 2.6.8 seems relevant to the question. In the purport, Srila Prabhupada describes what he calls "a coating, a pleasure-giving substance, on the surface of the genitals." This suggests to me that sexual pleasure is not entirely dependent on ones mental state.

Hare Krishna.

Prabhupada did not want blind followers. He wanted his disciples to be independently thoughtful (".. our Krsna consciousness movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful.."). Acaryopasanam does not mean blind following. Just as Prabhupada was independently thoughtful in so many ways, so should be his followers.

The issue of understanding womens psychology has nothing to do with our siddhanta or spiritual knowledge. It is relative and subject to change. To pretend that somehow what Prabhupada said about women is absolute and true under all circumstances just because Prabhupada is a Vaishnava acharya, is actually detrimental to Prabhupadas mission. You are presenting to people a myth which can easily be disproven. That in turn causes people to lose faith in both Prabhupada and the process he is promoting.

Hare Krishna.
I have been saying that we need to understand how to address the difficult questions ourselves based on Srila Prabhupadas teachings, rather than waiting for a canned response from those whose spiritual purity is unknown to us. That is independently thoughtful and not blind following. I know that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, so how is accepting his authority "blind following"? My understanding of blind following is to accept an authority whose real qualifications are unknown or potentially doubtful, such as an unnamed BBT employee. What to speak of unknown devotees, almost everyone in this world is captivated by maya, with all their so-called knowledge founded on illusion. Accepting the methods of those who have not once uttered with sincerity, "om ajnana-timirandhasya jnananjana-salakaya caksur unmilitam yena tasmai sri-gurave namah" is the most blind following.

A stated fact may be disproven by consulting a superior authority. If there is some statement in question, one looks to a higher authority for confirmation. If you accept the empirical process of accumulating knowledge through experimentation as superior to Srila Prabhupadas statements, then thats your choice. Then you can also say that there is genuine love in this world, as well as happiness (which of course everyone captivated by maya knows), and so on, which will certainly help you to relate to nondevotees.

I dont believe that contradicting Srila Prabhupada helps his mission. Our job as disciples in his line is to try to understand what he has said, with intelligence purified through devotional service, and to preach the knowledge he has given. That is the process of disciplic succession. If Im going to knowingly preach contrary to what Srila Prabhupada has taught, I would first cut off my sikha and wipe the tilak off of my head, so as to not give the false impression that I am acting as a disciple. Then I can speak as an independent authority, however illusioned, drawing from whatever sources make sense to me at the moment.

Hare Krishna.

prabhu,

> your criticism of "sweeping statements" implies an inherent concept that
> there are no absolutes ("black and white") in these issues, which is not
> true.

That is another misquote from my letter. I said to Isvara, in paraphrase,
"You say that the GBC are all ill-motivated. Dont make such a sweeping
statement. You, not being Supersoul, should not be so presumptuous as to
claim you know the minds and hearts of everyone."

As I explained in my previous letter, I signed the petition almost a week
ago, so I am not arguing for annotation. But I will not descend to the
ungentlemanly act of public GBC stoning.

> Because you (or others) had/have a hard time explaining certain concepts
> from Srila Prabhupadas purports (smrti) or from sastra (sruti) in no way
> implies that those concepts are therefore open to the
> comments/speculations/changes/additions/subtractions or whatever of those
> NOT on the uttama platform.

Prabhupadas purports are certainly open to our comments. Thats what we do
in Srimad Bhagavatam class. Thats what Srila Prabhupada asked us to do:
Read his purport and explain it in our own words.

As far as changing his words, that is not an issue here. Why bring it up?
But for the record, I am fully in favour and have implicit faith in
Jayadvaita Swamis lifes mission as Srila Prabhupadas editor. But dont
change the subject. Were talking about annotations, which I dont agree
with.

> Can you explain the cosmological concepts described in the 5th canto? Or
> do those not pose a problem in your in Bhagavatam classes or
> conversations to guests? Perhaps we should annotate Prabhupads books with
> modern scientists explanations of the universe.

Dont be so sarcastic Ganesa, it is very unbecoming. You know me well enough
to not ask me that stupid question.

> It is not a matter of reading the minds of everyone nor of being the
> Paramatma. It is matter of CHANGING Prabhupadas books (or teachings) ONCE
> AGAIN and insinuating the ideas of conditioned souls (us) into the
> perfect & pure teachings of the samparadaya acarya.

The matter of annotation is clear in my mind: dont do it. State your views
as firmly as you like, as many others have done in this issue. I say "do
not offend your Godbrothers in the process. You might need them one day.
Hate the sin, not the sinner".

Hoping this exchange meets you well,

Your old friend,

Kurma das

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] I know that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, so how is accepting his authority "blind following"? My understanding of blind following is to accept an authority whose real qualifications are unknown or potentially doubtful, such as an unnamed BBT employee. [/quote]

Blind following is following with your eyes closed. If your eyes are closed, you are bound to get lost, even if you are trying to follow a proper authority. Keeping yout eyes open means examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning and intent, examining the outside reality to see how these instructions apply to it, and examining the results of our application of these instructions in order to correct the course if needed.

If you read the story I gave leading up to my question, you would see that I obtained a science degree and immersed myself in a variety of philosophies and practices of self-realization before finding and studying Bhagavad-gita As It Is. After college I set out on the path of renunciation and self-inquiry with determination to understand the absolute truth, and almost immediately I found Krishna by Srila Prabhupadas grace and mercy. Srila Prabhupadas purity as Krishnas devotee is proven to me, and I know from experience that surrender to Krishna gives perfect knowledge, whereas rejection of Krishna places the soul immediately into illusion. I accept Srila Prabhupada as Krishnas representative based on Krishnas certification of his authority. That is why I have firm faith in Srila Prabhupada and no faith in the knowledge of atheistic mental speculators. I am simply trying to gradually overcome my bad habits to increase my ability to follow Srila Prabhupadas instructions. I am naturally very contemplative and cannot recall any instance when I have preached something without personal experience or understanding of the subject. No one has ever accused me of blind following, and I find the notion quite ridiculous. I dont have time for such nonsense.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] I am naturally very contemplative and cannot recall any instance when I have preached something without personal experience or understanding of the subject. No one has ever accused me of blind following, and I find the notion quite ridiculous. I dont have time for such nonsense.[/quote]

Please forgive me if what I said offended you. I do not know you but I have met many blind followers of Srila Prabhupada, or blind followers of his disciples. They usually use the same arguments of following the perfect authority in all respects. I admire their faith but do not share their logic.

Dear Kula-pavana Prabhu,

Hare Krishna. Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

Indeed I got a little angry in my last response, as you noticed. Thank you for your apology. Humility is the ornament of a Vaishnava, and so I happily offer my obeisances to you. Im a little embarrassed about losing my cool. I wasnt going to come back to this discussion, but after I got home I got a chance to look up what Srila Prabhupada had said about blind following and wanted to relay what I found. The purport to B.g. 4.34 doesnt say much about this. Most of the Vedabase references were simply quotes of that purport, and many others were part of others inquiries in conversations that didnt result in a direct explanation. I found three that seemed relevant:

Prabhupada: Yes. That just like the father and the child. The father says, "You do this." So that is all-comprehensive. The fathers idea is complete; it is good for the son. But the son says, "No. I want to act in this way." That is his folly. Similarly, what God says, that is religion, and... So there is no question of blind following. If you know, "Here is God. He is all-perfect, and whatever He is saying, that is all-perfect. Let me accept it," then you are gainer. And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Blaise Pascal (Philosophy discussions with Hayagriva prabhu)

My understanding of what Srila Prabhupada is saying here is that a proper authority has complete knowledge, and when such an authority is known then it is most beneficial to accept whatever he says. He is speaking of God here, but in many places Srila Prabhupada has explained that the spiritual master is as good as God because he is Gods representative, like an iron rod in fire develops the properties of fire. His final sentence I think speaks directly to the subject that is in question regarding the proposed annotations: "And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer."

Disciple: Aquinas concludes that if the laws of God and man conflict, we should obey the laws of God.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. We can also obey the man who obeys the laws of God. It is useless to obey an imperfect person. That is the blind following the blind. If the leader does not follow the instructions of the supreme controller, he is necessarily blind, and he cannot lead. Why should we risk our lives by following blind men who believe that they are knowledgeable but are not? We should instead decide to take lessons from the Supreme Person, Krsna, who knows everything perfectly. Krsna knows past, present, and future, and what is for our benefit.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => TQE 6d: Thomas Aquinas: In Search of Divine Essence

In this statement he is not exactly talking about blind following (in our discussions the phrase is adverb-verb, but here it is noun-verb), but find here the same point that I tried to make earlier. "It is useless to obey an imperfect person." If I thought Srila Prabhupada was mistaken about anything, I would never have taken initiation in his line. Some years ago I found a moral discrepancy with my diksa guru and after that I felt so ill that it took me almost two years before I could complete two rounds of japa in a row and another six months before I could accept my full vows again. Although my obedience is not very good, I pray that my faith will get me there. Another point about Srila Prabhupadas statement here that is relevant to our discussion is that he says we should take lessons from Krishna, who knows everything perfectly. If Srila Prabhupada was taking lessons from a psychology professor as the basis for his teaching, then he was not following his own instruction, which would invalidate the notion of him as acarya. The only way I can accept the various mundane references he gave is to see them as examples given according to the authorities accepted by his audience. One who accepts an imperfect person as an authority for giving knowledge gets imperfect knowledge and gives imperfect knowledge to others. I couldnt trust such a person with my spiritual life.

...oops, 455 characters too long. Looks like this is Part 1. Part 2 follows...

Prabhupada: Yes. Blind following and absurd inquiries. These things are condemned in this verse. Blind following means: "Oh, there is a swami. So many thousands of people are following. Let me become his disciple." This is called blind following. You do not know what is that swami, whether he is a swami or a rascal. You do not know. But because everyone is going, "Oh, let me become his disciple." This is blind following, without any knowledge, blind following. The swami says that "You give me money. I make you immediately God." So this is blind following.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.34-39 -- Los Angeles, January 12, 1969

Here he specifically describes what he means by "blind following," which is to accept a guru without testing him, based on such flimsy evidence as popularity or foolish promises.

Again, thank you for pacifying my temper. Ill sleep better now, and its about that time. Ive said in another discussion here that I really dont like debating against devotees, but if we can have a hard debate and emerge as friends based on appreciation for each others desire to please Krishna in various ways, then it is well worth it. Hare Krishna.

Sincerely, your servant,
Pandu das

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] I know that Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee, so how is accepting his authority "blind following"? My understanding of blind following is to accept an authority whose real qualifications are unknown or potentially doubtful, such as an unnamed BBT employee. [/quote]

Blind following is following with your eyes closed. If your eyes are closed, you are bound to get lost, even if you are trying to follow a proper authority. Keeping your eyes open means examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning and intent, examining the outside reality to see how these instructions apply to it, and examining the results of our application of these instructions in order to correct the course if needed.[/quote]

I think that annotations issue does show both - there is large number of devotees who are blind followers of Prabhupada and that there is a large number of devotees who are not. The examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning is the purpose of that resolution 311, in a way its a great resolution, as it actually did what it supposed to do - stimulate the debate...

GBC intended to provoque debate? Yeah, right.
Congratulations, you have commited thousands of offences in one go, by naming all opposed to 311 "blind followers". Guinness book worth.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]GBC intended to provoque debate? Yeah, right.
Congratulations, you have commited thousands of offences in one go, by naming all opposed to 311 "blind followers".[/quote] Please do not put offense where no offense is intended. Again examining the instructions in order to understand their true meaning is good even for blind followers (since that changes them too).

but ANY annotation will provoke conflict, didnt they think about that? it doesnt matter what they write.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
Prabhupada: Yes. That just like the father and the child. The father says, "You do this." So that is all-comprehensive. The fathers idea is complete; it is good for the son. But the son says, "No. I want to act in this way." That is his folly. Similarly, what God says, that is religion, and... So there is no question of blind following. If you know, "Here is God. He is all-perfect, and whatever He is saying, that is all-perfect. Let me accept it," then you are gainer. And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Blaise Pascal (Philosophy discussions with Hayagriva prabhu)

My understanding of what Srila Prabhupada is saying here is that a proper authority has complete knowledge, and when such an authority is known then it is most beneficial to accept whatever he says. He is speaking of God here, but in many places Srila Prabhupada has explained that the spiritual master is as good as God because he is Gods representative, like an iron rod in fire develops the properties of fire. His final sentence I think speaks directly to the subject that is in question regarding the proposed annotations: "And if apply your reasoning and change it according to your whims, then you suffer."
[/quote]

Many people claim that their religion and their scripture is the all-perfect word of God that must be accepted without question or reasoning. The Bible thumpers proclaim that in every church, the Koran thumpers proclaim it in every mosque, the Torah thumpers proclaim it in every synagogue. We are not supposed to be like them. Krsna consciousness is supposed to be the SCIENCE of God.

The idea that the spiritual master is as good as God because he is Gods representative should not be extrapolated too far. No guru will ever spring universes out of the pores of his skin. There are limits to this as good as God qualification. Only Krsna has all the knowledge, and only Krsnas knowledge is all perfect. Prabhupada never claimed to be omniscient, or above making an error.

Anyway, this is my understanding of this subject matter.

< it doesnt matter what they write.>

I suggest writing actual words of Prabhupada (from a different source or book) in this way nobody will object. (again not talking about blind followers...)

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]< it doesnt matter what they write.>

I suggest writing actual words of Prabhupada (from a different source or book) in this way nobody will object. (again not talking about blind followers...)[/quote]

I definitely would not object to that. Elucidating authors intent by quoting his own words on the same subject matter is the most faithful form of a commentary, a gold standard of scholarly explanations.

<There are limits to this as good as God qualification.>
There are no limits to appreciation of Guru to be as good as God, but again not independently, but because he represents the science of Krishna and Krishna himself. Not that we will make our guru in all perfect incarnate of God, like all the bogus sampradayas do, Swaminarayana, Rajnesh, Sai Baba etc. So there are limits, to our understanding but that should not stop ones appreciation. But we should stop misunderstanding of his position as omnipotent or all-perfect god. As he said, if you make me into god, I will turn my back on all of you. There is no place of democracy on the issue.

What happens now is symptomatic of devotees accepting Prabhupada to be the final truth, where as he is a representative of that truth. First makes it impossible to offer any interpretation or even a footnote, the second one asks for ever fresh and new approach to the scriptures and adaptation of Prabhupadas message to the current times.

But at least one thing we should accept, annotations to his books already exist. Commentary on his books already exist. He encouraged devotees to edit his words, if you do not believe me - read the transcripts of lectures on Queen Kuntis prayers and then read the book itself, Prabhupada wanted his message to be presentable. He never asked ANYONE to publish his morning walks unedited. He was very intelligent and knew well the difference between written word and a talk you can have with a few friends or disciples. And this is the intent of the 311 and some devotees refuse to understand it and that is symptomatic of misunderstanding of the position of a guru. While I accept that devotees who sign this unfortunate and misinformative petition do that with some good intentions, but they are based on largely wrong philosophical understanding. So we need to put limits on this schism of Prabhupada-all-perfect-god, that was the purpose of GBC in the first place!

No one is suggesting that the spiritual master can create universes. His primary qualification as guru is that he speaks Krishnas message received through disciplic succession, without changing the meaning with additions or deletions. The fact that other faiths misrepresent Gods message does not preclude us from boldly speaking the truth. Actually it increases our responsibility.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]No one is suggesting that the spiritual master can create universes. His primary qualification as guru is that he speaks Krishnas message received through disciplic succession, without changing the meaning with additions or deletions. [/quote]

And where does Krsna say that women enjoy being raped?

duryodhana-sutuc0u257 u7745 ru257 jan laku7779 mau7751 u257 u7745 samitiu7745 -jayau7717
svayau7745 vara-sthu257 m aharat su257 mbo ju257 mbavatu299 -sutau7717

O King, Ju257 mbavatu299 s son Su257 mba, ever victorious in battle, kidnapped Duryodhanas daughter Laku7779 mau7751 u257 from her svayau7745 -vara ceremony.

vu7771 tau7717 svayau7745 -vare su257 ku7779 u257 d anau7751 go u7751 ga-yutas tayu257
ru257 j'f1au7717 sametu257 n nirjitya jahu257 raika-ratho yudhi

At her svayau7745 -vara ceremony, Rukmavatu299 herself chose Pradyumna, who was the re-embodiment of Cupid. Then, although He fought alone on a single chariot, Pradyumna defeated the assembled kings in battle and took her away.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]duryodhana-sutuc0u257 u7745 ru257 jan laku7779 mau7751 u257 u7745 samitiu7745 -jayau7717
svayau7745 vara-sthu257 m aharat su257 mbo ju257 mbavatu299 -sutau7717

O King, Ju257 mbavatu299 s son Su257 mba, ever victorious in battle, kidnapped Duryodhanas daughter Laku7779 mau7751 u257 from her svayau7745 -vara ceremony.

vu7771 tau7717 svayau7745 -vare su257 ku7779 u257 d anau7751 go u7751 ga-yutas tayu257
ru257 j'f1au7717 sametu257 n nirjitya jahu257 raika-ratho yudhi

At her svayau7745 -vara ceremony, Rukmavatu299 herself chose Pradyumna, who was the re-embodiment of Cupid. Then, although He fought alone on a single chariot, Pradyumna defeated the assembled kings in battle and took her away.[/quote]

With all due respect... these kshatriyas took away these women in an act of chivalry commonly accepted among kshatriyas at the time, winning the hearts of such women in the process, and MAKING THESE WOMEN THEIR LAWFUL WIVES. This has very, very little connection with rape as an illigal act of forced sex which is what arguably Srila Prabhupada is talking about here.

If you, or Srila Prabhupada, said (or wrote) that kshatriya women enjoy being forcibly taken for a wife we would not be having this discussion. Of course there are some notable exceptions to that rule, and the story of Amba is very instructive in that regard. Did Bhisma rape Amba? And did she enjoy it?

It is very important to use precise language when discussing controversial subject matters. Otherwise we are inviting trouble, perhaps for the next 10,000 years.

I think you should read the whole purport...

As I wrote here on May 19th 2008 - If you look at the start of the purport you will see that its about one who is a great hero to his wife.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think you should read the whole purport...[/quote]

here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand:

Devotee (1): They said that the man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to his raping her.

Prabhupada: Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And thats a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. Thats 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.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think you should read the whole purport...[/quote]

here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand.[/quote]

This is not the purport.

I hope nobody is going to put their annotations here:

SB 4.25.41 Purport:
Every husband is certainly a great hero to his wife. In other words, if a woman loves a man, that man appears very beautiful and magnanimous. Unless one becomes beautiful in the eyes of another, one cannot dedicate his whole life to another. The husband is considered very magnanimous because he gives as many children to the wife as she likes. Every woman is fond of children; therefore any husband who can please his wife by sex and give her children is considered very magnanimous. Not only does the husband become magnanimous by begetting children, but by giving his wife ornaments, nice food and dresses, he keeps her completely under submission. Such a satisfied wife will never give up the company of her husband. Manu-sauc0u7745 hitu257 recommends that to keep a wife satisfied a husband should give her some ornaments because women are generally fond of home, ornaments, dresses, children, etc. In this way the woman is the center of all material enjoyment.

In this regard, the word vikhyu257 tam is very significant. A man is always famous for his aggression toward a beautiful woman, and such aggression is sometimes considered rape.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think you should read the whole purport...[/quote]

here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand.[/quote]

This is not the purport.[/quote]

It is an explanation (purport) to the use of the word rape by Srila Prabhupada, not the purport in the sense of tika or scholarly commentary to the shastra.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]I think you should read the whole purport...[/quote]

here is another purport very relevant to the matter on hand.[/quote]

This is not the purport.[/quote]

It is an explanation (purport) to the use of the word rape by Srila Prabhupada, not the purport in the sense of tika or scholarly commentary to the shastra.[/quote]

I know and have read the transcript. It is not a purport of the use of the word in the Purport. The Purport is posted above.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]No one is suggesting that the spiritual master can create universes. His primary qualification as guru is that he speaks Krishnas message received through disciplic succession, without changing the meaning with additions or deletions. [/quote]

And where does Krsna say that women enjoy being raped?[/quote][br/][br/]

I dont know everything Krishna has said. However, Srila Prabhupada has said this:[br/][br/]

"Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas. That is not spiritual master. Spiritual master is he who speaks exactly the words which is spoken by Krsna. That is the secret. You cannot change."[br/]
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974[br/][br/]

The question then is whether we accept Srila Prabhupada as a spiritual master. If we do, then we must accept that he is telling Krishnas words. "Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas."

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
I dont know everything Krishna has said. However, Srila Prabhupada has said this:[br/][br/]

"Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas. That is not spiritual master. Spiritual master is he who speaks exactly the words which is spoken by Krsna. That is the secret. You cannot change."[br/]
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974[br/][br/]

The question then is whether we accept Srila Prabhupada as a spiritual master. If we do, then we must accept that he is telling Krishnas words. "Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas."[/quote]

Krsnas words are recorded in the shastra. That is recognized by all Vaishnavas as the standard. Commenting on various things in this world Prabhupada would sometimes employ his own educated guesswork, as he openly admits here:

SB 5.20.13. PURPORT
"From the descriptions in this verse, we can make an educated guess about the nature of the flames on the moon."

I see nothing wrong with making educated guesses on such topics. And to me, Srila Prabhupada is still my guru, even if he may be wrong on some of such guesses. These things do not diminish his value to me. But we should not pretend such statements are "absolute truth" if he himself reveals their true nature.

Dear Kula-pavana Prabhu,

Because one story in Srimad Bhagavatam is mentioned as allegory, shall we assume any story that conflicts with our imperfect senses is also allegory? My understanding of the quote you have given is that if Srila Prabhupada is making an educated guess, he will say so. Not that we take this as evidence that he guesses about many things and presents it as fact with all the weight of an utterance by the spiritual master and Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. That would be cheating. Hare Krishna.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite] My understanding of the quote you have given is that if Srila Prabhupada is making an educated guess, he will say so. Not that we take this as evidence that he guesses about many things and presents it as fact with all the weight of an utterance by the spiritual master and Founder-Acarya of ISKCON. That would be cheating. [/quote]

I respect your understanding and position but I do not share it. Nor do I believe that making such educated guesses without explicit admission of doing so in every case constitutes cheating.
One of the main reasons the book "Easy Journey to Other Planets" is not being printed and distributed anymore is that Srila Prabhupadas statements regarding the nature of antimatter discovered by the scientists have turned out to be incorrect. Antimatter is not spirit, it is simply a different form of matter. Some of Prabhupadas teachings are absolute, and some are relative. When you have to struggle real hard to show that a particular statement is true, it is quite clear that that teaching is in the relative category. And the rape case discussed on this thread is a perfect example of relative teachings.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite][quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite]
I dont know everything Krishna has said. However, Srila Prabhupada has said this:[br/][br/]

"Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas. That is not spiritual master. Spiritual master is he who speaks exactly the words which is spoken by Krsna. That is the secret. You cannot change."[br/]
Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.6 -- Rome, May 24, 1974[br/][br/]

The question then is whether we accept Srila Prabhupada as a spiritual master. If we do, then we must accept that he is telling Krishnas words. "Spiritual master does not manufacture his own ideas."[/quote]

Krsnas words are recorded in the shastra.[/quote]
Not only that, its also if spiritual master errs, which is human, he will refer to sastra and check. For example for years Prabhupada would chant bhaja sri krishna chaitanya. He looked at it and said to consult with Caitanya Caritamrita. He then instructed all to chant Jaya sri krishna caitanya instead. We still do...Thats why we say he does not manufacture his own ideas, because he will always check himself against Krishnas words.

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
One of the main reasons the book "Easy Journey to Other Planets" is not being printed and distributed anymore is that Srila Prabhupadas statements regarding the nature of antimatter discovered by the scientists have turned out to be incorrect. Antimatter is not spirit, it is simply a different form of matter.[/quote]

That wasnt how I read the book - I read it that Srila Prabhupada was proposing another definition of "anti-matter" to show that what the scientists had discovered and were calling "anti-matter" was in fact merely another category of matter.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Not only that, its also if spiritual master errs, which is human, he will refer to sastra and check. For example for years Prabhupada would chant bhaja sri krishna chaitanya. He looked at it and said to consult with Caitanya Caritamrita. He then instructed all to chant Jaya sri krishna caitanya instead. We still do...Thats why we say he does not manufacture his own ideas, because he will always check himself against Krishnas words.[/quote]

No source for this story? I heard from Swami B.V. Tripurari (he didnt state his source, but it was implied that he personally witnessed it or heard from someone who did) that while Prabhupada was in Krishna Balarama Mandir he heard sahajiyas chanting the Panca-tattva mantra "Bhaja sri krishna caitanya...", and in a mood of defiance and to set ourselves apart from them he instructed devotees to chant "jaya sri krishna caitanya..."

Interestingly, the disciples of Siddhasvarupananda, who separated from ISKCON before this took place to this day chant "Bhaja sri krishna caitanya..." in the pre-75 (?) style.

"In June 1977 Srila Prabhupada was not very pleased with the kirtanas of the group next to us. There kirtanas were with the speculated mantra, (Bhaja) Nitai Gaura Radhe Syama (Japa) Hare Krsna Hare Ram, which especially got on ones nerves if he had to live on the side of the building which faced their asrama. Prabhupada wanted that all mantras be bona-fide so he requested the devotees to stop chanting the word bhaja before our Panca-tattva maha-mantra since the word actually is not part of the mantra." - From an old edition of a paper on kirtan standards by Bhakti Vikasa Swami
(heres the current version: http://www.bvks.com/downloads/kirtana.pdf )

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
One of the main reasons the book "Easy Journey to Other Planets" is not being printed and distributed anymore is that Srila Prabhupadas statements regarding the nature of antimatter discovered by the scientists have turned out to be incorrect. Antimatter is not spirit, it is simply a different form of matter.[/quote]

That wasnt how I read the book - I read it that Srila Prabhupada was proposing another definition of "anti-matter" to show that what the scientists had discovered and were calling "anti-matter" was in fact merely another category of matter.[/quote]
[br/][br/]
Thats how I read it also:
[br/][br/]
"The difficulty lies in the fact that the scientists conception of antimatter extends only to another variety of material energy, whereas the real antimatter must be entirely antimaterial."

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite] When you have to struggle real hard to show that a particular statement is true, it is quite clear that that teaching is in the relative category. And the rape case discussed on this thread is a perfect example of relative teachings.[/quote]

[br/] If I have trouble understanding something that Srila Prabhupada has taught, I attribute that to my imperfect senses, insufficiently purified intelligence, my incomplete study of Srila Prabhupadas books, and other faults of my own. I dont call them Srila Prabhupadas errors.
[br/][br/]
For the rape issue, I dont have much trouble explaining that, however it is difficult to get people to accept if they are determined to oppose it. Similarly if it is difficult to convince an atheist that there is a God, I dont say that Srila Prabhupada was mistaken about that. You might point out that one is sastra and one is the gurus words, but practically speaking I would say we have to accept both. If people refuse to accept what Srila Prabhupada has taught, thats their problem. Years ago it would have been very difficult to convince anyone about the astronomical information contained in Srimad Bhagavatam, but now there are several books published that make sense of this. If devotees would have said this was the fault of scripture rather than trying to understand it, that would have been a serious mistake. I think it will also be a serious mistake if they contradict Srila Prabhupada on any issue, regardless of how unpopular or apparently mistaken his statements are.

To bring some sastra into the picture, here are some quotes from the Kama-sutra of Vatsayayana describing the use of force in sexual encounters (Brahmacaris may not want to read on, suffice it to say that the kama-sutra has extensive descriptions on the different techniques and styles of hiting and biting and abuse to use to enhance sexual excitement.)

"When a man bites a woman forcibly, she should angrily do the same to him with double force."

"Blows with the fist should be given on the back of the woman while she is sitting on the lap of the man, and she should give blows in return, abusing the man as if she were angry, and making the cooing and the weeping sounds. While the woman is engaged in congress the space between the breasts should be struck with the back of the hand, slowly at first, and then proportionately to the increasing excitement, until the end."

"The wedge on the bosom, the scissors on the head, the piercing instrument on the cheeks, and the pinchers on the breasts and sides, may also be taken into consideration with the other four modes of striking, and thus give eight ways altogether. But these four ways of striking with instruments are peculiar to the people of the southern countries, and the marks caused by them are seen on the breasts of their women. They are local peculiarities, but Vatsyayana is of opinion that the practice of them is painful, barbarous, and base, and quite unworthy of imitation."

"In the same way anything that is a local peculiarity should not always be adopted elsewhere, and even in the place where the practice is prevalent, excess of it should always be avoided. Instances of the dangerous use of them may be given as follows. The king of the Panchalas killed the courtesan Madhavasena by means of the wedge during congress. King Satakarni Satavahana of the Kuntalas deprived his great Queen Malayavati of her life by a pair of scissors, and Naradeva, whose hand was deformed, blinded a dancing girl by directing a piercing instrument in a wrong way."

"There are also two verses on the subject as follows: About these things there cannot be either enumeration or any definite rule. Congress having once commenced, passion alone gives birth to all the acts of the parties."

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite][quote][cite] ccd:[/cite]Not only that, its also if spiritual master errs, which is human, he will refer to sastra and check. For example for years Prabhupada would chant bhaja sri krishna chaitanya. He looked at it and said to consult with Caitanya Caritamrita. He then instructed all to chant Jaya sri krishna caitanya instead. We still do...Thats why we say he does not manufacture his own ideas, because he will always check himself against Krishnas words.[/quote]

No source for this story? I heard from Swami B.V. Tripurari (he didnt state his source, but it was implied that he personally witnessed it or heard from someone who did) that while Prabhupada was in Krishna Balarama Mandir he heard sahajiyas chanting the Panca-tattva mantra "Bhaja sri krishna caitanya...", and in a mood of defiance and to set ourselves apart from them he instructed devotees to chant "jaya sri krishna caitanya..."

Interestingly, the disciples of Siddhasvarupananda, who separated from ISKCON before this took place to this day chant "Bhaja sri krishna caitanya..." in the pre-75 (?) style.[/quote]
Yeah its hard to get sources for some stories, and much of evidence to any evident mistakes is often simply erased or not published. I guess its a natural attitude of a disciple to make a person into a guru-deva and dismiss any and every evidence. I can not blame devotees for avoiding this topic. But this one has obvious record, or should I say records.

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]
One of the main reasons the book "Easy Journey to Other Planets" is not being printed and distributed anymore is that Srila Prabhupadas statements regarding the nature of antimatter discovered by the scientists have turned out to be incorrect. Antimatter is not spirit, it is simply a different form of matter.[/quote]

That wasnt how I read the book - I read it that Srila Prabhupada was proposing another definition of "anti-matter" to show that what the scientists had discovered and were calling "anti-matter" was in fact merely another category of matter.[/quote]

Another popular misconception...

Here is a good quote for you:

Srila Prabhupada wrote in his letter:

Delhi 28th March, 1960

Dr. Y.G. Naik M.Sc., Ph.D.,
Principal Gujarat College
Dean, Faculty of Science,
Gujarat University Ahmedabad

Dear Dr. Naik,

Your letter dated 20 March 1960 redirected from my old Qrs. (Vrindaban) is duly in hand and I am very much encouraged to go through the contents which are full of valuable informations. The subject matter discussed in my article under reference is authorised as far as it refers to the conclusion of the Geeta.

I may also inform you that my concept of anti-matter is exactly what you call it anti-material. Technically it may be that I could not express the exact word used by the physicist but I have tried to explain the word anti-matter in the light and sense of what you say as anti-material which is spirit. "

Anti-Material World or the Kingdom of Godhead

Now recognised by progressive science

Edited and Founded Under Direct Order of
His Divine Grace Sri Srimad Bhakti-Siddhanta Saraswati Goswami Prabhupada
by Goswami Abhay Charan Bhaktivedanta

Delhi, Saturday 20th February, 1960
Modern materialistic science has discovered anti-material world which was so long unknown to the wranglers of gross-materialism. In the Times of India dt. 27.10.59 a news service, dated at Stockholm 26.10.59, was published as follows:--
"Two American atomic scientists were awarded 1959 Nobel Physics Prize to-day for the Discovery of Anti-Proton, proving that matter exists in two forms as particles and anti-particles."
"They are Italian-born Dr. Emilio Segre 69 and Dr. Owen Chamberlain, born in San Francisco..............."
"According to one of the fundamental assumptions of the new theory, there may exist another world or an antiworld built up of anti-matter. This anti (material) world would consist of atoms and sub-atoms particles spinning in reverse orbits to those of the world we know. If these two worlds would ever clash, they would both be annihilated in one blinding flash."
In this statement of the modern scientists the following things are accepted:--
1. There is an anti-material atom or particle which is another form of matter but it is made of antiqualities of material atoms.
2. There is another anti-material world than this material world of which we have got certain extent of experience.
3. These two different worlds may clash at a certain period which may bring in annihilation of both the worlds (?) Out of these three items, we, students of theistic science, agree with the items No. (1) and (2) but we cannot agree with the (3) item because matter as it is constituted is subjected to annihilation but anti-matter which is freed from all sorts of material symptoms must be also free from being annihilated from its very nature of existence. If matter is destructible or separable anti-matter must be indestructible and and inseparable. We shall try to discuss the above three points from the angle of authentic scriptural vision:

When Prabhupada says: "Anti-Material World or the Kingdom of Godhead - Now recognised by progressive science" he is saying that the antimatter discovered by the scientists is spirit, and that merely scientists do not fully understand its properties. That is also expressed in the previous quote: "I may also inform you that my concept of anti-matter is exactly what you call it anti-material. Technically it may be that I could not express the exact word used by the physicist but I have tried to explain the word anti-matter in the light and sense of what you say as anti-material which is spirit. "

[quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]When Prabhupada says: "Anti-Material World or the Kingdom of Godhead - Now recognised by progressive science" he is saying that the antimatter discovered by the scientists is spirit, and that merely scientists do not fully understand its properties. That is also expressed in the previous quote: "I may also inform you that my concept of anti-matter is exactly what you call it anti-material. Technically it may be that I could not express the exact word used by the physicist but I have tried to explain the word anti-matter in the light and sense of what you say as anti-material which is spirit. "[/quote][br/]

One common preaching technique is to say, "Now the scientists have also discovered that there is God and spirit." It doesnt mean the scientsts have any clear understanding, more likely that they have potentially gotten some clue but will probably misinterpret it due to their atheistic bias.
[br/][br/]
I gave a quote from the Easy Journey book that specifically contrasted the scientists conception of anti-matter from Srila Prabhupadas use of the word. That quote, found within the book in question and located at the beginning of the section on anti-matter, should be the final word on that question. This statement clearly contrasts the scientists conception from what Srila Prabhupada is calling "the real antimatter."
[br/][br/]
Considering this quote: "I may also inform you that my concept of anti-matter is exactly what you call it anti-material. Technically it may be that I could not express the exact word used by the physicist but I have tried to explain the word anti-matter in the light and sense of what you say as anti-material which is spirit." I dont have the full context and do not know what Professor Naik had said. However, I do not agree that Srila Prabhupada is saying he is in agreement with the scientists; rather he is agreeing with or encouraging Professor Naik, whatever he said.

[quote][cite] Pandu das:[/cite][quote][cite] Kula-pavana:[/cite]When Prabhupada says: "Anti-Material World or the Kingdom of Godhead - Now recognised by progressive science" he is saying that the antimatter discovered by the scientists is spirit, and that merely scientists do not fully understand its properties. That is also expressed in the previous quote: "I may also inform you that my concept of anti-matter is exactly what you call it anti-material. Technically it may be that I could not express the exact word used by the physicist but I have tried to explain the word anti-matter in the light and sense of what you say as anti-material which is spirit. "[/quote][br/]

One common preaching technique is to say, "Now the scientists have also discovered that there is God and spirit." It doesnt mean the scientsts have any clear understanding[/quote]
That is not the same. Prabhupada was using scientific opinion to provide a platform of a different understanding. He did not assume obviously unscientific statements as a starting point.

[quote][cite] ccd:[/cite] Prabhupada was using scientific opinion to provide a platform of a different understanding. He did not assume obviously unscientific statements as a starting point.[/quote]

I agree with the first part but not with the second. Read the entire presentation here: http://www.bvml.org/ACBSP/BTG/17.html

it ends with the statement:

"Long long before the discovery of the principles of anti-matter particles or the anti-material world, the subject matter was delineated in the pages of the Bhagwat Geeta. And from the Bhagwat Geeta it appears that the philosophy was first taught to the presiding deity of the Sun-globe. This means that the principles of the Bhagwat Geeta was spoken by the Personality of Godhead long long before or at least 400,000,000 forty crores of year before. Modern science has just very late discovered partial truth."

Prabhupada clearly and repeatedly equates the discovery of anti-matter by the scientists with the discovery of spirit and spiritual world.

I will not argue on that, I just made an observation.

Back to the topic another explanation published by BBT (Rupavilas):

http://www.bbt.info/information/toughones/rapecontroversy

Rupa-Vilas prabhu makes this conclusion:[br/]

[quote]I hope that it is clear that what Srila Prabhupada is describing in the Fourth Canto is the consensual attraction between lovers when aggression and even a degree of forcefulness is delighted in by both parties. He is pointing out that women enjoy this sort of aggression, although some might view it (not understanding the mentality of both parties) as rape. There is no question of rape during consensual sex, even from the standpoint of law. Certainly violent acts perpetrated upon women without their consent is nowhere glorified in the Vedas or in Srila Prabhupada'92s teachings.[/quote][br/][br/]

Im glad they didnt put that in Srila Prabhupadas books. The difficulty I have with this explanation is that I have never seen or heard Srila Prabhupada use the word, "rape," like that. Rupa-Vilas prabhus conclusion is simply mental speculation.[br/][br/]

Not only that, but it is clearly wrong. Srila Prabhupada begins the quoted section by saying, "Although rape is not legally allowed...," however what Rupa-Vilas describes, "the consensual attraction between lovers when aggression and even a degree of forcefulness," in fact is legally allowed, which he even admits. [br/][br/]

What Srila Prabhupada is talking about is in fact what modern people would call "rape." However, he says "expert at rape." What does it mean to be expert at rape? Simply, it means that the man (presumably) wants sex and is intent upon getting it, and he does it in such a way that although the woman says "no" and really does mean "no," she more-or-less allows it and takes pleasure in it. These kinds of interactions are abundant in the arts and literature. For example there is a married couple, perhaps somewhat aristocratic, and the wife is a little bored with the husband. The husband is away on business, and a burglar enters the home, sees the wife sleeping alone, and rapes her, expertly. Although the woman objected and resisted, woman liked it. The rapist committed a horrible crime, and the woman had no choice in the matter, but in fact the woman enjoyed it. She may well have also been horrified as well. Considering that people can be quite perverted, sometimes the husband may find out and feel a thrill as well. This is the material world, kali yuga as well, and people can get pretty freaky.[br/][br/]

Krishna Kirti prabhu located a similar example in Bought for her Baby, by Melanie Milburne, which he excerpted in his FAQ 311 paper (http://www.siddhanta.com/files/FAQ_311.pdf, http://www.siddhanta.com/files/FAQ_311.doc):[br/][br/]

[quote]He'92s got her firmly in his sights and she'92s got[br/]
only one chance of survival'97surrender to his[br/]
blackmail'85and him...in his bed![/quote][br/][br/]

Srila Prabhupada was describing "expert at rape," not "brutal rapist." A man who is "expert at rape" does not need a knife on the womans throat or a gun to her head. He gets her to do something she does not want to do and does it in such a way that she enjoys it. How can this be?[br/][br/]

[quote]From the Lords genitals originate water, semen, generatives, rains, and the procreators. His genitals are the cause of a pleasure that counteracts the distress of begetting.[br/]
PURPORT[br/]
The genitals and the pleasure of begetting counteract the distresses of family encumbrances. One would cease to generate altogether if there were not, by the grace of the Lord, a coating, a pleasure-giving substance, on the surface of the generative organs. This substance gives a pleasure so intense that it counteracts fully the distress of family encumbrances. A person is so captivated by this pleasure-giving substance that he is not satisfied by begetting a single child, but increases the number of children, with great risk in regard to maintaining them, simply for this pleasure-giving substance. This pleasure-giving substance is not false, however, because it originates from the transcendental body of the Lord. In other words, the pleasure-giving substance is a reality, but it has taken on an aspect of pervertedness on account of material contamination...
SB 2.6.8[/quote][br/]
Srila Prabhupada describes a "substance" on the genitals. This was somewhat mysterious to me when I first read it. It indicates that the pleasure felt by the genitals is not entirely in the mind. Of course, there is a mental component, but the word, "substance," indicates something that is present whether a persons "partner" is a lover or a rapist. We can therefore directly conclude that if a rapist is expert, he is able to activate that substance and give pleasure to the unwilling woman.[br/][br/]

(continued'85)

The BBT also has an article on the subject by H.H. Jayadvaita Swami. In it he says,[br/]

[quote]In essence: The male wants to conquer, and the female wants to be conquered. A woman does not want to be sheepishly asked her hand by a bashful, weak-kneed Milquetoast. She wants to be pursued and won, to be fought over by strong and eager suitors, to be '93swept off her feet.'94[/quote][br/][br/]

He even mentions Krishna taking Rukmini, etc. Wow. I have a great deal of respect for Jayadvaita Swami, but I have trouble with labeling Krishna as a "rapist," even if one is using an obsolete definition. Thats my personal reluctance, but objectively we should see if Srila Prabhupada ever referred to an action of Krishna as "rape." I cant find any.[br/][br/]

In fact, Srila Prabhupada defined his use of the word, "rape," during a morning walk conversation on May 11, 1975:[br/]

[quote]'93Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, '93Yes, I felt happiness.'94 So he was released. '93Here is consent.'94 And that'92s a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, '93Yes, I felt some pleasure.'94 '93Now, there is consent.'94 So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That'92s 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.'94[/quote][br/][br/]
He used the word, "rape," in the conventional sense that we all know and understand today. The meaning is clear and therefore does not require any interpretation.