Obviously, you have taken another path. Sobeit. I haven'tt been following this thread. I have no idea what - when it started. Someone forwarded me only about 4 recent emails - the offensive ones - in the view of those who accept Srila Prabhupada.
I also checked out your rantings and over the top, way off ideas on your vijayate.com website. How unfortunate you own such a wonderful domain title. After reading your devotion to an impersonalist ( quite preposterous, how can one have devotion to an impersonalist? the impersonalists understands the soul ultimately has no sentiment, devotion cannot be given or received by an impersonal energy ), I now see why you are so offensive to Srila Prabhupada.
Fact check. You think that Srila Prabhupada is sick because of his teachings on dharma, and you think his understandings are not Vedic, but concocted by either himself or other sick people?
First, your assumption that Srila Prabhupada had sexual intercourse with his wife when she was 11 is wrong. He and she were married at 22 and 11, but the husband does not live with the wife until after her first mensuration or when she is ready - psychologically, physiologically. She did not give birth to their first child until she was 14. I doubt that would make that much difference in your book, but, at least get the facts correct.
Secondly, that was the accepted culture over most of India during his youth. His sisters were married at 9 and 12. His mother was ready to commit suicide when her youngest daughter turned 12 and was not yet married. But, again, marriage at 9 - 12, they do not live with the husband until after mensuration begins. Which is simply natural.
Are you familiar with the ages of Americans and Europeans at the same time period? Girls getting married even in the 1940's and 50's in America at that age of 14-16 was not unheard of. 16 was considered a ripe age for marriage for many. I know older American women who were married at 16 and 17. It was fully acceptable in their day. Even 14 was acceptable.
In America there were popular songs in the 1950's about how it was acceptable for a girl to marry by 16, but not the boy. Jerry Lee Lewis - the rock singer, married his cousin - she was only 14, he was well in his 20's. It made headlines at the time, It wasn't the girls age that cause the most controversy - but that the girl was his cousin. In most of Europe girls marrying at 12-16 was accepted and normal in the 1800's and before. More in the rural areas, but it was standard.
In India marriages are at earlier ages, but the girls don't go live with the boy / young man at that age. Yet, my mother-in-law (Indian family), she was married at 11-12. She had her first child at 12. She lived into her 70's and had 10 children. Her father had two wives. The second wife he married when he was over 50, and the girl was 13-14. That was acceptable. The man was doing well, the girl got a good husband. She was 25-30 years younger than my mother-in-law - and yet my mother-in-law would call her Ma, My wife was older then her, and yet she (and myself) would call her grandma. She gave birth to another 4-5 children - even though her husband was so much older. I never heard her express any regrets.
Your wanting to put down Srila Prabhupada - i am at a loss to discern why - but, it is certainly to your own extreme detriment. What Srila Prabhupada practiced in his own life, and what he taught, is Dharma.
As far as comment of girls enjoying to be raped. That is - what is rape? How did Srila Prabhupada mean the word? He was not AT ALL referring to violent rape without consent. What he was speaking of was for a woman to be seductively won over. Women enjoy when a man swoops her off her feet, and takes her away. Many girls long for the man of their dreams to come and kidnap them, to take them by Stern Lustful Seducing force. That is the ONLY sort of 'rape' Srila Prabhupada was referring to. Not to violence. Srila Prabhupada never said women like to be violently sexually abused against their will. Rape in older English simply means to be taken down, to be ravished. He learned English different then we use it today. Girls like it when a man aggressively swoops them away, seduces them, not violently or against their will but, who is over come by so-called love that they take the girl down. That is what rape used to mean, and how Srila Prabhupada meant it. In England, in the early 1900s, a girl who was raped - not violently raped - but seduced by a casa-nova type, the father will kill over it, But the girl likely WANTED it. That is what he meant.
Just like he used the word prostitute. He referred to women who go to college simply learn to become prostitutes, etc. The term in English, from how Srila Prabhupada learned it in the early 1900's as it was taught by British teachers, it means any sort of illicit or irreligious sex. That is why the word 'Professional' is added to distinguish between women who have illicit sex from women who do so for money as their livelihoods Girls in modern colleges most certainly virtually all of them engage in sex outside of marriage in the modern colleges - even high schools. Since the 1960's they have had Co-Ed dorms, where unmarried boy / girl students can live and sleep together.
I had on Indian friend who owned a motel on the beach in Florida, he told during the spring breaks his motel is all rented out by college students - and the girls come out from their rooms on the balconies naked, inviting the boys up. They have sex openly, often engaging with multiple men in one evening. That is the definition of the word prostitute, women who engage in gross illiicit sex outside of marriage, one man after the next. And, yes, the vast majority of girls going to colleges in America and Europe learn the art of prostitution there. As the representative of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Srila Prabhupada taught the Dharma to save the people of this age. He taught that it is better for the girls to be married by 9-12. Not live with the man until they are ready, but be married, then no agitation. For themselves,and no agitation among the young men, because the girls are protected. But, you think women don't need protection - it is better for young girls to learn how to have sex in grade school.. This is better in your world.
Back when this woman Monica pulled a Lewinski on President Clinton, on Oprah she interviewed what she claimed were randomly chosen kids from a high school and they openly talked on aire how this Clinton changed the scene in High school at the time. What great men do, the whole world follows. One girl 15, said she would go over to one boys house nearly every day after school and there would be 4-5 boys there, and she would do a Lewinski on them all - one after the other - modern day home-work - then she would go home. She claimed it was not really having sex, and she liked making the boys happy - she also admitted that it made her one of the most popular girls with all the guys int the whole school. In my day she would have been called the worse name for a girl, but, today, i guess she is a "good little girl". Another girl told how her mother openly lets her have sex with whatever boys she wants, as long as they use condoms. Progressive, modern day parents. How moral and religious. Only a few girls said they felt intimidated by the boys requesting them to get loose with them. By 15-17 girls feel there is something wrong with them if they haven't had sex yet, and so many times they wind up having sex with boys they don't really like, just to prove to themselves they are 'normal'.
I was reading local news a few years ago, and a girl 13, freshman, was caught having sex with an 18 year old boy, Senior, in the hall between classes. The 'boy' now had to become a life-long convicted sex offender - his whole future messed up, and he 'was' otherwise, considered a 'good' kid. In court their plea was that sex was all around them on tv, music, they were only doing what was natural and acceptable by their peers. The judge said he agreed with them, but the law is the law, and he has to uphold it. The 'boy' would now have to live as a sex offender and on his record it is stated that as an adult he molested a minor. In the same school a few weeks later another a 14 year old boy and girl were caught engaging in oral sex in the class room. The school expelled them. They said they did it on a dare.
But, all of this is acceptable to you? It was NOT to Srila Prabhupada. Get the girls protected via religious marriage at young age.
Older man to young girl? mostly no. The vast majority of young girls will marry young men. BUT, it is not irreligious for older man to marry young girl.
In India, it was about 15 years ago, there was a villager who was 75, he had 9 wives. His first wife was 68. His youngest wife was 30, he married her when he was 60 and she was 15. The father of the girl is from the same family as the man's first wife. The father saw how happy the other wives were, and the man with all the wives was like the leader of the village, he would have been the village raj, in older days, sort of like Nanda Maharaj, king of the village where he lived. Imagine the father of the 15 year old girl wanted his daughter to marry a 60 year old man. And, the girl was 30 when the reporter asked her how she felt at the time. She didn't mind it. She wasn't marrying just an old man, she was marrying into a big family. There were 150 family members, the man, his wives, their 33 children and all the grandchildren, 150 people. The girl at 15 had child, she never had a worry - always so many people there to help take care of the babies, cook, clean. She was happy she married an older man with so many wives. All his wives were happy. Even she was 15 and husband was 60 she didn't mind it. BUT, that is not common, it is uncommon, but, it is allowable by the laws of Manu. Dharma.
Srila Prabhupada taught that human society must revive real dharma Getting the girls married at young age is for the benefit of the whole society. It is for the girls, so they can be happy and protected, not become sex slave prostitutes. Young girls in the schools today become totally degraded - lose all sense of morality. And this you find acceptable and blaspheme Krishna's representative who taught the way out, the way back to moral decency?
I didn't write this for you, because it doesn't appear that you would appreciate it I wrote this for others who may be bewildered by your venomous words.
There are the gross and obvious child molesters those who force themselves on a child be it hetro or homo sex - those offenders should be castrated without any Novocaine and have both hands cut off, then caste out of the city, let them live near the garbage dumps and scrounge for food until they die. Or simply kill them and be done with it.
But, what about those who "could" protect a young girl, but, who decide not to? When young girls are being molested and degraded, this person not only just stands there and lets it happen, but when another person comes to save the girls, this person stops them and lets the girls be molested. Is such a person any better then the man who is molesting the young girl? NO.
But, that is what YOU are doing by saying girls should not be protected in their young age. You are no better then the men who molest the young girls because you don't want the girls to be properly and religiously protected. You won't STOP their being molested. You want to stop the person who is trying to save them.
You think you are so much more intelligent then Krishna's Representative? you are simply in illusion - bewildered thinking your own concocted idea of what is right and wrong is so much higher then that given by Krishna's messenger. You know better what is best for the world. No way should young girls be protected by religious marriage, and have husbands who care for them in young age. No, it is better in your mind that at 11-14 young girls should freely engage in irreligious sex with one boy after another. In public schools in America, in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, there are schools right now that give Mandatory classes to 11 year old girls, training them, showing them with graphic videos, how to place a condom on the boys penis before they have sex. This is your idea of protection. It is NOT Srila Prabhupada's or Krishna's. Only those who are bereft of all sense of moral decency of religious sense of right and wrong would accept such things as good. It is morally corrupt, morally vacant. What Srila Prabhupada was teaching was the way BACK to moral religious way of life.
Average age in America, according to one report, for losing virginity for boys is 17 (2008) and for girls, 15. But, many girls are becoming sexually active by 11-12. It is better in your world for the girls to engage in sex by 15 outside of religious marriage, one boy after another - irresponsibly illicit sex. As long as condoms are used and the girl takes the pill, you accept this is good. But, it is wrong for society to allow same age girls to religiously marry and be protected by religious husband,. That is SICK in your mind. That is Sick.
Is it immoral for a girl to have sex outside of marriage?
There are professors who teach that young girls in public schools should NOT be taught that losing their virginity or engaging openly in sex makes a girl a BAD person. They are teaching, and want it taught in schools to our children that having sex at young age should not be equated to being a bad person. These "progressive" intellectuals are teaching that girls who are openly having sex with many boys can still be Good girls. And that girls should not think of themselves as being bad, nor should society, just because they are having sex. Sex is good, they teach. It makes people more sociable. This is the new world - free of archaic and suppressive useless religious taboos. Sex is good. It's good excessive, a great way to stay fit. And, girls should not be suppressed by archaic religious ideas that having sex outside of marriage makes them bad. They point to many girls who are sexually very active, and yet do so many wonderful and good things for the society. Good people engage in sex outside of marriage. Young girls can still be good little girls even though they engage in sex. Sex, these professor's write, does not make people bad. That is archaic useless pheobic religious nonsense. Time to rid our schools and society of such suppressive crap.
Arjun quoted the Vedas and told Krishna that when women are not protected - the whole society will degrade. Unwanted children will be born and the whole world goes to hell.
Srila Prabhupada quoted manu samhita and other dharma shastras that support this. He gave the formula of how to uplift the world. When the boys are trained in spiritual education, and the girls are protected from mixing with the boys, then when such well trained boy and chaste girl combine in religious marriage they will give birth to children who are in the mood of goodness, who will take to and uphold the principles of religion.
Just the opposite, when boys and girls engage in sex based only on lust, they attract sinful souls in the modes of passion and ignorance. Children born to an unchaste women - Manu says such children will turn against Vedic dharma. They will turn against religion and will create havoc and suffering in the whole of society. they will violently rape the women, steal and vandalize. The whole of society goes to hell.
We see clearly which side you stand on this issue, and which side Srila Prabhupada stands. I proudly stand on his side. I support girls to be married by 9 BUT do NOT live with the husband until THEY are ready. Not just reach puberty, but the girl must be willing and ready. And, in a healthy society, they will want to be with their husband as soon as they reach puberty. Just like today, most girls, as soon as they reach puberty they WANT to be held and hugged in the arms of some boy. They WANT to be kidnapped and taken out into the flowers in the open meadow of the forest and taken down (raped is what that is called in old english) and laid by their knight in shinning armor. Prabhupada taught the right way forward. Don't let the innocent young girls be taken by the casa-nova play boys who only want one thing. When they get want they want, time to go to the next girl and get it from them. 14 year old girls having sex with 14 yr old boys. How will that 14 year old boy take care of the girl? 14 yr old boy is too young to make responsible father and husband. But, in Vedic culture, a young girl can be a good mother and wife. The boy stays in his father's house. The girl comes to the husband's family house. It isn't just a 13 - 14 year old girl living with a 22-24 year old man, his mother is there, his father, his sisters are there, The girl is fully taken care of. Not molested, like in your mind in the gutter is thinking, but she is very nicely treated and taken care of.
The young girls of today are NOT being protected at all. And YOU support this. You support they should be raped and molested and plundered by unscrupulous boys who have no intention, desire, or ability to be responsible for their actions. You support this, with your cool progressive intellectual mind telling you that you know better then Krishna and His empowered representative.
Happy trails on your newly chosen path to hell.
ys Gopal
Replies