Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » ACADEMIC, CONTROVERSIAL
Academic views, controversies, liberal views, eclectic discussions and so forth. Also, extended debates may be moved here. May contain discussion on views that a devotee may find objectionable.

Women who sleep with their gurus. - Discuss Krishna Kirti's editorial.



Jagat - Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:53:10 +0530
This editorial and the article it is based on (subscription only) can be discussed here.

Interesting source material, interesting perspective from a devotee.
Anand - Mon, 20 Sep 2004 20:51:42 +0530
Nice try from Krsna Kriti but to call his Iskcon perspective a Krsna Conscious perspective is again just another pretentious piece of misleader ship from a man (not even a guru) clearly with an institutional bent. (Isn’t misleader ship what he is trying to tackle in his discourse in the first place?)

Yes, feminism (whatever its wave) is a material concept but so is varnashram, whatever its shape.

Basically KK is presenting a recycled version of the ancient mistake of men who try to keep women under control: ever so gently, patronize them. But what this gentle world of civilized, advanced humanity does is strengthen the very power it tries to subside. Srila Prabhupada pointed out that powerful women are controlled by shyness, but he also pointed out that shyness is the very power of women. Contradiction? Not necessarily. Loose women may create havoc in society but after the dust settles the control will still be in the hands of the veiled ones. Women who volunteer to veil themselves for the cause of humanity are contributing to political power – a self-destructing power, ultimately, as humanity goes. Like women, men too, as it were, are dependent on another’s power, strength and guidance, but the power of veiled women is deceiving and misleading, one that creates mutual, retrograde dependence. Only when we, as devotees, understand the need for joining energies as opposed to counteracting one another’s, a meta civilized, progressive debate on the utility of man-woman powers may commence.

Just yesterday I was discussing with my husband about the subject of choices enlightened humans make. These are reflective of the choices of the divine, we concluded. Thus, the option for renunciation is indeed a good start on the path of selflessness but absolutely not the end of the whole story. What is of concern to us devotees, if we are to characterize ours selves as such, is that the object of our devotion is a world of greed, greed of the extreme kind, where selflessness means to actually opt for selfishness. That is, sacrifice. The gopis act in such a way as to disregard the order of Vasnashram. Theirs is a preposterous act of selfishness. Throwing out Their shyness They risk to sacrifice, to ruin temselves, their families, the whole village, clearly making an unreasonable, uncalculated choice. For the pleasure of God.

“As devotees, we need to study more carefully varnashrama-dharma and the customs that have in part or fully evolved from it in order to understand how following varnashram-dharma is a rational choice for those who are serious about getting out of material existence and, hence, develop their full love for Krishna with minimal disturbance from the material energy.”

Liberation may be our aim. But full love for Krishna? This usually comes at the cost of lots of disturbance. Or so we have heard. As for Iskcon, I believe their energies would be better utilized presently in honestly addressing the issue of guru tattva, and then perhaps their discourses on renunciation within humanity would be more effective and thus more Krishna Conscious.
Madhava - Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:19:52 +0530
QUOTE (KK)
What does this all mean for us in ISKCON? If we're over fifty (or under fifty and still believe small doses of Gloria Steinem could help ISKCON) and think that things like arranged marriages or Vaishnavis covering their heads will be unwelcome by the men and women we preach to or has nothing to do with Krishna consciousness, then we're behind the times. Third-wave feminism is all about choice, so if we want to make the culture that comes with Krishna consciousness relevant to the younger women (and men) in today's world (including those who aren't Western by culture), then we have to present our social customs as a choice, along with sound reasons to back up those choices.

I suppose the question is, do we need to present such a choice? What good will such a choice do? Ladies covering their heads, is that something seriously necessary for enlightenment? Or is it a cultural curiosity we learned from our oppressive Muslim brothers who invaded medieval Northern India?

The idealization of an ancient culture, Vedic as he put it, as one primarily oriented towards enlightenment, is as intriguing a concept as it is utopian. Though in the dharma-shastras we may read of the societal roles of men and women, and the various classes of people, we do not read how such prescriptions played out in reality. That is something I would be interested to learn of.

If ISKCON is anything of a yard-stick of an experiment in implanting varnashrama-dharma among Western populace, then I would humbly submit that we stay afar from employing varnashrama if we are at all concerned for spiritual integrity and the cultivation of bhakti.
Anand - Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:31:12 +0530
Daiva-Varnashram is indeed there, in the spiritual realm. The kings, merchants, brahmanas, sudhras, they are all there. However, here in this world the ashram for renunciants seems to face perpetual challenge. We might just get used to expect to hear about the next sannyasi who, reaching for the breasts of a woman will shame our global village with his fall. If Iskon wants to compassionately recommended that women enhance their chastity, thus giving men a break, why can’t such recommendation be made to men who are already half way into the process of abstinence? Especially if these men are offering themselves to the world as gurus. Women who sleep with their gurus may not be necessarily victims but neither are the gurus. Consenting is a choice made by two parties, one that is itself the fault and the victim. So it seems Iskcon is yet to catch their culprit.
Jagat - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 00:17:53 +0530
The more it happens, the less it hurts...

I wish the original article Krishna Kirti based his comments on was not restricted to subscribers only. I would rather have liked to seen the whole thing.

There is a Catch-22 type paradox in sannyas. Vairagya is one of the six opulences. It's one of the things that gives value to the man and makes him desirable. And yet, there seems to be a Faustian bargain there--lose it and all is lost. The question is: Is it really?

It depends. Bhakti is permanent, whereas the results of vairagya might not be. Certainly, one whose self-identity is tied up to celibacy will find that some illusions are shattered--always a painful experience. But that might be very valuable in the long run. It's called a reality check.

On the other, if he takes advantage of the situation by thinking, "This is a great way to get chicks," he falls into an even worse trap, because he decides to embrace the illusion.

I found interesting the comment made by one of the women, who saw it as an exchange: He got to learn about his sexual side, which he had ignored, and I got something spiritual out of it.


babu - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 01:51:51 +0530
The problem with the understanding of many celibates is wanting sex may be a material desire but please keep the "love" in "making love." It seems like for many of these "celibate" gurus that their experience with women is similar to masturbation. The same goes for those who have sex for status and gold-diggers. Sex is every inch a sacred experience or a mundane material one. The one it is is what the participants makes it to be.

And besides the women's movement today being way past Gloria Steinem and the first wave and the second wave. Its now Kali Ma time and She'll chew up and spit men out who don't get with "the times they are a' changin."
Anand - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:51:22 +0530
QUOTE
I found interesting the comment made by one of the women, who saw it as an exchange: He got to learn about his sexual side, which he had ignored, and I got something spiritual out of it.


 


Interesting but doubtful. I doubt anyone gets anything spiritual out of the exchange market. She got ripped.
Jagat - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:13:43 +0530
I didn't think so, either. He probably didn't get all that much out of it either, like Babu says.

In India, I heard that there were women who went to sadhus if their husbands were impotent, or even sometimes if they were potent, and got impregnated in order to get a special child. Mixing up the gene pool so to speak.
Babhru - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:00:55 +0530
This topic reminds me of S., a John Updike novel about 15 years ago. It's a look at the situation of Hawthorne's Hester Prynne in a contemporary setting. The protagonist, a well-to-do woman from the Northeast US, joins a Hindu cult and eventually is "chosen" by the guru. She ends up bitterly disillusioned. I dont' remember it very clearly. It was a long time and many millions of words ago that I read it.

I agree that Krishna-kirti is a particularly articulate voice for the faction of ISKCON he represents. He seems to have grown much as a writer over the last few years. His fellows would do well to let him be one of their spokesmen and encourage some others--Ameyatma, for example--to keep to themselves.
Jagat - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:19:25 +0530
Is he Vijay Sadananda Pai or his brother Vinay?
Anand - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:38:11 +0530
QUOTE
In India, I heard that there were women who went to sadhus if their husbands were impotent, or even sometimes if they were potent, and got impregnated in order to get a special child. Mixing up the gene pool so to speak. 


I have heard of this one too. And I have heard that some pretenders would dress and act sadhu-like so to have a good time with other men's wives. Quite the bargain.

If KK is indeed a good writer then let him write novels. His idea that women should carry the burden of preserving the chastity or preventing the corruption of men is, in my view, bad writing and very good distraction. And I don't think Iskcon or the world needs any more of that.
braja - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:50:25 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 20 2004, 07:49 PM)
Is he Vijay Sadananda Pai or his brother Vinay?

KK? No, he is Caucasian.
Rasaraja dasa - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:07:17 +0530
QUOTE (Anand @ Sep 20 2004, 06:08 PM)
QUOTE
In India, I heard that there were women who went to sadhus if their husbands were impotent, or even sometimes if they were potent, and got impregnated in order to get a special child. Mixing up the gene pool so to speak. 


I have heard of this one too. And I have heard that some pretenders would dress and act sadhu-like so to have a good time with other men's wives. Quite the bargain.

If KK is indeed a good writer then let him write novels. His idea that women should carry the burden of preserving the chastity or preventing the corruption of men is, in my view, bad writing and very good distraction. And I don't think Iskcon or the world needs any more of that.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I have to agree with Anand on this one.

Let me see if I got this one point straight...

Okay, so it is rare to have a woman Guru or Acarya because not all women have the qualification and undisputed devotion of, say, Gangamata Goswamini. To be in a woman’s body and act as Guru or Acarya one must be, at a minimum, like Gangamata Goswamini. Very interesting…

So what is the bare minimum for a male Guru and/or Acarya? The Six Goswami’s maybe? Oh wait… males don’t have to be at such a high standard because they are males. Great logic…

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa
Babhru - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:34:08 +0530
Let me clarify my comments regardiing KK as a writer (does that sound like a politican?). I don't think agree at all with his ideas, and I'm not so sure he's such a hot writer, but his writing has become clearer and more deliberate over the years. The reactionary faction of ISKCON he represents gives me the creeps. Hitler was also pretty articulate, at least orally, I guess (I've read Mein Kampf and found it dreadful writing). He was able to whip up a crowd like nobody's business. But his ideas were repugnant, and his policies were worse.

Maybe I should withdraw my suggestion that those guys make KK one of their spokesmen. More Ameyatma (whose ignorance of spelling and grammatical conventions and disregard for his audience makes his writing reflect the sloppiness of his thinking), less KK.
Rasaraja dasa - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:39:30 +0530
Dear Babhru,

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I understand your point that KK is at least a bit more articulate then some of his peers and I will even agree. Just too bad his logic is for the mentally challenged.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa
Babhru - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:53:52 +0530
And emotionally challenged.

All I really meant was just what you said: he's more articulate than many of that crew, and his writing has improved over the years. That may partly be my fault; when I tangled with him a few years ago, I suggested that he work on his communication skills. It looks as though he took that advice. Sorry.
babu - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:22:29 +0530
QUOTE (Babhru @ Sep 21 2004, 04:23 AM)
I suggested that he work on his communication skills. It looks as though he took that advice. Sorry.

You created a monster. I don't think saying "sorry" is cutting it.
Audarya-lila dasa - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:24:57 +0530
I think that to credit Babhru with 'creating a monster' just because he suggested that a person improve their communication skills is a very big stretch. Expecting him to apologize for doing what is natural for him in terms of his helping others to communicate clearly or encouraging them to learn to do so is not a fault.

Madhava - Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:34:13 +0530
Board rule number 57. Whoever posts today, must also post appreciations of Radha in the Radhastami-thread. Otherwise, we will be angry at you.
babu - Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:32:35 +0530
QUOTE (Audarya-lila dasa @ Sep 21 2004, 05:54 PM)
I think that to credit Babhru with 'creating a monster' just because he suggested that a person improve their communication skills is a very big stretch.

The twelve mahajanas and Dr. Phil I think would disagree.
Anand - Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:49:44 +0530
Audarya-lila wrote:

QUOTE
I think that to credit Babhru with 'creating a monster' just because he suggested that a person improve their communication skills is a very big stretch.  Expecting him to apologize for doing what is natural for him in terms of his helping others to communicate clearly or encouraging them to learn to do so is not a fault.

 


Audarya-lilaji,

Babhru had apologized before anyone had suggested that he does so.

'Creating a monster' was used, it is very clear, jokingly by Babu.

What is not a joke is the fact that skills of many kinds can be improved to do more harm than good. This is an unfortunate reality among different groups of preachers nowadays, Iskcon not being an exception. Granted, there are good preaching in Iskcon but the bad, well, if helped so to have a more polished appearance, what good is that? KK's for example is a clear case of putting the cart before the animal. He needed improve his knowledge of his subject first, then, and only then, improve his communications skills. But as things happened, to use another choice expression, now he is 'armed and dangerous'.

Anand - Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:41:09 +0530
I thought I was all done with this topic but last night I had a dream where I was in a discussion with a group of devotees. In the dream I suggested to the devotees that the discussion was pointless because we did not know our subject thoroughly. At this I was politely suggested by a maharaja (name withheld) to go and busy myself with something else - I was told to go and drop a string down a deep well and see what I would catch. And so I did. On pulling out my catch, I found it to be a dead horse. My reaction, in the dream, was, “That’s it, there is no use beating on a dead horse.” This morning I woke up thinking that the dead horse in my dream probably represented the subject of Iskcon. But then later, on checking my personal correspondence I found that I am being invited to participate in discussions in a committee of devotees facing the fall of yet another swami. The committee wishes to hear from a woman’s point of view, suggestions on how to prevent the fall of sannyasis! I haven’t offered my suggestions yet but now I think that the dead horse in my dream probably represents the subject of sexuality versus renunciation. I mean, I don’t seem to be able to come to a sound conclusion on what would be a useful, progressive suggestion to help prevent a man from being attracted to women. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that to deny one’s sexuality while expecting him to make spiritual progress is a paradox because, essentially, the self, cit, is a sexual entity. Choose/realize your permanent identity and you will find yourself either assisting or involved in sexual acts, Yet, spiritual practices are expected to be entirely sanitized of erotic intimacy.

Someone here has suggested that vairagya, being one of the six opulences, makes a man desirable. Does vairagya in a woman make her desirable as well? Maybe it is just me, but being in a woman’s body does give one a perspective of how strange sometimes the logic of men can be. According to patriarchal spiritual societies, the desirable vairagya for a woman is that of subservience to a man. That is, she is allowed to seek fulfillment as long as it is done in the company of a husband. The expected level (set up by men) of renouncement for a woman-on-her-own is so high that it is one practically prohibitive for most humans. By such logic, therefore, if and when a woman accomplished renunciation, she would have accomplished more than any renounced man. How many female spiritual leaders have been involved in scandals where they were seduced by unscrupulous male followers? The opposite though is a constant in spiritual circles. The sannyasi who has tried intently to resist but finally succumbed to the power of a loose woman has everyone’s blessings to try again and again, while women, well, these will remain “chicks”.

I keep going back to the classic recommendation that males who wish successful resistance to sexual attraction do perceive all ladies as Mother. This seems more logic and balanced than to expect volunteer suppression of sexuality from women. It also may be a view that will be the wake up call for all humans seriously concerned with wrapping up the issue of sexuality versus renunciation. Vairagya is the result of matured spirituality, but mature spirituality will not be easily accomplished by one’s whining and hiding behind mom’s skirt. Nor by veiling up one’s desirable female companion so she will be everyone else’s mother.

If vairagya requires denying one’s identity as a sexual being, or if by so called accepting one’s sexuality one will be "embracing the illusion”, it seems a third option should be the next logical step to be considered. But this third option is nowhere within the scope of my practical experience or theoretical experiments. I think the distance I have personally covered so far has been to realize that there is, indeed, a great need for devotees to treat the topic of sex with much less passion (of all things!) and much more sattva. But beyond that, I am just as open to suggestions as a fallen sannyasi.
Audarya-lila dasa - Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:24:49 +0530
Renunciation is an opulence and thus is attractive in whomever it manifests - that's a fact. I'm not sure why this is such a hard idea to digest for you Anand. We see the attractiveness of the dedication and commitment/austerity of a conditioned marathon runner or any other similarly commited athlete. Their level of commitment, dedication and renunciation is very attractive. When we come across someone who lives very simply and humbly it is very naturally attractive. I think this attraction to renunciation is very obvious and inherent in everyone.

Regarding renunciation of sexual desire I don't think you have to look very far into our scriptures to see that the example of Mahaprabhu in his acharya-lila is one of extreme renunciation. The same goes for the six Goswamis. We also see that Mahaprabhu was very strict about the behavior of renunciates and what he expected.

I personally think that the problem is that devotees aren't introspective enough and don't have leaders who know them well enough to encourage them to live according to their psychology. Most devotees should live as grhastas and gradually detach themselves from the world over time. This is healthy and natural for most people. There are exceptions, but I believe that they are truly rare.

The problem with these sannyasi's is that they jumped into the ashrama for all the wrong reasons. My personal feeling is that people should give up their false egos and act according to their natures. Renunciation can't be forced. As a person develops themselves spiritually and gains a taste for devotional life their attraction for material pleasure will naturally slacken. This can't be forced. We have all seen what happens when this proper sequence of events is side stepped and people who are not detached pretend to be.

The color of a persons dress is not important. People need to stop worrying about what others think about them and do the right thing in order to make tangible progress. False renunciation is not attractive - it's a disgrace and very ugly at best.

Having lived through the history and seen the problems with setting up a society where renunciates are revered and therefore people gravitate toward that ashrama for prestige and honor rather than for their own spiritual development, I think it is high time to start judging people for the content of their character rather than the color of their clothing (to borrow a good line of reasoning from Martin Luther King). If renunciates were not treated as kings and were truly treated as renunciates and expected to live a simple life then it would only be a viable option for a true renunciate. How many sannyasis would there be if they had to live an austere live like the Goswamis?

But really, just because we see examples of all the reasons why one should not falsely renounce doesn't mean there aren't examples of true renunciates. Like Sridhara Maharaja said 'Blind faith implies that there must be 'seeing faith''. When we find couterfeit money it indicates that there is also the read deal somewhere. So similarly there is a time and place for renunciation and there are those vaishnavas who are properly situated in renunciation.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

p.s. I agree that it's ridiculous to expect women to behave in a certain way in order for the 'renunciate' to not 'fall down'. That whole line of reasoning is totally flawed. If this is such a problem then the so-called renunciate is so in name only. Anyone who lives in the world knows that most people are very sensually oriented and that attractive people are everywhere. If your mind and heart is still cluttered by sensual desire then you will not find a place on earth to hide where you'll be safe because the problem isn't with the external environment- it's with the dirty heart of the so-called renunciate.

For me it's not an issue because I know my place and am happily married biggrin.gif
Jagat - Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:44:04 +0530
Renunciation is also attractive as "forbidden fruit." This works both ways. The woman who resists is one who drives the "nagara" wild.

This is hardly a dead horse subject, as it keeps coming back. At least it will for as long as renunciation is placed so highly on the list of "qualifications" for guru.

I am glad that you are being approached, Ananda, for your opinion. My suggestion to you is that you recommend opening up householder guruships. That as long as a fallen sannyasi is not a philanderer, it be recommended he get married and open up a sedentary preaching mission.

Sannyasis are like rolling stones, they travel around and don't pick up any "moss." The whole institution of householder gurus has to be given more thought. I wrote about this here Vipramukhya's retirement, which might give you some ideas.

I would add that there should not be any shotgun weddings. In other words, a sannyasi who has "fallen down" should not be obliged to marry the woman he has had relations with, as this could be just an accidental situation, or with a married woman, etc. Rather, care should be taken in finding a partner who will help serve his role as guru. The wife of a guru is also a guru and should be selected in terms of that role. (Of course, if the woman is pregnant, this would rightly severely limit his freedom of choice.)
Anand - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:47:16 +0530
QUOTE
Renunciation is an opulence and thus is attractive in whomever it manifests - that's a fact.  I'm not sure why this is such a hard idea to digest for you Anand.  We see the attractiveness of the dedication and commitment/austerity of a conditioned marathon runner or any other similarly commited athlete.  Their level of commitment, dedication and renunciation is very attractive.  When we come across someone who lives very simply and humbly it is very naturally attractive.  I think this attraction to renunciation is very obvious and inherent in everyone.


If commitment and determination are the beauty of renunciation, what of the commitment and determination of the women who decide that they want to sleep with their gurus? Sexual attraction also is inherent in everyone.

The idea of renunciation as an opulence is not a "hard one for me to digest", Audarya-lila das. I can digest it enough to go through your arguments and, at the risk of sounding pedant an arrogant, still actually conclude that I probably digest it better than you do. I mean, do we really understand this matter so completely that all there is left to do is go “oops! He was too young” whenever a sannyasi does not make it? The theory that one has to go through the experience of marriage to be free of temptation is just as naïve as giving sannyasa to a 22 year old.

Those who believe they are communing with the divine through a very nice marriage are in for a surprise come the day they realize that such union does not bring them one centimeter closer to bhakti. In the same way, those who think that intimacy with their spiritual mentors will be a short cut, probably end up unplesantly surprised and disappointed. Granted, going through the grhasta ashram should better prepare one for attempt at renunciation, but the idea is still to accomplish it.


QUOTE
The wife of a guru is also a guru and should be selected in terms of that role.


Thanks for the suggestions, Jagat. Now, having to accept the wife of the guru as guru too, that should take care of those uncommited chicks... wink.gif
Audarya-lila dasa - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:40:38 +0530
There's no need to blow your own horn, Anand. Maybe you understand better than me, maybe you don't. From the statements you have made I would ascertain that you don't but I'm cetainly willing to concede the possibility.

My contribution was much more nuanced than simply 'go through married life and don't take sannyasa at a young age'. This is a very simplistic idea and not one that I advocated, although you seem to feel that was the essence of what I said above.

I really couldn't possibly care less about this issue. For me it is rather simple - be honest and don't pretend to be something you aren't. If your attracted to women or men and have sexual desires then get married. No one said that such an arrangement of bonding of two people will lead to spiritual perfection. If two married individuals live a life of dedication and service to Sri Guru and Gauranga then that is positive and advancement will be made. Otherwise simply getting married and attached to someone of the opposite or same sex, whatever your desire is, is mundane and doesn't afford anyone any spiritual advancement in and of itself.

I tend to agree with Jagat - if there is spiritual substance to the person then it is there regardless of whether they are a renunciate or a householder. Let those so inclinded marry and serve as spiritual mentors within their appropriate ashrama.

What I was referring to when I said that it appears 'hard for you to digest' the idea of renunciation being an opulence and therefore attractive was your statement ,"Someone here has suggested that vairagya, being one of the six opulences, makes a man desirable. Does vairagya in a woman make her desirable as well? Maybe it is just me, but being in a woman’s body does give one a perspective of how strange sometimes the logic of men can be."

Well, the answer to your question in the middle of that statement is yes. Vairagya is attractive in both men and women and does therefore attract those of the opposite sex.

Whatever - I'm not out to argue with you anyway. You raised the issue since you are being called on to 'help'. I simply offered a plausible solution - albeit simple - it is nonetheless honest. Be yourself, be honest, live a dignified life of devotion and live within the ashrama best suited to you in terms of your pyschological make up. Don't put up a front to garner fame and position.

But you really should consider what I said about Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the six Goswamis of Vrndavana and the example they set. Mahaprabhu came to give the highest thing but he was very strict about his renunciation. This is the example so you may have to rethink your premise that it is paradoxical or impractical to expect one to live a life free of sexual desire while engaging in thoughts of Krsna and his erotic pastimes. You seem to be mixing up material desires and sexuality with spiritual emotions. Kama in the context of the matieral world is self centered and is detrimental to spiritual life but the same word and intense emotion is used to describe the gopis feeling toward Krsna - that's because it is Krsna centered and therefore spiritual.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Anand - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:29:00 +0530
"Choose your ashram and that will take you to Krsna. May I suggest the ashram of renunciation, where, being strict about your renunciation, you will follow the highest example."

We all think we are just trying to help. And of course that is appreciated. But I think it is time that we are honest and brave enough to face the fact that cliches are not helping anymore.
Babhru - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:01:40 +0530
Anand, I wonder if you may not be missing a little something here. I agree that too much emphasis on outward signs of renunciation, putting too much stock in what ashram someone lives in, and using that as the measure of spiritual advancement, especially with regard to judging who is fit to guide us, can lead to serious trouble in our path. Mahaprabhu's instruction when he, in the sannyasa ashram, approached Ramananda Raya for spiritual instruction is, "kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya, yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru' haya": regardless of social standing, anyone who actually understands the science of Krishna is fit to serve as guru. And I think that one of the things that has undermined the dignity of the sannyasa ashram is the materialistic consciousness that moves immature (in spiritual advancement, not calendar years) people to use it--or the position of guru--as a means for attaining prathishta, labha, and puja.

And I think you may have missed something when you wrote, "Those who believe they are communing with the divine through a very nice marriage are in for a surprise come the day they realize that such union does not bring them one centimeter closer to bhakti." That seems like a really simplisitic response to the suggestion that we can advance better by being honest and living in the position appropriate for our actual level of spiritual advancement. I actually agree with Audarya-lila's suggestion: "Be yourself, be honest, live a dignified life of devotion and live within the ashrama best suited to you in terms of your pyschological make up. Don't put up a front to garner fame and position."

This corresponds nicely with Krishna's assertion to Uddhava in Srimad-Bhagavatam: sve sve 'dhikare ya nistha sa gunah parikirtitah. Real beauty, or actual good qualities, come from understanding our actual position and steadfastly behaving accordingly. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura cited this verse on several occasions. And my own guru maharaja often cited his gurudeva's injunction that we are better off making an honest living as street sweepers than posing as sadhus just exploit others.
Jagat - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:09:37 +0530
The point is to not put obstacles in your own way.

Vairagya is never an end in itself.

Marriage is actually advantageous in some ways, because it allows you to express affection physically. Those who are always afraid of the body and senses set themselves up for a fall. They deprive themselves of normal human affectionate exchanges that can be windows into the spiritual world.

These things are not easily renounced, and rare is the person who can do so. I am not so very much in favor of sannyasis acting as spiritual guides to householders, because in general they will give advice based primarily on their own experience, and unless they have great wisdom, based on wishful thinking about their own concept of spiritual perfection.

In other words, for a vairagi, thoughts about conquering sex desire can take an enormous amount of psychic space. For most married me, after a few years, if they have led their life right, it tends to occupy very little.
Anand - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 05:19:25 +0530

The advice is, don't just live any life but a life of DEVOTION. What is the implication of this? Of course there is nothing wrong with the suggestion of ringing a bell at a temple every sunday. But there is nothing wrong with thinking beyond that either. We may, to our very selves, put up a front to garner fame and position.
babu - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:57:20 +0530
QUOTE (Audarya-lila dasa @ Sep 23 2004, 10:10 PM)

I really couldn't possibly care less about this issue. For me it is rather simple - be honest and don't pretend to be something you aren't. If your attracted to women or men and have sexual desires then get married.

I would say if you're attracted to men or women, then date or masteurbate. Get married when you fall in love and you have the deepest respects for the other person.

Anand - Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:34:16 +0530
QUOTE
Get married when you fall in love and you have the deepest respects for the other person.

 


Precisely. Entering the grhastra ashram (getting married) for the wrong reasons can be just as risky as premature renunciation.
Audarya-lila dasa - Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:22:22 +0530
I agree and I didn't intend to imply otherwise. Iskcon has a much higher rate of failed marriages than the general populace. There are probably a myriad of reasons for this. My point was really about knowing yourself and what ashrama will be most conducive to your spiritual growth. I wasn't suggesting that one who has an uncontrolled mind or senses simply marry and then the problem will go away.

I'm sure the topic of marriage and what constitutes a good one could take up many pages as a topic unto itself. I'd be happy to share whatever I have learned along the way and my own thoughts and perceptions on that topic if a thread is started to address those issues.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa
Talasiga - Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:38:49 +0530
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 23 2004, 11:39 PM)
........ Those who are always afraid of the body and senses set themselves up for a fall. They deprive themselves of normal human affectionate exchanges that can be windows into the spiritual world.

........

Fear itself is a twist on sadness. To embrace the body and senses is to embrace another facet of distinction which raises separation. Separation is no longer a threat but a crucible for loving adoration.

Sakhicharan - Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:55:33 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Sep 24 2004, 05:08 PM)
QUOTE (Jagat @ Sep 23 2004, 11:39 PM)
........ Those who are always afraid of the body and senses set themselves up for a fall. They deprive themselves of normal human affectionate exchanges that can be windows into the spiritual world.

........

Fear itself is a twist on sadness. To embrace the body and senses is to embrace another facet of distinction which raises separation. Separation is no longer a threat but a crucible for loving adoration.

Talasigaji, those are some insightful poetic lines. I like'em smile.gif
Talasiga - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:44:45 +0530
QUOTE (Sakhicharan @ Sep 24 2004, 10:25 PM)
Talasigaji, those are some insightful poetic lines. I like'em    smile.gif

Thank you SakhiJi for your kind comments. Unfortunately I am having problems relating these "poetic lines" to the nub of the topic.
babu - Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:26:33 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Sep 24 2004, 10:08 PM)
To embrace the body and senses is to embrace another facet of distinction which raises separation.

I am this body.
Talasiga - Wed, 29 Sep 2004 07:51:51 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Sep 28 2004, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Sep 24 2004, 10:08 PM)
To embrace the body and senses is to embrace another facet of distinction which raises separation.

I am this body.

you need to get over this babulu smile.gif

The cinema screen isn't the movie but can you see the movie without it?
babu - Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:24:41 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Sep 29 2004, 02:21 AM)
QUOTE (babu @ Sep 28 2004, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Sep 24 2004, 10:08 PM)
To embrace the body and senses is to embrace another facet of distinction which raises separation.

I am this body.

you need to get over this babulu smile.gif

The cinema screen isn't the movie but can you see the movie without it?

Maybe Edgar Cayce could. He used to put a book under his pillow and wake up the next day and tell you what the book was about. If he could do it with a book, why not a video.

But would he see the movie in hdtv?
Talasiga - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:55:34 +0530
QUOTE (babu @ Sep 30 2004, 02:54 PM)
Maybe Edgar Cayce could. He used to put a book under his pillow and wake up the next day and tell you what the book was about.

Exactement! He put the book under his pillow. The devotee puts the body under his or her life and wakens to his or her soul at Jamuna dawn ......

babu - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:02:48 +0530
QUOTE (Talasiga @ Sep 30 2004, 11:25 PM)

Exactement! He put the book under his pillow. The devotee puts the body under his or her life and wakens to his or her soul at Jamuna dawn ......

Talasigaji, those are some insightful nonpoetic lines. I like'em. smile.gif
Talasiga - Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:21:27 +0530
Thank you babulu for your kind comments. Unfortunately I am having problems relating these "nonpoetic lines" to the nub of the topic.
Mina - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:17:08 +0530
I see any attempt at trying to emulate the old caste system as entirely pointless. People tend to overlook its inherently racist foundation. The word for caste is varna, which is the same as the Sanskrit for color. Fair skinned invaders from the north subjugated the dark skinned Indian natives and set themselves up as the ruling classes. It has also been the source of heinously misogynistic abuses.

As far as the whole renunciation bit, its time for those fanatics to give it a rest. As far as monogamy, that has always been a problem for every culture on earth throughout the history and pre-history of our species. Its a great ideal, but there is such a high level of adultery going on, that one cannot help pondering our nature with respect to the institution of marriage.

The happy marriage is a rarity and genuine renunciation is even rarer still. To fail to recognize that fact is sheer self-delusion.

Sex may be base, but then again most people are not all that saintly. Does that make them degraded or evil? I think not. They may even have some deep religious faith. Biology dictates much of our behavior, whether we choose to acknowledge that or not.

A little more working on one's own bhakti garden and a little less worrying about the weeds in one's neighbor's garden is in order.
Elpis - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:22:20 +0530
QUOTE(Mina @ Nov 20 2004, 07:47 PM)
As far as monogamy, that has always been a problem for every culture on earth throughout the history and pre-history of our species. Its a great ideal, but there is such a high level of adultery going on, that one cannot help pondering our nature with respect to the institution of marriage.

In the novel Monsieur (which is a great read, by the way) Lawrence Durrell has the gnostic teacher Akkad explain that there are four Ms which characterize our age, namely monotheism, messianism, monogamy, and materialism. These four are then summed up by a fifth M: merde.

Terence McKenna likewise spoke of three Ms which have to be pitched out: monogamy, monotony, and monotheism.
Talasiga - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:55:32 +0530
QUOTE(Elpis @ Nov 21 2004, 02:52 AM)
In the novel Monsieur (which is a great read, by the way) Lawrence Durrell has the gnostic teacher Akkad explain that there are four Ms which characterize our age, namely monotheism, messianism, monogamy, and materialism.  These four are then summed up by a fifth M: merde.

Terence McKenna likewise spoke of three Ms which have to be pitched out: monogamy, monotony, and monotheism.



My bush mentor, Akubra, told me the three Ms were:
missionaries. missionary position and misogynists.

You've gotta admit he could have a point.
wink.gif
Mina - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:31:38 +0530
Then there's the old conventional wisdom

Marriage = Offspring

Even that is becoming outmoded, as many couples choose to remain childless for one reason or another. I think that is perhaps another adaptation as the planet gets more overcrowded with humans every day - humans who gobble up natural resources and spew forth all sorts of waste to foul the air, water and land. Wherever there is an imbalance, balance must be restored. Female infanticide in India appears to be such a phenomenon. Male infanticide would not necessarily result in a reduction in the birth rate, since one male can easily impregnate multiple females, whereas one female can only be pregnant so many times in her life and a male is not capable of conceiving (due to lacking a womb).

Contraception was not readily available in any reliable form until quite recently in human society. I suspect that had it been an option several centuries or millenia ago, it would have sold just as well. Having been raised in a relatively large family with five other siblings, I have personal experience of intense rivalries for resources and parental attention. I think those who were only children or only had one sibling do not really fully comprehend such dynamics, since they lack that practical experience. Of course, on the flip side, we had more fun than the smaller families.
Elpis - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:01:13 +0530
QUOTE(Mina @ Nov 21 2004, 08:01 AM)
Contraception was not readily available in any reliable form until quite recently in human society.  I suspect that had it been an option several centuries or millenia ago, it would have sold just as well.

Here is some information about contraception and abotion in the ancient world:

http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public...d_Abortion.html

Here is some information about the history of condoms, which apparently go back a long time:

http://www.studentz.co.nz/sex/articles.asp?id=3264
Mina - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:40:35 +0530
I have not yet looked at those links, Elpis, but I was talking about RELIABLE contraception.
Mina - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:45:46 +0530
Well, after looking at the first link, I should perhaps change that to "reliable and safe methods of contaception".
Mina - Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:50:28 +0530
That 2nd link was an interesting bit of history. What next, the spray-on condom? cool.gif
Elpis - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:05:35 +0530
QUOTE(Mina @ Nov 21 2004, 01:10 PM)
I have not yet looked at those links, Elpis, but I was talking about RELIABLE contraception.

I know what you were talking about, but thought that it would still be good to have links to information about the topic.
Madanmohan das - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:47:15 +0530
I must admit I have not read all of this thread, only the first two pages, but got inspired to post this soliloquy of Angelo from the Bard's Measure for Measure;

Isab. Save your honour. (meaning goodby)
Ang. (to himself)
From thee; even from thy virtue!
What's this? what's this?Is this her fault or mine?
The tempter or the tempted, who sins most?
Ha!
Not she; nor doth she tempt; but it is I,
That, lying by the violet in the sun,
Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,
Corrupt with virtuous season. Can it be
That modesty may more betray our sense
Than woman's lightness? Having waste ground enough,
Shall we desire to raze the sanctuary,
And pitch our evils there? O, fie, fie, fie!
What dost thou, or what art thou, Angelo?
Dost thou desire her foully for those things
That make her good? O, let her brother live!
Thieves for their robbery have authority
When judges steal themselves. What! do I love her,
That I desire to hear her speak again,
And feast upon her eyes? What is't I dream on?
O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost bait thy hook! Most dangerous
Is that temptation that doth goad us on
To sin in loving virtue: never could the strumpet,
With all her double vigour, art and nature,
Once stir my temper; but this virtuous maid
Subdues me quite. Ever till now,
When men were fond, I smil'd and wonder'd how
Jagat - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:39 +0530
Thanks MM, for that quotation from Shakespeare. Very appropriate. It could even be Krishna's inner turmoil when thinking of the virtuous "kula-nari" Radha in his purva-raga. What delicious pain!

Of course, Krishna is so kind that he even responds to a strumpet like Kubja... But he knows the difference.
Madanmohan das - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:59:42 +0530
There's more on't. From the woman's perspective. This is from Pope's "Eloisa to Abelard"

Thou know'st how guiltless first I met thy flame,
When love approach'd me under friendship's name;
My fancy formed thee of angelic kind,
Some emanation of th' all-beauteous mind.
Those smiling eyes, attemp'ring every ray,
Shone sweetly lambent with celestial day.
Guiltless I gazed; Heaven listen'd while you sung;
And truths divine came mended from that tongue.
From lips like those what precepts fail to move?
Too soon they taught me 'twas no sin to love:
Back through the paths of pleasing sense I ran,
Nor wish'd an angel whom I loved a man.
Dim and remote the joys of saints I see;
Nor envy them that Heaven I lose for thee.......

This was after she became a celebate nun or whatever.
Jagat - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:21:28 +0530
Yes, Eloise and Abelard are certainly the archetypes of the guru sleeping with his disciple.

It ended rather sadly, as I recall--the love remaining unmoved, but the carnal means to do anything about it forever removed. If love is spiritual, then it must have nothing to do with the flesh! Another reminder of the harshness of body-mind dualism.

But look how their love has become eternal--remembered for the tragedy, yes, but also for the dramatic purity of their love, which was intermingled with their love for God. One cannot hear it without sympathizing with them and thinking how cruel the world is to have treated them as it did. As though the love of a guru for a disciple could not mingle with physical love and still be pure.

I'll see if I can find a version to post here for the benefit of those who don't know the story.
Jagat - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:38:08 +0530
Most of the material seems to be in French, and I could not quickly find a succinct recounting of the love story in English, though a more prolonged effort would no doubt turn something up. At any rate, it is clear that though Abelard is still remembered for his contributions to Church scholasticism, he is far more often remembered for his relationship with Eloise. In great part, no doubt, as a result of the correspondence between the two after they were cloistered separately.

http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/abelard.htm

Not so long ago I read a historical novel based on it, but I see that plays, poems and novels based in whole or part, or just inspired by the legend, are rife.

Yes, Peter paid the price. Eloise's uncle chopped off his dangly bits.
Madanmohan das - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:19:49 +0530
ohmy.gif
Madanmohan das - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:50:41 +0530
That's a terrible tragedy, but maybe that's where it leads, to tragedy.
When I first looked at this thread - on the forums it reads "women who sleep with their........- I thought it was going to be with their...socks on, or something laugh.gif

Anyway one more quote from the bard about love, this from As You Like It;

Ros. Love is merely a madness, and, I tell you, deserves as well a dark house, and a whip, as madmen do: and the reason why they are not so punish'd and cur'd is, that the lunacy is so ordinary, that the whippers are in love too: yet I profess curing it by counsel.
Jagat - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:53:50 +0530
Try telling that to Radha.
Madanmohan das - Mon, 22 Nov 2004 23:28:32 +0530
Lalita said; " O sakhi! I've witnessed Krishna's deceit on many occasions, but thou art simple and heed'st it not. Come away, let us go home." So saying, Lalita pulled Radha's hand to lead her home. But with apprehension, modesty and craving, mixed and distressed by Krishna's absence, Radha said, "Sakhi Lalite! Wherefore should my insubordinate mind ignore his vices and see them as his virtues. What can I do?"

(GG Ch 14)
Anand - Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:02:47 +0530
QUOTE
the whippers are in love too


"whippers in love", eh? So he is the culprit - the Bard started it all... huh.gif
Madanmohan das - Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:29:48 +0530
So full of shapes is fancy, that it alone is high fantastical.
Jagat - Tue, 23 Nov 2004 03:58:50 +0530
Eloise was a brilliant girl. Her wealthy parents loved her so much that they sought out the most talented teacher at the University of Paris to come and be her tutor. How sweet it must have been for him, a priest already in his thirties, in the very prime of his florescent career, coming and sitting daily in private with his beautiful, saintly and brilliant charge. How he must have ached to come and see her each day.

I forget how they were discovered, but discovered they were. He got his (unjust) reward and was packed off to the hinterlands to purge his shame, while she was "gotten off to a nunnery" to spend the rest of her days, eventually becoming the prioress of her convent.

Yet the two continued to correspond to the end of their lives; their missals have been preserved, and they were chaste, speaking only of their devotion to God.

And when they died, those who knew the tragic tale of their love conspired to bury them together, united in immortality.

So, the lesson is a hard one: illicit love brings ecstatic rewards and terrible punishments; and yet love somehow transcends the lovers themselves and unites them in heaven.

So a word to the wise, or to the fools! Any gurus out there who are tempted by this halo of romance: Keep it Platonic, guys, if you value your most treasured jewels.

Or, better:

So here's the moral of Abelard's shame:
O gurus! Round your chelas keep your wits--
If you would keep intact your name and fame,
your wealth, your status, and your dangly bits.
Jagat - Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:34:15 +0530
Relevant, I think.

============

Men Just Want Mommy

MAUREEN DOWD ** New York Times ** Jan. 13, 2004


A few years ago at a White House Correspondents' dinner, I met a very beautiful actress. Within moments, she blurted out: "I can't believe I'm 46 and not married. Men only want to marry their personal assistants or P.R. women."

I'd been noticing a trend along these lines, as famous and powerful men took up with the young women whose job it was to tend to them and care for them in some way: their secretaries, assistants, nannies, caterers, flight attendants, researchers and fact-checkers.

Women in staff support are the new sirens because, as a guy I know put it, they look upon the men they work for as "the moon, the sun and the stars." It's all about orbiting, serving and salaaming their Sun Gods.

In all those great Tracy/Hepburn movies more than a half-century ago, it was the snap and crackle of a romance between equals that was so exciting. Moviemakers these days seem far more interested in the soothing aura of romances between unequals.

In James Brooks's "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, as a Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid. The maid, who cleans up after Mr. Sandler without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman. The wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm. Picture Faye Dunaway in "Network" if she'd had to stay home, or Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" without the charm.

The same attraction of unequals animated Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," a 2003 holiday hit. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson falls for his sultry secretary. A writer falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.

(I wonder if the trend in making maids who don't speak English heroines is related to the trend of guys who like to watch Kelly Ripa in the morning with the sound turned off?)

Art is imitating life, turning women who seek equality into selfish narcissists and objects of rejection, rather than affection.

As John Schwartz of The New York Times wrote recently, "Men would rather marry their secretaries than their bosses, and evolution may be to blame."

A new study by psychology researchers at the University of Michigan, using college undergraduates, suggests that men going for long-term relationships would rather marry women in subordinate jobs than women who are supervisors.

As Dr. Stephanie Brown, the lead author of the study, summed it up for reporters: "Powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less-accomplished women." Men think that women with important jobs are more likely to cheat on them.

"The hypothesis," Dr. Brown said, "is that there are evolutionary pressures on males to take steps to minimize the risk of raising offspring that are not their own." Women, by contrast, did not show a marked difference in their attraction to men who might work above or below them. And men did not show a preference when it came to one-night stands.

A second study, which was by researchers at four British universities and reported last week, suggested that smart men with demanding jobs would rather have old-fashioned wives, like their mums, than equals. The study found that a high I.Q. hampers a woman's chance to get married, while it is a plus for men. The prospect for marriage increased by 35 percent for guys for each 16-point increase in I.Q.; for women, there is a 40 percent drop for each 16-point rise.

So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax? The more women achieve, the less desirable they are? Women want to be in a relationship with guys they can seriously talk to - unfortunately, a lot of those guys want to be in relationships with women they don't have to talk to.

I asked the actress and writer Carrie Fisher, on the East Coast to promote her novel "The Best Awful," who confirmed that women who challenge men are in trouble.

"I haven't dated in 12 million years," she said drily. "I gave up on dating powerful men because they wanted to date women in the service professions. So I decided to date guys in the service professions. But then I found out that kings want to be treated like kings, and consorts want to be treated like kings, too."
angrezi - Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:54:48 +0530
QUOTE
Jessica's article is fascinating because she interviews ten women who have actually slept with their gurus (each of whom was officially celibate) and she herself had such an encounter with her spiritual teacher, a Zen master from Korea
This would make for a great American-style racey 'Reality-TV' show: Ten cute chelas all competing and conniving for guru-ji's auspicious glance and a chance to win a brand-new Ferrari!

laugh.gif

(forgive me for dropping this thread to a lower level, I couldn't resist)
Jagat - Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:28:44 +0530
How about, "Haridas Reality show." Ten cute chicks compete to see who can make a committed lifetime celibate sannyasi "fall down"? Winner gets a blessing?
babu - Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:49:32 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 16 2005, 11:58 PM)
How about, "Haridas Reality show." Ten cute chicks compete to see who can make a committed lifetime celibate sannyasi "fall down"? Winner gets a blessing?



I was gonna post the same thing and I had it all typed up and then I thought it was in poor taste. How little I know.
Anand - Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:50:27 +0530
QUOTE(babu @ Jan 17 2005, 01:19 AM)
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 16 2005, 11:58 PM)
How about, "Haridas Reality show." Ten cute chicks compete to see who can make a committed lifetime celibate sannyasi "fall down"? Winner gets a blessing?



I was gonna post the same thing and I had it all typed up and then I thought it was in poor taste. How little I know.



It is in bad taste. The old "men" thing. Insensitive and demeaning to women.
Tapati - Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:59:06 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ Jan 16 2005, 06:58 PM)
How about, "Haridas Reality show." Ten cute chicks compete to see who can make a committed lifetime celibate sannyasi "fall down"? Winner gets a blessing?




The surprise twist at the end: the sannyasi is homosexual and ends up running off with the show's host instead!