His Holiness Bhaktividyā Pūrṇa Svāmī Mahārāja: Why is which?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Okay. See, because you are dealing with... The dīkṣā-guru is a formal relationship. śikṣā is... doesn't have that formality. So since the feminine nature, you are dealing with the sense of possession, then it fits with śikṣā-guru but not with dīkṣā-guru. Because even though one would think it’s the other way, the problem is is, because of the sense of possession, then you expect them to do everything how you say based on your emotions, not based on your instruction. You know what I’m saying? The mother may be giving good instruction or not, or know what instruction to give or not, but she expects her child to behave in a particular way because they are her child. Do you understand? So you can’t have that in a dīkṣā relationship. The point is is it’s based on śikṣā. But it's formalized that that instruction has to be followed. But what’s happening here, it’s not about the instruction. One could say, 'No, it’s about the instruction.' No, but then it’s about them following the instruction. Do you understand? So that feminine aspect will come into it and it’s just not supposed to be there. Because then it turns something spiritual into this just whole emotional thing and the control and, you know, care and... You know what I am saying? So that's the whole thing. So that can be applied onto the husband, onto the family members, onto the children. You know, onto your house, onto your community... But you can't do that on the spiritual platform. So that's why then women don't become dīkṣā-gurus. That’s the basic reason.

You know, I mean, then there's so many details behind that. Just the strength required to do it. And a women who, only who's protected can really do that, you know. So the point is is, women gets the strength when she is in a protected environment, she becomes very strong, very powerful, outgoing and that. If that's lacking, she becomes weak. So when she becomes weak, to protect herself she becomes nasty. So then if you combine that with the need that her identity is based on that and if you don't follow what she says, you doubt it, then it puts into question her position, her existence, her identity as the dīkṣā-guru. And so that’s going to create so much mental turmoil and it will be about her. So that's the whole point.

While as a dīkṣā-guru, it's about what works for the disciple. But if the woman is the guru, because of the sense of possession, it's always about her. So its just opposite, it's just incompatible. Now as a śikṣā-guru, it can work. Why is that? Because the śikṣā doesn’t have that sense of possession. So they follow or not follow, it’s one of those, they follow, you have a good relation, you don't follow, then ‘Hey, what to do?’ You know, it's like the grandparents, they tell you something good, they will always tell you good advice. Right? And you take it, great! If you don't, its kind-of like, ‘Hey, it’s my child’s problem, not my problem’. Right? Because they are the child of their child. So if they are going off in the wrong direction, that’s their child’s business to take care of. They are just trying to help. So that’s why then the śikṣā position is the strongest.

So the difficulty is is, in the contemporary environment is, due to the neophyte mentality, there isn’t a proper respect for śikṣā-guru. Because to have respect for śikṣā-guru, means you have to have respect for the principle of authority and that knowledge is the highest. Does that make sense? But in an environment where authority issues is basically kind-of standard and accepted as 'that's normal,' and if you accept authority, 'there is something wrong with you, or you are sentimental.' Right? And then on top of that, when you add into it the contemporary social values from the platform of prāṇa-maya, you know, from artha, that these things are of importance, then you can see is, then that undermines the whole position of what śikṣā-guru represents and what needs to be there. So, neophyte mentality especially when it has the aspect of the modern contemporary prāṇa-maya values, then you can't establish śikṣā-gurus. So only dīkṣā, because then there is, seemingly dīkṣā is like... You know, then it's like, there is a ritual. So there is that formal, external relationship. Because śikṣā-guru is based not on external, its based on the more subtle. It's on the knowledge, on the metaphysical. Right? But the dīkṣā then the neophyte takes it that it's based on the external. You know, just like you have any kind of ritual, there is a connection there by the external. When you have a marriage, you are connecting the external. Right? You are not connecting the souls. They are just agreeing to work together. It's the external you are connecting.

So then that, one, makes it strong for the neophyte, but, two, makes it weak for them to go beyond that and understand the position of śikṣā-guru. Because if śikṣā-guru is respected, that means all senior Vaishnavas, and especially those who are more close, who are giving instructions would be on that same platform like the dīkṣā-guru. Right? Then you wouldn't have a need for trying to bring out this thing based on social values. It's not based on spiritual values. No one should fool themselves on this. It's based purely on social values, modern social values, that the women should be dīkṣā-gurus. You know what I'm saying?

The point is is right here Prabhupāda is saying, he says according to sashtra. So that's just the way it is. You know what I am saying? But dīkṣā-guru is the highest in the formal, but that's within Pancharatra. But higher than Pancharatra is Bhagavata. Bhagavata just functions on śikṣā. You understand? So that's the whole thing, we have... We turn everything upside down due to mode of ignorance. So actually someone being a śikṣā-guru based on the Bhagavata principle is technically a higher position, but by formality then they are not, right? In the formal environment they are not. So you have to be able to balance these things. And balance is not one of the fortes of contemporary society. It just doesn't know how, because it doesn't know what the elements are. Because to balance you have to know what your hands are, and you have to know what those funny little balls, or whatever it is that you are juggling, you have to know the rhythm, you have to know all those different things, and it's... You know what I'm saying? So, you have to know, but the problem is is, you can’t even define these things. So then how do you get people… People don’t even know what is a dīkṣā and śikṣā-guru and how it fits in the formula and what it means, what are the technical points of initiation? What’s the masculine principle, feminine principle, Bhagavata, Pañcarātrika, Vedic? How are their relationships? All those things. If you can define that then you can discuss balance.

But what we are dealing with is it’s thrown out of balance because you are taking a modern social phenomena and trying to make that as a spiritual... How do you say? Vanguard. What it actually is not. It’s just a social… You know, it’s a social issue so that people have enough bile to digest lunch, you know, that's basically what its benefit is. You know what I am saying? So that's the thing is that the dīkṣā-guru is just not recommended. You could say, 'No, but there is some examples and lines in history,' but who cares if Prabhupāda says it's not and he says it according to the sastra? Who cares? Because if I say... Let's say there is another modern issue that I have examples from history, right? And if it goes against that modern principle, then what will be the point? 'Well, Prabhupāda doesn't talk about it, so we don't accept it.' But if Prabhupāda does talk about it and you find an example to oppose it and it supports the modern, then it's something to discuss. So this is politics. This is not philosophy, this is not spiritual. It's just downright... You could say, 'Equal opportunities,' and that, but what does this mean? You know what I am saying?

That's the difficulty is that these aren't defined and if you try to push an issue, then you just get emotional blow-ups, which is how woman deals with these things, right? In other words, if a woman wants something, but she knows it's logically wrong, as soon as you start to logically approach it, then she immediately just becomes angry and stops talking and stuff like that, that's the natural defense. You know, cry, this and that, she just brings it back to her, so then you have to drop it, 'Oh, oh, oh, no, no...' [Laughter] Like that. That's just the way it works. And so, and we are going to accept that that's how are we going to deal with such an important philosophical point? That śāstra doesn't... That's why śāstra doesn't support it. It's very simple, it's very straightforward, you know. And people may say this and that and 'we are not this body,' and so many things, and, yes, we are not the body, but the problem is is, the body is the body. We have to understand that. Yes, I am not the body, but the body is the body and it has a nature, and it functions according to that nature. No ifs, no ands and no buts. That's like 'The car is sitting there and it's a car, but when I get in it, I am the soul, I am separate from the car, now the car can do anything.' How does that work? 'It's only a car if I am not in the car, but when I get in the car now it can be anything. The sky is the limit,' you know. What do you mean? It's still a car. So whether there is a soul in the body or a soul not in the body, whether the soul is identified with the body, the soul is not identified with the body, the body is still the body, it's just straightforward logical facts.

And so it's not about that there is a problem here, it's a... Point is, why put women into a position that's unfavorable for them as women? Because say what you want, that sense of possession is going to come up. It doesn't matter who says or what says. And if you say... Because the śāstra says, if one is liberated then you could do such a thing. But liberated woman, as pointed out by Viśvanātha, not in that context, but he is saying about Varṇāśrama and about how the devotee in the stages of kanishtha and madhyama engages his conditioning in Kṛṣṇa's service. But then when he gets to the uttama platform, he technically doesn't have to, but he still will because what reason is there for not to? Right? It's not a matter of prestige. Arjuna being a liberated soul, an eternal associate of the Lord, is not worried, "Oh, brahmana is better.' You know, that's for Viśvāmitra. Right? He does that. It's not for the devotees. So when they get to the uttama platform, they don't have to, but they do, to set example. So therefore it still doesn't change.

So that's the whole point is this system is there because that's how Kṛṣṇa likes it. You know, that's how Kṛṣṇa likes the culture to work, because then that particular closeness and everything can be there, and that closeness is specific. Because if that attachment goes everywhere, what's the specialty? Because that attachment is focused, that has meaning. So this thing where you put the woman out on the street and her attachment goes out to all and her sense of possession goes out to all, what's special about that? And two, what it is that you are getting that that sense of possession has a meaning? Because the sense of possession is, means, is as much control as you can get. So then what is it that the woman is doing to deserve that? Do you understand? These things go both ways, we generally don't talk this way, because men take advantage of it. But the point is is just like if the man is really not putting out and putting in his effort, why does he deserve that reciprocation of the woman, what is he doing to actually... That she is impressed that his commitment to the relationship is strong enough to warrant that kind of surrender and kind-of service and interaction that she makes the effort to smile? You know what I am saying? Does that make sense?

So the same way it goes the other way, that sense of possession, that the woman can feel it's her right to have that sense of possession, what is she doing for someone else that it's there? She can say, 'I am the dīkṣā-guru,' but it's going to go for more than dīkṣā-guru. Everybody is going to feel the brunt of it, the temple president especially, because it's her disciples that are in the temple and things have to go the way she wants, because she is the guru. It's like the zonal acharyas of the 1980s are kids stuff compared to a woman being a guru because the others don’t pull on an emotional trip. They don't feel… They may get emotional but as soon as you point it out, ‘Yeah, yeah, right.’ But you try doing that on a woman, it is not going to happen. So therefore it’s only going to create havoc.

And the point is is, if you do have an exception, which means, on the liberated platform, it’s an exception. And that exception, as Viśvanātha points out, proves the rule. We take it, exception breaks the rule. That's the difference between the Vedic and the modern. The modern, if you have an exception, it breaks the rule. The Vedic, you have an exception it proves the rule because there is only this exception. So that shows, the rule stands and the exception is an exception. So, therefore the principle of exception means, there is only an exception. You can’t make a general rule - 'Women can be gurus.' That's against the rules. It's against Kṛṣṇa, it’s against the śāstras, against what Prabhupāda teaches. And to make it, it's against women because you can imagine, okay, how much trouble the men are going to get for this woman guru? Now imagine what the women are going to have to go through! That’s going to be… You are going to see riots.

And then, now what’s that woman guru is going to feel when there is a temple where the community doesn’t want her to come? And she’s got this, ‘I was a this and that’. What’s going to happen? You just tell her that she can’t do something she wants to do as an ordinary thing and there is a total meltdown. Let alone something that is seen on this 'You are on the highest position, you are the...' And you can’t do something. This is going to, this is going to be devastating. And then where is that…  Because it's a social issue here. I've said from the beginning. It's social from beginning to end. There is nothing spiritual about it. If it is about spiritual and preaching you do that as a śikṣā-guru. You know what I am saying? So therefore then where is the social support for such a 'guru'? Where is that support? Who is giving it? You know, where is that... Where are these ideal husbands? Where are the ideal families and communities that are going to support a woman on this great of a meltdown? It is hard enough to find someone to support her on just day to day little issues. You know, you came out and somebody moved your shoes and you freaked out. Let alone, like this: someone removed your disciples or doesn’t want you coming to the temple, doesn’t want you dealing with disciples.

They do that to the men gurus. There are men gurus who are not allowed to go to certain zones because the administrators don’t appreciate how they deal. And they’ve had meltdowns. And those are men. And those are tough men. I’m not talking about weak men. I’m talking about tough men. And so now what’s going to happen to woman? Because her whole sense of ownership has been questioned. And that is the point of strength of a woman. She has that sense of ownership. That’s why you have to tell her that you love her a million times, right? But she is not going to tell the man that because he has to... He should be able to figure that out. But he has to say. So then everybody is going to have to be constantly telling her how great she is? So, I mean, whose business is that? That's a husband’s business. That is a family’s business, father’s business, son’s business, you know, close friend’s, well-wisher’s business. This is not everybody's general business because dīkṣā-guru is a formal position. So it's a formal relationship. So that formality doesn’t warrant this.

So it's a total lack of understanding of the masculine and feminine principles which is shown in the 3rd Canto. And everybody is here talking like Caitanya Caritāmṛta or something. This is the 3rd Canto, and the social issues and how Varṇāśrama... Can't even figure out Varṇāśrama. So if you can’t figure out Varṇāśrama, position of women in Varṇāśrama is a detail. So how are we going to know that? How communities work, how all these things are, it means all these things are… If all those are in place, then you can discuss it. You know what I am saying? Discuss it means we can discuss it pleasantly. This other, this kind of thing, you know... We've been talking now for 5 years, so this goes smoothly. But if you put this into a general environment you've got fireworks after the first two words.

So therefore that's why it's brought up and Prabhupāda has put it here in writing, right in the Bhagavatam, made it very clear. So it's not our ... Our business is, why is this, how does it work? Not, 'Oh, this is this, that...' Prabhupāda is on the bodily platform or what? Prabhupāda is a smarta? Prabhupāda doesn't know how to see things according to time, place and circumstance? That's why we have temples instead of mathas. Prabhupāda started with mathas, but because Jadurani was very serious about Kṛṣṇa consciousness, then he made temples. Because temples, then you can have women and gṛhasthas involved. Mathas, it's only brahmacārīs and sannyāsīs. Like Gaudiya Matha means that the only ones that can live there are the brahmacārīs and sannyāsīs. gṛhasthas are not in any way, shape or form taken care of by the temple or given facility by the temple. They can come and do service, but they don't give a place to stay and this and that. I kind-of get the idea that the matha manager which generally is a gṛhastha, he may get some kind of facility from the temple, but that's the matha manager, and that's it. It's not a place... So Prabhupāda made temples, that's already accommodating women. And the principle of how to preach and everything in the community was given by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, the Namahatta principle, like that. So Prabhupāda is already accommodating. But he has accommodated according to the nature.

So one has to know what feature... Through something that's informal, that's where the interaction with women is at its best and women are the most comfortable. The formal environments are not the place where the women are the most comfortable. You know what I am saying? Because they can only be comfortable if they are the top of the pile. You have the big formal event, and they are the Number One Lady there who is pulling off the event or something, then she can walk around as if she owns the place, and everybody has got to be nice to her. It works in that, so therefore socially it works, so socially it could work as woman as dīkṣā-guru and that she'll feel great. But how does all the other women and everybody else in that party feel about her? They don't necessarily like. A few do, but a lot of them just think, "Who is this lady?" So is that what we want to establish in our society? Does that make sense? So that's why it's said here.

And that's just the generic. Now, to finish your question, now add on that that she is his mother, then that sense of possession is total and absolute. Husband is yours, but technically you can get rid of him, right? But the child is yours... You know what I am saying? If there is a divorce, it's still your child. You stay married, it's your child, you get a divorce, it's your child. So where the sense of possession is stronger? With the child. Does that make sense? So now, you add that on top of it, compound it another 10 or a 100 times. Now you are talking about insanity. So that's why it's not allowed, that's all, it's a simple thing. That does not, that in no way, shape or form supports that men deal in the external and deal with women improperly and in an uncultured way and don't give the proper facilities and shelter, that's 100% bogus and basically you can say the men in the society have failed in this capacity. Individuals, not, but as a generic in society, the men, the administrations, the management, they have all failed. You know, there is individuals who understand and they do a good job. But as a generic understanding, no. So that has to change. Because this other one is not a solution, just like the man would deal nastily with the ladies and they would be calling them 'Mātājī,' while they are saying that with a cringe on their lip. So now, if the men say 'Prabhu' instead of 'Mātājī', now it solves the whole problem? You know, how does that work? You can say 'Prabhu' with a cringe on your lip also, plus you have the "bhu", so you can spit at the same time [Laughter], while 'Mātājī' there is no chance to spit, you have to wait till you are... you know what I am saying?

So that's the whole problem is is, external problems, it's not that external adjustments are going to make it all right, that's neophyte, that's childish. Only principle understand... The reason that these details go bad is because the principles aren't as good. So it's not that Varṇāśrama is giving a problem, no, who understands Varṇāśrama? One or two. But the problems of the Varṇāśrama are because people don't understand them, that's why it doesn't go away. Does this make sense? Is that okay? Something adds, some adjustments? No? Is that... Is this okay?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Yes.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Right.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Right.

HH BVPS Mahārāja: In general... Because they can function in that neutral state. The feminine nature because of its being Śakti has to be dependent from Śaktimān, it has to be dependent. Men could be independent or not. Therefore the more the man is attached, the less he is qualified. Does that make sense? So just like if sannyāsīs were gurus, you wouldn't even think about it, or brahmacārīs are gurus, as long as they've been around a while and kind-of are senior, okay, cool. But if a gṛhastha was a guru, you'd think about it. You'd think about, 'Okay, what's his relationship?' and you'd watch how he deals with everybody, his wife and this and that. And if you felt it was good and comfortable, then you would say, 'Okay, he is okay as a guru.' It's just like in the opposite. In the opposite, brahmacārīs and sannyāsīs are taken automatically that they really don't know what to do socially, and gṛhasthas automatically are taken that socially they know what to do. Then it's a matter of individual, okay, there is a gṛhastha that might not be so good socially, there may be a brahmacārī or sannyāsī who does okay socially. So that's the thing is that these mentalities are already established by the Lord, they are given in śāstra, the modes of nature carry them out. So therefore it's not that the man... If a man is attached like that, he shouldn't be a guru. Because accordingly, from the previous thing, if the woman is considered bad association, but worse is the man who is attached to a women. So then that means a woman guru would be bad, and a man who is attached to women as a guru would be the worst. So therefore then you have to just see that the standard of pure devotional service in all these things to judge this.

So the point is, the śikṣā-guru then doesn't have the formality, so then talking in various kind-of natural settings, environments, creating those, then that works very nicely. Like ladies that I know of that I would consider are on the level of guru - then they do their duties very nicely as śikṣā-gurus. They arrange environments in which they can give instruction, but in the way that matches their feminine nature. And it's not that they're sitting in the, you know, out of the way - they do big programs and everything, but they do programs on their own terms. It's they are doing a program, whoever wants to be there comes. Does that make sense? While if you have a formal thing, like...How you say? The woman is giving a seminar, it's not official, so then who goes? Those who want to be there. So then the reciprocation with everybody is very nice. Right? You have an official temple class, then everybody is supposed to be there. Now whether they like you speaking or not that's another thing. You know what I am saying? So that's not going to be very inspiring to the woman, because the energy may be very low. But if it's a program that it's her program, and you're coming to it voluntarily, then it's going to be high energy, and so it's going to match very nicely. Because the point is is, the feminine nature is glorious because of the amount of energy it produces. And so, that can only be produced if the environment is proper. You know what I'm saying? The man is neutral, so whether it's nice or not nice, it goes up a little bit or down a little bit; but for the woman it's nice it goes up incredibly, if it's bad - it goes down incredibly. So it's not going to work nicely. So that's the whole point, is understanding where each nature has its strength and then everybody is placed in that position. You know, it works really nice. Does that make sense?

So that's why I said... So it's no that... That's the whole point is... What I'm mentioning is that our women who are functioning on the platform of śikṣā-guru, they have been like that for 10-20 years, maybe even more, just I've been noticed since then. And people come to them, they take advice and that, but they won't be seen or respected as senior persons necessarily, except for those who accept them. So that's the weakness in the society, is that such senior women are not respected as being senior. You know what I am saying? So individuals who know them, yes, but outside that, no. So then what's the... Like, just for an example, take Yamuna. Right? She'd go down to the kitchen, teach cooking, sit down, talk stories about Prabhupāda, that environment then who wouldn't accept her as śikṣā-guru? Right? But to come out of that into the formalized environment of dīkṣā-guru - that's going to be against the nature. How does she express all these things? What medium do you use? You know what I am saying?

So that's the problem, so even though it may... You can say, 'No, but the woman can work in the men's environment,' no, they don't. They just change the men's environment into a woman's environment, that's all. The workplace, it's a man's place. If the woman ran it, it's her place. The man runs it, it's his place of work. The woman runs it, it's her place. It's different. The man is the boss, you simply have to do what you are supposed to do and basically just respect that he is the boss, that's all. There can be zero emotional input or anything like that, no need of sensitivity, just get the work done and don't be cracks. But the woman, there is the need of being able to relate to her, interact with her properly. Today she is enthusiastic, you deal that way, she is not enthusiastic, you have to deal in another way. So the man boss is always the same. So when women come into 'men's world' it doesn't remain the men's world, they just make it into women's world. And then men have to adjust to work into women's world just like they do at home. And so for men, that's a problem, because they look at things mechanically in the work environment and just want to mechanically make it work. And by doing this, even you say, 'Well, the men need some of this,' but it hasn't improved the nature of the men at all, other than making them more weak. They are already weak, they become more weak, so they become more self-centered. So they are like... Now, you know... Before maybe you get the guy up to a teenager, early twenties, a good one. Now you have 8-year olds or 6-year olds, because they are just so weak. Does that make sense?

So that's the whole point. Women are more powerful. Because of them being more powerful the environment has to be more ideal, suited and controlled to accommodate greater power. If I have something that's not powerful - does it matter? Let's say, okay, I have this rock. Okay? Does it matter where I put it down or anything? No. What if I have a one-liter bottle of nitroglycerin? I have to be careful where I put it. I can't just put it down anywhere. What if I put it next to a window, so it gets a nice, pleasant early morning sun? Right?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Yeah, you might not have a window, yeah. Unfortunately, it was a bay window, so it kind-of went more out, like that. Do you understand? But it's just like, can I shake it? Can I ...? Do you understand? The rock, I can do anything. So that's the thing, the more power, the more you have to be careful. Right? Okay, let's say, I have a cheapo plastic swatch. Do I have to worry about it much? No. What happens if I have something very expensive? Leave it around, drop it, scratch it...  Do you understand? So that's the whole thing, it's taken that, 'Oh, we are down on women,' but no, it's actually the opposite, it's that because of the value they have to be dealt with in a different way. But unscrupulous men who don't understand the culture, but they've been raised by women who don't understand the culture either, who are so-called taken care of, but not really taken care of by men who don't know what's going on, and so in this way the line is generated, then no one knows what to do, so they take advantage. It's just like this. Let us just give some example here, it may be a stretch, but I am trying to find something, because in the modern there is hardly any example. Let us say, like you have the boy in the family, and he is at home, he is always at home, so then naturally the mother takes care, whatever he wants, it's all about the kid, right? So as he grows up, if he maintains that mentality, it's not going to be appreciated by his mother, his sister, his grandparents, so why would it be appreciated by a wife? You know what I am saying? Why would a woman want to marry, basically, a man who is, has got the emotional mentality of an 8-year old? You know, at the same time is expecting benefits? Do you understand? At least the kid with the mother, that part is out of it. So it's just, you know, wants something to eat or doesn't want to wash his clothes or pick up his room, she should do it. You know what I am saying? So then it just gets worse.

So that's the problem, it's not about the Vedic, it's not about this and that, it's about the men being untrained. Now, let's say, the man is trained, you know, like, let's say, he has to work hard... No, that may not work... Let's say he goes to the army. He comes back, he is respectful, he has learned to respect, so he comes back, he is respectful to his mother. So now, that missing of the son was not ideal for the mother, but what she gets back is way better. Do you understand? So now that kind of person now can actually have the responsibility to deal in a responsible way with the woman to see that the environment is nicely taken care of. Does that make sense? So that's what we are talking about, is without training then none of this works. But the solution to lack of training is not out of the frying pan into the fire. That doesn't get any better. Did that example make sense? Is that okay? Yes? Does that work?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Now we move back?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: She is not to be an authority in any position?

HH BVPS Mahārāja: In formal? No. I mean other than she is, on formal occasions she is the mother. You have that mix of intimacy and formality, you know. So yeah, that's the strongest position, you can say, is woman as mother. But otherwise as daughter, as sister, as... Like this, all, because there is a sense of  relationship that's... When the sense of relationship is there, that's when the woman is the strongest. You know what I am saying? It's a miss... I mean it's interesting when you have a woman who is always inspired, always doing everything, always it's perfectly done. But you can say whatever you want, okay, take, what is it? Our tour-aid lady, okay? But does she not have money, does she not have a fancy house with grounds that you can't even see where the end is? Does she not have a committed, dedicated butler that is going to take care of any time, place and circumstance? Right? Do you understand? So that's the whole thing, it's there.

So the consistency... It's just like you have an action film. Do we see the main people eating? Generally not. They are going to sit down and sit there and a whole like 20 minutes goes on the meal? No. Maybe they, who knows, they grab a bite, they are eating out of a can somewhere, under a tree or something. Then sleeping? No, okay. Defending, yes, because that's what the whole movie is about, and depending upon what they want their ratings, then there may be some mating. But that's just for interest's sake, it has nothing to do with the good triumphing over evil, or anything like that. So they don't get involved in these, so these kind-of things... What about going to the toilet? Definitely you don't have that one, right? So then? Tying their shoelaces? What about cleaning up after they did something, or...? Do you understand? No, it's just, everything is just all happening, because it's all that... So in the same way that's all they do is take those moments when the woman is in good form and that's what you see on the screen. But how much these action packed women behind the scene are not doing well? You  know what I am saying? So that's the thing, it gives the illusion that 'no, no,' they are cool, they are always on top of it... No, they are only on top of things if the environment is right. Because as we said, it's just like this: is fire powerful? Okay. But is any situation going to make fire happy? No, you have to have just the right situation. What if the... What if what's flammable is wet? What if there is a heavy wind blowing? But once it gets to a certain level, it doesn't matter what's going on. So that's the whole thing is, you have to create the right environment that the energy can be shown, then the women are powerful.

So that's the whole thing is... And we may complain that, 'No, no this is..' But why would we complain unless we have the sense that 'I am independent from God, I am God.' So, in other words, it's not glorious. Just like if a man who is generally situated 'I am the controller,' if he says, 'I am the controller,' it's annoying but okay. But if he is 'I am the enjoyer,' those kind-of men are really annoying. Right? Does that make sense? So why would it be any different that the woman is the enjoyer, no one is going to complain. But now she is the controller? Now, that everybody gets upset. You know what I am saying? So somehow or another it's glorious that the women take on the masculine mentality of 'I am the controller' rather than 'I am the enjoyer'? And then somehow or another it makes it better, it becomes spiritual? That's the whole thing, it's prāṇa-maya by the untrained is considered spiritual. You go out into the forest, you just feel, just nature and the power of nature, and you have that 'spiritual' experience. No, you just figured out that there is energy out there, that's prāṇa. So that prāṇa-maya is taken as 'Oh, wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody just cooperated together?' And we take that as spiritual, that's prāṇa-maya. Necessary, but prāṇa-maya. Does that...? Works? Okay? Yes? Everybody happy and satisfied? Very good. It was a quote from Cabaret. [Laughter] Okay.

I was wondering... When was it? On Tuesday when we read through it and it just went by and no question, I thought 'Oh, wow, okay...'

HH BVPS Mahārāja: It was too hot, okay... [Laughter] Okay, that makes sense. Now in the cool of the morning.. Whoo...

HH BVPS Mahārāja: Yeah, yeah... No, it's good it came up here, because it's more... Does that make sense? It's very scientific, means, everything is scientific, so you just have to look at that. Then you apply... The whole point is is, the Vedic is you apply emotions within the scientific field. That way you get benefit of the structure and the feelings, while if you do it the other way, you apply intelligence within the realm of emotion, you just use your intelligence how to express the emotion, and then it can break all rules. So that's why in the Vedas it says, first you have to learn the science, then you learn the art, because then you will balance it.