I accept this as the essence. Her response was to further argue for her understanding, not by resorting to articulating the philosophy, but by discrediting my view by showing how my experience in marriage, which she knows virtually nothing about, but somehow assumes that I was looking for love via the marriage experience, probably because she sought love through the marriage experience. I don t know. And the funny thing is that from dealing with devotees, I think a good number, both men and women, will find much substance in her argument. Thus I bring it out here hoping that those who may have some inclination to agree with her notions would now have reason to reconsider.
Women do it differently.
We feel it and are actually vessels to receive it from the male, the whole physical design is like that. I think this is more proper. We are here in our roles as women to facilitate them being able to also feel love by serving us. She did not mention Prabhupada, as being male oriented, although I definitely equated his definition with that of these students of human nature. By logical extension, one wonders where she fit s Prabhupada in this discussion, for he said many times that love is service.