Personal Response Regarding Articles About So-Called Conspiracy

[Guest guest]

[Please post this as an article on VNN]

 

Response Re:So-Called Conspiracy Against The Women's Ministry

 

To The Greater Vaishnav Community:

PAMHO AGTSP

 

And special thanks to Ardhabuddhi das, whom I do not know, but who took the

issue to the public forum. Actually, on the conference in question

devotees had been planning and were ready to take the issue public soon

anyway. It appears, however, that othes felt by beating us to it and

airing our private discussions that it would some how work aganst us, but I

am relieved that it is now an open public issue. I never liked the idea

of any Private Forums anyway. That is why I kept away from COM for so

long. There should be no private forums - but there are so many secret and

private forums going on. The GBC have several, sannyasis have several, the

devotees on our forum are by far not the only devotees to have done so.

Personally I am pposed to private discussions by the GBC and our ISKCON

leaders. We are Vaishnav's, we should have no closed door private meetings.

 

Back in the mid 70's in LA I recall the temple authorities holding some

closed door meetings. The majority of the devotees were held in the dark

as to what was the purpose and nature of those meetings. A letter was sent

to SP complaining and I recall he sent a letter, but I have not been able

to find it on the BBT Folio CD. From memory I recall that Srila Prabhupad

stated that there should be no closed door meetings amoung the leaders.

Although i could not find that letter, I did find this one:

"why you should be whimsically discharged? Only the GBC man shall be able

to make these changes, not any so-called secret meeting of devotees. Why

they have misunderstood these things? If they have objection they must

lodge it with their GBC, and differences must be discussed openly amongst

ourselves, not secret meetings. We are Vaisnava devotees, not politicians.

So these things must be stopped, plotting."

 

Letter to Nityananda Nov 25, 72

 

So, yes, I am relieved that our issue is now made public and we are now

able to discuss this on a public forum. I have had my own public WEB page

for years, I have never been secret about my position on these matters.

So, let us discuss the actual issues, not mud sling. Since the GHQ

conference was a 'private' discussion group, some devotees used language

and spoke about others in a 'loose' way they would never have done in

public. I have also observed that computers and the internet tend to bring

out the impersonal side of many of us Here I am, not speaking to another

Vaishnav, but clicking keys on some non-personal machine - whose only feed

back is the tactile keyboard and a glaring monitor. So, combine the

non-personalism of the internet with a 'private' discussion group and you

may find devotees making a lot of statements they would never have made in

public. Some of the statements made, or their mood and demeaner, at times

on GHQ were also not to my liking, but, I will publically stand behind

everything I have said, privately and publically.

 

Also it was pointed out Shyamasundar's use of military battle mood and

words. This came about because of a post by a mataji on a woman's

conference who referred to herself as a private and the other mataji as the

general who was leading their efforts. Shyamasundar develope his

militaryese in response to that.

 

Enough with all that, lets get to the issue at hand: What was the purpose

of a group of devotees forming the GHQ? I am not the spokesperson. I

only represent my own opinions, and I try as best I can to be a faithful

servant and respresentative of my guru maharaj, Srila Prabhupad, so my

response is not a formal one. I partook in the discussions because I am

personally and philosophically opposed to a number of things I see our

ISKCON society oing. I see that we are often taking the wrong path, but

labeling it KC, and therefore bonafied.

 

For instance, on the DMW (ex-DOW) conference we discuss the social duties

of men and women. Especially the duties of husband and wife. But, also,

the qualifications of leadership qualities. All of these things are

interrelated and I am very concerned about them, from the perspective of

guru-sadhu-shastra. From the perspective of wanting to assist my guru,

Srila Prabhupad, in establishing Varnashram-Dharma. My personal

realization is that Dharma is the foundation for a functional varna and

ashram system. Dharma - meaning the laws of dharma, the laws of social

relationships and duties, forms the ethical and moral principles by which

society and varnas and ashrams function. Thus, in our discussions we

raised the issue of what are the qualifications for those who are in

socially responsible positioins in ISKCON.

 

 

Many years ago (the late 80's) I personally wrote a letter and sent to all

the GBC requesting that the GBC pass resolutions on this. At that time I

was concerned about the large number of broken marriages, divorces - and

then the equally high number of RE-marriages in ISKCON. Back in 1974

Srila Prabhupad instructed us in the basic principles of what is

Varnashram-Dharma and he ordered us at that time, 25 years ago, to

introduce and establish the system of Varnaashram-Dharma in ALL of his

centers IMMEDIATELY. 25 years later is there one single temple that has

done so? But, it has always been a major personal concern of mine. So,

over the years I have studied this idea, what actually is

Varnashram-Dharma. As I said, my conclusion is that Dharma is actually the

foundation. The principles of religiousity, or Duty, the principles of

Vedic social laws. Srila Prabhupad has several times used the terms

Varnshram-Dharma and Sanatan-Dharma interchangeably. And he has referred

to the Manu Samhita as the laws of both Sanatan Dharma and

Varnashram-Dharma.

 

So, 10 years ago I wrote a letter to the GBC, and on our Dharma conference

we also discussed, about the qualities of leadership roles in our society.

My long standing personal realization has been that divorce and remarriage

are very, very socially disruptive and socially degrading. I have come to

call divorce and/or remarriage of a woman Child Abuse. And modern

statistics support this fact 100%. It is the children who suffer most in a

divorce, and in remarriage. Children often become unwanted when a mother

remarries and her new husband wants his own children. It also produces a

very bad psychological situation for the children. The mother will

obviously put full blame for a divorce on her fallen husband. To justify

her leaving her husband she will repeatedly tell her children how

disgusting and fallen her husband was. But, that husband she vilifies is

also the father of these same children. A child, any child, all children,

they naturally look up to their father and see him a their ultimate

authority in life. Men have the deeper voice, the more forceful

authorative demeaner, and small children naturally see father as their

ultimate authority in their early years. But, to constantly hear how

disgusting he is, how wretched he is, all of this puts such children in a

very precarious psychological disadvantage. The result is often a total

lack of respect for authority, for society, for even themselves. And

modern university research has provided us with the statistics to back this

up.

 

 

But, many women, in side or out side of ISKCON, will rightfully complain

that to raise a child without a father is very difficult. Therefore many

divorced mothers will argue that for the sake of their children they must

remarry. However, all of this, divorce and remarriage, is fully condemned

by the Vedas and by Srila Prabhupad. Prabhupad has said several times that

there simply is no such thing as divorce. In the laws of Dharma, in the

eyes of Shastra and the eyes of Krsna there simply is no such thing as

divorce. A woman who leaves one man and sleeps with another - both

Prabhupad and the Vedas describe this as prostitution. It is strong

language, but it is the Vedic Truth. And for a mother to remarry, this

Srila Prabhupad has many, many times quoted Chanakya Pandit (who bases his

teachings on Manu Samhita) that such women become the worse enemy of their

own children. But, so many women, they will claim that they are only

remarrying for the sake of their children. Yet, modern research and

statistics prove, without any doubt, that this is simply not true. Rather,

modern research upholds the essence of Chanakya Pandits statement (that

Srila Prabhupad also upheld):

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) [from ~ Aug 20-22 98] -

Young men who grow up in homes without fathers

are twice as likely to end up in jail as those who come from traditional

two-parent families, according to a new study released Thursday.

 

Cynthia Harper of the University of Pennsylvania and Sara S. McLanahan of

Princeton University tracked a sample of 6,000 males aged 14-22 from 1979-93.

 

 

They found that those boys whose fathers were absent from the household had

double the odds of being incarcerated -- even when other factors such as

race, income, parent education and urban residence were held constant.

 

Surprisingly, those boys who grow up with a step-father in the home were at

even higher risk for incarceration, roughly three times that of children

who remain with both of their natural parents, according to a study being

presented at a meeting of the American Sociological Association Friday.

 

"Remarriage of parents doesn't help," Harper said. "A step-parent in the

household doesn't erase the father absent problem."

 

... Harper and McLanahan's study found that young men whose parents part

ways during their adolescence were roughly 1-1/2 times as likely to end up

in jail as children from intact families -- faring slightly better than

boys who are born to single mothers.

---- End of quotes from news service

 

This study was done only on boys, and I have read other studies that were

even worse for the girls. Boys who parents have divorced are 1 1/2 - 2

times more likely to wind up on the other side of the karmi laws. Yet,

boys whose mother has remarried and who have a step-father are THREE TIMES

more likely to wind up on the otherside of societies laws. That means that

women who REMARRY are DOUBLING the Risk that their children will wind up on

the wrong side of society - that is DOUBLING the risk for the children from

just living with no father. But children of mothers who both Divorce then

Remarry are THREE TIMES as likely to wind up on the wrong side of society

then children raised by their natural mother and father. THREE TIMES.

And there are so many other studies that confirm these statistics.

 

 

Therefore I stand firmly opposed to divorce and remarriage. I don't

require such outside statitstics, I took this view from study of

Prabhupad's books, but these statistics confirm his teachings. Thus, I

call divorce Child Abuse, and for a mother to remarry is Double Child Abuse.

 

Therefore, I want to see that in ISKCON devotees confront these issues and

see them from the view of Shastra. We are to establish Dharma, Varnashram

Dharma, but our divorce rate and remarriage rate is no better than, if not

worse then, the karmi world we live in. What is the use of our society if

we cannot confront this issue head on and over come it???

 

So, I have long proposed that Divorce and Remarriage is a socially

irresponsible act. For a man to leave his wife or a woman to leave her

husband is socially irresponsible. (There are exceptions, of course, such

as the man or woman become crazy and leave KC all together, etc. - BUT, the

exceptions are not to become the rule). And for a woman, a mother with

children, to Remarry, that is even much more socially irresponsible. And

any man who would dare to remarry such a mother, he is also socially

irresponsbile. They are not doing so for the sake of the children,

Shastra, Prabhupad and even the hard cold statistical facts clearly show

that it is just the opposite, that it is not for the benefit of the

children, just the opposite, it works completely against them in a large

number of cases. It is simply one man sleeping with another man's wife

(since by Vedic law there is no such thing as divorce). And that is

illicit sex. So, for the woman to remarry or for a man to remarry a

women, that is Socially Irresponsible.

 

 

Therefore, I have long advocated that the GBC pass formal resolutions that

would remove and not allow people who have shown such social irresponsible

actions from taking or holding any socially responsible posittion in our

society. The whole basis of my stand on this is that such things are

absolutely required in order to establish Varnashram DHARMA. It is not for

political reasons. It has nothing to do with gender. I propose that men who

have shown themselves as being irresponsible by leaving a wife and children

via divorce, or even worse, to Remarry a devotee mother who has children

and who was previously been married to a devotee man, is also very socially

irresponsible. Thus, neither of these sort of men, or women who divorce or

divorce and remarry, should be allowed to take up socially responsible

roles of leadership in our ISKCON society.

 

That is a simple logic based on shastra and which also has modern

statistics to back it up. How can we establish dharma, how can we abolish

divorce and remarriage, if we do not tackle this problem head on.

 

If you do a search of Srila Prabhupad's personal opinons on divorce and

remarriage you will find that he vehemently opposed it. Such as the

following conversation:

 

Morning Walk Rome, May 28, 1974

"Prabhupäda: ...So you have to set up real human society in a small scale

so people will see, “Yes.” Because man has got intelligence. Just like,

although I am condemning the western mode of life, still, so many western

young boys, they have come. I never came to speak to flatter you, that

“Your western civilization is very nice.” I never said that. …

 

Yogesvara: So here’s a practical problem. People would be interested to

know our position on divorce. Here in Rome they just passed a divorce law.

Prabhupäda: That is also animalism. Just like a dog having sex intercourse

with another female dog, and another, another, another. It is also

animalism. So that is your decision. They are animals, and different way

they are coming to be naked animal, that’s all. The divorce is also dog’s

business. Dog is having sex intercourse with this female dog and another,

another, another, another. It is animalism, That’s all."

 

Divorce, remarriage, Prabhupad called it the business of dogs. Animalism.

That's all. The fact that we are devotees, our position is that we have

even a greater responsibllity to teach and help uplift society by our

personal examples - yet in ISKCON what is our position? I have seen,

when I have raised this exact issue that we must no longer give socially

responsible positions to those who have proven to be socially

irresponsible, those who hold some position but who are living with a woman

who is divorced and remarried, or the woman is herself divorced and

remarried, they will argue that under their unique circumstances they

should be excused... yes, everyone should be excused, then where is the

standard? If the leaders can be excused, then where is the standard?

Where is Dharma? There is no dharma. There are no socially responsible

heads of society. That is whjy Brahmans are to set the best personal

examples for all others to follow. Where are ISKCON's brahmana's, where

are our heads?

 

Thus, on our Dharma conference this idea was discussed. Those of us who

think like this, we agreed that ISKCON must set higher standards for those

who take up positions of social leadership duties. Of course this applies

to GBC's and TP's, but also to gurukula teachers and heads of any ISKCON

Ministries, especially those concerned with grhasta or social standards, or

public affairs or public communications. So, from this discussion it was

brought up that the head of the Women's Ministry in ISKCON is headed by a

mataji who is divorced and remarried. I have no personal agenda with

mother Sudharma, she is a senior devotee and has done so much for Prabhupad

and his movement. It is not for any personal reasons that I have taken my

strong stand on these issues, but it is from the basis of Shastra, from the

basis of Dharma, from the basis of simple logic - that socially responsible

positions must be held by those who have proven themselves to be socially

responsible by their own personal actions and examples.

 

 

Now, if someone, anyone, who found themselves in an a-dharmic situation,

divorced and remarried, and they personally and publically admitted this

was wrong, that it is wrong, that is must be dealt with and stopped, that

no matter the circumstance that ultimately there is no real excuse for it

because it could be very damaging to the children, and thus they work to

take steps to discourage others from following their path and work to

encourage others NOT to divorce and remarry, then maybe they can be given

some concession. But, if they argue and argue why they should be forgiven

and why such things should be allowed for them and for others, then how can

we give them any responsible position? What good will it do for

establishing Prabhupad's instructions to establish dharma? And, even those

who admit their position is wrong, it would be more effective if such

positions of social leadership were occupied by ones who have set the best

personal examples. Example is far more effective then precept.

 

Bhagavad-gétä (3.21), “Whatever action a great man performs, common men

follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world

pursues.”

PURPORT

"People in general always require a leader who can teach the public by

practical behavior. A leader cannot teach the public to stop smoking if he

himself smokes. Lord Caitanya said that a teacher should behave properly

before he begins teaching. One who teaches in that way is called äcärya, or

the ideal teacher. Therefore, a teacher must follow the principles of

shastra (scripture) to teach the common man. The teacher cannot manufacture

rules against the principles of revealed scriptures. The revealed

scriptures, like Manu-samhitä and similar others, are considered the

standard books to be followed by human society. Thus the leader’s teaching

should be based on the principles of such standard çästras. One who desires

to improve himself must follow the standard rules as they are practiced by

the great teachers. The Srimad-Bhagavatam also affirms that one should

follow in the footsteps of great devotees, and that is the way of progress

on the path of spiritual realization. The king or the executive head of a

state, the father and the school teacher are all considered to be natural

leaders of the innocent people in general. All such natural leaders have a

great responsibility to their dependents; therefore they must be conversant

with standard books of moral and spiritual codes."

 

 

Here Srila Prabhupad clearly states the same views that I hold on these

issues. It is based on what Krsna teaches, Himself. And not just GBC or

TP, but any socially responsible position, especially teacher - including

our gurukula teahers. How can they teach what is dharma, what is moral

socially accepted behavior, if they are divorced and remarried?

 

The problem is that the majority of devotees, especially the older

Prabhupad disciples, are in such marriage situations, and they don't want

to hear such talk. I have lost many friends for taking such a strong view.

But, I cannot give up the truth for such so-called friends. I would prefer

to be friends with those who also uphold dharma and the truth. Even if

someone is in such a marriage, at least let them be honest and admit it is

wrong rather then to argue that we must all accept such lower standards.

 

So, in discussing these topics on Dharma of Women conference it was

mentioned how it would better serve Srila Prabhupad and our society if such

standards could be presented to the whole ISKCON society and dsicussed more

openly. It was also pointed out that the Women's Minsitry was headed by a

mataji who had divorced and remarried. As I said, I have no personal

agenda, but I do want to see Dharma established. So, I have personally

questioned how can the GBC put in charge of an offical ISKCON Ministry that

is to deal with the social issues of women in our society a woman who has

not shown by her personal example a very high standard of social

repsonsibility? Why not put in charge a mother who is very chaste, who

understands the importance of chastity, who will promote social standards

for women that are fully in line with Srila Prabhupad's teachings and the

Vedic injunctions on the topic of social issues? What is the benefit to

Prabhupad and our society to have people in charge of any ministry or

temple, etc., who sets no high social standard and who even does not try to

promote such higher standards?

 

 

At the same time, there is this growing trend in our society to encourage

more and more leadership roles in society for the women in general. That,

also, I have reasons to oppose.

 

I am not anti woman. I do respect the importance of the services many

great mataji's have rendered to Srila Prabhupad and his society. In fact,

I recall once that in LA years ago I saw this mother Govinda dasi. At the

time she was living in Hawaii and had come to LA to see Prabhupad when he

was visiting there. I was thinking to my self, what a nonsense devotee.

She did not seem to be that chaste, and other things, I was inwardly very

critical. But, when Srila Prabhupad saw her I could see he had so much

personal concern for her. Then Srila Prabhupad told her that he could

never repay her for the service that she had rendered him, that he was

eternally indebt to her. He said that in the beginning in NY when he had

nothing, no one to help him, that she came and rendered so much service to

help him establish ISKCON in the very beginning. For this he was eternally

indebted to her. I never saw mother Govinda dasi the same after that. I

respect her position very much. As Prabhupad says, if you really love me,

then love my dog. So, if we really want to please Srila Prabhupad, we

should try to please such great souls as mother Govinda dasi. So,

personally, I do have great respect for such devotees, male or female, it

doesn't matter. And I am sure that matajis such as mother Sudharma, or

mother Malati are in this same catagory and Srila Prabhupad must feel the

same way toward them as he does mother Govinda dasi.

 

 

But, on the other side, on the practical matter of what is best for the

management of a social body, what is best for the guidance and functioning

of a religious - spiritually based society, I also strongly feel that the

leaders of our society, the gurukula teachers, the TP's ISKCON Ministers,

GBC's, all of these posts should be occupied by those who qualify in

accordance with the verse and Prabhupad's purport to BG 3.21 as noted

above. One cannot teach society how to put an end to divorce and

remarriage - how to stop families from destruction, how to prevent the

child abuse of divorce and remarriage and degradation of motherhood and

family values by divorce and remarriage if he or she themselves are not

setting an exemplary personal role model. What the leaders do, what they

set by their own example, the whole world pursues.

 

Now, let me rebute some of the false alligations made by Ardhabuddhi das in

his VNN article. He stated: "Originally organized [the GHQ conference] by

Shyamasundara (the astrologer), the goal of this conference was

to turn back the clock on the recent progress made by ISKCON Vaisnavis in

their struggle to be recognized as individuals with the right to

serve guru and Krsna according to their propensities."

 

First, the conference was not originated by Shyamasundar. It was a

collecitve idea. And the goal has nothing to do with turning back clocks or

supressing any so-called 'progress' by female devotees. But, not only are

we to engage in serving Krsna according to our propensities, we are also to

serve in accordance with the our social duties. Krsna did not instruct

Arjun to give up his duties and go flee to the forest and sit down and

chant japa. He told Arjun that he was ksatriya and that he must perform

his social duty in accordance to his social position in Varnashram. To

perform another person's duty is wrong.

 

 

To create a society, to manage a society, means we have to deal with social

issues. Society means a community, communities are made up of the members

of the different ashrams, including families. These social issues all come

under the banner heading of Varnshram Dharma. In Varnshram we have

different social duties according ot our varna, ashram and "gender". Srila

Prabhupad and the Vedas very clearly defined separate social roles and

duites of men and women. But, it is often counter-argued that ISKCON is a

transcendental spiritual society. We see not the body, but the eternal

soul. Male and female are material designations only. They say to

discriminate on the basis of gender is mundane and non-Krsna Conscious.

To this I give the example of Suka dev Goswami and Vyasdev. Suka dev was

born at the age of 16. (He saw no difference being in his mother's womb

out. So, he stayed there for 16 years before coming out... Hey, I didn't

make this up). At 16, naked, he decided to leave home. He went running

into the forest. His father, Srila Vyasadev, went running after him. The

boy, Suka dev, when running past a pond where a number of simple forest

girls were bathing naked. Suka was young man, also naked, but the girls

simply stood there naked and smiling and did nothing. Following behind was

Vyasadev, fully dressed, but when the girls saw him, out of shyness they

quickly covered their private parts. Vyasadev, the compiler of the Vedas,

the great acharya of our disciplic line, stopped. He was puzzled and he

went back and asked these girls why they did not cover themselves when his

son ran by naked, but did so when he passed fully dressed. They replied

that they could see that Suka dev was completely transcendental to all

material designations. He did not see them as women, but as eternal souls.

But, they said that Vyasadev was a grhasta. Being a grhasta he was forced

to discriminate on the bodily platform and makes distinctions between male

and female.

 

 

My point is that yes, this society, like the Bhagavatam, teaches the

highest transcendental science, but the fact is that most, if not 100%, of

the members of our society are no where near the transcendental position of

Vysasadev, what to speak of on the level of Suka dev. Most of our members

are grhasta, or want to be... so, where is it that we are such a

transcendental society. To try and act as if we were all so transcendental

would be totally artificial.

 

Rather, most of us are grhasta, and thus we have to organize soceity in

accordance with the principles of Varnashram-Dharma. This means that we

must also perform our precribed social duties.

 

Being that most of us are grhasta, that means we have so many children, and

about 1/2 of them are girls. So, lets assume that we encourage that the

young girls, our daughters, they should all become GBC, TP's, and other

leaders of society. Then who will take care of their children? Who will

become the mothers of society?

 

Rather, Srila Prabhupad himself has often taught that a woman's prescribed

duty is to become a chaste submissive wife. He instructed the female

gurukula teachers that they are to teach the girls domestic services by

their own examples. Woman, he said, are to churn butter, sew, cook, clean

and learn to serve a husband. He even said once that Krsna Conscious

women do not want to travel and preach like him, but they are satified

cooking and cleaning.

 

Letter 16th February, 1972 My dear Chaya dasi,

All the children should learn to read and write very nicely, and a little

mathematics, so that they will be able to read our books. Cooking, sewing,

things like that do not require schooling, they are learned simply by

association...

 

...You ask about marriage, yes, actually I want that every woman in the

Society should be married. But what is this training to become wives and

mothers? No school is required for that, simply association... ...****A

woman’s real business is to look after household affairs, keep everything

neat and clean, and if there is sufficient milk supply available, she

should always be engaged in churning butter, making yogurt, curd, so many

nice varieties, simply from milk. The woman should be cleaning, sewing,

like that. So if you simply practice these things yourselves and show

examples, they will learn automatically, one doesn’t have to give formal

instruction in these matters.

 

Morning Walk May 1, 1974, Bombay 740501mw.bom

Prabhupäda: Put problems. I’ll solve.

Yogeshvara: Here’s a problem. The women today want the same rights as men.

How can they be satisfied?

Prabhupäda: Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Krsna

conscious, they are working. They don’t want equal rights with men. It is

due to Krsna consciousness. They are cleansing the temple, they are cooking

very nicely. They are satisfied. They never say that “I have to go to Japan

for preaching like Prabhupäda.” They never say. This is artificial. So

Krsna consciousness means work in his constitutional position. The women,

men, when they remain in their constitutional position, there will be no

artificial (indistinct) (loud traffic noises)

Bhagavän: They say that our women are unintelligent because they submit so

easily, but...

...Bhagavän: But actually, our women are so qualified in so many ways, but

these girls who simply work in the city can do nothing. They can’t cook,

they can’t clean, they can’t sew.

 

Prabhupäda: All rubbish. These modern girls, they are all rubbish.

Therefore they are simply used for sex satisfaction. Topless, bottomless...

 

So, in educating our daughters, on training them, he has instructed that we

are to train them in domestic duties. No where, not once, have I seen that

he has instructed that we are to train our girls to become the leaders of

society. So, my contention is that on one hand it is not totally

forbidden to allow - as the exception - a qualified mataji to take a

leadership position - but, for the proper functioning of a SOCIETY, a

social body with intact functional families, that it remain an execption to

the general rule, and not the general rule of the society (that women are

trained for and take up leadership roles).

 

Srila Prabhupad was very specific and he discriminated on the basis of

gender how we are to train our children. I and others have written many

times on this topic and so many posts were made on the conferences. I also

have written some books and have published articles on my web page (

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgrafx - see the sections on Dharma of Marriage

- I have also begun a Message Board for open discussion of this topic, and

provide a place for interested parties to try and find compatible partners.

But, it is very new, so give it some time, and give it your participation

as well).

 

So, in light of the fact as to how Srila Prabhupad instructed us that we

are to train our own daughters how to become submissive, chaste wives,

mothers, and to learn all domestic household duties (he has said the duty

of the wife is household duties, the man is to work in society, provide for

his family), how does this relate to giving so many women leadership roles?

It doesn't mean a chaste submiisive wife cannot preach, that she cannot

serve Prabhupad and Krsna. But, there is a point of what is most

beneficial for the society in the long run? Is it best to place many women

in social leadership positions and thus encoarage young girls to also

follow in their footsteps, or should such things be the rare exception,

while the young girls are encouraged to follow chastity, dependence,

submissiveness and other good qualities of motherhood? In my, and many

other devotees study of these things, it has become very obvious that in

order to establish Varnashram-Dharma, and in order to create a peaceful and

organically functioning SOCIETY that motherhood and family must be

protected, and separate social duties must be encouraged.

 

 

Another similar philosophical point we have discussed on our conferences is

this: In the Manu Samhita, as many times quoted by Srila Prabhupad, it is

stated that women are NOT to be given independence. A woman is to always

remain under the dependence of a father, husband or older son. She is not

to act independently. And women are to be Protected by a man. There are

many times Srila Prabhupad has quoted this. Thus, the question becomes

how can a chaste female follower of Srila Prabhupad follow his teachings on

this point, and yet take up the role of TP or GBC or other social

leadership role? How is it that she is not independent, and still is

dependent under a male authority, yet she is a TP or GBC? Or how is it

that she is being protected by a man, when the position of TP or GBC is to

provide protection for others. And how can a widowed lady or brahmacarini

be properly protected and dependent on a man if her TP and her GBC are both

women? To say that the GBC body has a male majority and that the woman is

under the protection of guidance of a male GBC body is not sufficient. The

post of TP or GBC means social leadership. Besides, what if the majority

of the GBC became female devotees, as some have promoted, then where is

their dependence and protection under a man. Besises, Prabhupad and

shastra are very specific that a woman is to be under the protection and

guidance of one specific man, her father, her husband or older son. So,

how can a woman be chaste, set a high moral example for all others to

follow, yet be in a social leadership role and also be dependent on the

guidance and protection of a husband, father or son? If she is all of the

above, then why is she artificially trying to act as if she is leader, when

in actualily she is under the authority of her husband or other man?

 

 

So, we have also debated this topic and it is our conclusion, based on

Shastra, based on the laws of dharma, based on how to best establish

Varnashram-Dharma, that allowing and encouraging a number of women to take

up such social leadership positions is not ultimately for the benefit of

our society. It will only create more disturbance. I know there are many

who will be upset with us for our strong convictions and realizations, but,

our realizations are all based on shastra and logic. And the motive is not

to suppress anyone, not to belittle or take away any one or any gender, but

our whole concern and motive is to fulfill Srila Prabhupad's mission to

establish Varnashram Dharma. Our sincere desire is to help educate others

in the science of what is truly dharma, and what is ultimately best for

Prabhupad's society. It is not to suppress anyone, but to uplift everyone.

 

Ardhabuddhi continues:

"The men appear to have been inspired by their discussions on the COM

conference "Dharma of Women" (recently strategically renamed "Dharma of Men

and Women") in which they tried to explain many current ISKCON problems as

being due to women not acting according to Vedic principles. These men have

been known to selectively use quotes by Srila Prabhupada, Manu Samitha and

Chanakya Pandit to blame everything from divorce to wife abuse on the

women's attitudes and behaviors."

 

I do not know who Ardhabuddhi is, but this is very devicive wording he has

used, saying that we selectively use quotes by SP, etc..... Selectively

"use" quotes from Srila Prabhupad. I totally reject this sort of attack.

I have been a devotee for 25 years and just on this topic of Dharma and

Varnashram I have made a 15 year study of his teachings and my realizations

are fixed and non-moveable because they are based on the absolute truth of

Vedic principles. There is no 'selectively' choosing only what I like and

recjecting all else. The conclusions I have reached are solid and based on

deep study and then actual realization of the truth. And damn right I

will back up and support every conclusion on the evidence of quoting from

Srila Prabhupad, and Manu Samhita, etc. (which Srila Prabhupad often states

as the authority on these topics).

 

 

As far as what is the core cause of the problems of society, yes, I may

quote from this one following conversation often, but for good reason. One

is that Srila Prabhupad was asked very direct confrontational questions on

these very same controversial topics. He was asked by a modern feminist so

called liberated female new reporter. And his answers were also very

direct and to the point. And this conversation was broadcaste on TV on the

news in Chicago and was printed in many newspapers. Afterwards devotees

brought it up in a number of recorded conversations, and even Srila

Prabhupad himself referred to the inciddent months later when similar

topics were raised. Thus, Srila Prabhupad also emphasised the importance

of this conversation (it was a long interview, this is only edited

portionis of it):

 

Television Interview July 9, 1975, Chicago 750709iv.chi

Woman reporter: But you say women are subordinate to men?

Prabhupäda: Yes, that is also natural. Because when the husband and wife

are there or the father and daughter is there, so the daughter is

subordinate to the father and the wife is subordinate to the husband.

 

[ commentary by Ameyatma: The situation is here is a modern feminist

female reporter with a microphone and TV camera asking such a controversial

question. How would most devotees answer this question? Most of us would

go into a song and dance to avoid conflict. We would emphasis how our

philosophy sees all living entities as equal, and that we don't

discriminate. - who would answer in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupad? -

So if a woman is always subordinate to a man, how can she also be a leader,

a provider of protectino and guide to others in the position of TP or GBC

or ISKCON Minister? ]

 

 

Woman reporter: What happens when women are not subordinate to men?

Prabhupäda: Then there is disruption. There is disruption, social

disruption. If the woman does not become subordinate to man, then there is

social disruption. Therefore, in the western countries there are so many

divorce cases because the woman does not agree to become subordinate to

man. That is the cause.

 

[ Ardhabuddhi claims that I and others use selective quotes from Prabhupad

to show that women are the cause of social problems. DAMN IT, Yes I am

mad. To hell with his wishy-washy thinking, it is Srila Prabhupad who said

this, not ameyatma das. I am only a fool. I don't know what is what. I only

know one thing, and that is that Srila Prabhupad knows Krsna, and Krsna

knows everything., That is all I know. Of course I will quote from Srila

Prabhupad. Who else am I to quote from, anti cult groups? And if you want

to call this a selective quote, then do so. Yes, I selected it because of

the reasons states. Srila Prabhupad was asked direct questioins on this

topic and he answered them as a great acharya, directly speaking only the

Vedic truth. And here he is very speicific, THREE times he says that when

women are not submissive to their husbands there will be what? Disruption,

disruption, social disurption. This quote has been selected because it is

very precise, very clear, very Prabhupad. And there are other quotes from

his books that back up and support this statement, it was not simply an

idea he only expressed once]

 

Woman reporter: What advice do you have to women who do not want to be

subordinate to men?

 

Prabhupäda: It is not my advice, but it is the advice of the Vedic

knowledge that woman should be chaste and faithful to man.

Woman reporter: What should we do in the United States? We’re trying to

make women equal with men.

Prabhupäda: I am not trying. You are already not equal with the man because

in so many respects, your functions are different and man’s functions are

different. Why do you say artificially they are equal?

…

Woman reporter: Is the social unrest in this country caused because...

Prabhupäda: Because of these things. They do not know that.

Woman reporter: And if women were subordinate to men, it would solve all of

our problems?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Man wants that woman should be subordinate, faithful to

him. Then he is ready to take charge. The man’s mentality, woman’s

mentality different. So if the woman agrees to remain faithful and

subordinate to man, then the family life will be peaceful.

 

[ Srila Prabhupad, not the insignificant fool ameyatma das, but Srila

Prabhupad says that this will solve all of the problems of modern society,

if women will simply be subordinate and faithful to their husbands. Call

me any name you want for selectively quoting from Srila Prabhupad, I will

not stop from doing do]

…

Woman reporter: You have different schools for men and women, is that correct?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Man is regulated to become a first-class man, and woman is

regulated to become very chaste and faithful wife.

 

[ man is regulated one way, first class man, Srila Prabhupad has said,

brahman - leader of society, woman is regulated to become very chaste and

faithful wife. What is the problem with our ISKCON society. If I repeat

these words to non devotees I would expect some controvsial discussion.

But, I consider it even more controversial that it is the ISKCON devotees

who seem to take these words by Prabhupad just as, if not more,

controversial then the non devotees do ]

 

Prabhupad ...Then the life will be very successful. And marriage,

compulsory. Marriage, compulsory.

Woman reporter: Everyone should marry?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Every woman, at least, should be married. Therefore,

according to Vedic conception, polygamy is allowed.

Woman reporter: Is allowed?

Prabhupäda: Yes. Because every woman must be married. But every man may not

be married. Therefore man has to accept more than one wife.

 

So, yes, I do select quotes by Srila Prabhupad. I select the quotes that

pretain to the topic at hand. Why quote something he says about some other

topic? These quotes are very representative of his teachings, of the Vedic

culture and are very direct, to the point and instruct us what is the real

cause of the problems. Why devotees like Ardhabuddi have a problem with

this?

 

There is so much more to say, and so many points to make, but I am running

out of time, and I wanted to make this repsonse timely.

 

I am sure other conference members will also respond.

 

Hare Krsna

 

---

ys ameyatma das ameyatma (AT) iname (DOT) com

 

Chk out my web page at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgrafx

[Guest guest]

> No, it is not "our" conclusion. It is your conclusion. But assuming that

> you are fixed on this position, now please turn your attention to what

> scriptures say about sannyasis in management. It is pretty clear that

> they shouldn't be. So if your argument against women in management is

> based on scripture, then you must also accept that sannyasis should also

> not be in management.

 

How does it go with the historical fact that in Madhva sampradaya, Sri

sampradaya, and I think in Sankaracarya's also the sannyasis are in charge

of the matha? I think also Gaudiya Math is in the same situation, isn't? The

general society, so to speak, was managed by grhasthas, but spiritual parts

of it by sannyasis. So where ISKCON stands? Or I misunderstood something?

 

And was it Jahnavi devi who was in charge of the Vaisnava community at one

point? Of course, I don't know what this "in charge" meant in practice.

 

ys.GNdd

[Guest guest]

> We've discussed these topics in great detail on the DMW and DOW

> conferences.

>

> If you are interested, I invite you to join.

 

I tried, but it is a private conference.

 

> Some suggestions: ISKCON Divorcees may not

>

> (a) live on the temple property.

>

> (b) hold any management positions

>

> © be allowed to sign checks, etc. on

> behalf of the temple.

>

> (d) worship the Deity in the temple

> (they can do as they like in their homes)

 

This seems to imply that somone who is divorced is some kind of

criminal that is not trustable, and should get punishment. Such a person

should also get "spiritual" punishment by not beeing allowed to

worship the deity in the temple.

 

If you are serious, I cannot really believe my eyes. This must be

a joke. A Troll?

 

I would like to make another rule then. Any person who is

trying to opress another person, due to birth situation,

whether it is country of birth, colour of skin, disease or

sex, who is not seeing the spiritual soul within the person,

but only the external body. Such a person should not be

allowed to live on the temple property, have any position

within ISKCON, not sign anything, not worship the deity,

and not be allowed to give lectures or preach KC philosophy.

 

Only those who can see the spirit soul wihin, who understands

that we take on different bodies, like we put on different kinds

of clothes, only those should be allowed to act within ISKCON.

Those who can work with others irregardless of what birth that

spirit soul has taken.

 

How is it possible that sex or social status now suddenly should

be considered for beeing an ISKCON devotee? That is for

sure not what Srila Prabhupada preached when he came to

America. He preached to the persons lowest on the social

scale, the outcasts, and made them devotees. To see that

some of those previous outcasts now think they have became

better than others, and that they belong to some kind of elite

group, that really hurts in my heart.

[Guest guest]

> Of all the 100's and 1000s of services one CAN do, why do you consider it

> so important that anyone be allowed to be a manager or live at the expense

> of our institution? No one is prevented from doing service to his full

> capacity, it is just that certain positions are not suitable for certain

> people. We are officially against divorce, then how can our leaders be

> indulging in it? It just doesn't work. Temple devotees are also leaders,

> because the general public looks up to them AND scrutinizes them very

> closely.

 

So the requirements for temple leadership are:

Only white male, with good physique, no mental disease history in

the family, father in good standing, beautiful wife, good job,

and of course the correct "arian" understanding. Then what kind

of movement are we actually aiming at? I think I have heard

similar ideas somewhere else.....

 

> The point I was making is that government laws and policies DO

> significantly affect the frequency of divorce and infidelity. Thus ISKCON

> management must take a tough stance in regards to divorce in order to

> strengthen the social fabric of our grihastha ashram.

 

On one side I am agreeing with you, I am against divorce,

and the "changing of partners" business that is going on within

ISKCON. I also think it is a potential character fault to go through

these kind of things.

But from that to condemn everyone who has gotten divorce

is a long way to go. Your side has made such an unpalatable

presentation that there is no way I could even remotely

agree with the ideas you put forward!

 

> Because that's our standard. Yad Yad acarati shreshtas. This

> egalitarianism is part and parcel of karmi society because they want to

> mingle with the opposite sex. The fact is that we do discriminate on the

> basis of gender because, as we have seen, even the greatest of our leaders

> have fallen victim to female association.

 

It is not the fault of women that men fall down when they see them.

The fault lies within the minds OF THE MEN. You want to remove

and negate everything which is disturbing to the mind. Unfortunately

that is an impossibility. This material world is a trap which you

cannot escape from by external arrangments. The only escape is

a change of consciousness.

There is indeed a need for a secluded place in society for men who want

to completely live without seeing a women, but that is not for the

general population. ISKCON is NOT such a place. Maybe someone

can make a secluded all-men asrama somewhere in the mountains...

 

And then, half the population consists of women. Should they not

have their saying also?

 

If you want to have a leader that cannot fall down with a women,

why not put a true eunuch? They have have little or no sexual feelings

for neither women nor men, so according to this line of reasoning such a

person should be perfect.

 

But as far as I know, in the Vedic society, the leaders were persons

with sexual feelings, and even a lot of them. So something tells

me that looking for sex-negation in leaders is not Vedic, and on the

wrong track.

 

 

> It seems to me that discrimination with regards to gender would have saved

> thousands--tens of thousands--of hearts from being hurt. Aren't these

> thousands of hearts, by their sheer numbers, more important than just one

> heart? Discrimination is there because, if there is even the slightest

> tinge of material desire, we can fall down so completely.

 

I fail to understand what you mean here. Do you really believe that

isolating men from women would help anyone? It appears that is

your line of reasoning. I have to repeat, then, that sex desire comes

from WITHIN the mind, and not from the outside. Outside sensual

perception can awake that sex desire, but only if it is there originally.

So we should create a world where no man ever should see or

hear about a women, or anything female, just to save them from

sex desire?

 

Actually, the sexual impulse is a great driving force. The key

is to use that impulse for the good of society, instead of letting

it destroy society. Association between men and women is

needed for accomplishing this. But it is also like playing with

fire, it can easily hurt you. Rejecting the sexual impulse in

society does not lead to the perfect society, it leads to

impersonalism and degraded sexual behaviour. Two worse

enemies.

 

> Harikesh Mahraj did not have to fall down. It could have been prevented.

> There was plenty of warning. (I am speaking about this not to criticize

> him or anyone, but to highlight a problem for our better understanding of

> a solution.)

 

Yes, it could have been prevented if he was living in a sane society,

where he could have gone through a life as a grihastha before

taking on sannyasa. It could not have been avoided in any other

way. The asrama system is a scientific system created by Krsna

himelf, and is not meant for us to improve on.