accusations of law breaking/sannyasis and women

[Guest guest]

> > [LAW] 620. THAT the following is added to GBC resolution 413-96:

> > "Standards of a temple president: A female temple president should; -

> > see all men as son except her husband.

> > - never be alone with a man except one's husband.

> > - avoid intimate dealings with men.

> > - as far as possible appoint a senior man to deal with men's affairs. -

> > in certain conditions it may be prudent for a female president to have

> > her husband deal with the men, or for a male president to have his wife

> > deal with the women. The general principle is that the temple president

> > should avoid intimate dealings with the opposite sex.

>

> >I cannot really offer any interpretation of this ISKCON law based any

> >knowledge of its legislative history. Neither can I really offer any

> >interpretation based on a body of case law derived from the application

> >of the law. However, I can speak from the position of a former temple

> >president to whom the mirror image of this law would have applied.

>

> Now this is very interesting. The GBC/Minister of Justice cannot offer

> *any interpretation* of this ISKCON Law even though he was a GBC when it

> was introduced and even though he is himself the Justice Minister! A

> little unconventional, wouldn't you say? Also, the law stands alone. it

> needs no interpretation. This is precisely my point. The law conforms

> with vedic rules. To appoint women to the GBC or make them TP's goes

> against the grain of this law to such an extent that you either have to

> admit that women can't be TP's, or you have to change the law. If you

> change the Law you are then breaking the eternal vedic law. Better that

> women assist their husbands.

>

> My question is if Sesa Prabhu can't interpret it as a Justice Minister how

> can he interpret is as a former TP?

>

> >If this law is interpreted to mean no contact at all, then it completely

> >leaves the position of a female temple president meaningless.

>

> Meaningless? How is this part of the Law meaningless: "never be alone

> with a man except one's husband." If Jayadvaja Swami or any sannyasi for

> that matter was alone with any woman (women) then he and they broke the

> law. The Law is pretty clear. Maybe Maharaja could set the matter

> straight. Or has he retained Mata Radha as his attorney? :-)

>

> >Is it reasonable to expect that a

> >temple president can have absolutely no dealing with such responsible

> >members of her temple? No, such an interpretation of this law is

> >ludicious.

>

> Really? Let me repeat again: "never be alone with a man except one's

> husband." Can any statement be more unambigious? Are you accusing yourself

> of making ludicrous laws? If so, why on earth does the GBC pass laws that

> it then considers ludicrous and is unwilling to enforce? Now that would

> be really ludicrous!

>

> >Can any person in such a powerful position be so completely handcuffed?

>

> You made the law, Prabhu. Don't ask me.

>

> >If is to

> >be the accepted interpretation, then why even allow female temple

> >presidents?

>

> Aha.

>

> >But, the law does acknowledge female temple presidents and this

> >very fact is incongruous with such a narrow interpretation.

>

> It is not my interpretation. It is the law!

>

> >A more practical interpretation, one more in line with actual the

> >experience of temple presidents, and one more reflected in the actual

> >language of the law, is that descretion and caution should be used in

> >dealings between a female temple president and men in her temple. This is

> >how the mirror image of such a law, ie a male temple president dealing

> >with women in his temple, has always been advised and advocated by the

> >leadership of ISKCON.

> >

> >I hope this is of some help.

> >

> >Sesa das

>

> This is how lawyers make money and society goes to hell. Make laws that

> they interpret in so many ways so that they can use it in whichever way

> suits their purpose. Certainly not the type of law we would expect from a

> society attempting to reintroduce Rama-Rajya.

>

> My questions to Jayadvaja Swami stand. How did you manage to work with a

> widow and two married women without breaking this ISKCON Law and without

> compromising his sannyasa decorum?

 

First of all , prabhu why you don't spend more time on preaching? while I

know that Malati dd is hardly on the computer and she spend most of her time

on the road helping the Sankirtan Mission what you do all day written text ,

are you ever distributed books ? do you have being on the road at all , let

us get to the basis .

 

I would reply your question once , I don't have much time to fight on Com ,

I was in Columbus to help to set up a Indian program , I only meet Malati dd

in the office and with many other people , when you go to the temple and see

women what do you do run away ? , I have being most of my KC on the road and

dealing with public and ladies , in Alachua the same thing it was a group of

people and my talks with Nanda dd was in the office or temple room , let us

all work together ,specially in many temples the Matajis are doing all the

work , do you live in a temple ? how long ago you had visit a western

temples?.Don't be in a Computer dream , let us all go out and preach

 

Respectfully,

Jayadhvaja Swami

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Ys. JMd