see *some* women as mother?

[Guest guest]

On 16 Feb 1999, Prsnigarbha das wrote:

 

> What puzzles me is that I get the understanding that while persons

> should be examined what nature they have, to get their correct "varna"

> position, and egagement according to mentality and suitability, that

> only is for men. Even if a women has a mentality for a certain varna,

> is perfectly suited, and can do the task very good, still she is not

> eligable

> just because she is a women. Maybe I misunderstood you, but that is

> the impression i got. I really can not understand the thinking leading

> to such a conclusion.

 

 

Where in my text did I ever say this? What I have asked is what did Krsna say

in the Bhagavada-gita? Isn't that what we are supposed to be trying to

understand?

 

 

 

> Maybe in previous times, where the llife expectancy was around 40 years,

 

 

When was this?

 

 

> and each couple was getting 10-15 children,

 

 

And when was this?

 

 

>it was a full time job for

> the women to do just childbirth, and then she could not do anything more,

> but in today's times where the life expectancy is double, and a couple

> is getting only one or two children, it is not such a full time duty

> anymore.

> What should the women do the rest of their lives? Nowadays many women

> are eager to take up other duties in society, and they do it very good.

> If a duty is done good, it can be understood that the person doing it has

> ability and brains for it, so why should such a person be excluded just

> because of birth in a particular body? For me it is just dogma to say that

> women by definition has less brains, and therefore cannot do certain

> things. If the shoe fits -- wear it.

 

 

If you are saying that I said all this you are putting many words in my mouth

which I never said.

 

There are hundreds of things for women to do in society. I always reference

the city of Dwaraka as an example - it was a huge city full of devotees, men

and women, and they were all engaged in the varnasrama-dharma institution.

What were the women doing???? They figured out what to do just fine apparently

and Krsna obviously had no problem with them living in His wonderful city. Why

should we?

 

Wives of brahmanas have many related activities. Wives of ksatriyas have many

related activities, wives of vaisyas and sudras, the same. Even un married

women and girls had many varied occupations/duties.

 

The key is that they are doing that which is suitable for women and therefore

they are happy doing it. To try to artificially change the nature of Krsna's

occupational and social divisions to suit false ego and "modern" times is not

doing anyone a favor.

 

 

 

> In the matter of Arjuna taking up the duty of a brahmana, the point was

> that since he was a ksatriya, his nature could not be supressed, and

> would come back all the time and distrub him if he would try to act

> like a brahmana.

> That example can not really be used against women, because if a

> women is suited for a duty, that is her nature, and she would be

> able to perform that duty as good as any other person with those

> qualities.

 

 

What does Krsna mean when He says, "It is better to performm one's own duty

imperfectly than to perform another's perfectly?" May I please have your

opinion on this?

 

 

We know Arjuna was a ksatriya and he fits the definition of Bhagavad-gita

perfectly. What are some examples of women in our scriptures in a certain

varna? This can be our guide.

 

 

> Now someone might say "but she would act like a women". And that

> is just the point. For some reason beeing a women is considered

> less inferior, and beeing male superior. The male way of doing things

> is considered the correct way, and the female way is considered

> incorrect. And it is that kind of thinking that has to be eradicated.

 

This is the kind of thinking which goes on in the material world. It will not

go away and never will. You have to go to the spiritual world where there is

no duality, man/woman, material bodily designation. But knowing this, is it

wise to cast out women into the wild field of victimizing men, violent men, in

the name of so-called equality? This does not sit too well with me. I've seen

so many women who are suffering terribly due to this mentality. I feel that

protection is girding up the natural walls of protection as provided in the

varnasrama-dharma institution and giving honor to those duties outlined for

women and exemplified by women in our scriptures.

 

 

> If a task can be completed, why should it be more correct if it

> is done how a man would do it, compared to how a woman would

> do it?

 

If a woman is put at risk of bodily harm or mental abuse or any such danger

as the result of her be involved in such activities, what self-respecting man

could allow it to continue?

 

 

Srila Prabhupada said that women are not to partake in the varnasrama college.

Is this because he felt them inferior? Or did he have something else in mind

for them which would fulfill every desire of theirs and Krsna's and at the

same time protects them?