The Vedics' materialistic view of women

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, COM: Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 1928749 from COM]

>

> >

> >

> > You see, women ought to give classes, yes. But to other women. Why?

> > Because, first of all Prabhupada also taught separation of the sexes in

> > society as far as possible (which goes "against the grain" of western

> > society). The "butter & fire" analogy is not unrelated here.

>

> " I do not know why these things inventions are going on. That is our only

> business, to invent something new program? We have already got our Vaisnava

> standard. That is sufficient for Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, it was

> sufficient for Lord Caitanya, six Goswamis, for Bhaktivinoda Thakura, for my

> Guru Maharaja Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati, for me, for all big, big saints and

> acaryas in our line-why it shall be inadequate for my disciples so they must

> manufacture something? That is not possible. Who has introduced these

> things, that women cannot have chanting japa in the temple, they cannot

> perform the arati and so many things? If they become agitated, then let the

> brahmacaries go to the forest, I have never introduced these things. If the

> brahmacaries cannot remain in the presence of women in the temple, then they

> may go to the forest, not remaining in New York City, because in New York

> there are so many women, so how they can avoid seeing? Best thing is to go

> to the forrest for not seeing any women, if they become so easily agitated,

> but then no one will either see them and how our preaching work will go on?"

> (SPL to Ekayani, 3rd december, 1972)

>

>

> >

> >

> > Secondly, it was/is not a part of Vedic tradition or culture for ladies to

> > lecture either publicly or to men. Ladies lecture privately to other

> > ladies.

>

> "So far as girls or boys lecturing in the morning, that doesn`t make

> anydifference. Either girl or boy devotees may deliver lecture if they choose

> to do. We have no such distinction of bodily designations, male or female.

> Krsna consciousness is on the spiritual platform. As such anyone who is a

> devotee of the Lord, following in this line of disciplic succession, can

> deliver lecture on the teachings of Bhagavad Gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, etc."

> (SPL to Syama dasi, 21st October, 1968)

>

> >

>

> So once again you are correcting Srila Prabhupada?

 

 

Your right, Madhava Gosh prabhu. Srila Prabhupada's vision was limited

because he viewed women as spirit souls, part and parcel of Krsna. But

the Vedics would like to correct his limitation, by studying the Vedas

directly they have discovered that women are their material bodies -- thus

they have no spiritual knowledge to offer -- except to other women. Why

don't they come right out and finally admit that they are rejecting Srila

Prabhupada as acarya and have discovered a superior source of spiritual

guidance which they can access directly -- the Vedas?

 

If one reads their texts, their materialistic view of women becomes more

and more apparent. The most obvious point is that because women are their

material bodies, and not spirit souls or devotees -- it does not

constitute blasphemy to call them "whoreswitches" or "niggers."

 

But there are many more subtle points that reveal this materialistic

vision of women -- and devotee women in particular.

 

One text suggests that they find an Indian woman to head the Women's

Ministry "one that anyone can relate to as a mataji." What a

materialistic conception! Not only is an American devotee woman not a

spirit soul -- she can't even be regarded as mother.

 

This same group wants women to to gurus -- how liberal! -- but then we

find that they should be guru *only to other women* -- what a complete

concoction --again, totally based on seeing someone on the bodily platform

and not as transcendental spirit soul. Did Srila Prabhupada demonstrate

the principle of "gender-matched" guru-disciple relationships by preaching

only to men? Where did they come up with this concoction,? Maybe by

jumping over Srila Prabhupada directly to some obscure passage of the

Vedas.

 

Finally, we hear a GHQ sannyasi attempt to exonerate himself from charges

of sexism and misogeny by pointing out that he encourage one devotee woman

"over the age of 50" to engage in various preaching activities. What

could possibly be the relevance of saying that she was over 50? This seems

of no relevance except on the most materialistic level.

 

Can you imagine someone commenting on another devotee, "Oh yes, he took

initiation from a spiritual master who was over 50 years old." Such a

comment has no spiritual relevance.

 

It is very unfortunate that the Vedics, having rejected our

Founder-Acarya's example of having women preach, manage, lead kirtans,

etc. -- have jumped over him directly to the Vedas and come out with a

very materialistic view of women.

 

your servant,

 

Hare Krsna dasi