see *some* women as mother?

[Guest guest]

On 16 Feb 1999, Prsnigarbha das wrote:

 

> > Many women want to take on the roles that men have historically dominated

> > thinking that this will be better for them simply because they CAN do it.

>

> Now this is an interesting thing. What defines what role a person should

> have

> in society? My suggestion is that the role should be defined by inner

> qualities, rather than external bodily features.

 

 

Are you suggesting that Arjuna SHOULD have gone to the forest because he had

"inner" brahminical qualities? And should Yudhistira have become a brahmana

because of his very obvious brahminical qualities? I am sorry, but this seems

to be moving far away from the philosophy of Bhagavad-gita, don't you think?

 

 

> For example, if a women

> cannot take some roles, because of her bodily features, in the same way

> we can reason that big and strong persons cannot be brahmanas.

 

 

It is not that big and strong persons cannot be brahmanas. Some are, like

Dronacarya. But he IS a brahmana. Yudhistira, Bhima, Arjuna, etc., are big and

strong but they ARE ksatriyas. I feel the thinking should be that it is not

that there are roles which we cannot do because of some disqualification or

another, but that there are roles which we are suited for based upon the body,

mind and intelligence we were given at birth due to our previous activities.

There is nothing wrong with accepting ones natural tendencies of their body.

This is all Krsna expects from us. Like the small spider who helped Lord Rama

build His bridge.

 

> Since

> the body is determined by genetics, i.e. your father and mother, this

> leads to today's caste society, where the roles are determined by

> in which family you are born.

 

 

It is my understanding that genetics has nothing to do with it actually.

Genetics are as bogus as Darwinism. It just looks like genetics. It is ONLY

karma which determines the body and we are put into particular families

because they are appropriate for fulfilling our karmic desires. Birth as a

determining factor of varna is only forbidden when one thinks he is

automatically a brahmana because he was born in a brahmana family even though

he does not have the qualities of a brahmana. This creates the caste system

which is completely bogus as much as a person born in a sudra family who IS a

sudra but makes believe he is a brahmana because he imitates the activities of

a brahmana without the true qualifications. This is created by a false ego and

makes one think that I can serve God better if I am a brahmana instead of a

sudra, vaisya or ksatriya. This is NOT Bhagavad-gita philosophy.

 

 

>

> If everyone should get a role in society, based in qualities, and not >

birth,

> why should women then be excluded?

 

 

Excluded from what? Krsna doesn't exclude anyone from His service no matter if

they have no so-called material qualifications. I can completely accept the

fact that I have a so-called "inferior" body and brain due to my birth/karma.

It is my fault alone. But because I do not accept the practices of becoming a

brahmana, because I am NOT a brahmana, does not in any way discourage me from

serving Krsna (sravanam, kirtanam, etc.)

 

 

 

>

> Both men and women are equally fighting for position in society for which

> they are not suited. I don't think this is anything particular for women.

 

 

If either one is fighting to get a position for which they are not suited

neither has anything to gain.

 

 

 

> > If I am a ksatriya trying to be a brahmana this is not what Krsna advises.

> > If I am a woman trying to be a man, this is not what Krsna advises. A

> > sincere woman, sweeping the street or churning butter or whatever, will

> > get to Krsnaloka far sooner than the big, big, pretentious sannyasi, by

> > far. Again, the story of the tortoise and the hare.

>

 

> So you mean that women are a varna of their own, or that they have no

> varna?

 

 

What varna are women? What does Krsna say in the Bhagavad-gita? We should

probably stay close to that.

 

 

 

> That women are excluded from many things in society?

 

 

They are not excluded from service to Krsna, ever. If they have false ego like

most men then they will probably want to artificially aspire to some other

position than they may be suited for. This is not wise, is it? I am not saying

they won't want to do this and that they should be maltreated for this but

nature's laws are stringent and we have all felt her wrath. I know I have!

Simple living and high thinking has many merits.

 

 

> But why then do many women have brains and ability matching and

> exceeding that of many men? Isn't that a sign that women can do

> many serious duties in society?

 

 

Lazy men. Weak-hearted men. Men illusioned by false ego. Sexaholics. It sounds

more like the men need to be forced off their fat butts and do their jobs

before we condemn women to doing the mens jobs at the risk of depriving

society from the valuable feminine serious duties that women have. Living

entities, in womens or mens bodies, have incredible potency to do things, but

what does Krsna recommend in Bhagavad-gita for different bodies, no matter

what the so-called material brain power? What will make Him, and therefore the

person, happy?

 

 

> Isn't it like saying that if you are born

> in a sudra family, you are a sudra, no matter if you have the brains

> of a brahmana?

 

It is not only "brains" that make a brahmana. It is also birth after birth of

cleansing and purification and learning and hard work. Brahmana is a very high

qualification which few people on this planet truly have.

Look what one brahmana was capable of (Srila Prabhupada). I worry more about

the discrimination and prejudice shown to sudras and vaisyas and ksatriyas.

They are treated as nothing even if they are aspiring Vaisnavas and fully

capable of performing devotional service besides having real varna

qualifications. ISKCON clearly suffers from this horrible disease and refuses

to take the medicine to cure itself (VAD).

 

 

> In Vedic times maybe women were different, and men different.

 

 

Only in as much as they accepted Varnasrama-dharma. We can have "Vedic" times

now. It is actually quite simple, though not easy.

 

 

> But there

> are also indications that they had many of the same problems that we

> have today, only that they knew how to handle them.

> In any case, with todays population, it does not appear to be any bigger

> difference in intelligence between men and women, so why should we

> artificially create divisions based on something that is not?

 

 

This I do not find supportable by Bhagavad-gita. There is a difference between

the intelligence of men and women and there will always be a difference for as

long as the material world exists. Mental brain power, the power to

distinguish matter from spirit and other technical knowledge, is different

than intelligence which is the ability to discern things in their proper

perspective. Material brain power will just simply not replace intelligence

gained through earned wisdom. Divisions must be there.

 

What does Krsna say about dividing society? Please describe it your own words.

I do not believe He tells Arjuna that His teachings will be different in 5000

years from then.

 

 

>

> Possibly there can be different roles for male brahmanas and

> female brahmanas, and so on, depending on the difference in mentality

> and the way the brains work differently for the two groups. Men's and

> women's intelligence in general are directed in different ways, but to

> define that the male way of thinking is the "correct" way, and the female

> way is "faulty", does not appear to be a way to a saner society.

 

 

The Bhagavada-gita way of thinking is the only "correct" way of thinking. I am

convinced, at least, of this. I do not know the gita very well but I feel we

must stay within its confines to move forward gradually and successfully and

avoid mental speculation.