see *some* women as mother?

[Guest guest]

> 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?

 

But that is good. Then we agree on that both men and women should be

examined according to their nature, and get social duties accordingly.

Now, maybe you can inform me what Krsna says about duties for women

in the Bhagavad gita.

 

> When was this?

 

Not very far ago. Maybe 100 years ago. What is the average life expectancy

in countries like India today?

 

> And when was this?

 

To get very many children was also pretty common, just a short while ago

in the west.

 

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

> mouth which I never said.

 

I did not say that you said all that. But maybe I should instead ask you

what you think women should do. What you think the women's nature

is, as opposed to the men's nature?

 

> 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.

 

In a vedic society, both men and women are always married. So I don't

think we can single out women as beeing married, and not men. Why

should the women's duties be defined in terms of the husband's

duties? Why cannot husband and wife be seen as a team, where both

parts are equally important, that performs duties together?

So the ksatriya husband-wife team have duties together, as well

as the brahmana husband-wife team.

 

> 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.

 

We can as well say that men should do duties suitable for men, and they

will be happy doing that. There is really no difference, but rather a

symmetric, symbiotic relationship. Now, we know that there are men

of many different kinds, brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas, sudras, so

to say "a man's duty", does not convey very much information of what

a man should do. In a similar way, "woman's duty" is also something that

really does not give very much information. It is a pretty loaded saying,

that is often used by men, just to "put women in their place".

 

We can take an example. If we have a man, who's main characteristic

is that he works with his brain. Is it right to have him beeing the cleaner

man, and sweep the floors the whole day? Is that his duty?

If we now similarly take a very intelligent women, why should it then

be fair to have her doing the "women's duty" of cleaning? Is that not

similarly violating the natural capabilities of her? Why should the man

be allowed to work with his brain, but not the woman? I don't say that you

say this, but this kind of thinking i have heard a lot of in ISKCON.

 

> 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?

 

It is self evident, isn't it? The problem is in determining a person's duty.

 

> 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.

 

Very little is said about the common duties in society. The scriptures

mainly

speak about very special persons, and we cannot automatically draw

conclusions of duties for non-kings, etc.

 

(continued in another text)

 

ys Prisni