spiritually equal, materially different

December 14, 1999

At 20:26 +0100 12/14/1999, COM: Harsi (das) HKS (Timisoara - RO) wrote:

>

> What wonders me the most, is that there are also so many woman who are

>satisfied with being called infiriour to man, when actually it should mean

>that they are just different, materially speaking.

You're absolutely right. Maybe our silence is simply due to the fact

that several of us have already repeated exactly that concept so many

times that we're wondering if anyone even wants to listen. Of course

men and women are *different* and in that sense we're not "equal",

materially speaking. Only women's bodies have ovaries and a uterus

and only men's bodies make sperm. Only women's bodies produce milk

to feed an infant and, on the average, male bodies have greater

muscle mass than do female bodies. This has led to some pretty

obvious and different social roles in virtually all cultures. But

you're absolutely right that one role is not "better" or "worse".

Both are needed and complement each other perfectly.

Of course, spiritually speaking, we're all equals. That's why many

vaisnavis can't understand why the GHQ and their supporters want to

contradict Prabhupada's example and limit souls in female bodies from

performing *devotional service* according to their propensities. The

ministry never says that we should support research that will allow

men's bodies to give birth or women's bodies to produce sperm. The

ministry has never said that men and women are identical, materially

speaking. All they have requested is that we return to the standards

set by Srila Prabhupada for his own spiritual daughters. For those

who were absent when these were outlined, you can find papers and

recollections by Srila Prabhupada's senior female disciples (e.g.

Joytirmayi, Visakha and Malati prabhus) at:

http://www.chakra.org/mainpages/women/index.htm

For those who do not have web access, I'd be glad to e-mail these

papers to you directly.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

December 15, 1999

At 12:47 PM -0800 12/14/99, Maria Ekstrand wrote:

>This has led to some pretty

>obvious and different social roles in virtually all cultures. But

>you're absolutely right that one role is not "better" or "worse".

>Both are needed and complement each other perfectly.

So why are certain women clamoring for equal social roles/occupational

duties? Actualy Prabhupada called women "different entities" who must

therefore have "different engagements." How is the IWM fulfilling this

desire of Srila Prabhupada?

Morning Walk March 19, 1976, Mayapura

Ramesvara: The women argue, Srila Prabhupada, that they can be given.... If

they are given a good chance, they can make equal contribution in business,

in science. So they are demanding equal rights, equal employment.

Prabhupada: So why.... Why not equal rights that you stop producing

children like the man? The man does not produce. Why you are obliged to

produce?

Ramesvara: That is their special qualification.

Prabhupada: That is.... Similarly, everything is special. You are a

different entity. You must have different engagements. That is your

perfection.

>Of course, spiritually speaking, we're all equals.

In one sense, yes. In another sense, no. e.g. the blades of grass in

Vrndavan are not equal to the gopis. The relationships one has with Krsna

are also not equal although they are all perfect and complete. There are

gradations even in the spiritual world.

>That's why many

>vaisnavis can't understand why the GHQ and their supporters want to

>contradict Prabhupada's example and limit souls in female bodies from

>performing *devotional service* according to their propensities.

Just because one has a propensity doesn't mean one should act accordingly.

Lord Krsna says in BG, 18.47:

"It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may

perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it

perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are never affected

by sinful reactions."

This verse, spoken by the Lord, definitely limits our occupations to those

prescribed according to one's nature. Only a very less intelligent person

would consider that limiting ones occupation limits devotional service.

Krsna limited Arjuna to the ksatriya occupation and discouraged him from

engaging into a brahminical occupation (regardless of whether he was a

"better" brahmana than certain brahmanas and/or able to perform brahminical

duties better than his ksatriya duties). Was that limiting Arjuna's

devotional service? Of course not. In the case of the woman class, they

have very specific duties, explained by Narada in SB 7.11, that are outside

the realm of the dvijas. The occupations of women as a class are prescribed

according to their being women, not brahmanas, ksatriyas, etc.

>The

>ministry never says that we should support research that will allow

>men's bodies to give birth or women's bodies to produce sperm.

That's a relief!

>All they have requested is that we return to the standards

>set by Srila Prabhupada for his own spiritual daughters.

Yes. And those standards he established were very strict. He didn't want

women even sewing Deity clotes for sannyasis what to speak of managing side

by side with them.

"You may check that they are chanting and following the rules but do not

get involved with their management. So far your suggestion that they sew

clothes for the sannyasis Deities it is not possible. Sannyasis may have no

connection with women."(Letter to: Jayatirtha Calcutta 13 January, 1976)

"On the whole larger scale is not to be attempted by women. Manage a small

asram, but don't try bigger scale, then you require the help of men. Don't

try manual exertion, then again there is mixture and that is not desired.

Simply keep yourself aloof from men--chanting, many more times as possible,

read books, worship the deity."(Letter to: Yamuna, Dinatarine Mayapur 21

February, 1976)

ys. JMd

December 15, 1999