important

[Guest guest]

And such beloved devotees of the Lord are fit to accept worship on His

>> behalf as sannyasis or spiritual masters, all of which class within ISKCON

>> at present are men. So my question was specifically meant to clarify this

>> point: Why will the GBC "not tolerate...preferential treatment given to

>> male devotees in any form," since *one form* of preferential treatement is

>> that due to the spiritual master, sannyasis, and even brahmanas?

>

>And you think that women can't be brahmanas or vaisnavas otherwise you

wouldn't >come to such a conclusion?

 

Well, usually the word "brahmana" refers to the male. Perhaps "Vaisnava"

means male or female, even though we have the distinct word "Vaisnavi." I

really don't know. But if you're asking me if I think women can't be

brahmanis or Vaisnavis, then the answer is "Of course, they can!"

 

>> Yes, Mataji, the cows, monkeys, hogs, and other creatures, as well as the

>> Vaisnavis, are equally related to Krsna. Why therefore is special

>> treatment given to Vaisnavis to occupy one-half of an ISKCON temple room?

>> Why not share that space equally with the female gender of other species

>> also? Is that what you mean to establish by the above quote?

 

>But they are equal also with the sannyasis, men, and all other male species.

 

Yes, they are spiritually equal. But the fact that we *don't* make space for

them is because of the *material* difference. Similarly, human society

ordered according to varna and asrama recognizes both material and spiritual

differences in social position, and thus brahmanas, sannyasis, and gurus are

traditionally offered *special* respect and treatment accordingly, isn't it?

 

>This has nothing to do with the place in a templeroom.

 

I's meant to show that Mother Gunamani's quotes do not address social

differentiations according to varna and asrama but instead focus upon the

spiritual equality of all souls. So I ask (rhetorically), "Why not

accomodate souls in animal bodies within the temple room?"

 

>> Therefore, cows, elephants, and dogs should also be treated fairly and

>> thus granted equal space in every ISKCON temple. Is this correct, Mataji?

 

>Guru-krishna prabhu, you are really starting to talk a nonsense here. Why

are >you mixing up things? Everybody is equal on the spiritual platform, not

just a >female part of species. That has nothing to do with the space in a

templeroom.

 

Same answer as above, Mataji. It's obvious that we *don't* embrace the

tiger, although there is an equal soul within. We *don't* allow the dog to

enter the temple, although there is an equal spiritual soul within.

Similarly we *should* offer special respect and treatment to gurus,

sannyasis, brahmanas--at least that is what SP has written.

 

>> Very nice quotes, of course, Mataji. But how do any of them specifically

>> relate to my question above?

 

>They relate in a way that you are supposed to learn to respect everybody.

 

That is accepted. We don't say *not* to respect Vaisnavis. We're trying to

go one rung higher: Offer preferential respect/facility/treatment to gurus,

sannyasis, brahmanas, as consistent with Vedic culture. At the same time, do

not disrespect women, do not mistreat them, do not deprive them. We aren't

talking about favoring men to the deprivation of women. No. We're talking

about respecting and properly treating all, and which includes offering even

a little extra to those who occupy advanced status in the social hierarchy

of a spiritual society.

 

>> This is also very nice. But if a sannyasi of contemporary age were also

>> residing in the same temple, should he not be given preferential

>> treatment? If not why not?

 

>Because sannyasis are not supposed to be depending on a managerial

structure for the >protection and their needs. They already have given up

that structure. That's the >meaning of sannyasa. You give up a society and

completely depend on the Lord. Not that >you take up sannyas clothes and

then use the society and managerial structure to >protect you. What's then

the meaning of depending on the Lord?

 

I accept what you say, Mataji. But a genuine sannyasi is the fullest

representation of the brahmana varna as well as the guru of all other

asramas. As guru, he deserves special respect and facility, for he is the

emissary of Krsna Himself. And as brahman, he deserves protection. Vaisnavis

seem to think that women are the first and foremost class that should be

protected. Not so:

 

"The defenseless creatures, according to Brahma-samhita, are the cows,

brahmanas, women, children, and old men. Of these five, the brahmanas and

cows are especially mentioned in this verse because the Lord is always

anxious about the benefit of the brahmanas and the cows..." (SB 3.16.10P)

 

Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but apparently they rate third amongst the

five defenseless creatures. It's a hierarchy. It's not all one and the same.

It's simultaneously the same and not the same, no? The Lord is "always

anxious about the benefit of the brahmanas and the cows." Genuine sannyasis

are the topmost brahmanas. So we shouldn't put the Lord in further anxiety

by not properly caring for our "dear sons," the wandering mendicant

sannyasis--who have no home in this world, who are fully dependent on the

Lord (as you said), who must constantly travel, who have no wife or children

to give them affection or comforts, and who *we* householders must properly

respect and give comforts to when they temporarily visit our locale.

 

>> Aren't we enjoined to give special treatment to the spiritual master, or

>> are we now forbidden by the GBC to do that if the spiritual master happens

>> to be male? That is my question. The sannyasi is to be offered special

>> respect and facilities because he is the spiritual master of society, but

>> since he also happens to be male, are we now forbidden to offer him

>> special treatment?

 

>What are you worrying about here? I never heard that GBC came to that kind

of >conclusion.

 

But if taken literally, the order reads: "the GBC will not

tolerate...preferential treatment given to male devotees in any form."

Please note and consider the meaning of "in any form," with special emphasis

on the word "any." So what does that mean? Will not tolerate...in *any* form?

 

>Besides that, if sannyasis start to demand the special treatment, then

something must >be really wrong somewhere.

 

But was that actually the case?

 

>> This was exactly the point of contention in Vrndavana which led to the GBC

>> Executive order, wasn't it? The order came as a result of the temple

>> management's desire to facilitate a somewhat preferential treatment of

>> sannyasis (spiritual masters), and reads in part: "the GBC will not

>> tolerate...preferential treatment given to male devotees in any form."

>> "Any form" obviously includes the form in which preferential treatment was

>> being given to the sannyasis.

 

>I already explain that. Sannyasis are not supposed to be using managerial

structure for >their own protection and needs.

 

Your explanation is valid from the viewpoint of the sannyasis, I agree. They

should not do as you say they should not. But why does the *GBC* say that

*they* "will not tolerate...preferential treatment given to male devotees in

any form"? Why should the sannyasis be demoted (practically speaking) by

virtue of this zero-tolerance edict?

 

>> Kapiladeva was a brahmacari, and his mother took lessons from Him. That is

>> the male prerogative. (TLK Chapter 5 page 43)

>>

>> Here Kapiladeva in a brahmacari dress, and mother is taking lesson from

>> the son. Now, sometimes it is asked, "How the mother will take lesson from

> the son?" That is the prerogative of the male. (Srimad-Bhgavatam 3.25.5-6

>> Bombay, November 5, 1974)

 

>What does that has to do with the place in a templeroom?

 

This was to counterbalance the women-may-give-class quotes. We must accept

both.

 

>> Yes, the "gopis of Vrndavana are the best example of this." And the gopis

>> were simple village girls, unsophisticated, uneducated. There is no

>> history of the gopis leading temple kirtans, giving SB class, serving as

>> temple presidents, GBCs. It's good to know--isn't it?--that Vaisnavis can

>> achieve the highest platform of Krsna consciousness simply by following in

>> the footsteps of the gopis.

 

>Very good logic. There is no history either of temple kirtans, SB classes

and TP and >GBCs in the spiritual world. Those things don't exist in the

spiritual world. You are >again mixing up things.

 

Sorry for not making it more clear, Mataji. The "gopis" that I refer to are

the gopis of Bhauma Vrndavana, not of Goloka Vrndavana. They being the

*topmost* example of devotees, perhaps ISKCON ladies should become absorbed

in thoughts of Krsna while milking cows, churning butter, caring for

children--i.e. following in the footsteps of the gopis--rather than while

aspiring for managerial posts or positions of recognition. (Of course, we'll

also include Deity worship, book distribution, preaching, also as "in the

mood of the gopis." I'm just not so sure we can include certain services

naturally befitting men as also being exactly "in the mood of the gopis.")

 

--gkd