Women's role and intelligence

[Guest guest]

This is from Ameyatma Prabhu (address above)

 

<Urmila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Cc: <shyama-d1 (AT) radha-webdesign (DOT) com>, <Katha (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, <pandava (AT) ev1 (DOT) net>,

<Ganga.IDS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, <bhadra.govinda.jps (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

-> Women's role and intelligence

 

 

---- >> I was forwarded the email by Bhadra Govinda regarding this topic.

I am not part of the forums that it was posted on, but i wrote a response to

it and am sending it to some of the devotees i was given email addresses for

that were part of the discussion. I apologize to Bhadra Govinda if my

response seems a bit sharp and critical. I ask that he not take any

personal offense. Also, i wrote it off the cuff and still have no time to

look up all the quotes (or re-edit it to make it shorter and more readable).

But, if someone wants me to send a quote or referrence to something i said

there is one for, i will look it up and send it.

 

<===============>

 

My comments follow bg's itemized logic list (which i shortened):

 

> This is from bhadra.govinda.jps (AT) pamho (DOT) net

> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

> Women's role and intelligence

> ---------------------------

> Even talking only about prescribed duties in varnasrama, and not bringing

in

> the topic of prescribed spiritual duties, I would like to add a few

points.

>

> Case to case intelligence is different between men and men, women

> and women,

> men and women, with in the same asrama, with in the same varna,

....

....

> 12) Similarly, in the current age where all men and women in

> general cannot

> understand sruti and smriti, if you again compare less intelligent to less

> intelligent some women may be more intelligent than some men and

> vice versa.

> 13) In Arjuna's epoch brahmana men (apples) compared to women and other

> classes (oranges) then apples proved to be more intelligent.

> 14) That is all speaking generally. Specifically every

> individual has to be

> evaluated on individual merit of guna and karma, every man and

> every woman,

> in all ages.

>

> Additional note: Srila Prabhupada knew kaliyuga brains cannot understand

> sruti and smriti which is in sanskrit language, so he translated into

> mleccha bhasha, English out of his compassion to the fallen souls of

> Kaliyuga. In Arjuna's epoch, mleccha bhasha (english language) would be

> considered low class, compared to Sanskrit.

>

> Hare Krishna,

>

> Your humble servant,

> Bhadra Govinda Das.

 

So What? What is the purpose of his logical analysis? That we give men and

women Equal roles in society because basically according to his logic we are

all more or less equally less intelligent? Or that we devise a system by

which each and every man and woman is tested to see who is more or less

intelligent? What will be the basis of those tests? That if a person can

learn and comprehend Sanskrit then they can take up the posts of social

leadership? Not being a member of that discussion i have no idea what the

purpose of his logic conclusion is. What is his point?

 

But, when it comes to social "Prescribed Duties" and roles of the genders

the Vedic scripture as well as Srila Prabhupad are clear - men and women are

prescribed "different" roles. Among those roles the women are deligated to

household affairs, cooking, cleaning, domestic duties of household life. And

a most important part of their duty is to take and assume the submissive

role of a loyal sold-out sub-serviant follower of their father, husband and

later in life, older son. The man is deligated the duty of not only

providing for the family, but also to take on the role of leading, leading

the family as the husband and father, and leading society as well, providing

spiritual and material guidance. These are the roles that both SP and Vedic

literatures clearly prescribe according to gender - not according to an

intellectual aptitude test. For any women to assume any of the male roles is

an extreme rare exception to the rule.

 

However, SP was also very clear on his observation and on the instance of

shastra that women are, in general, materially less intelligent. He pointed

out that there are no great women philosophers and thinkers throughout

history, only men. Obviously there are many foolish men and many women who

are more materially intelligent then the average men, BUT, what is always

SP's intended point when he insists that - as a whole - women are less

intelligent then men? The point is always to make clear that woman's

"PRESCRIBED social DUTY" is to take to the subserviant position. ALWAYS.

Always placing herself as a dependent on the men. No matter who she is, what

her level of so-called intelligence is. That is the prescribed duty for

women. Regardless of apptitude or intellectual proclivities.

 

Whether a particular woman is factually, in many ways, more materially

intelligent, even spiritually advanced, then her own husband is really - in

general - not to be considered. The point is, if the woman is "actually"

intelligent, as so many people try to argue, they will then accept the Vedic

conclusions and take up the subordinate position because they will

understand that this is ultimately what is needed to facilitate a smooth

peaceful life in the material world.

 

To illustrate this Rani Gandhari is often exalted as the prime example.

Srila Prabhupad points out that her own husband was not only physically

blind, but he was spiritually blind as well. He was actually less

spiritually intelligent - more cold hearted and impious - then his very

pious and kind hearted wife, mother Gandhari. Yet, Gandhari maharani

voluntarily blind folded herself as a way to force herself to never assume

"ANY position" in life in which she would try to take the superior position

over her husband. As a woman - and a religious wife - she understood that

the proper "religously and shastrically prescribed" position - was for her

to remain always submissive and subordinate to her husband - in "ALL

respects". She followed him, even into war against Lord Krsna, she never

abandoned the side of her husband - even when she knew her own husband was

wrong and had taken opposition to Krsna. She never assumed a dominating role

in any aspect toward her lord and master, her prabu-husband. She always

remained the ideally submissive wife. Thus, she won the praises of all

saintly men. Including the direct praise and respect of Lord Sri Krsna.

 

Her undertaking of great personal sacrifice and austerity is the sign of her

actual intelligence - and mostly her spiritual strength. In these ways she

was, factually more intelligent then her fallen husband. But, on the

strength of her greater intelligence she purposefully took up her prescribed

duty as chaste submissive wife. That is her greatness. As Srila Prabhupad

has pointed out (don't have time to look up quote right now), that women who

refuse to take to the submissive position - it is due to what he described

as their "womanly weakness". When women try to 'artificially' [artificially

means against the principles of their prescribed social duties] take to the

dominate position in marriage or social affairs, this Srila Prabhupad

refered to was due to their WEAKNESS. Not a sign of their strength, but

their weakness. And great women like Gandhari maharani are praised by all

saintly and intellectual men for their STRENGTH of character. Srila

Prabhupad described her voluntary blindess as severe austerity. It requires

tremendous strength of character to do what Gandhari did. She was by no

calculation a weak woman or weak personality. Her actions of always placing

herself in the most submissive role was not due to womanly weakness, but to

her strength of understanding that for the BETTERMENT of Society, for her

best benefit also, and the benefit of her children, the benefit of Krsna,

etc., that as a woman she must always place herself in the submissive role.

It was her great strength of intelligence that brought her to that

conclusion, not her weakness.

 

On the flip side, women today who want to go on insisting and insisting that

they are just as good as most men, that they are just as fit and qualified

to take the lead in marriage, in society, etc., and who absolutely, or EVEN

slightly, refuse to take to the suboridinate or submissive social roles

because they 'know' they are just as intelligent and just as capable of

leading as most any man, especially their looser no good husbands, their

attitudes and actions and arguments are not a sign of their intelligence nor

strength of character, but is based on a complete lack of any intelligent

understanding of social dharma - as to what is ultimately needed to

facilitate the most peaceful society and marriage. Their obstinance and

refusal to take up the subordinate social position is not a sign of their

great strength, but their tremendous womanly weakness - for all it will

result in is pure social havoc and chaos. SP has given clear logic to

support this position.

 

Once Ramesvar tried to point out to SP that if women are given the chance

for equal rights, that they can do just about anything men can. He pointed

out that women are now Senators, and there are now women CEO's of major

corporations and also women prime ministers, etc. SP brushed it off, saying

that is merely a question of mundane education [agreeing that if given the

mundane education - yes - women can take up these roles - which are, btw,

occupied by sudras today anyway], but SP pointed out that the real point is

that for the peaceful management of society - prescribed social duties are

there - women are to take up the domestic home life - subserviant position

in the home - and the man is to work outside in the world and earn living,

organize and lead family and society. Then the social life will become

peaceful. It is not a question of whether women "can" take up social

leadership roles, it is not a question of "ability", it is not a question of

individual apptitude, but it is ultimately a question of taking up and

following scripturally prescribed duty. That is all.

 

It was not a question of who was better qualified to SEE, both materially

and spiritually: Gandhari or Dhrtarastra? If that were the deciding factor,

then Gandhari should have taken the dominate role of the marriage and she

should have become the ruler of the kingdom. She not only had the material

vision, but spiritually she was arguably more advanced also. But, it is not

a question of who is better materially fit, it is a question of prescribed

duty. Because "in-general" it is best for society if men lead and women

follow. For that reason we are "NOT" to look at the "individual

qualfications" of each person, as Bhadra-Govinda is trying to argue, but

that we simply focus and adhere to the general principles of dharma.

 

Individually Gandhari would have made a better ruler then Dhrtarastra. She

could see materially and spiritually better then he. The calamaties of the

Pandavas would have been prevented. The great War would have been avoided

(well, maybe not, as Duryodhan was still a factor). BUT, as much as it may

seem it would have been better for Gandhari to lead, in the ultimate scheme

of time, it would have wreaked havoc in society for thousands of years to

come. Rather then following in the footsteps of the submissive Gandhari the

women for thousands of years would be trying to follow her lead of taking

charge - of dominating their husbands - and the world would have suffered

for thousands of years like it does today in regards to divorce rates and

broken families and all would have been pure hell for thousands of years -

so even the sacrifice of the Pandava's peace and a war, it was ultimately

best for the world, in the overall scheme, that Gandhari strongly took to

the position of following her husband, even though she was more qualified in

many ways.

 

As Krsna says, it is a great sin to execute another person's prescribed

duty, even if you can perform it better then they can. One must stick

his/her own prescribed duty, even if it is performed with fault, then to

perform another's duty even if you can do it better.

 

So, what is Bhadra-Govinda's point of assessing each man and woman on their

own individual so-called intellectual level of competency? Then what? ? ?

 

What is the point? To then give those women who score high on the Sanskrit

test the prescribed social duties of men? If a wife seems more spiritually

fit to lead than her husband, are they to switch roles? No. We must manage

society based on general prescribed duties, not on individual scores of some

strange intellectual-apptitude evaluation tests. Ultimately that is the

whole issue. The real issue and point is Prescribed Social Duties. And Vedic

scripture, under Krishna's Direct Hand, has given the prescriptions - based

on gender - not on intellectual prowess. And thus

those social roles and duties are to be followed, regardless of blindness on

a man's part, or superior vision on the woman's part. The social prescribed

duties must be adhered to regardless of who is better materially fit to

carry out that duty. Dharma is prescribed to be followed by one and all on

the basis of what works best "in-general".

 

And women (and men) who do not understand these points - no matter how

loudly they cry foul, or how intellectually they try to sound in giving

logic argument - the fact is, their arguments are based on a lack of proper

'real' understanding of Vedic social dharma - thus their positions are based

on a lacking of higher intelligence, no matter how they good they are at

juggling words and sentimental emotions. Real intelligence is exhibited by

mother Gandhari, who UNDERSTOOD that despite her material advantage over her

husband, her DUTY as a woman was to take to the subordinate position and

place herself in ALL ways before her LORD and MASTER, her husband, as his

subserviant maid and follower. That was due to her strength and

intelligence, not due to her weakness.

 

What our society needs is an army of strong intelligent women like Mother

Gandhari Maharani, Mother Kunti Maharani, Mother Draupadi Maharani, Mother

Subhadra Maharani, etc. Mother Subhadra was Krishna's most dear and loving

sister. Still, she placed herself before not only her own husband in a

submissive way, but she placed herself before Arjun's first wife, Draupadi,

as her maidservant. This was not due to her weakness of personal character,

or lack of intelligence - but was due to her strength of understanding what

is best for society - what is proper dharma.

 

ISKCON needs women of true intelligence who can understand these principles

of dharma and who have the strength of character and will power to take up

their proper prescribed social duties and positions which will be for the

betterment and advancement of society. Those will be the truly intelligent

and strong women - not those who keep crying foul and who keep trying to

artificially show that they are just as good in leading, just as

intelligent, or even more so, then the men. That will not help society,

rather it will worsen the chaos and divorce and keep society in hell, and it

will also make their lives miserable.

 

Hare Krsna

ys - ameyatma das