male form

[Guest guest]

I've been and continue to be rather busy and thus haven't commented on this

string in the last few days.

 

But I didn't find Bhadra Govinda Prabhu's comment on my posting to be

offensive in any way, although I'm not sure if all that he stated was

according to guru-sadhu-sastra as he claimed. He wrote:

 

> In Kali Yuga, everybody is less intelligent, both men and women.

>

 

There is a notion that because in Kali-yuga everyone is less intelligent

that all distinctions between men and women as given in sastra become

nullified. However I have not found anywhere that sastra explicitly states

so. Nor if it were so would Srila Prabhupada have written and spoken so many

times about the distinctions. For instance:

 

It may be clearly said that the understanding of a woman is always inferior

to the understanding of a man. In the Western countries there is now

agitation to the effect that man and woman should be considered equal, but

from this verse it appears that woman is always less intelligent than man.

 

(SB 6.17.34-35 ppt)

 

> In any yuga, society is divided according to guna and karma, whether man

> or woman.

 

In Vedic society women are followers of their husbands. Their position, e.g.

as brahmani or sudrani, is derived not from an independent assessment of

their guna or karma, but from the status of their husband. A brahmani does

not have the independence of a brahmana because women are not to be given

independence. Nor is her karma that of her husband, although it is

influenced by that of her husband. Her karma, as is that of a sudrani, is to

serve her husband. That is stri-dharma.

 

A devotee recently wrote me:

 

> many, if not most, women in ISKCON (in the west at least)

> seem to be either embarassed, offended, or are put-off by Srila

> Prabhupada's teachings on women. Many men are too.

 

Below is an example of the kind of teachings that are often unpopular or are

attempted to be explained away in ISKCON today:

 

Now, in the Manu-samhita it is clearly stated that a woman should not be

given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but

they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not

mean that they are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such

injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as

men. However, this has not improved the social condition of the world.

Actually, a woman should be given protection at every stage of life. She

should be given protection by the father in her younger days, by the husband

in her youth, and by the grownup sons in her old age. This is proper social

behavior according to the Manu-samhita. But modern education has

artificially devised a puffed-up concept of womanly life, and therefore

marriage is practically now an imagination in human society. Nor is the

moral condition of woman very good now. The demons, therefore, do not accept

any instruction which is good for society, and because they do not follow

the experience of great sages and the rules and regulations laid down by the

sages, the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 16.8

 

N.B. the verse of which this is part of the purport states nothing about

womens' roles. It states: "Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be

done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor

truth is found in them." Srila Prabhupada cites modern attitudes to women as

an example of how demons do not know what is proper behavior. This is in a

Gita commentary, meant for mass distribution.

 

Contentious indeed, but nevertheless the words of guru and sastra and

therefore worshipable.

 

As stated above I'm very busy and although this posting may generate many

responses please consider it between yourselves. Personally I'm clear that

present attitudes in ISKCON towards womens' social roles are more influenced

by compromise with modern demoniac ideas than by guru-sadhu-sastra.