Women's role and intelligence

[Guest guest]

Ameyatma Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

All the quotes of Srila Prabhupada that you have given, I understand them

*directly* and quite well. My only submission is generals and specifics

must not be mixed up.

 

I read everyday Srila Prabhupada's books and hear his Vani atleast a few

pages and few minutes, as a part of my daily sadhana. I do not read books

outside ISKCON as a principle.

 

Ksatriyas protect all other classes and all other classes include men, and

all living entities. So men need protection. However if some one thinks he

can protect his wife and children or even he can protect himself he is in

illusion.

 

Srila Prabhupada has given us pancharatrika vidhi and Bhagavat vidhi and not

vaidik vidhi.

 

"If one actually wants to serve Krsna, it doesn't matter whether one is a

sudra, vaisya, or even a woman. If one is sincerely eager to chant the Hare

Krsna mantra or diksa-mantra, he is qualified to be initiated according to

the pancaratrika process. According to Vedic principles, only a brahmana who

is fully engaged in his occupational duties can be initiated. Sudras and

women are not admitted to a vaidika initiation. Unless one is fit according

to the estimation of the spiritual master, one cannot accept a mantra from

the pancaratrika-vidhi or the vaidika-vidhi. When one is fit to accept the

mantra, he is initiated by the pancaratrika-vidhi or the vaidika-vidhi. In

any case, the result is the same." --- Srila Prabhupada.

 

> > 4) So in our society according to Srila Prabhupada and according

> > to Krishna we

> > must give roles according to their aptitudes and attitudes, and

> > not according

> > to brain substance, or whether some one is in a male body or a

> > female body.

> > That should not be the criterion.

 

Real intelligence is in the heart and not in the head as many believe, and

also not in the body (male or female).

 

> In DEVOTIONAL SERVICE to KRSNA - Yes, we must all take to the subserviant

> position. You me, our daughters, wives, even Srila Prabhupad and all the

> great acharyas. Even Brahma and Shiva, we all take to the subserviant

> position before Ishvar Parama Krsna.

 

Our philosophy is servant of the servant of the servant..... of Lord

Krishna.

 

I can give some quotes to support my points, but that is not required, as

long as we understand and agree to differentiate generals and specifics and

keep them separate.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

Mahat-tattva,

I did not know that I was doing what you are accusing me for. I was rather

pointing out to a text from TKG and his analysis. I did not say it was wrong,

but bizarre. I did not say either that it was wrong for you to post this.

Then, next question is why will it be offensive for me to ask an explanation

if I don't understand something or that it doesn't fit with my realization?

After all, we are just trying to communicate. Why are you so irritated by a

question that is in itself devoid of any offense? I did not see your

"discussion on social roles in Krishna conscious society." I pick up your

quote on Prabhupada Said forum.

 

Now that I have explained myself -something you could have easily ask me to do

right from the beginning if you did not understand my intervention- could you

please, and without animosity, explain what is the meaning of the quote.

 

I am presenting here for you one of the other problems I have in understanding

this text. (I hope this will not bring your condemnation on my head.) You:

"according to the passage I quoted, Srila Prabhupada was against ladies

occupying the post of a GBC." Then, a little further I read that: "This allows

for an individual to utilize his or her abilities maximally." What maximally

means? Is the GBC's function so special that it is beyond what women can do as

maximally?

Ak

 

 

 

On 5 Jun 2002, Mahat-tattva das wrote:

 

> Dear Akhileshvara Prabhu. You first offended Srila Prabhupada by considering

> his statement a "vague socio-psychological analysis." Then you offended me

> considering it wrong to post such a quote on the conference. Then on top of

> everything you demanded explanation. A behavior that doesn't fit a Vaisnava.

> Then after all that without any apology you are persistent demanding

> explanation of a very clear statement. Despite everything I consider myself

> your servant and I'll answer your (arrogant) question:

>

> Dear Prabhu it is very clear that, according to the passage I quoted, Srila

> Prabhupada was against ladies occupying the post of a GBC. And again, why

> did I quote that? Because it was relevant to our discussion on social roles

> in Krishna conscious society.

>

> Your servant,

> Mahat-tattva dasa