Do the opponents of the GHQers get any credibility?

[Guest guest]

Maybe as much as the late "Swami" Chinmayananda had... as will be seen

below!

 

> On 01 Jan 2000, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

>

> > On 01 Jan 2000, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> >

> > > I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make?

> >

> > Now that's an interesting question, indeed: "What difference does it

> > make?

> Are you thereby implying that it makes little or no difference? And to

> whom or what? To ISKCON? To you? To the king of Nepal? In the context of

> discussions on varnasrama development, dharma, and so forth, what is the

> significant value of that question?

> >

>

>

> What other people does not necessarily have to effect me adversely, by

> Krsna's grace. But it seems that 'women' are so powerful that every time

> they breath some say you begin to barage the conference with a half dozen

> posts.

>

>

> > >When I think of Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers,

> > >obsessing

> on women...

> >

> > And perhaps you should verify your tele-cyberpsychoalyses with Dr.

> > Ekstrand

> before making such public pronouncements?

>

> Prabhupada obsessed on Krsna, if obsessed is the right word to describe

> such things. There seems to be a plethoria of talk from some quarters with

> regards what women should and shouldn't do, as compared to what they

> should or shouldn't be doing -- as if all the problems of life are found

> 'elsewhere'.

 

The way you write you seem to be propagating the idea that there is no

"difference" between men & women & that, yes, women ought to be made TP's &

GBCs... which is what is going on there in ISKCON in the USA.

 

An idea that, if you'd bother to take the time to really go through all of

Srila Prabhupada's comments on the matter, you'd see *he didn't support it*;

even if during "time & circumstance" preaching *one a very few occasions* he

said "yes, a woman can be a TP". For instance in the quote that's been

flogged in this regard; when Srila Prabhupada tells the late Mrs. Sheldon

Wax (remember the American Airlines disaster at Chicago O'hare Airport back

in '75 when 200+ were killed when a DC-10 bit the tarmac? She & her husband

were among the fatalities - which was the total number of passengers on the

plane!) that a woman can be a TP, and then in the next sentence says that a

woman becomes 1st class by serving her husband!

 

> SB 6th Canto Chapter 17:34-35 Purport

>

> "Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the

> higher statuses of life -- in fact, even between Lord Siva and his wife.

> Lord Siva could understand Citraketu very nicely, but Parvati could not.

> Thus even in the higher statuses of life there is a difference between the

> understanding of a male and that of a female. 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." (A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

> Prabhupada. Srimad Bhagavatam SB 6:17:34-35. purport.)

 

If this statement in SB doesn't make the subject "as clear as the sky is

blue"...

 

Well... Hare Krishna Prabhu! :-)

 

As Srila Prabhupada commented at London in a lecture on July 18, '73:

 

> We have got.... In India we have got little experience. The female is

> always controlled. Female is never given the position of controller.

> Nowadays it is going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the

> position of controller. This is artificial. In the history of India,

> greater India, Mahäbhärata, you will never find that a woman has been

> given a position of controller. No. It is not possible

 

And in the past, in similar e-mail "discussions"... the "argumentitive"

(read "insincere") postulated that the word "controller" didn't mean

"manager". Balderdash!

 

The fact that Indira Gandhi was managing the Government of India for years -

and yes at the time Srila Prabhupada made his comments, didn't mean anything

for them.

 

Therefore I say that there are those who want to understand what Srila

Prabhupada said & taught and that there are others, who would have us think

themselves followers of Srila Prabhupada, BUT THEY WANT TO BE HIS FOLLOWERS

ON THEIR OWN TERMS.

 

Too bad. What did they then learn from Srila Prabhupada?

 

Not what HE wanted them too... at the very least in this regard!

 

This reminds me of what the late Swami Chinmayananda (the

mayavadi/actor/orator) said publicly in a lecture at Ahmedabad way back in

the early '80s... "We shall take what we want from the Bhagavad-gita and

leave what we don't want".

 

That *de facto* we have persons like this within ISKCON doesn't surprise me

a bit... because the entire atmosphere in the west is contaminated by the

spirit of eclecticism.