Do the opponents of the GHQers get any credibility?

[Guest guest]

On 3 Jan 2000, Basu Ghosh wrote:

 

 

>

> 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.

>

 

 

There is a difference, not only between men and women, but between men

and men, and women and women, etc etc etc. I am advocationg that we let a

persons qualities speak for themselves, and not simly judge things by

external experiences. Sure there are alot of stupid women, but they

aren't the only one's. If someone behaves as if they are overly

influences by the lower modes, yes, they shouldn't hold positions of

spiritual leadership.

 

 

 

> 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".

>

 

 

 

He also didn't obsess on it as if it were the only preaching point of

relevance.

 

 

 

> 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!

>

 

 

Hopefully she developed the appropriate realization so the in her current

life she could become a GHQer. What could be higher?

 

 

> > 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! :-)

>

 

 

Of course the 'man' in this case was Lord Siva, who is Visnu in touch

with the material energy, and the 'woman' was Parvatti, practically

speaking the 'goddess' of the material world who has a similar

relationship with Laxmi concerning expansionship as Siva does to Visnu.

 

In any event, if you read till the end of the pastime, you will find the

Parvatti was ultimately pleased by Citraketu's humility and blessed him

as he left the assembly. Further, as a result of Parvatti's curse, he

became the lead player in another inspiring SB pastime, and went Back to

Godhead because of it. May you also be similarly 'cursed'!

 

 

 

> 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

>

 

 

Anyone who thinks being TP or GBC means they are a controller is in deep

trouble.

 

 

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

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

> "manager". Balderdash!

>

 

 

Prabhupada had a good command of the English language, in my opinion.

Generally, serving the devotees in a managerial capacity means you are

their servant, not their controller. At least that is our devotional

understanding.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

He also made comments about 'men' leaders, yet he showed Indira Gandhi

all respect in person. He knew a little bit about what it means to be

both 'honest' and a 'gentleman', emphasising the term 'man' in

'gentleman'.

 

 

> 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?

>

 

 

I hate to have to say this again, but I find it highly amusing that some

wish to make the line in the sand as to who is and isn't a follower of

Srila Prabhupada over this issue of how we should all meditate on women.

Basically, both women and men should be nicely engaged in Krsna's

service, being we are all His parts and parcels. Nicely engaged means the

devotees are enthused to serve as devotional service is so auspicious.

 

 

> 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".

>

 

 

Many accuse the GHQers of the same error.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

 

I hate to be the one to clue you in, but the Ea