Recollections of Vrindavana

[Guest guest]

Last night we had our weekly program with Visnu tattva Prabhu and Mother

Bishmaka. They are both gujaratis from Fiji born in Vaisnava families.

Visnutattva Prabhu was Vrndavana vice president between 77-78. Both he and

his wife were shocked at hearing about the scene caused by these Western

women in Vrndavana. He said that if these women are seeking complete

equality with men and, in particular, if the want to impose these standards

in Vrndavana, then they must be demons.

 

I asked what the standard was regarding women in the Temple at the time he

was vp. He told us that women were always in the back and always gave

preference to men, and in particular sannyasis. He said that the women used

to cross the street and take a different path when a sannyasi would

approah. The women never dared stand before a sannyasi what to speak of

dallying with him. The women would offer obeisances from behind the

sannyasi and from a distance. Sometimes women would be pushed out of the

temple completely if the temple room filled up with male devotees during

mangala arotik.

 

He clearly remembers Prabhupada prohibiting all women from serving the

Deities on the altar as pujaris in any temple in India. Regardless of this

stricture, women were always respected by all the men especially because

they demonstarted their shyness to such an ideal degree.

 

ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/17/99 7:21:26 AM Central Standard Time,

btb (AT) georgian (DOT) net writes:

 

<< Sometimes women would be pushed out of the temple completely if the

temple room filled up with male devotees during mangala arotik. >>

 

Just because this was the standard in Vrndavana in 77 and 78, does it mean

that this is the way Prabhupada wanted it? Or is this the way the management

wanted it?

 

Please ask Visnutattva if he knows if this is how Prabhupada wanted it. I

have seen standards in temple that were not entirely in line with what Srila

Prabhupada wanted. This is not uncommon.

[Guest guest]

>If the [Women's Ministry] is genuinely concerned with examples set by

Prabhupada in India, then why do they want to change what he established as a

standard in Vrindavana? Can't the women wait their turn and then see the

deities at the front of the altar after the sannyasis and men?

 

The "standard" Prabhupada supposedly created is obviously under scrutiny, and

in my mind, should have been questioned many, many years ago.

 

First of all, I want to go on record, that as long as I can remember, I was

always embarassed to step in the line of darshan of my dear godsisters. In any

ISKCON temple, but in Vrndavan especially, I shyed away from intruding upon

their meditative gaze upon Sri Sri Radha-Shyamasundara as much as I could, and

I would often utter a silent prayer that I might not offend them by the

discriminatory practices that were in vogue as temple policy. But as a male

who was still enjoying some privileges but did not object to these unfair

practices, I was also party to it.

 

I now take this opportunity to offer the ladies my firm support.

 

I remember well the "standard" Prabhupada established in NY before a parade of

3-4 self-righteous, macho sannyasis came back from India in 1974 to tell us

how it was "REALLY" supposed to be: From that point on, women lost their place

as "godsisters" (what is that quote from CC where Prabhupada explains they are

as good as their brothers?) and were then callously shoved to the back of

temple rooms across the world and treated as something akin to unotuchables as

a regular ISKCON function. Some "standard." By *whose* "authority?" I say.

 

Why don't our haughty men listen to the pitiful tales the ladies have to

relate? I remember one story from a gurukuli in New Mayapur France. First of

all, they forced these young girls to raise early for Mangala Arotik, but

since these young girls had the terrible fortune to be born as females they

had to stand behind the towering males who were more twice their size and

standing in front of them. This situation went on everyday, for years and

years together, and they were unable to even SEE the Deities because of the

temple room arrangements. How are these young girls supposed to be engaged or

enthused in KC at such an early age by such sense deprivation -- standing in a

crowd in a dark temple room at that time in the night (early morning)? Or they

can see the Deities only for the last minute or so during the Nrsimha prayers,

and even then, from a considerable distance? Meanwhile the men are up front

"getting their rocks off" leading kirtan, and thinking what great devotees

they are (literally), totally oblivious to the spiritual needs and plight of

the women, what to speak of the young kumaris. You call these

"SPIRITUAL *standards*?

 

I am sorry, no *gentleman* will buy it. No self-respecting *lady* of any

dignity will accept it. I would also go so far as to suggest that whoever does

not object to such outrageous "standards" is spiritually blind -- they have

cataracts of male ego covering their eyes. Passion and aversion is pulsing

through their veins with every contraction of their impure hearts. The whole

situation is an ANOMALY, a mass APARADHA that has been perpetrated against

anyone in a women's body. It is to be condemned by all righteous persons.

 

This system created by these macho sannyasis back in 1974 has resulted in

havoc and far-reaching spiritual injustices and perversions of the philosophy.

This macho-sannyasi pseudo-Vedic program has poisoned gender dealings in

ISKCON for posterity, so it seems. It is inevitable tensions have escalated

and emotions erupted. We have been perpetrated an outrage against women for

the last 25 years!!!

 

It might be noted that these particular sannyasis were subsequently 1) found

visiting the brothels of Bangkok, 2) involved in degraded homosexual

relations, and 3) maintained celibacy by a sex nerve operation, respectively.

One of them was also personally exiled by Srila Prabhupada to China for his

involvement in propagating such misogynistic attitudes.

 

How does that verse go? *Yad yad acarati sresthas...* (Bg 3.21) I am not so

sure this is the "standard" or the *example* we want to follow.

 

Very candidly,

 

Srila dasa

 

 

 

Mahatma wrote:

>Just because this was the standard in Vrndavana in 77 and 78, does it mean

that this is the way Prabhupada wanted it? Or is this the way the management

wanted it?

>

>Please ask Visnutattva if he knows if this is how Prabhupada wanted it. I

have seen standards in temple that were not entirely in line with what Srila

Prabhupada wanted. This is not uncommon.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/18/99 4:10:45 AM Central Standard Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

<< The "standard" Prabhupada supposedly created is obviously under scrutiny,

and

in my mind, should have been questioned many, many years ago. >>

 

This is an interesting subject. The way I perceived the Iskcon that I grew up

in was that we, not Prabhupada, created a lot of standards.

 

Often times when devotees would question these standards, Prabhupada would

adjust them. This is important because it meant that Prabhupada was allowing

or tolerating things tp gp om a certain way would change them when prompted

by devotees.

 

The obvious point is that we have to be careful to not necessarily assume

that because something was going on when Prabhupada was here, it was his

standard. It may have been, but it may not have been.

 

Ys, Mahatama dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/18/1999 5:10:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

>

> >If the [Women's Ministry] is genuinely concerned with examples set by

> Prabhupada in India, then why do they want to change what he established

as

> a

> standard in Vrindavana? Can't the women wait their turn and then see the

> deities at the front of the altar after the sannyasis and men?

>

> The "standard" Prabhupada supposedly created is obviously under scrutiny,

> and

> in my mind, should have been questioned many, many years ago.

>

> First of all, I want to go on record, that as long as I can remember, I was

> always embarassed to step in the line of darshan of my dear godsisters. In

> any

> ISKCON temple, but in Vrndavan especially, I shyed away from intruding upon

> their meditative gaze upon Sri Sri Radha-Shyamasundara as much as I could,

> and

> I would often utter a silent prayer that I might not offend them by the

> discriminatory practices that were in vogue as temple policy. But as a male

> who was still enjoying some privileges but did not object to these unfair

> practices, I was also party to it.

>

> I now take this opportunity to offer the ladies my firm support.

>

> I remember well the "standard" Prabhupada established in NY before a

parade

> of

> 3-4 self-righteous, macho sannyasis came back from India in 1974 to tell us

> how it was "REALLY" supposed to be: From that point on, women lost their

> place

> as "godsisters" (what is that quote from CC where Prabhupada explains they

> are

> as good as their brothers?) and were then callously shoved to the back of

> temple rooms across the world and treated as something akin to

unotuchables

> as

> a regular ISKCON function. Some "standard." By *whose* "authority?" I

say.

>

> Why don't our haughty men listen to the pitiful tales the ladies have to

> relate? I remember one story from a gurukuli in New Mayapur France. First

of

> all, they forced these young girls to raise early for Mangala Arotik, but

> since these young girls had the terrible fortune to be born as females they

> had to stand behind the towering males who were more twice their size and

> standing in front of them. This situation went on everyday, for years and

> years together, and they were unable to even SEE the Deities because of the

> temple room arrangements. How are these young girls supposed to be engaged

> or

> enthused in KC at such an early age by such sense deprivation -- standing

in

> a

> crowd in a dark temple room at that time in the night (early morning)? Or

> they

> can see the Deities only for the last minute or so during the Nrsimha

> prayers,

> and even then, from a considerable distance? Meanwhile the men are up front

> "getting their rocks off" leading kirtan, and thinking what great devotees

> they are (literally), totally oblivious to the spiritual needs and plight

of

> the women, what to speak of the young kumaris. You call these

> "SPIRITUAL *standards*?

 

The situation in Vrndaban is indeed unfortunate, but as far as New Mayapura

goes, while the gurukula was there the older girls were required to go to

Mangala Arotik but there was a division right down the middle of the temple

room. Men on one side, women on the other. Usually, the gurukulis were in the

very front, not the very back. From the beginning and at least until 1987 the

women were never required to stand in the back in the temple rooms in France.

We heard what was going on in America but it did not happen in France. I

don't think there was a gurukula after 1987. My daughters returned for a

visit last year and I think they would have told me if this had changed. They

are rather sensitive to mistreatment of women and would have noticed this.

yhs, Kanti dasi