Silence is the voice of complicity

[Guest guest]

Mahaman Prabhu wrote:

>It was a management issue and not man/woman conflict.

>---------------------

 

>What about making some facility for ALL the HUNDREDS of ladies visiting for

>Kartika who also want to worship the Deities???

 

Prabhu, when you ask "What about making *some facility*..." it implies that

there is presently *no* facility--doesn't it? Please explain why you worded

your question in that way.

 

>The personal PRIVILEGEs of a few sannyasis automatically outweighs and can

>DISTURB the worship for the entire rank of ladies???

 

Prabhu, was it really "personal privilege," or was it actually a gesture of

*proper* Vaisnava etiquette?

 

>In my mind, this seem rather SHAMELESS and INSENSITIVE to be making such

>personal DEMANDS under such extraordinary circumstances when the temple

room is >so overflooded with devotees from all over the world. Why should

ALL the ladies >be forced to be pushed around like a bunch of cattle to suit

the preferential >treatment of a few sannyasis?

 

This is not how I understood Mahaman Prabhu's explanation. In other words, I

don't assume malintent on the part of the management, as Your Grace

apparently does.

 

>Is that what comes from renunciation -- *DISREGARD* to anyone in a woman's

>body? *CALLOUSNESS* to their spiritual requirements?

 

Prabhu, please explain exactly to whom you are attributing the above

undesirable qualities. If you would, please tell us what sannyasis 1)

DISREGARD all women and 2) are CALLOUS to their spiritual needs.

 

>Have these sannyasis ever given a thought to how much the ladies must

>shuffle around and adjust themselves to accommodate for the personal

>convenience of a few men?

 

Prabhu, I wonder if you have given the same question full thought. How

*much* inconvenience is it--really--for a human being to step back a few

paces for a short duration of time?

 

>It seems like *selfishness* to me.

>If someone does not recognize other devotees (viz, the ladies) but

>contemptuously disregards them, then by such mentality, they are not

looking at >worshipful Deity but at stone!

 

But are you Supersoul, the all-knowing witness? Or am I wrong to think that

you are accusing the particular sannyasis of this very mentality?

 

>As temple president, Mahaman Prabhu is directly responsible for

>implementing ISKCON's institutionally discriminatory practices against

women. >The sannyasis are (unwittingly) calling upon Mahaman to invoke and

extend those >unfair practices.

 

What is unfair about Vaisnava etiquette and Vedic culture?

 

>I am not saying that any one of the above mentioned sannyasis has sexist

>intentions and is thus "looking at stone," but the implication is there,

isn't >it?

 

Yes, prabhu. I humbly submit that you have certainly implied that and all

but said exactly that.

 

>I call upon all of these respectable souls to repudiate any such

misognynistic >connotations associated with their reported actions.

 

Oh, and now appears that infamous word: "misogyny." And you are asking

Vaisnavas to repudiate. "Guilty until proved innocent." Am I correct, prabhu?

 

>They need to "preach" to us on this point to clear up their position or we

will >surely lose faith in them as bona fide receptacles for our implicit

trust. >"Silence is the voice of complicity."

 

Yes, I think I am not wrong: "Guilty until proved innocent." Please confirm

or repudiate for us.

 

>The more we see such worshipful qualities of *suhrdam sarva-bhutanam* and

>*sarva-bhutatma-bhutatma* manifested in our sannyasis, the more we will all

be >pleased to grant them whatever special facility as they deserve.

 

Prabhu, did you ever consider that perhaps the management of Krsna-Balaram

Mandir had already concluded that "our sannyasis" did in fact "deserve

special facility," by dint of their being possessed of genuine Vaisnava

qualities?

 

>Now I want to propose a *COMPROMISE* ...

>What do all my honorable Vaisnava Prabhus think?

 

I'm neither a Vaisnava, a prabhu, nor in any way honorable (or even

respectable); nevertheless I humbly submit that I faithfully recognize the

Vrindavan temple managers' practical right to accept or reject your

proposal, according to their best judgement.

 

 

 

 

Thank you, prabhu.

Hare Krsna.

 

this most unfortunate, insignificant beggar and so-called servant of the

servants of ISKCON,

guru-krsna das ("janiya suniya visa khainu")

 

*dharmo raksati raksitah*