equal rights

[Guest guest]

Lola dd states:

 

<< The error Guru Krsna dasa makes is in saying that "preferential treatment"

is

the same as saying "equality". It isn't. >>

 

This is an important point. The "equal rights" movement Srila Prabhupada was

criticizing was encouraging women to remain unmarried, to experiment with

sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get abortions. This

so-called "women's liberation" was bad for women and for modern civilization.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada engaged women as well as men in chanting Hare Krishna,

hearing from (and distributing) his books, and worshipping the deities. This

kind of "equal rights" is favorable, and is the antidote for the "women's

liberation" movement of the nondevotees. It leads to actual liberation from

material bondage.

 

I appreciate that Srila Prabhupada wanted to introduce Vedic culture for the

benefit of his direct followers and the entire world. I appreciate Sridhari

dasi's moving text honoring the ideals of feminine chastity and shyness. But

how to actually and effectively introduce Vedic culture and varnasrama dharma

is a tricky subject about which intelligent devotees differ. (Even whether

it is possible in Kali yuga is debatable).

 

Now in our movement we have a group of senior devotees and GBC who have been

questioning longstanding attitudes and practices that are percieved as

hostile to female devotees. Most of us know the kind of "hostilities" we are

talking about. For example, when Gargamuni came to the new Manhattan temple

(I am told), he gave a series of lectures that criticized women in sharp and

obscene language and chased virtually all the women out of the temple. Srila

Prabhupada harshly dismissed the proposal that women should not be allowed to

chant japa in the temple room. Shortly after I joined in 1976, I remember

hearing Maha Muni chastise Jayananda Prabhu letting the women of the Chicago

temple enter the bus (while no men were present) to take darshan of Sri Sri

Radha Damodara. "This is a brahmacari bus", Mahamuni said, as if the women

had contaminated the place with "kooties".

 

While this latter anecdote seems childish and silly but relatively harmless

(until we stop to consider that having darshan with Sri Sri Radha Damodar

might actually have been the high point of some women's lives), it reflects a

pervasive attitude that has bruised the feelings of many devotees and has

made our movement unnecessarily appear unattractive to our preaching

audience. We should be wary of assuming that whatever we have learned in

ISKCON (or in India) about the social roles of men and women is Vedic, and

even some other arrangements that might be called "Vedic" may not be

appropriate to introduce in all times and circumstance.

 

These things have been recognized by senior women devotees and several of the

senior scholars, sannyasis and GBCs in the movement. There clearly is a need

for greater open-mided communication on this subject between those who are

concerned that women devotees are being slighted, discouraged, insulted and

oppressed, and those who are concerned that the nascent "women's rights"

movement in ISKCON is largely an anti-Vedic incursion of Kali yuga attitudes

incorporated from the ambient late 20th century western demonic culture. I

recommend that especially the devotees who share the latter view attend the

conferences organized by the Women's Ministry like the one I attended in L.A.

a few years ago. They probably will not like everything they hear, but they

might find some common ground for fostering further communication on the

subject. Perhaps the Women's Ministry could arrange to have a paper

presented by Trivikram Maharaja or Basu Ghosh Prabhu as well.

 

It should be obvious that the recent events in Vrindavan are not about women

wanting to mix freely with men. It is about how to arrange for darshan of

the deities during arotik. It is not a new problem. My wife and some of her

friends successfully appealed to Gopal Krishna Maharaja in 1996 to have

special arrangements made so women could offer flowers to Srila Prabhupada on

his disappearance day. Panca Gauda Prabhu agreed to make the announcement,

but said "I'd better wear a bullet-proof vest". The following year we heard

that Gaurangi dasi was insulted when a previous arrangement for her to chant

the Damodarastakam prayers was abrogated just as she started to sing. Such

incidents will predictably recur again and again unless and until we can

establish some consensus about these larger issues.

[Guest guest]

Akruranath's words that follow, plead with us for sure. Who can resist the

cry of the damsel in distress, and I don't doubt that there have been many

cruel injustices perpetrated against a good number of our Iskcon ladies.

 

But for someone who is a practicing lawyer, I feel it is unfair for him to

perjudice us in the case under discussion, or for that matter, in every and

any case that may come to us for consideration in the future.

 

Let us not be fooled by these sweet words into thinking that he is not

asking us to prejudge the current case based upon a completely different set

of circumstances. This, I submit, is grossly unfair to our temple

authorities who are currently struggling in a difficult position. Especially

to Mahaman Prabhu, who I know to be a soft spoken humble sort of person.

 

This is a clear example of reverse discrimination, which strikes at the very

vitals of our Iskcon movement. Who will be there to take this thankless task

of managing our society if we make a public scape-goat of this man. You

Akruranath??? Or you Srila Prabhu, or how about you Babhru??? Or maybe

Madhava Gosh???

 

We can talk about discrimination against our ladies, and hopefully we can

improve things, but please let us not do it on the back of this poor

devotee. This is not just an academic debate for him, this is his spiritual

life we are contempleting.

 

Let the truth of this case come out, and let the judgement be decided on the

strength of those facts, not on some false sentiment.

 

Your servant

Trivikram Swami

============================================================================

> Lola dd states:

>

> << The error Guru Krsna dasa makes is in saying that "preferential

> treatment" is the same as saying "equality". It isn't. >>

>

> This is an important point. The "equal rights" movement Srila Prabhupada

> was criticizing was encouraging women to remain unmarried, to experiment

> with sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get abortions. This

> so-called "women's liberation" was bad for women and for modern

> civilization.

>

>

> Srila Prabhupada engaged women as well as men in chanting Hare Krishna,

> hearing from (and distributing) his books, and worshipping the deities.

> This kind of "equal rights" is favorable, and is the antidote for the

> "women's liberation" movement of the nondevotees. It leads to actual

> liberation from material bondage.

>

> I appreciate that Srila Prabhupada wanted to introduce Vedic culture for

> the benefit of his direct followers and the entire world. I appreciate

> Sridhari dasi's moving text honoring the ideals of feminine chastity and

> shyness. But how to actually and effectively introduce Vedic culture and

> varnasrama dharma is a tricky subject about which intelligent devotees

> differ. (Even whether it is possible in Kali yuga is debatable).

>

> Now in our movement we have a group of senior devotees and GBC who have

> been questioning longstanding attitudes and practices that are percieved

> as hostile to female devotees. Most of us know the kind of "hostilities"

> we are talking about. For example, when Gargamuni came to the new

> Manhattan temple (I am told), he gave a series of lectures that criticized

> women in sharp and obscene language and chased virtually all the women out

> of the temple. Srila Prabhupada harshly dismissed the proposal that women

> should not be allowed to chant japa in the temple room. Shortly after I

> joined in 1976, I remember hearing Maha Muni chastise Jayananda Prabhu

> letting the women of the Chicago temple enter the bus (while no men were

> present) to take darshan of Sri Sri Radha Damodara. "This is a brahmacari

> bus", Mahamuni said, as if the women had contaminated the place with

> "kooties".

>

> While this latter anecdote seems childish and silly but relatively

> harmless (until we stop to consider that having darshan with Sri Sri Radha

> Damodar might actually have been the high point of some women's lives), it

> reflects a pervasive attitude that has bruised the feelings of many

> devotees and has made our movement unnecessarily appear unattractive to

> our preaching audience. We should be wary of assuming that whatever we

> have learned in ISKCON (or in India) about the social roles of men and

> women is Vedic, and even some other arrangements that might be called

> "Vedic" may not be appropriate to introduce in all times and circumstance.

>

> These things have been recognized by senior women devotees and several of

> the senior scholars, sannyasis and GBCs in the movement. There clearly is

> a need for greater open-mided communication on this subject between those

> who are concerned that women devotees are being slighted, discouraged,

> insulted and oppressed, and those who are concerned that the nascent

> "women's rights" movement in ISKCON is largely an anti-Vedic incursion of

> Kali yuga attitudes incorporated from the ambient late 20th century

> western demonic culture. I recommend that especially the devotees who

> share the latter view attend the conferences organized by the Women's

> Ministry like the one I attended in L.A. a few years ago. They probably

> will not like everything they hear, but they might find some common ground

> for fostering further communication on the subject. Perhaps the Women's

> Ministry could arrange to have a paper presented by Trivikram Maharaja or

> Basu Ghosh Prabhu as well.

>

> It should be obvious that the recent events in Vrindavan are not about

> women wanting to mix freely with men. It is about how to arrange for

> darshan of the deities during arotik. It is not a new problem. My wife

> and some of her friends successfully appealed to Gopal Krishna Maharaja in

> 1996 to have special arrangements made so women could offer flowers to

> Srila Prabhupada on his disappearance day. Panca Gauda Prabhu agreed to

> make the announcement, but said "I'd better wear a bullet-proof vest".

> The following year we heard that Gaurangi dasi was insulted when a

> previous arrangement for her to chant the Damodarastakam prayers was

> abrogated just as she started to sing. Such incidents will predictably

> recur again and again unless and until we can establish some consensus

> about these larger issues.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/22/99 5:22:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Trivikrama.Swami (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<<

But for someone who is a practicing lawyer, I feel it is unfair for him to

prejudice us in the case under discussion, or for that matter, in every and

any case that may come to us for consideration in the future.

 

Let us not be fooled by these sweet words into thinking that he is not

asking us to prejudge the current case based upon a completely different set

of circumstances. This, I submit, is grossly unfair to our temple

authorities who are currently struggling in a difficult position. Especially

to Mahaman Prabhu, who I know to be a soft spoken humble sort of person.

 

This is a clear example of reverse discrimination, which strikes at the very

vitals of our ISKCON movement. Who will be there to take this thankless task

of managing our society if we make a public scapegoat of this man. You

Akruranath??? Or you Srila Prabhu, or how about you Babhru??? Or maybe

Madhava Gosh???

 

We can talk about discrimination against our ladies, and hopefully we can

improve things, but please let us not do it on the back of this poor

devotee. This is not just an academic debate for him, this is his spiritual

life we are contemplating.

 

Let the truth of this case come out, and let the judgment be decided on the

strength of those facts, not on some false sentiment.

>>

Wow, did I miss a lot. I didn't realize that Mahaman Prabhu had been put on

trial. Nor that Akrurantha Prabhu was council for the defense. I

misunderstood. I thought a group of devotees were discussing, like in a

istagosthi, trying to solve problems that existed in one of Srila

Prabhupada's temples. Things sure have come along way in the last 20 years.

Now I see, Babru, Srila and Madhava Gosh prabhus are all trying to take over

ISKCON. I'll just have to keep following the conferences on com. so that I

can learn about spiritual life.

 

Your servant,

Srutakirti dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/22/99 2:22:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, His Holiness

Trivikrama Swami writes:

 

<<

Let us not be fooled by these sweet words into thinking that he is not

asking us to prejudge the current case based upon a completely different set

of circumstances. This, I submit, is grossly unfair to our temple

authorities who are currently struggling in a difficult position. Especially

to Mahaman Prabhu, who I know to be a soft spoken humble sort of person. >>

 

Actually Maharaja (and I mean really truly), I am not talking about who was

to blame on the particular day when the human chain incident took place. I

certainly meant no criticism of Mahaman Prabhu, whom I have never met.

Mahaman surely deserves great credit for taking on a difficult and important

service. If anyone took my words as casting blame on them personally, I

humbly apologize and beg forgiveness.

 

But that is really not what I am about. The issue that I think is important

is where we should go from here. I am sure that there were and are devotees

of good will on both sides of the issue here, and all these devotees are

worthy of deep respect. The last thing I wanted to do in my two posts on the

subject was to try to decide who had been right or wrong (although as I said,

in retrospect I believe the *policy* of taking away the one sixth of the

temple available to the women was clearly a wrong one that should be

abandoned).

 

This kind of issue is one we are going to have to resolve as a society if

Srila Prabhupada's preaching mission is going to really thrive. The good

that has come out of this incident is that there is some discussion going on

that hopefully might bring about more communication and consensus on these

issues, rather than divisiveness.

[Guest guest]

> But for someone who is a practicing lawyer, I feel it is unfair for him to

> prejudice us in the case under discussion, or for that matter, in every

> and any case that may come to us for consideration in the future.

>

> Let us not be fooled by these sweet words into thinking that he is not

> asking us to prejudge the current case based upon a completely different

> set of circumstances. This, I submit, is grossly unfair to our temple

> authorities who are currently struggling in a difficult position.

> Especially to Mahaman Prabhu, who I know to be a soft spoken humble sort

> of person.

>

> This is a clear example of reverse discrimination, which strikes at the

> very vitals of our ISKCON movement. Who will be there to take this

> thankless task of managing our society if we make a public scapegoat of

> this man. You Akruranath??? Or you Srila Prabhu, or how about you

> Babhru??? Or maybe Madhava Gosh???

>

> We can talk about discrimination against our ladies, and hopefully we can

> improve things, but please let us not do it on the back of this poor

> devotee. This is not just an academic debate for him, this is his

> spiritual life we are contemplating.

>

> Let the truth of this case come out, and let the judgment be decided on

> the strength of those facts, not on some false sentiment.

> >>

> Wow, did I miss a lot. I didn't realize that Mahaman Prabhu had been put

> on trial. Nor that Akrurantha Prabhu was council for the defense. I

> misunderstood. I thought a group of devotees were discussing, like in a

> istagosthi, trying to solve problems that existed in one of Srila

> Prabhupada's temples. Things sure have come along way in the last 20

> years. Now I see, Babru, Srila and Madhava Gosh prabhus are all trying to

> take over ISKCON. I'll just have to keep following the conferences on com.

> so that I can learn about spiritual life.

>

> Your servant,

> Srutakirti dasa

 

I am surprised and pained by Srutikirti's contemptuous sarcasm. I thought

that he had enough association with Srila Prabhupada to be able to avoid

this kind of cheap "put down". My intention is honorable, I am cautioning

against the tendency to sacrifice the individual (Mahaman) for the sake of

the "cause" (Women's rights in Iskcon). You may not agree that this is a

valid concern, but then give your reasons, don't just dismiss my points out

of hand.

 

In any case it would be nice if you could get the facts straight. A careful

reading of my text makes it clear that my concern is not that "Babru, Srila

and Madhava Gosh are trying to take over ISKCON". Quite the contrary, my

concern is that *NOBODY* will care to be involved in taking any kind of

responsibility in ISKCON. My experience is that Srila Prabhupada would give

support to those of his disciples who had extended themselves by agreeing to

help manage his Iskcon society. Are we following Srila Prabhupada's example

in this case? Looks like a big fat *NO* to me.

 

Your servant

Trivikram Swami

[Guest guest]

>

>

> This is a clear example of reverse discrimination, which strikes at the very

> vitals of our Iskcon movement. Who will be there to take this thankless task

> of managing our society if we make a public scape-goat of this man. You

> Akruranath??? Or you Srila Prabhu, or how about you Babhru??? Or maybe

> Madhava Gosh???

 

Well, I doubt if I will ever be allowed to manage in ISKCON as the sweeping

changes I would institute would be way too uncomfortable for "renunciates".

 

However, making a scapecoat of this man is not my intention. My guess is

that

he is simply caught in the middle . As for reverse discrimination. This is

Kali Yuga, Iron Age, Age of Quarrel. so for many years, alleged

"renunciates" have practiced widespread discrimination. When steel is bent,

in order to bend it back, it is not possible to set it on the level ground and

pound it straight. It is necessary to elevate it a little on each side of the

bend, and then apply the force vector appropriately to bend the steel pass the

desired line. it will bounce back to straight if done properly.

 

In other words, when a situation has been out of whack for a long time, those

who previously discriminated cannot not expect no reaction. Although it is my

observation that the majority of devotees accept the laws of karma as it

pertains to intellectual paradigms in Srimad Bhagavatam class, on a gut level,

they don't believe it applies to them. I have also observed that it usually

does. Bad karma for the mistreatment of woman means at some point the men will

feel that mistreatment.

 

As per "clapping the hands in front of the Dieties", please see "100 times

reaction in Holy Dhama".

 

>

>

> We can talk about discrimination against our ladies, and hopefully we can

> improve things, but please let us not do it on the back of this poor

> devotee. This is not just an academic debate for him, this is his spiritual

> life we are contempleting.

 

It will only effect his spiritual life if he abandons humility and takes it

personally.

 

>

>

> Let the truth of this case come out, and let the judgement be decided on the

> strength of those facts, not on some false sentiment.

>

> Your servant

> Trivikram Swami

> ==========

 

There is truth and truth. Whatever the truth of the specific incident, it has

to be seen from the larger perspective of history, or no real lesson will be

learned.

[Guest guest]

> My experience is that Srila Prabhupada would give

> support to those of his disciples who had extended themselves by agreeing to

> help manage his Iskcon society. Are we following Srila Prabhupada's example

> in this case? Looks like a big fat *NO* to me.

>

> Your servant

> Trivikram Swami

 

Dear Swami,

 

What do you know about me that you can make the value judgement that I have

made no endeavor to help manage ISKCON?

 

Please apply to me the same standard you are requesting for the "incident in

Vrindaban".

[Guest guest]

At 08:47 PM 11/22/99 -0500, COM: Srutakirti (das) ACBSP (Philadelphia, PA -

USA) wrote:

 

>Wow, did I miss a lot. I didn't realize that Mahaman Prabhu had been put on

>trial. Nor that Akrurantha Prabhu was council for the defense. I

>misunderstood. I thought a group of devotees were discussing, like in a

>istagosthi, trying to solve problems that existed in one of Srila

>Prabhupada's temples. Things sure have come along way in the last 20 years.

>Now I see, Babru, Srila and Madhava Gosh prabhus are all trying to take over

>ISKCON.

 

Damn! Now our evil plan is ruined! Well, prabhus, it's back to the drawing

board to see if we can draft a new one.

 

Actually, it seems a little silly that, every time something goes wrong and

we try to figure out how to avoid similar problems in the future, devotees

start getting all exercised that folks who have acepted positions of

responsiblility might actually be held responsible. I don't know Mahaman

prabhu, and I'm even less qualified to judge his ability to manage a

center. But trouble is part of the equation. That's how we earn the praise.

As far as my taking up where Mahaman left off after he's tarred, feathered,

and carted off on a rail, you'd be sorely disappointed. I'm just a teacher.

When I managed a little gurukula with a couple dozen students in Hawaii

years ago, it was strictly Krishna's mercy that it went on as long as it

did. And, in the meantime, there were plenty of problems and I caught

plenty of flack. And, although I didn't like it, I understood that it came

with the territory. If I thought I could do that again, I'd try to live up

to my promise to return and get things going. And I've been lucky enough to

keep a marriage and a family going for almost 27 years, by the grace of the

Lord and my great wife and daughters. But I have no interest or talent for

running a place like Krishna-Balaram Mandir. I've lived long enough and had

enough experience to know my limitations and just how I should challenge

them. I'll find my challenges elsewhere and offer my heartfelt obeisance to

those who can actually grow ISKCON.Perhaps Maharaj means to say that

because we have no position in the institution (and, in my case, rightly

so), we have no legitimate voice.

 

>I'll just have to keep following the conferences on com. so that I can

learn about spiritual life.

 

Shouldn''t there have been one of those little winkie things after that?

 

Your unqualified, sinful servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

At 11:40 AM -0500 11/22/99, das wrote:

 

>Lola dd states:

>

><< The error Guru Krsna dasa makes is in saying that "preferential treatment"

>is

> the same as saying "equality". It isn't. >>

>

>This is an important point. The "equal rights" movement Srila Prabhupada was

>criticizing was encouraging women to remain unmarried, to experiment with

>sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get abortions. This

>so-called "women's liberation" was bad for women and for modern civilization.

 

Although this is the final result of giving women equal rights, this is not

the limit of Prabhupada's definition of women's equal rights.

 

Central to the equal rights movement, both outside and inside ISKCON, is a

call for complete occupational equality. As a result, karmi women are now

in many fields of work that were previously reserved exclusively for males.

Here Prabhupada denounces the "right" of women being police officers, not

simply the right to "remain unmarried, to experiment with sexual

promiscuity and, in case of accident,to get abortions" as you have

previously stated. The equal rights issue that Prabhupada was commenting

upon was the unnatural demand for equal occupational rights. As in all

varnasrama designations, the body reflects the guna and karma and hence the

occupation.

 

So despite artificial distinction... Just like a man's body and a female's

body, woman's body, the bodily structure is different. How you can say they

are equal? No. When you see the external structure of the body of man and

woman, there is difference. But despite this difference, when the man and

woman think in connection with Krsna, they are equal. That is wanted. Our

proposition is that artificially you do not try to make equality. That will

be failure. It is already failure. Now how you can...? Just like I have

seen in London, woman police. So woman police, so I was joking with her,

"If I capture your hand and snatch you, what you will do? You are

policeman. (laughter) You will cry simply. So what is the use of your

becoming policeman?" Policeman requires bodily strength. If there is some

hooligan, you can give him one slap or catch him, but what the woman will

do? So we say that be practical. Artificial equality will not endure. We

are equal, undoubtedly, because we are all spirit souls. Na jayate na

mriyate va kadacit. Dehino 'smin yatha dehe kaumarah yauvanah jara, tathä

dehantara-pra... Asmin dehe, within this body, there is the spirit soul.

That we have to understand first of all. And then, if we cultivate on that

platform of spirit soul, then we shall feel equal and there will be no

disturbance. Everyone will be peaceful. That is wanted. We are stressing

that point, that artificially, if you say that "We are all equal," it will

not act. But spiritually, when you understand equality, that will continue,

and that will bring peace and happiness all over the human society.

(Arrival Lecture, Philadelphia, July 11, 1975)

 

In exposing the folly of the equal rights activists, Prabhupada always

referred to the fundamental differences of the male and female bodies;

women gave birth to babies men did not. Equal rights is bogus because "the

body is different". Therefore Prabhupada says, "woman cannot work so hard

as a man, and women can do work that a man cannot do". Prabhupada is

addressing the demand for equal "occupational" rights. Not simply the right

to "remain unmarried, to experiment with sexual promiscuity and, in case of

accident,to get abortions".

 

"Women claim to be equal, so that now they are thinking that they do not

want to become pregnant, so they are killing their own child. What kind of

equality is this that it creates another's suffering? As soon as the body

is different how can there be equality? We see that woman cannot work so

hard as a man, and women can do work that a man cannot do, so where is

there equality?" (Letter to: Ed Gilbert: Vrindaban 9 September, 1975)

 

In the above quote, there is the general reference to occupational

work--varna. In the following quote we see a clear prohibition against

women accepting certain asrama designations. Prabhupada explains to a

western female disciple that, although spiritually equal, a woman does not

have the same rights under tha varnasrama system. Hence,"a woman cannot be

given Sannyasa." Like Lord Caitanya, Prabhupada calls this varnasrama

system "material". Sannyasa is a material designation. Nevertheless it must

still be observed and women, no matter how advanced, are never given

sannyasa. Again, this is a reference where equal rights has to do with

varna and/or asrama. The issue is not the right to "remain unmarried, to

experiment with sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get

abortions" as you have asserted

 

"So spiritually everyone is equal. But materially a woman cannot be given

Sannyasa. But you should not be bothered because you are serving on the

spiritual platform."(Letter to: Aditya Mayapur 4 February, 1976)

 

The next quote has Prabhupada linking the equal rights ideology with a

wife's subservience to her husband. Equal rights contaminates the wife with

an attitude wherein she considers herself on an equal footing with her

husband. Husband and wife are social designations. Prabhupada understood

the agenda of the feminists: complete social, political and economic

equality with men.

 

"The every woman should try to become maidservant of her husband, and every

man should try to become the hundred times servant of Krsna. This is Indian

civilization, not that "Husband and wife, we are equal rights." That, in

Europe, America, the movement is going on, "Equal rights." That is not

Vedic civilization. Vedic civilization is the husband should be a sincere

servant of Krsna, and the wife should be a sincere maidservant of the

husband."(SB 7.9.24 Mayapur, March 2, 1976)

 

In the next quote Prabhupada exposes the call for equal rights as something

that is contrary to Natural Law. Is the issue the right to "remain

unmarried, to experiment with sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident,

to get abortions"? No. The issue is occupation: "The woman takes charge of

the household affairs, the man may take charge of bringing money, and they

meet together, have Deity at home, together chant Hare Krsna. Where is the

difficulty? That is unity. Combine together, working differently but for

the same purpose, for pleasing Krsna, then you will become happy."

 

Prabhupada: Just like now there is movement, man and woman, equal.

Nityananda: Women's liberation.

Prabhupada: Yes, but how the nature's law is strong. Woman has to become

pregnant, not the man. Why equal right? Let the man become pregnant once.

Woman became pregnant once. The right. Where is that law? So why equal

right? Brahmananda was saying one day they'll not mix with man.

Nityananda: Yes, they want to become not dependent sexually, even on the

men. Just on themselves.

Prabhupada: So you have to study first of all what is nature's law. You

cannot surpass the nature's law. That is not possible. Prakåteù kriyamäëäni

guëaiù karmäëi sarvaçaù. Nature's law will go on. Best thing is, let the

hand... the hand can typewrite, but if you say "No, the leg will

typewrite," that is not possible. Take hand's business, take leg's

business, and combine them cooperatively. Then the body will be nice. If

the leg says "Why hand will type? I shall type," that's not possible.

"Legs, all right, you walk, and hands that you type." Then combine

together. Then it will be nice. You cannot change the different capacities.

There is God's law, nature's law. Let the man and woman combine together,

live peacefully. The woman takes charge of the household affairs, the man

may take charge of bringing money, and they meet together, have Deity at

home, together chant Hare Krsna. Where is the difficulty? That is unity.

Combine together, working differently but for the same purpose, for

pleasing Krsna, then you will become happy. That is equality. Unity in

variety. That is wanted. Variety is enjoyment. Variety is not

disturbing.(Room Conversation July 31, 1975, New Orleans)

 

In this quote "Tilaka's(?) wife" is the person really irritated by

Prabhupada condemnation of women's equal rights. Is "Tilaka's(?) wife"

upset because Prabhupada denies women the right to "remain unmarried, to

experiment with sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get

abortions"? No. Of course not. She was an Indian lady who felt that a woman

should have the same social, political and economic opportunities and

facilities as men.

 

Indian man: Tilaka's(?) wife, she told me... She was very upset you know.

One day she, when she came to see you and that one rascal yogi was there

and he said that in the Vedas everything is mentioned that we can drink and

woman and the man have equal right. Then you answered her, and she was also

saying the same thing and you answered her, "Okay, if woman and the man

have equal right, then why not your husband begot the children... Why not

you begot the children in the womb of your husband?" And she was very

upset, you know. She said, "Prabhupada sometimes say the things like that

which are unreasonable, you know."

Prabhupada: It may require... No, I said that "If you are equal rights,

then make some arrangement: sometimes you become pregnant; sometimes he

becomes pregnant. Why there is not right, equal right?"

Indian man: She was telling me when... She... I said that "Prabhupada

sometimes says these things that we feel all ashamed, you know, because..."

Devotee (2): The medicine is not always palatable for these people.

Prabhupada: But in speaking spiritual understanding we cannot make any

compromise. What to speak of in Mauritius, in Chicago I told. There was

great agitation in papers.

Harikesa: In the TV, on television.

Indian man: Same thing?

Devotee (2): In France also.

Prabhupada: They were very upset. And when I was coming, I think, in

Chicago, in the airplane, one of the host girl, she was seeing...

(laughter) I asked her to supply one 7-up. And, "I have no key." She was so

angry. But all the captains and others, they gathered around me. (laughter)

Harikesa: I think that was the same stewardess who came in the back and

asked us, "Why the Swamij doesn't like women?"

Prabhupada: No, no, I don't say that I don't like women, but I cannot say

that equal rights. How can I say? First of all show that you equal

rights-your husband becomes sometimes pregnant and then you become

pregnant, alternately.

Aksayänanda: That doesn't mean you don't like them.

Prabhupäda: No, it is truth. I am speaking the truth, that "If you have

equal right, then let your husband become pregnant. Make some arrangement."

Harikesa: Visakha was preaching to her. She said that "Actually we are less

intelligent." (laughter) That started a big scandal...

Prabhupäda: Yes. And that is Krsna consciousness. (break) They are in equal

right, then... Nowadays, of course, they are thinking like that, that man

should remain independent, and they'll have homosex, and the woman also

independent and they will make some... This is most immoral things.(Morning

Walk December 10, 1975, Våndävana)

 

Here Prabhupada denies women equal rights due to their inferior

intelligence which establishes the differences and limitations of female

occupational opportunities. No doubt all this is on the material platform

but it is still something that cannot be artificially ignored. Prabhupada

states that at no time in history have women been granted equal

occupational rights and goes on to cite the example of Kunti. Although her

sons were all great warrior heroes, she was not a hero nor could she become

one. Why? Because she was a woman. Is Prabhupada belittling her spiritual

stature? Of course not! But from a social (occupational) perspective she

could never be what the men (Pandavas) were. Again your point that

Prabhupada's condemnation of equal rights was only for the right to "remain

unmarried, to experiment with sexual promiscuity and, in case of accident,

to get abortions" is innaccurate.

 

Prabhupada: I condemn everyone, that "You are all dogs and hogs." And

United Nations a pack of dogs barking. That's a fact. And in Chicago I

said, all women, "You cannot have freedom. You have got only

thirty-four-ounce brain, and man has got sixty-four-ounce." I told them. So

I became a subject of very great criticism.

Trivikrama: Women's liberation.

Prabhupada: I denied, "No, you cannot have." I told them. One girl in the

airship, she was seeing like (makes some gesture-laughter). I asked her,

"Give me 7-Up.It is locked now." So I frankly said that "No, no. You

cannot have equal rights because your brain is thirty-four ounce." Actually

that's a fact. Where is woman philosopher, mathematician, scientist? Not a

single.

Dr. Patel: Apart from that, I mean, they are made for a particular mission.

Prabhupada: How they can have equal rights? Up to date in the history there

is not a single woman who is a great scientist or great philosopher or

great...

Dr. Patel: Madame Curie was a...

Prabhupada: All bogus. (laughter)

Dr. Patel: You are getting too harsh on them because...

Prabhupäda: No, no. How can I give you equal rights, because your brain is

less substance.

Dr. Patel: We cannot degrade our mothers that way.

Prabhupada: It is not degrading. It is accepting the actual fact.

Dr. Patel: These girls are misled, these American girls.

Prabhupada: There is no history. There is no history. Just like Kunti's

mother. She produced so many heroes, but she was not hero. She could

produce heroes like Arjuna, like Bhima. But not that she becomes hero.

Dr. Patel: Mother can produce heroes...

Prabhupada: That's all right. Still, nobody will say that Kunté is as good

as Arjuna or Bhima.

Dr. Patel: How can anybody say?

Prabhupada: That is... How you'll get the equal rights?

Dr. Patel: No woman smaller than Kunti could have produced an Arjuna.

Prabhupada: You can produce. That is another thing. A cook can produce

foodstuff suitable for rich man, but that does not mean he is rich man.

Dr. Patel: You argue. (laughs)(Morning Walk January 9, 1977, Bombay)

 

Here is an example where equal rights is a factor in the mother-son

relationship. It goes without saying that there is no issue here regarding

the right to "remain unmarried, to experiment with sexual promiscuity and,

in case of accident, to get abortions". The issue here is "occupational".

Who has the RIGHT or prerogative to teach? It is the male prerogative; the

male has the exclusive right or privelege to instruct due to his gender.

Again equal rights is linked to occupational duties.

 

"Kapiladeva was a brahmacari, and His mother took lessons from Him. That is

the prerogative of the male." (TLK Vs 5)

 

Here is another example where equal rights is a matter of occupational

equality not the right to "remain unmarried, to experiment with sexual

promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get abortions".

 

"So where is equal rights? Even in Russia, there is managerial class and

laborer class. Where are equal rights? Why there are managers? Yes. I have

seen it. The managerial class and the laborer class. So where is equality?

Why the managerial class? You know that? There must be required. The old

women, they are sweeping the street. Why not Mr. Lenin come and sweep the

street? Why he is sitting in a big palace and the poor woman has been

engaged to sweep the street? Where is equality? What advancement they have

made? We are following opiate. They are following opiate, Lenin's rascal's

philosophy. That's all. That is also opiate. But where is equality? That is

also opiate. You are advocating equality, but where there is a man manager

and another man is working. So why you are accepting this nonsense

philosophy being opiated by rascal Lenin?"(Morning Walk May 29, 1974, Rome)

 

Less intelligence means different occupation and no independence.

Prabhupada understood clearly that the equal rights movement was seeking to

gain for women complete independence: social, political and economic.

Prabhupada response was that in each of these fields a woman has NO

INDEPENDENCE.

 

A very intelligent man has got sixty-four ounce cerebrum. And woman, even

she is very intelligent, is not more than thirty-four ounce. Therefore we

don't find, amongst women, any big scientist. It is impossible. Don't be

angry. (laughter) And these rascals giving equal rights. Just see. And

Vedic civilization: "No, they should be protected." The woman should be

protected by the father, by the husband, and by elderly sons. No

independence. (break) ...she is my sister. She is old, about three years

less than me, but she has got sons. She is very happy moving, protected by

the sons. Even Kunti, such intelligent woman, such educated and..., she

also kept herself under her sons, the Pandavas. The Pandavas lost the game.

They were banished, but Kunti was not banished. But she said, "Then how

shall I...? I must go with my sons." Sita, wife of Lord Ramacandra. So

Rämacandra was ordered by His father, "My dear son, You have to go forest

for fourteen years." Sita was not ordered. But she voluntarily followed.

"Where shall I go? You are my husband. You are going to the forest? I shall

go to the forest." This is Vedic civilization.(Morning Walk June 27, 1975,

Los Angeles)

 

When some of his femle disciples wanted to live independently and thus

exhibited their equal rights-womens liberation conditioning, Prabhupada

denied them any financial support and basically told them that they must go

it alone. These disciples wanted to be independent from male authority. As

such if they wanted to be independent they also should support themselves

independently and not expect support from the male ISKCON institution. Did

these two want the right to "remain unmarried, to experiment with sexual

promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get abortions"? I don't think so.

They wanted occupational independence.

 

"Regarding Yamuna and Dinatarine, they want to live independently, that is

the defect. A woman cannot live independent. According the the Vedic

culture a woman is always to be protected by a man. Why they should

purchase a house? We already have Los Angeles. If they want they can have a

separate asrama supported independently of ISKCON. Every woman in America

has money, so why do they want support? No, the BBT cannot give them loan.

You may check that they are chanting and following the rules but do not get

involved with their management. So far your suggestion that they sew

clothes for the sannyasis Deities it is not possible. Sannyasis may have no

connection with women"(Letter to: Jayatirtha Calcutta 13 January, 1976)

 

>Srila Prabhupada engaged women as well as men in chanting Hare Krishna,

>hearing from (and distributing) his books, and worshipping the deities. This

>kind of "equal rights" is favorable, and is the antidote for the "women's

>liberation" movement of the nondevotees. It leads to actual liberation from

>material bondage.

 

He never engaged them as TP's or GBC's. If the women in ISKCON are

demanding "occupational" hence "material" equality, they in maya up to

their heads and need to seriously re-examine their spiritual master's

teaching in this regard.

 

In BG 16.7, Prabhupada exposes the ideological foundation of the equal

rights movement. The right to "remain unmarried, to experiment with sexual

promiscuity and, in case of accident, to get abortions" is the result of

the degradation of human behavior due to rejecting the many rules and

regulations that guide human behavior. Prabhupada explains that such a

demoniac movement--a movement that has devised a puffed up concept of

womanly life--seeks to give women as much freedom as men. And what

mechanism was used to devise this puffed-up concept of womanly life? Modern

education. And what does modern education offer women? Equal occupational

training. Therefore modern education and the equal occupational

opportunities it has allowed women is the mechanism used by the demons to

devise this puffed-up concept of womanly life.

 

"As for behavior, there are many rules and regulations guiding human

behavior, such as the Manu-samhita, which is the law of the human race.

Even up to today, those who are Hindu follow the Manu-samhita. Laws of

inheritance and other legalities are derived from this book. Now, in the

Manu-samhita it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom.

That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like

children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they

are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and

they think that women should be given as much freedom as men. However, this

has not improved the social condition of the world. Actually, a woman

should be given protection at every stage of life. She should be given

protection by the father in her younger days, by the husband in her youth,

and by the grownup sons in her old age. This is proper social behavior

according to the Manu-samhita. But modern education has artificially

devised a puffed-up concept of womanly life, and therefore marriage is

practically now an imagination in human society. Nor is the moral condition

of woman very good now. The demons, therefore, do not accept any

instruction which is good for society, and because they do not follow the

experience of great sages and the rules and regulations laid down by the

sages, the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable."

 

The women in ISKCON are demanding occupational equality. This is totally

bogus and according to Srila Prabhupada, demoniac. If you

[Guest guest]

At 09:42 AM 11/23/99 +0100, COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

 

>I am surprised and pained by Srutikirti's contemptuous sarcasm. I thought

>that he had enough association with Srila Prabhupada to be able to avoid

>this kind of cheap "put down". My intention is honorable, I am cautioning

>against the tendency to sacrifice the individual (Mahaman) for the sake of

>the "cause" (Women's rights in Iskcon). You may not agree that this is a

>valid concern, but then give your reasons, don't just dismiss my points out

>of hand.

 

I thought that most of the discussion here focused on the policies, not on

"getting" the temple president. There may be voices on all "sides" of this

issue that cover the spectrum from temperate to vicious, much as with any

issue. But to paint those who don't agree with me with the broad brush

strokes we've seen is a mistake, no matter who does it. I would hope we're

clear about that, and I regret that discourse among Gaudiya vaishnavas

includes the "vicious" end of the spectrum.

 

My remarks in this discussion have been mostly limited to the way we

conduct the discussion. I haven't been to Vrindavan since 1982 (!que

lastima!), so, as I've admitted, I have no qualification to assess the

particular situation on the ground. Does that necessarily mean I have no

qualification to ask about what is going on? Or to choose to examine one or

the other side's version--that I must accept uncritically (and here I mean

in the proper sense--trying to make sense of what's going on, using

discernment, analyzing) the official version just because someone has an

institutional position? Well, sorry--I've been around that bend too many

times over the last 30 years. Besides, I teach critical thinking and

discourse practices to college and university students, so I've formed some

habits of mind that preclude my being a good cult member. I'm willing to do

what I can to help develop ISKCON, but it's not likely to include something

like accepting the baggage of a huge project that--despite sincere

devotees' best efforts--has been mismanaged in a broad variety of ways for

many years. (By that remark I in no way intend to detract form all the

accomplishments of those same sincere, dedicated devotees, but to

acknowledge the problems many of us may prefer to deny.) I'm just a

teacher, remember?

 

This brings me to another of my pet worries, which was addressed recently

by my long-time friend (is it okay to say that?) Kusha. What do the leaders

plan to do with us oldsters--men and women--moving beyond family life? We

have real-world experience and skills AND faith in Srila Prabhupada and the

sankirtan movement. We have a natural inclination to work with the

movement's leaders, since many of them are our old friends. At the same

time, we are not inclined to take for granted any assertion of authority

based on anything less than purity (after all, those who have persisted in

working full-time to increase the preaching should be advanced in devotion,

not just secure in their positions), and we're not please to be taken for

granted. Many of us are looking for opportunities to increase our preaching

as we move into--or at least toward--vanaprastha life. Alas, many (the word

I've seen used recently is "droves") may conclude ISKCON's leaders don't

quite know what to do with us.

 

>My experience is that Srila Prabhupada would give

>support to those of his disciples who had extended themselves by agreeing to

>help manage his Iskcon society.

 

He would also simultaneously take decisive action to correct any

irregularities, and if he couldn't get things in order, would find another

engagement for one or more of the parties involved.

 

Your servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/23/99 7:01:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, Jivan Mukta

dasa writes:

 

<< The women in ISKCON are demanding occupational equality. This is totally

bogus and according to Srila Prabhupada, demoniac. If you

[Guest guest]

> > My experience is that Srila Prabhupada would give

> > support to those of his disciples who had extended themselves by

> > agreeing to help manage his Iskcon society. Are we following Srila

> > Prabhupada's example in this case? Looks like a big fat *NO* to me.

> >

> > Your servant

> > Trivikram Swami

>

> Dear Swami,

>

> What do you know about me that you can make the value judgement that I

> have made no endeavor to help manage ISKCON?

>

> Please apply to me the same standard you are requesting for the "incident

> in Vrindaban".

 

Dear Madhava Gosh Prabhu

 

I know about you by what you have said on this conference over the last so

many months. "Value judgement"? Vishnujana Swami wasn't much of a manager,

neither was Jayananda Prabhu, but they were both better devotees then me.

 

Ys TS

[Guest guest]

At 11:24 AM -0500 11/23/99, das wrote:

>[Text 2801769 from COM]

 

>In a message dated 11/23/99 7:01:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, Jivan Mukta

>dasa writes:

 

><< The women in ISKCON are demanding occupational equality. This is totally

> bogus and according to Srila Prabhupada, demoniac. If you

[Guest guest]

At 9:42 AM +0100 11/23/99, COM: Trivikrama Swami wrote:

>[Text 2800780 from COM]

 

>In any case it would be nice if you could get the facts straight. A careful

>reading of my text makes it clear that my concern is not that "Babru, Srila

>and Madhava Gosh are trying to take over ISKCON". Quite the contrary, my

>concern is that *NOBODY* will care to be involved in taking any kind of

>responsibility in ISKCON. My experience is that Srila Prabhupada would give

>support to those of his disciples who had extended themselves by agreeing to

>help manage his Iskcon society. Are we following Srila Prabhupada's example

>in this case? Looks like a big fat *NO* to me.

>

>Your servant

>Trivikram Swami

 

That's exactly as I read it, Maharaja. I'm sure some of the women would

like to take over. :-)

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

Dear Trivikrama Maharaj,

 

Please accept my prostrated obeisances at your feet and forgive me for

causing you any pain. It was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to

single out Mahaman as a scapegoat for the issue. Mahaman Prabhu is gentle

Vaisnava, who has supported the women whenever possible. He has tried to

give them facility in spite of so many complaints from local Vaisnavas.

 

In a message dated 11/23/99 3:50:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Trivikrama.Swami (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

<< I am surprised and pained by Srutikirti's contemptuous sarcasm. I thought

that he had enough association with Srila Prabhupada to be able to avoid

this kind of cheap "put down".>>>>>

 

Wow, please please forgive me. I misunderstood the conversation to be about

"Women's rights in ISKCON", not about an individual or an incident. I am so

sorry, I misunderstood.

 

<<<<<My intention is honorable, I am cautioning

against the tendency to sacrifice the individual (Mahaman) for the sake of

the "cause" (Women's rights in Iskcon). You may not agree that this is a

valid concern, but then give your reasons, don't just dismiss my points out

of hand. >>

 

I agree with you. Mahaman Prabhu's sincere service is much appreciated. He

has maintained this service longer than anyone has in the past and he should

be commended. I find it hard to imagine and have not heard that anyone wants

him removed from his position as Temple president.

 

Trivikram Maharaj, I have great respect for you personally and appreciate the

example you have set as a member of the renounced order. Somehow, I thought

we were discussing issues not individuals. I am sorry that you perceived my

feeble attempt at light hearted humor as contemptuous sarcasm. I pray you

forgive me for this.

 

<<In any case it would be nice if you could get the facts straight. A careful

reading of my text makes it clear that my concern is not that "Babru, Srila

and Madhava Gosh are trying to take over ISKCON".>>

 

I did understand that. Again this was my misplaced attempt at light hearted

humor. Although Babru Prabhu is a dear friend and think he would make a great

temple president somewhere. Who knows maybe Akrunath, Srila and Madhava Gosh

Prabhus could be as well. Anything is possible.

 

<<Quite the contrary, my concern is that *NOBODY* will care to be involved in

taking any kind of responsibility in ISKCON. >>

 

I respect those who are taking responsibility such as yourself and Mahaman

Prabhu.

There are intelligent devotees who can do much to push on with or without our

encouragement or respect. I am so sorry that my attempt to support

Akruranath's sharing has been perceived as a threat to Mahaman Prabhu. It

was not intended that way. Trivikram Maharaj, I pray that you forgive me so

that I can be engaged in Srila Prabhupada's service. I pray to get the

dust from the lotus feet of all Srila Prabhupada's shisas.

 

<<My experience is that Srila Prabhupada would give support to those of his

disciples who had extended themselves by agreeing to help manage his ISKCON

society. Are we following Srila Prabhupada's example in this case? Looks like

a big fat *NO* to me.>>

 

Srila Prabhupada certainly supported those who sincerely performed management

seva. However I personally remember occasions when letters written by temple

disciples not in management positions, were the cause of changes being made

in the temple, sometime even in the management.

 

Again I am not saying that Mahaman should be removed. His service is valued

and should not be minimized. He should not be made a scapegoat of this issue.

 

Your humbled servant,

 

Srutakirti dasa