for H.G.Jivan Mukta from Loladd

November 23, 1999

Dear Jivan Mukta Prabhu,

Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thankyou for

your letter. How are your good wife, family and yourself? Nadia and Anjali

have written to Kunti and I have been thinking about informing them some how

that she is in the Holy Dhama until mid Dec. Also we are scheduled to go to

Saranagati a few days after she returns. Knowing this they won't be

dissappointed that she doesn't reply promptly. Do they still have their own

e-mail addresses?

I will try and reply to some of your comments on my letter.

You say"

>"The history of Vedic India is the Mahabharata. There is no matriarchy in

the Mahabharata unless it was a description of some uncivilized mleccha

society. Democracy in Vedic time? Show us an example from the Mahabharata

or Ramayana.">

Sorry I didn't retreive Abhirama Prabhu's article that appeared much earlier

this year on the varnasrama development conference. I don't know how to do

so and I didn't want my reply to be so delayed as to be irrelevant. Is it

true that all of Vedic history is in Mahabharata and Ramayana? My

understanding is that there are other Puranas as well, from additional time

frames and locations. The state of Kerala has a long tradition of

matriarchy. I don't believe the vaisnavas of that state would be classified

as uncivilized mlecchas. As far as democracy, I did say 'a form of

democracy' which was meant to show that it was not as we see in the world

presently. I concede that I can't describe it further at this time without

refinding my source material.

You say:

>"Why are we hell-bent upon making ISKCON "unfortunate" by having female

leaders?"<

In the quotes from Srila Prabhupada .. "we never find that a woman was given

the post of chief executive", "you'll never find a woman is elected on the

topmost post" and "Thus it is most regrettable when a woman becomes the

executive head instead of a lionlike king. In such a situation the people

are considered very unfortunate." (SB 4.16.23) , we see that Prabhupada is

referring to 'chief executive', topmost post' and 'executive head'. Does

this mean that ksatriya ladies weren't involved in military arrangements

where they assisted their male leaders? King Dasaratha's wife was near

enough to the battlefield to exercise the courage and ability to rescue her

husband.

In one of your quotes form S.P.

" As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or "Greater India," the

wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas, knew the political

game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive."

S.P. is objecting that women be chief executive, not that they be involved at

all. it seems they were involved or why would they know the political game.

The wife of Maharaja Santanu was constantly arranging for and advising her

male ksatriya children and grandchildren. They followed her instructions

too.

I don't advocate that any ladies be the chief executive. I only wanted to

say that ladies should be engaged according to their abilities. Perhaps I

erred in referring to Kusha Prabhu's mother at all, as her position is not

the main point. Also, I don't think I listed any other engagement that could

infer topmost leadership Out of interest though, may I ask a question?

Kusha's mataji, as flotilla comander, is recruting and guiding newcomers, is

not seniormost, and answers to superiors. Doesn't that mean she is protected

by and serving her male military leaders? Therefore I have not understood

how such an activity is definitively non-Vedic.

Do you feel that ISKCON's postion is so dangerous that we must be extra tight

in how ladies are engaged, lest there be an increasing spiral into adharma?

I would think that, in general, if ladies are given facility to serve Krsna

according to their abilities, with the involvement and blessings of their

godbrothers, that they would be be less likely to drift towards adharma or

cause any irritation. The ladies could be inspired and a great source of

support for ISKCON just as your wife is for you.

You ask:

>"Leaders need to be free. How can ISKCON make women leaders when they should

not be given any freedom?"<

Again, If the ladies are working with and under their fathers, brothers and

sons it seems that they could be of some assistance. We all need each others

strengths.

>>Therefore we must be careful not to define

>>'Vedic' too narrowly. Draupadi ran the treasury of the Pandavas.

>My wife runs my treasury as well.

Prabhu, doesn't this indicate that your wife does have some control and is

not in the same category as Indira Gandhi when Prabhupada says:

"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."

Just as you feel comfortable having your wife usefully engaged in something

she is good at such as handling the finances, and your daughters excelling at

martial arts or horsemanship, it seems that Srila Prabhupada and many other

male devotees don't mind if their daughters, wives and sisters engage in

things they are good at and can use in Krsna's service. Please don't think I

am advocating that ladies be in topmost political postions.

I said in my previous letter that engaging women devotees will depend on

their nature and circumstances.

You asked:

>"Show me where Prabhupada says this."<

If I have time I may research this further as per your request. Can you show

where Prabhupada said that lady devotees shouldn't be engaged according to

their natures and circumstances? His example showed that he did engage

ladies according to these criteria.

you write:

>"Is there any occupation women cannot do if they are so inclined? >

I agree that ladies should not be chief executives.

I don't think that in practise the auspicious life of your family is that

much different from many of the devotees lives that you don't entirely agree

with. In real activites we are not all that far apart. If we all relate to

each other as real persons, not just as differing understandings, the best

result may be achieved. I hope this letter finds you and your family well

and happy. Please offer my greetings and respects to them all. Let us know

how things are for you in Wasaga Beach.

your servant and friend,

Lola devi dasi

November 24, 1999

Haribol, Lola Devi,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I hope you don't mind me replying to your post. I am also writing you a

personal note in addition to this.

It appears we are mostly in agreement. You are not supportive of women

being chief executives and we are not saying that women can't assist their

ksatriya husbands. We probably also agree that unprotected women should not

take up the posts of ksatriyas (or brahmanas) and work independently.

>Is it

>true that all of Vedic history is in Mahabharata and Ramayana? My

>understanding is that there are other Puranas as well, from additional time

>frames and locations. The state of Kerala has a long tradition of

>matriarchy. I don't believe the vaisnavas of that state would be classified

>as uncivilized mlecchas.

We are advised to follow the examples Prabhupada gave us. Kunti and

Draupadi, for example, were not matriarchs although they were remarkably

powerful women.

>...we see that Prabhupada is

>referring to 'chief executive', topmost post' and 'executive head'. Does

>this mean that ksatriya ladies weren't involved in military arrangements

>where they assisted their male leaders?

I don't know of any instance where a Vedic woman assisted her husband in

military arrangements what to speak of single, unmarried women assisting

other male ksatriyas.

>King Dasaratha's wife was near

>enough to the battlefield to exercise the courage and ability to rescue her

>husband.

Yes, it's true, however the role of assistant to one's husband is not what

the Women's Ministry is pushing for.

>S.P. is objecting that women be chief executive, not that they be involved at

>all. it seems they were involved or why would they know the political game.

>The wife of Maharaja Santanu was constantly arranging for and advising her

>male ksatriya children and grandchildren. They followed her instructions

>too.

Yes. Her work was within the domestic sphere. Why should't a boy/man listen

to his mother or grandmother? Draupadi knew the political game from sitting

on her father's lap but she didn't become a politician herself.

>I don't advocate that any ladies be the chief executive. I only wanted to

>say that ladies should be engaged according to their abilities.

Would you also say that ladies should be engaged according to their

abilities outside the home and irrespective of how their husband is

occupied? Prabhupada's instructions on how our daughters were to be trained

show us their abilities would develop from training in domestic areas and

from assisting their fathers and then their husbands.

>Perhaps I

>erred in referring to Kusha Prabhu's mother at all, as her position is not

>the main point. Also, I don't think I listed any other engagement that could

>infer topmost leadership Out of interest though, may I ask a question?

>Kusha's mataji, as flotilla comander, is recruting and guiding newcomers, is

>not seniormost, and answers to superiors. Doesn't that mean she is protected

>by and serving her male military leaders? Therefore I have not understood

>how such an activity is definitively non-Vedic.

A woman who acts outside the home, outside the sphere of work that her

husband is involved in, is not really protected. Indira Gandhi, a widow,

had sons and even an entire male army to "protect" her but still Prabhupada

called her a prostitute.

Here's an instance of an occupation other than chief executive of a country

which Prabhupada considered inappropriate for women:

Ramesvara: The women argue that they are stronger than the men.

Prabhupada: Yes. You are stronger than the man, that when there is fight,

the man goes; you do not go. You are so strong. You are simply ravished in

the absence of your husband. That's all.

Ramesvara: Now.... The women are joining the Army in America now.

Prabhupäda: Yes, I have seen a police in London. So I told that "If I catch

your hand and give you a slap, where is your police?" (laughter) "I am old

man. If I catch your hand and give you a slap, what police action will be

there?"(Morning Walk, March 19, 1976, Mayapura)

>Do you feel that ISKCON's postion is so dangerous that we must be extra tight

>in how ladies are engaged, lest there be an increasing spiral into adharma?

Yes.

>I would think that, in general, if ladies are given facility to serve Krsna

>according to their abilities, with the involvement and blessings of their

>godbrothers, that they would be be less likely to drift towards adharma or

>cause any irritation. The ladies could be inspired and a great source of

>support for ISKCON just as your wife is for you.

Do you think that women need only the blessings of their godbrothers? The

way I see it is that the facility for women assisting their husbands (and

even children assisting their fathers) is already there is more grhastha

men would be given service engagements instead of having so many sannyasis

(many of them over 50) involved in management. Where does Prabhupada say

that a woman is protected by her brothers?

>You ask:

>>"Leaders need to be free. How can ISKCON make women leaders when they should

>not be given any freedom?"<

>

>Again, If the ladies are working with and under their fathers, brothers and

>sons it seems that they could be of some assistance. We all need each others

>strengths.

Working under their fathers, brothers and sons? I thought ladies should be

working with and under their husbands. Then when their husband retires or

passes away, they can work with and under their biological sons. In ISKCON,

our one big happy broken family, where ladies and gents work side by side

with each other, we often see mothers marrying their sons, sisters marrying

their brothers, fathers marrying their daughters and mothers.

>>>Therefore we must be careful not to define

>>>'Vedic' too narrowly. Draupadi ran the treasury of the Pandavas.

>>My wife runs my treasury as well.

>

>Prabhu, doesn't this indicate that your wife does have some control and is

>not in the same category as Indira Gandhi when Prabhupada says:

It is control over domestic affairs.

>Please don't think I

>am advocating that ladies be in topmost political postions.

A GBC is the topmost political position in ISKCON. Do you not advocate that

women be GBC's?

>I said in my previous letter that engaging women devotees will depend on

>their nature and circumstances.

A woman's service is dependent on her husband's. This is what is meant by a

woman has no independence. Especially if a woman is a widow, she should not

be made a TP or GBC or GBC deputy.

"Similarly, Devahuti was the daughter of a great king, Svayambhuva Manu,

and was qualified and beautiful, but she was completely dependent on the

protection of her husband." (SB 3.33.19)

It is the wife's duty to adapt herself according to her husband's mentality:

"The wife must see the tendencies of the husband and must be prepared to

follow him....The word samanuvrata indicates that it is the duty of a wife

to adopt the special circumstances in which the husband is situated...But

even if the husband is not a great devotee like Kardama Muni, it is the

wife's duty to adapt herself according to his mentality. That makes married

life very happy. It is also mentioned herein that by following the strict

vows of a chaste woman, Princess Devahüti became very skinny, and therefore

her husband became compassionate. He knew that she was the daughter of a

great king and yet was serving him just like an ordinary woman. She was

reduced in health by such activities, and he became compassionate and

addressed her as follows." (SB 3.23.4-5)

>You asked:

>>"Show me where Prabhupada says this."<

>

>If I have time I may research this further as per your request. Can you show

>where Prabhupada said that lady devotees shouldn't be engaged according to

>their natures and circumstances? His example showed that he did engage

>ladies according to these criteria.

"According to the Vedas, a girl is not allowed all the samskaras due to a

female's less intelligent nature. A brahmana boy, though, must observe

them. Why is this the case? Because a girl must, in all cases, follow her

husband. If her husband is brahmana, she is also automatically a brahmana.

There is no need for her to undergo a separate reformation. The point being

that if by chance she doesn't marry a brahmana, her so-called brahmana

training is meaningless. Therefore, even if born in a brahmana family, a

woman is always taken as a woman, not as a brahmana. Likewise, if born in a

ksatriya, vaisya or sudra family, she is never considered to be a ksatriya,

vaisya or sudra; she is always considered and referred to as a woman."

(Sri Sri Rukmini Dvaraka-natha Deity Installation Los Angeles, July 16,

1969)

>you write:

>>"Is there any occupation women cannot do if they are so inclined? >

>

>I agree that ladies should not be chief executives.

Would that include the post of GBC?

Your servant, Sita dd

November 24, 1999

<"Why are we hell-bent upon making ISKCON "unfortunate" by having female

leaders?"<

>In the quotes from Srila Prabhupada .. "we never find that a woman was

given