Women in leading positions.

[Guest guest]

>

> >

> > Sridhari dd. wrote:

> >

> > > I agree with you that the kitchen isn't the only place for a women,

> > > but

> a

> > > women in a leading position is dangerous. I am speaking and I am also

> in a

> > > women body,

Harsi prabhu wrote:

 

> > Why should a woman in a leading position be dangerous? Dangerous for

> > whom and what? Maybe you know something what I don,t know since I am a

> > man...

>

Woman in leading position is not dangerous. This statement is an insult to

my beloved Vrinda devi who is the main manager in the spiritual world. She

is managing all the pastimes of Radha and Krishna. Women have always been in

managment, men have always been managing, some renounciets have been

managing sometimes, mainly monasteries. Women have been in managment always,

in all cultures, both in the material and the spiritual world. It's not the

question if women should be managing, because they are doing that anyway,

the question is rather what, where and how should they be managing.

 

It is not a woman in leading position that is dangerous, but rather the

combination renouncietes and women together in leading position that is

dangerous. This kind of practice never existed in any culture of any time.

It is dangerous for both renounciets and the women, because there is a

danger of developing material attachment. Why is there danger for developing

material attachment? Because it is the nature of male and female to be

attracted to each other. Attraction between male and female is spiritual and

it exist on all levels, everywhere, eternaly. God is one, but He has devided

Himself into two (Radha, Krishna) for the purpose of enjoyment. He has

devided Himself into male and female to experience exchange of love. Love is

spiritual and attraction between male and female is spiritual. Both exist in

Krishna and they are spiritual and eternal. The purpose of attraction

between male and female is to bring about exchange of love. Attraction

between male and female and love exist everywhere on all levels, because

they exist in Krishna. The way we experience this attraction and love

depends on our concsiousness. Denying this attraction it is the same as

denying our very nature. We, as living entities, are part of Krishna, we are

His energy (marginal) and we are qualitatively equal with Him. We are of the

same nature as Krishna. So, this attraction between male and female and

desire to love and receive love exist in us, and are spiritual. They exist

in both renouncietes and women. The danger of mixing renounciets and women

manifest only for those who are not fully selfrealised, because this

combination might provoke the desire to once again try to enjoy seperated

from Krishna.

 

Besides that, there are certain codes of behaviour for certain groups in a

society. One of them is that renounciets (sannyasis) don't mix with women,

and vice versa. Another one is that renounciets are those who have given up

society, so they are socially dead men.

 

Sridhari prabhu wrote:

 

>Second, have a look at the history:

> wich place where a woman has been leading was success?

> Cleopatra? She had lots of lover-relationship with diferent persons to

> increase his interest

 

Dear Sridhari prabhu, compering ISKCON women to Cleopatra is insult both

to Cleopatra and to ISKCON women. First, there is no woman in ISKCON who is

that beautiful as Cleopatra, second, there is no ISKCON woman who would act

in the same way Cleopatra did (atleast, I hope so).

Third, this example shows just what can hapen if unqualified men manage.

They fall for the womans beauty and she can turn them around her finger.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

>> > Sridhari dd. wrote:

>> >a women in a leading position is dangerous. I am speaking and I am also

>> in a women body,

 

> Harsi prabhu wrote:

>

>> > Why should a woman in a leading position be dangerous? Dangerous for

>> > whom and what? Maybe you know something what I don,t know since I am a

>> > man...

 

Sraddha dd wrote:

 

> Woman in leading position is not dangerous. This statement is an insult to

>my beloved Vrinda devi who is the main manager in the spiritual world. She

>is managing all the pastimes of Radha and Krishna. Women have always been in

>managment, men have always been managing, some renounciets have been

>managing sometimes, mainly monasteries. Women have been in managment always,

>in all cultures, both in the material and the spiritual world. It's not the

>question if women should be managing, because they are doing that anyway,

>the question is rather what, where and how should they be managing.

 

So let's define the what, where and how. Here's something to start with:

women's asramas.

 

"Yes, the separation of men and women is desirable. If Yamuna and yourself

can develop such an institution of a women's asrama, that will be nice. You

are all elderly devotees. I think that this will be a good idea." (Letter

to: Palika Hare Krishna Land, Bombay 13 November, 1975)

 

"You can attract the fair sex community. Most of them are frustrated

being without any home or husband. If you can organize all these girls they

will get a transcendental engagement and may not be allured to the

frustration of life." (Letter to: Yamuna, Dinatarine Calcutta 13 January,

1976)

 

"Manage a small asram, but don't try bigger scale, then you require the

help of men. Don't try manual exertion, then again there is mixture and

that is not desired. Simply keep yourself aloof from men--chanting, many

more times as possible, read books, worship the deity." (Letter to: Yamuna,

Dinatarine Mayapur 21 February, 1976)

 

If some of our older single ladies would establish these asramas, as per

Srila Prabhupada's instructions, it would allow them (as per the WM's

suggestions):

 

1) to engage in all types of service,

2) to take darsana of the Deity up close,

3) to give Bhagavatam and other classes, and

4) to utilize adequate living arrangements.

 

We would personally donate laxmi to help establish such an asrama. Any takers?

 

Ys, Sita dd

[Guest guest]

>

> If some of our older single ladies would establish these asramas, as per

> Srila Prabhupada's instructions, it would allow them (as per the WM's

> suggestions):

 

Asramas are not the only place where women are managing. Women are in

managment together with their husbands too. Women are in managment also in a

society. They have always been in a managment. Earlear it was more together

with their husbands, and nowdays, since the family structure is mostly

broken up in the western society, women are running corporations, companies,

they are in a parliament, they are presidents of the countries, like Indira

Gandhi. She was a woman.

 

> 1) to engage in all types of service,

> 2) to take darsana of the Deity up close,

> 3) to give Bhagavatam and other classes, and

> 4) to utilize adequate living arrangements.

>

> We would personally donate laxmi to help establish such an asrama. Any

> takers?

Who are we?

 

This brings us back to my previous question: what is ISKCON supposed to

be? Monastery or a society?

Actually, Janesvara prabhu answer my question by his last post. Srila

Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to be a society, he wanted to introduce varnasrama

and varnasrama means structuring a society. Varnasrama is not needed in a

monastery.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

Sraddha dd wrote:

> Woman in leading position is not dangerous. This statement is an insult

to

> my beloved Vrinda devi who is the main manager in the spiritual world.

She

> is managing all the pastimes of Radha and Krishna.

 

Mataji:

HARE KRSNA ! ! ! Pamho, agtSP!

How can you consider compare ordinary women with Vrnda devi and Srimati

Radharani?

 

Women have always been in

> managment, men have always been managing, some renounciets have been

> managing sometimes, mainly monasteries. Women have been in managment

always,

> in all cultures, both in the material and the spiritual world.

 

Please kindly quotes practical examples, that are share by Srila Prabhupada

in his trascendental teachings.

 

It's not the

> question if women should be managing, because they are doing that anyway,

> the question is rather what, where and how should they be managing.

 

yes, I agree with you in this, but we are specially speaking of managing

position for women as GBC or Guru.

>

> It is not a woman in leading position that is dangerous, but rather the

> combination renouncietes and women together in leading position that is

> dangerous. This kind of practice never existed in any culture of any

time.

 

So you agree that women in leading position within our Society must not be

a fact.

 

> It is dangerous for both renounciets and the women, because there is a

> danger of developing material attachment. Why is there danger for

developing

> material attachment? Because it is the nature of male and female to be

> attracted to each other.

 

Well, again you confirm with this that we as ISKCON members should be very

very carefull to think that putting ladies in managing position will be the

cause of problems for the society.

 

Attraction between male and female is spiritual and

> it exist on all levels, everywhere, eternaly. God is one, but He has

devided

> Himself into two (Radha, Krishna) for the purpose of enjoyment. He has

> devided Himself into male and female to experience exchange of love. Love

is

> spiritual and attraction between male and female is spiritual.

 

Mataji; I have to disagree with this. Love in this material world is not

spiritual at all, is full of lust, and if you think I'm wrong please just

look around you and tell me how many couples do you know that are married

just one, and how many divorce people you know, even just look within

ISKCON. Spiritual love is the love that we receive from Srila Prabhupada,

far away of weakness from personal interest, his only interest was to save

us from this hellish existence.

 

Both exist in

> Krishna and they are spiritual and eternal. The purpose of attraction

> between male and female is to bring about exchange of love.

 

What do you speciffically mean with love, I have a daughter and also love

her, I am female and she is female too. YOur statements are bogus.

 

The danger of mixing renounciets and women

> manifest only for those who are not fully selfrealised, because this

> combination might provoke the desire to once again try to enjoy seperated

> from Krishna.

 

Good. If we consider this point, we might be very carefull in keep the

distance of those sannyasis and with LOVE (service) help them to fullfill

his duties, that they are to protect us, guide us, teach us . . .

>

> Besides that, there are certain codes of behaviour for certain groups

in a

> society. One of them is that renounciets (sannyasis) don't mix with

women,

> and vice versa.

 

Again, mataji. We have to be very carefull in intending to obtain

leadership services, like TP, GBC, or Guru

 

Humbly on your service, Sridhari devi dasi

[Guest guest]

At 10:10 PM +0100 12/5/99, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

 

>> If some of our older single ladies would establish these asramas, as per

>> Srila Prabhupada's instructions, it would allow them (as per the WM's

>> suggestions):

>

> Asramas are not the only place where women are managing. Women are in

>managment together with their husbands too.

 

Yes, I agree. That's a nice arrangement. But as far as women managing on

their own, and not as their husbands' assistants, that is meant for widows

who are living a life of renunciation. It would be inappropriate for a

woman on her won to be managing temples other than one which is exclusively

for women or one where her husband is managing.

 

>> We would personally donate laxmi to help establish such an asrama. Any

>> takers?

> Who are we?

>

> This brings us back to my previous question: what is ISKCON supposed to

>be? Monastery or a society?

 

Both. A society is made up of "monasteries" for those living a renounced,

celibate life, but there are 2 other asramas which are also part of a

society. It's not an either/or thing; we all co-exist. But each asrama has

its special regulations which need to be respected by others living in

different asramas.

 

> Actually, Janesvara prabhu answer my question by his last post. Srila

>Prabhupada wanted ISKCON to be a society, he wanted to introduce varnasrama

>and varnasrama means structuring a society. Varnasrama is not needed in a

>monastery.

 

Varnasrama is needed for everyone, including monks ie. brahmacaris and

sannyasis. Maybe he is talking about a different point?

 

Ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

> [Text 2833379 from COM]

 

Sraddha devi dasi wrote:

> Asramas are not the only place where women are managing. Women are in

> managment together with their husbands too. Women are in managment also

in a

> society. They have always been in a managment. Earlear it was more

together

> with their husbands, and nowdays, since the family structure is mostly

> broken up in the western society, women are running corporations,

companies,

> they are in a parliament, they are presidents of the countries, like

Indira

> Gandhi. She was a woman.

 

Mataji:

All those above example are coming from the material world where people

(women in these cases) are looking for sense gratification, or fame, right

for abortions, or who knows what else. We are coming to ISKCON to get off

the hellish world, so why to try to keep those bad habits?

Why to think that taking examples from the material world mistakes will be

good to improve in our Society?

Did you know that the desire of women to be in leading positions in one of

the biggest reasons for broken marriage? If women were desiring more to be

behind their husband as humble helping hand, less broken marriage will be

found, because women will have more time to be engage in her natural dharma

as wife and mother.

 

sincerously and humbly

 

your servant, Sridhari devi dasi

[Guest guest]

> Sraddha dd wrote:

> > Woman in leading position is not dangerous. This statement is an

> > insult

> to

> > my beloved Vrinda devi who is the main manager in the spiritual world.

> She

> > is managing all the pastimes of Radha and Krishna.

>

> Mataji:

> HARE KRSNA ! ! ! Pamho, agtSP!

> How can you consider compare ordinary women with Vrnda devi and Srimati

> Radharani?

 

I didn't compare them, I just gave an example. From this example we can

see that it is a part of the female nature to manage.

 

>

>

> yes, I agree with you in this, but we are specially speaking of managing

> position for women as GBC or Guru.

> >

I don't know what you are speaking about, because I am not on that

conference, I just comment on what is showing up on the VA conference.

 

> > It is not a woman in leading position that is dangerous, but rather

> > the

> > combination renouncietes and women together in leading position that is

> > dangerous. This kind of practice never existed in any culture of any

> time.

>

> So you agree that women in leading position within our Society must not be

> a fact.

 

I don't. I am saying that sannyasis in a managment position must not be a

fact. Sannyasis as spiritual leaders, yes. But, sannyasis as managers of

society, NO! Married men and women in managment positions, yes. Some of the

renounciets sometimes, yes. But male dominated society with renounciets

managing society, mixing with women, not being able to take care of women

and children needs, NO!

 

> > It is dangerous for both renounciets and the women, because there is a

> > danger of developing material attachment. Why is there danger for

> developing

> > material attachment? Because it is the nature of male and female to be

> > attracted to each other.

>

> Well, again you confirm with this that we as ISKCON members should be very

> very carefull to think that putting ladies in managing position will be

> the cause of problems for the society.

>

 

Puting ladies in managment position is not going to be problem of society.

In the west many ladies are already managing. Ladies are not devils, they

have good caracteristics. There are many ladies who are spiritually advanced

and can help in managing society.

 

. > Attraction between male and female is spiritual and

> > it exist on all levels, everywhere, eternaly. God is one, but He has

> devided

> > Himself into two (Radha, Krishna) for the purpose of enjoyment. He has

> > devided Himself into male and female to experience exchange of love.

> > Love

> is

> > spiritual and attraction between male and female is spiritual.

>

> Mataji; I have to disagree with this. Love in this material world is not

> spiritual at all, is full of lust, and if you think I'm wrong please just

> look around you and tell me how many couples do you know that are married

> just one, and how many divorce people you know, even just look within

> ISKCON. Spiritual love is the love that we receive from Srila Prabhupada,

> far away of weakness from personal interest, his only interest was to save

> us from this hellish existence.

>

Love is always spiritual, there is nothing like material love, either is

love or isn't love. Love is within us and that is our nature, we don't

receive it from anyone. Love is unconditional, love is freedom, love is

unlimited. We have to understand the nature of love, our own nature and

Krishnas nature in order to experience it. The thing that you are speaking

about are the three killers of love: neediness (possessivness), expectations

(desire to control) and jealousy (envy). When this things are present in a

relationship, love doesn't apear.

 

 

> Both exist in

> > Krishna and they are spiritual and eternal. The purpose of attraction

> > between male and female is to bring about exchange of love.

>

> What do you speciffically mean with love, I have a daughter and also love

> her, I am female and she is female too. YOur statements are bogus.

>

You can love anybody and anything at any time. Love is not just

manifesting between male and female, there are unlimited relationships.

I was speaking about attraction between female and male to make the point

why is dangerous to mix renounciets with women. You can read in the Nectar

of Devotion what kind of relationships exist. Material world is material

just so long we see things separated from Krishna. When we realise that

everything is within Krishna, connected to Him, that we are His energy, and

of the same nature, then we can start to experience spirituality and love.

 

 

> The danger of mixing renounciets and women

> > manifest only for those who are not fully selfrealised, because this

> > combination might provoke the desire to once again try to enjoy

> > seperated from Krishna.

>

> Good. If we consider this point, we might be very carefull in keep the

> distance of those sannyasis and with LOVE (service) help them to fullfill

> his duties, that they are to protect us, guide us, teach us . . .

> >

Yes, keep distance as far as possible. It is not ladies business to help

sannyasis fulfilling their duties, it is ladies duties to help their

husbands fulfill their duties. You get the point?

It is not sannyasis duty to protect the ladies, it is ledies husbands duty

or managment duty, specificaly ksatriyas (who are supposed to be married) to

see that the ladies are protected. Sannyasis are supposed to be completely

dependant on Krishna and not on ladies or an institution.

 

> > Besides that, there are certain codes of behaviour for certain groups

> in a

> > society. One of them is that renounciets (sannyasis) don't mix with

> women,

> > and vice versa.

>

> Again, mataji. We have to be very carefull in intending to obtain

> leadership services, like TP, GBC, or Guru

>

I am not intending anything. If a man is qualified he can do it, if a

woman is qualified she can do it.

 

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

At 11:07 PM +0100 12/6/99, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

>[Text 2836443 from COM]

 

> I am not intending anything. If a man is qualified he can do it, if a

>woman is qualified she can do it.

 

Not so.

 

ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

> Puting ladies in managment position is not going to be problem of society.

>In the west many ladies are already managing. Ladies are not devils, they

>have good caracteristics. There are many ladies who are spiritually advanced

>and can help in managing society.

 

Who ARE these ladies helping? Their husbands? Is there any one woman in a

management position who is doing so in the capacity of helping her husband?

 

When Prabhupada said, "The girls should manage internally and the boys

should manage externally." (Letter to: Yamuna, 16 September, 1970) what did

he mean by that?

 

>It is not ladies business to help

>sannyasis fulfilling their duties, it is ladies duties to help their

>husbands fulfill their duties. You get the point?

 

Good point. And they do that, for the most part, within the home.

 

Ys, Sita dd

[Guest guest]

> Prabhu, you definetely have a point here. I have seen this too. That's why

>sannyasis and brahmacaris should live outside of a society and manage their

>own affair's.

 

Why should they live *outside* of a society? If Prabhupada wanted this, why

did he say (on more than one occasion) that sannyasis and brahmacaris

should be temple presidents?

 

>Renounced women should have their own asramas and manage their

>own affair's. Married women and men should manage society and take care of

>household affair's. All this mixing of different asramas just makes

>agitation for everybody, and that's why we end up fighting.

 

It couldn't simply be the mixing of asramas that leads to fighting. Maybe

the fighting comes from a lack of respect for those belonging to other

asramas. For example, there are many sannyasis who can't relate to grhastha

men. They don't encourage them to be responsible husbands and fathers.

Sannyasis should stick to their own asrama principles but they also need to

encourage grhastha men to stick to theirs and not push them to renounce

artificially. But when our socially confused sannyasis rub shoulders with

women in management, nobody feels inspired to follow varnasrama.

 

Ys, Sdd

[Guest guest]

> Why should they live *outside* of a society? If Prabhupada wanted this,

> why did he say (on more than one occasion) that sannyasis and brahmacaris

> should be temple presidents?

>

Live outside of a society, means not mix with women, because a society is

the place where the women are. Women were always part of a society, if a

husband took sannyas, woman would stay at home and be taken care of by the

son. Except for a few very renounced women, all the women stay in a society.

Society is made of families. Married men and women and their children.

Monasteries (temples) are the very small part of a society, and there have

always been separate monasteries for men and women.

The problem that we are facing is that in the western society is not

anymore posible to keep this family structure. The product of the western

society is a different kind of women and men. Here in the west nobody gets

disturbed if a woman is managing, or she is unmaried, or God knows what.

The other thing is that in every society there are different kods of

behaviour, and each country has something of its own. But we are living in

ISKCON which is mixture of people from all kinds of countries and cultures.

We are trying to push on each other our own culture or understanding, which

might be good for our own background, but might not work for a person from

different cultural background. Women in leading positions is normal in the

west, it's even present in India nowdays. I think that it would help just if

we could accept that we are different. That's the way to experience and give

love to others, no expectations, accept them for what they are. That would

be good for the both parties, and one desn't have to mix the two. Don't get

married a GHQ man to a independent western woman. Doesn't seem like that

that would be a good combination.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

At 4:42 PM +0100 12/7/99, COM: Sraddha (dd) HKS (Gothenburg - S) wrote:

>[Text 2838447 from COM]

>

>> Why should they live *outside* of a society? If Prabhupada wanted this,

>> why did he say (on more than one occasion) that sannyasis and brahmacaris

>> should be temple presidents?

>>

> Live outside of a society, means not mix with women, because a society is

>the place where the women are.

 

If women were busy inside their homes rather than living in temples we

wouldn't have this problem would we. But women aren't satisfied there and

why should they be when their "role models" aren't.

 

YS, Sdd

[Guest guest]

>> Did you know that the desire of women to be in leading positions in one of

>> the biggest reasons for broken marriage?

 

> I didn't know and I wouldn't even agree with it. I think that one of the

>bigest reasons is preaching that woman is good, man is good, but combination

>is bad.

 

That is also a good point but Sridhari's point is also a valid reason.

 

Ys, Sdd