Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 Anantarupa wrote: >but I have to admit that, in my mind, some of the statements made by GHQ about >various Vaishnava women don´t sound very respectful at all. In fact, some of them >could be bordering on mysoginy. >I am thinking here of terms like "prostitute, whore or shameless madwoman" which >have been hurled at female devotees because they took up some managerial >responsibility or became vocal about the emotional or physical needs of other women. >Senior matajis like Vishakha Dasi, Malati Dasi, Jyotirmayi Dasi, Pranada Dasi and >other members of the women´s ministry have been painted in very dark colours. Your concerns are valid, I agree. Perhaps then Madhava Gosh Prabhu should conduct an indepth investigation by studying the exact texts, interviewing the authors, perhaps getting a recommendation from the GBC that the authors submit to psychoanalysis. But as far as I am concerned, most/all of the GHQ members were/are much more concerned for the welfare of ISKCON and society at large than they were/are to belittle or blaspheme Vaisnavis. >Now, I dont know all these women, but from the GHQ texts they come across as >veritable demons who have to be excommunicated lest ISKCON will go to hell. I wonder >if these matajis who probably chant Hare Krishna and attend temple programs just >like any other ISKCON devotee are really that dangerous, unintelligent and misguided >as they are made out to be. I don't consider any of them to be dangerous, although perhaps misguided, depending upon exactly who we are speaking of. Some are known to have good sadhana, while others are known to have no visible temple sadhana. Some are protected by husbands in good standing, others unprotected. All are quite materially intelligent, while some may be seriously deficient in spiritual intelligence. >"Now another thing, that girls should not be taken as inferior. You see? >Sometimes... Of course, sometimes scripture we say that "Woman is the cause of >bondage." So that should not be, I mean to say, aggravated. (laughs) That should not >be aggravated, that "Woman is inferior," or something like that. So the girls who >come, you should treat them nicely . . After all, anyone who is coming to Krishna >consciousness, man or woman, boys or girls, they are welcome. They are very >fortunate. >You see. And the idea of addressing "prabhu" means "you are my master." That is >the... Prabhu means master. And Prabhupäda means many masters who bows down at his >lotus feet. That is Prabhupäda. So each, everyone shall treat others as "My master." >This is the Vaisnava." (September 24, 1968 conversation) >Here you have your shastric statement about mysoginy. Prabhupada says that someone >who continually overemphasizes points like "women are less intelligent, women are 9 >times more lusty than men" etc. even when these women are Vaishnavis is guilty of >disrespect. Agree and disagree, both. First, SP laughs after saying that those points should not be aggravated. He doesn't at all convey an attitude of grave concern for the "fact" that he is dealing with misogynists, social criminals. So perhaps those who are disturbed with the GHQ agenda should also lighten up a bit, have a good chuckle, and push forward in Krsna consciousness with fresh minds on these topics. But I agree that to overemphasize those points could well constitute disrespect, and such disrespect is certainly inauspicious. At the same time, the members of GHQ consensually agree that Vaisnavis generally should not assume managerial positions, especially temple president and GBC positions. And since that conclusion of ours is in opposition to the current ISCKON status quo, naturally we had to and will continue to draw out such facts from the sastra as mentioned above, whenever necessary. But that is a different thing from overemphasizing or aggravating. It is rather an ongoing attempt to establish a philosophically superior understanding to the present one. >You reacted sensitively about Madhava Ghosh´s accusation that GHQers are mysoginists >and indicated that this might be a serious offense. Obviously you do not want to be >called a mysoginist and I understand that. But how do you think Malati, Vishakha and >other senior women feel when they are constantly described as demons, whores, less >intelligent etc? Please don't equate general points of philosophy with specific accusations against individuals. As far as I know I have never used any of those words in direct reference to any of our ideological opponents (i.e. "purvapakshins"). And one should be sober enough to discriminate between occasional unsavory remarks and steady vilification--the latter to be taken seriously, the former to be excused. Do you agree? >Of course one could now begin to argue whether or not the matajis named above are >"very nice and sober as well as qualified elder women". But please don´t. What is >the use of getting into endless verbal battles which are often nothing more than "I >know better than you". I also prefer to spend my time in more productive ways. >My main point is: I respect GHQ for trying to create chaste women and I wish them >all the best but I wonder why GHQ have to get so much on the case of some matajis >who don´t exactly correspond to their image of ideal vedic women. Calling them >whores, demons, shameless, lusty and unintelligent will certainly not win them over >to your cause. Some of those words were sometimes used, justifiably or unjustifiably. Perhaps you should question the specific individuals who spoke in those ways. Otherwise, I agree, and I don't know any other GHQ member who would rather call ladies ill names than to discuss philosophy amongst like-minded souls. >So why not leave them alone and focus on your real agenda which is to turn your own >daughters into chaste vedic ladies. It must be both--because our daughters are growing up in the present social situation. While we are teaching chastity, shyness, submission to male authorities, etc. the purvapakshins are teaching differently, both by word and example. It's an incompatible situation. >By creating just one vedic woman who is ideal you can accomplish more than by >chastising millions of those who are not. You know the saying: "If the shoe fits wear it." We will continue to speak the truth as we have understood it, without presuming to chastise anyone who is not directly our subordinate. But if the shoe fits, others may wear it--we don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 On 27 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > > > So in the absence of sastic evidence, what is your material evidence that GHQ > > members were following the *misogynist* vani of Kirtanananda? I'm > specifically > > asking you to back your claim that these members are *haters of women," if > you > > would be so kind as to explain. > > > > Thank you, prabhu. > > > > --gkd > > And I am specifically saying that trying to explain the obvious to you would be > a > waste of my time. Obvious? Anyone can say "It's obvious," but that doesn't explain or prove anything. So many things are apparently obvious to persons who maintain specific prejudices, even when the "obvious" isn't even fact! But OK, prabhu, it's obvious to you. We just wonder if it's also obvious to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and if so, how it would be corroborated tobe so. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.