important

[Guest guest]

> And such beloved devotees of the Lord are fit to accept worship on His

> behalf as sannyasis or spiritual masters, all of which class within ISKCON

> at present are men. So my question was specifically meant to clarify this

> point: Why will the GBC "not tolerate...preferential treatment given to

> male devotees in any form," since *one form* of preferential treatement is

> that due to the spiritual master, sannyasis, and even brahmanas?

>

And you think that women can't be brahmanas or vaisnavas otherwise you

wouldn't come to such a conclusion?

 

> Yes, Mataji, the cows, monkeys, hogs, and other creatures, as well as the

> Vaisnavis, are equally related to Krsna. Why therefore is special

> treatment given to Vaisnavis to occupy one-half of an ISKCON temple room?

> Why not share that space equally with the female gender of other species

> also? Is that what you mean to establish by the above quote?

 

But they are equal also with the sannyasis, men, and all other male

species. This has nothing to do with the place in a templeroom.

 

> Therefore, cows, elephants, and dogs should also be treated fairly and

> thus granted equal space in every ISKCON temple. Is this correct, Mataji?

>

Guru-krishna prabhu, you are really starting to talk a nonsense here. Why

are you mixing up things? Everybody is equal on the spiritual platform, not

just a female part of species. That has nothing to do with the space in a

templeroom.

 

> Very nice quotes, of course, Mataji. But how do any of them specifically

> relate to my question above?

>

They relate in a way that you are supposed to learn to respect everybody.

 

> This is also very nice. But if a sannyasi of contemporary age were also

> residing in the same temple, should he not be given preferential

> treatment? If not why not?

>

Because sannyasis are not supposed to be depending on a managerial

structure for the protection and their needs. They already have given up

that structure. That's the meaning of sannyasa. You give up a society and

completely depend on the Lord. Not that you take up sannyas clothes and then

use the society and managerial structure to protect you. What's then the

meaning of depending on the Lord? And if a sannyasi sees that women happen

to be in front of the altar he doesn't call up the TP and tell him to move

them, because he wants to see the Deities. He takes it as Krishnas mercy and

waits untill he can see the Deities.

 

> Aren't we enjoined to give special treatment to the spiritual master, or

> are we now forbidden by the GBC to do that if the spiritual master happens

> to be male? That is my question. The sannyasi is to be offered special

> respect and facilities because he is the spiritual master of society, but

> since he also happens to be male, are we now forbidden to offer him

> special treatment?

 

What are you worrying about here? I never heard that GBC came to that kind

of conclusion. Besides that, if sannyasis start to demand the special

treatment, then something must be really wrong somewhere.

 

> This was exactly the point of contention in Vrndavana which led to the GBC

> Executive order, wasn't it? The order came as a result of the temple

> management's desire to facilitate a somewhat preferential treatment of

> sannyasis (spiritual masters), and reads in part: "the GBC will not

> tolerate...preferential treatment given to male devotees in any form."

> "Any form" obviously includes the form in which preferential treatment was

> being given to the sannyasis.

>

I already explain that. Sannyasis are not supposed to be using managerial

structure for their own protection and needs.

 

> Kapiladeva was a brahmacari, and his mother took lessons from Him. That is

> the male prerogative. (TLK Chapter 5 page 43)

>

> Here Kapiladeva in a brahmacari dress, and mother is taking lesson from

> the son. Now, sometimes it is asked, "How the mother will take lesson from

> the son?" That is the prerogative of the male. (Srimad-Bhgavatam 3.25.5-6

> Bombay, November 5, 1974)

>

What does that has to do with the place in a templeroom?

 

> Yes, the "gopis of Vrndavana are the best example of this." And the gopis

> were simple village girls, unsophisticated, uneducated. There is no

> history of the gopis leading temple kirtans, giving SB class, serving as

> temple presidents, GBCs. It's good to know--isn't it?--that Vaisnavis can

> achieve the highest platform of Krsna consciousness simply by following in

> the footsteps of the gopis.

>

Very good logic. There is no history either of temple kirtans, SB classes

and TP and GBCs in the spiritual world. Those things don't exist in the

spiritual world. You are again mixing up things.

Ys. Sraddha dd