important

[Guest guest]

> Yes, they are spiritually equal. But the fact that we *don't* make space

> for them is because of the *material* difference. Similarly, human society

> ordered according to varna and asrama recognizes both material and

> spiritual differences in social position, and thus brahmanas, sannyasis,

> and gurus are traditionally offered *special* respect and treatment

> accordingly, isn't it?

>

They are, and we didn't have problem with that untill now, but we did have

a problem with disrespecting women. Speaking how they are lower, 9 times

more lusty, less intelligent etc.

 

> Same answer as above, Mataji. It's obvious that we *don't* embrace the

> tiger, although there is an equal soul within. We *don't* allow the dog to

> enter the temple, although there is an equal spiritual soul within.

> Similarly we *should* offer special respect and treatment to gurus,

> sannyasis, brahmanas--at least that is what SP has written.

>

As far as I know this is what Srila Prabhupada has writen about sannyasis:

 

"Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu usually saw Lord Jagannatha from a distance,

standing behind the column of Garuda." Cc. Madhya 12.212

"As He viewed Lord Jagannatha from behind the Garuda column, hundreds and

thousands of people in front of Him were seeing the Deity." Cc. Antya 14.23

 

Lord Caitanya didn't use His male SPOG prerogative and His male sannyas

prerogative. He viewed the Deities from the distance. He didn't mix with the

crowd. He didn't ask managers of the Jagannath temple to make sure that He

can be in front and see the Deities. He didn't ask managers to control the

crowd, specifically women, rather He chastised his personal secretary for

trying to stop the woman from seeing the Deities.

 

"Suddenly, a woman from Orissa, unable to see Lord Jagannatha because of

the crowd, climbed the column of Garuda, placing her foot on Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu’s shoulder.

"When he saw this, Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s personal secretary, Govinda,

hastily got her down from her position. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, however,

chastised him for this."

PURPORT

Because Garuda is the carrier of Lord Visnu, he is the supreme Vaisnava.

Therefore to touch his body with one’s feet or to climb the column of Garuda

is certainly a vaisnava-aparadha, an offense to a Vaisnava. The woman was

also offensive to Krsna by putting her foot on the shoulder of Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu. Seeing all these offenses, Govinda very hastily made her get

down.

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said to Govinda, “O adi-vasya [uncivilized man],

do not forbid this woman to climb the Garuda-stambha. Let her see Lord

Jagannatha to her satisfaction."

"When the woman came to her senses, however, she quickly climbed back down

to the ground and, seeing Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, immediately begged at His

lotus feet for forgiveness.

"Seeing the woman’s eagerness, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, “Lord

Jagannatha has not bestowed so much eagerness upon Me."

"She has fully absorbed her body, mind and life in Lord Jagannatha.

Therefore she was unaware that she was putting her foot on My shoulder.

“Alas! How fortunate this woman is! I pray at her feet that she favor Me

with her great eagerness to see Lord Jagannatha.”

 

This shows that when women are eager to see the Deities they don't really

care whom they are steping on, but Krishna is rather glorifying their

eagerness to see the Lord, than chastising them for the offenses.

 

> That is accepted. We don't say *not* to respect Vaisnavis. We're trying to

> go one rung higher: Offer preferential respect/facility/treatment to

> gurus, sannyasis, brahmanas, as consistent with Vedic culture. At the same

> time, do not disrespect women, do not mistreat them, do not deprive them.

> We aren't talking about favoring men to the deprivation of women. No.

 

Then what is that talk about the place in the templeroom? That men have

more right to see the Deities than women? That women should rather be seeing

mens back than the Deities?

 

> >> 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 Lord Caitanya showed by His personal example that a sannyasi

shouldn't use the male sannyasi prerogative.

 

> Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but apparently they rate third amongst the

> five defenseless creatures. It's a hierarchy. It's not all one and the

> same. It's simultaneously the same and not the same, no? The Lord is

> "always anxious about the benefit of the brahmanas and the cows." Genuine

> sannyasis are the topmost brahmanas. So we shouldn't put the Lord in

> further anxiety by not properly caring for our "dear sons," the wandering

> mendicant sannyasis--who have no home in this world, who are fully

> dependent on the Lord (as you said), who must constantly travel, who have

> no wife or children to give them affection or comforts, and who *we*

> householders must properly respect and give comforts to when they

> temporarily visit our locale.

 

Sannyasi ashram means not to depend on those things. Krishna spoke about

brahmanas and not the sannyasis. Don't mix up those two. Sannyasis have

Krishna to depend on, and He can offer much better protection than anybody

else.

 

> But if taken literally, the order reads: "the GBC will not

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

> Please note and consider the meaning of "in any form," with special

> emphasis on the word "any." So what does that mean? Will not tolerate...in

> *any* form?

Ask them, and not us.

 

> >Besides that, if sannyasis start to demand the special treatment, then

> something must >be really wrong somewhere.

>

> But was that actually the case?

Yes. The sannyasi went and complained to the manager that he can't see the

Deities, because of the ladies. If he have not done that, we wouldn't have

to have all these discussions.

 

> Your explanation is valid from the viewpoint of the sannyasis, I agree.

> They should not do as you say they should not. But why does the *GBC* say

> that *they* "will not tolerate...preferential treatment given to male

> devotees in any form"? Why should the sannyasis be demoted (practically

> speaking) by virtue of this zero-tolerance edict?

 

Because Lord Caitanya showed by His example that sannyasis shouldn't

expect to get that.

 

> Sorry for not making it more clear, Mataji. The "gopis" that I refer to

> are the gopis of Bhauma Vrndavana, not of Goloka Vrndavana. They being the

> *topmost* example of devotees, perhaps ISKCON ladies should become

 

You see, the gopis of Bhauma Vrindavana are really the wrong kind of

persons to take as examples for your chaste, submissive ladies who should be

helping their husbands to regulate their sex. (Sorry for this one, I just

took it from your comment to Janesvara prabhu where you said that men should

be married after age of 25 in order to regulate their sex.)

The gopis are glorified not for their chastity to their husbands, but for

breaking up all the social rules in order to please Krishna. The intensity

of their love for Krishna is such that it breaks all the bounderies.

 

"While all the gopis were hurriedly leaving their respective places, their

husbands, brothers and fathers were all struck with wonder to know where

they were going. Being young girls, they were protected either by husbands,

elder brothers or fathers. All their guardians forbade them to go to Krsna,

but they disregarded them. When a person becomes attracted by Krsna and is

in full Krsna consciousness, he does not care for any worldly duties, even

though very urgent. Krsna consciousness is so powerful that it gives

everyone relief from all material activities." KB. ch. 29

And those gopis who didn't manage to escape from their husbands they have

left their bodies.

Ys. Sraddha dd