Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 > > Before assuming something, have we ever thought why did Srila Prabhupada not > appoint one woman to post of GBC? Why were none of the 11 chosen in 1977 women? > He had full opportunity. Why did he choose only men? Why? Too many misogynists amongst the early disciples who were too under the bodily concept to be able to deal with it. Hopefully that has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 > This is a very serious question raised regarding Ajamila Prabhu's proposal > which needs to be addressed immediately. > > > SPECIFIC DUTIES FOR THE GBC (Ajamila Prabhu's proposal) > > > 10. He/she can have any required number of assistant or Co GBCs > > I strongly object to the word 'she' in this proposal. > > We are trying to introduce Varnasrama in the GBC with respect to the gurus > & sannyasis but we are not considering that it includes that GBC > management is not for the female-bodied devotees. Nayana Ranjana and Devakinandan Prabhus, thanks for flagging that one down. We just had this debate not so long back and the result was that there was reasonable support and arguments for both points of view. The last debate showed that on this issue our Society is clearly divided. Therefore I strongly suggest that we not get into this massive and potentially emotive issue right now. When or if we ever restructure the GBC according to varnasrama this issue would be debated to everyone's full satisfaction THREAD BARE among the GBCs, IBCs, and any other interested devotees. Thereafter the combined majority vote of the GBCs and IBCs would be the Society rule. So I agree that for the time being we should omit the word SHE in our proposal just to retain order until the SHE issue can be debated very thoroughly and conclusively as I suggested above. The most important thing right now is to implement the varnasrama restructuring of the GBC which will give us the healthy checks and balance system our Society so desparately needs. We must sort that out first then we will have a very INCLUSIVE and CONCLUSIVE setup for discussing the never ending flow of controversial issues that arise in our Society which has been so badly lacking in the past. What do you think? > If we are so much emphasising why Prabhupada wanted to replace Tamal > Krishna Goswami when he became a sannyasi, why are we not considering that > Prabhupada told mother Yamuna that since she was a woman she could not > become GBC. Is this also not implementation of varnasrama in the GBC? > > [Note: Tamal Krsna Maharaja's recollection explains Prabhupada's > ultimate decision NOT to put Yamuna as GBC. Why are there no other > "evidences" from 1971-1977 of women being asked by Prabhupada to be GBC? > Contradictory accounts from someone else don't prove anything.] > > Before assuming something, have we ever thought why did Srila Prabhupada > not appoint one woman to post of GBC? Why were none of the 11 chosen in > 1977 women? He had full opportunity. Why did he choose only men? Why? > > HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami and told me to make it clear to all the assembled > devotees in this GBC Restructure conference that Varnasrama can never be > established in the ISKCON leadership if: > > (1) Vaisnavis are given managerial positions in the GBC even if the GBC > may be made up of only grhastas. Agreed, but this issue requires much debate in order to satisfy those who disagree. So this should be properly debated when there is facility for an all inclusive forum. > (2) Grhastas on the GBC are divorcees. Agreed, but there may be exceptions. For instance, what if a devotee was divorced by his wife against his will? Does not the above need a clause exempt such an innocent person? It would be more specific if it stated a devotee who has divorced his wife. > (3) If there is no immediately strong heavy-handed action taken against > the belittling of Prabhupada going on in subtle ways. Agreed, we can never tolerate even the slighest belittling of Srila Prabhupada. > HG Devakinandan Prabhu (ISKCON Juhu Management Committee) has also read > this proposal and instructed me to pass on this message to this > conference: > > He feels that: > > (1) Vaisnavis should never be given managerial positions in leadership > roles. (2) The IBC should not be involved in voting or any managerial > decisions even once a year but it should only be consulted when there is > great emergency managerial problem. Otherwise the restructuring will not > be so effective. I and many others agree with this in principle, but in order to satisfy those who don't we should properly debate the issue when we have a proper forum. > I personally also would tend to loose my complete interest in this > conference if in the attempt to the restructure the GBC with respect to > the sannyasis & gurus we end up introducing another big blunder by > supporting the introduction of Vaisnavis in the GBC leadership positions. > Then there is a chance that the new GBC comprising of grhastas will become > worse than now because of the intermingling of the men & women at the top > level which will then permeate throughout our Society in a very widespread > manner. yad yad acarati sresthas. And the whole society will be doomed to > sahajiyaism and apasiddhantavada. Atleast the sannyasis on the GBC now may > not be very keen in introducing more women in the GBC (atleast I hope so) > but when the grhastas come in, they may give a free license and start > inducting Vaisnavis on the GBC, which will make it even worse than what it > is now. So I wan't to know the views of the conference members on this > issue and thus decide whether I should support this restructuring > campaign. > > The present GBC is surely commiting this blunder (and that is one of the > reasons it has become powerless) as pointed out by Paradhyeya Prabhu is > his excellent essage to the GBC: Critical Analysis of "Women in ISKCON" > GBC Resolutions, dated May 17, 2000. But they have not cared to even reply > to Paradhyeya Prabhu's impeccable arguments what to speak of rescinding > the resolution pertaining to women in ISKCON. > > At the GBC meeting two years ago (1997), a member, speaking for the > inclusion of women on the GBC, said (as reported on Chakra): 'Don't see > what Srila Prabhupada did, think what he would do now.' Isn't this > statement very very odd, to say the least? > > It was very very surprising and disturbing to me that recently in their > first meeting in Alachua on June 7th and 8th, the SMPDC members (most of > them sannyasis like Jayapataka Swami, Gopal Krishna Goswami, Radhanatha > Swami, Sivarama Swami {absent}, Bhakti Caru Swami {absent}) acknowledged > the undue absence of any female members and accordingly invite > nominations. (Since the meeting, Pranada d.d. was nominated and has agreed > to sit on the SMPDC. Her nomination is waiting confirmation by the > members). > > Are'nt all these actions making Varnasrama implementation almost > impossible in our Society taking it towards sahajiyaism? Sometimes it is > very very frustrating to be a witness to all this. > > And if the members of this conference or the new GBC does not the see all > this as a breakage of Varnasrama principles in the leadership then I do > not want to be a party to such restructural attempts. > > Here are some quotes from Srila Prabhupada where Prabhupada states very > clearly that leadership positions are not meant for female-bodied souls: > > SB 4.16.23 purp > > 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. > > Letter to: Jayatirtha Calcutta 13 January, 1976 > > "You may check that they are chanting and following the rules but do not > get involved with their management. So far your suggestion that they sew > clothes for the sannyasis Deities it is not possible. Sannyasis may have > no connection with women." > > Letter to: Yamuna, Dinatarine Mayapur 21 February, 1976 > > "On the whole larger scale is not to be attempted by women. 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." > > Bhagavad-gita 1.21-22, London, July 18, 1973 > > After describing the material energy, bhumir apo analo vayuh, earth, > water, air, fire, this material.... This is also female, prakrti. Female > means.... 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. This is artificial. In the history of India, greater India, > Mahabharata, you will never find that a woman has been given a position of > controller. No. It is not possible. We have to take things from the > sastra. > > Evening Darshan; Hrishikesha, May 9, 1977 > > Prabhupada: Who will give protection? Sab scientific.(Hindi) "So don't > trust women and politician". This is Canakya Pandita....We have got > Mahabharata, there is not a single instance...We had very, very great, > qualified women, but they were in charge of state...? Very, very qualified > women. You know. Na svatanratam arhati, striyah. For women there is no > independence. The Manu-samhita. They must stay under father, under > husband, or under elderly sons. Three stages. Kunti.... > > If you want to revive real Indian civilization for the good of the whole > human society, take to Krsna consciousness. You'll be happy. There is no > doubt. (Hindi) Why do you try to undo something which is spoken by > Bhagavan, Vyasadeva?...Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. We are not > following mahajana, but we are transgressing...." > > Morning Walk March 19, 1976, Mayapura > > Ramesvara: The women argue, Srila Prabhupada, that they can be given.... > If they are given a good chance, they can make equal contribution in > business, in science. So they are demanding equal rights, equal > employment. Prabhupada: So why.... Why not equal rights that you stop > producing children like the man? The man does not produce. Why you are > obliged to produce? > Ramesvara: That is their special qualification. > Prabhupada: That is.... Similarly, everything is special. You are a > different entity. You must have different engagements. That is your > perfection. > > [Note: Prabhupada says very clearly that women have different engagements > than men. Just because some Vaisnavis have a propensity for management > doesn't mean they can act or demand accordingly. Lord Krsna says in BG, > 18.47: "It is better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one > may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and > perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one's nature are > never affected by sinful reactions."] > > Discussions with Hayagriva dasa about Auguste Comte > > Prabhupada: These are all imagination. When woman, when she is misguided, > she becomes dangerous. There is no question of love. But one thing, > according to Vedic conception life, that women and children are on the > same level, so they should be given protection by men. In childhood the > protection is from the father, in youthhood the protection is from the > husband, and in old age the protection is from the grown-up sons. So they > should never be given independence. They should be given protection, and > their natural love for father or for husband or for children, then that > propensity will grow very smoothly, and that will establish the > relationship with woman and man very happy, and both of them will be able > to execute their real function, spiritual life, by cooperation. The woman > is known as his better half, so if she looks after the comfort of the man, > a man is working and he is looking after the comfort, then both will be > satisfied and their spiritual life will progress. Woman is meant for > certain duties; man is meant for... Man is meant for hard working, and > woman is meant for homely comfort, love. So both of them, if they are > situated in their respective duties under proper training, then this > combination of man and woman will help both of them to make progress in > spiritual life. > > Thakura Bhaktivinoda in his commentary on Upadeshamrita > > "Householders should not closely associate with others' wives or > prostitutes. They should not indulge in any association with the opposite > sex other than with their wives according to religious scriptures." > > Basu Ghosh Prabhu > > "A women who acts as a leader in management position will necessarily have > to CONSTANTLY interact with the men. And there is a chance that it may > lead to illict connections, albeit not in every case. But in many." > > Guru-Krsna Prabhu > > On the one hand we have Vaisnavis pleading for protection; on the other, > they will be vying for power in the form of a leadership position--a > guaranteed lose-lose situation. They'll not get protection by competing > with their protectorates, because it "just ain't no fun" for a man to try > to protect a contrary-minded subordinate. And they won't get power either, > because the power of a woman is her shyness. > > Ofcourse that does not 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. A woman can do it only as a > service to help her husband managing service, in a direct way she should > not. > > Though it may not pertain directly to our discussion, there are quotes > from Prabhupada which are emphatic that women in the normal course should > not also become acaryas or diksha-gurus: > > SB 4.12.32 > > "Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not > become Dhruva Maharaja's diksa-guru." > > "t is not that woman cannot be acarya. Generally, they do not become. > In very special case. (From transcript of original tape of SP dictating > BGAII intro. 660219BG.NY) > > Ofcourse there can always be some rare exceptions to this rule like in our > parampara we see great great Vaisnavis like Jahnava Devi, Hemalata > Thakurani, Gangamata Goswami taking on the role of acaryas and gurus who > had many male disciples. > > Furthur it is clear from the quotes below that Prabhupada surely did want > to implement the varnasrama dharma in a complete manner gradually & slowly > by separating the intermingling of the men & women devotees in our > society. So how can we promote it in our leadership i.e the GBC body? Dear > conference members, please answer this question and don't evade it. > > "Sometimes jealous persons criticize the Krishna consciousness movement > because it engages equally both boys and girls in distrubuting love of > Godhead. Not knowing that boys and girls in countries like Europe and > America mix very freely, these fools and rascals criticize the boys and > girls in Krishna consciousness for intermingling. But these rascals should > consider that one cannot suddenly change a community's social customs." > (Cc. Adi 7.31-32, Purport) > > "In our society the girls and boys mix, intermingle together and this is > practically impossible to stop because you Western people are accustomed > to this habit. Sometimes my Godbrothers critize me for intermingling of > girls and boys....But there is no way out of it--you boys and girls will > mix even if I say....they cannot avoid it. They sit separately in the > temple and then outside mix again. So this was not possible from the > beginning...." (Letter to Govinda dasi, 30 April, 1974) > > "But because in your country there is no distinction between boys and > girls, or man and women, they can freely mix without any restriction, I > did not (therefore) give much stricture on this point because by such > stricture they might be annoyed, and whatever Krishna Consciousness they > are trying to develop might be checked." (Letter to Satvarupa, 68-07-12) > > Vaisnava dasabhas > Nayana-ranjana das So I would agree that initially we institute the stict varnasrama principle as you have suggested on the basis that sannyasis can have no association with women. This principle can never be compromised. Let's start as you suggested with the proper varnasrama structure with no sannyasis in management and then debate all the other contentious issues very thoroughly later when we will have a much better forum. What do you think? ys ada 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.