Thread #10: Proposal by Sri Rama das

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyamasundara Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> > Just for the record, can you please give the quote(s) from Srimad

> > Bhagavatam which exclude women from taking the role of GBC or TP?

>

> This is of the neti-neti catagory, by that I mean indirect definition.

> Indirect definition is not conclusive, as Hiranyakashipu will attest.

>

> Let us first speak in general prinicples and then proceed to

> particulars.It could be argued that if I can't find a sastra pramana that

> tells me not to do something I should therefore be allowed to do it.

> Considering the vast nature of this material world it would be literaly

> impossible to include every possibility. For example: LSD, coffee, tea and

> various modern day intoxicants are not to be found in Sastra. Therefore it

> could be argued that Brahmanas can take these things since there is no

> injunction in the sastras regarding these substances since they are not

> even mentioned.

>

> However, there is a *direct* description in the sastras about what the

> life style and duties of a Brahmana should be. Therefore by knowing what

> the duties of a Brahmana should be it will be easy to deduce that

> indulgence in such substances is against the sva-dharma of a brahmana.

 

These arguments are unfair and misleading. In the sastras there are both

positive and negative rules. Sometimes we are told to act in a certain way.

At other times we are told to avoid certain actions. You have stated very

clearly that there is a certain prohibition. It is certainly a proper

response to ask you to supply the sastric basis of your statement. Why do

you try to characterize such a request as neti-neti? And then, through your

LSD example, you are also suggesting that I am not allowing you any

reasonable deduction upon the principles of sastra in order to conclude the

existence of the prohibition. I never said anything unreasonable. I simply

asked for information as to what particular sastric references you were

deducing from.

 

> To the point in hand the sastra (SB 7.11.25-29 complete quote below) does

> describe the sva-dharma of women which is to serve her vaisnava husband

> and family.

 

Agreed.

 

> A woman's duties in her husband's ashrama to her husband and

> children are not trivial but rather a fulltime occupation.

 

This is your added point. It is not stated in the texts quoted. Please don't

read something into the Bhagavatam's statements which is not there.

 

> Krsna explains

> in Gita (Bg 18.45-46 quote below) that to achieve perfection in this life

> a person, in whatever position, should simply perform their (not someone

> else's) prescribed duties as an offering to the Lord. On the other hand

> Krsna has also explained in the Gita (not once but twice in 3.35 & 18.47

> quote below) that doing someone else's duty is *dangerous* and is affected

> by *sinful reactions*.

 

And this is why I wanted to know specifically in which bhakti sastra it is

stated that it is not a woman's duty to serve on a top-level administrative

committee such as the GBC [deductive reasoning permitted]. If it is stated

somewhere that it is not their duty then I will certainly accept that they

should not do it, based upon these Gita quotes.

 

> If you want to discuss this point further I am sure that Nayana Ranjana

> Prabhu and others will be willing to continue.

 

I am personally convinced that there are very good practical management

reasons why women should be discouraged from taking up top-level

administrative work. However, there is a more important principle at work

here. Many devotees have taken up the reading of various smritis and are

enlivened when they see some kind of initial agreement between the

statements there and the statements of the Bhagavatam. Thus they tend to

conclude that these smritis are useful for filling in the gaps that the

Bhagavatam apparently "glosses over", such as the role of women and other

varnasrama considerations, and in this way they unconsciously consider the

statements in these smritis to be absolute principles. Then when they read

the Bhagavatam again they begin to see all sorts of things there which

aren't really there at all. Thus anytime someone wants to start a practical

discussion about women's roles in the society the whole matter gets exploded

with many irrelevant sastric quotes.

 

But all the sastras we accept as our highest authority very noticeably avoid

going deeply into topics such as strict prohibitions on the activities of

women. We should think carefully about the reasons behind this avoidance. It

is certainly not an oversight on the part of Srila Vyasadeva and our

acaryas! (Many writers on this topic in these forums would subtly have us

believe this.) I would be really enlivened to have a discussion on the

reasons behind this avoidance in the bhakti sastras. We will never be able

to implement varnasrama training together with the chanting of Hare Krishna

(which we are supposed to be doing) unless we understand clearly the

relationship between them, and why there is no varnasrama discussion in the

Bhagavatam to the same extent there is in Manu-samhita and the writings of

Yajnavalkya.

 

> For myself this is as much

> time as I have for this matter.

 

That's quite understandable. Thank you for your contribution.

 

Your servant, Bhaktarupa Das