© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL September 2, 1999 VNN4639 Related VNN Stories Rejected By BTG BY SITA DEVI DASI EDITORIAL, Sep 2 (VNN) — Dear Devotees, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. The following letter of appeal was rejected for publication by Nagaraja Dasa, the main editor for BTG. There appears to be a growing political element within BTG's editorial board which supports ISKCON's new breed of feminist spirituality. VNN's article by "Ardhabuddhi dasa" in November regarding the "GHQ conspiracy" was published at the same time Vishaka dd submitted her article containing the staff at BTG. It seems that GHQ'ers support of traditional womanhood is such a threat to certain key members of the Women's Ministry that they feel they need to use BTG to promote their feminist propaganda. Dear BTG Editors, I wish to voice an appeal to you regarding Visakha Devi Dasi's reply in the Sept/Oct issue to my letter of the previous issue. I humbly request the editors of BTG to verify whether her article and response is fully approved by them. It is my conviction that her statements are misleading and not representative of Srila Prabhupada nor of "Back to Godhead's" statement of purpose, which includes the following: * To offer guidance in the Vedic techniques of spiritual life. * To preserve and spread the Vedic culture." VISAKHA DEVI DASI REPLIES: To help us understand the scriptures, Srila Prabhupada gave us his transcendental purports. In his purport to the above verse (Bg. 18.47), Srila Prabhupada writes, "A man who is by nature attracted to the kind of work done by sudras [laborers] should not artificially claim to be a brahmana, although he may have been born into a brahmana family." In other words, one's work is determined by one's qualities and activities, not by one's birth. In this verse of Bhagavad-gita (18.47), the principle of not engaging in another's occupation applies to both men and women: "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." However, a woman's qualities and prescribed activities are not specifically described in this verse. To understand what our scriptures define a woman's occupational duty to be, we must consult Prabhupada's instructions on woman's dharma. Nowhere does he suggest what has been implied by Visakha Devi Dasi--that women are free to perform exactly the same duties as a man, or that she should be allowed to do any service of her choosing. In the following exchange we see what Srila Prabhupada meant by 1) a woman's "constitutional position, " 2) what was "artificial" about Krsna conscious women wanting "to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupada, " and 3) why he called modern women "rubbish": Yogesvara: Here's a problem. The women today want the same rights as men. How can they be satisfied? Prabhupada: Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Krsna conscious, they are working. They don't want equal rights with men. It is due to Krsna consciousness. They are cleansing the temple, they are cooking very nicely. They are satisfied. They never say that "I have to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupada." They never say. This is artificial. So Krsna consciousness means work in his constitutional position. The women, men, when they remain in their constitutional position, there will be no artificial... Bhagavan: But actually, our women are so qualified in so many ways, but these girls who simply work in the city can do nothing. They can't cook, they can't clean, they can't sew. Prabhupada: All rubbish, these modern girls, they are all rubbish....(Morning Walk: Rome, May 27, 1974) When directly asked if a woman could be temple president, Srila Prabhupada responded, "Yes why not?" Are we to think that Prabhupada actually meant "No"? If we read more of that exchange, we will see what Prabhupada actually meant: Prabhupada: Anyone can become first-class. Woman can become first-class if she is chaste and very much attached to husband. And if the husband is first-class, she becomes first-class. Because woman's duty is to follow husband. So if the husband is first-class, the wife is first-class, if she sticks to the husband. Mrs. Wax: But she can never be first-class unless she has a first-class husband. Prabhupada: No, she is first-class by following faithfully husband. And if the husband is first-class, then woman is first-class. Mrs. Wax: Could a woman be a temple president? Prabhupada: Yes, why not? Mrs. Wax: Glad to hear it. Prabhupada: But because women are less intelligent, they should remain dependent on first-class father, first-class husband, and first-class son. Then she is first-class. That is the injunction. Woman should remain dependent in childhood upon first-class father, in youthhood upon first-class husband, and in old age upon first-class son. Woman is never independent. If she becomes independent, her life is not very good. She must agree to remain dependent on first-class father, first-class husband, and first-class son--three stages." (Room Conversation with Mr. & Mrs. Wax, Writer and Editing Manager of Playboy Magazine, July 5, 1975, Chicago) We see that this answer of Prabhupada's is not an unequivocal "Yes, " as Visakha asserts. A few days after this conversation, Srila Prabhupada repeated in a television interview the principle of women being dependent. He elaborated that a woman is meant to adapt her service to the class of her husband, whom she is assisting: Woman reporter: Where do women fit into these four classes? Prabhupada: That I already explained. Women's position is subordinate to man. So if the man is first-class, the woman is first-class. If the man is second-class, the woman is second-class. If the man is third-class, the woman is third-class. In this...Because woman is meant for assisting man, so the woman becomes suitable according to the man, her husband. (Television Interview, Chicago, July 9, 1975) Srila Prabhupada did not tell us that husbands were meant to adjust to and encourage their wives who wanted to become temple presidents or GBCs. He didn't tell us that Vedic injunctions do not apply to his female disciples. When Srila Prabhupada first made lists of prospective GBC members, he included women on the list. Are we to think that was an accident? It could not have been an accident. But neither could it be accidental that Prabhupada never included women on the GBC in the seven years to follow. That fact speaks volumes. The women on those lists were wives of men who later became leaders. Would Prabhupada have considered them if he were not also thinking about appointing their husbands? Why Srila Prabhupada originally considered these women but later changed his mind is a mystery; however, these handwritten lists from the late 60s are certainly no proof that an actual appointment took place. Tamal Krsna Gosvami recollects that Prabhupada's ultimate decision regarding women becoming GBC was in fact a gender consideration: "I have often repeated what he told me at the time, which I remembered being that were she not a woman, he would have appointed her to the GBC." We are mandated, as his followers, to maintain what Srila Prabhupada established in his movement of ISKCON--not to invent ways that women should serve, in which they did not do in his time. "Do not try to innovate or create anything or manufacture anything, " Prabhupada warned, "that will ruin everything." (SPL to Jagannatha-suta, 26 August, 1975) When directly asked if a woman could be a spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada replied, "Yes." Should we think otherwise? With regards to diksa-guru, to which I was referring, not siksa-guru, Srila Prabhupada writes in Srimad-Bhagavatam (4.12.42): "According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru. Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja's diksa-guru. Still, he was not less obliged to Suniti." The bottom line is that Srila Prabhupada never appointed any woman to act as diksa-guru in all the years he was on the planet. It is well known that Prabhupada criticized independent women leaders in society, and it remains historical fact that he never created any in his movement. Are we to think *this* was a mistake? His Divine Grace wrote in Srimad Bhagavatam (9.10.11): "According to the Vedic rule, there is no scope for a woman's being independent (asamaksam), for a woman cannot protect herself independently." It makes no scriptural sense for us to suggest that a woman--who is meant to be protected--become a leader, who is supposed to give others protection. The more we create women "leaders, " the more men will feel less obliged to protect them. If BTG articles do not "offer guidance in the Vedic techniques of spiritual life" or "preserve and spread the Vedic culture, " and especially if they contain elements which do the opposite, then I humbly submit that it would be appropriate to alter your statement of purpose. Thank you very much. Hare Krsna. Sita Devi Dasi Related VNN Stories  Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
