Section 3

Letter COM:1652404 (159 lines) [W1]
From: Internet: Jivan Mukta Dasa <btb@georgian.net>
Date: 01-Sep-98 18:59
Subject: ISKCON women calling themselves Generals and Privates
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dearest Generalji,
>
>Dandavats. Srila Prabhupada, Srimati Radharani ki jaya!!
>
>My sincerest and deepest apologies for dragging you into the dialogue with
>Mr & Mrs Mukta. Please forgive me. I had asked TKG for his understanding
>of the GBC thing, and he sent me this copy of a letter that he'd early sent
>to Pranada:
>
>April 15,1992
>ISKCON Dallas
>
>Dear Mother Pranada,
>
>Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. I beg to
[...]
>remembrances. I hope this meets you in the very best of health.
>Servant of the servant,
>Tamal Krishna Goswami
>
>P.S. I mentioned the list tiitled "G.B." in my book Servant of the Servant,
>page148, published in 1984.
>
>It appears that TKG is no longer exactly sure what Srila Prabhupada said
>in the conversation. And therefore, in my book, we can politely discount
>the conversation in trying to determine Srila Prabhupada's desire re:
>women GBC's. Certainly we can totally discount it considering that a few
>months after this conversation he appointed two women GBC's. In any
>event, although Mr Mukta is fervently desirous of us all following Vaisnava
>etiquette, he is quite unable to follow it himself. I am now the brunt of his
>forceful anger, and I worry that he is taking out his frustrations on his wife >physically.
>
>May Srimati Radharani guide and protect you in your journey back to Her.
>
>Please keep me informed as things evolve on your side. My thoughts are
>with you.
>
>much love, the private
>
(Text COM:1652404) -----------------------------------------

Letter COM:1656317 (164 lines)
From: Internet: btb@georgian.net
Date: 03-Sep-98 05:14
Subject: FW: Militant Mothers
------------------------------------------------------------
This was my response. After I sent it, we received a note from Visakha
saying she sent a private letter by mistake to the conference- maybe it's
Malati she's talking about....
-----------------------------
>From: "Jivan Mukta Dasa" <btb@georgian.net>
>To: "COM: Sita GKG" <Sita.GKG@com.bbt.se>
>Subject: Militant Mothers
>Date: Wed, Sep 2, 1998, 6:00 AM

>[Text 1653531 from COM]
>
>>Dearest Generalji,
>>much love, the private
>
>Isn't this interesting. Matajis using military jargon when addressing
>themselves. You got to start wondering about what their up to. Who is this
>"General" I wonder.
>
>In the letter from Tamal Krsna Maharaja, which we also just posted, Tamala
>Krsna Maharaja says:
>
>>There is no doubt in my mind that this conversation tool place during
>Prabhupada's stay at Bury Place which was probably in December of 1969.
>Perhaps what he said was that he would have appointed her as temple
>President. In any case, he was mentioning some important position of
>authority within our Society. It was either Temple President, or perhaps
>GBC.
>
>Ms. Private says:
>
>>It appears that TKG is no longer exactly sure what Srila Prabhupada said
>>in the conversation.
>
>Really? And how does Ms. Private extrapolate that conclusion from TKG's
>letter?
>
>>And therefore, in my book, we can politely discount he conversation in
>>trying to determine Srila Prabhupada's desire re: women GBC's. Certainly
>>we can totally discount it considering that a few months after this
>>conversation he appointed two women GBC's.
>
>An explanation for Mother Yamuna not accepting has been provided, what
>about Mother Govinda? Why did she not accept? And if they were in fact
>*appointed*, how were they removed and where is the resolution that >removed them from their posts?

>> In any event, although Mr Mukta is fervently desirous of us all following
>>Vaisnava etiquette, he is quite unable to follow it himself. I am now the
>>brunt of his forceful anger, and I worry that he is taking out his
>>frustrations on his wife physically.
>
>So Ms. Private is none other than our revered Mataji Visakha. Please don't
>worry about my wife, mataji. You underestimate her control over me. :-)
>I have never once even thought of hitting her. Her association is my
>precious gift from Krsna (or Radha, I'm getting confused now!) I thank Him
>(or/and Her) every day for providing a wretch like me such a jewel of a
>woman and devotee. She is much too valuable for me to lose, though it >never ceases to amaze me how she continues to tolerate my caliber of man >for all these years.
>
>Your accusations, nevertheless, have revealed to us that even revered
>Vaisnavis are not immune from the despicable tendency to make false and >vicious accusations against men they dislike. They quickly stoop to yelling
>"ABUSER!" Defamation of character is no small matter. Krsna (and
>Radharani) could never be pleased when you slander someone in this way. >Why are you taking it so personally? I am simply challenging your >conclusions. If you are unable to defend them then be a lady and admit >defeat. It's OK. We all make mistakes.
>
>But spurious and vindictive comments will only hurt your efforts to go back
>to Radharani. It seems you have time too conjure up these accusations but
>not enough time to back up your statements with sastra. It astounds me as
>to what could have possibly possessed you in passing such a serious and
>malevolent judgement against someone who you don't even know and who >is 3,000 miles away! Let's get back to the points in your paper.
>
>Please do not take my revulsion towards lies and concoctions as anger >toward you as a spirit soul. We hate the sin (the misrepresentations) not the >sinner (the misrepresentor). Bhaktisiddhanta used to get extremely angry >when he encountered impersonalists who were *killing* Krsna by there >nonsense preaching. Likewise we should all be infuriated by the systematic
>misrepresentation that is going on in the name of fairness to women. This
>militant (*private*, *general*) feminism that you are now clearly mimicking,
>is simply another form of impersonalism. I am starting to think that the
>term *feminazis* is not too inappropriate. Just see how the drive for
>equality invariably brings out nastiness, anger, pride, fault-finding, and
>subterfuge in our compassionate, kind, straightforward and fragile matajis.

>Could this be due to the fundamental demoniac nature of the goals they are >striving to achieve?
>
>Prabhupada says "So when you become actually preacher of God >consciousness, you cannot make any compromise. You must call the spade a >spade." SB 1.2.5 Vrndavana, October 16, 1972
>
>Prabhupada says that Prahlada, Bhaktisiddhanta, Ramanuja, Lord >Nityananada among other risked their lives and had their lives threatened >due to their preaching, but they fearlessly went on. You, dear *Private*, >have confirmed your fighting spirit. If you want to fight then fight with >sastra not with ad hominem astras.
>
>>May Srimati Radharani guide and protect you in your journey back to Her.
>
>I thought we were supposed to go back to Krsna? Can you show me where
>Prabhupada uses this terminology of *going back to Radharani*? When
>women identify in this way with Radharani they reveal the bodily
>consciousness that motivates their mania for equality.

>This reminds me of one senior mataji here is Canada who wanted to start a
>women's travelling sankirtan party called *RadhaFest* or the innocent who
>figured that *Radha's Voice* was a good name for a woman's newsletter.
>It's kind of funny but you see what happens if this feminist nonsense isn't
>nipped in the bud.
>
>As far as etiquette and how mothers are to be treated, the sastra also shed
>light on that issue.
>
>1. When Bhumi was witholding her nourishment, Prthu was about to cut her >to pieces. Mother or not.
>2. When Kaikeyi banished Rama in order to satisfy her own lust for fame >and adoration, Bharata was ready to decapitate her; his own natural
>mother.
> a. Kaikeyi's banishment of Rama can be related to what feminists
>are doing to Vedic morality. Rama Rajya = Ideal Vedic social principles
>(VAD).
> b. Kaikeyi is still judged for her nefarious act of banishing Rama
> even though her moment of madness was devised by the gods. Likewise
>many of our mothers risk the same infamy for the part they play in
>introducing these demoniac principles within Prabhupada's house.
> c. she was reviled by Bharata, Shatrughna, and Lakshmana and all
>the citizens of Ayodhya.
>3. Rama disfigured Surpanaka and killed many demonesses.
> a. Surpanaka was punished for insulting and attacking the most
>chaste goddess Sita
>4. Krsna killed Putana who came in the form of a mother to nurse Him.
>
>Now when we see mothers promoting adharma and insisting that it is their
>god-given right to do so, when we see them using military terminology to
>describe their objectives, methods and hegemony, it would be the greatest
>folly to accept them and treat them as real mothers. They are mothers in
>name only. Killing their subversive propaganda is the way they must be
>dealt with. It is expected and completely natural that they will experience
>the energy used to dismantle their illusions as anger or force in the
>pejorative sense. As we can see, the etiquette normally reserved for real
>mothers cannot be used in this situation. As such where is the breach in
>etiquette?
>
>Ys. Jivan Mukta Dasa
(Text COM:1656317) -----------------------------------------

Text COM:1746336 (65 lines)
From: Internet: btb@georgian.net
Date: 05-Oct-98 18:27
To: GHQ [193]
Subject: IWC text- Malati's reply to Yasomatinandana (note her final comment)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 98 21:55 +0100
From: "COM: Malati (dd) ACBSP (Columbus - USA)"<Malati.ACBSP@com.bbt.se>
To: WWW: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Berkeley CA - USA) <mradha@com.org>, IWC (Internat. Women's Conference) <iwc@com.bbt.se>
Subject: my reply to HG Yasomatinandana

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Text COM:1743305 (39 lines)
From: Malati ACBSP
Date: 04-Oct-98 08:40 +0100
To: Danavir das Goswami (USA)
To: Jasomatinandan (das) ACBSP (Gujarat - IN)
Cc: (International) Women's Ministry
Cc: Bhakti Vikasa Swami
---------------------------------------------
Hare Krishna...Please accept my humble offered obeiasnces. All glories to
SRila Prabhupada. The topic is certainly one of serious interest for our
society. I have no comment either way. I am trusting SRila Prabhupada to
keep me properly situated. I do not believe that he would let me do
something to displease him at this pount, at least not conciously. And if
he is indeed displeased, I believe that he will make it apparent and the
situation would be adjusted. This happended to me in the recent past and in
the not so recent past. Sometime, His Divine Grace seems to allow things to
occur, perhaps acording to "time, place, and circumstance."

I can tell you that in the early 70's, Srila PRabhupada sent me back to the
UK and requested (since my husband, Shyamasundar, who was GBC, was not
effectively participating and in fact, was totally absent) that I should go and
send him weekly reports, AND give Bhagvatam classes. There was some
interfence from Hamsadutta and I wrote to Srila Pabhupada for instructions,
and he replied the same, that I shoulde give class, etc. On another occasion, he sent me, alone, to Delhi from Vrndavan to relieve Tejas Prabhu so that Tejas could come to Vrndavan and meet with him for a week. Again, my
husband was 'missing in action.'

I want to serve Srila Prabhupada's mission with what ever is left of my
foolish life, and I am willing to do whatever is required or requested.
Personally, at this sad time in our ISKCON history, I can barely consider
the gender issue on one side with out considering it on the other. Before
anyone begins to delineate how a women should behave with regards to her
husband, kindly-balance counter with the same information with regards to
the male. On this point, there is a lot to be said. And, with all due respects, please be careful how you address this point.

I am also wondering from which husband I am supposed to drink the foot
water? From the one who divorced me? or the one who died?

I am also wondering how being full time engaged in SRila Prabhpada's mission with out any other personal agenda is degrading for a middle aged person in a woman's body?

Please forgive any offences that I have undoubtly occurred with this reply.

Yr servant, the most fallen and illiterate, Malati dd
(Text COM:1743305) -----------------------------------------
PS...(this was not sent as part of my reply) but does anyone out there know
anything about above mentioned prabhu/temple president and alleged
wife-beating?

<< Previous Next >>

Articles

Appendices

Begining