© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL December 20, 1999 VNN5112 Related VNN Stories Is My (insignificant) Voice Also Needed? BY GURU-KRSNA DAS EDITORIAL, Dec 20 (VNN) — "Western civilization has broken the quality of shyness that was essential in preserving the dignity and virtue of women." -- His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Is My (Insignificant) Voice Also Needed? (A response to "Your voice is needed: A statement by the ISKCON Women's Ministry") IWM stated: "We should understand that these gross aparadhas against Vaisnavis in one of ISKCON's main temples stand as testimony for the need on the part of all ISKCON temples to end--once and for all--the abuse and neglect, both material and spiritual, of women." My (insignificant) voice humbly asks: Has the worldwide population of ISKCON devotees yet been informed as to what *actually* happened? Allegations aside, what actually "gross aparadhas" and what actual "abuse and neglect" have been committed there and elsewhere throughout "all ISKCON temples"? IWM continued: "We propose a four-fold remedy: Insure that women have full facility: 1) to engage in all types of service" My (insignificant) voice humbly replies: But this contradicts the Vedic standards and Srila Prabhupada's teachings; for example: Equal rights is not allowed in the Vedic sastra. (Bg 16.7: Hawaii, 2/3/75) Equal rights is not Vedic idea. (SB 1.8.51: Los Angeles, 5/13/73) That is not Vedic civilization. (SB 7.9.24: Mayapur, 3/2/76) Equal rights is nonsense. (Morning Walk: Rome, 5/29/74) Equal rights is claimed by rascal Westerners. (Morning Walk: Ahmedabad, 9/25/75) Rascals give equal rights. (Morning Walk: Los Angeles, 6/27/75) Equal rights is rascaldom philosophy. (Morning Walk: Rome, 5/29/74) IWM continued: "2) to take darsana of the Deity up close" My (insignificant) voice humbly inquires: What exactly does this mean? How close? Will space be allowed for sannyasis to greet Their Lordships according to the standard way? Wasn't proximity to the Deity the very point of contention that led to the recent controversy? How would this adjustment solve the problem? And what about the quality of shyness? Does the IWM endorse shyness in women? Srila Prabhhupada wrote: "And shyness is a check to the unrestricted mixing. It is nature's gift, and it must be utilized." (SB 1.10.16p) "There is one quality of shyness. If you break that shyness of woman, it will be very dangerous. It will be very dangerous. That is the one...to check." (Lecture: SB 1.7.43, Vrindavan, October 3, 1976) IWM continued: "3) to give Bhagavatam and other classes, My (insignificant) voice humbly submits that Srila Prabhupada has taught: Kapiladeva was a brahmacari, and his mother took lessons from Him. That is the male prerogative. (TLK Chapter 5 page 43) Here Kapiladeva in a brahmacari dress, and mother is taking lesson from the son. Now, sometimes it is asked, "How the mother will take lesson from the son?" That is the prerogative of the male. (Srimad-Bhgavatam 3.25.5-6 Bombay, November 5, 1974) ("Prerogative": "Exclusive or special right, power, or privilege;") Why does IWM object if the management of Vrindavan prefers to organize according to this bona fide "male prerogative"? IWM asserted: "Until ISKCON authorities acknowledge their obligations to provide women with these four basic facilities, incidents like these will continue to occur." My (insignificant) voice humbly replies: Herein IWM declares something to be an oligation upon ISKCON authorities and also declares what "will" happen if these four facilities are not granted. By what authority does the IWM speak so? IWM continued: "Anything short of this will convince devotees that discussions are simply cosmetic and only intended to patronize..." My (insignificant) voice humbly questions: What devotees will be convinced? Why does IWM say who will or will not be convinced? In other words, what does this statement actually mean? IWM continued: "...ladies 'who are incapable of true spiritual advancement and realization.'" My (insignificant) voice asks: Who is being quoted here? What Vaisnava would say that ladies "are incapable of true spiritual advancement and realization"? IWM also declared: "Further the absence of these facilities is the loudest testimony to the fact that women are often neither respected nor cared for." My (insignificant) voice humbly remarks: Another bold statement--can IWM verify it? IWM continued: "Providing these facilities fosters respect." Yet my (insignificant) voice inquires: But what about respect for sannyasis and brahmacaris? Srila Prabhupada wrote: "Brahmanas and Vaisnavas should be accepted as earthly representatives of Narayana." (SB 3.16.12P) "Of all classes of men, the brahmanas and the Vaisnavas should be given special protection. They should be worshiped." (SB 3.16.23P) "If the authorities or the leaders of society do not give special respect to the brahmanas and Vaisnavas and do not offer them not only sweet words but all facilities, then the path of progress will be lost to human civilization." (SB 3.16.23P) Beyond that, of the five sectors of society to be protected, the woman class is *not* actually the foremost: "The defenseless creatures, according to Brahma-samhita, are the cows, brahmanas, women, children, and old men. Of these five, the brahmanas and cows are especially mentioned in this verse because the Lord is always anxious about the benefit of the brahmanas and the cows..." (SB 3.16.10P) IWM stated: "Violation of women, as exemplified in the outrages in Vrindavan" So my (insignificant) voice humbly questions: What are the factual findings of specific violations and outrages? Can IWM verify these allegations? We have read radically opposite versions of what actually transpired. IWM continued: "Every devotee needs to be able to go on pilgrimage to Vrindavan to take shelter, to be peaceful, and to be assured of protection within our very temple room." My (insignificant) voice humbly replies: We are happy to know this, since "every devotee" obviously includes sannyasis and brahmacaris. And thus we wonder why the IWM has not equally censured the women in Vrndavana who (allegedly) infringed upon the needs of the brahmacaris and sannyasis to also "be peaceful, and to be assured of protection" (i.e. spiritual protection) within the temple. IWM declared: "Vrindavan ISKCON must be exemplary. Now it is a shame and a disgrace." So my (insignificant) voice humbly inquires: "Why and how is Vrindavan now "a shame and a disgrace." IWM also asserted: "Unfortunately, ISKCON's Vrindavan center (and, indeed, other ISKCON centers in India) have long been seen as seats of intolerance--and at times even hatred-- toward women in our movement. Such unacceptable attitudes have been manifest in the denial to women of many facilities needed for their spiritual and material well-being." And my (insignificant) voice replies: In a Bhagavad-gita purport, Srila Prabhupada explains that it was "not out of hatred for women" that Lord Caitanya denied them certain facilities--e.g., the facility to come near Him. And we question the IWM's qualification and right to decide what is or is not a needed facility. IWM stated: "If we acknowledge the depth of the problem in ISKCON's center in Vrindavan, then we see it is necessary to consider serious steps to correct these anomalies." Thus My (insignificant) voice humbly inquires: What exact "depth of problem" are we supposed to acknowledge? IWM contined: "These may well lie at the root of the hatred of women..." My (insignificant) voice humbly comments: This is quite a serious accusation, so I humbly request the IWM to be specific. Please tell us exactly who in Vrindavan hates women. IWM wrote: "We hope that further discussions of Vaisnava behavior are held and that an apology be made to the women who were physically manhandled." And my (insignificant) voice humbly replies: We certainly hope that those discussions will include the proper behavior and attitude that women should adopt when in the presence of Vaisnavas. We also hope that the women who blatantly disobeyed the temple authorities, causing them to enforce "strict disciplinary action," will apology for their offenses. And again we wonder why this global appeal by the IWM is so slanted. IWM wrote: "We request that qualified women be given the opportunity to give Srimad-Bhagavatam classes in Vrindavan. In addition, women with organizational abilities, should be invited onto managerial teams in Vrindavan." My (insignificant) voice humbly submits: Instead of delving into international managerial policy, the IWM should instead be conducting seminars on chastity, shyness, cooking, sewing, homely arts, etc., as instructed by Srila Prabhupada: Prabhupada:...Woman...Girls should be taught how to become faithful wife, how to learn nice cooking, cleansing, dressing....They have got natural inclination to give service by cooking, cleansing, dressing. (Conversation: Bombay, January 8, 1977) "A woman's real business is to look after household affairs, keep everything neat and clean, and if there is sufficient milk supply available, she should always be engaged in churning butter, making yogurt, curd, so many nice varieties, simply from milk. The woman should be cleaning, sewing, like that." (Letter to: Chaya dasi, Feb 16, 1972) IWM continued: "When women are respected in these tangible, practical ways abuse automatically declines." My (insignificant) voice humbly offers: Indeed, when women are respected abuse automatically declines. As for "in these tangible, practical ways," we request IWM to verify that statement. I propose differently, both from my own (male) perspective and from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada: "This shyness is a gift of nature to the fair sex, and it enhances their beauty and prestige, even if they are of a less important family or even if they are less attractive. We have practical experience of this fact. A sweeper woman commanded respect of many respectable gentlemen simply by manifesting a lady's shyness." (SB 1.10.16P) My (insignificant) voice humbly continues: It is a lady's shyness--not her passion to participate in the male sphere--that commands a gentleman's respect. Why does the IWM *not* conduct seminars and courses primarily and mostly in stri-dharma? Why does it instead advocate for and facilitate women to act contrarily to the Vedic standard? "So Bhismadeva also advised that the shyness of woman, lajja, is the control. If you break that shy, what is called, shyness, then there will be disaster. That is the control valve naturally given. And woman's shyness is one beauty, beauty." (Lecture: SB 5.6.4, Vrndavana, November 26, 1976) My (insignificant) voice humbly continues: If we care about our preachers-- sannyasis, vanaprasthas, brahmacaris, and restrained grhastas--then we must protect them also. Why should Vaisnavis "be invited onto managerial teams in Vrindavan," thus forgoing womanly shyness and risking their own and others' spiritual downfall? Or is it no longer dangerous to perform another's duty? IWM continued: "This has been practically demonstrated." So my (insignificant) voice humbly asks: By whom, when, and where? I sincerely request the IWM to document this. IWM continued: "Unfortunately, in the name of 'protecting' the women men have taken opportunities to degrade and disrespect women. Therefore continuing that course will not be effective." My (insignificant) voice agrees, yet asks: But what are the statistics, please? How, and when, and where, and what percentage of devotee men have taken or still are taking "opportunites to degrade and disrespect women?" And does IWM also recognize this fact: In the name of past abuse--whether real or exaggerated--many women now clamor for equal social status, thus contravening Vedic principles of varnasrama-dharma? IWM concluded: "Therefore we now look to Gopala Krsna Maharaja to see that men in Vrindavan receive education about properly respecting women..." And my (insignificant) voice humbly requests: And we look to His Holiness and all leaders of Vrndavana and ISKCON at large to teach and preach the essential aspects of stri-dharma and the necessity for ladies to cultivate chastity, shyness, submissiveness, and satisfaction in their natural womanly functions. IWM continued: "...and that he insures women are given all facilities for their Krsna consciousness." My (insignificant) voice further humbly requests: We also look to Maharaja and all mature Vaisnavas and Vaisnavis alike to not be swayed by emotional appeals by ladies ambitious to achieve artificial equality within ISKCON. Rather, devotees must remain fixed in the mission of Srila Prabhupada to spread Vedic culture, or varnasrama-dharma (which includes stri-dharma), not only in Vrindavan or India but all over the world. And we humbly look to His Holiness Gopal Krsna Gosvami to especially consider the following letter written to him by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhhupada, our beloved founder-acarya of this wonderful ISKCON: "Why there are so many women in Vrindaban? Vrindaban is meant for retirement, elderly persons in Krishna Consciousness can devote all their time to devotional service. Such men are wanted to live in Vrindaban, not women and children. That is a fact, the holy dhamas are meant for the sannyasis and brahmacaris especially. If necessary, the management must be done by sannyasis and brahmacaris, not grhasthas." (Letter to: Gopala Krsna, Los Angeles, 9 June, 1976) Thank you very much. Hare Krsna. Sincerely, your aspiring servant of the servant of the servants of ISKCON, Guru-Krsna das Related VNN Stories  Comment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
