see *some* women as mother?

[Guest guest]

> On 23 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

>

> > >I also believe the Pandavas were examples of the "heros"

>

> > But do you think they had a *need* to be heroes or were they simply

> > doing their duty and thereby being heroes?

>

 

Janesvara commented:

 

> Heroism is a QUALITY of a ksatriya. It is a natural need and quite fitting

> for engagement in the service of the Lord, in my opinion.

 

In this discussion, it seems to me like Janesvara is discussing the

qualities of a ksatriya, and somehow the conception came about that to be a

man, one "has" to be a ksatriya. (I may be reading between the lines here,

but that is what it looks like to me anyway.)

 

I agree with Janesvara that a real ksatriya is a hero, and if his spouse

does not look at him as such, I think the couple will have problems in their

relationship.

 

But that does not mean that all relationships have to be like that. Real

ksatriyas are anyway hard to find these days...

 

Ys

Jkd

[Guest guest]

>You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

>children to a man.

 

Bearing children *to* a man???????

 

 

>Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

 

Then how come, senior female devotees who have practiced Krsna

Consciousness for 20, 25, or 30 years, must *still* wait until even the

lowliest Bhakta-Joe-fresh-off-the-street has smelled the flower, chanted

the Bhagavatam verse, and offered flowers to Prabhupada during guru puja,

before she gets to do the same? How come that in some temples, she must

still listen to Bhakta Harry's (after 6 months in the temple) painfully

inadequate SB classes so that she won't "agitate" the oversexed men in the

audience by giving a better class herself?

 

What kind of message does that send about who's important? Let's not kid

ourselves.

 

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

>children to a man.

 

Bearing children *to* a man???????

 

 

>Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

 

Then how come, senior female devotees who have practiced Krsna

Consciousness for 20, 25, or 30 years, must *still* wait until even the

lowliest Bhakta-Joe-fresh-off-the-street has smelled the flower, chanted

the Bhagavatam verse, and offered flowers to Prabhupada during guru puja,

before she gets to do the same? How come that in some temples, she must

still listen to Bhakta Harry's (after 6 months in the temple) painfully

inadequate SB classes so that she won't "agitate" the oversexed men in the

audience by giving a better class herself?

 

What kind of message does that send about who's important? Let's not kid

ourselves.

 

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> >You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

> >children to a man.

>

> Bearing children *to* a man???????

 

Is my grammar bad? How about, you cannot transfer women's natural gift of

child birth to men.

 

 

> >Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

>

> Then how come, senior female devotees who have practiced Krsna

> Consciousness for 20, 25, or 30 years, must *still* wait until even the

> lowliest Bhakta-Joe-fresh-off-the-street has smelled the flower, chanted

> the Bhagavatam verse, and offered flowers to Prabhupada during guru puja,

> before she gets to do the same? How come that in some temples, she must

> still listen to Bhakta Harry's (after 6 months in the temple) painfully

> inadequate SB classes so that she won't "agitate" the oversexed men in the

> audience by giving a better class herself?

 

 

How come? Immaturity. Who cares? Do you know how much of this immaturity we

as men had to put up with also in the temples? The brahmacari asrama was a

bunch of fanatic waste-o's most of the time. Personally, I don't care when I

get to smell the flowers, chant a verse or offer flowers. I will follow in

line behind any number of women and fanatic boys so long as I finally get

the chance. No one is going to stop me from performing my devotional service

because nobody CAN.

 

 

>

> What kind of message does that send about who's important? Let's not kid

> ourselves.

 

Send to who? Krsna knows who is sincere. It doesn't have to be reflected in

outer show.

 

I my opinion, humility means I am lower than men, women, everyone. If Srila

Prabhupada came here I wouldn't be rushing to the front to get near his

feet. I would be running to the back out of shame.

 

I don't know where all this men first junk came from. Maybe there is some

Vedic evidence that I have never seen. But I always feel uncomfortable if I

don't allow women to go first before me for everything. It's just a matter

of good manners for me which I was taught by my parents. I have no problem

standing in the back of a temple room with the women in front of me. I

barely feel comfortable being in the temple in the first place and I'm sure

the devotee women are more advanced than me. If I get agititated looking at

their butts in front of me I'm gonna get out of there real fast. It's not

their problem, its mine.

[Guest guest]

> >You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

> >children to a man.

>

> Bearing children *to* a man???????

 

Is my grammar bad? How about, you cannot transfer women's natural gift of

child birth to men.

 

 

> >Not "man-dominated", pretentious sannyasi dominated. BIG difference.

>

> Then how come, senior female devotees who have practiced Krsna

> Consciousness for 20, 25, or 30 years, must *still* wait until even the

> lowliest Bhakta-Joe-fresh-off-the-street has smelled the flower, chanted

> the Bhagavatam verse, and offered flowers to Prabhupada during guru puja,

> before she gets to do the same? How come that in some temples, she must

> still listen to Bhakta Harry's (after 6 months in the temple) painfully

> inadequate SB classes so that she won't "agitate" the oversexed men in the

> audience by giving a better class herself?

 

 

How come? Immaturity. Who cares? Do you know how much of this immaturity we

as men had to put up with also in the temples? The brahmacari asrama was a

bunch of fanatic waste-o's most of the time. Personally, I don't care when I

get to smell the flowers, chant a verse or offer flowers. I will follow in

line behind any number of women and fanatic boys so long as I finally get

the chance. No one is going to stop me from performing my devotional service

because nobody CAN.

 

 

>

> What kind of message does that send about who's important? Let's not kid

> ourselves.

 

Send to who? Krsna knows who is sincere. It doesn't have to be reflected in

outer show.

 

I my opinion, humility means I am lower than men, women, everyone. If Srila

Prabhupada came here I wouldn't be rushing to the front to get near his

feet. I would be running to the back out of shame.

 

I don't know where all this men first junk came from. Maybe there is some

Vedic evidence that I have never seen. But I always feel uncomfortable if I

don't allow women to go first before me for everything. It's just a matter

of good manners for me which I was taught by my parents. I have no problem

standing in the back of a temple room with the women in front of me. I

barely feel comfortable being in the temple in the first place and I'm sure

the devotee women are more advanced than me. If I get agititated looking at

their butts in front of me I'm gonna get out of there real fast. It's not

their problem, its mine.

[Guest guest]

> You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

> children to a man. Even if one tries to artificially or medically change

> ones body from a man to a woman it changes nothing in the eyes of the Lord

> and ones earned karma.

 

And if it is your karma to do that. Then what?

Who are to decide what is a person's karma or a person's dharma?

 

In case you don't know, the external "maleness" or "femaleness" of a

person is hanging on a very delicate hormonal balance. The body in

it self appears to have capabilities for both appearances, and it only

depends on what hormones are produced, how it will appear. That appears

to be in the design of the body.

 

Eunuchs existed even in Vedic times, and can be seen as an "artificial"

way to correct a hormonal fault. Even Krishna's dearmost devotee,

Arjuna, was one for a year, so it can hardly be seen as non-Vedic to

do such modifications. Srila Prabhupada also acknowledges such

persons, and they were even blessing Lord Caitanya at birth

(according to Srila Prabhupada).

 

Obviously Krsna does not care for what material body a person

have, to accept devotional service. Instead you get the chance,

whatever situation you are in, whatever karma you have.

 

So before we cry wolf, maybe we should get the facts right.

 

Now these are special cases, and definitly not mainstream.

 

So if we speak about mainstream duties for men and woman, I think

they are pretty much according to the stereotypes. But there are

always special cases, and they have to be allowed for. Even to

be a devotee is a special case.

 

So if a few woman are scientifically minded, why not utilize their

karma and dharma for the good of society? They are special cases,

but do we have the right to inflict suffering on them because of that?

Krishna is the person who is supervising everything, and it is obviously

in His plans that there are some special cases here and there.

 

 

ys Prisni

[Guest guest]

> You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

> children to a man. Even if one tries to artificially or medically change

> ones body from a man to a woman it changes nothing in the eyes of the Lord

> and ones earned karma.

 

And if it is your karma to do that. Then what?

Who are to decide what is a person's karma or a person's dharma?

 

In case you don't know, the external "maleness" or "femaleness" of a

person is hanging on a very delicate hormonal balance. The body in

it self appears to have capabilities for both appearances, and it only

depends on what hormones are produced, how it will appear. That appears

to be in the design of the body.

 

Eunuchs existed even in Vedic times, and can be seen as an "artificial"

way to correct a hormonal fault. Even Krishna's dearmost devotee,

Arjuna, was one for a year, so it can hardly be seen as non-Vedic to

do such modifications. Srila Prabhupada also acknowledges such

persons, and they were even blessing Lord Caitanya at birth

(according to Srila Prabhupada).

 

Obviously Krsna does not care for what material body a person

have, to accept devotional service. Instead you get the chance,

whatever situation you are in, whatever karma you have.

 

So before we cry wolf, maybe we should get the facts right.

 

Now these are special cases, and definitly not mainstream.

 

So if we speak about mainstream duties for men and woman, I think

they are pretty much according to the stereotypes. But there are

always special cases, and they have to be allowed for. Even to

be a devotee is a special case.

 

So if a few woman are scientifically minded, why not utilize their

karma and dharma for the good of society? They are special cases,

but do we have the right to inflict suffering on them because of that?

Krishna is the person who is supervising everything, and it is obviously

in His plans that there are some special cases here and there.

 

 

ys Prisni

[Guest guest]

>I don't know where all this men first junk came from. Maybe there is some

>Vedic evidence that I have never seen. But I always feel uncomfortable if I

>don't allow women to go first before me for everything. It's just a matter

>of good manners for me which I was taught by my parents. I have no problem

>standing in the back of a temple room with the women in front of me.

 

That shows that you're a gentleman. It always did seem odd to me that

women could be called mothers and yet be shoved to the back of the temple

room to have a "greeting of the sikhas" rather than of the Deities. Is

that really how men would treat their mothers and is that really how

husbands "protect" their wives? This "women last" and "women in the back"

mentality has made it very hard for many of us to believe that being called

a "mataji" is really a sign of respect.

 

You asked about who "the message" is sent to. It's been a powerful message

to many of ISKCON's women for at least a couple of decades and they've

heard it loud and clear. In addition, numerous girls who grew up in our

temples developed such self-contempt (not to be confused with humility) due

to this and other verbal and non-verbal messages they received. A large

number of them have left and many others (including myself) refused to ever

join an ISKCON community, at least partly due to this treatment.

 

I don't know how these customs originated either. From my limited exposure

to Indian temples during my 5 visits there, this is not even a particularly

Indian custom. Indian women certainly make sure that they can see the

Deities during temple visits. They elbow their way up to the altar quite

assertively. Can't imagine them letting any men get in their way (even the

thought of soemone trying is quite amusing). How did it then get to be so

backwards in ISKCON?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>I don't know where all this men first junk came from. Maybe there is some

>Vedic evidence that I have never seen. But I always feel uncomfortable if I

>don't allow women to go first before me for everything. It's just a matter

>of good manners for me which I was taught by my parents. I have no problem

>standing in the back of a temple room with the women in front of me.

 

That shows that you're a gentleman. It always did seem odd to me that

women could be called mothers and yet be shoved to the back of the temple

room to have a "greeting of the sikhas" rather than of the Deities. Is

that really how men would treat their mothers and is that really how

husbands "protect" their wives? This "women last" and "women in the back"

mentality has made it very hard for many of us to believe that being called

a "mataji" is really a sign of respect.

 

You asked about who "the message" is sent to. It's been a powerful message

to many of ISKCON's women for at least a couple of decades and they've

heard it loud and clear. In addition, numerous girls who grew up in our

temples developed such self-contempt (not to be confused with humility) due

to this and other verbal and non-verbal messages they received. A large

number of them have left and many others (including myself) refused to ever

join an ISKCON community, at least partly due to this treatment.

 

I don't know how these customs originated either. From my limited exposure

to Indian temples during my 5 visits there, this is not even a particularly

Indian custom. Indian women certainly make sure that they can see the

Deities during temple visits. They elbow their way up to the altar quite

assertively. Can't imagine them letting any men get in their way (even the

thought of soemone trying is quite amusing). How did it then get to be so

backwards in ISKCON?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

> children to a man. Even if one tries to artificially or medically change

> ones body from a man to a woman it changes nothing in the eyes of the Lord

> and ones earned karma.

 

I have to make one more comment on this.

 

The point I am trying to get through to you is that brahmana, kstariyam,

vaiysa,

sudra, even man and woman are "mental" concepts, or imprints on the human.

Concepts imprinted before birth, on the subtle body, or something.

 

If you have good karma, you take birth in a gross body fitting this internal

conception, have good rich parents, get good schooling, is

beautifyl/handsome

and so on.

 

If you have bad karma, there will be more or less mismatch between the gross

body and the internal duty, you will be more or less ugly, and might have

other

bodily disabilities.

 

The Vedic society does not so much look on the external appearance, but

instead goes for the inner abilities of a person, and engages that person

according to those. Even if you are a bodily weak ksatriya, there are

lesser duties to perform in administration that does not need physical

strength. A weak ksatriya can still have the mental strength and ksatriya

spirit, and can be as heroic as a strong one. You don't tease or ridicule

even a bodily weak ksatriya, he is also a ksatriya, althought with some

bad karma getting him a weak body.

 

The news, that you probably get hung up on, is that this applies to men

and women also. There are men, who get born in female bodies, and

woman who got born in male bodies. Bad karma, for sure. But why should

these unfortunate persons not be allowed to live according to their inner

qualities, like everyone else?

 

In case you have any other idea, how are you to figure out who is a

"real" woman, and who is not? I can inform you that it is not so simple

even for a physician or even a gynecologist, and practically impossible

for a normal man.

 

In the Vedic society, all women are respected and protected.

No matter the history and karma. No matter if they are beautiful or ugly.

Everyone get the same chance, as much as it is possible.

That is human civilisation.

 

ys Prisni

[Guest guest]

> You will never be able to switch the natural duties of a woman bearing

> children to a man. Even if one tries to artificially or medically change

> ones body from a man to a woman it changes nothing in the eyes of the Lord

> and ones earned karma.

 

I have to make one more comment on this.

 

The point I am trying to get through to you is that brahmana, kstariyam,

vaiysa,

sudra, even man and woman are "mental" concepts, or imprints on the human.

Concepts imprinted before birth, on the subtle body, or something.

 

If you have good karma, you take birth in a gross body fitting this internal

conception, have good rich parents, get good schooling, is

beautifyl/handsome

and so on.

 

If you have bad karma, there will be more or less mismatch between the gross

body and the internal duty, you will be more or less ugly, and might have

other

bodily disabilities.

 

The Vedic society does not so much look on the external appearance, but

instead goes for the inner abilities of a person, and engages that person

according to those. Even if you are a bodily weak ksatriya, there are

lesser duties to perform in administration that does not need physical

strength. A weak ksatriya can still have the mental strength and ksatriya

spirit, and can be as heroic as a strong one. You don't tease or ridicule

even a bodily weak ksatriya, he is also a ksatriya, althought with some

bad karma getting him a weak body.

 

The news, that you probably get hung up on, is that this applies to men

and women also. There are men, who get born in female bodies, and

woman who got born in male bodies. Bad karma, for sure. But why should

these unfortunate persons not be allowed to live according to their inner

qualities, like everyone else?

 

In case you have any other idea, how are you to figure out who is a

"real" woman, and who is not? I can inform you that it is not so simple

even for a physician or even a gynecologist, and practically impossible

for a normal man.

 

In the Vedic society, all women are respected and protected.

No matter the history and karma. No matter if they are beautiful or ugly.

Everyone get the same chance, as much as it is possible.

That is human civilisation.

 

ys Prisni

[Guest guest]

> I don't know how these customs originated either. From my limited exposure

> to Indian temples during my 5 visits there, this is not even a particularly

> Indian custom. Indian women certainly make sure that they can see the

> Deities during temple visits. They elbow their way up to the altar quite

> assertively. Can't imagine them letting any men get in their way (even the

> thought of soemone trying is quite amusing). How did it then get to be so

> backwards in ISKCON?

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Whatever actions great men perform, common men follow. Bhaktipada was the only

sannyasi in ISKCON for 3 years, and was the role model for a lot of

brahmacaries. He was/is a misogynist. He did great service to ISKCON and

Srila

Prabhupada for many years, but in the balance of that hangs the societal

damage

he and his disciples, the GHQ types, have done, and continue to do, to

this

day.

[Guest guest]

> I don't know how these customs originated either. From my limited exposure

> to Indian temples during my 5 visits there, this is not even a particularly

> Indian custom. Indian women certainly make sure that they can see the

> Deities during temple visits. They elbow their way up to the altar quite

> assertively. Can't imagine them letting any men get in their way (even the

> thought of soemone trying is quite amusing). How did it then get to be so

> backwards in ISKCON?

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Whatever actions great men perform, common men follow. Bhaktipada was the only

sannyasi in ISKCON for 3 years, and was the role model for a lot of

brahmacaries. He was/is a misogynist. He did great service to ISKCON and

Srila

Prabhupada for many years, but in the balance of that hangs the societal

damage

he and his disciples, the GHQ types, have done, and continue to do, to

this

day.

[Guest guest]

On 24 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> > I have no problem

> >standing in the back of a temple room with the women in front of me.

>

> That shows that you're a gentleman.

 

Thank you. My mother would be proud.

 

 

>It always did seem odd to me that

> women could be called mothers and yet be shoved to the back of the temple

> room to have a "greeting of the sikhas"

 

LOL!

 

 

 

> rather than of the Deities. Is

> that really how men would treat their mothers and is that really how

> husbands "protect" their wives? This "women last" and "women in the back"

> mentality has made it very hard for many of us to believe that being called

> a "mataji" is really a sign of respect.

 

It really is though. I know you believe it, you just don't believe the

so-called examples shown by the so-advanced "devotee" men in ISKCON. I don't

blame you. As you may know I'm not a big fan of ISKCON leadership. While in

the temple as a brahmacari Temple Commander I tried to treat the women equally

and with regard for their needs. No other brahmacari would volunteer to hand

out the tampons to the women from my TC office! I took it a chance to do my

duty. As a grihasta in the temple I was usually fighting with the temple

authorities, who were usually sannyasis or brahmacaris, for the civil/human

rights of the Mothers. Mother Silavati was a good friend of my wife and me and

there was an incident in NY temple where a brahmacari spit at her face. I

vowed to hunt him down and offer some "up close and personal advice" but I was

discouraged by Silavati out of her compassion.

 

What I support is HUMAN rights, especially for devotees. I would just hate to

see too much of an effort to promote "womens" rights because of the fear of

simply creating more duality. The temple will just become men here and women

over there and vice versa.

 

 

> You asked about who "the message" is sent to. It's been a powerful message

> to many of ISKCON's women for at least a couple of decades and they've

> heard it loud and clear. In addition, numerous girls who grew up in our

> temples developed such self-contempt (not to be confused with humility) due

> to this and other verbal and non-verbal messages they received. A large

> number of them have left and many others (including myself) refused to ever

> join an ISKCON community, at least partly due to this treatment.

 

 

I am very sorry for this. It is wrong. It is unfriendly. It is not Krsna

conscious. It is not Vedic. Of course many of my male friends have also left

for similar reasons. My sincere suggestion though, would be that the women

utilize the services of ksatriyas/administrators to serve their purposes

instead of trying to buck a male dominated egomaniacal regime of pretentious,

insecure "men" (if thats what you want to call them). I think some good men

(there are SOME out there!) could make the case for human rights in a stronger

way by nature. A good ksatriya (most likely non-ISKCON)would do it out of

duty. It is more Vedic don't you think? If Arjuna or Yudhishtira were here I'm

sure you would approach them for this mission. And they would fulfill! I know

they are not available nor are there any men like them right now but you know

what I mean? Organized women through a ksatriya/administrator agency could

wield a lot of influence especially if they threatened to withhold the

important services they perform if they don't receive the human rights they

deserve.

 

 

 

>

> I don't know how these customs originated either. From my limited exposure

> to Indian temples during my 5 visits there, this is not even a particularly

> Indian custom. Indian women certainly make sure that they can see the

> Deities during temple visits. They elbow their way up to the altar quite

> assertively. Can't imagine them letting any men get in their way (even the

> thought of soemone trying is quite amusing). How did it then get to be so

> backwards in ISKCON?

 

Bad leaders. Bad leaders. Bad leaders. They have failed to acknowledge the

varnasrama-dharma institution in our society for more than 20 years. Srila

Prabhupada said the result of that failure would be chaos. Gee, Srila

Prabhupada was right!

 

 

In my opinion, in the temple proper, it is Vaikuntha. All bodily consciousness

should be left at the door before entering. When you see a woman in the

temple, she is not a woman - she is a spirit soul. When you see a man in the

temple, he is not a man - he is a spirit soul. It must go both ways. If one

starts contemplating the senses in the temple and gets agitated, they should

leave the temple room before they commit an offense before the Deities. It is

the Lords house and everyone is welcome equally. We cannot try to make

Vaikuntha our own material house.

 

Lord Caitanya, when outside the temple would not allow His female devotees to

approach close to Him. This is in respect for the social system of

varnasrama-dharma - He was portraying a sannyasi. But in the temple, He

allowed a woman to climb up on His shoulders so she could see Lord Jagannath.

[Guest guest]

On 24 Feb 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> > I have no problem

> >standing in the back of a temple room with the women in front of me.

>

> That shows that you're a gentleman.

 

Thank you. My mother would be proud.

 

 

>It always did seem odd to me that

> women could be called mothers and yet be shoved to the back of the temple

> room to have a "greeting of the sikhas"

 

LOL!

 

 

 

> rather than of the Deities. Is

> that really how men would treat their mothers and is that really how

> husbands "protect" their wives? This "women last" and "women in the back"

> mentality has made it very hard for many of us to believe that being called

> a "mataji" is really a sign of respect.

 

It really is though. I know you believe it, you just don't believe the

so-called examples shown by the so-advanced "devotee" men in ISKCON. I don't

blame you. As you may know I'm not a big fan of ISKCON leadership. While in

the temple as a brahmacari Temple Commander I tried to treat the women equally

and with regard for their needs. No other brahmacari would volunteer to hand

out the tampons to the women from my TC office! I took it a chance to do my

duty. As a grihasta in the temple I was usually fighting with the temple

authorities, who were usually sannyasis or brahmacaris, for the civil/human

rights of the Mothers. Mother Silavati was a good friend of my wife and me and

there was an incident in NY temple where a brahmacari spit at her face. I

vowed to hunt him down and offer some "up close and personal advice" but I was

discouraged by Silavati out of her compassion.

 

What I support is HUMAN rights, especially for devotees. I would just hate to

see too much of an effort to promote "womens" rights because of the fear of

simply creating more duality. The temple will just become men here and women

over there and vice versa.

 

 

> You asked about who "the message" is sent to. It's been a powerful message

> to many of ISKCON's women for at least a couple of decades and they've

> heard it loud and clear. In addition, numerous girls who grew up in our

> temples developed such self-contempt (not to be confused with humility) due

> to this and other verbal and non-verbal messages they received. A large

> number of them have left and many others (including myself) refused to ever

> join an ISKCON community, at least partly due to this treatment.

 

 

I am very sorry for this. It is wrong. It is unfriendly. It is not Krsna

conscious. It is not Vedic. Of course many of my male friends have also left

for similar reasons. My sincere suggestion though, would be that the women

utilize the services of ksatriyas/administrators to serve their purposes

instead of trying to buck a male dominated egomaniacal regime of pretentious,

insecure "men" (if thats what you want to call them). I think some good men

(there are SOME out there!) could make the case for human rights in a stronger

way by nature. A good ksatriya (most likely non-ISKCON)would do it out of

duty. It is more Vedic don't you think? If Arjuna or Yudhishtira were here I'm

sure you would approach them for this mission. And they would fulfill! I know

they are not available nor are there any men like them right now but you know

what I mean? Organized women through a ksatriya/administrator agency could

wield a lot of influence especially if they threatened to withhold the

important services they perform if they don't receive the human rights they

deserve.

 

 

 

>

> I don't know how these customs originated either. From my limited exposure

> to Indian temples during my 5 visits there, this is not even a particularly

> Indian custom. Indian women certainly make sure that they can see the

> Deities during temple visits. They elbow their way up to the altar quite

> assertively. Can't imagine them letting any men get in their way (even the

> thought of soemone trying is quite amusing). How did it then get to be so

> backwards in ISKCON?

 

Bad leaders. Bad leaders. Bad leaders. They have failed to acknowledge the

varnasrama-dharma institution in our society for more than 20 years. Srila

Prabhupada said the result of that failure would be chaos. Gee, Srila

Prabhupada was right!

 

 

In my opinion, in the temple proper, it is Vaikuntha. All bodily consciousness

should be left at the door before entering. When you see a woman in the

temple, she is not a woman - she is a spirit soul. When you see a man in the

temple, he is not a man - he is a spirit soul. It must go both ways. If one

starts contemplating the senses in the temple and gets agitated, they should

leave the temple room before they commit an offense before the Deities. It is

the Lords house and everyone is welcome equally. We cannot try to make

Vaikuntha our own material house.

 

Lord Caitanya, when outside the temple would not allow His female devotees to

approach close to Him. This is in respect for the social system of

varnasrama-dharma - He was portraying a sannyasi. But in the temple, He

allowed a woman to climb up on His shoulders so she could see Lord Jagannath.