Vrndavan: Silence is the voice of complicity

[Guest guest]

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

 

Please accept my respects. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga.

 

There are some major presumptions inherent in Mahaman Prabhu's as well all

those who sympathize with his uncalled for action which he has inflicted

against the ladies in Vrndavan. I shall deal briefly with three of his

points and then propose an alternative to avoid future such clashes.

 

In sum, we must know that the causes and ramifications of the debate far

exceed the details of this particular incident. Everything happens within a

CONTEXT. Social relations and intergroup tensions, especially, do not evolve

out of any void. Consequently, before arriving at some preordained conclusion

("The action taken against the ladies was appropriate and justified."), we

first need to investigate the causes, both immediate as well as developmental,

leading up to the event.

 

 

Mahaman Prabhu wrote:

 

>It was a management issue and not man/woman conflict.

>---------------------

>This is to humbly submit to the community of Vaishnavas all over the world

that what happened in Vrindavan between the Vrindavan Management and some

matajis headed by Parvati was PURELY an administrative and managerial issue.

[emphasis mine]

 

If according to Mahaman Prabhu, this is "*PURELY* an administrative and

managerial issue," then whatever he proceeds to tell us about it is *simply*

Orwellian "newspeak." Buyer beware! By such technique and then inducing

others to believe it, we can redefine 'war' to be 'peace' if we like (cf.

"1984", Orwell). Thus, as far this situation goes, we can come to a

convenient, self-serving dictum, "End of discussion. Case is closed. Bas."

 

Or that is what Mahaman would like us to believe. Let's not be so mindlessly

"submissive" however. Better we examine this phenomenon in its full context,

which means we cannot appreciate this incident in isolation but only as a

precipitating clash in a slowly steeping chain of events. We need to

understand the history of gender relations in Vrndavan as well as within

ISKCON as a whole, particularly as how it relates to those dressed in saffron

and those dictating managerial policy. The bitter and tragic stories of abuse

from our dear godsisters could provide enough material to fill out several

chapters in itself.

 

How we frame a *question* also determines the *answer* we get. Are we talking

about *DEFIANCE* of temple "authority" or the *ABUSE* of that "authority"?

Let's consider this issue in its full light and from both sides, not

light-headedly or unilaterally.

 

>It had NOTHING to do with undermining the position of women devotees.

 

More "newspeak"! Watch out for anyone who defines everything in absolute

terms -- "purely,nothing,black and white," etc. This is the rhetoric of

demagogues.

 

 

In a nutshell, here's the crux of the debate:

 

>About three weeks ago, just after the curtains opened for mangala aratik at

4:30 am. HH Giriraj swami approached me and complained to me that he could not

even have darshan of the Radha Syamsundar altar or offer his obeisances

because the whole altar was taken over by the ladies even before the curtains

were opened. Previous to this, several other sannyasis and other devotees

including HH Lokanath Swami and HH Radha Govinda Maharaj had also complained

that they were experiencing difficulties in offering obeisances in front of

the Radha Syamsundar altar.

 

What about making some facility for ALL the HUNDREDS of ladies visiting for

Kartika who also want to worship the Deities???

 

The personal PRIVILEGEs of a few sannyasis automatically outweighs and can

DISTURB the worship for the entire rank of ladies???

 

In my mind, this seem rather SHAMELESS and INSENSITIVE to be making such

personal DEMANDS under such extraordinary circumstances when the temple room

is so overflooded with devotees from all over the world. Why should ALL the

ladies be forced to be pushed around like a bunch of cattle to suit the

preferential treatment of a few sannyasis? Is that what comes from

renunciation -- *DISREGARD* to anyone in a woman's body? *CALLOUSNESS* to

their spiritual requirements? Have these sannyasis ever given a thought to how

much the ladies must shuffle around and adjust themselves to accommodate for

the personal convenience of a few men? You call this "spiritual vision"?

 

It seems like *selfishness* to me.

 

If someone does not recognize other devotees (viz, the ladies) but

contemptuously disregards them, then by such mentality, they are not looking

at worshipful Deity but at stone! This is what sastra informs us. A habit or

custom is also 'contemptuous' in its import. Sexism -- like its next-of-kin,

racism -- is committed not only deliberately by individuals but also by one's

participation in a social system that unfairly discriminates. As temple

president, Mahaman Prabhu is directly responsible for implementing ISKCON's

institutionally discriminatory practices against women. The sannyasis are

(unwittingly) calling upon Mahaman to invoke and extend those unfair

practices.

 

I am not saying that any one of the above mentioned sannyasis has sexist

intentions and is thus "looking at stone," but the implication is there, isn't

it? I call upon all of these respectable souls to repudiate any such

misognynistic connotations associated with their reported actions. They need

to "preach" to us on this point to clear up their position or we will surely

lose faith in them as bona fide receptacles for our implicit trust. "Silence

is the voice of complicity."

 

Prabhupada showed the example by being sensitive to EVERYONE's spiritual

needs! The more we see such worshipful qualities of *suhrdam sarva-bhutanam*

and *sarva-bhutatma-bhutatma* manifested in our sannyasis, the more we will

all be pleased to grant them whatever special facility as they deserve.

 

 

Now I want to propose a *COMPROMISE* to relieve this impasse. That is, the

Vrndavan temple managers can make some SMALL concession to the sannyasis,

which I am sure the ladies would also be agreeable to: For the first minute or

so of Deity greeting, the ladies can leave a 3ft-wide TEMPORARY CORRIDOR so

that the sannyasis -- and sannyasis ONLY! -- can one-by-one pass and HUMBLY

offer their dandavats, and then quickly return to where the rest of the men

are. That would seem both FAIR and PROPER, and causing the minimal

inconvenience to ladies as well as sannyasis.

 

How could anyone who was truly renounced and dependent on Krsna ask for more?

 

What do all my honorable Vaisnava Prabhus think?

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Vaisnavanudasa abhilasi,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

I very much appreciated the analysis of Srila Prabhu. This is clearly NOT an

incident that can be judged in isolation. One underlying problem is our lack

of culture - we through a few principles which we consider to be Vedic on

top of our anarthas and think we have some "truth."

 

In questions of culture MANU SAMHITA is quite clear. Here are the

appropriate verses (sorry I have no sanksrit)

 

3.55-60

Fathers, brothers,husbands, and brothers-in-law who wish for great fortune

should revere these women and adorn them.

The deities delight inplaces where women are revered, but where women are

not revered all rites are fruitless.

Where women of the family are miserable, the family is soon destroyed, but

it always thrives where the women are not miserable.

Homes that are cursed by women of the family who have not been treated with

due reverence are completely destroyed, as if struck down by withcraft.

Therefore men who wish to prosper should always revere these women with

ornaments, clothes and food at CELEBRATIONS and FESTIVALS.

There is unwavering good fortune in a family where the husband is always

satisfied by the wife and the wife by the husband.

[Guest guest]

Here's what one devotee wrote in reply to Srila Prabhu who wishes to

remain... "Anonymous das"

 

- - - - - - - -

 

> Srila das wrote:

>

> >The personal PRIVILEGEs of a few sannyasis automatically outweighs and

> >can DISTURB the worship for the entire rank of ladies???

>

>

> Yes, the "personal PRIVILEGEs" of even one sannyasi outweighs the personal

> privileges of an entire rank of ladies. That is the Vedic standard. If

> there is a question of who should have "first darshana", get the ghee-lamp

> first, sit on a more elevated platorm, then preference is ALWAYS given to

> sannyasis. Why?

>

> Because the sannyasi is the spiritual master for those in all other varnas

> and all other ashramas:

>

> "In the varnasrama institution the sannyasi, or the person in the

> renounced order of life, is considered to be the head or the spiritual

> master of all the social statuses and orders. A brahmana is considered to

> be the spiritual master of the three other sections of a society, namely,

> the ksatriyas, the vaisyas and the sudras, but a sannyasi, who is on the

> top of the institution, is considered to be the spiritual master of the

> brahmanas also." (BG 16.1-3 purport)

>

> Please note that the so-called "personal PRIVELEGE" is offered by Lord

> Vishnu Himself, through varnashrama dharma. So disrespecting this

> personal privelege is disrespecting Lord Vishnu's personal desire.

>

> Another point is that this respect offered to sannyasis is not simply

> because "Lord Vishnu said so", but because sannyasis, by virtue of their

> renunciation, are entitled to such respect:

>

> "The brahmacaris, the grhasthas, the vanaprasthas and the sannyasis all

> belong to the same mission of life, namely, realization of the Supreme.

> Therefore none of them are less important as far as spiritual culture is

> concerned. The difference is a matter of formality on the strength of

> renunciation. The sannyasis are held in high estimation on the strength of

> practical renunciation." (SB 1.7.2 purport)

>

> But ladies need "protection", "house", "bank balance", "beautiful saris",

> "jewelry", "children", etc. Is this also "practical renunciation"? The

> prostitute who became a disciple of Haridas Thakur gave up all her

> belongings, shaved her head, etc., so women should not think that with

> all their material possessions, saris, jewlry, earings, etc., that they

> are as renounced as sannyasis. Even Queen Kunti prayed like this:

>

> tatha paramahamsanam muninam amalatmana

> bhakti yoga vidanartha katham pasyema hi striayah

>

> "You Yourself descend to propagate the transcendental science of

> devotional service unto the hearts of great transcendentalists and mental

> speculators. How then can we women know you perfectly?"

>

> Of course, she is greater than any worldly sannyasi, no matter what his

> level of renunciation is, but her humility is as great as her

> renunciation. Our liberated ladies should imitate this behaviour before

> claming exemption from varnashrama duties, which Queen Kunti never did.

>

> Now, we come to a practical issue: what is the spiritual status of the

> members, in general, within our vaishnava society? Are most devotees

> (includinging senior devotees (non-female or otherwise), sannyasis, and

> women) liberated or materially conditioned (even if "ever-so-slightly").

> Is Parvati Mataji exceptional?

>

> For a moment, let us assume that the sannyasis have some material

> conditioning (a safe position to assume) but are nonetheless true to their

> vows. After all, sannyas IS a material designation. The bottom line is

> that they are functioning as proper sannyasis, according to the principles

> of varnashrama dharma.

>

> Now, to the ladies: The demand for protection, as in the most recent

> outcry of Parvati Mataji, et al., etc., although it is a legitimate demand

> for ladies, designates them as materially conditioned souls.

>

> Why? Because a liberated soul is firmly convinced that wherever she may

> be, the Supreme Lord Krishna will protect her.

>

> "For a sannyasi, the first qualification should be fearlessness. Because a

> sannyasi has to be alone without any support or guarantee of support, he

> has simply to depend on the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

> If one thinks, "After I leave my connections, who will protect me?" he

> should not accept the renounced order of life. One must be fully convinced

> that Krsna or the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His localized aspect

> as Paramatma is always within, that He is seeing everything and He always

> knows what one intends to do. One must thus have firm conviction that

> Krsna as Paramatma will take care of a soul surrendered to Him. "I shall

> never be alone," one should think. "Even if I live in the darkest regions

> of a forest I shall be accompanied by Krsna, and He will give me all

> protection." That conviction is called abhayam, fearlessness. This state

> of mind is necessary for a person in the renounced order of life." (BG

> 16.1-3 purport)

>

> One might say that this injunction applies to men, and not to women,

> because women are a special case. Not so:

>

> vipada santushta shashvat tatra-tatra jagad gurau

> bhavato darsanam yat syad apunar bhava darshanam

>

> "I wish that all those calamities would happen again and again, so that we

> could see you again and again, for seeing you means we will no longer see

> repeated births and deaths." (From prayers of Queen Kunti)

>

> And Goddess Laxmi prays:

>

> striyo vratais tva hrsikesvaram svato hy aradhya loke patim asasate 'nyam

> tasam na te vai paripanty apatyam priyam dhanayumsi yato 'sva-tantrah

>

> "My dear Lord, You are certainly the fully independent master of all the

> senses. Therefore all women who worship You by strictly observing vows

> because they wish to acquire a husband to satisfy their senses are surely

> under illusion. They do not know that such a husband cannot actually give

> protection to them or their children. Nor can he protect their wealth or

> duration of life, for he himself is dependent on time, fruitive results

> and the modes of nature, which are all subordinate to You." (SB 5.18.19)

>

> "[from the purport] In this verse, Laksmidevi (Rama) shows compassion

> toward women who worship the Lord for the benediction of possessing a good

> husband. Although such women desire to be happy with children, wealth, a

> long duration of life and everything dear to them, they cannot possibly do

> so. In the material world, a so-called husband is dependent on the control

> of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many examples of a woman

> whose husband, being dependent on the result of his own fruitive actions,

> cannot maintain his wife, her children, her wealth or her duration of

> life. Therefore, factually the only real husband of all women is Krsna,

> the supreme husband."

>

> The bottom line is that because Parvati Mataji and others have made such a

> hue and cry about their protection, it is to be understood that they are

> still materially conditioned souls, even if they think otherwise.

>

> If you are liberated, then follow in the footsteps of liberated ladies and

> depend on the Lord. But we see otherwise, and many so-called liberated

> ladies remarry and go through two, three or more husbands in the name of

> seeking protection but at the same time claim that they are not bound to

> be submissive, chaste, etc., as prescribed by varnashrama principles.

> Such liberated ladies would have us believe that every divorce that

> happens is the mans fault. I suppose we could say this--after all, even

> Srila Prabhupada "left his wife." And this was Srila Prabhuapda's opinion

> on "who's generally at fault:"

>

> Woman reporter: What happens when women are not subordinate to men?

> Prabhupada: Then there is disruption. There is disruption, social

> disruption. If the woman does not become subordinate to man, then there is

> social disruption. Therefore, in the western countries there are so many

> divorce cases because the woman does not agree to become subordinate to

> man. That is the cause.

> Woman reporter: What advice do you have to women who do not want to be

> subordinate to men?

> Prabhupada: It is not my advice, but it is the advice of the Vedic

> knowledge that woman should be chaste and faithful to man. (Television

> Interview: July 9, 1975, Chicago)

>

> [some devotees nowadays (even some of whom are in managerial positions)

> are even saying that Srila Prabhuapda was a chauvanist, and that his books

> have to be purged of this wrong understanding he had.]

>

> One might challenge that "What about Draupadi, was she a conditioned soul?

> Why was she demanding protection?" She, as well as the Pandavas, were

> still acting according to the designations of varnashrama, inspite of

> their liberated status. Even Krishna, the Supreme Lord Himself, performs

> prescribed duties, although He is not obliged to:

>

> utsideyur ime loka na kuryan karma cedaham

> sankarasya ca karta syam upahanyam ima prajah

>

> "If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to

> ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I

> would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings." (BG 3.24)

>

> Draupadi could successfully take care of 5 husbands. But we see that many

> of today's ladies can, if at all, barely take care of 1 husband. Many

> like to imitate the pastime of Draupadi chastising her husbands for

> failing to protect her in the rigged gambling match, but they will not

> imitate Draupadi's continuing to server her husbands so nicely, inspite of

> the fact.

>

> Draupadi is exhibiting the symptoms of a liberated soul because she is

> performing her prescribed duties, inspite of whatever else happens: yogah

> stha kuru karmani sangam tyaktva dhananjaya / siddhy-asiddhyo samo bhutva

> samatvam yoga ucyate, "Perform your duty equipoised, abandoning all

> attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga." (Bg

> Ch. 2)

>

> That is why this popular slogan, "If the ladies are treated well, they

> will respond in kind--if you will be like Rama, we will be like Sita", is

> just so much "balderdash."

>

> Why was Srila Prabhuapda's former wife uncooperative? Was she mistreated?

> Or Ramanajuacarya's former wife? What did Ramanujacarya do to make her

> unsubmissive? And there are other examples. One thing many women (and

> men who are also feminists) wrongly consider is that women will

> "automatically reciprocate" with their partners. This is wrong because

> women also have free will, and are also subject to the actions and

> reactions of their activities. They are not simply some automatic soda

> machine that you put 50 cents in and get your soda.

>

> Of course, reciprocation is there. But IF YOUR DEVOTIONAL SERVICE IS

> DEPENDENT ON YOUR MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW OTHERS DEAL WITH YOU, ETC.,

> THEN YOU ARE A CONDITIONED SOUL. Therefore, besides bhagavata marg, you

> also have to follow duties prescribed for conditioned souls.

>

> The point is, just because the whole world falls down, it does not mean we

> should fall down. The best example is that of Mandodari. Her husband was

> Ravana, but she is nonethless considered one of the world's all-time most

> chaste women--she was not giving up her religious principles because of

> her husband (and she never divorced her husband, either):

>

> "Not only was mother Sita powerful, but any woman who follows in the

> footsteps of mother Sita can also become similarly powerful. There are

> many instances of this in the history of Vedic literature. Whenever we

> find a description of ideal chaste women, mother Sita is among them.

> Mandodari, the wife of Ravana, was also very chaste. Similarly, Draupadi

> was one of five exalted chaste women. As a man must follow great

> personalities like Brahmi and Narada, a woman must follow the path of such

> ideal women as Sita, Mandodari and Draupadi. By staying chaste and

> faithful to her husband, a woman enriches herself with supernatural

> power." (SB 9.10.27 purport)

>

> So, let's be realistic, the ladies who are making this big stink are still

> conditioned souls. As such, they are obliged to follow the rules of

> varnashrama dharma. If they DONT follow, then the material energy will

> penalize them. All divorces, woes, lack of protection, etc., are all

> deserved--both for men and women. And yes, this is what the shastra

> concludes:

>

> rajaovaca

> dharmam bravisi dharam-jna dharmo 'si vrsa-rupa-dhruk

> yad adharma-krta-sthanam sucakasyapi tad bhavet

>

> "Pariksit Maharaj said, Oh you who are in the form of a bull, you know the

> truth of religion and are speaking according to the principle that the

> destination intended for the perpetrator of sinful acts is also intended

> for the one who indentifies the perpetrator. You are none other than the

> personality of religion." (SB 1, Chapter 17 text 22)

>

> I leave it to the readers to go through the purport of this verse, which

> also beautifully describes the difference in behaviour between a liberated

> soul and a conditioned soul, but here is a small excerpt:

>

> "The cow and bull never placed any complaint before the King for being

> tortured by the personality of Kali, although everyone lodges such

> complaints before the state authorities. The extraordinary behavior of the

> bull made the King conclude that the bull was certainly the personality of

> religion, for no one else could understand the finer intricacies of the

> codes of religion."

>

> So we see that Parvati Mataji, et al., by their behaviour, are ordinary

> souls, not liberated souls. And Parvati Mataji is not extraordiary,

> either. Since conditioned souls are obliged to follow the rules and

> regulations of varnashram dharma, WHICH PRESCRIBE THAT SANNYASIS BE GIVEN

> ALL RESPECT, AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY,

> Parvati and others are obliged to offer the special respect that is due to

> those in the sannyasa ashrama.

>

> They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive

> behaviour bears fruit.

>

> ys Anonymous das

[Guest guest]

Dear Srila Prabhu,

 

I have a doubt of your understanding of the difference in sexes. Just going

thro your wonderful *compromise* statement, I am able to understand how

unSrila you are. Even as a grahastha I will feel ackward to walk thro an

army of women and I am sure women will find it hard to do the same with men

on both sides and room for only 1 person to walk. Why only the women, even

the men should as a matter of etiquette move and give way for comfortable

darshan for Sanyasis. YOu may be a disciple of SP but the way you speak of

Sanyasis is appauling to me. Mahaman Prabhu's statements look fair and I am

able to understand the upstartish attitude of some of the "white" matajis

which has led to such nasty things happening. No Indian woman will ever

think of doing things like this. Just living in V'van is not enough, they

have to behave like Vedic women and living all these years in V'van, Vedic

culture should have hopefully atleast rubbed on them.

 

I was also very sorry to see Braj Bihari Prabhu pulling up the background of

Mahaman Prabhu, in his first writeup which was more of a personal attack on

the TP, while he (BB) was not even on the scene.

 

Please try to be more humble and follow some civilised rules let alone

Indian/Vedic practices whichever part of the world you are in.

 

Also see comments below :

 

>

> WWW: Srila (Dasa) ACBSP (Berkeley CA - USA)

> [sMTP:cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu]

> Sent: 19 November 1999 03:57

> To: COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN); COM: Bhadra Balaram (das)

> JPS (Mayapur - IN); COM: Tirtharaj (das) TKG (Brisbane - AU);

> news (AT) chakra (DOT) org; COM: DMW (Dharma of Men and Women); COM: India

> (Continental Committee) Open (Forum); COM: IWC (Internat. Women's

> Conference); COM: Prabhupada Disciples

> Cc: COM: ISKCON India (news & discussion)

> Subject: Re: Vrndavan: "Silence is the voice of complicity"

>

> [Text 2790417 from COM]

>

> Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

>

> Please accept my respects. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga.

>

> There are some major presumptions inherent in Mahaman Prabhu's as well all

> those who sympathize with his uncalled for action which he has inflicted

> against the ladies in Vrndavan. I shall deal briefly with three of his

> points and then propose an alternative to avoid future such clashes.

>

> In sum, we must know that the causes and ramifications of the debate far

> exceed the details of this particular incident. Everything happens within

> a

> CONTEXT. Social relations and intergroup tensions, especially, do not

> evolve

> out of any void. Consequently, before arriving at some preordained

> conclusion

> ("The action taken against the ladies was appropriate and justified."), we

> first need to investigate the causes, both immediate as well as

> developmental,

> leading up to the event.

>

>

> Mahaman Prabhu wrote:

>

> >It was a management issue and not man/woman conflict.

> >---------------------

> >This is to humbly submit to the community of Vaishnavas all over the

> world

> that what happened in Vrindavan between the Vrindavan Management and some

> matajis headed by Parvati was PURELY an administrative and managerial

> issue.

> [emphasis mine]

>

> If according to Mahaman Prabhu, this is "*PURELY* an administrative and

> managerial issue," then whatever he proceeds to tell us about it is

> *simply*

> Orwellian "newspeak." Buyer beware! By such technique and then inducing

> others to believe it, we can redefine 'war' to be 'peace' if we like (cf.

> "1984", Orwell). Thus, as far this situation goes, we can come to a

> convenient, self-serving dictum, "End of discussion. Case is closed. Bas."

>

>

> Or that is what Mahaman would like us to believe. Let's not be so

> mindlessly

> "submissive" however. Better we examine this phenomenon in its full

> context,

> which means we cannot appreciate this incident in isolation but only as a

> precipitating clash in a slowly steeping chain of events. We need to

> understand the history of gender relations in Vrndavan as well as within

> ISKCON as a whole, particularly as how it relates to those dressed in

> saffron

> and those dictating managerial policy. The bitter and tragic stories of

> abuse

> from our dear godsisters could provide enough material to fill out several

> chapters in itself.

>

> How we frame a *question* also determines the *answer* we get. Are we

> talking

> about *DEFIANCE* of temple "authority" or the *ABUSE* of that "authority"?

>

> Let's consider this issue in its full light and from both sides, not

> light-headedly or unilaterally.

>

> >It had NOTHING to do with undermining the position of women devotees.

>

> More "newspeak"! Watch out for anyone who defines everything in absolute

> terms -- "purely,nothing,black and white," etc. This is the

> rhetoric of

> demagogues.

>

>

> In a nutshell, here's the crux of the debate:

>

> >About three weeks ago, just after the curtains opened for mangala aratik

> at

> 4:30 am. HH Giriraj swami approached me and complained to me that he could

> not

> even have darshan of the Radha Syamsundar altar or offer his obeisances

> because the whole altar was taken over by the ladies even before the

> curtains

> were opened. Previous to this, several other sannyasis and other devotees

> including HH Lokanath Swami and HH Radha Govinda Maharaj had also

> complained

> that they were experiencing difficulties in offering obeisances in front

> of

> the Radha Syamsundar altar.

>

> What about making some facility for ALL the HUNDREDS of ladies visiting

> for

> Kartika who also want to worship the Deities???

>

> The personal PRIVILEGEs of a few sannyasis automatically outweighs and can

> DISTURB the worship for the entire rank of ladies???

>

> In my mind, this seem rather SHAMELESS and INSENSITIVE to be making such

> personal DEMANDS under such extraordinary circumstances when the temple

> room

> is so overflooded with devotees from all over the world. Why should ALL

> the

> ladies be forced to be pushed around like a bunch of cattle to suit the

> preferential treatment of a few sannyasis? Is that what comes from

> renunciation -- *DISREGARD* to anyone in a woman's body? *CALLOUSNESS* to

> their spiritual requirements? Have these sannyasis ever given a thought to

> how

> much the ladies must shuffle around and adjust themselves to accommodate

> for

> the personal convenience of a few men? You call this "spiritual vision"?

>

>

> It seems like *selfishness* to me.

>

> If someone does not recognize other devotees (viz, the ladies) but

> contemptuously disregards them, then by such mentality, they are not

> looking

> at worshipful Deity but at stone! This is what sastra informs us.

[s. Shri Shiv Kumar]

If the women do not recognise men standing or Sanyasis whom do you

think they are looking at?

> A habit or

> custom is also 'contemptuous' in its import. Sexism -- like its

> next-of-kin,

> racism -- is committed not only deliberately by individuals but also by

> one's

> participation in a social system that unfairly discriminates. As temple

> president, Mahaman Prabhu is directly responsible for implementing

> ISKCON's

> institutionally discriminatory practices against women. The sannyasis are

> (unwittingly) calling upon Mahaman to invoke and extend those unfair

> practices.

>

> I am not saying that any one of the above mentioned sannyasis has sexist

> intentions and is thus "looking at stone," but the implication is there,

> isn't

> it? I call upon all of these respectable souls to repudiate any such

> misognynistic connotations associated with their reported actions. They

> need

> to "preach" to us on this point to clear up their position or we will

> surely

> lose faith in them as bona fide receptacles for our implicit trust.

> "Silence

> is the voice of complicity."

[s. Shri Shiv Kumar] We have a saying, when the dog barks at the

sun, the sun does not reciprocate.

 

> Prabhupada showed the example by being sensitive to EVERYONE's spiritual

> needs! The more we see such worshipful qualities of *suhrdam

> sarva-bhutanam*

> and *sarva-bhutatma-bhutatma* manifested in our sannyasis, the more we

> will

> all be pleased to grant them whatever special facility as they deserve.

[s. Shri Shiv Kumar] They should fall at your feet for you to bless

them, is that your intention.

 

 

> Now I want to propose a *COMPROMISE* to relieve this impasse. That is,

> the

> Vrndavan temple managers can make some SMALL concession to the sannyasis,

> which I am sure the ladies would also be agreeable to: For the first

> minute or

> so of Deity greeting, the ladies can leave a 3ft-wide TEMPORARY CORRIDOR

> so

> that the sannyasis -- and sannyasis ONLY! -- can one-by-one pass and

> HUMBLY

> offer their dandavats, and then quickly return to where the rest of the

> men

> are. That would seem both FAIR and PROPER, and causing the minimal

> inconvenience to ladies as well as sannyasis.

[s. Shri Shiv Kumar] In the mosques the men and women are not

together. We could do two things to satisfy the "so called" ladies(femnists)

:

a) build a seperate Krishna Balaram Mandir for them where they will

govern all the functions - you will then see the other "isms" coming up.

b) allow all of them to be totally equal to the men and not have any

seperate barrier for women. If they are equal, let them be equal in all

respects. It is like the Scheduled Caste reservations in India wherein the

standard of the whole society in terms of knowledge/facility etc is brought

down to keep the small %age of SC happy.

 

> How could anyone who was truly renounced and dependent on Krsna ask for

> more?

>

> What do all my honorable Vaisnava Prabhus think?

>

> Respectfully submitted,

>

> Vaisnavanudasa abhilasi,

>

> Srila dasa

[s. Shri Shiv Kumar] SVd

[Guest guest]

> Fathers, brothers,husbands, and brothers-in-law who wish for great fortune

> should revere these women and adorn them.

> The deities delight inplaces where women are revered, but where women are

> not revered all rites are fruitless.

 

Yes, this shloka quoted by Padmanabha Prabhu is not remembered and practised

enough in our society.If we would all try to follow this injunction more

sincerely there would be less of a battle of the sexes, less call for

women´s liberation and female struggle for equal rights.

 

But then again it says in the scriptures that a woman who speaks harsh words

(bharya capriyavadini) does not deserve respectful treatment. In fact,such a

woman can be left by her husband and he should go to the forest rather than

give her protection (aranyam tena gantavyam).

 

So men should be nice to women and women should be nice to men.

 

The question is then: Did the matajis who were trying to break the human

chain in the Vrindavan temple act in an unduly aggressive, unbefitting and

disrespectful manner? Was their behavior that of apriyavadini, of one who

speaks harshly to a man who deserves respect? Or did these matajis act in

defense of a fundamental right? Remember the woman who climbed on Lord

Caitanya´s shoulder to see Lord Jagannath?

 

Who is to be blamed for breach of etiquette? The matajis or the brahmacaris?

Were the men guilty of acting in an arrogant and selfish macho type manner?

Did they neglect Manu´s injunction "to revere women"?

 

I simply cannot say because I was not there. Neither can anyone else who

lives thousands of miles away from Vrindavan, is not fully conversant with

the local customs and does not really know what was going on.

 

That´s why I think we should not jump to conclusions and prematurely condemn

one party or the other lest we may commit aparadha.Perhaps both parties are

guilty to some extent, or perhaps one party deserves more blame than the

other. These things need to be investigated carefully by one or more neutral

judges who patiently listen to both sides and then, after careful

consideration, pass binding judgement.

 

In this regard, I would like to quote some interesting shlokas from Niti

Shastra on lawsuits:

 

"The king (temple president,regional secretary, GBC?) should attentively

look after lawsuits by freeing himself from anger and greed according to the

injunctions of the Dharma shastras. He should do so with the assistance of

the Chief Justice, minister (amatya), brahmana and priest. He should never

singly try the cases of two parties. Neither the wise king (temple

president, regional secretary, GBC) nor the councillors are ever to try in

secret

......

Where the king (temple president, regional secretary, GBC) cannot personally

attend to administration of justice he should appoint Brahmanas who are

versed in the Vedas, self controlled, high born, impartial, unagitated and

calm, who fear degradation in the next life, are spiritually minded, active

and devoid of anger. If the Brahmana be not learned enough, the king (temple

president, regional secretary, GBC) should appoint a kshatriya for the

purpose or a vaishya who is versed in Dharma shastra but reject the shudra.

.....

The assembly in which there are seven, five or even three brahmanas versed

in human affairs, the Vedas and Dharma Shastra is august and solemn like one

on the occasions of sacrifices.Those persons are the best judges of the

merits of the case who live in the places where the two parties stand and

where the disputed matters and grounds of quarrel exist. The king (temple

president, regional secretary, GBC) should however appoint officers who are

virtuous, well tried and capable of bearing the burden of the administration

of justice like bulls.

.....

The man who knows dharma can speak whether appointed or not appointed. He

speaks the voice of God who knows the Shastra.

.....

Superior intelligence grows gradually through the investigation of cases of

low, average or high importance. The man who has studied only one shastra

cannot investigate a case properly. So in all cases the king (temple

president, regional secretary, GBC) should appoint men who know many

shastras. Even what a single man says can be the law if he is spiritually

minded. The cases have to be tried by the king (temple president, regional

secretary, GBC) separately with men of various grades of intelligence once,

twice, thrice or four times.

.....

The king (temple president, regional secretary, GBC) should perform his duty

by carefully studying the local customs as well as those practised by

castes, villages, corporations and families. The customs that have been

introduced in a country, caste or race should be maintained in the same

condition for otherwise the people get agitated."

(Shukra Niti, chapter 4, section 5)

 

My personal conclusion: Devotees around the world should not get too

agitated about this issue because it is to be handled by local authorities,

judges and brahmanas. Only persons who are well aware of the local customs

of Vrindavana should be allowed to judge this case. Anyone else should

mostly make sure that the women in his place are happy, satisfied and

productive because then according to Manu his place will be fortunate and

prosperous.

 

ys Anantarupa das

[Guest guest]

Let me stipulate in advance that I have no idea if Parvati is just some

pushy

ambitious devotee seeking mundane power in ISKCON. She may be. We

certainly

have too numerous examples of such behaviors amongst the men, so I am

not so

naive as to think that there aren't women capable of the same behavior.

I apologise to the devotee part of her for that statement, and

apologise in

advance to any sannyasis who may be offended by the broad brush strokes

I am

about to make, as I really don't know any of the sannyasis involved. My

dealings here speak more to the consciousness of Anonymous das.

 

As to the form of Anonymous' essay, let me relate a little story.

 

Two friends for selling watermelon off the back of a truck for $1 a

piece.

After a while one of them turned to the other and asked

 

"How much did we pay for

these watermelons?"

 

"$1"

 

"How can we make money if we are also selling them for $1?"

 

"Don't worry, we'll make up for it with volume."

 

>

> >

> > "In the varnasrama institution the sannyasi, or the person in the

> > renounced order of life, is considered to be the head or the spiritual

> > master of all the social statuses and orders. A brahmana is considered to

> > be the spiritual master of the three other sections of a society, namely,

> > the ksatriyas, the vaisyas and the sudras, but a sannyasi, who is on the

> > top of the institution, is considered to be the spiritual master of the

> > brahmanas also." (BG 16.1-3 purport).

 

Why? Let us read the 2 immediate following sentences. "For a sannyasi,

the

first qualification should be fearlessness. Because a sannyäsi has to be

alone

without any support or guarantee of support, he has simply to depend on

the

mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

 

Sure sounds like the Vrindavan sannyasia are asking for a guarantuee of

support

in their dealings.

 

Anonymous' quote:

 

> >

> > For a moment, let us assume that the sannyasis have some material

> > conditioning (a safe position to assume) but are nonetheless true to their

> > vows. After all, sannyas IS a material designation.

 

And again:

 

 

>

> >

> > Of course, reciprocation is there. But IF YOUR DEVOTIONAL SERVICE IS

> > DEPENDENT ON YOUR MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW OTHERS DEAL WITH YOU, ETC.,

> > THEN YOU ARE A CONDITIONED SOUL.

 

Applying the same standard not just to women, but to sannyasis also,

who was

originally asking for the special circumstance?

 

(with all due respect to any sannyasi caught in the middle of this who

may be

actually deserving of respect).

 

 

 

> >

> > So, let's be realistic, the ladies who are making this big stink are still

> > conditioned souls.

 

Judgeth I , from my most high and mighty vantage point.

 

> As such, they are obliged to follow the rules of

> > varnashrama dharma. If they DONT follow, then the material energy will

> > penalize them.

 

Letter to: Himavati

--

Hawaii

18 March, 1969

69-03-18

 

My Dear Himavati,

Please accept my blessings. I thank you very much for your letter dated

February

21, 1969, along with the Deity dress. It has come to me late on account

of

changing places so quickly and the statement given by you in the matter

of

worshiping the Deity is super excellent. Please continue this system and

Krishna

will bestow upon you all blessings. If one attains perfection in Deity

worship,

that is called Arcana Siddhi. Arcana Siddhi means simply by Deity

worship one

goes back to Godhead, immediately after this life. So this Arcana Siddhi

program

is given in the Narada Pancaratra especially for the householders.

Householders

cannot undergo strict disciplinary activities of austerity, therefore

for every

householder the path of Arcana Siddhi is very much recommended.

According to

Vedic system, all householders are ordered to keep Deity at home and

follow

strictly the worshipment process. That makes the home pure, body pure,

mind

pure, and quickly promotes one to the pure platform of spiritual life.

The

temple is also specially meant for the householders.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Himavati -- Hawaii 18 March, 1969

 

So although Srila Prabhupada herein clearly indicates that Deity worship

is

meant for householders, I would propose that we still don't exclude

those

sannyasis from Deity worship if they also are having difficulty living

in the

forest. After all, strict disciplinary activities of austerity are

simply

material.

 

> Since conditioned souls are obliged to follow the rules and

> > regulations of varnashram dharma, WHICH PRESCRIBE THAT SANNYASIS BE GIVEN

> > ALL RESPECT, AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY ALL OTHER SECTIONS OF SOCIETY,

 

Yes, we can't expect them to perform the austerity of forgoing their

daily dose

of adoration and distinction.

 

>

> >

> > They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive

> > behaviour bears fruit.

> >

> > ys Anonymous das

 

Here an offense, there an offense, everywhere an offense offense.

 

ISOFCON. The International Society of Offense Finding Consciousness

[Guest guest]

At 2:52 -0800 11/20/99, COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) wrote:

>

>

>> They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive

>> behaviour bears fruit.

>>

>> ys Anonymous das

 

Well, before our slightly less-than-fearless "Anonymous das" starts calling

for apologies, please let me remind you that we still don't have a

confirmed picture of what happened. So it may be a little premature to

ask anyone *on either side* to apologize.

 

Besides, for apologies to be meaningful, they need to come from the heart,

not be externally mandated.

 

I still like Braja Bihari's solution best:

 

"I'm much more in favor of getting people to sit down

and discuss differences. If this is done by someone

who has some mediation skills amazing things can

often take place. "

 

Heated arguments on COM just seem to be polarizing the issue even more.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> At 2:52 -0800 11/20/99, COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) wrote:

> >

> >

> >> They should therefore apologize, lest the reaction for her offensive

> >> behaviour bears fruit.

> >>

> >> ys Anonymous das

>

> Well, before our slightly less-than-fearless "Anonymous das" starts

> calling for apologies, please let me remind you that we still don't have a

> confirmed picture of what happened. So it may be a little premature to

> ask anyone *on either side* to apologize.

>

> Besides, for apologies to be meaningful, they need to come from the heart,

> not be externally mandated.

>

> I still like Braja Bihari's solution best:

>

> "I'm much more in favor of getting people to sit down

> and discuss differences. If this is done by someone

> who has some mediation skills amazing things can

> often take place. "

>

> Heated arguments on COM just seem to be polarizing the issue even more.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

While I agree here with Mataji's last sentence and I also agree with Braja

Bihari's sincere efforts are acting in the role of troubleshooting mediator,

it seems to me that there wouldn't be a problem at all if we all just agreed

that we were followers of vedic culture and that in vedic culture the women

are trained by their elders (mothers & grandmothers... this is indeed the

tradition here in India) to be shy.

 

Simple. Then there would be any argument or quarrel at all!

 

We could then all live together in peace as one big family... but maybe

that's asking for too much in kali yuga.

 

And as I wrote just now to another "protesting godbrother" who demanded to

know why the sannyasis want to occupy the "women's space"; I would say that

the space is "the Lord's space" - it's the Mandir.

 

And in vedic culture the sannyasis are supposed to be shown the utmost

respect and regard; and women usually keep their distance from them... due

to their natural shyness.

 

Is there anything wrong with pointing this out? Ought this not be taught?

Or rather; is this not what Srila Prabhupada taught how he wanted us to

behave?

 

And if anyone reading this feels compelled to answer that "women have been

abused"... this answer, I must humbly point out in advance, has nothing to

due with the subject matter of what is being discussed here. It's simply a

diversionary tactic. Changing the subject.

 

The subject is how ought we behave as cultured members of

Aryan/vedic/vaishnava society.

 

The abuse of women is certainly a problem that ought to be dealt with... but

not by using it as a tactic to divert attention from our teaching and

learning what is proper behavior and proper vedic morality. And women, out

of natural shyness... staying away from sannyasis and men in public is a

great credit. It can only enhance their prestige and respectibility in

vedic society.

[Guest guest]

>Applying the same standard not just to women, but to sannyasis also,

>who was originally asking for the special circumstance?

 

 

Lord Vishnu (who created the varnashrama system), and our acharyas like

Srila Prabhupada are asking:

 

"In the varnasrama institution the sannyasi, or the person in the renounced

order of life, is considered to be the head or the spiritual master of all

the social statuses and orders. " (BG 16.1-3 purport)

 

ys KKdas

[Guest guest]

>

 

>

>

> "In the varnasrama institution the sannyasi, or the person in the renounced

> order of life, is considered to be the head or the spiritual master of all

> the social statuses and orders. " (BG 16.1-3 purport)

>

> ys KKdas

 

And the ideal sannyasi lives in the forest with no regulated means for his

existence, wearing deerskin or bark.

[Guest guest]

> [s. Shri Shiv Kumar] In the mosques the men and women are not

> together. We could do two things to satisfy the "so called"

ladies(femnists)

> :

> a) build a seperate Krishna Balaram Mandir for them where they will

> govern all the functions - you will then see the other "isms" coming up.

> b) allow all of them to be totally equal to the men and not have any

> seperate barrier for women. If they are equal, let them be equal in all

> respects. It is like the Scheduled Caste reservations in India wherein

the

> standard of the whole society in terms of knowledge/facility etc is

brought

> down to keep the small %age of SC happy.

>

Dear Maharaja, prabhus & Matajis:

please accept my humble obeisances. All the glories to Srila

Prabhupada.

I would like to add that not only muslems pray to God in separated rooms,

Jewish also do that in ancients traditions, Budist also do this too, Vedic

Culture also do it, so why do we believe that we are prepare to make such

changes believing that it won't disturb our conciousness?

 

It seems to be that we are far away of accepting Srila Prabhupada's

instructions AS IT IS.

But HE clearly instructed us DON'T CHANGE NOTHING, DON'T ADD NOTHING

 

ys, Sridhari dd

[Guest guest]

First of all let me just said that all SRILA PRABHUPADA disciples, either in

men body or women are beautifull,wonderfull,and I feel myself I owe them my

life, of course all granddisciples also,,every time I travel to different

parts of the world and see all this wonderful temples, I realized that if it

wasn't for the austerities and sweat blood and tears of many female body and

male body devotees, in the pioneer days of our beloved ISKCON,giving with out

considerations for themselves just out of love for SRILA PRABHUPADA and many

grandisciples, and SP disciples that are still performing austerities today I

will be lost in this horrible material world, yes sometimes we have

differences but we are a familly,please lets just get together in Hari kirtan

and follow SP principle of love and trust, and stop criticizing any

vaisnava,please we are hurting ourselves by all this waist of time, please

lets engage ourselves more in krsna katta,and be like honey bees just look at

the wonderful qualities of any devotee and just realized within our heart

first how fallen we are, and how much more work wee need as a society to

first respect each other what about love each other.

your servant

premananda goura das

[Guest guest]

>> A sannyasi's duty is to beg door to door and preach to the householders:

>>

>> "A sannyasi is supposed to beg from door to door for his livelihood, but

>> this does not mean that he is a beggar. Humility is also one of the

>> qualifications of a transcendentally situated person, and out of sheer

>> humility the sannyasi goes from door to door, not exactly for the purpose

of

>> begging, but to see the householders and awaken them to Krishna

>> consciousness. This is the duty of a sannyasi." (BG 16.1-3 purport)

>>

>> No doors or householders in the forest.

>

>Are you accusing Srila Prabhupada of contradicting himself?

>

No, I'm accusing you of speaking without supporting your statements. You

are not Srila Prabhupada, so you are not exempt from supporting your

statements. Furthermore, if you find the above quote objectionable, or

contrary to what you think a sannyasi should be, take it up with Srila

Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/23/99 2:10:24 AM Central Standard Time,

cshannon (AT) mdo (DOT) net writes:

 

<< ys KKdas >>

 

I found your comments on the Vrndavana issue interesting. What doesn KK stand

for? It's nice to know who we are talking to.

 

Ys, Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

Christopher Shannon wrote:

 

> >> A sannyasi's duty is to beg door to door and preach to the householders:

> >>

> >> "A sannyasi is supposed to beg from door to door for his livelihood, but

> >> this does not mean that he is a beggar. Humility is also one of the

> >> qualifications of a transcendentally situated person, and out of sheer

> >> humility the sannyasi goes from door to door, not exactly for the purpose

> of

> >> begging, but to see the householders and awaken them to Krishna

> >> consciousness. This is the duty of a sannyasi." (BG 16.1-3 purport)

> >>

> >> No doors or householders in the forest.

> >

> >Are you accusing Srila Prabhupada of contradicting himself?

> >

> No, I'm accusing you of speaking without supporting your statements. You

> are not Srila Prabhupada, so you are not exempt from supporting your

> statements. Furthermore, if you find the above quote objectionable, or

> contrary to what you think a sannyasi should be, take it up with Srila

> Prabhupada.

 

I'm sorry if I move too fast for you. Here, I'll do it again and spell each

step out why I said what I did, as it seems I wasn't clear enough the first

time around.

 

The discussion had to do with what standards women should be held to. You ( or

(excuse me if I'm too that focused on this thread as I have an active life off

COM) one of your buddies) cited Manu Samhita as a standard that needs to be

followed by the women.

 

So, quoting Srila Prabhupada, I cited a purport wherein he quoted Manu

Samhita, which is as follows, "It is customary for a person who has renounced

the world to cover his body with a deerskin or the bark of a tree. This is

enjoined by the Manu-samhita. "

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Madhya 10.154

 

So the point I was making was that if you use Manu Samhita as a standard to

follow, than, according to a quote by Srila Prabhupada, sannyasis should

wear

deerskin or bark. As far as supporting the statement of deerskin, I have no

need to; if you want to challenge that, you would have to take that up with

Srila Prabhupada.

 

Then, you threw up a quote about door to door, and the mood it was given in

seemed to be that it was in opposition to deerskin. Since you seemed to be

challenging the deerskin quote, I merely asked if you were accusing Srila

Prabhupada of contradicting himself.

 

Now it seems to me, you mistook the quote as my opinion and atacked it, and

make demands I support it, but as it is a Srila Prabhupada quote itself, I

feel I am exempt from the conditions of your demand.

[Guest guest]

>but as it is a Srila Prabhupada quote itself, I

>feel I am exempt from the conditions of your demand.

>

Your feelings, or my feelings, are not the criteria by which we have to do

things, the criteria (one of them) is the standards set by the acharya we

both profess to follow:

 

"The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by

the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back

up what he is saying." (BG 17.15 purport)

 

Furthermore, these are not "my demands."

[Guest guest]

> Dear Maharaja, prabhus & Matajis:

> please accept my humble obeisances. All the glories to Srila

> Prabhupada.

> I would like to add that not only muslems pray to God in separated rooms,

> Jewish also do that in ancients traditions, Budist also do this too, Vedic

> Culture also do it, so why do we believe that we are prepare to make such

> changes believing that it won't disturb our conciousness?

>

> It seems to be that we are far away of accepting Srila Prabhupada's

> instructions AS IT IS.

> But HE clearly instructed us DON'T CHANGE NOTHING, DON'T ADD NOTHING

>

> ys, Sridhari dd

 

Sridhari prabhu proves again that spiritual realization doesn't depend on how

close you can get to which altar during darshan.

 

(Antardip das)

[Guest guest]

>"S. Shri Shiv Kumar"

>I have a doubt of your understanding of the difference in sexes. Just going

thro your wonderful *compromise* statement, I am able to understand how

unSrila you are.

 

I am uncertainly an unqualifed devotee. If I may seem to offend my senior

sannyasi godbrothers, that is not my intent. We must learn to draw the line,

however, between etiquette (form) and promoting everyone's spiritual

advancement (substance). Being a sannyasi is no carte blanche for exploitation

and unfair advantage over everyone else. All I can say that if I were in the

shoes of a sannyasi, I would be so ashmed to ask for any facility that would

in the process deny the ladies access to the Lord's darshan.

 

All I am saying that the absence of any protest by the sannyasis involved to

Mahaman's uncouth tactics directed at the women on their behalf simply

confirms a certain mood of insensitvity and callousness to the spiritual

rights and needs of women that has been endemic in ISKCON since 1974. That

these sannyasis display no conscience of the ladies needs says it all. A

sanyasi's *privilege* cannot supersede the ladies' basic *RIGHT* to have the

Lord's darshan during times of group worship.

 

respectfully,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/24/99 5:10:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,

cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

 

<< All I am saying that the absence of any protest by the sannyasis involved

to

Mahaman's uncouth tactics directed at the women on their behalf simply

confirms a certain mood of insensitvity and callousness to the spiritual

rights and needs of women that has been endemic in ISKCON since 1974. That

these sannyasis display no conscience of the ladies needs says it all. A

sanyasi's *privilege* cannot supersede the ladies' basic *RIGHT* to have the

Lord's darshan during times of group worship.

 

respectfully,

 

Srila dasa >>

 

In defense of Giriraj Maharaj, he knew nothing about the entire incident

until hearing about it upon his return from India. He wrote a short note

questioning the use of his name regarding the incident.

 

YS, Kusha mata

[Guest guest]

>Thank you, Srila for your words and for standing up for us!

 

I want to thank all the ladies and other devotees for their letters of

support. I definitely feel like I am taking a risk on this one. I actually

have great fondness for Giriraja Maharaja, Lokanatha M, and Radha-Govinda

Swami. They are humble souls and I hold nothing particular against them, like

I may for many other sannyasis and leaders (due to their continuing records).

But I have been silent myself for too many years on these issues and was

therefore becoming "complicit" myself. I needed to speak out.

 

The better part of experience often means doing it the wrong way first.

 

My earlier posts didn't come out right either. As some of you may recall, the

part when I said about implying the sannyasis were "looking at stone," that

wasn't too cool. Even giving myself every benefit of the doubt, it probably

was offensive. Please ask the other ladies (Gaurangi dd) to forgive me. I went

overboard on that one. But those are the thoughts that came to mind --

manasa-krodha vegam, I guess.

 

While those thoughts ran through my mind, I didn't have to spill it to every

channel on the internet. I think the IWC would have been okay enough. As a

matter of principle, I don't like these multi-crosspostings. But I was always

one to fight fire with fire. Someone else starts it, I'll finish it (or at

least so I think). But the arguments never seem to end. This isn't an

especially wise nor an effective strategy to follow, obviously.

 

Let's try to reach some consensus and move forward.

 

 

Humbly,

 

Srila dasa

 

>In a message dated 11/24/99 cirvin (AT) uclink4 (DOT) berkeley.edu writes:

><< All I am saying that the absence of any protest by the sannyasis involved

to Mahaman's uncouth tactics directed at the women on their behalf simply

confirms a certain mood of insensitvity and callousness to the spiritual

rights and needs of women that has been endemic in ISKCON since 1974. That

these sannyasis display no conscience of the ladies needs says it all. A

sanyasi's *privilege* cannot supersede the ladies' basic *RIGHT* to have the

Lord's darshan during times of group worship.