This paper will be in three sections. The first part will be a philosophical refutation of the GBC’s “Women in ISKCON” Resolution of 2000. The second part, and much longer part, will be a point-by-point refutation of the ISKCON Womens Ministry’s (recently renamed Vaisnavi Ministry) Presentation to the GBC in the year 2000 regarding their concerns for equality for men and women within ISKCON. The third and last part will be a refutation of Urmila dd’s “Response to the Women in ISKCON Presentations“.
Women in ISKCON 2000 Resolution by the GBC
Quote:
WHEREAS, the Women’s Ministry presentation on March 1st, 2000 to the international GBC Body brought a clearer understanding of the mistakes of the past and the need to provide equal and full opportunity for devotional service for all devotees in ISKCON, regardless of gender, and
The first warning sign here should be the usage of the word “equal”. Srila Prabhupada understood that the souls in women’s bodies also deserve Krishna consciousness. But He clearly prescribed different duties for men and women. The term “equal and full opportunity” used in the resolution is in defiance of Srila Prabhupada’s explicit teachings that men and women’s roles are different.
Quote:
WHEREAS, it is our belief that many of the social issues that confront us are exacerbated because the voice of our women, who are the mothers and daughters of our Krsna conscious family, have been hushed and stifled due to misinterpretation of our Vaisnava philosophy, and thus the human and interpersonal needs of our devotees have been minimized,
They blame the past abuse of women due to “misinterpretation” of our philosophy. They do not specify what kind of “misinterpretation” that they are refering to, which leaves the door wide open for speculation. Perhaps Srila Prabhupada’s statements on society were wrong? Perhaps we shouldn’t follow it? Perhaps it would be better for women if we instead following a western cultural standard, which values equal rights (even though Srila Prabhupada was explicitly against the “women’s liberation” movement, which promoted equal rights for women. Note the usage of the words “human and interpersonal needs”. This is an appeal to the emotions of the reader, and is coming from the emotional platform. It is not attempting to appeal to the intelligence of the reader, nor is it coming from the sastric platform.
Quote:
FURTHERMORE, All GBC Body members and other leaders shall hold ista-gosthis in each of their respective temples to establish the priority of providing equal facilities, full encouragement and genuine care and protection for the women members of ISKCON. Also, separate meetings should be held with the leaders and women of each temple to address the women’s needs and concerns, and
It is not the duty of the GBC, nor the temples to provide care and protection to women. That is the duty of their families to do that. Note again the term “equal facilities”. This is such a broad term that it again opens the door wide to speculation. Should women also become GBC? Should women also become diksa-gurus? Should women also become temple presidents? Once again, Srila Prabhupada clearly said that women’s roles are different from men’s. What kind of “full encouragement” are our leaders giving to women by passing such a resolution? Are they giving “full encouragement” to the women to become mothers, capable of raising their children and serving their husbands? Or are they encouraging women to become independent and to follow a materialistic culture based on gender equality?
A Philosophical Refutation of the “Women in ISKCON: Presentations to the GBC, March 2000“
Quote: From the Introduction, by Mother Visakha and Mother Sudharma:Is ISKCON’s attitude to women a reflection of Vaisnava values or is it perversion of them?
Where does “ISKCON’s attitude towards women” come from? Srila Prabhupada’s teachings remain the sole foundation of ISKCON. This statement by Visakha dd and Sudharma dd is an indirectly accusation against Srila Prabhupada. And once again, their statement is very vague, and it opens the door wide to speculation. What kinds of “perversions” are they refering to? It is easy to use rhetoric to achieve your goal, but much more difficult to actually clearly explain your statements.
Quote:
Are ISKCON members following Srila Prabhupada’s instructions or manipulating them to support their own agendas?
We can look at a statement made by Mother Sridhari, a female member of ISKCON, to answer this question. Here is her statement:
So many women are falsely thinking they’ll be happy by gaining the same posts as men. Why then doesn’t the Women’s Ministry minister to them by teaching Srila Prabhupada’s teachings–as they are!–without looking for power and fame. Why aren’t they satisfied to be shy and protected by their husbands, and to follow the example of most Indian ladies and also many Western ladies who by their shyness simply do not enter into them realm of GBC decisions? Most women who are truly chaste, shy, and a good Vedic example (not me) are too busy in their womanly duties and too shy to come out and write–what to speak of physically lobbying during the annual GBC meetings!
Source: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0005/ET26-5965.html
Another statement made by Mother Sita, another female member of ISKCON, sheds further light on the very basis of the Women’s Ministry representation of ISKCON’s women. It is as follows:
I have noticed that the Women’s Ministry’s (WM) primary objective is to achieve complete material equality with the men, similar to the nondevotee feminist agenda. Though the WM is supposed to represent all ISKCON women the majority of representatives of the NA Women’s Ministry are divorced and remarried or single women.
Source: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9812/ET19-2705.html
Since we are on the subject of remarriage and divorce, what does Srila Prabhupada say about this?
“Regarding remarriage, no, remarriage should be always discouraged. Remarriage means encouraging sense gratification. Our mission is to curtail sense gratification. Three times marrying in a year, this is not good, and they are doing this.”
(Letter to: Rupanuga, New Delhi, 21 August 1975)
Quote:
so the early temples that he established had a family spirit. Women served side by side with their male counterparts, opening centres, giving class, singing and chanting, performing varieties of other service, and personally caring for their elderly spiritual father.
Is it a possibility that Srila Prabhupada was simply making an accomodation for people who were unable to disassociate themselves from constant association with women? If Srila Prabhupada was in favor of men and women mixing together, why did He write the following in one of his Bhagavatam purports?
Therefore, Vedic civilization carefully restricts mingling between men and women. If one cannot understand the basic principle of restraining association between man and woman, he is to be considered an animal. That is the purport of this verse. -SB 7.12.9. P
Why should the 1966 standards be kept as the eternal standard for ISKCON? Wouldn’t it make a little more sense to not only maintain the 1977 standards (the year that Srila Prabhupada passed away), but to continue to increase those standards? Why revert back to the 1966 standards, when the devotees were all practically still hippies that did not follow any regulations? Logically, this makes no sense, and therefore their arguement makes no sense.
Quote:
A growing number of Srila Prabhupada’s male disciples accepted the renounced order of sannyasa; and subsequently devotee women were no longer viewed as partners in a spiritual renaissance, rather they were categorised as personifications of the illusory energy, Mayadevi, who threatened to cause men to deviate from their noble spiritual quest.
This statement is loaded with preconceptions and prejudices. It is indirectly demonizing celibacy and sannyasa life. This statement is coming from the emotional and sensual platforms, not from the platform of intelligence or sastra. It is not only NOT coming from the platform of sastra, but is criticizing sastra becauses sastra declares that women are the personification of Maya. They are rejecting sastra by making such a statement. All in all, their statement is highly biased, and this should be apparent to anyone with sober intelligence.
Quote:
Generally, women were no longer asked to give classes, to lead kirtanas or to manage. They had to sit through many discouraging and disparaging lectures in which the intelligence, motives and capabilities of womankind were criticised or scorned.
This is called throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That there were indeed abuses in the past, does that mean that we should simply throw away the whole system of Vedic culture and sastra, and implement western standards of gender equality instead? Not a very intelligent arguement.
Quote:
By 1974, this mood reached a zenith: women were now unwelcome.
This is another loaded statement, intending to appeal to the emotions of the reader. It is coming from the emotional platform, rather than the platform of intelligence or sastra. They next give an example of their statement, quoting a statement Tamal Krishna Maharaja had made, “The [male] visitors felt strengthened by the atmosphere of renunciation, not so easily available in the temples, where there were so many women. Visnujana strictly maintained a principle of not preaching to women. Seeing that I was bent on making new devotees, men or women, he had sagaciously directed, ‘Whenever you make a woman a devotee, you lose one man.’ [Referring to the fact that women had to be married eventually, and there was the possibility that the men would become absorbed in household life and thus be diverted from preaching activities.]“. Saying that “women are now unwelcome” and then quoting a statement by Tamal Krishna Maharaja to support their statement, is a way of indirectly criticizing him.
Quote:
While the standards and expectations regarding women varied from place to place, in general women were not considered for any managerial positions, their counsel was not sought in any decision-making
If Srila Prabhupada wanted women to have managerial positions, leadership positions, such as GBC, diksa-guru, or temple president, then why did Srila Prabhupada not establish it while he was still on this planet? At the time of Srila Prabhupada’s passing away, there was not even a single female GBC, temple president, or guru in the whole movement. Their statement is also against sastra, which says that women are not supposed to have positions of management or leadership. Therefore, their statement is a rejection of sastra.
Quote:
Conditions for women living in the temples became abysmal, and the terms “protection” and “exploitation” seemed practically interchangeable.
A person who is conditioned by a western cultural outlook, one of gender equality, will generally consider the Vedic conception of protection for women to be the same as ”exploitation”. An example of this are some of the secular feminists who write social criticisms of traditional cultures, making statements like “Those poor women in India are forced to cover their heads with a sari. What exploitation!” How is a woman being encouraged to cover her head with a sari to be considered exploitation? When I hear the word “exploitation”, I generally think of someone being violently exploited against their will to engage in some horrendous activity, like a sexual rape. But the modern feminists have redefined terms like “exploitation” to mean something as insignificant as a woman covering her head with a sari. The fallacy of their statement is the vague and perhaps exaggerated definitions they apply to words like exploitation and protection.
Quote:
Women galvanized their efforts and thinking and began to seek support, which they found in the Communications arm of the Society. Discussions ensued, papers were written, and Priti Laksanam, a publication of uncensored presentation, was established by Pranada Dasi.
They are refering to ISKCON Communications. Many in our movement feel that secular liberal western values are being infiltrated into ISKCON through the ISKCON Communications Journal. And, their feelings may not be invalid, as a perusal through some of the issues of the ISKCON Communications Journal reveal that liberal values, such as gender equality, are being directly promoted. An example of this? The very Women’s Presentation that we are refuting appeared in their Journal.
On another note, the same Pranada Dasi that is mentioned in their statement is the same Pranada Dasi that had a sexual affair with Satsvarupa Maharaja, causing him to fall down from his vows and become banned from giving diksa. This is the practical result of gender equality, that falldown rates will highly increase. Still want to follow Pranada dd’s advice and implement gender equality, considering that she caused a sannyasi to fall down?
Quote:
In 1992 a conference was held by ISKCON Communications on the subject of women in ISKCON at the German farm (Nava-jiyada-nrsimha-ksetra), then widely viewed as a bastion of male dominance.
More evidence that modern social theories such as gender equality are being promoted by ISKCON Communications. Notice the usage of terms like “bastion of male dominance”? This is a highly rhetorical statement, aimed at invoking the lower emotions of the reader, rather than sastric intelligence. Since they used the term “widely viewed”, I will also give some of my own experience. In my experience in discussing with various devotees, I can say that it is “widely viewed” that feminism, women militantly pushing for gender equality, is very strong in Germany. They told me that feminism in ISKCON is affecting Germany the worst, more than any other place in ISKCON.
Quote:
In 1995 Harikesa Svami, at that time GBC for Germany, declared that ‘where there is discrimination, it should be abolished.
They use Harikesa Prabhu’s (He is no longer “Swami” as he fell down in 1998) statement to try to justify giving up gender discrimination. Srila Prabhupada did not “abolish discrimination”. Rather, he very clearly instructed that roles for men and women are DIFFERENT. To have no discrimination means to think that everything is one, or in other words, Mayavada philosophy. Srila Prabhupada was the greatest enemy of Mayavada philosophy. Why then are they supporting this kind of Mayavada philosophy, that we should give up all discrimination? Srila Prabhupada gave the humorous example, if you want to give up all discrimination, then why do you discriminate between your mouth and your rear? Why not instead put food into your rear? Therefore, Visakha Mataji’s and Sudharma Mataji’s statement is against sastra and Srila Prabhupada’s whole mood of preaching.
Quote:
Sudharma’s repeated requests for the GBC to examine the situation of women in ISKCON was postponed year after year until, in September 1999, a crisis brought the topic to the forefront. One morning, just before mangala-arati (the first ceremony of the day, at 4:30 a.m.), in ISKCON’s International Krsna-Balarama Temple in Vrndavana, the brahmacaris formed a human chain, linking arm-and-arm, to prevent the women from taking close darsana (view) of the Deities. Some women tried to break through this chain and were physically rebuffed.
This is a highly biased and one-sided account of the incident that took place in Vrindavan. An accurate report coming from the management of the ISKCON Vrindavan temple of that incident is as follows:
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. It had nothing to do with undermining the position of women devotees. The following detailed account should make everything clear. 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. The management committee discussed this issue and resolved that sannyasis and men be allowed to take darshan and offer obeisances to Radha Syamsundar until the passing of the ghee wick lamp. The men would then move towards the Krsna Balaram altar leaving Radha Syamsundar altar free for the women till the end of mangala aratik. This system for darshan was suggested by the ladies themselves. The next morning a clear announcement was made about this decision.
On the day when this arrangement was to begin, I was personally present early in the temple room and was surprised to see that some ladies were already holding tightly to the railings infront of the altar. I requested some of the matajis to please move back and let the men offer their obeisances and after the ghee wick lamp is passed they could come forward. Some of these ladies followed my instructions gracefully but some others like Anada and Parvati flagrantly refused. Parvati started pushing even the innocent and obedient ladies to the front. This created an embarassing sitution for the men who were surrounded by the ladies. The management and other devotees were naturally very upset by this unruly and defiant behavior. As a solution to this problem the management team decided to go back to the system that has been existing since the time of Srila Prabhupada, i.e. the men stand in front and the ladies at the back. So Aindra Prabhu moved his 24 hour kirtan party in front of Radhe Shyam’s altar and many other brahmacaris joined him. Angered that her plan was not successful Parvati started to push around the men on the Krsna Balaram and Gaur Nitai altars. She started elbowing everybody out, pushing them and shoving them. Because she pushed the brahmacaris first, the brahmacaris who were already alarmed by her previous day’s misbehavior pushed back in self defense.
This is what Parvati calls gang rape, hugging, molestation etc. When she got what she was giving to others she started fabricating all kinds of lies and stories such as that women were gang raped, hugged, molested etc. in front of the deities. We have rarely seen a more deceitful and shameless attempt to lie and make up a story. Look at the travesity of justice! Here is the person who acts in the most uncivilized, uncultured and uncooperative manner and she uses the words gang raped, hugged etc. and the whole ISKCON world without asking us starts believing her and passes judgement on us.
Source: http://www.vnn.org/world/WD9912/WD09-5048.html
Quote:
The presentations that follow will lend insight into the struggle of the women of the Krsna consciousness movement - a struggle that has encountered and helped synthesise the apparent contradictions between Eastern and Western lifestyle and culture.
The very basis of their statement is incorrect. This is not about eastern culture versus western culture. This is about Vedic culture versus the mleccha western culture. Srila Prabhupada criticized the demoniac western culture hundreds, if not thousands, of times in his books, lectures, and conversations. Srila Prabhupada also glorified India’s Vedic culture hundreds and thousands of times, saying it was far superior to the western civilization. For them to make the above statement of covert accomadationism with western culture is a blatant rejection of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings.
Now the Women in ISKCON Presentation moves on past the Introduction page, and seven female members of ISKCON begin giving their own individual presentations to the GBC body. We will now start with the first of those presentations, given by Sitali dd in our next post, Part 2 of A Philosophical Refutation of the GBC’s 2000 “Women in ISKCON” Resolution.
