This is the beginning of my refutation of the second page of the "Women in ISKCON: Presentations to the GBC", starting on Sitali dd's presentation.
Quote:
Many of you may be wondering what this women's presentation is all about. So, before setting the scene, I would like to assure you what this presentation is not about..
*It is not about promoting feminism..
*It is not about disregarding Vedic culture.
Could this be like the thief who cries out "I'm not stealing!"?
Quote:
What it is about is looking at ISKCON's social history, specifically from the female perspective
Why not look at it from the transcendental perspective? Feminists talk so much about giving up all discrimination and distinction, but it is found that they are the ones that are the most concerned with discrimination and distinction. Even better, why not try to look at ISKCON's social history from the perspective of Srila Prabhupada's teachings?
Quote:
There is a tendency in ISKCON today, however, to look on Prabhupada and his teachings as a source of proof-texts for ad-hoc policies and decisions rather than try to understand him and the tradition in which he stood more systematically.
But Srila Prabhupada intended for his instructions and teachings to be used as the policies which guide ISKCON. Was Srila Prabhupada just speaking for his own amusement? No, he was speaking and hoping we would follow his instructions. From the very beginning of her presentation, Sitali dd is taking the dangerous step of trying to separate Srila Prabhupada from tradition. The covert meaning of her statement is that Srila Prabhupada was conditioned by the culture in which he grew up in, and that many of Srila Prabhupada's statements are the result of that cultural conditioning. In other words, she is indirectly saying that Srila Prabhupada is a conditioned soul. That is quite a dangerous policy for someone who is trying to make spiritual advancement, to blasphemy a pure Vaisnava like Srila Prabhupada by saying that he was materially conditioned.
Quote:
In what may seem a paradoxical way, it may be necessary to pay less attention to specific statements that Prabhupada made in order to preserve the vitality of what he stood for.
Now she is directly saying that we should minimize various statements that Srila Prabhupada made. Why would she say such a thing? Is it because her western cultural conditioning is being threatened by certain statements of Srila Prabhupada's, and that it is easier to simply minimize his statements rather than surrender to them. She is actually rejecting Srila Prabhupada's authority by making such a statement.
SECTION MISSING- LARGE SECTION ACCIDENTALLY DELETED
