Quote:
Are Prabhupada's female followers changing these clear guidelines?
Yes. They are deviating from Srila Prabhupada's teachings and preaching apasiddhanta.
Quote:
The women who today are examining the mood and restrictions that some male members of ISKCON have imposed or would impose on them, are doing so on the strength of Prabhupada's teachings and personal example.
The "male members of ISKCON" that these feminists blame for "repressing" their desires for independence are doing nothing more than following Srila Prabhupada's instructions for the roles of women. The women who are striving for gender equality are rejecting Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
Quote:
Whatever contradictions we may find in his teachings and example are only apparent. Closer examination and realisation will reveal that Prabhupada's legacy is harmonious in all its aspects, including the role of women. It is only in the mature reconciliation of apparent contradictions that Srila Prabhupada's priceless legacy will be left balanced and complete for future generations of his followers.
That these women find "apparent contradictions" in Srila Prabhupada's teachings is proof that they are on the material platform. If we view Srila Prabhupada's teachings from the transcendental platform, then there are no contradictions whatsoever. That these feminists find contradictions in Srila Prabhupada's teachings is proof that they do not understand Srila Prabhupada's mood, because one who actually understands Srila Prabhupada's mood will not find any contradictions in his teachings.
Quote:
Apparent contradictions repeatedly originate from statements concerning the principles of bhakti-yoga on one side and varnasrama on the other.
What they are saying here is that one side of Srila Prabhupada's teachings are spiritual, those dealing with pure Krishna consciousness, and that the other side of his teachings are material, those dealing with varnasrama and Vedic culture. This gives them the justification to minimize and even reject what they consider to be the "material side" of Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Actually they are rejecting Srila Prabhupada by doing this. Every word that comes out of Srila Prabhupada's mouth is transcendental and absolute. That they reject certain parts of Srila Prabhupada's teachings that goes against their western cultural conditioning means that they have rejected Srila Prabhupada's absolute authority. They are trying to relativize Srila Prabhupada, and that is extremely offensive. Sri Guru is absolute, not relative.
Quote:
Here, Prabhupada first explains the traditional, home-centred role for women in the varnasrama system, and then explains how a female leader can best remain in power - through her development in bhakti-yoga.
First off, this statement is totally incorrect. Srila Prabhupada never taught that a woman should be a leader or a manager. At the time of Srila Prabhupada's passing away, there was not even one female GBC, temple president, or guru. Therefore if Srila Prabhupada wanted women to be leaders, why didn't he establish it while he was still on this planet? Visakha dd's statement is completely incorrect. Actually, Srila Prabhupada taught that a woman's role is to be a mother, not a leader or a guru. Therefore her statement is in direct contradiction with Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
Quote:
So, as conservative as one may consider Prabhupada's stance regarding women in the varnasrama system, one will find Prabhupada's stance equally liberal regarding women in bhakti-yoga.
Once again, Visakha dd is trying to minimize one side of Srila Prabhupada's teachings as "material", in an attempt to justify a speculative and deviant theory of gender equality. This is a rejection of Srila Prabhupada's absolute authority.
Quote:
So, as conservative as one may consider Prabhupada's stance regarding women in the varnasrama system, one will find Prabhupada's stance equally liberal regarding women in bhakti-yoga.
Once again, Visakha dd is trying to minimize one side of Srila Prabhupada's teachings as "material", in an attempt to justify a speculative and deviant theory of gender equality. This is a rejection of Srila Prabhupada's absolute authority.
Quote:
If we are presently forbidding certain services to qualified Vaisnavis, we may be quickly gliding towards the caste system, the convoluted and stultifying misapplication of Lord Krsna's divine social arrangement - daiva-varnasrama.
What "certain services" is she referring to? To become a guru, a sannyasini, a GBC? Why didn't Srila Prabhupada establish even one woman as any of those if he wanted women to become them? Visakha dd mentions daivi-varnasrama, but she quite clearly has many misconceptions about what daivi-varnasrama really is. In the daivi varnasrama system in Goloka, women are not acting as gurus and sannyasinis. No, they are staying at home and performing the duties of a mother, duties that Visakha dd is rejecting by saying that women should go out and become leaders rather than staying at home. Visakha dd's statement is in defiance of sastra and in defiance of the very culture that Krishna Himself follows.
Quote:
By not protecting the right of a woman to serve according to her capacities and by squeezing her into a box that all women are obliged to fit in, we follow this direction by default, unless we take definite steps to change. The rigid society that refuses to accept individual proclivities - whether in women or in men - harms itself and those it suppresses.
This is a completely nonsense arguement, something that sounds like it came right out of a secular liberal humanist's handbook. Visakha dd is directly rejecting sastra by making this statement, calling it a "box women are forced into". Sastra states that women are never to be given freedom, and that a woman's duties are to stay at home and take care of children, cook, and clean. Visakha dd wants to reject this and change it, saying that "an individual's proclivities should not be suppressed". Regardless of what her speculations are, sastra does not "changes with the times", and failure to follow sastra is the individual's fault, not the fault of the system. Just face it! If you can't conform to sastra, better that you be honest enough to simply leave this movement. Better to be an honest atheist, than a cheater in the garb of a theist.
Quote:
Similarly, discriminatory attitudes towards women have created, and will continue to create, havoc in ISKCON.
But sastra DOES discriminate a woman's roles as being different from that of men's. Visakha dd does not have enough faith in sastra to simply accept and surrender to it, and she tries to blame everyone else for her lack of faith, as we will see in her following statement.
Quote:
Prabhupada's ladies request the gentlemen in his Society not to see them in terms of their birth. Please do not offer us sexism in the name of Krsna consciousness.
This is the typical arrogant "anti-male chauvanists" attitude you will find in a feminist. By making such a statement, Visakha dd is revealing her real position as a feminist. This statement is a completely loaded statement. Does Visakha dd consider the many statements Srila Prabhupada made against feminism to be sexist? If you don't want to follow Srila Prabhupada's teachings, better that you leave this movement and go join some other movement, such as the secular feminist movement, rather than stay and contaminate everyone else with your faithlessness. Regardless of Visakha dd's speculations, Krishna's Vedic culture is indeed "sexist"- it prescribes different duties for men and women. If you don't like this, then fine- you don't have to go back to Godhead, you can stay in thjis material world and follow your demoniac feminist culture.
Quote:
Srila Prabhupada offered qualified women, like qualified men, services commensurate with their abilities, and part of these women's qualifications was that they were protected, dependent, faithful and chaste.
Not just "part", but all. Why does Visakha dd prefer only "parts", rather than accepting the complete package, as it is? Sastra says that a woman is supposed to be fully dependent on men, not partially. Her statement is a rejection of sastra.
Quote:
Women who are encouraged rather than suppressed
Does Visakha dd consider the traditional Vedic role of women that is given by both Srila Prabhupada and sastra to be "suppression"? Most likely. Her statement is a rejection of sastra.
Quote:
As far as is practical, women and men should remain separate and make gradual advancement in Krsna consciousness.
Even Visakha dd admits that to make spiritual advancement, men and women must not associate together. Unfortunately, she is not intelligent enough to understand that by promoting gender equality, she is also promoting free mixing of men and women, which will make spiritual advancement impossible. After all, since "we are all equal", then there is no need to separate the two sexes.
Quote:
Julius Lipner, a British scholar of Hindu studies at Cambridge University, writes: 'ISKCON needs all the help it can get in the years ahead. Unless it succeeds in convincing the female devotees that they have an equally important role to play - not only physically, but also intellectually and spiritually if they so desire - an immense resource will be wasted; more important, ISKCON's prospects for the future will be seriously undermined. It seems to me ... that the role of women must be reconstructed in ISKCON.' (Lipner, p. 24)
Who cares what mundane scholars say? Their statements are by nature incorrect, since they are treating religion as an empiric subject, rather than a process of surrender. Mundane scholars simply lick the outside of the jar of honey. To form your opinions based on what scholars think is suicidal spiritually. Mundane academic scholars are also generally rooted in the humanistic sciences, of which modern feminism is simply an outshoot. So it is no wonder where Visakha dd gets her ideas from. Not from Srila Prabhupada's teachings, but from the speculations of demoniac and atheistic mundane academic scholars.
Next we will move on to the next mataji's presentation, by Kusa dd.
Quote:
These past few days I have relished participating in the application of vaisnava-siddhanta to management.
Actually, you are contaminating the management with apasiddhanta. Srila Prabhupada spoke so much against gender equality, equal rights, and yet Kusa dd and the rest of the women are following such apasiddhanta.
Quote:
Burke Rochford's report, submitted to the GBC last year, states: 'I recommend that ISKCON leaders immediately move to restore the rights and responsibilities afforded women by Srila Prabhupada. Men should be educated accordingly. Guru and non-guru leaders should teach respect for women; women should again be viewed as capable devotees in the service of Prabhupada's movement rather than as temptresses or other such derogatory characterisations. To do so would immediately increase the self-esteem of women and make them more productive members of ISKCON. This will also make the movement more attractive to potential members who view ISKCON's position on women as antiquated and morally objectionable.'
Once again, who cares what mundane academic scholars think! If you follow such demons, you will go to hell, and unfortunately, these less intelligent women have been tricked by these atheistic scholars into following their ideas, and as a result, they have deviated from Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Also, Burke Rochford is not a spiritual authority. He never really surrendered to Srila Prabhupada, and took initiation from him, but rather remained distant, viewing ISKCON merely from an empirical or anthropological angle. He is simply an atheist.
Quote:
Calling women temptresses and using other such derogatory characterisations
Where has this taken place? This is her own paranoid speculations, and she is very haughtily speaking such things in front of the GBC body, as if she is accusing them of doing such things.
Quote:
So, why do we sometimes utilise denigrating speech in relation to women? Perhaps it is because when a man is improperly trained, rather than taking responsibility for his own sex desire, he blames women and thus speaks harshly about them and to them.
Perhaps Kusa dd has not read much of the Bhagavatam? It is not just the "dirty evil misogynist men of ISKCON" that use derogatory language in describing women. SASTRA does. Sastra says that women are the personification of maya, and a trap for men. But rather than being honest enough to admit that she is criticizing sastra, she merely places the blame on a few imperfect men in ISKCON. Her statement is rooted in faithlessness and athiesm.
Quote:
Gender-biased speech wounds our Society; spoken from the vyasasana, it strikes a thorn in our hearts.
What about Srila Prabhupada's quotes about women? Does Kusa dd consider them to be "gender biased"? Look, it is better to simply be honest enough to admit that you do not have faith in either sastra or in Srila Prabhupada. Why spread your misconceptions and contaminations to others?
Quote:
The Bhagavatam's wisdom is not gender-exclusive. A small adjustment in the speaker's elaboration of a sloka could make the instruction applicable to the whole audience.
Now Kusa dd goes so far as to dare to say that we should make changes to the Bhagavatam. This is the inherit problem of feminists. They have no respect or faith for sastra, and therefore they feel no guilt about wanting to change it. As we recently saw this year, due to feminist's outcries, the GBC attempted to change and add footnotes and annotations to Srila Prabhupada's purports that they don't like, those dealing with women. Why not be honest enough to admit that you have no faith, rather than try to destroy Srila Prabhupada's movement? The Bhagavatam is completely perfect, every single syllabal. To dare to change even a syllabal of the Bhagavatam is outright blasphemous. Such demons should be rejected from the society of devotees.
Quote:
A brahmacari who has been properly trained honours rather than denigrates women.
What about women who do not properly respect brahmacaris? Sometimes a brahmacari may be naturally repulsed by certain women who have no respect for brahmacaris, or celibacy. This is another big part of feminism, that feminists have no respect for celibacy and in fact, hold celibates in contempt. Why do they do this? Because to be celibate is like a slap in the face for them, that "Yes, I am celibate and thus not under your control". This very much agitates their false egos, and this is why liberal women generally hate brahmacaris and sannyasis.
Quotes:
Such a secure renunciate is not threatened by a woman's power; on the contrary, he evokes it.
Yes, he encourages a woman to develop her motherly powers, not her "powers" to become an independent woman. He never encourages women to become leaders, because that would be a rejection of sastra. On another point- Kusa dd is supposed to be speaking about women's roles. Why then is she speaking about brahmacaris and sannyasis? And what right does she have to give instruction to brahmacaris and sannyasis? How arrogant is this woman? We have all heard of "woman hating brahmacaris". Kusa dd is a perfect example of a "brahmacari hating woman".
Quote:
The feminine qualities of nurturing and compassion perish when pitted against the masculine lust for power.
This is actually a very good statement. When a feministic woman develops the lust for power and independence, generally her motherly qualities diminish, and she becomes very cold-hearted and harsh. This can be seen in the lives of feminists. They have very little motherly qualities, because they are trying to imitate men, rather than stick to the duties that are prescribed by sastra for women. This is the disease of the feminists.
Quote:
It is time to bravely and without sensuality affirm the feminine
What new age rubbish handbook did she get this statement out of? This sounds like something you would hear a new-ager say. These feminists dare to say that they are on the spiritual platform, where everyone is equal, and yet they are constantly talking about masculine, feminine, male and female, etc. In other words, instead of promoting gender equality, they are actually promoting gender discrimination to the extreme. Unfortunately, they cannot see their own hypocrisy due to the blindness caused by rejecting sastra.
Quote:
We may also note with caution that Krsna conscious feminine power can create havoc in the lives of those who don't respect Vaisnavis: the unscrupulous Kauravas perished due to dishonouring Draupadi.
Kusa dd is so humble that she is daring to even indirectly compare herself with ideal CHASTE and submissive Vedic ladies like Draupadi. Guess what? Draupadi never went into an assembly of men and demanded equal rights, like Kusa dd is doing. Feminine power comes from being a mother, not from being an independent prostitute.
Quote:
Respecting a woman as an agent of Laksmi will do much to encourage her most precious devotion to the Lord.
But what about women who do not respect men? What about women who do not respect sastra? What about women who do not respect guru? Do these kinds of women deserve respect? First they must actually follow sastra and guru, and then they can receive respect. If they instead act like unchaste feminists, then they will naturally attract disrespect, because an independent woman is very unrespectable, but a chaste woman is naturally respectable. Become a chaste woman and you will earn respect naturally, rather than having to demand it.
Next we move on to the next mataji's presentation, that of Saudamani dd's.
Quote:
There was a rumour going around that we ladies were in Mayapura to present some feminist agenda. The idea was that, under the influence of the modern women's rights movement or the theology which denies the hierarchical nature of existence, we would plead with the GBC to change the philosophy or adjust Srila Prabhupada's teachings in order to fit in with the times.
Like the thief that cries "I am not stealing". Actually, that is exactly what they are doing.
Quote:
The difficulty is not in defending or explaining the philosophy, but rather in trying to defend or explain our behaviour and, even more so, trying to defend our policies, unofficial and official.
Yes, rather than depending on sastra, they are depending on their own mental speculations and their own western cultural conditioning, of which gender equality or feminism is a big part of. Saudamani here says "our policies". Why not follow sastra's policies, and Srila Prabhupada's policies? Why reject them by trying to advocate your own mundane policies which are based on the secular feminist movement.
Quote:
There is speculation that Srila Prabhupada dealt with the ladies very liberally in the early days because he was very kind and could see that they weren't up to a very high standard; that the early examples of what Srila Prabhupada did or said are irrelevant to his actual desire.
Actually, it is Saudamani's speculations that that WASN'T what Srila Prabhupada was doing. Srila Prabhupada wrote in the Caitanya Caritamrta that in the West, the men and women are not used to being separated from one another, and therefore he was making an adjustment or a compromise with them in order to spread Krishna consciousness. He then glories the Vedic culture, in hopes that his fallen western disciples would one day live up to that standard, or at least have a desire to follow it. Unfortunately, as we can see from these women's presentations, they have not even developed the desire to follow that standard. Rather, they reject Srila Prabhupada's statements that they don't agree with. Why not just be honest enough to admit that you do not have full faith in Srila Prabhupada's absolute authority?
Quote:
Rupanuga's wife, Kalindi, told me that Srila Prabhupada was amazed to see that we (women) drove cars.
Yes, Srila Prabhupada was amazed in disgust to see women doing such an unfeminine thing like driving a car. Srila Prabhupada was very disgusted by a lot of the habits that his fallen western mleccha disciples were addicted to. He knew that he could not change them immediately, but he certainly intended for them to come up to a higher standard once they were a little advanced. Have they made that advancement? Clearly not, or otherwise why would they be preaching about feminism and equal rights, in clear rejection of Srila Prabhupada's teachings?
Quote:
The early instructions and examples establishing principles and strategies for spreading Krsna consciousness all over the world are extremely important
Once again, the feminists are trying to stress the 1966 standards over the later standards, when Srila Prabhupada had developed the movement more. This is a rejection of everything Srila Prabhupada established after 1966. It might be a slightly more rational idea to follow instead the 1977 standards, and not only that, but strive to INCREASE them, not water them down.
Quote:
It is my contention that we should not portray Srila Prabhupada's early personal mood, his preaching strategy, example and instructions as some sort of compromise to necessity
But that is exactly what Srila Prabhupada was doing. He knew that he could not change these hippie mlecchas immediately. To reject Srila Prabhupada's latter standards is an outright rejection of his teachings. The problem these women are having is that they are not fully surrendered to Srila Prabhupada, and they feel that they can pick and choose which instructions they want to follow, while rejecting the ones that they don't like.
Quote:
His (Srila Prabhupada's) faith was that the holy name would purify us so that we would eventually follow his instructions and example
But are you following his instructions? No, you are rejecting them and minimizing those instructions that you happen to disagree with. Therefore has the Holy Name actually purified you? It is perhaps because of a lack of surrender of your part towards Srila Prabhupada and sastra?
