This is the final part of my refutation, and will be aimed at Urmila dd's "A Response to: Women in ISKCON;
Presentations to the GBC".
Quote:
It was with great satisfaction that I read the introduction and texts of presentations to the GBC from respected Vaisnavis.
Considering that most of those presentations were chock-full of feminist rhetoric, it is rather disappointing to hear that Urmila dd approved of it.
Quote:
However, when I was invited to deliver a scriptural lecture in Mayapur, during the usual morning class, it was in a facility outside of that normally given for the English Bhagavatam class. There is no objection to a woman speaking on the scriptures to devotees and guests on temple property during the official class time, as long as the class is in a separate place.
Why this happened? Because some of the bengali gentlemen who live at that temple might be completely freaked out to see a woman giving a lecture, something that they have probably never before seen in their whole life. Perhaps we should learn to at least respect the local culture, even if we ourselves don't want to follow it, rather than trying to provocatively raise agitation against it at every available opportunity.
Quote:
Clearly the Mayapur administration knows that the spirit of its restrictions is incorrect, but it still enforces them to the letter.
Why? Their "restrictions" are merely based on sastra, that women are not supposed to be leaders, but are supposed to stay at home and take care of their children. By promoting equal rights or feminism, we are rejecting sastra.
Quote:
In Mumbai I encountered the same situation - an invitation to speak on Bhagavad-gita during the morning class, but not in the temple room.
Ditto.
Quote:
Besides the simple fact of inertia - these rules and procedures have existed for a while and we may find it hard to change course
Yes, we should just throw India's Vedic culture in the trash, where it belongs, and we should replace it with our advanced western culture, where women have equal rights and the freedom to go out and get abortions, jobs, and divorces. Beware of people who talk about "change". The very basis of her statement is biased.
Quote:
I read in all the presentations the pull between our external and spiritual duties
A woman's duty to be a mother is not an "external" duty. Why try to make some artificial distinction between "spiritual" and "material" duties? Next thing they will be saying (or some are already so bold enough to say already) is that Srila Prabhupada's teachings are in two parts: the "material" side and the "spiritual" side. Why do they say this? So that they can justify rejecting the parts of Srila Prabhupada's teachings that they don't like, all those "mean and nasty teachings" that women should perform their natural role as mothers and not be independent or be given freedom.
Quote:
The many times that Prabhupada speaks and writes about women's position in society, or the psychological differences between men and women, he is dealing with our external duties.
This is a complete speculation. How is being a mother an "external" duty? People talk like this so that they can subtly justify rejecting parts of Srila Prabhupada's teachings that they consider "external", as if they are so advanced that they are now on the "internal platform" or spiritual platform.
Quote:
To promote a revival of ancient mores of female behaviour is laudable.
Would Urmila dd consider sastric "mores" to be laudable? The reality is, that sastra prescribes what modern feminists may consider "ancient", "backwards", "primitive", etc, and we do not have the freedom to simply accept what we like, and reject what we don't like. Sastra prescribes that women should be in the role of mothers, and this is an eternal principle. This does not change with the inevitable social degradation of society, and why should we as supposed followers of sastra change it? By changing it, we are denying those who actually want to strictly follow sastra and it's regulations. Although the feminists claim to be giving more freedom to people, actually they are taking away people's freedoms, freedoms to live a sane and normal life.
Quote:
First, we do not understand ancient varnasrama. Second, we often practise our already distorted understanding hypocritically. Third, we do not distinguish between external and spiritual duties.
Her first sentence is true. We do not understand varnasrama, and as a result, we are trying to modernize and westernize everything, while rejecting the varnasrama principles that are laid down in sastra. Her second sentence is disturbing. What is her definition of "distorted"? That which goes against modern social norms? And where are our "distorted understandings" coming from? Srila Prabhupada's teachings as the sole source of instruction in ISKCON. Perhaps many of the ideas that Urmila dd doesn't like are actually coming from Srila Prabhupada's teachings? Her third sentence is incorrect, as we already pointed out. Generally when people want to minimize Srila Prabhupada's teachings, they will try to justify that there are two sides to his teachings: "material (or external)" and "spiritual". Thus, we are free to reject what we don't like, calling it "external".
Quote:
Our modern understanding of varnasrama, especially as it relates to a woman's place in it, is often grossly inaccurate.
Where is our "modern understanding" of varnasrama coming from? Srila Prabhupada's books. This statement is a rejection of Srila Prabhupada's authority.
Quote:
For many years ISKCON leaders described women as a fifth class.
Not just ISKCON's leaders, but sastra itself. Bhagavad-gita says that women are equal to sudras and the fallen sons of brahmanas. That's not a very high estimation of women, now is it? But rather than just admit that we do not have faith in sastra, we look for someone else to blame, in this case, ISKCON's leadership.
Quote:
However, the scriptures clearly describe women in all four varnas as having distinct psychological natures befitting their class.
Incorrect. It never says that a woman becomes a brahmana by marrying a brahmana. Rather, women are in themselves their own class. This statement is a minimization of sastra.
Quote:
We think women made little economic contribution in ancient times, whereas in reality they had duties in both their varna and asrama.
And the modern western societies are much better because they allow women to become economically equal to men, with the side result that they have to associate with men other than their husbands. The result is illicit sex, pregnancy, abortion, then divorce, and a destroyed family situation, with the children being the losers, since they are now growing up in a broken home. This is the "benefits" of the modern social policies of equal rights, gender equality.
Quote:
Sometimes ISKCON members equate the culture of a part of modern India with varnasrama, although it is well known that there are many practices there which are a result of British and Muslim influence or just degradation over time. We have to carefully sort out what is and is not Vedic culture.
This is a perceptive and true statement, but just because India's Vedic culture has degraded doesn't mean that we should reject it. Because it is the remanents of the Vedic culture, it is far more valuable than all of the other cultures, including the modern western cultures, combined.
Quote:
We have also applied our misunderstood ideas about women's social place in a hypocritical manner. For example, many temples have forbidden women from various services
So we should disobey the sastric injunction that women should never be given freedom? To throw out the baby with the bathwater is no real solution. What kinds of "various services" is Urmila dd referring to? The "right" to become a diksa-guru, a GBC, a temple president? If so, then why didn't Srila Prabhupada himself establish a woman in those positions? At the time of Srila Prabhupada's passing away, there was not even one female temple president, GBC, or diksa-guru in our whole movement.
Quote:
The fundamental problem of using Prabhupada's good, clear and applicable instructions on the cultural place of women in order to deny women spiritual facility, is not misunderstanding or hypocrisy, but the confusion between external and spiritual duties.
The reason why these feminists are so confused is because they do not simply accept Srila Prabhupada's instructions as they are, without speculation or trying to change them. Many women are now trying to justify that we should reject parts of Srila Prabhupada's teachings in the name of "those parts are material, prabhu". What it actually comes down to is a lack of faith in Srila Prabhupada and in sastra.
Quote:
Prabhupada writes in the purport to Bhagavad-gita 9.30, 'In the conditioned state, sometimes devotional service and the conditional service in relation to the body will parallel one another. But then again, sometimes these activities become opposed to one another.'
And also in the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says that it is better to perform one's own duties imperfectly, than reject them and try to artificially perform another's. Sound like a description of the modern feminist movement?
Quote:
Our spiritual duties of hearing, chanting, remembering, offering prayers, and so on, are fully on the transcendental platform and, while usually in harmony with our external duties, may sometimes appear to conflict with them.
Actually, we are NOT fully on the transcendental platform, and that is why we are sometimes confused. If we are actually on the transcendental platform, then why are we falling down? This is a theory that some feminists use to try to justify equal rights- "we're all equal on the spiritual platform". Well, if we are actually on that spiritual platform, why are we in maya? The reality is that we are not. Also, in reference to her statement "our external duties may sometimes seem to conflict with our spiritual duties", Krishna says that it is better to perform your own duties (in this case, the duties of a mother, which is what sastra prescribes for women. Sastra never prescribes that women become independent or given equal rights) imperfectly than reject those duties and try to perform another's duties artificially. Feminists want to reject their feminine nature and try to imitate the masculine and independent nature of men. This is the problem.
Quote:
And let us also live, simultaneously, the principles of equality of spiritual service that he (Srila Prabhupada) taught us.
But Srila Prabhupada in fact prescribed different roles for men and women. And sastra itself in fact prescribes different roles for men and women. What about the many statements Srila Prabhupada made against "equal rights"? And sastra never prescribes that women be given equal freedom as men. Therefore, Urmila dd's statement is in contradiction to both sastra and Srila Prabhupada's teachings.
