© 1998 VNN
|
EDITORIAL December 28, 1998 VNN2749 Who Is An Authority? BY MAHALAKSMI DASI EDITORIAL, Dec 28 (VNN) — Dear readers, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Sri guru and Gauranga, all glories to Srila Prabhupada. There is a topic of discussion which I have been meditating on for some time, and the recent letter by mata Sita to Padyavali, (which is Sita's response to Mata Padyavali) has brought me to the point of feeling more and more clear on how to discuss what I wish to say. Whose words should be accepted as a basis for conclusive, authoritative, reference? I could begin by saying that of course this is an individual preference. We all know this. We have a choice if we accept this person or that as a teacher, either in the material world or in the purview of spiritual development. In the material world, we often automatically accept that who ever is teaching a class knows what they are talking about, or knows how to guide us. This often is not the case, though it is less important than topics of a spiritual nature. What is true spiritual knowledge? Who is actually qualified to open their mouths and suggest how we should live our lives, qualified to say if we are properly situated, etc.? If we study Bhagavad-gita,and accept the words given by Lord Krsna and explained in-depth by Srila Prabhupada, we will find very clear guidelines who is worthy of our respect as a religious, Krsna conscious representative, worthy of hearing with faith and devotion. I have just looked in the general index, under knowledge, and chose this reference, in the 18th chapter - verse 67. "This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me" (Purport) by A. C. Bhaktivedanta "Persons who have not undergone the austerities of the religious process, who have never attempted devotional service in Krsna consciousness, who have not tended a pure devotee, and especially those who are conscious of Krsna as a historical personality or who are envious of the greatness of Krsna, should not be told this most confidential part of knowledge. It is, however, sometimes found that even demoniac persons who are envious of Krsna, worshiping Krsna in a different way, take to the profession of explaining Bhagavad-gita in a different way to make business, but anyone who desires actually to understand Krsna must avoid such commentaries on Bhagavad-gita. Actually the purpose of Bhagavad-gita is not understandable to those who are sensuous--even if one is not sensuous but is strictly following the disciplines enjoined in the Vedic scripture, if he is not a devotee, he also cannot understand Krsna. Even when one poses himself as a devotee of Krsna, but is not engaged in Krsna conscious activities, he also cannot understand Krsna. There are many persons who envy Krsna because he has explained in Bhagavad-gita that He is the Supreme and that nothing is above him or equal to Him. There are many persons who are envious of Krsna. Such persons should not be told of Bhagavad-gita, for they cannot understand. There is no possibility of faithless persons' understanding Bhagavad-gita and Krsna. Without understanding Krsna from the authority of a pure devotee, one should not try to comment upon Bhagavad-gita. (end of Srila Prabhupada's purport) Well, let's start with the first sentence of Srila Prabhupada's words. "Persons who have not undergone the austerities of the religious process ...should not be told this most confidential part of knowledge" I am not expert in understanding Srila Prabhupada's words, but this says to me that one who has not strictly followed religious principles will not be able to enter into the deeper understandings of what Krsna consciousness, devotional service, is all about. I am not saying this as a judgment, I am simply trying to understand Srila Prabhupada's words. And in regard to women in general, and mother Padyavali specifically, what we must analyze is if the person under scrutiny has "undergone the austerities of the religious process". A woman who has remarried, especially at the advanced age in which mother Padyavali did so, is certainly not taking the path of austerity recommended for women who have married and separated. Is it not fair to conclude that the above purport, where Srila Prabhupada specifically said, "Persons who have not undergone the austerities of the religious process... should not be told this most confidential part of knowledge" are denied access within their heart to understanding the deepest intricacies of devotional service? Is such a person a qualified authority, whose words should carry weight and judgment on others? I personally don't think so. I think that devotees in general should insist that the women whom the temples/GBC's offer as role models BE role models, not simply someone with a loud mouth. I am not lodging a personal attack, nor am I saying that it is impossible for women to progress deeper into the loving exchanges of devotional life if they are remarried; I am simply taking Srila Prabhupada's words as I see them written. I am more than happy to read another person's presentation of what the "austerities of the religious process" might mean to them. Obviously, if a mataji has remarried, and is exceedingly humble, acknowledging that her position is not topmost but is what she feels she must do out of desperation, out of (what I would call) a mental conditioning that she has to be with a man, even if previously married, she can pray to the Lord in her heart, to Srila Prabhupada, or to her own guru if other than Srila Prabhupada, for spiritual enlightenment, and it is up to Them, not me, to say whether or not such a woman will progress. But the general rule is there, given by Srila Prabhupada himself. I have purposely typed out the entire purport, as there are so many accusations of persons giving selective references. I think one thing we can all glean from this purport is that there are a lot of things to consider before we acknowledge someone as a devotee, as one who's opinion we should trust. As mentioned in the above purport, sometimes a person is seen to be following the Vedic regulations, but is not a devotee. It takes very deep analysis to know who is actually, in their heart of hearts, a devotee. My last point, which I have wanted to make a number of times but have not seen the proper setting to say it in, is that a lot of women would like to be seen as authorities, even without the proper qualifications. Srila Prabhupada says that one should be an ideal follower, then he can be a leader. I see a lot that the newer women who have come to the movement in the last ten or fifteen years are jumping up a lot a asking from equal rights, positions, etc. Truly, if a woman is loving and caring, on the spiritual battlefield, I would never argue that she should take the initiative from Krsna in the heart and render the wonderful services suggested by Srila Prabhupada, namely distributing books, lecturing, making devotees, etc. But the suggestion of demanding "spiritual equality" is a sign of ignorance. Because we are already spiritually equal; one who has spiritual vision doesn't consider demanding, publicly, this recognition. The Bhagavad-gita teaches, (5.18) vidya vinaya-sampanne, brahmane vagi hastini, suni caiva svapake ca, panditah sama-darsinah.... The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcast). Does that mean that only men can have vision that we are all spiritually equal? Certainly not. So, if a woman accepts that she is spiritually equal, still it is plain stupid to say that the material bodies are equal. They are not, and never will be. You might find one woman in a million that can be successful as a policewoman, due to whatever karma she has that she might have a masculine physique, but that certainly doesn't mean women in general should think, "Oh, I could be a policewoman." Nor can men ever bear children, which is a difference which makes the biggest concerns over duties, responsibilities, and physical needs. Spiritual equality cannot be legislated, nor is one who has attained the level of realizing his or her spiritual nature, (not simply aham brahmasmi, but also gopi bartur pada kamalayor, dasa dasa anudasa) anxious to proclaim it loudly. Such action destroys all concept of realizing oneself to be lower than the straw in the street. If the GBC makes a resolution that women are to be seen as spiritually equal to men, it automatically suggests that every woman has the same spiritual development as the men have. (It also suggests that the men have the same spiritual development as the women in general) And we know, I presume, that no two devotees have the identical realizations, the same development of their spiritual svarup, their realization of their relationship with Krsna, etc. So, personally, it would indicate to me, that such a ruling is being considered, that there is very little understanding of the principle of vidya vinaya sampanne. (seeing with equal vision the learned and gentle brahmana, the cow, etc.) Because if it is understood, then one doesn't have to stand up and make a law: "WE MUST SEE MEN AND WOMEN AS SPIRITUALLY EQUAL" This is already there in the Bhagavad-gita, why not make the law, "WE MUST ALL READ BHAGAVAD-GITA, AND APPLY IT IN OUR LIVES? I would expect more from my godbrothers, the GBC's, then to be wasting preaching time dwelling on this topic. Doesn't everyone remember when Srila Prabhupada said, "If you think that you are a woman, than you are less intelligent? (I'm not able to look it up, as I don't have a folio, I'm sure someone can find it, though). Perhaps there needs to simply be more "back to basic" understanding of the Bhagavad-gita, then everyone will progress very nicely. (That is, Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad-gita) Your fallen servant, Mahalaksmi Dasi Comment on this Story This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET9812/ET28-2749.html
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
