PDA

View Full Version : A.C. Bhakitvendenta Swami prabhupada is misogynistic



Sagefrakrobatik
21 February 2008, 07:37 AM
This is what it says in the 9th canto chapter 9 text 32

"A women is supposed to always be dependent...According to Manu-samhita, she is never independent. Independence for a women means miserable life."

bhargavsai
21 February 2008, 11:22 AM
Ekamevaa Adviteeyam
Eko Devaha Sarva bhootanataratmaa.

Even I am greatly inspired by Vivekananda.

Ganeshprasad
21 February 2008, 03:42 PM
Pranam


I have clearly observed that AC Bhaktivedanta ji has defamed many people and their beliefs to promote his views. And truly he is a very orthodox Brahmin, and similarly his views are very rigid and sometimes wrong in the context of present age. It is not surprising that he has that remark. Because we can expect that from an Orthodox Brahmin. Women were considered as a symbol of purity and respect, by orthodox people, but never a symbol of independence. But in these days it is Women who need to be more focussed as Independent Symbols.

Independence could be very subjective, show me a truly, one very independent person?
Women in my opinion are very powerful but at the same time very
vulnerable.



As to Swami Prabhupada an Orthodox Brahmin ! that could not far from truth, just to make one observation, he gave Brahmin Diksha to his devotees, some perhaps he never met, by way of tape recoder giving them sacred Gayatri.

One can go on and list off unorthodox in his approach but i prefer to look at the positive and that is Hari Naam.

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
21 February 2008, 07:11 PM
This is what it says in the 9th canto chapter 9 text 32

"A women is supposed to always be dependent...According to Manu-samhita, she is never independent. Independence for a women means miserable life."

Dear Sage,

Why malign Swamy Prabhupad when this "wisdom" has come from Manu & is only re-iterated by Swamy Prabhupad ?

We must understand that everything written in a book is not the Truth. Many of the laws given by Manu are not relevant today though they were quite relevant when they were written. Hindus have been prgoressive by nature on these issues. No Hindu refers back to Manu Smriti for "how to behave" in today's world. The vaildity of such "laws" or "statements" in the scriptures is time dependent. I call such contaminations as "Kaal-Dosh" in the books which is prevalent in almost all scriptures in the world & we must identify them to avoid pitfalls.

OM

Baobobtree
21 February 2008, 10:53 PM
"A women is supposed to always be dependent...According to Manu-samhita, she is never independent. Independence for a women means miserable life." Well, though I am aware of Prabhupada being an orthodox follower of Manu Smirti,he was very liberal on issues about women and lower-caste Hindus. In fact he was known to associate with women, despite being a sannyasin. Needless to say, a good look at the story of Chota Haridas, will tell you what most Gaudiya's stance on the issue was.

Fenrisbane
20 August 2008, 04:23 AM
I happen to have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita as it is, and in his commentaries to the verses Prabhupada says something to the effect that women in general aren't very intelligent and in dire need of a man's guidance (I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't point to the specific verse, but that's what he wrote). To me, that is definitely misogyny.


Independence could be very subjective, show me a truly, one very independent person?

That is besides the point. If you single out one particular group (in this case, 50% of the world) and claim them to lack something, you're implicitly calling them inferior to contrasting groups.

Women can be just as headstrong as men.

yajvan
20 August 2008, 11:47 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I happen to have a copy of the Bhagavad Gita as it is, and in his commentaries to the verses Prabhupada says something to the effect that women in general aren't very intelligent and in dire need of a man's guidance... you're implicitly calling them inferior to contrasting groups.

Namaste Fenrisbane

Let me offer this POV.
Various authors look at this great work, Bhāgavad gītā, through their eyes and paramparā. My studies take me to connecting the dots. This wisdom found in the gītā is of the highest truth. Truth (satyam) is found in the āgama-s, tantra-s and saṃhitā-s and satyam is the connection point; there cannot be multiple truths, but there can be multiple views. This is the richness of Sanatana Dharma.

So where do my views stem from? The merging, studying and pondering the following gītā versions:

Śrīla Prabhupāda's work
Abhinavagupta's gītārtha-saṁgraha . After each chapter Śrī Abhinava offers one verse (saṁgraha) at the end of each chapter that encapsulates the main teaching of the chapter.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - Maharishi only translated the first 6 chapters (some see this great work in 3's; 1 to 6, 7-12 and 13 to 18 chapters); yet this work is worthy of study.
Another is by S. Radhakrishnan
Śrī J˝ānadeva, only on this planet for 20 years, his work is most insightful. If you look for it goes by the name Bhāvārṭa Dīpīka, some call J˝āneshwarī ( I am sure you are familiar with this work)
Also Svami Śivanānda's commentary on the gītā brings a new view.
And - there is the offer by Kisari Mohan Ganguli who translates the Mahābhārata, home of the Bhāgavad gītā.It is from studying these that the cross-pollination of ideas, insights and ahhh-ha's in my understanding arise. Perhaps you can add additional insights or ideas from your readings.

So what's my point?
As I see it, multiple views of this wisdom is most helpful for one to have insights into Reality. Śrīla Prabhupāda's work is just one view.


Let me leave you with a quote from the wise Yudhiṣṭhira ( Arjuna's eldest brother):
'...the Srutis are different from one another; there is not even one rishi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod.' - Mahābhārata, Yaksha Praṣna


pranams

Fenrisbane
21 August 2008, 12:46 PM
Yayvan, I was about to translate from my Swedish copy of the Gita, but fortunately Google led me to an English version on the Internet. :)

Source: http://www.asitis.com/1/40.html



Chapter 1. Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra
TEXT 40

adharmabhibhavat krsna
pradusyanti kula-striyah
strisu dustasu varsneya
jayate varna-sankarah

SYNONYMS
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifadharma--irreligion; abhibhavat--having become predominant; krsna--O Krsna; pradusyanti--become polluted; kula-striyah--family ladies; strisu--of the womanhood; dustasu--being so polluted; varsneya--O descendant of Vrsni; jayate--it so becomes; varna-sankarah--unwanted progeny.
TRANSLATION
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifWhen irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny.
PURPORT
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifGood population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varnasrama religion's principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So, the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varnasrama system. On the failure of such varnasrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence.

My boldface.

While I agree that adultery is morally wrong, I disagree with the general tone of the purport and the message Prabhupada conveys between the lines here. So women are unintelligent and untrustworthy creatures, are they? Surely, in this day and age, we have realized that women are fully capable of taking care of themselves and have mental faculties on par with those of men? The response might be that people irrespective of gender behave irresponsibly without any moral foundation, and that might be true. However, that does not justify the way women are singled out by Prabhupada. While he mentions irresponsible men, the way that is presented is more in the form of a footnote than the brisk warning for "unintelligent" women.

The second boldface is what I find to be the worst though. The way he stresses that women be engaged in traditional religious activities and be prohibited from freely mixing with men feels like a codified manual for domestic abuse.

Om shanti.

yajvan
21 August 2008, 02:20 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Fenrisbane,

Yes I see the translation offered. This śloka talks about the fall of dharma. The word dharma some like to call it religion, yet this not at the root of the translation.

It is rooted in dhṛ धृ to uphold, to carry to maintain. This is lost when the family i.e. the kula or the group, a collection, a family falls. This is the crux of this 40th śloka.
Dharma is one of the key roots of Sanātana Dharma╣, so this word is of key importance. If you are considering learning more about Sanātana Dharma, a deep dive in this area would serve you well.


It is in the 41st śloka that suggests that women of the family become corrupt. For Arjuna that is speaking, his observation is on the inter-mixture of castes. His concern is one's dharma is different for different people become co-mingled. This brings adharma or the fall, absence, some say degradation, of dhṛ as mentioned above.

Now to the opinions in the commentary on adultery and other notions. This is owned by Śrīla Prabhupāda and he takes the responsibility for the rhetoric used. I respect your views and taking issue with this POV, yet there is not much I can add or offer. I have opinions on this matter but it will not change what he wrote of his views.

Yet I respect Arjuna's view - his chief concern as he tells Kṛṣṇa is the unfoldment, uplfitment and general welfare of society via the unit of society, the family. And the family (kula) is rooted in mother and father. This is sprinkled throughout the Mahābhārata.

That said, whenever possible I get as many views as I can on books of this weight and end up reading multipe versions. The other versions talk of the 'corruption of women' yet there is not additional comments regarding women in general, as they are seen as Śrī Devī or Lakśmī.

pranams


1. Sanātana Dharma HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1309

sm78
22 August 2008, 07:08 AM
TRANSLATION
When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny

W/o venturing into subsequent elaborations of prabhupada ji, I'll just add that state of women indeed reflect the state of dharma and morality of a family/society.

Sudarshan
23 August 2008, 01:54 AM
Yayvan, I was about to translate from my Swedish copy of the Gita, but fortunately Google led me to an English version on the Internet. :)

Source: http://www.asitis.com/1/40.html



My boldface.

While I agree that adultery is morally wrong, I disagree with the general tone of the purport and the message Prabhupada conveys between the lines here. So women are unintelligent and untrustworthy creatures, are they? Surely, in this day and age, we have realized that women are fully capable of taking care of themselves and have mental faculties on par with those of men? The response might be that people irrespective of gender behave irresponsibly without any moral foundation, and that might be true. However, that does not justify the way women are singled out by Prabhupada. While he mentions irresponsible men, the way that is presented is more in the form of a footnote than the brisk warning for "unintelligent" women.

The second boldface is what I find to be the worst though. The way he stresses that women be engaged in traditional religious activities and be prohibited from freely mixing with men feels like a codified manual for domestic abuse.

Om shanti.

Hello there, it is quite amazing that in this age and world people write things like this. This is nothing but male chauvinism. We can find its roots in all religions and conveniently exploited by the male population.

Though there are many stories in the purANas( and the one in B.Upanishad) that apparently teach such a doctrine, their true purport is very different. purANas are not meant to be read like story books at bedtime.

In all shAstras, a male personality refers to the yogi(ni)/sAdhaka. His consort symbolically refers to either the process of yoga, siddhi or certain positive/negative tendencies of the mind/body.

It is only with this meaning that the male domination is emphasised, as the Yogi always needs to be in control his Yoga or siddhis. So the shAstras say that if your wife does not obey you then you can beat her. It means when your mastery over your practice slips away use force and will power to regain the mastery.

But these stories and other smritis have been frequently used to support a whole range of ungodly ideas such as chauvinism and racism. People all over the world made the same mistake. There are still people who look into their scriptural books to know if abusing the wife is allowed or not! If the scripture allows them they do not think twice!!

Sagefrakrobatik
31 August 2008, 07:30 PM
Is there anything that can be pointed to in scripture that contradicts this? Is there any scripture that is more egalitarian in nature?

bhargavsai
30 September 2008, 06:38 AM
Now, what is the reason for men to want to talk and be with women more and more? The reason is Lust, although it might not seem like that when we are attracted to women, but the real reason(subtle reason) is Lust. The lust for a beautiful face, or great body...

Men is not affected by this lust as much as women is, because it is women who has to bear the pregnancy. In the world of men, women is treated as an object of attraction, lust. The freedom which she possess is physical freedom, but mind is still a slave. I have seen the so called "Free" "High Class" women friends, I know how free they are.

But to say that women should not work, nor mix with men at all is wrong. Because women should be free to do whatever they want to, but they should not adopt the western lifestyle or way of living. Because if you live western lifestyle the morality will be less and women will generally become characterless.

What we need is free, working women, but following Oriental(Indian) culture.

lishanin
01 November 2008, 06:01 PM
Quote: When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny

Who brings the irreligion into the family in the first place?

Is it a man, who is the head of the family?
Do we live in patriarchal society?
Did we live in patriarchal soicety in the past?
Will we in the future?

If As to the last 4 Qs are 'yes' then answer to the first question is 'man'.
Woman becomes corrupt due to the already corrupted activities of the man. Therefore she is not corrupted, she is merely serving a man. She has done so in the past, she is doing so today and will continue in the future.
But in the literatures she will always be presented as the bad one, the nonintelegent, the weak one, end who knows what else. Some even say, that woman is less than a cow. :D

lishanin
29 December 2008, 09:59 AM
10th Kanto SB: Re: discussion between Vasudeva and Kamsa resulted in Vasudeva not believing Kamsa his word. Prabuphada here states: "one who cannot control the senses cannot be steady in his determination."
Prabhupada goes on to say: The great politician, Canakya Pandit, said, "Never put your trust in diplomat or in a woman."

What is the need for this to be input here if text is supposed to describe Vasudevas doubts towards Kamsa? Kamsa is no diplomat and he is no woman.
Could it be Prabhupada's underlying issue with woman?

Then few pages later Prabhupada goes on to say:
For those who are less intelegent (like women, labourers, or the mercantile class) the great sage Vyasadeva wrote Mahabharata.

I he wrote (for those less intelegent the great sage wrote Mahabarata.)
it would suffice. Yet pointing out woman and the rest had to be done.
Begineer in study of psychology would recognise the issue which has not been addressed correctly by the narator on his/her part, therefore not resolved.

This is only at the begining of 10th kanto.
If you read throughout all the kantos you will come accross many such examples which serve no purpose in enlightening one with the truth.
They do give insight into the mind of narator.

Om

santosh
05 January 2009, 07:52 PM
Srila Prabhupada is neither orthodox nor liberal. All of what Srila Prabhupada has explained in the translation and in the purports to Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, are not his personal views. He is simply quoting the scriptures "as they are" and then additional literature such as Manu Smriti and writings by Chanakya pandit.

Srila Prabhupada repeatedly said that when it comes to taking up spirituality and serving Krishna, there is no such thing as women are less intelligent. And again this statement of his is not his personal opinion, but a scriptural fact. Anyone who is sincere can take up spirituality regardless of body type - man/woman, indian/non-indian, brahmin-khsatriya-vaisya-sudra.

Anyone can become devotee of Krishna, no pre-conditions and Srila Prabhupada made that abundently clear because that is unwavering scriptural fact.

Srila Prabhupada gave Brahmin initiation to qualified women (both indian and westeners) which allowed them to serve the Deities on the altar. How many other Gurus have done this? He encouraged all of his disciples, men and women, to study Vaishnav Literatures such as Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.

If Srila Prabhupada had any negative bias about women, then women simply would not have taken initiation from him. Hundreds of women (westeners and indian) accepted him as their Spiritual Master and to this day these lady disciples of him, glorify him and thousands of women are following his teaching today.

Yogkriya
31 January 2009, 11:35 AM
Srila Prabhupada is neither orthodox nor liberal. All of what Srila Prabhupada has explained in the translation and in the purports to Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, are not his personal views. He is simply quoting the scriptures "as they are" and then additional literature such as Manu Smriti and writings by Chanakya pandit.

Srila Prabhupada repeatedly said that when it comes to taking up spirituality and serving Krishna, there is no such thing as women are less intelligent. And again this statement of his is not his personal opinion, but a scriptural fact. Anyone who is sincere can take up spirituality regardless of body type - man/woman, indian/non-indian, brahmin-khsatriya-vaisya-sudra.

Anyone can become devotee of Krishna, no pre-conditions and Srila Prabhupada made that abundently clear because that is unwavering scriptural fact.

Srila Prabhupada gave Brahmin initiation to qualified women (both indian and westeners) which allowed them to serve the Deities on the altar. How many other Gurus have done this? He encouraged all of his disciples, men and women, to study Vaishnav Literatures such as Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam.

If Srila Prabhupada had any negative bias about women, then women simply would not have taken initiation from him. Hundreds of women (westeners and indian) accepted him as their Spiritual Master and to this day these lady disciples of him, glorify him and thousands of women are following his teaching today.

It is true that Prabhupada didn't distinguish between western and Indian devotees. But why is there so much bias for women in Iskcon - an organization started and laid down the foundation of by him?
Women are second category in Iskcon than men. This is true.
Though we love to idealize talking about Vedic times, but women in
Iskcon are not treated even near to what it was in what it is in
those ideals.
Why is a GBC should not be married?? Why were all Vedic sages married, had children carried forward their race? Iskcon Vedic? Why is this Vedic
virtue not followed by Iskcon Gurus?

santosh
03 February 2009, 05:01 PM
Hare Krishna Yogikriya and everybody,

Thank you for your questions.

I don't know how and in which capacity you are associating with ISKCON. I would like to know if you are regular devotee visitor to the ISKCON temples or someone you know has told you about the philosophy of ISKCON.

It is absolutely false that there is any bias in ISKCON against women. I don't know what is the basis of thinking in such as way? Like I posted before, hundreds of women devotees, accepted Srila Prabhupada as their Spiritual Master and to this date, they are all loyal to him. If there existed any bias, these women disciples would have left long time ago.

Srila Prabhupada gave Brahmin initiation to his women disciples so that they can do Deity Worship at the altar. So many of our Temples today and then, have women pujaris dressing the Lord, cooking for the Lord, performing Aarti at the Altar, giving Bhagavatam Classes to general public etc.

Which other Hindu Temples do you know of, have you seen women pujaris at the Altar?

> Why is a GBC should not be married??

Some of our GBCs are Sanyasis, some are married, some have had divorce in their marital life. One of our GBC is a divorced women. She is very qualified and senior devotee.

> Why were all Vedic sages married

There are tens of thousands of examples of saints from vedic history who were not married, most famous amongst them is Sri Narada Muni.

> Why were all Vedic sages married, had children carried forward their race? Iskcon Vedic? Why is this Vedic virtue not followed by Iskcon Gurus?

In ISKCON, Gurus are Sanyasis as well as Grihastha (married).

Also please understand that what is called ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) is Brahma-Madva-Gaudiya sampradaya going back thousands of years. ISKCON is the legal entity name. Anything taught today in ISKCON is stictly along the teachings of previous Acharyas in the Sampradaya.

raghu_001
12 May 2009, 10:51 AM
This is what it says in the 9th canto chapter 9 text 32

"A women is supposed to always be dependent...According to Manu-samhita, she is never independent. Independence for a women means miserable life."

Sage,

"Misogyny" is defined as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny)

Several points:

1) He is stating what Manu-samhita has to say on the subject. One can repeat another person's words without necessarily agreeing with them.

2) But assuming that he agrees with Manu, what exactly about the quote implies hatred for women? Clearly the quote says that women should be dependent, but this does not by the very fact imply hatred. Children are dependent on their parents - if someone says children should not be independent, is he a child abuser?

3) Whether you agree or disagree, Manu's point of view as quoted above is a facet of traditional Hindu culture. There isn't much point in pretending otherwise. Is Hindu culture misogynistic?

ConnieD
12 May 2009, 04:15 PM
My contact with ISKON is in San Francisco and Berkeley.

The leader of the San Francisco Center frequently asked me to sing the slokas (Sanskrit). I found out at the Vedanta Society of Northern California nun's sanskrit lesson I spontaneously sing Sanskrit correctly.

I have absolutely no standing either with ISKON or the Vedanta Society of Northern California, in spite of the fact the swami-in-charge said he would teach me (I didn't ask). The other members of the society said I was "too old" to be a nun. The nuns there, certainly, do not have "equal" standing or respect.

I suppose it mattered not at all, I am a renunciate.

I have had so-called vedic astrologers "characterize" my not having married and having no children as "afflictions".

It is my experience, persons associated with India, with ISKON and with Hinduism can be and are misogynists. That may also be said for Buddhism and for Christianity and for Judaism. I have not had direct contact with any other religious groups.

There would have been very different experiences, in my life, had I been "in community". I have tried every way to get "holy company" of or live as a hermit, and ideally, have some of both.

It seemed to me, at both ISKON and at the Vedanta Society "devotees" were wanted for their labor or to be servants and the rich "devotees" had private lodgings.

My experience of ISKON included: misogynist, dogmatic and bombastic.

I did not meet Srila Prabhupad.

raghu_001
13 May 2009, 12:16 AM
Sage,

"Misogyny" is defined as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny)

Several points:

1) He is stating what Manu-samhita has to say on the subject. One can repeat another person's words without necessarily agreeing with them.

2) But assuming that he agrees with Manu, what exactly about the quote implies hatred for women? Clearly the quote says that women should be dependent, but this does not by the very fact imply hatred. Children are dependent on their parents - if someone says children should not be independent, is he a child abuser?

3) Whether you agree or disagree, Manu's point of view as quoted above is a facet of traditional Hindu culture. There isn't much point in pretending otherwise. Is Hindu culture misogynistic?

Again, the question is, what specifically is "misogynistic" about quoting Manu about the position of women? And what is "misogynistic" about stating the historical facts about gender relations in traditional Hindu culture?

Claiming that men and women were equal in traditional Hindu culture is historically false as a general rule. Spiritually speaking, they may be equal, in the same sense that we are all jivatmans and only have different bodies based on different karmas. But socially, men and women have different constitutions, natures, etc and are even given different duties by dharma-shastras. This is true of all ancient cultures, and not merely Hinduism.

What to speak of equating males and females, you cannot even say that any two individuals are "equal." Being "equal" is not the same thing as having "equal rights." Humanitarian sentiments completely confuse the two.

But at least in Hindu culture, there is recognition of the fact that "maleness" and "femaleness" is an attribute of living in this world rather than a permanent marker of status. This is why you have examples in Hindu scriptures of great female devotees of the Lord whose greatness is not checked by their socially subordinate position - see bhagavata purana 10.23.1-52.

Now here is the real question. Who has the backbone to claim that Hindu culture is misogynistic? If you object to the fact that women had a socially subordinate position in Hindu culture, then you are objecting to an aspect of my culture. If you object to my culture, then any claim of yours to being all-tolerant and all-accepting is clearly a sham. I can logically infer that your objection to my culture is based on bigotry. Who is to say which view is better? Fifty years of the sexual revolution have yet to produce a more enlightened society even by ordinary measures of social progress.

It is one thing to respect all cultures. It is another thing to really live up to that ideal. Are you prepared to respect another culture when you disagree with it? This is what reveals the hypocrites in any crowd of self-appointed social commentators.

ConnieD
13 May 2009, 12:44 PM
Manu?

My ethnicity is a very old culture, and women are highly regarded.

In fact, my mother's side ethnicity is matri-lineal.

My tendency is to think anywhere women are not held in high regard is a degenerate society.

My reading of the time of rishis, women were not second-class and certainly no one murdered their wife by setting them on fire to be free to get another bride-price.

I think you know what I think, then.

I have heard no comment back to me.

raghu_001
13 May 2009, 11:28 PM
Manu?

My ethnicity is a very old culture, and women are highly regarded.

In fact, my mother's side ethnicity is matri-lineal.

My tendency is to think anywhere women are not held in high regard is a degenerate society.

My reading of the time of rishis, women were not second-class and certainly no one murdered their wife by setting them on fire to be free to get another bride-price.

You are confusing two issues. Actually you are confusing more than two issues.

On the issue of how highly regarded women are, there is no question that women were highly regarded in ancient Hindu culture. The same Manu who holds that women should not be "independent" also has this (3.55-57) to say about women:

55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare.
56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.

Now in combination with Manu 9.3 which precludes a woman from having "indepedence:"

3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

... you have a fairly succinct and accurate summary of the ancient Hindu culture's attitude towards women - respected but protected. Will that satisfy the inherently ethnocentric tendencies inherent to militant feminist thinking? Certainly not, nor was this my intention.

All I wanted to do was set the record straight on the traditional Hindu point of view, before it gets washed over by politically-correct revisionist thinking of Hindu "reformers" or the imperialist tendency towards soap-box style pronouncements of self-proclaimed liberal humanists.



I think you know what I think, then.

I have heard no comment back to me.


edit: I used the nicest words that accurately described it. There are not truly nice words for how women I saw are regarded there. And if there is to be chastity, for the purpose of that life these purport, then the words I found to use are precisely appropriate. My notes were meant to be informative, helpful and instructive and you removed them. The fact is, those things need to be said and taught. The removal was dishonest. There was no "inappropriate" language. I had already "saved" the page to the hard drive.

I really have no idea what you are talking about, and perhaps that is just as well. Your attempt to liken bride-burning with traditional Hindu attitudes towards women is disturbing and reeks of sheer ignorance and bigotry.

Whatever your experiences with iskcon were, recognize that iskcon (like many "Hindu" organizations that take root in the West) is not a traditional Hindu organization and the attitudes of its members do not necessarily speak for traditional Hindu culture.

In conclusion, Manu was certainly not in favor of "women's liberation" but he most certainly was in favor of women being respected and protected. This is not misogyny. It is pragmatic. Before one can take issue with Manu's point of view, one should first show how modern post-industrial culture gives women both independence and respect. A culture that judges a woman on the basis of her sex appeal and forces her to adopt licentious standards of behavior in order to be valued in society is hardly in any position to pass judgement on Hindu culture. But as always, this is my opinion, and I welcome rational and intelligent debate on the subject.

ConnieD
14 May 2009, 01:44 PM
Your quotes, here, and your comments, here, are greatly appreciated, because, clearly, this information you have provided needs to be known.

I had my comments edited out, because I could not find a substitute word.

What was edited was ISKON.

However, your condescension is misogynistic.

I have not the slightest interest in "women's lib". You are, sir, a bigot.

Bye, bye. I can find such hypocrisy, anywhere. There is nothing special about here.

..and by the way, No one is burning their brides in any other country in the entire world.

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 08:05 PM
However, your condescension is misogynistic.

I have not the slightest interest in "women's lib". You are, sir, a bigot.


I'm sorry to hear that disagreeing with you constitutes misogyny and bigotry. Strange that you are ready to fling accusations of bigotry, especially since you could not resist getting this last dig off:



..and by the way, No one is burning their brides in any other country in the entire world.

There is certainly violence against women everywhere in the world, and India is no exception to that. But it is unfortunate that when violence against women is perpetrated in India, it is portrayed in a cultural context, as if being Indian or Hindu somehow predisposes one to committing such unspeakable acts.

This is an example of the dehumanizing attitude India critics have towards Indians - critics behave as if Indians are somehow as a culture less compassionate or empathic towards their women. What such people cannot seem to grasp is that these people are considered criminals everywhere.

News flash (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm) - domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women from ages 15 to 44 in the United States. An astounding 3-4 MILLION women are beaten by their spouses/ex-husbands/boyfriends each year in the United States alone. 25-45% of American women who are battered are battered during their pregnancies.

Whether it be burnings or beatings, all domestic violence against women is despicable. People who beat women don't do so because they have particular religious beliefs - they do so because they are sick in the head.

It is utterly disgusting that some individuals specifically point to domestic violence in India as if it were a unique phenomenon.

Bishawjit
15 May 2009, 12:34 AM
Not to mention witch hunt.

Sagefrakrobatik
30 August 2009, 12:16 AM
You are confusing two issues. Actually you are confusing more than two issues.

On the issue of how highly regarded women are, there is no question that women were highly regarded in ancient Hindu culture. The same Manu who holds that women should not be "independent" also has this (3.55-57) to say about women:

55. Women must be honoured and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and brothers-in-law, who desire (their own) welfare.
56. Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.
57. Where the female relations live in grief, the family soon wholly perishes; but that family where they are not unhappy ever prospers.

Now in combination with Manu 9.3 which precludes a woman from having "indepedence:"

3. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

... you have a fairly succinct and accurate summary of the ancient Hindu culture's attitude towards women - respected but protected. Will that satisfy the inherently ethnocentric tendencies inherent to militant feminist thinking? Certainly not, nor was this my intention.

All I wanted to do was set the record straight on the traditional Hindu point of view, before it gets washed over by politically-correct revisionist thinking of Hindu "reformers" or the imperialist tendency towards soap-box style pronouncements of self-proclaimed liberal humanists.



I really have no idea what you are talking about, and perhaps that is just as well. Your attempt to liken bride-burning with traditional Hindu attitudes towards women is disturbing and reeks of sheer ignorance and bigotry.

Whatever your experiences with iskcon were, recognize that iskcon (like many "Hindu" organizations that take root in the West) is not a traditional Hindu organization and the attitudes of its members do not necessarily speak for traditional Hindu culture.

In conclusion, Manu was certainly not in favor of "women's liberation" but he most certainly was in favor of women being respected and protected. This is not misogyny. It is pragmatic. Before one can take issue with Manu's point of view, one should first show how modern post-industrial culture gives women both independence and respect. A culture that judges a woman on the basis of her sex appeal and forces her to adopt licentious standards of behavior in order to be valued in society is hardly in any position to pass judgement on Hindu culture. But as always, this is my opinion, and I welcome rational and intelligent debate on the subject.

First of all I find it to be misogynistic because My mom never got married and she raised both My sister and me while working two jobs at times. To say that my mom most be "miserable" because she didnt have a man in her life--I dont think so.

When I use the word "liberation" it does not neccessarily have to refer to sexuality. Liberation in the sense that woman should be able to choose their colegiate or career paths. They should not be intellectually limited to explore what they want. they should be allowed to explore careers that give them as much fufillment as men get from pusuing their careers. In other words, women shouldnt be limited to the roles of Mothers Daughters and Sisters anymore than men should be limited to Fathers Sons and Brothers.

WomenForKrsna
22 July 2010, 11:59 PM
This is what it says in the 9th canto chapter 9 text 32

"A women is supposed to always be dependent...According to Manu-samhita, she is never independent. Independence for a women means miserable life."

My dear Sagefrakrobatik, the past few years or more has been some fanatics not exaclty within Iskcon, who have been trolling the net, taking Srila Prabhupada's words out of context, and then since they are misogynists, claiming they are but repeating him. In other words, they are putting the fault onto him when they are really bad disciples who do not want to follow, do not want to admit their wrong too. Should you be interested in a more clear understanding of Srila Prabhupada, read this:

http://womeninkrsnaconsciousness.blogspot.com/2010/07/womens-business.html

Should you want to read about those destroying his good reputation, read this one and that's all I put here.
http://womeninkrsnaconsciousness.blogspot.com/2010/07/aparadhi-ghq.html

HKW

Believer
13 August 2010, 02:26 PM
This is a mischievous thread.

To quote something which was true in the ancient times, when women did not work and to twist it as if they were not treated well because of their dependence is totally mischievous. This is an exercise in using a new word (misogynistic) that somebody just learnt, and a deliberate attempt to defame Srila Prabhupad. Surely there are better things in life than to cook up some imaginary charges from statements taken out of context and throw mud at highly realized souls. Shame on you people!

Kumar_Das
13 August 2010, 03:56 PM
Pranam



Independence could be very subjective, show me a truly, one very independent person?
Women in my opinion are very powerful but at the same time very
vulnerable.



As to Swami Prabhupada an Orthodox Brahmin ! that could not far from truth, just to make one observation, he gave Brahmin Diksha to his devotees, some perhaps he never met, by way of tape recoder giving them sacred Gayatri.

One can go on and list off unorthodox in his approach but i prefer to look at the positive and that is Hari Naam.

Jai Shree Krishna

Prabhupad an unorthodox Brahmin?! LOL You've got to be kidding me!

Which orthodox Brahmin will perform upanayana or admit non-Brahmins into guru system?

Have you seen how the Hare Krishna males dress? They have Brahmin hairstyle.

This man was anything but orthodox.

Kumar_Das
13 August 2010, 04:20 PM
Hello there, it is quite amazing that in this age and world people write things like this. This is nothing but male chauvinism. We can find its roots in all religions and conveniently exploited by the male population.

Though there are many stories in the purANas( and the one in B.Upanishad) that apparently teach such a doctrine, their true purport is very different. purANas are not meant to be read like story books at bedtime.

In all shAstras, a male personality refers to the yogi(ni)/sAdhaka. His consort symbolically refers to either the process of yoga, siddhi or certain positive/negative tendencies of the mind/body.


It is only with this meaning that the male domination is emphasised, as the Yogi always needs to be in control his Yoga or siddhis. So the shAstras say that if your wife does not obey you then you can beat her. It means when your mastery over your practice slips away use force and will power to regain the mastery.

But these stories and other smritis have been frequently used to support a whole range of ungodly ideas such as chauvinism and racism. People all over the world made the same mistake. There are still people who look into their scriptural books to know if abusing the wife is allowed or not! If the scripture allows them they do not think twice!!

Very important thing you've stated.

Ganeshprasad
13 August 2010, 04:24 PM
Pranam


Prabhupad an unorthodox Brahmin?! LOL You've got to be kidding me!
This man was anything but orthodox.

Please read my post again, here it is to save you the trouble,

As to Swami Prabhupada an Orthodox Brahmin ! that could not be far from truth,

Jai Shree Krishna

Kumar_Das
13 August 2010, 04:28 PM
Pranam



Please read my post again, here it is to save you the trouble,

As to Swami Prabhupada an Orthodox Brahmin ! that could not be far from truth,

Jai Shree Krishna

I wasn't responding to your post. But because the person you quoted editted their post. It was their quote that I was responding to.

Sorry for the confusion.

matahari
18 November 2010, 05:59 AM
I want you to check out "Preachings of ISKCON " on Silence Of Soul. To view it, please click this link:
http://silenceofsoul.com/index.php?topic=6.0 (http://silenceofsoul.com/index.php?topic=6.0)

hanumansolo
18 November 2010, 09:24 AM
To be honest, I wouldn't introduce anyone to Prabupada's teaching; that'll give them a negative view of Hinduism. He not only says these things about women but uses the word 'rascal' even while referring to spiritual giants like Vivekananda and Ramakrishna and Aurobindo!:mad: He's the Fred Phelps of Hinduism. His followers are no better.

Adhvagat
18 November 2010, 09:37 AM
Hanuman, Prabhupada may be aggressive, but to break into the west like he did he had to be. And I think ISKCON should move away from this, since it's not necessary anymore. ISKCON is afraid to move forward.

What you mention is nothing but a small part of what Prabhupada says.

Some of the quotes on the post before yours are from the scriptures... So the Vedas are misogynistic then?

But then we have Sudarshan's post #11 that already gives a nice explanation.

If you consider such an atrocious act to speak of man in the path of dharma like this I think you shouldn't be name calling Prabhupada considering all he has done.

I'm here because of Prabhupada and because of the philosophy (that amazed me) he and his disciples brought me.

Kumar_Das
18 November 2010, 01:29 PM
Yayvan, I was about to translate from my Swedish copy of the Gita, but fortunately Google led me to an English version on the Internet. :)

Source: http://www.asitis.com/1/40.html

Originally Posted by "The Bhagavad Gita as it is



Chapter 1. Observing the Armies on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra
TEXT 40




adharmabhibhavat krsna
pradusyanti kula-striyah
strisu dustasu varsneya
jayate varna-sankarah
SYNONYMS



http://172.31.254.244/www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifadharma--irreligion; abhibhavat--having become predominant; krsna--O Krsna; pradusyanti--become polluted; kula-striyah--family ladies; strisu--of the womanhood; dustasu--being so polluted; varsneya--O descendant of Vrsni; jayate--it so becomes; varna-sankarah--unwanted progeny.
TRANSLATION






http://172.31.254.244/www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifWhen irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny.
PURPORT



http://172.31.254.244/www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifGood population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The varnasrama religion's principles were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. As children are very prone to be misled, women are similarly very prone to degradation. Therefore, both children and women require protection by the elder members of the family. By being engaged in various religious practices, women will not be misled into adultery. According to Canakya Pandita, women are generally not very intelligent and therefore not trustworthy. So, the different family traditions of religious activities should always engage them, and thus their chastity and devotion will give birth to a good population eligible for participating in the varnasrama system. On the failure of such varnasrama-dharma, naturally the women become free to act and mix with men, and thus adultery is indulged in at the risk of unwanted population. Irresponsible men also provoke adultery in society, and thus unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence.


My boldface.

While I agree that adultery is morally wrong, I disagree with the general tone of the purport and the message Prabhupada conveys between the lines here. So women are unintelligent and untrustworthy creatures, are they? Surely, in this day and age, we have realized that women are fully capable of taking care of themselves and have mental faculties on par with those of men? The response might be that people irrespective of gender behave irresponsibly without any moral foundation, and that might be true. However, that does not justify the way women are singled out by Prabhupada. While he mentions irresponsible men, the way that is presented is more in the form of a footnote than the brisk warning for "unintelligent" women.

The second boldface is what I find to be the worst though. The way he stresses that women be engaged in traditional religious activities and be prohibited from freely mixing with men feels like a codified manual for domestic abuse.

Om shanti.

Muslim: Mashallah! Allah says in the Holy Narook, asking females to lower their gaze and cover themselves up.

Because its proven by science that women generally are more affected by religion in being decent.

Me: lol

---

As for the verse you quoted



Chapter 1 Verse 40

When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krsna, the women of the family become corrupt, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrsni, comes unwanted progeny.

Do you think the Supreme Being, who created the entire universe is particularly interested in women covering themselves up and acting proper?

The verses in the Bhagavad Gita here is Arjuna speaking to Krishna. Not Krishna(the Supreme Being) telling Arjuna. Unlike the silly deity of the Quran.

The Supreme Being is well aware of the nature of humans.


2. Men seek sex more avidly.

"Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and after many years of it," Baumeister concludes after reviewing several surveys of men and women. This isn't just true of heterosexuals, he reports: gay men also have higher frequency of sex than lesbians at all stages of the relationship. Men also say they want more sex partners in their lifetime, and are more interested in casual sex.
Men are more likely to seek sex even when it is frowned upon or even outlawed:

About two-thirds say they masturbate, even though about half also say they feel guilty about it, Laumann says. By contrast, about 40% of women say they masturbate, and the frequency of masturbation (http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guide) is smaller among women.
Prostitution is still mostly a phenomenon of men seeking sex with women, rather than the other way around.
Nuns do a better job of fulfilling their vows of chastity than priests. Baumeister cites a survey of several hundred clergy by Sheila Murphy in which 62% of priests admitted to sexual activity, compared to 49% of nuns. The men reported more partners on average than the women.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare



4. Women's sex drives are more influenced by social and cultural factors.

In his review, Baumeister found studies showing many ways in which women's sexual attitudes, practices and desires were more influenced by their environment than men:

Women's attitudes towards (and willingness to perform) various sexual practices are more likely than men's to change over time.
Women who regularly attend church are less likely to have permissive attitudes about sex. Men do not show this connection between church attendance and sex attitudes.
Women are more influenced by the attitudes of their peer group in their decisions about sex.
Women with higher education levels were more likely to have performed a wider variety of sexual practices (such as oral sex); education made less of a difference with men.
Women were more likely than men to show inconsistency between their expressed values about sexual activities such as premarital sex and their actual behavior.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare?page=2

In the Quran, Allah makes it clear that Christian concept of God (Trinity) is sheer heresy and therefore sin(shirk). It whines about this and insists on its absurdity. Muslims don't consider Christianity to be Monotheistic because of Jesus being the Son of God.

Quran 19:88-93
They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!".Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!.At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.

lol

Also Allah apparently sees religion as only something that it approves of and is all about itself accurately.

In the verse quoted from Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna draws a correlation between religiousity(not theology/whether "right God" or false multiple Gods etc) and sexuality of females.

This(verse quoted from the Bhagavad Gita) is exactly the sort of thing I'd expect the Supreme Being would know of and His scriptures would give information about.:)

regarding that verse


It singles females out in particular, it deliberately leaves males out
the usage of the terms are precise
the whole verse strings accordingly in specific sequenceirreligious, prominence, "women of the family", corruption, degradation(of womanhood), progeny

very neutral, yet highly sophisticated

when you single this verse out and analyze this on its own its backed up by scientific experiments

its prestigious, enlightening, has knowledge about everything (f.e religion and human behaviour)

a holy scripture may be strong in the way it exerts itself like Quran for example, but if in terms of its quality its lacking then whats the point?

more important than the tone of speech is its content

some people require a harsh tone to listen, others who are interested genuinely only for knowledge care for, thoroughly absorb and reflect on the content alone

anthropomorphism isn't just based upon imagery but also in terms of the speech. whats the point of having a non-incarnation, imageless "God" when its holy book sounds like an angry and upset man and that too from an ancient era?

Jai Hind! Jai Bharat!

Believer
18 November 2010, 06:08 PM
Please refer to item #10 in the following post,

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6417

Harjas Kaur
18 November 2010, 10:55 PM
We should be fair to the context of Srila Prabhupada's teachings and not interpret from shallow criticisms. Any culture which degenerates to such point where even girl-children imitate low-morality as some form of liberty is the greatest disrespecter of women. We sometimes forget restraint and modesty are something to empower and respect. Srila Prabhupada brought the kind of liberation that greatest gift and role of a woman is to be a chaste wife and mother and supporter of the spiritual practices of the entire community. It is the world which disrespects the natural role and glory of woman, not Srila Prabhupada.

Women are the paradigm of a nation's downfall just as holy women are the foundation of a nation's elevation. When men and women treat each other as brothers and sisters it promotes only harmony and this is the actual teaching of Srila Prabhupada. But as Believerji pointed out, sometimes people are too busy doing sant nindya and sampraday bashing and exposing their own anti-Hindu biases.

A study which shows priests and nuns have over 50% failure to keep vows of celibacy is no example of anything. BOTH should hang their heads equally in shame. What a joke that western female "celibates" fail "slightly" less and are therefore held out to be example of "higher" morality.

http://www.elainemayesphoto.com/haight13.jpg
One should understand the youth culture Srila Prabhupada found. It was utterly without guidance, all social restraint had broken down. Drugs, especially LSD were commonly used. How can anyone say He hated women when He encouraged bramacharya and proper marriage; promoted spirituality oriented child-raising and tried to lift entire families out of degrading circumstances of group sex, prostitution, drug culture and so forth. The truth is Srila Prabhupada loved the young people and made them His own children. Srila Prabhupada gave them His own rich heritage of braminical culture which He loved so much.

http://www.krishna.org/images/Preaching/Hollywood_2.jpg http://www.krishnasd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/3-400x267.jpg

kahanam
23 November 2010, 12:45 PM
In Kali Yuga when the youth are being driven by gross materialism, commercialism etc. Bhakthivedanta Swami had given his followers Harinama Sangeerthanam, which should redeem them and make them better. That he calls other Hindu sects and leaders names, just shows that he never was able to overcome Maya!:) :) :)

atmarama108
24 November 2010, 01:22 AM
We should be fair to the context of Srila Prabhupada's teachings and not interpret from shallow criticisms. Any culture which degenerates to such point where even girl-children imitate low-morality as some form of liberty is the greatest disrespecter of women. We sometimes forget restraint and modesty are something to empower and respect. Srila Prabhupada brought the kind of liberation that greatest gift and role of a woman is to be a chaste wife and mother and supporter of the spiritual practices of the entire community. It is the world which disrespects the natural role and glory of woman, not Srila Prabhupada.

Women are the paradigm of a nation's downfall just as holy women are the foundation of a nation's elevation. When men and women treat each other as brothers and sisters it promotes only harmony and this is the actual teaching of Srila Prabhupada. But as Believerji pointed out, sometimes people are too busy doing sant nindya and sampraday bashing and exposing their own anti-Hindu biases.

A study which shows priests and nuns have over 50% failure to keep vows of celibacy is no example of anything. BOTH should hang their heads equally in shame. What a joke that western female "celibates" fail "slightly" less and are therefore held out to be example of "higher" morality.

http://www.elainemayesphoto.com/haight13.jpg
One should understand the youth culture Srila Prabhupada found. It was utterly without guidance, all social restraint had broken down. Drugs, especially LSD were commonly used. How can anyone say He hated women when He encouraged bramacharya and proper marriage; promoted spirituality oriented child-raising and tried to lift entire families out of degrading circumstances of group sex, prostitution, drug culture and so forth. The truth is Srila Prabhupada loved the young people and made them His own children. Srila Prabhupada gave them His own rich heritage of braminical culture which He loved so much.

http://www.krishna.org/images/Preaching/Hollywood_2.jpg http://www.krishnasd.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/3-400x267.jpg

Thank you! Spot on!

Adhvagat
25 January 2011, 04:52 PM
Hello I'd like to bring this thread back and ask some questions and present some points that really instigate me:

1) How should we be viewing the issue of men and women in modern society? Is it possible to transport or adapt any teachings from vedic times and vedic scriptures?

2) Why is sexual liberation viewed as the ultimate form of freedom? It seems to me that is born out of women's frustration over the years, being cheated and abused by ruthless men in several societies... Perhaps it's just a natural antithesis happening on the minds of soul being born as women? What else could it be?

3) I agree with the point that man and woman ARE NOT equal, and I view that as something natural. Both have enormous differences physiologically and psychologically and play different roles in our society, for example, woman is the mother, a child can't biologically be born without a woman and I think it's a great problem for a child to stay without a mother, specially in the early years. However, the modern condition of our society puts man and woman both in the same context, both need to work, earn money? Carl Gustav Jung used to say that women still haven't figured out how to go to work as women, so they acted like men in the workplace.

4) I think that people who have the most problem accepting what the Vedas tell about women are still very attached to temporary conceptions, men and women are temporary status in this world.

5) In the western society, in the circles of promiscuity (bar, night clubs, etc), it usually is the men who approach the women, there's even taboo about women approaching men. Even in the so called free society women still comply to something they would call sexism in another situation? Why so much contradiction? So, would it be fair to assume that in this particular case, elevation of men's conscience would equate in the decline of such places and promiscuous women? I know it sounds weird, but it's just some hypothesis.

6) It seems to me that these flawed concepts are born in a society in which sex is the ONE AND ONLY provider of pleasure. And while the illusion of freedom is sold to clueless men and women, they are more enslaved than people who follow the rules and regulations they dread and call backwards and mysoginistic.

Quark23
02 August 2011, 02:31 AM
To be honest, I wouldn't introduce anyone to Prabupada's teaching; that'll give them a negative view of Hinduism. He not only says these things about women but uses the word 'rascal' even while referring to spiritual giants like Vivekananda and Ramakrishna and Aurobindo!:mad: He's the Fred Phelps of Hinduism. His followers are no better.

Interesting comparison, although I am unsure that it is really that simple - Prabhupada was a man in a specific time period.

I have problems with his seemingly misogynistic remarks however its a very up and down thing - on one hand in the first chapter of the Gita he makes a negative statement regards the intelligence of women but I have also heard that he thought all women should attain higher education and PHD's if possible?

It actually makes the whole process of coming to a true judgment / understanding on him very difficult.

I have to say though - when I was attending temple here in Australia I met some very closed minded senior devotee's who expressed a low view of women and thought they should be in the home, doing homely duties.

I always had a problem with this.