Personally I would bypass any debate on the issue of women and religions if the “essence of revelation” where a set reality in my daily life despite the other reality, i.e. the mistreatment I am subjected to by default, by just being. But it has been revealed (if you will) to me that the two realities are in fact interdependent. The essence of revelation depends as much on our attitude to it as we depend on its revelation to proceed successfully. Yes we are the subjects and bhakti is independent. But we do have a degree of freedom – its precisely where we are humans. Neglecting this world in any degree reflects proportionally in how the other world reveals Itself to us. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is simultaneously perfected already and perpetually in a state of adaptation. Bhaktivinod Thakur indicates that much in his progressive writings. We resort to grace, not jana. The Bhagavata simply reciprocates accordingly. And so it is that our religion is as living as it is pure. If no thing is accidental, then I believe we have yet one more purport to extract from our acarya’s name, Abhay, and it is that no fear at this point is a good motto to go by.

This is especially seen in the way certain devotees approach the issue of “women and religion”. They confuse religious externals (social customs, etc.) to be the essence of the tradition and in the name of following the Goswamis/Srila Prabhupada/etc. treat women devotees in ways that, I am sure, would not please these great souls.

Studying GV texts can be a tricky thing. Especially when one reviews the parts dealing with social customs and does so without good guidance. Thus we need two bhagavatas, the book and the person. We need someone (sri guru) to harmonize the things that appear to clash with our modern values.

According to the book Hindu Encounter with Modernity, Bhaktivinoda says in the introduction to Sri Krsna-samhita:

I felt torn between tradition and modernity, between faith and reasoning. It was impossible to relinquish my rational mind and put faith in a religious tradition that was not always logical. Simultaneously I sensed the genuine nature and sweetness of the tradition. My solution was to compartmentalize the two, hoping to one day find a synthesis. When I began reading the Sri-krishna-samhita I soon found myself listening a new voice–that of a great teacher boldly putting the two worlds together. Without warning, the doors holding those two worlds apart, suddenly burst open allowing waters of both traditions to rush together.

Speaking from my experience, I’ve always sensed that the tradition of GV is “genuine and sweet” – for women, too – but of course it (the tradition) is not always logical or rational in all ways and all aspects (i.e. there are controversial and disturbing verses to be found in the literature and the teachings are not always applied in the best possible way).

For me, this has not been a problem because I have been blessed with the guidance of a true acarya and a saragrahi vaishnava who has, in the spirit of Bhaktivinoda and all of the previous acaryas, grasped the essence of GV which is all about emancipating women – and men – in the broadest meaning of the word.

And, by the way, in regards to women giving lectures… I’ve taken part of devotional gatherings where ALL of the lecturers were women

But my objection is not to the fact that the tradition needs to be flexible in relation to time and circumstance and that women as well as those of a homosexual orientation should be facilitated with regard to renunciation and everything else. I champion this myself, and Srila Prabhupada was himself an example of this as well and thus quite progressive for his time. Notice the emphasis here. My objection is to judging history and ancient history by modern standards in all respects. I maintain that Gaudiya Vaisnavism has been progressive all along, as is the more ancient Bhagavata itself with regard to social issues such as the position of women. Gaudiya Vaisnavism may not seem “enlightened” with regard to the position of women to you when looking back 500 years ago through today’s lens, but it was viewed as such 500 years ago in relation to the thinking of the time. And that is how it should be evaluated. I have already given the example of President Lincoln. By modern academic standards we do not consider him racist, despite the fact that he held a position that in today’s world would be considered so. Thus the idea that Gaudiya Vaisnavism has ben in error since the time of its inception and that you and others are gong to fix it does not sit well with me. I don’t think it has been. Rather the the very spirit of the tradition is one of adaptability and ongoing progressive insight gleaned from all quarters such that the insight squares with the essence of revelation (the Bhagavata). It represents the embrace of truth, and truth reveals itself the the extent that it sees fit to do so. May I suggest the following article? “The Bhagavata Leans Left” (http://harmonist.us/2009/05/the-bhagavata-leans-left/)

So I do not think that women should be treated by social standards of 500 years ago, but I think that 500 years ago the reality of the Bhagavata was presented progressively with regard to the place of women in society at the time. Thus we should do the same today and doing so has much to do with what Gaudiya Vaisnavism is about. Again, the fault is not Gaudiya Vaisnavism. It lies with improperly understanding it. GV is not about hating women or in any way inhibiting their spiritual growth or material well being.

You have also continually attempted to state that the teachings of GV are misogynistic, but your statements are based on how the scripture has been misunderstood, often by the practitioners that are members of religious institutions.

When members of an institution are unable apply the essence of teachings, that does not make the teachings invalid, or in this case, misogynistic.

No one disagrees that religious institutions, especially Gaudiya missions, need to adapt to be more in line with scripture (ie. less misogynistic), but to claim that the source of misogyny is scriptural is extremely inaccurate.

There are examples in scripture that we would call misogynist (exploitative) from our perspective, and it is in those cases that we must seek to understand and apply the essence with help from a sadhu rather than our own “pondering.”

In addition, your statement that “Religions are created to satisfy the need for meaning” is grossly out of line with Gaudiya siddhanta and more in line with atheistic thinking.

This sounds like you are saying that until your ideas are implemented the tradition has been in error from the time of its inception. If so, how then would you account for the spiritual successes (sainthood) of many men and women thus far.

How are these “my ideas”? They are a necessity which have been voiced by others as well. In this very discussion you can see for yourself that others are speaking in the same vein as I do. I am actually disappointed that you persist with the denial and persist in trying to make it an isolated incident.

The article which started this discussion states that all religions throughout history have helped shape the context of societies’ injustices towards women. Do you really believe that our religion, alone, hasn’t done that?

The saintly become so despite the contradictions found in this world. Sainthood indeed is in the perpetual process of removing the fallacies of a religion, whichever that religion may be. That is the meaning of sarva dharma parityaja.

“We will now discuss a little about the subject of Paramahamsa Babaji Srila Gaurkishore Dasa Goswami Prabhu’s instructions on ideal bhajana for both householders and renunciates. The instructions relating to householders which were given when an opportunity arose to the late Sriyukta Sambhunath Bandyopadhyay Mahasaya, a follower of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura, have been described in the book “Sarasvati-jayasri” under the portion of the Vaibhavaparva written by Sampradaya Vaibhavacharya Srimat Paramananda Vidyaratna. It is quoted exactly here…

“Sriyukta Sambhubabu, after newly married asked Srila Prabhupada for instructions on what opportunities there are for Hari-bhajana in the married life. When Prabhupada (Srila Saraswati Thakura) said to Sambhubabu that there will be many obstacles to Hari-bhajana present in his married life, it seemed that Sambhubabu became particularly unhappy.

After this, on the 28th October, Srila Prabhupada, Sambubabu and a few others of us got into our own boat and arrived at Srila Gaurakishore Dasa Goswami Maharaja’s feet at Kuliya’s silted river land. After some other talks with Babaji Maharaj, the subject matter of Sambhubabu’s marriage was mentioned and he (Paramahamsa Babaji Maharaja) said –

“ Excellent, it is good that Sambhubabu has married, now he will daily cook offerings for Vishnu with his own hands and after offering it to Vishnu he will give the prasada to his greatly religious wife to take.

Then, in the understanding that she is a Vaishnava, he will take the remains of her meal.

Thus, he will more or less replace the attitude of enjoying her with the attitude of her being his servable Guru.

If this is done there will be benefit for Sambhubabu.

The whole universe – all the world’s wealth, jewels, women and men are all only Krishna’s enjoyable objects, so he will please use the objects of Krishna for the service of Krishna, and he will not consider his wife to be his own maidservant but will respect her in the understanding that she is Krishna’s maidservant.”

What are the messages that you can take from this?
From my own humble opinion, if you allow me.
1/ It is not about the battle of genders, it is about being a vaishava/i.
2/ It is not about superiority/inferiority complex, it is about being a vaishnava/i.
3/ It is not about misogyny or “hatred of women”, it is about being a vaishnava/i!

I am sure you can add on more to the above.

Please forgive me if you think the above is off tangent to the subject matter and its subsequent active forum discussion.

Nitai Gaura Haribol.

To accept the feminine in this world as positive seems only logical. And its key in our religion presently due to the erroneous way it has been dealt with this far.

This sounds like you are saying that until your ideas are implemented the tradition has been in error from the time of its inception. If so, how then would you account for the spiritual successes (sainthood) of many men and women thus far.