|
By Niscala Devi Dasi -
http://www.saragrahi.org
Srila Prabhupada's views regarding women are often felt to be outdated, more applicable to Srila Prabhupada's time and place of birth in early twentieth century India. Ironically, while he adjusted much of the teaching of the parampara to appeal, apply and be relevant to late twentieth century Westerners, there were bits like these that he left as is, although the position of women is hardly a core issue of Vaishnavism (we are, after all, not these bodies!) and indeed his stance estranged some women such as the liberationists who might otherwise have become more attracted to bhakti, had he not been so uncompromising.
This leads one to wonder why he was so inclined? In an attempt not to justify, but to understand, as well as to portray my own feelings as a woman (bodily speaking), I offer the following thoughts.
The issue is not superfluous to bhakti at all, but is at the very core of Vaishnavism. The living entities' position constitutionally is one of service; he or she is happiest when engaged in serving another being, and this is perfected when dove-tailed towards serving a devotee or the Lord Himself. I already mentioned in another article that a recent survey showed that those who had the greatest satisfaction within their lives were proportionately those involved in serving not their own interests, but those of another. Extending this concept to marriage, it is also meant to be a training ground for bhakti, and where the emphasis is on who can be servant, it is conducive, but if it is on who can be master, it is detrimental.
Modern marriage often degenerated into a struggle for supremacy, and this is the unfortunate effect of women's liberation, which was a natural result of abusive, exploitative and manipulative husbands. However, it became the fashion, and maybe due to media sensationalizing the stories of abuse, many wives of gentle-men thought it "better to be safe than sorry" and leave no opening for exploitation. One can only, after all, exploit a servant - not a master, nor one of equal status. Thus, either the women went out to work and Dad changed the nappies, or they shared equally - very equally - in these chores; and the reaction of these "liberated" people to Srila Prabhupada was shock and horror. How could he be so blatantly patriarchal?
Actually, he was trying to tell these women that they could be happier if they weren't vying for artificial supremacy over, or equality to males. By adopting the constitutional position of service, the living entity is happiest, and if by circumstance the one being served is of low character and exploits the service attitude, this does not condemn the service attitude, or give a reason to do away with it - it should simply be applied elsewhere.
In a normal marriage where there is love, not domination, the husband's reaction to a wife who is eager to serve and please him, will be to serve and please her in all respects. Practically he will be dominated by her loving service and be henpecked. This is the normal happy effect of a service attitude in marriage. The abnormal effect, which is often due to alcohol, drug abuse, infidelity or mental disturbance, is to exploit horribly the innocent service attitude, and it is this disastrous effect which is dramatized and sensationalized over and over in the media. A hardening of relationships in general has resulted, as if in paranoia, women are suspecting their husbands could degenerate into enemies at some point, and like nations in a cold war, are building up their weapons arsenal.
There is another consideration - that the service attitude could degenerate into unhealthy masochism. The telling sign is a lack of respect being accepted and inflicted upon oneself. Whether between wife and husband, parent and child, or guru and disciple, there must be mutual respect and loving concern, no matter who is serving whom. If that is the case, and the dynamic is thereby actually loving, there is no need to struggle for supremacy or equality, for the servant and the served become bound in reciprocal dealings of gratitude.
Thus, there is real equality by service, and the effect is to experience relief and happiness as layers of paranoia and self-defense become peeled away. As one learns to trust one's ability to serve and not be exploited, eventually one can apply this healthy attitude towards other living entities and towards the Lord. Indeed where the husband is a devotee, it is as good as serving the Lord, and is accepted by Him as better.
Considering this, I think Srila Prabhupada's attitude towards the position of women was only apparently antiquated and is actually based on the eternal nature of the soul.
What about Srila Prabhupada calling women "less intelligent"? A typical quote is "...literatures were written for the less intelligent women, laborers, and friends of the twice-born." Specifically, Srila Prabhupada refers to less intelligent women. Of course, more intelligent women may like to delve into deeper philosophy, but for the less intelligent ones, Mahabharata and so on were written.
Why am I so certain? Because there is a conversation where Srila Prabhupada states that his female disciples are as good as their brothers. Obviously he considered that women were of varying intelligence, as were men, being divided into brahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, friends of the above, and shudras, the last two categories or lower, comprising the gamut of men in Kali yuga, except for those who are trained in spiritual culture. And similarly, women.
We tend to forget that alongside his mention of less intelligent women, he is placing categories of less intelligent men. When we don't knee-jerk at political incorrectness, such as Srila Prabhupada's placing "less intelligent" before "women" and actually analyze him a bit we may not find him antiquated at all, just more sensible in approach than the modern attempt to equalize everyone, which is an unsuccessful attempt at stopping exploitation of the weak by the strong. The real cause of this is addressed over and over in his purports, the desire in the living entity to lord it over and exploit nature, which robs him of happiness while embodied, and spoils his chances of freedom.
|
