Feb 20, 2014 — EUROPE (SUN) — Compiled from "Notes From a Think Tank".
In February 1996, Sita devi dasi asked Bir Krishna Maharaja to clarify his comment regarding men being served prasadam first in a temple. Some women had voiced a complaint about this. Maharaja had stated:
BKG: Obviously there is no rule that men get served first. There is a Vaisnava rule that there should be no discrimination against any Vaisnava in spiritual life.
Sita then asked Maharaja for clarification:
Sdd: I just wondered though, whether you are hereby suggesting that wives give up the practice of serving prasadam to their husbands and male guests first? Also, if a group of women were sitting down for prasadam and there was a group of sannyasis there also, isn't the proper etiquette to feed the sannyasis first?
BKG: No that is Vedic etiquette. What I said was that if a Vaisnava was discriminated *against* on the basis of what type of body they had, then that would be improper.
Sdd: But this Vedic etiquette is based on bodily discrimination. You said "there is no rule that men get served first." But there are indeed Vedic rules supporting this. You also said "this brahmacary who discriminated against another Vaisnava should be informed before he ruins his spiritual life." But if the girl was on the platform of Vaisnava, then why did she object to serving the other devotee first? Please note the following:
"Whenever there is a ceremony for distribution of prasada, the prasada is
offered first to the brahmanas, then to the children and old men, then to
the women, and then to animals like dogs and other domestic animals." (SB 7.14.18 Purport)
I haven't seen where Prabhupada says this does not apply to devotees. Maybe you can provide a reference though. Otherwise, I would assume that it is correct to serve male-bodied devotees first (sannyasis then other brahmanas first in that group) then children (that would include female children) and old men, then to women, then to animals. Also, if a group of women were sitting down for prasadam and there was a group of sannyasis there also, isn't the proper etiquette to feed the sannyasis first?
BKG: That depends upon the situation and whether the sannyasis were godbrothers or godnephews or even disciples.
Sdd: I don't see what difference it would make if the sannyasis were godbrothers etc. Can you please explain further? Also, since there is an injunction against women having diksha disciples, how would her being siksa guru put her above a sannyasi in terms of social etiquette?
BKG: What about the case where one of the women was the guru for one or all of the sannyasis?
Sdd: I don't know what case that is. Please correct me if I have misunderstood something."
Bir Krsna Maharaja initially said he would answer Sita's questions, but he instead posted them to the IWC conference stating:
BKG: Here is part of an exchange I just had with Sita (the wife of Jivan Mukta in Canada). I thought I would give some of the members of this conference the opportunity to reply to some of her sexist viewpoints. Please respond to this so I can get back to her. It is important that we deal with these issues.
Maharaja told Sita and her husband he was too busy preparing for Mayapura to answer her questions, which included whether Srila Prabhupada ever instituted or approved of FGBC or FTP (or FDG). He then apologized to Sita's husband, Jivan Mukta dasa, who had stated:
JMD: The questions and comments she sent to you were private. You chose to not only bring them out onto a public forum but to humiliate her by calling her sincere concerns about these controversial matters "sexist." She feels violated by your breach of trust. You gave her your word that you would respond to her questions and after all of this you refuse to do so?
BKG: As much as I would like to continue the discussion. I am unable to because of the work load and preparing to go to India. Sorry.
and:
I apologise. You can post this anywhere you want. No confidentiality.
Bir Krishna Goswami considers the 'eye of the storm' to be a "definitive study" of the "FDG issue" (quoted by Kaunteya dasa). It is high time he owns up to his responsibility of initiating the process of recommending Urmila dasi as a guru candidate by justifying his actions.
"Among the ten offenses committed against the chanting of the holy name, the first offenses are disobedience of the spiritual master and blasphemy of the Vedic literature." (SB 4.21.37)
FDG theory is blasphemous as it is rooted in a misunderstanding of Srila Prabhupada's instructions and ignores Vedic literatures and the examples of great chaste women. It is incumbent on Bir Krsna Maharaja and the GBC to prove otherwise or they will have to suffer the reaction.
