I would like to suggest that in order to really understand the difference
between men and women in general and the difference in their intelligence in
particular, we have to do it from the point of view of Srila Prabhupada's
Vedic psychology and not from the modern, western Freudian or Jungian
psychology.

It is in Bhagavad Gita we find the essential elements and principles of
Vedic psychology explained. Before I became a devotee I was an avid reader
of books on philosophy and psychology and I can safely say, that I have
never come across anything as sophisticated and advanced as Bhagavad Gita's
psychology and its explanation of mind, intelligence, ego, the three modes
of material nature, action, determination, duty, role, society and so on
delineating in every conceivable way how nature influences our thinking and
willing.

Mahat-tattva prabhu provided a quote from Srila Prabhupada wherein His
Divine Grace says, that women can never come to the mode of goodness. He
states this quite categorically, and I believe it can be backed up by
empirical evidence. That women cannot come to the mode of goodness is the
very reason why the female body is considered less intelligent.

The only way for a woman. or a man, to rise above this limitation is to take
to Krishna's service and become transcendental. The male body offers the
advantage over the female body in that it can come to the mode of goodness
through jnana, yoga and vairagya. A female body can only come to the mode of
goodness through the transcendental process of Krishna Consciousness. That
is the only way to understand how Prabhupada's statement, that women cannot
come to the mode of goodness, is true.

Of course, in the age of Kali, men as well, cannot come to the mode of
goodness unless through bhakti. But again, that just proves the power of
devotional service, it doesn't really address the difference in male and
female intelligence.

As I see it, we have only two choices. We can either try to understand how
Srila Prabhupada's version is true, and what it means when he says that
women are less intelligent, or we can try to understand how it is not true
or how it is not relevant to the present times. We may try to reduce it to a
localized phenomenon not meant to denote an eternal fact or truth of nature.

In my experience, I have never come across any of Prabhupada's statements
regarding  the essential things in life that were wrong or not in line with
observable reality. Many times I have been baffled and challenged by his
statements but they have always without exception turned out to be true
eventually, as I came to understand him better.

There is the example of the moon landing. Prabhupada was the first of all
human beings on earth to point out, this is not the moon. Now a days there
is overwhelming evidence that NASA staged a hoax. Or Prabhupada told us
before anyone else that all governments and politicians are demons and
rogues and thieves, and now everyone can see it is true.

He said, that everyone wants to be God. First I didn't get it. But now it is
so clear how everyone wants to be the center of his life. Everyone wants to
be the supreme controller and enjoyer. He called democracy demoncrazy and
said that all the modern educational institutions, that are cherished so
much in society, are slaughterhouses.

Initially I didn't understand this. Why does Prabhupada call the venerable
bastions of modern society, like democracy, Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge,
for demons and slaughterhouses? I mean, what a graphic thing to say about a
place of learning and culture. But when you think about what a university
really is, it is an institution that offers no alternative to the modern
secular paradigm. The view of life and the world according to the Vedas is
totally absent, thus denying students the opportunity to compare and decide
for themselves. Thus their minds are slaughtered because they don't hear
about Krishna.

Or the rape statement. I find it curious how everyone is so up in arms about
it. It is generally agreed that women like a man who can take charge, who
can be decisive and sweep her off her feet - take her with storm and
passion. What does a woman want? Does she want a strong man who can take
care of her, or does she want a wimp SHE has to take of?

In my mind, that's what Prabhupada is talking about, when he says that women
likes to be raped. What else could he be talking about? - that women like to
be battered, beaten, and violated by some psychopathic brute who comes out
of the dark and puts a knife to her throat? Does anyone think, that's what
Prabhupada is referring to with his usage of the word rape? Right, nobody
thinks like that, so what's the problem? I don't see it. All it is, is just
a great hype, it is propaganda put out there by the detractors of ISKCON.
That's what I think it is.

Anyway, that was a detour. Lets get back to examining intelligence on
Prabhupada's premises. As Malati devi has pointed out it is agreed by the
learned people of modern society that there are different types of
intelligence - emotional, mathematical, social and so on. That's the western
viewpoint.

In Bhagavad-gita intelligence is described according to the three modes of
material nature. The words used by Srila Prabhupada are not exactly
intelligence. He translates buddhi as 'understanding' in the verse from
chapter eighteen, but in the word-for-word it is translated as intelligence.
So we can take Prabhupada's word 'understanding' to be synonymous with
intelligence, at least in this example. Also knowledge is more or less
synonymous with intelligence.

So by looking at knowledge and understanding (intelligence) in the three
modes of material nature we will get a clear picture, unmuddled by our own
conditioned understanding, of what it means to be intelligent. If we don't
understand intelligence from Krishna's view point then our only other option
is  to understand it from our own mind and its culture.  There isn't
anything beyond that - there aren't any other reference points. So it is not
a matter of what we think we know. It's a matter of who we take our
knowledge from.

The following is taken from Bhagavad Gita:

Knowledge in the mode of goodness is to see the equality of all living
entities and all things in the world - to see the individual consciousness
and the Supersoul behind everything. Knowledge in the mode of passion is to
see and identity living entities according to their bodies. And knowledge in
the mode of ignorance is to identity yourself with your work - to see
yourself in terms of the work you are doing. Like, if you are a professional
soccer-player, you know how to play soccer, you are very intelligent in that
regard, but you don't know you are not the body or who Sartre is, or you
think you are a very clever scientist, and that is your whole identity, or a
worker who goes to pieces when he loses his job because he is so identified
with it - that's knowledge in the mode of tamas.

(Bg. 18.20-22)

Then understanding or intelligence is described:

intelligence in the mode of goodness is when one understands what ought to
be done and what ought not to be done, and what is to be feared and not to
be feared. and to understand what is binding and what is liberating.
Intelligence in the mode of passion is when one can not discriminate between
right and wrong and when one can not distinguish between religion and
irreligion. Intelligence in the mode of ignorance is where one is completely
convinced about the wrong thing, and where one takes religion to be
irreligion and vice versa, and where one always strives in the wrong
direction.

(Bg. 18.30-32)

In the mode of passion, at least there is doubt as to whether one is right
or wrong and on the right course, or as to what is religion or irreligion,
but in ignorance there is no doubt at all. One is singlemindedly convinced
of the wrong thing. One is completely convinced that irreligion is the true
religion and no manner of intelligent discussion is going to convince one
otherwise.

So to understand what intelligence is and who is intelligent, we would first
have to turn to those who know about it, in this case Srila Prabhupada, and
then see how everyone of us, whether male of female, corresponds to and is
influenced by these three modes of material nature.

Let us for example look at knowledge in the three modes. In the mode of
goodness, that´s when one sees the soul and not the body of all living
entities. It is to see everyone equally in their spiritual identity.

I can't profess to be an expert on women. Eric Fromm wrote in a book I read
once, that a woman's intelligence is like a lamp - it lights up the whole
room, but it is dim, whereas a man's intelligence is more like a torch, it
focuses sharply, but on a limited area. I guess that's why sometimes women
seem to know intuitively how to quickly reach a conclusion about a given
situation, whereas men must analyze the situation first. Perhaps that's why
women seem to have a more developed sense of intuition. They can intuitively
know something that a man must first analyze to know. But being equal-minded
and seeing all living entities the same, I don't see that so much in women.

A funny example of not seeing all equally I have seen in my wife. She will
irritatedly shoe off a beggar or a nagging kid, and 2 minutes later down the
road she will swoon over a little, cute puppy dog. Isn't that a typical
female trait? It may be endearing, but it is not seeing everyone equally.
It's seeing everyone according to their body - on one hand, a ragged beggar
(and he IS annoying), and on the other hand, a cute, soft little puppy. Who
is a woman going to choose?

As far as I have observed, the female mind and body is always in
fluctuations between different moods. A woman will change her mind several
times a day according to her moodswings. I don't find that men do that to
the same degree. Women go through a whole scale of different mindframes even
within the span of a day that a man can not even begin to follow or
understand. The female needs in her life stability and security from the
male, and those essential aspects can only come from the mode of goodness.
It's just how the sexes compliment each other. Women need the mode of
goodness from men to bring order into their lives. The problem arises when
the men are not in the mode of goodness. Then everything goes to hell.

I know, it is very politically incorrect to say so, and one certainly
doesn't gain popularity by saying it, but the fact of the matter, as I see
it, is that without cooperation with men, women can never be secure or have
stability in their lives. Women just seem more volatile and prone to mental
upheaval than men.

Intelligence in the mode of goodness is to know what is to be done and not
done.  I would venture the claim that women are more indecisive than men.
They change their minds all the time - where they want to live, what clothes
to wear,  where the furniture should be etc. A woman will change the living
room around several times a year, and, if left to her own, have it repainted
at the same time.

Another point of intelligence in goodness is to know what to fear and what
not to fear. Women just seem to be more prone to fear than men, which makes
them more defensive. That's at least my experience. There may be some macho
women out there with guns and swords. At least Hollywood would like us to
think so, but in the Vedic tradition we don't find many female warriors.
Anyway, generally speaking, women need men to protect them from fear, not
only physically but also mentally.

We know of course in Kaliyuga men are becoming more like women and women are
becoming more like men, the whole situation is no doubt screwed up, but just
because everything is screwed up and  topsy-turvy, doesn't mean that nature
all of the sudden has ceased to work according to the three modes of
material nature. It should also be stated that most men don't function well
without women. They are also dependent on women. But if everyone is a pure
devotee and Krishna is the real center, then it doesn't matter whether one
is male of female. Unfortunately this is not predominant in ISKCON at this
point in time.

Malati Devi has mentioned some highly elevated ladies from our tradition,
like the brahmins' wives in Krishna book. No doubt they are worthy of our
deepest respect and obeisances and utmost appreciation. I mean, on a scale
of love and devotion for Krishna I would be light years behind them. They
were certainly more intelligent than their husbands, but only because they
were more devoted to Krishna. The Vedic literature is full of such exalted,
elevated women. We should also not forget to mention all the greatly
elevated, steady female pure devotees in ISKCON. They are greatly cherished
by Prabhupada and Krishna and their gurus and all the devotees.

Another supremely elevated female, who is highly respected and celebrated in
Vedic history - a goddess not of human origin - is Draupadi Devi. Still, in
the Mahabharata, she is described as the typical woman. She is complaining
to Yudisthira non stop about the intolerance of their situation in the
forest. She calls Yudisthira a wimp and challenges him to be more like
Bhima. 'Why wait 12 years to deal with our enemies,' she says, 'when we can
do it now? Don't you see how distraught I am? How can you stand to see your
wife and brothers in this destitute condition.'

Yudhisthira is content to tolerate and bide his time whereas Draupadi is
impatient and laments a lot. To me this shows that Draupadi is more in the
mode of passion and ignorance and Yudhisthira is more in the mode of
goodness. Draupadi is a goddess who came out of a sacrificial fire, but she
is still a woman embodying all the  archetype-female properties. On and on
it goes for twelve years - Draupadi is in Yudhisthira's ears complaining and
lamenting a major portion of their time in the forest.

Yudhisthira is acting more intelligently because he enjoys life in the
forest with its beautiful, tranquil atmosphere together with his loving
family and the hermits and the sages, what to speak of the adventure of it
all - all the far out, intriguing races and animals - and knowing that
Krishna is your protector and friend - how could it not be a blast? But not
Draupadi Devi. She was dissatisfied - didn't like it at all. So that's
lamentation. I stick my neck out and claim that women have a tendency to
lament more than men.

When I joined ISKCON I didn't understand how women were less intelligent.
Women's equality was a big thing with me. I considered myself some kind of
liberated, intellectual socialist. But now, after all these years of
studying Srila Prabhupada's books, it just seems so clear to me how women
are less intelligent. It is so obvious when you learn it from Bg. and
Mahabharata.

We have, of course, to take into consideration all the highly elevated and
intelligent women. I know so many women in ISKCON who are better and more
pure devotees than me, and who therefore also are more intelligent than I
am. But that only proves the point that devotional service is transcendental
and can elevate anyone regardless of material status. It doesn't negate the
specific principles that rule male and female intelligence.

Note that despite women being considered less intelligent in the Vedic
tradition, they are still highly cherished and worshiped and being
protected. They are not being exploited, violated or diminished. Draupadi
had as much to say to her five husbands as they to her. Draupadi is almost
what in modern terms could be characterized as a feisty lady. So the Vedic
women were not weak or stupid. But they still needed the protection of men.

So we can accept the Vedic version, which has given us clear-cut roles to
play on the stage of material life - we can try to practice them as well as
we can in a modern, distinctly antagonistic atmosphere - or we can try to
rationalize it away and surrender to the modern idea that women's and men's
intelligence is the same and that they can do the same things equally well.

I have had three relationships in my life in which I've had and still do
have to share a fridge with a woman. So in the fridge you notice some little
plastic container over in the corner of the top shelf. After some months of
seeing it every time you open the fridge, you start wondering what's in it,
and when you finally get yourself sufficiently emerged from tama-guna to
take it out and open it, you find some green living organism in there.

My contention is that if some man doesn't come along and checks the
container and throws it out, the organism will stay in there forever
multiplying. So women leave things in the fridge to rot. Men also do that,
but eventually they WILL get rid of the stuff. The woman will look in the
fridge, for something and never even SEE the container. Not even if she
repeated the event of getting something from the fridge a million times
would she notice it. That's at least my experience.

Or cleaning. Usually women are celebrated as those who take care of kids,
cook, and clean the house. That's at least before it became untraditional. I
know some men, when thinking of getting a wife, the first three verbs they
think of is, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of children. So women ARE
known for that. But everyone knows that men are better cleaners than women.
They spot much more hidden corners and edges and details that need wiping.
In the military the most extreme cleanliness is practice by men.  Women
don't keep a house clean like that. They don't get under the sink and get
the yuck and slime out of the hole. The man does that. So men are better at
cleaning.

Regardless, though, of whether one agrees with this or not, I think from the
evidence of sastra alone it can be concluded that the female psychosomatic
setup is more in favor of the mode of ignorance than that of the male's.
Otherwise, how can we understand it when Prabhupada says that women are less
intelligent and that they cannot come to the mode of goodness?

And please don't think on that account that I am an advocate of female
exploitation. I am not. I don't subscribe to the modern notion that whoever
is weaker than me is a legitimate object of my exploitation and
sensegratification. I honestly don't hold that idea. I subscribe to the
Vedic ideal, that those who are weaker deserves to be taken care of and
protected in all ways. We should strive for that ideal. I don't believe that
modern secular society has anything at all of value to offer devotees in
that regard.

I think it will only be counterproductive to not recognize the differences
that exist between male and female, and try to make them artificially equal.
What we should do, is learn (according to the Vedic system) how to play the
proper roles of males and females. Or we can become pure, transcendental
devotees, completely liberated from the bodily platform, but that's not as
easy as it sounds. And as long as we are not, we have to follow a sensible
system of social organization, and the only one of that kind is Krishna's
system of varnas and asramas.

As an end note I would just like to say, please don't take this the wrong
way. Anyone who knows me, knows that I do not hate or look down upon women.
My point is only to understand Prabhupada better. I would like to understand
what it means, when he says that women are less intelligent and that they
can't come to the mode of goodness. If men don't know these things, how can
they properly protect women and give them what they want, so they are not so
unhappy all the time? We have to know.

Your servant
Jahnudvip das