Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Here is a cyber-exchange between an ISKON member and an "interfaith" spiritual master, Har Tzion (Swami Ramakrishnananda). It shows how modern Vaisnava "value" womens... Hare Krsna! I can't understand how you can call your woman disciples "Acharya"? with all respect, we know that women can not take even Sanyas. How can that be? Enclosed is a quote by Shrila A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: "A woman is not supposed to take sannyasa. So-called spiritual societies concocted in modern times give sannyasa even to women, although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman's accepting sannyasa. Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his wife and given her sannyasa." (SB 3.24.40 purport) Hari Bol Har Tzion Posted on 02/19/03, 23:51 Hare Krishna!... The quote you had included is what Mr. Bhaktivedanta thinks… So what (?)… He says that "A woman is not supposed to take Sannyas"… But the fact that she is "not supposed"… doesn't mean that it is prohibited… Things which are "supposed" are not prohibitions… With all due respect, can you please indicate where in the scriptures (in the Vedic Scriptures, not the interpretations of your honorable Master) it says that women is absolutely prohibited of taking Sannyas or becoming an Acharya? Acharya is a Sanskrit word which signifies "He who teaches by his own personal example"… why can't a lady teach by her own personal example?... And as for the gentlemen Kardama Muni; he can do as he pleases, that has nothing to do with me… We live in a world of men… With Scriptures written by men… Too macho for our days… Women were viewed always as an object… As a possession… How can an object become Sannyas? How can an object become an Acharya? Believe me, it is possible that you and many of your preachers have a lot to learn from a few of my women disciples… Maybe if there would have been more women Sannyas or Acharyas in your institution… They would have solved many of those terrible problems of the past few years… What a shame… Sometimes I think that the ego is masculine… and that enlightenment is feminine… Every day I am more and more convinced that if there is a God… One thing is certain… He cannot be masculine… And Satan cannot be a woman… In any case, your question had surprised me… I thought that the macho religious fanaticism has appeared only our through our heritage… I mean only at the mid orient… But I see that it had surpassed all boundaries and had managed to fraternize without differences of creed or race… It is the same simple disrespect towards women… The same cruelty… Have you any idea what we Jews pray every day? Every morning? "Thank you Lord for not making me a woman"… According to your conclusion and that of your master's I believe that you would be in total agreement with this... You might even adopt it as your Mantra and do another daily 16 rounds with it… Now… Can you please tell me what we men have done (except numerous wars, destruction and vile deeds) that we might be merciful to obtain the title of Sannyas or "religious"?... Why only men can raise to the Torah?... Yes… I know… You would say it is written in your little books… In your Torah or Gita… What ever the case might be… That's where any possibility of a sane discussion ends… One thing I can assure you with, Our Acharyas never had violated any children… Never have they sexually molested anyone… Never have they run away with the institution's money… They are not homosexuals… They never had any drugs deals… And never have they been sent to jail… Can you say the same about the Acharyas of your institution for the past 20 years?... I am sure you can, otherwise you wouldn't criticize with such confidence other Acharyas just because they are woman… I would put it loud and clear… Women before anything else are human beings and should be respected and dignified as such… And I don't accept that she would be disrespected even in the name of your religions, pitiful books or your Guru's interpretations… If your religion produced disrespect and humiliation of the feminine sex, then your interpretation of your so called religion doesn't deserve the most minimum respect… That is not religion my dear friend… That is "Chauvinism" disguised as spirituality… Any offense towards a woman offends me personally as a human being… You remember that the Gopis of Vrindavan are the exponents of the most elevated form of Bhakti… And… what can we do… they…. Are -- Women… How horrible!!!! Be careful not to offend Mother Durga or Mother Kali… They are very close to Lord Krishna… and the Devi is extremely sensitive when it comes to the feminine sex. Have you read the Srimad Devi Bhagavatam?... especially the Devi Gita?... obviously religious people only like to read those scriptures which reinforce their interpretations or those of their Guru… So, finally… Go with God my friend… (Forgive me for my impatience, but the disrespect towards women from so called religious people, enlightenment or no-enlightenment, makes me angry… Love and forgive me if I offended you.) Hare Krishna?… Why not Jay Radha!?... Radha, Radha, even Lord Krishna wished to enjoy your ecstatic Love and descended as Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for that purpose… I would recommend reading the Sri Chaitanya Caritamrta which was written by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami… Kunti Devi Posted on 02/20/03, 12:34 Shri Shri Radha Govindajiu ki jai! Frankly speaking, I am shocked that anyone could consider such an idea that women are fit for accepting sannyas. If a man feels that women are fit to take the renounced order of life then it appears to me that such a man knows very little or possibly nothing about the real nature of women. Possibly he may also not know about the qualifications and difficulties in living the life of a sannyasi. If a woman thinks that she is fit for sannyas, or that other women are fit for sannyas, then honestly speaking from the perspective of a woman, I myself think that she is lying to herself. According to shastra, acharyas and Vaishnava tradition since the Vedic times when people were much more qualified than they are today, women never took the renounced order of life. Particularly in our modern times, when Prabhupad Shri Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakur introduced tridandi sannyas into the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, we see no trend for women to enter the sannyas ashram and he had many qualified women disciples (my thakur-ma amongst them). Some persons may argue that women are equal to men and if a woman is renounced enough and intelligent enough she is a fit candidate to take sannyas. My opinion on this is that men and women are not equal they are distinctly different in their qualifications, in their character, in their thinking and in their necessities. According to shastra a woman has two exalted qualities shyness and chastity. A woman who has intelligence as well as shyness and chastity is respected by all classes of people throughout the world. Such a woman would never wish to take sannyas but would remain satisfied in her natural position. But if a woman has intelligence but lacks these two important qualities of shyness and chastity, then she is never satisfied in her natural position and always wants to occupy the position of others. This is the negative side of the nature of women, (matsarja). Such women cannot make spiritual advancement. What I find disturbing about the issue of women and sannyas is that according to the law of averages, if three men and three women of western dissent were to discuss this matter of women's fitness for sannyas, it would be doubtful if any of the six had ever lived a strictly moral life before or even after having become an initiated Vaishnava or Vaishnavi. This is a well-known fact from the rate of divorce, open promiscuity and even child-abuse prevalent in western societies. In my humble opinion, the western Vaishnava devotees should first try to live up to the normal standard of morality before they attempt to restructure the whole Vaishnava culture. We humbly suggest to our western devotee brothers and sisters that they should take heed of our Vaishnava culture in Bengal and not try to thrust their Americanized version of Vaishnavism and women's liberation upon the rest of the world. Humbly Kunti Devi Har Tzion Posted on 02/20/03, 23:51 All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga ! "Frankly speaking, I am shocked that anyone could consider such an idea that women are fit for accepting sannyas." I am sure, that every fanatic believer is shocked that someone displays a contradicting opinion to his own. For example, up to this day, there are orthodox Vaishnav devotees in India who are shocked due to Srila Prabhupada's brahmana initiation to women. There are many very-orthodox Vaishnavas who are shocked that Srila Prabhupada even taught westerners. I was in Vrindavan, several times, and I had the chance of speaking with a few very respectable Swamis, Krishna devotees, for many generations, who are shocked by the fact that there are western Vaishnava Gurus... For me, a shock from advanced spiritual approaches, always comes from the old. In this reaction, there is something of the religious staleness. I can even remember that in Srila Prabhupada's first days in the USA, there were even a few who didn't want to help him. Because they were shocked by his will to install temples for Krishna, with Deities, in a place that wasn't built in that intention -- in rented houses. In general, I think that the world and the mediocre human society, is still shocked by any sage, any enlightened being, by his actions in regarding the time and place. I believe that both of you have a certain misunderstanding. the two Lady disciples, who are Gurus in our institution... are NOT nuns... they are not Sannyas, I am against celibacy. For me celibacy, for men and women, is nothing but a type of repression... Repression, turns us into being obsessive, after that which we repress. Kali Devi Ma, and Shanti Devi Ma, are "Acharyas", meaning that with their own example, many others can be inspired. No one does not receive Sannyas in our organization... and more then that, no because they do not deserve... but simply because no one is interested... we love life, enjoy it, and are not after escaping... because we have learned a long time ago, that life, like Krishna, is found everywhere, and it is impossible to run away from. With Alot of Love. Dasa Posted on 02/22/03, 14:24 I find it strange that he use the lack of a Vedic connection in the argument against women Krishna was not given Vedic connection until the writing of the Bhagavad Gita a few centuries BC, and then as an avatar of Vishnu. He was a tribal cheiftain of the monotheistic Satvata clan who did not worship in a Vedic manner. Where is reference Krishna in the Vedas? Thousnads of males have no problem accepting Krishna- sans Vedic mention- yet struggle with the idea of a female Acharya? Now that's interesting. Two of the direct disciples of Avatar, Sri Kalki Bhagavan are female enlightened before the age of 18 they conduct retreats for 10's of thousands in India and are widely accepted and respected in India and Russian. You can see a photo of Acharya Sri Samadarshini at http://skyboom1.tripod.com/index38.html and interviews of the 2 female acharyas of Kalki there. The following of Sri Kalki grew from 0-over 16 million in less than a decade without publicity or media. Not to mention the enlightened monastic order at Satyaloka Monastery where most of the jiva mukti are females. All adhere to sanyasi tradition. All with one exception are Indian. Kurma Das Posted on 03/03/03, 21:05 Hare Krsna Even though you don't accept Srila Prabhupad opinion on this matter, and you seem to have a very open-minded view on this subject. I can't understand how you dont see the problem in this matter. I attached a few qoutes just to show you how dengerous and difficult realtionship with women can be. Dont you think that a spiritual aspirant should at least be more carefull with himslef? Srila Prabhupada says in the SB 9.19.17 purport: "Learning the etiquette of how to deal with women does not free one from sexual attraction." SB 7.12.7: RIGIDLY AVOID TALKING TO WOMEN varjayet pramada-gatham, agrhastho brhad-vratah; indriyani pramathini, haranty api yater manah. A brahmacari, or one who has not accepted the grhastha-asrama [family life], must rigidly avoid talking with women or about women, for the senses are so powerful that they may agitate even the mind of a sannyasi, a member of the renounced order of life. SB 11.17.33: NEVER GLANCE OR CONVERSE WITH A WOMAN strinam niriksana-sparsa-samlapa-ksvelanadikam; pranino mithuni-bhutan agrhastho 'gratas tyajet. Those who are not married - sannyasis, vanaprasthas and brahmacaris- should never associate with women by glancing, touching, conversing, joking or sporting. Neither should they ever associate with any living entity engaged in sexual activities. SB 6.18.41, purport: NEVER HEAR A WOMAN'S VOICE OR SEE HER BEAUTIFUL FACE. OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE DANGER IN THE SOCIETY. Bg 16.1-3 purport: EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL INCARNATION STRICTLY FOLLOWED THE RULES OF THE SANNYASA ASHRAM IN ORDER TO TEACH US. THIS IS NOT A SIGN OF HATRED FOR WOMEN AS A CLASS BUT IT IS A STRICTURE IMPOSED ON A SANNYASI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 > Acharya is a Sanskrit word which signifies "He who > teaches by his own personal example". why can't a > lady teach by her own personal example?... Obviously a lady can and does, just like a gentleman does. > We live in a world of men. As far as I noticed, there was a roughly equal number of both. > With Scriptures written by men. I understand the above as "the Scriptures were not transmitted or `conceived' by Supreme Power, but merely written by men"? I.e. like Michael Crighton wrote "Airframe", somebody more talented wrote "Bhagavad Gita"? That's it? > Women were viewed always as an object. Not so. According to the Bible, a woman could have possessions and inherit in place of man. That's the record from 3000 years ago. As a Jew, you are supposed to know that. [recall the daughters of Tzlavhad story] > As a possession. Depends on the culture - though I suspect that I'm not familiar enough with enough cultures to really state so. But probably neither are you? I'm not going to evaluate your expertise - it's not my business. Do it yourself and for yourself, not for me. > Believe me, it is possible that you and many of your > preachers have a lot to learn from a few of my women > disciples. I for one have learned a lot from some women, probably not your disciples. So? "No human is your friend, no human is your enemy - but every human is your teacher." > Sometimes I think that the ego is masculine. and that > enlightenment is feminine. This doesn't require comments. > Every day I am more and more convinced that if there is a God. > One thing is certain. He cannot be masculine. And Satan cannot > be a woman. Neither does this. > Have you any idea what we Jews pray every day? Every > morning? "Thank you Lord for not making me a woman". And the women pray every morning: "Thank you Lord for making me according to Your Will". Instead of approaching this with prejudice, it might be instructive to try to understand - what if the author indeed had greater comprehension? What then does the text mean? Why would a man who doesn't believe himself to be "higher" than a woman, thank the Lord for not being a woman? Rather than judging, try to understand. > Now. Can you please tell me what we men have done (except > numerous wars, destruction and vile deeds) that we might > be merciful to obtain the title of Sannyas or "religious"?... Yes. Good deeds, among those - defending those weaker from the violence brought upon them. But are you listening, or the question is merely a rhethoric? > Why only men can raise to the Torah?... Why only women can give birth? [Though perhaps the raising to the Torah rules can be changed now. Everything evolves, perhaps this too? I simply don't know.] > Yes. I know. You would say it is written in your little > books.In your Torah or Gita. With disrespect for those "little books" - Torah and Gita, with so much anger inside that spills over so visibly, with being filled with yourself to the brim... Running around blindly, trying to break anything you're bumping on... > (Forgive me for my impatience Your impatience hurts yourself only. > but the disrespect towards women from so called religious > people, enlightenment or no-enlightenment, makes me angry. That anger is very noticeable. And again, it hurts you. > Love and forgive me if I offended you.) Hopefully you'll be forgiven by whoever you asked. I'm not offended, but I forgive, if there's anything that touched me negatively in there. > Hare Krishna?. Why not Jay Radha!?... How is your approach different from what you're criticizing? > Radha, Radha, even Lord Krishna wished to enjoy your > ecstatic Love and descended as Lord Chaitanya > Mahaprabhu for that purpose. Yes he did. > I would recommend reading the Sri Chaitanya Caritamrta > which was written by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami. I would recommend [in addition] anything written by Gopinath Kaviraj... --and from somebody else: > Frankly speaking, I am shocked that anyone could consider such an >idea that women are fit for accepting sannyas. If a man feels that >women are fit to take the renounced order of life then it appears >to me that such a man knows very little or possibly nothing about >the real nature of women. I for one know too little of "the real nature of women" (or of men) to judge. > Possibly he may also not know about the qualifications and > difficulties in living the life of a sannyasi. A true sannyasi? Haven't seen too many of them, and indeed - cannot truly "know" until and unless I experience it myself. But all in good time. >If a woman thinks that she is fit for sannyas, or that other women >are fit for sannyas, then honestly speaking from the perspective >of a woman, I myself think that she is lying to herself. Perhaps, perhaps not. In every tradition there were women who managed the Path. Whether this applies to majority - I don't know. But so it is with the men too - how many are fit for sannyasa? >Some persons may argue that women are equal to men and if a woman >is renounced enough and intelligent enough she is a fit candidate >to take sannyas. My opinion on this is that men and women are not >equal they are distinctly different in their qualifications, in >their character, in their thinking and in their necessities. This "equality" thing is a Western product (with negative connotation). In what sense is any person "equal" to another person? How do you compare? Regarding being different "in their qualifications, character, thinking and necessities" - that is clear and should be obvious enough. Whether these differences preclude a woman from becoming a sannyasini - I don't know. >We humbly suggest to our western devotee brothers and sisters that >they should take heed of our Vaishnava culture in Bengal and not try >to thrust their Americanized version of Vaishnavism and women's >liberation upon the rest of the world. Perhaps an advice that should be heeded? Rather than finding flaws with other teachings, teachers and Gurus, perhaps it's better to find a Guru you can follow, and do so? Don't bother with where and how somebody else is wrong - just get yourself illuminated first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 Dear Mouse, You didn't understand my point. I didn't wrote these things nor had the cyber-exchanges... It was taken from a forum. I wanted to show how much bigotry still prevails in some religious people. You wrote: > Rather than finding flaws with other teachings, teachers and Gurus, perhaps it's > better to find a Guru you can follow, and do so? Don't bother with where and how > somebody else is wrong - just get yourself illuminated first. > I am sorry but I don't agree with you. Should Catholics stop to put pressure on their church for accepting women's ordination or the birth control pill? It's not about being wrong, but about being of it'sown time. Srila Prabhupada told us to live according to "time and circumstance". We are in the Kali-Yuga and not much of us live in Vrindavan or Varanasi. He gave brahmin initiation, pujari jobs, e.t.c,.. to women. Two weeks ago, a lady politician came to our temple. When it was time to take prasad, I was asked by a young brahmachari what I thought of her discourse. I told him that although I don't believe in the politic/religious mix, she had good ideas. He then told me that it was wrong for a women to work outside and that if she had a higher salary than her husband, he would come back as a poor women in his next life (according to "Scriptures"...which one, I don't know). When you hear things as stupid as this, you get angry... Maxime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 Dear Mouse: What makes you assume Maxime is not illuminated? As Gurutej Kaur says, emotions are meant to deliver the mail. I'd say Maxime got the message. Some teachings and teachers are wrong without anyone having to make them wrong. Are you making Maxime wrong for sharing her views? , Mouse <uri@o...> wrote: Rather than finding flaws with other teachings, teachers and Gurus, perhaps it's better to find a Guru you can follow, and do so? Don't bother with where and how somebody else is wrong - just get yourself illuminated first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 > Dear Mouse: What makes you assume Maxime is not >illuminated? I'm not discussing Maxime's level of advancement. Neither am I discussing my impressions - just share them occasionally. > As Gurutej Kaur says, emotions are meant to > deliver the mail. I'd say Maxime got the message. No comment. Except that it depends on emotions. And the mail - there are so many varieties: great mail, awaited mail, hate mail, junk mail... > Some teachings and teachers are wrong without anyone > having to make them wrong. Regardless of whether something is "right" or "wrong", our reaction-to/perception-of "it" is what determines how evolved we are and which way we're moving. > Are you making Maxime wrong for sharing her views? She shared hers - so did I. Are you making me wrong for sharing mine? :-) , Mouse <uri@o...> wrote: Rather than finding flaws with other teachings, teachers and Gurus, perhaps it's better to find a Guru you can follow, and do so? Don't bother with where and how somebody else is wrong - just get yourself illuminated first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 > Dear Mouse, >You didn't understand my point. I didn't wrote >these things nor had the cyber-exchanges... >It was taken from a forum. :-) :-) [i'm not arguing with you personally, just commenting on some points.] >I wanted to show how much bigotry still prevails in some >religious people. Oh well, since when was bigotry scarce anywhere? :-) But my point stays - it is not healthy to pay too much attention to other's bigotry (unless it affects people directly: i.e. if I'm a bigot - it's OK, but if a country leader is - it may be a problem). But in any case, the attitude towards the bigotry itself and its carriers is very imporant. Sometimes we are forced to take actions. Our attitude in those defines our karma. You wrote: >> Rather than finding flaws with other teachings, teachers >> and Gurus, perhaps it's better to find a Guru you can >> follow, and do so? Don't bother with where and how >> somebody else is wrong - just get yourself illuminated first. > >I am sorry but I don't agree with you. Should Catholics stop to >put pressure on their church for accepting women's ordination or >the birth control pill? It's not about being wrong, but about >being of it's own time. You want my opinion? I would say yes - they should stop. If there's a club, a church, a group that does not want me - for whatever reason - why would I insist and attempt to force that group to accept me? Do you perceive some psycholigical issues here? Seems to be an attempt to change somebody else, to force somebody to conform to (presumably "better" and "more progressive") standard. Doesn't sound right. My personal example: I was associated with a religious group. When I found that it is too restrictive for me, I disassociated myself from them. I'm not trying to "put pressure on them" to change them, to accomodate my views - I found a different group that conforms to my views better. If there were no such group - I'd create it or stay religiously alone. What's so big a deal about it? That's my opinion. >Srila Prabhupada told us to live according to "time and >circumstance". OK. I agree, assuming it doesn't invalidate Ahimsa. >We are in the Kali-Yuga and not much of us live in Vrindavan >or Varanasi. Some would argue that Kali-Yuga is over by now - but it's s small nit. > He gave brahmin initiation, pujari jobs, e.t.c,.. to women. :-) So those who like it, would follow him. Those who don't - won't. The more fanatical ones would criticize him loudly, perhaps try to assault him... Quite normal, don't you think? >...[young brahmacharin]...then told me that it >was wrong for a women to work outside and that if she had >a higher salary than her husband, he would come back as a >poor women in his next life (according to "Scriptures"... >which one, I don't know). A woman balances her family life and her "outside" life as she sees fit. If she and her husband are both comfortable with this balance - there's a happy family. If not - then not. Whether the husband would come back as a poor woman - would depend on his attitude towards his wife's salary. >When you hear things as stupid as this, you get angry... No I'm not. Get feeling pity - perhaps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2003 Report Share Posted June 6, 2003 Hi Mouse: No; did you feel made wrong? , Mouse <uri@o...> wrote: > > > Are you making Maxime wrong for sharing her views? > > She shared hers - so did I. Are you making me wrong > for sharing mine? :-) > > > , Mouse <uri@o...> > wrote: > Rather than finding flaws with other teachings, teachers and > Gurus, perhaps it's better to find a Guru you can follow, > and do so? Don't bother with where and how somebody else > is wrong - just get yourself illuminated first. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 > Hi Mouse: No; did you feel made wrong? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 torsdagen den 5 juni 2003 13.33 skrev Maxime Lapointe: > Here is a cyber-exchange between an ISKON member and an "interfaith" > spiritual master, Har Tzion (Swami Ramakrishnananda). It shows how > modern Vaisnava "value" womens... This always becomes kind of tireing. Someone want to fanatically prove their point with all means, and can find all kinds of scriptures to support that point. My view on this is different. The Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage is to a big part a lineage of "female" souls having taken birth in India in male bodies. They are not normal persons, or normal men. Now, why would anyone prefer a male body? Because in India, women were and are repressed when it comes to freely take up a spiritual lifestyle. Girls often get married at an early age, without anyone asking them, and very soon get children and involved in family affairs, while boys have much more freedom to take up spiritual practices. Much of the Indian spiritual tradition is also oriented towards the male bodied person. India was and is a patriarchic society, where men have much more freedom than women. So for various circumstancial reasons, those persons took male bodies, instead of female. And still, their philosophy makes it very clear, their goal is to become "females" in respect to the supreme. Their highest goal is to become a cowherd girl, (gopi), in relationship to Radha and Krishna. Actually, the Gaudia Vaisnava lineage has a preferred relationship with Radha, and Krishna comes second. In the west, nowadays, this male supremacy cultural idea is getting more and more dissolved. Women can take up spiritual practices in the same degree as men. Thus there is no more any need to prefer a male body, just for the sake of cultural freedom. And we will thus also see that more and more persons that are aimed for spiritual development will take up female bodies, when they take rebirth. And in particular, we will see in lineages like the Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage, that women will take it up. After all, since the goal is to have a female relationship with the female supreme, the women body have its advantages. ISKCON instead appears to have branched out into another spiritual tradition. That of the male cowherd boy (gopa) in relationship to Krishna. They also call themselves international society for Krishna consciousness, not the international society for Radha consciousness. So in one way of seeing it, it makes sense that they primarly want male persons in their leadership, and for them Sannyasa is a position in their leadership. The end result is that the female lineage have to break out from the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition and make their own tradition in these modern times. Times are changing. Times have always changed. Even in that quote, Kunti says that sannyasa was introduced in their tradition just recently, about 100 years ago. The founder of ISKCON introduced the same rights for women as for men, in his tradition, less than 50 years ago. So there is certainly big changes going on. And there will be more big changes in the future. It is just a matter of seeing what is coming and be flexible to follow with it, without compromising the real important points of the philosophy. Anyway, the Gaudiya Vaisnava lineage is a bhakti tradition, where the important point is the individual's relationship with the supreme. That relationship has no rules. Thus the tradition also changes according to the individuals who participate in it and brings the tradition forward. The question about female sannyasis is a cultural and social question, and not a spiritual. Prisni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 Dear Mouse: I'm not sure what your smiley face icon means in this context. I think I'm understanding that, if you feel made wrong when someone expresses their intense feelings over mistreatment or harsh judgment that hurts them, you may want to silence that person's expression of their upset. In your post to Maxime, I felt you were discouraging her from expressing herself. Your need to advise her to get herself illuminated seemed self-inflated, and oppressive. But maybe it's a cover for feeling made wrong or responsible for others' mistakes? :-) , Mouse <uri@o...> wrote: > > Hi Mouse: No; did you feel made wrong? > > :-) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2003 Report Share Posted June 7, 2003 Hi Mouse: So, what was your experience of the smiley face icon at the end of my message? To me, coming at the end of the statement I made, it seems smug, indicating that I think I know something about you that you might not know. But that's not what I feel; it's just the effect of a smiley face icon placed that way. I am not sure why Maxime's post caused you to respond the way you did, but I know that to me, your response seemed self-inflated and oppressive, and as Maxime said, it missed her point. , "Mary Ann" <maryann@m...> wrote: > Dear Mouse: I'm not sure what your smiley face icon means in > this context. I think I'm understanding that, if you feel made wrong > when someone expresses their intense feelings over > mistreatment or harsh judgment that hurts them, you may want > to silence that person's expression of their upset. In your post to > Maxime, I felt you were discouraging her from expressing > herself. Your need to advise her to get herself illuminated > seemed self-inflated, and oppressive. But maybe it's a cover for > feeling made wrong or responsible for others' mistakes? :-) > > , Mouse <uri@o...> > wrote: > > > Hi Mouse: No; did you feel made wrong? > > > > :-) > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 OM Maxime Swami Sivananda was one of the first authentic Gurus to admit women into Sannyasa in the 1950's. Even he faced a lot of flack over this. Some of his own disciples disagreed with that decision and there was some antagonism between some of the male and female disciples. Swami Sivananada Radha was, I believe, the first woman that Swami Sivananda initiated into Sannyasa. Those who say that women cannot become swamis are merely living in the past and are afraid of change. They are traditionalists and as they become more strident about this point they become fundamentalists. We all know how much death, destruction, and human misery fundamentalists cause with their ignorance. OM Namah Sivaya Omprem , "Maxime Lapointe" <tulasi3@w...> wrote: > > Here is a cyber-exchange between an ISKON member and an "interfaith" > spiritual master, Har Tzion (Swami Ramakrishnananda). It shows how > modern Vaisnava "value" womens... > > Hare Krsna! > > I can't understand how you can call your woman disciples "Acharya"? > with all respect, we know that women can not take even Sanyas. How > can that be? > Enclosed is a quote by Shrila A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: > > "A woman is not supposed to take sannyasa. So-called spiritual > societies concocted in modern times give sannyasa even to women, > although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman's > accepting sannyasa. > > Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his > wife and given her sannyasa." (SB 3.24.40 purport) > > Hari Bol > > > > Har Tzion Posted on 02/19/03, 23:51 > Hare Krishna!... > > > > The quote you had included is what Mr. Bhaktivedanta thinks… So what > (?)… > > > > He says that "A woman is not supposed to take Sannyas"… > But the fact that she is "not supposed"… doesn't mean that it is > prohibited… > > > > Things which are "supposed" are not prohibitions… > > With all due respect, can you please indicate where in the scriptures > (in the Vedic Scriptures, not the interpretations of your honorable > Master) it says that women is absolutely prohibited of taking Sannyas > or becoming an Acharya? > > > Acharya is a Sanskrit word which signifies "He who teaches by his own > personal example"… why can't a lady teach by her own personal > example?... > And as for the gentlemen Kardama Muni; he can do as he pleases, that > has nothing to do with me… > We live in a world of men… > With Scriptures written by men… Too macho for our days… > Women were viewed always as an object… > As a possession… > How can an object become Sannyas? > How can an object become an Acharya? > > > > > Believe me, it is possible that you and many of your preachers have a > lot to learn from a few of my women disciples… > Maybe if there would have been more women Sannyas or Acharyas in your > institution… > > > > They would have solved many of those terrible problems of the past > few years… > What a shame… > Sometimes I think that the ego is masculine… and that enlightenment > is feminine… > Every day I am more and more convinced that if there is a God… One > thing is certain… He cannot be masculine… And Satan cannot be a woman… > > > > > In any case, your question had surprised me… I thought that the macho > religious fanaticism has appeared only our through our heritage… I > mean only at the mid orient… > But I see that it had surpassed all boundaries and had managed to > fraternize without differences of creed or race… > It is the same simple disrespect towards women… The same cruelty… > Have you any idea what we Jews pray every day? Every morning? > "Thank you Lord for not making me a woman"… > According to your conclusion and that of your master's I believe that > you would be in total agreement with this... You might even adopt it > as your Mantra and do another daily 16 rounds with it… > > > Now… Can you please tell me what we men have done (except numerous > wars, destruction and vile deeds) that we might be merciful to obtain > the title of Sannyas or "religious"?... > Why only men can raise to the Torah?... > Yes… I know… You would say it is written in your little books… > In your Torah or Gita… What ever the case might be… > That's where any possibility of a sane discussion ends… > One thing I can assure you with, > Our Acharyas never had violated any children… > Never have they sexually molested anyone… > Never have they run away with the institution's money… > They are not homosexuals… > They never had any drugs deals… > And never have they been sent to jail… > Can you say the same about the Acharyas of your institution for the > past 20 years?... > I am sure you can, otherwise you wouldn't criticize with such > confidence other Acharyas just because they are woman… > > > > > I would put it loud and clear… Women before anything else are human > beings and should be respected and dignified as such… And I don't > accept that she would be disrespected even in the name of your > religions, pitiful books or your Guru's interpretations… > If your religion produced disrespect and humiliation of the feminine > sex, then your interpretation of your so called religion doesn't > deserve the most minimum respect… > That is not religion my dear friend… > That is "Chauvinism" disguised as spirituality… > Any offense towards a woman offends me personally as a human being… > You remember that the Gopis of Vrindavan are the exponents of the > most elevated form of Bhakti… And… what can we do… they…. Are -- > Women… How horrible!!!! > > > > > Be careful not to offend Mother Durga or Mother Kali… They are very > close to Lord Krishna… and the Devi is extremely sensitive when it > comes to the feminine sex. > Have you read the Srimad Devi Bhagavatam?... especially the Devi > Gita?... obviously religious people only like to read those > scriptures which reinforce their interpretations or those of their > Guru… > > So, finally… > Go with God my friend… > > (Forgive me for my impatience, but the disrespect towards women from > so called religious people, enlightenment or no-enlightenment, makes > me angry… Love and forgive me if I offended you.) > > Hare Krishna?… Why not Jay Radha!?... Radha, Radha, even Lord Krishna > wished to enjoy your ecstatic Love and descended as Lord Chaitanya > Mahaprabhu for that purpose… > > > > I would recommend reading the Sri Chaitanya Caritamrta which was > written by Krishnadasa Kaviraja Goswami… > > > > > Kunti Devi Posted on 02/20/03, 12:34 > Shri Shri Radha Govindajiu ki jai! > > Frankly speaking, I am shocked that anyone could consider such an > idea that women are fit for accepting sannyas. If a man feels that > women are fit to take the renounced order of life then it appears to > me that such a man knows very little or possibly nothing about the > real nature of women. Possibly he may also not know about the > qualifications and difficulties in living the life of a sannyasi. > > If a woman thinks that she is fit for sannyas, or that other women > are fit for sannyas, then honestly speaking from the perspective of a > woman, I myself think that she is lying to herself. > > According to shastra, acharyas and Vaishnava tradition since the > Vedic times when people were much more qualified than they are today, > women never took the renounced order of life. Particularly in our > modern times, when Prabhupad Shri Shrila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati > Thakur introduced tridandi sannyas into the Gaudiya Vaishnava > sampradaya, we see no trend for women to enter the sannyas ashram and > he had many qualified women disciples (my thakur-ma amongst them). > > Some persons may argue that women are equal to men and if a woman is > renounced enough and intelligent enough she is a fit candidate to > take sannyas. My opinion on this is that men and women are not equal > they are distinctly different in their qualifications, in their > character, in their thinking and in their necessities. > > According to shastra a woman has two exalted qualities shyness and > chastity. A woman who has intelligence as well as shyness and > chastity is respected by all classes of people throughout the world. > Such a woman would never wish to take sannyas but would remain > satisfied in her natural position. But if a woman has intelligence > but lacks these two important qualities of shyness and chastity, then > she is never satisfied in her natural position and always wants to > occupy the position of others. This is the negative side of the > nature of women, (matsarja). Such women cannot make spiritual > advancement. > > What I find disturbing about the issue of women and sannyas is that > according to the law of averages, if three men and three women of > western dissent were to discuss this matter of women's fitness for > sannyas, it would be doubtful if any of the six had ever lived a > strictly moral life before or even after having become an initiated > Vaishnava or Vaishnavi. This is a well-known fact from the rate of > divorce, open promiscuity and even child-abuse prevalent in western > societies. In my humble opinion, the western Vaishnava devotees > should first try to live up to the normal standard of morality before > they attempt to restructure the whole Vaishnava culture. > > We humbly suggest to our western devotee brothers and sisters that > they should take heed of our Vaishnava culture in Bengal and not try > to thrust their Americanized version of Vaishnavism and women's > liberation upon the rest of the world. > > Humbly > > Kunti Devi > > > > Har Tzion Posted on 02/20/03, 23:51 > All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga ! > > "Frankly speaking, I am shocked that anyone could consider such an > idea that women are fit for accepting sannyas." > I am sure, that every fanatic believer is shocked that someone > displays a contradicting opinion to his own. > For example, up to this day, there are orthodox Vaishnav devotees in > India who are shocked due to Srila Prabhupada's brahmana initiation > to women. There are many very-orthodox Vaishnavas who are shocked > that Srila Prabhupada even taught westerners. > I was in Vrindavan, several times, and I had the chance of speaking > with a few very respectable Swamis, Krishna devotees, for many > generations, who are shocked by the fact that there are western > Vaishnava Gurus... > For me, a shock from advanced spiritual approaches, always comes from > the old. In this reaction, there is something of the religious > staleness. I can even remember that in Srila Prabhupada's first days > in the USA, there were even a few who didn't want to help him. > Because they were shocked by his will to install temples for Krishna, > with Deities, in a place that wasn't built in that intention -- in > rented houses. In general, I think that the world and the mediocre > human society, is still shocked by any sage, any enlightened being, > by his actions in regarding the time and place. > > I believe that both of you have a certain misunderstanding. the two > Lady disciples, who are Gurus in our institution... are NOT nuns... > they are not Sannyas, I am against celibacy. For me celibacy, for men > and women, is nothing but a type of repression... > Repression, turns us into being obsessive, after that which we > repress. Kali Devi Ma, and Shanti Devi Ma, are "Acharyas", meaning > that with their own example, many others can be inspired. No one does > not receive Sannyas in our organization... and more then that, no > because they do not deserve... but simply because no one is > interested... we love life, enjoy it, and are not after escaping... > because we have learned a long time ago, that life, like Krishna, is > found everywhere, and it is impossible to run away from. > > With Alot of Love. > > > > > > Dasa Posted on 02/22/03, 14:24 > I find it strange that he use the lack of a Vedic connection in the > argument against women Krishna was not given Vedic connection until > the writing of the Bhagavad Gita a few centuries BC, and then as an > avatar of Vishnu. He was a tribal cheiftain of the monotheistic > Satvata clan who did not worship in a Vedic manner. Where is > reference Krishna in the Vedas? Thousnads of males have no problem > accepting Krishna- sans Vedic mention- yet struggle with the idea of > a female Acharya? > Now that's interesting. > > Two of the direct disciples of Avatar, Sri Kalki Bhagavan are female > enlightened before the age of 18 they conduct retreats for 10's of > thousands in India and are widely accepted and respected in India and > Russian. You can see a photo of Acharya Sri Samadarshini at > http://skyboom1.tripod.com/index38.html and interviews of the 2 > female acharyas of Kalki there. The following of Sri Kalki grew from > 0-over 16 million in less than a decade without publicity or media. > > Not to mention the enlightened monastic order at Satyaloka Monastery > where most of the jiva mukti are females. All adhere to sanyasi > tradition. All with one exception are Indian. > > > > > Kurma Das Posted on 03/03/03, 21:05 > Hare Krsna > > Even though you don't accept Srila Prabhupad opinion on this matter, > and you seem to have a very open-minded view on this subject. I can't > understand how you dont see the problem in this matter. I attached a > few qoutes just to show you how dengerous and difficult realtionship > with women can be. Dont you think that a spiritual aspirant should at > least be more carefull with himslef? > > Srila Prabhupada says in the SB 9.19.17 purport: "Learning the > etiquette of how to deal with women does not free one from sexual > attraction." > > SB 7.12.7: RIGIDLY AVOID TALKING TO WOMEN > > varjayet pramada-gatham, agrhastho brhad-vratah; > indriyani pramathini, haranty api yater manah. > > A brahmacari, or one who has not accepted the grhastha-asrama [family > life], must rigidly avoid talking with women or about women, for the > senses are so powerful that they may agitate even the mind of a > sannyasi, a member of the renounced order of life. > > SB 11.17.33: NEVER GLANCE OR CONVERSE WITH A WOMAN > > strinam niriksana-sparsa-samlapa-ksvelanadikam; > pranino mithuni-bhutan agrhastho 'gratas tyajet. > > Those who are not married - sannyasis, vanaprasthas and brahmacaris- > should never associate with women by glancing, touching, conversing, > joking or sporting. Neither should they ever associate with any > living entity engaged in sexual activities. > > SB 6.18.41, purport: NEVER HEAR A WOMAN'S VOICE OR SEE HER BEAUTIFUL > FACE. OTHERWISE THERE WILL BE DANGER IN THE SOCIETY. > > > Bg 16.1-3 purport: EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL INCARNATION STRICTLY > FOLLOWED THE RULES OF THE SANNYASA ASHRAM IN ORDER TO TEACH US. THIS > IS NOT A SIGN OF HATRED FOR WOMEN AS A CLASS BUT IT IS A STRICTURE > IMPOSED ON A SANNYASI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.