Sastric Advisory Council on Female Gurus

[suchandra]

When it comes to female diksa-guru, it is suggested that the Vaishnavi (see below) should have been a devotee for 30 years and above the age of fifty and should have the support of a team of siksa-gurus. Male diksa-gurus don't all need this, "no specific qualification required".

For us readers it says, "All we request from you is a philosophical understanding", in order to fully grasp the meaning of, "Women have a different psycho-physical nature than men"?

And: "Furthermore, it is rare to find examples of their taking the role of guru."

Well, yes, but there're more things within ISKCON which can be called, "rare", isn't it?

 

“We are aware that the possibility of devotees wanting ladies to become gurus in ISKCON is there, but so far no one has addressed the matter of how correct or appropriate it may be in terms of Srilla Prabhupada’s statements, sastra, the statements of previous acaryas, or historical considerations. Now that Urmilä’s name has been proposed as a guru within ISKCON it has brought the subject to the forefront, and the EC feels there is a need for research to be done for a clear understanding. We would like SAC to research this and give us a report. We will conduct a separate discussion about the cultural impact of this decision. All we request from you is a philosophical understanding.”

 

SAC's Female Guru Paper Final, 16 pages, 128 KB, word.doc

 

Female Dékñä-gurus in ISKCON

A paper by the Çästric Advisory Council (SAC)

 

[...]

 

Weighing the Evidence and Concluding

The one significant negative statement—“Sunéti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahäräja's dékñä-guru.” (Bhäg. 4.12.32 purport)—can be interpreted differently. One possible interpretation is that women cannot initiate male devotees, but could do so for female devotees. Another could be that women can initiate all others except their own offspring. This second interpretation could be supported by the fact that Lord Nityänanda’s second wife, Çré Vasudhä Devé, did not initiate her own son, Véracandra, but Çré Jähnavä Devé did so. In any case, Çréla Prabhupäda is referring to an incident at a specific time in the distant past, and his other statements dealing with the present time (conversations with Professor O'Connell or with Ätreya Åñi Däsa), and specifically within ISKCON, are more valuable as pramäëas in this discussion.

Additionally, the vaidika system was operating during the Satya-yuga. Under that system, women did not generally receive initiation. Therefore, logically, they also could not give it. Under the more recent païcarätrika system, however, qualified women can accept and offer initiation.

We have also presented statements, on the one hand, demanding the social dependency and protection of women and, on the other, statements declaring that in spiritual matters such considerations may be transcended.

When we look at all of Çréla Prabhupäda’s statements we see that he had the conception of female gurus in the future, i.e. if they could meet the standard, and that there were female gurus in the past whom Çréla Prabhupäda cited as evidence for his position. But he did say that they were rare, and so we should follow that indication.

Weighing the philosophical evidence, the SAC team concludes that female devotees, if qualified, should be allowed to give initiation in ISKCON.

It seems unsupportable on the basis of guru, sädhu and çästra to have a policy that asserts that there can never be female-gurus in ISKCON. The GBC, however, may choose to not have female-gurus at present on the basis of time, place and circumstance or cultural considerations. But then there would have to be some justification as to why this kind of policy should be necessary now.

If the GBC consensus is to go forward with female gurus in ISKCON, then we suggest relative prerequisites to be considered. The following prerequisites take social concerns into account:

Relative Prerequisites and Support

Since it is difficult to ascertain someone’s level of bhakti,and to ensure stability, it may be considered prudent by the GBC to place some relative prerequisites, not absolute ones (otherwise it would violate the kibä-vipra verse [Cc Madhya 8.128]), on female guru candidates in ISKCON. Here are a few humble suggestions:

a) The Vaiñëavé should normally be of a certain age (e.g. fifty or more).

b) The Vaiñëavé should normally have performed a minimum number of years of sädhana-bhakti. (e.g. twenty-five or thirty years)

b) The Vaiñëavé should normally have some family support, e.g. husband, adult son or daughter or adult son-in-law or daughter-in-law, and a residential base to ensure her psycho-social stability. This suggested proviso corresponds to the many recommendations and warnings of women becoming independent given in dharma-çästras.

c) The Vaiñëavé should normally have spiritual support in the form of at least one or more çikñä-gurus or senior mentors from which she can take assistance.

Why should relative conditions be placed on female guru candidates?

Women have a different psycho-physical nature than men. Therefore, while still in the sädhana stages of bhakti, a female-guru candidate would do well to have some relative support. Furthermore, it is rare to find examples of their taking the role of guru. This is clearly stated by Çréla Prabhupäda and others in the above cited conversations. These relative prerequisites are simple measures to safeguard and support future female gurus without burdening prospective candidates with unnecessary bureaucracy.

end

[Kulapavana]

"Women have a different psycho-physical nature than men."

 

The same can be said about sudras and brahmanas, yet Vaishnavas claim even a sudra can become a guru. Thus placing such additional conditions on women looks like a double standard and material mode of thinking.

 

Sudra gurus were extremely rare as well, yet nobody in our society of devotees uses that as an argument.

[suchandra]

 

"Women have a different psycho-physical nature than men."

 

The same can be said about sudras and brahmanas, yet Vaishnavas claim even a sudra can become a guru. Thus placing such additional conditions on women looks like a double standard and material mode of thinking.

 

Sudra gurus were extremely rare as well, yet nobody in our society of devotees uses that as an argument.

Although one might assume that a guru should be fully transcendentally situated, there's a statement found in Hari-bhakti-vilasa that recommends that a brahmana should have a brahmana guru, a vaisya should have a vaisya guru, a ksatriya should have a ksatriya guru, and a sudra should have a sudra guru. This statement indicates that a person should accept a guru from a similar cultural background because the extent to which qualified gurus understand the psychology of their students will have considerable bearing on their ability to convey the essence of the vedic tradition to them. When there is psychological and cultural compatibility between the guru and disciple and the guru is highly spiritually qualified, it seems you have the best of both worlds.

 

"For sudra, there is no diksa, there is no initiation. Initiation is meant for the persons who are born in brahmana family, ksatriya family, or vaisya family. The sudra has no initiation. So in India there are professional gurus. They initiate sudras, but do not eat foodstuff touched by the disciple. So there are so many things, that if he's initiated, how he can remain sudra? But they keep him sudra; at the same time, they become guru. Sanatana Gosvami gives direction in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa that: tatha diksa-vidhanena dvijatvam jayate nrnam. If properly initiated, he becomes immediately brahmana." Bhagavad-gita lecture, London, July 28th 1973

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada never gave the GBC any authority or right to pontificate on who can be guru and why.

 

This kind of lunacy is what has me convinced that I could never again in my life have anything to do with ISKCON.

[theist]

 

Since it is difficult to ascertain someone’s level of bhakti,and to ensure stability, it may be considered prudent by the GBC to place some relative prerequisites, not absolute ones (otherwise it would violate the kibä-vipra verse [Cc Madhya 8.128]), on female guru candidates in ISKCON. Here are a few humble suggestions:

 

Here it is right here. Since they admit they can't ascertai anyone's level of bhakti or ensure stability then why in the hell do these people think they have anyright saying who can or cannot becaome guru?

 

What a sad joke.

[Ashvatama]

 

Here it is right here. Since they admit they can't ascertai anyone's level of bhakti or ensure stability then why in the hell do these people think they have anyright saying who can or cannot becaome guru?

 

What a sad joke.

 

I don't want to sound like some version of a racist, but traditionally guru's have been men, very rarely is there a women guru. Also isn't it a sign of the Kali-yuga that women will become dominante over men due to their weakness in spiritual life? I would like to hear some scriptual undertanding of this if anyone knows of any?

[suchandra]

 

I don't want to sound like some version of a racist, but traditionally guru's have been men, very rarely is there a women guru. Also isn't it a sign of the Kali-yuga that women will become dominante over men due to their weakness in spiritual life? I would like to hear some scriptual undertanding of this if anyone knows of any?

Weakness in spiritual life of women? It might be the case that Vaishnavis don't consider to use the internet as preaching tool but when it comes to be fallen from the path of devotional service men are surely the biggest rascals.

Now let's examine the preaching performance of present male Vaishnavas, why anyone should consider that female Vaishnavis are lacking behind in any way? To say that present male Vaishnava preachers are no crowd pullers might be slightly overstated, but let's be honest, Vaishnavis could also accomplish this kind of preaching result very easily.

I see the actual problem that Vaishnava preachers are not properly trained in using the right words to adress an audience.

[Ashvatama]

Good strong points, thank you, very conviencing. The way I see it we cannot base the future on the past in this Kali-yuga however, it is stated that men will become weaker and more dominated by women as Kali-yuga progresses. Although thats out in the material karmi world. Vaisnava's are above the concept of man and women, sudra and Brahmana because we are all spirit souls and servants of Krishna - can we all serve on that level though? Maybe in 50 years from now there will be hundreds of guru's both women and men?

[mahak]

Krsnadas Kaviraj, trumps ya. His message is that one has no consciousness if one considers vaisnava in terms of physical traits.

 

Queen Kunthi is my Guru, she trumps yall. Queen Draupadi is my warrior, all better duck.

 

If women cant be gurus, then neither can americans. Nitya baddhas? No way, just go smoke ganja.

 

Sure is a lot of "Ya cant do this, ya gotta do that" goin on these days.

 

mahak

[Guruvani]

 

I don't want to sound like some version of a racist, but traditionally guru's have been men, very rarely is there a women guru.

 

In Vedic culture, India culture, the women are raised and trained to be very shy, chaste and humble.

So, in Hindu society there were very few incidents of women gurus because the women were always humble enough to consider that there is a male devotee somewhere who could do the job without her having to sacrifice her respect as a shy and chaste woman.

 

If there are male gurus available, then in the Vedic Hindu culture there were not many women willing to accept the position of guru.

[suchandra]

 

In Vedic culture, India culture, the women are raised and trained to be very shy, chaste and humble.

So, in Hindu society there were very few incidents of women gurus because the women were always humble enough to consider that there is a male devotee somewhere who could do the job without her having to sacrifice her respect as a shy and chaste woman.

 

If there are male gurus available, then in the Vedic Hindu culture there were not many women willing to accept the position of guru.

Seems the Sastric Advisory Council paper doesn't speak of the situation within the ancient Hindu culture but of today what we have here in the West. Even since 1977 things have changed and the next US president will be for the first time a woman.

When asked if Clinton will be “good for business,” Rothschild replies,

 

“First of all, Hillary will be good for America. And so if we care about our country —which all of my fellow capitalists do —we’ll be very pleased that she’s president.”

 

There's no point though to preach that there should be female gurus, but if present male gurus are so much untrustworthy what can be done?

[Guruvani]

 

Seems the Sastric Advisory Council paper doesn't speak of the situation within the Hindu culture but of today what we have here in the West. Even since 1977 things have changed and the next US president will be for the first time a woman.

When asked if Clinton will be “good for business,” Rothschild replies,

 

“First of all, Hillary will be good for America. And so if we care about our country —which all of my fellow capitalists do —we’ll be very pleased that she’s president.”

 

There's no point though to preach that there should be female gurus, but if present male gurus are so much untrustworthy what can be done?

But, the question this issue begs is if abandoning the traditional Vedic customs and embracing all modern standards is really what the KC Movement and Krishna consciousness is all about.

 

Is getting completely away from the Vedic customary cultural traditions and embracing a modern standard for women really good for the KC movement.

 

Besides that, most of the devotee women that I saw around ISKCON and the KC movement were very humble, shy and chaste and were not interested in becoming guru.

 

Most devotee women don't want to "rock the boat" and start issues with women gurus in the KC movment.

 

In Gaudiya culture most usually the sannyasis did the work of guru.

Is rejecting that norm and encouraging women to become gurus really good for the KC movement or good for the devotee ladies?

 

ISKCON is coming in the Saraswata Gaudiya line.

Is having women gurus in ISKCON really in the tradition of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur?

[suchandra]

 

But, the question this issue begs is if abandoning the traditional Vedic customs and embracing all modern standards is really what the KC Movement and Krishna consciousness is all about.

 

Is getting completely away from the Vedic customary cultural traditions and embracing a modern standard for women really good for the KC movement.

 

Besides that, most of the devotee women that I saw around ISKCON and the KC movement were very humble, shy and chaste and were not interested in becoming guru.

 

Most devotee women don't want to "rock the boat" and start issues with women gurus in the KC movment.

 

In Gaudiya culture most usually the sannyasis did the work of guru.

Is rejecting that norm and encouraging women to become gurus really good for the KC movement or good for the devotee ladies?

 

ISKCON is coming in the Saraswata Gaudiya line.

Is having women gurus in ISKCON really in the tradition of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur?

What you say is 100% right and correct - just wanted to point out that the falldown rate of male Vaishnavas is of such dimension that they walk on thin ice/ lost all credibilty but then busy making statements like women are shy, unqualified, this is not the tradition, this is not the etiquette, they actually don't want to be spiritual teachers etc...

[Guruvani]

 

just wanted to point out that the falldown rate of male Vaishnavas is of such dimension that they walk on thin ice/ lost all credibilty but then busy making statements like women are shy, unqualified, this is not the tradition, this is not the etiquette, they actually don't want to be spiritual teachers etc...

Crucify the messenger if you want.

Anyway, there are plenty and plenty of women who have fallen down and gone away from ISKCON.

They just don't get all the publicity and fanfare that sannyasis and gurus get when they bite the dust.

 

I still question if embracing all modern standards for women is really what Krishna consciousness is all about.

 

Most devotee women are more concerned with serving Krishna than with getting position and authority in the KC movement.

 

The battle against male dominance is going on in ISKCON just like it is going on in the secular world.

 

I am not so sure that this battle against male dominance has anything at all to do with Krishna consciousness.

 

The most advanced devotee women I ever saw in the movement were very shy, reserved and keeping to the background.

The ones out on the battlefront challenging male dominance are not the most advanced devotee women as far as I have seen.

[suchandra]

 

Crucify the messenger if you want.

Anyway, there are plenty and plenty of women who have fallen down and gone away from ISKCON.

They just don't get all the publicity and fanfare that sannyasis and gurus get when they bite the dust.

 

I still question if embracing all modern standards for women is really what Krishna consciousness is all about.

 

Most devotee women are more concerned with serving Krishna than with getting position and authority in the KC movement.

 

The battle against male dominance is going on in ISKCON just like it is going on in the secular world.

 

I am not so sure that this battle against male dominance has anything at all to do with Krishna consciousness.

 

The most advanced devotee women I ever saw in the movement were very shy, reserved and keeping to the background.

The ones out on the battlefront challenging male dominance are not the most advanced devotee women as far as I have seen.

Today, "International Men's Day"

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/

 

[mahak]

If we speak guru here, we speak of one who is spontaneously loving god. God inspires such a person as he sees fit to do his work, to represent.

 

Now, if biological concerns shade anothers opinion, then such a person has not even come to brahmana realization, let alone the advanced stages of madhyama adhikari or uttama adhikari, who are fully emmersed in bhagavan realization.

 

Krsna sends whoever he pleases, recognition is up to us.

 

Whenever this debate comes up, I remember Queen Draupadi. Krsna had the absolute right response to Aswattamas atrocities and war crimes, and prepared to decapitate him. But Queen Draupadi, not so humbled and in the background as her five innocent children were slain by the culprit, asserted herself. She became Krsna's Guru, his siksa, and taught Him that killing a brahmana (even a bandhu like aswattama of many eternal wet sores), was not the solution. Krsna surrendered to Her counsel. Krsna was always subservient to the other Krsna (Draupadi) that he is always at her beck and call.

 

This is not about cultural mysogeny and bogus interpretations of biological difference, this is about guru, beyond any material consideration, per the authority of Chaitanya Charitamrta (a veda base expert can look up the teachings where one should not even consider bodily traits, past activities, physical well being, appearance of adverse karma, etc. when analyzing the qualifications of the vaisnava acarya.

 

Just the name SHASTRIC ADVISORY COUNCIL makes me cringe. What, these kanisthas still not to the brahmana realization are gonna study and then advise, consent, and vote on such issues? What a waste of my guru maharaja's funds. What a diversion from the whole science. Any newcomer brahmacarini is much more qualified than the whole board combined.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[theist]

Prabhupada wrote or said that "Who you hear from, that is your guru."

 

If a liberated soul is in a female body would a sincere aspirant not hear from "her" and instead hear from a GBC sanctioned guru who is not liberated just because he is in a male body and upholds some tradition or another?

 

Of course a sincere aspirant would hear from the liberated soul who is in a woman's form.

 

Here is another example where spiritual life divides from religious considerations. The question is a religious one and may be how any certain religious institution wants to run their business...no female popes for example.

 

So I think we have to be firm in our inner purpose which is spiritual life over religious life if a conflict arises.

[sevabhakta]

 

If we speak guru here, we speak of one who is spontaneously loving god. God inspires such a person as he sees fit to do his work, to represent.

 

Now, if biological concerns shade anothers opinion, then such a person has not even come to brahmana realization, let alone the advanced stages of madhyama adhikari or uttama adhikari, who are fully emmersed in bhagavan realization.

 

Krsna sends whoever he pleases, recognition is up to us.

 

Whenever this debate comes up, I remember Queen Draupadi. Krsna had the absolute right response to Aswattamas atrocities and war crimes, and prepared to decapitate him. But Queen Draupadi, not so humbled and in the background as her five innocent children were slain by the culprit, asserted herself. She became Krsna's Guru, his siksa, and taught Him that killing a brahmana (even a bandhu like aswattama of many eternal wet sores), was not the solution. Krsna surrendered to Her counsel. Krsna was always subservient to the other Krsna (Draupadi) that he is always at her beck and call.

 

This is not about cultural mysogeny and bogus interpretations of biological difference, this is about guru, beyond any material consideration, per the authority of Chaitanya Charitamrta (a veda base expert can look up the teachings where one should not even consider bodily traits, past activities, physical well being, appearance of adverse karma, etc. when analyzing the qualifications of the vaisnava acarya.

 

Just the name SHASTRIC ADVISORY COUNCIL makes me cringe. What, these kanisthas still not to the brahmana realization are gonna study and then advise, consent, and vote on such issues? What a waste of my guru maharaja's funds. What a diversion from the whole science. Any newcomer brahmacarini is much more qualified than the whole board combined.

 

haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

 

On that note, the qualification is put plainly and simply here.

 

from Raja Vidya, The King of Knowledge, Ch 7.

 

Therefore it is stated in Bhagavad-gita that if we at all want to learn transcendental knowledge, we must approach one who has actually seen the Absolute Truth (tad-viddhi pranipatena [bg. 4.34]). Traditionally, brahmanas are meant to be spiritual masters, but in this age of Kali, it is very difficult to find a qualified brahmana. Consequently it is very difficult to find a qualified spiritual master. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu has recommended kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya/yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya: [Cc. Madhya 8.128] “Whether one be a brahmana or a sudra or a sannyasi or a householder, it doesn’t matter. If he knows the science of Krsna, he’s a bona fide spiritual master.”

 

Bhagavad-gita is the science of Krsna, and if we study it scrutinizingly with all of our argument, sense and philosophical knowledge, we will come to know that science. It is not that we are to submit ourselves blindly. The spiritual master may be self-realized and situated in the Absolute Truth, yet we have to question him in order to understand all spiritual points. If one is able to factually answer the questions about the science of Krsna, he is the spiritual master, regardless of where he is born or what he is—whether he be a brahmana or sudra or American, Indian or whatever. When we go to a doctor, we do not ask him whether he is a Hindu, Christian or brahmana. He has the qualification of a medical man, and we simply surrender, saying, “Doctor, treat me. I am suffering.”

 

 

Of course we need to take into consideration that most folks are entering the process from square one, with little or no previous spiritual advancement, so the actual living process that occurs while reading the Gita in the association of one who knows its purport and obeing his instructions in order to be able to "come to know that science" implies a gradual process over time where one becomes "purified" (humility, etc.) and develops Vaisnava qualities.

 

Then when the study is complete and they are living the Gita, they are Guru.

 

Right now there I see alot of people either pretending to be Guru, or talking about those pretending to be Guru's, and a few fortunate ones coming to clarity on what a Guru we really have in Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita as it is, and Vaisnava sanga.

 

Hare Krsna

[Guruvani]

 

Prabhupada wrote or said that "Who you hear from, that is your guru."

 

 

Maybe, in the broadest sense we can say that.

However, guru, in the context of he who is the authorized agent of the Godhead sent as his ambassador to the fallen souls, we have to understand that guru is the direct agent of the Godhead with full authority and empowerment to lead and deliver fallen souls out of illusion to the service of the Godhead.

 

Guru Krishna can act through even a bird or a dog to show us a lesson.

However, most of us think of guru in terms of he who is authorized by the Godhead to represent him and make a contract to deliver fallens souls if they are willing to accept and abide by his guidance and directions.

[theist]

 

Maybe, in the broadest sense we can say that.

However, guru, in the context of he who is the authorized agent of the Godhead sent as his ambassador to the fallen souls, we have to understand that guru is the direct agent of the Godhead with full authority and empowerment to lead and deliver fallen souls out of illusion to the service of the Godhead.

 

Guru Krishna can act through even a bird or a dog to show us a lesson.

However, most of us think of guru in terms of he who is authorized by the Godhead to represent him and make a contract to deliver fallens souls if they are willing to accept and abide by his guidance and directions.

 

Yes but if a liberated soul in a woman's body is speaking Krsna consciousness then does it not mean that that soul is being directed to by Krsna? The authority and empowerment are to be found in the quality of the sound vibration. Is it out and out mundane (karmi talk) and yes I know I am still a karmi), is it shadow Krsna consciousness (tinged with motivation for fame and prophet and not motivated by realization and the love for other souls that need to hear), or is it full blown Krsna consciousness, untinged with material motivation or misconception emanating from the suddha sattva platform?

 

This is what we need to be aware of. Shadowy Krsna-katha gets taken to be ful blown pure Krsna-katha.

 

So again if the real thing is emanating from a female form and the male form is giving out shadows it seems the choice is obvious.

 

"Abandone all varieties of religion..." Religion means shadow spiritual life. It is a transitional stage from gross mundane life toward spiritual life. The problem with istitutional thinking is that shadows tend to get written into lawbooks and those lawbooks then start to take on the air of final authority when really all they everwere is someone attempt to manage a shadow institution.

[suchandra]

 

Yes but if a liberated soul in a woman's body is speaking Krsna consciousness then does it not mean that that soul is being directed to by Krsna? The authority and empowerment are to be found in the quality of the sound vibration. Is it out and out mundane (karmi talk) and yes I know I am still a karmi), is it shadow Krsna consciousness (tinged with motivation for fame and prophet and not motivated by realization and the love for other souls that need to hear), or is it full blown Krsna consciousness, untinged with material motivation or misconception emanating from the suddha sattva platform?

 

This is what we need to be aware of. Shadowy Krsna-katha gets taken to be ful blown pure Krsna-katha.

 

So again if the real thing is emanating from a female form and the male form is giving out shadows it seems the choice is obvious.

 

"Abandone all varieties of religion..." Religion means shadow spiritual life. It is a transitional stage from gross mundane life toward spiritual life. The problem with istitutional thinking is that shadows tend to get written into lawbooks and those lawbooks then start to take on the air of final authority when really all they everwere is someone attempt to manage a shadow institution.

 

Thanks Theist prabhu, yes, present Western Vaishnavism is in such a confused state that one wonders why people even dare to proclaim their wisdom?

But what can be done - could be that it's all Krishna's plan, to create order out of chaos. Formerly we used to wait with glowing eyes for the arrival of the American sannyasi, now, people are hysterically laughing when hearing the term, "American sannyasi". Something like Hugh Hefner trying to become a celibate.

[theist]

 

Thanks Theist prabhu, yes, present Western Vaishnavism is in such a confused state that one wonders why people even dare to proclaim their wisdom?

But what can be done - could be that it's all Krishna's plan, to create order out of chaos. Formerly we used to wait with glowing eyes for the arrival of the American sannyasi, now, people are hysterically laughing when hearing the term, "American sannyasi". Something like Hugh Hefner trying to become a celibate.

 

Yes I know this happens but that is the same as laughing at a female guru. An intelligent person will wait to hear from the person before making up their mind.

 

I only met and spoke with Vishnujana Swami maybe 3 times and heard him speak in lectures a handful more than that in the very early 70's (over 35 years ago) and I tell you that even thinking about him now makes my eyes wet.

 

My proposal is individual and not institutional. I propose that we pray to the Lord in the heart to grant us "The ears to hear and the eyes to see.." who is actually His devotee and not at all be concerned with their American or Indian, woman or man, brahmana or sudra status.

 

Institutions feel they have to formally decide these things to enforce control. I as an individual am under no such pressure. And afterall I am an individual and not an institution.

[mahak]

all glories to your individuality, bro, mahaksadasa

[theist]

 

all glories to your individuality, bro, mahaksadasa

 

And to yours Madmax. =:-). And especially to Krsna's, the Supreme Individual.