HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[Guest guest]

I_L_K,

 

I am only continuing to post because you asked this question, what is the GHQ.

 

They are a group of male chauvinists who claim they are the real followers of Prabhupada's teachings,................................... They would be the first to say Urmila must get the permission of her husband to be guru. This, and the fact that a deleted post contained the names of two GHQ members, is why I mentioned it. Otherwise I would not have, as I would not give them the publicity! So I hope no one else will.

 

 

Because in Vedic culture husband and wife are not considered as two entites even though they are. They are considered as a team and one team member's decision affects the other's. That is why he has to approve of her being guru... but I think this goes only one way which shows a bit of instability and tyranny in the system.

 

 

Yes, this is understood, but it is not the highest teachings in Krishna consciousness for our age. Previously husband use to be pure deovtee. In kali yuga his level of spiriutal advancement is like anyone else including the wife. Not an insult and can vary. In general it is reality though. Its best if all can come to some agreement, but this 'permission' concept in a time when women are educated, attend college or are extremely well-read, etc., and in the face of high abuse statistics, it no longer should apply. A women is a seperate entity and it would be impersonalism to think otherwise. Her intelligence is not lesser than that of a man in this age, and she is wise enough to make her own choices. In a marriage, both man and woman should sit down and come to agreeable conclusions, not that she has to get permission or he gets to lord it over.

 

I agree there is, now but not in the past, tyrany in the system.

 

It should work both ways, where if husand wants to become a guru, he should need wife's permission if he holds to the belief that she must have his. Its not that he can bully and do whatever he deisres because he 'think's he is so much more advanced than wife. Arrogance at best. I do not say this to you though, just in genral, but you do not sound to have this problem.

 

I hope this too does not turn into the topic of this thread however. Some are trying to use that against Urmila and why she should not be guru. I strongly do not believe she should be guru, yet I will not stoop to this as a reason. Qualification is all that needs examination t. Its plenty!

 

Though I dont like singling out Urmail. The real topic here should be focus on how ISKCON keeps selecting their gurus, over and over and over, the same unbonifide voting system. THIS is the topic. Seems some with women trouble like to change the topic. (Again, not you I_L_K).

 

moderators note: we have removed a few lines which we felt were possibly too strong and too general to be posted here

[Guest guest]

 

Gender issues really have nothing to do with the diqualifications of Urmilla to be a diksha guru. It is not her gender that has rendered her unfit. It is her affiliation with and endorsement of illicit GBC policy that has shown her lack of spiritual advancement. Her alliance with devotees who have undermined the mission of Srila Prabhupada is what has discredited her. Being a woman is not the issue. It is being a party to disobeying the orders of her spiritual master that have rendered her unfit.

 

 

Agreed. Completely. 100%. You hit the nail on the head. Thank you for brining the topic full circle and back to where it belongs.

[livingentity]

 

The real topic here should be focus on how ISKCON keeps selecting their gurus, over and over and over, the same unbonifide voting system. THIS is the topic.

 

 

I would like to see more discussion the voting system. I have trouble understanding this. Earlier in this thread someone asked, "Who voted in Srila Prabhupada?" Well, we know the answer to that and that question should have set this thread in the right direction of discussion.

[Guest guest]

I'm not a GHQ member, but... is it possible that this description of them is a bit one-sided? I mean, believing in "rape of wife,undereducating women," etc seems pretty far-fetched.

 

Bad ideas can be believed in by people with bad intentions. But good ideas can also be adopted by people with bad intentions. Maybe we should look at the merit of the ideas first and foremost. I'm a little suspicious of any ideology which suggests we have to change our culture for the sake of "this day and age."

 

[Guest guest]

No, this is not a one sided opinion. Your leaning that way makes me question that although you are not a member, you may have much in common? Aftre all, you find 'merit' in these ideas and want to 'look' at them. Have something in common, dont ya?

 

ISKCON itself has rejected the GHQ, and I have read countless posts with ALL the claims I made in my prevoius posts. So they are not one sided, there are countless articles out there where they themselves come right out and say these things! They advocate them openly. One article "Old man can have 80 wives." Many others.

[Guest guest]

I'm a little suspicious of of the ideology that thinks we are still following the original transcendental culture in this day and age.

 

Or that culture is what needs to be maintained but religion comes second.

[Guest guest]

 

I'm not a GHQ member, but... is it possible that this description of them is a bit one-sided? I mean, believing in "rape of wife,undereducating women," etc seems pretty far-fetched.

 

Bad ideas can be believed in by people with bad intentions. But good ideas can also be adopted by people with bad intentions. Maybe we should look at the merit of the ideas first and foremost. I'm a little suspicious of any ideology which suggests we have to change our culture for the sake of "this day and age."

 

 

With all due respect, what you may not have thought about is the risk of women being abused or children being neglected or abused, with even the slightest promotion of the GHQ's misconstrudled twistings on Krishna consciousness. While you calmly, philosophically, and with distance, 'discuss' these things, some husband who could go either way may read your points and contact them, become a member or supporter, thus a wife's life has been ruined. And children have lost their father. Let us not talk about these bogus, self indulgent GHQ.

[Jagat]

(1) Who said anywhere that Bhaktivinoda ever rejected his guru in any way? Can you show me a place where Siddhanta Saraswati himself said that? Obviously some people are saying it, but show me some kind of evidence. On the other hand, Lalita Prasad Thakur, Bhaktivinoda's own son and initiated disciple, testified that Bhaktivinoda was true to his commitment to the end.

 

(2) As to your other point as to what constitutes "true" commitment to the guru, this is a question I have debated many times. To me, this is a complex matter dealing with essentials and peripherals. What teaching is which is the crux of the matter. You may insist on a certain orthodox understanding and the scope of your essential, indispensible truths may be quite different from mine.

 

Obviously, my manner of honoring Srila Prabhupada is different from those in Iskcon, or the Ritviks, or even the Gaudiya Maths. The latter accept the possibility of receiving instruction from other sources besides Prabhupada. I took initiation from Lalita Prasad Thakur, which places me in a different position. I did so because I determined at that time that the practices of raganuga bhakti reflected more truly the traditions of Rupa Goswami. Now that my guru has disappeared, it is hard to know whether he would have agreed with the other choices I have made in life. He may well have been quite unhappy. I beg his indulgence and mercy.

 

At any rate, Mahaprabhu sent me to him as a way of honoring the choices he made...

 

On another tack, I believe that my recent campaign against anti-semitism is a way that I am honoring Srila Prabhupada and all the different Vaishnava institutions for which his trip across the ocean is the one and only root cause. I cannot tolerate that the religion of love taught by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and preached in the West by Srila Prabhupada should become the tool of politically suspect interest groups. I believe this would dishonor Srila Prabhupada more than anything else that has happened to this movement.

 

The Gaudiya Grantha Mandir (www.granthamandira.org) is ultimately a service to Srila Prabhupada and all his disciples. Even the debates I engage in with Srila Prabhupada's disciples is a service to them.

 

But enough about me. I'll leave you to debate over Urmila Devi and her divorce.

[Guest guest]

 

I would like to see more discussion the voting system. I have trouble understanding this. Earlier in this thread someone asked, "Who voted in Srila Prabhupada?" Well, we know the answer to that and that question should have set this thread in the right direction of discussion.

 

 

Yes! This is the topic! But woh voted in Srila Prabhupada is a ridiculous question. How dare we, so fallen, even wonder such a thing. (I know you didn't.) It does give an idea where the mentality of so many devotees are these days. They think they get to challenge Prabhupada on various levels. Back in the day, he spoke, we followed, 100%. Now, challenge, challenge, challenge. Such nonsense.

 

It is the qualifications of current gurus we need to examine, and how they arrived as guru or how this will be dealt with in the future. I wonder how many know how to figure out who is qualified in the first place. Many do not. That's why we have so many unqualified gurus. They can get away with it cuz we choose ignorance. (Speaking in general.)

[Guest guest]

 

"Old man can have 80 wives."

 

 

"80 Year Old man can have 50 wives."

[livingentity]

Of course, it was a ridiculous question if it had been asked in all seriousness in a way to question Prabhupada's authority. No, that was not the case at all. Please do not take the question as such. I am sure this question was posted in order to set the thread in the direction of questioning how this voting in of guru got started at all.

 

I may have caused you to misunderstand the poster's intent with the question by not adding more of the original post. For this, I apologize and pray that no offense was committed.

 

I also asked several related questions earlier in this thread and I will find the post and repost them asap.

[livingentity]

Here are questions that I asked way back on page three of this thread. I had asked three questions but now feel that only the first two are relevant to this discussion and that the third should probably be left off for now.

 

1. Did Srila Prabhupada authorize voting in gurus?

 

2. If not, then how, why and when did this procedure of voting in guru start?

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana]

Re #1. You can say SP authorized the GBC to "do the needful" with respect to the management of ISKCON.

Re #2. The need to expand the shrinking pool of initiating gurus after the "zonal acharya" fiasco forced GBC to effectively authorize new gurus. That happened in the mid 80's I think.

[livingentity]

Ok, how were the zonal acharya's chosen? Voted?

 

What does the GBC consider when deciding whether or not to "vote" someone in as guru?

 

I really do have a problem with using the word vote alongside guru.

[stonehearted]

I don't think there's anything in the ISKCON "laws" about "voting in gurus." I think they would characterize it as a process of confirming someone's authority to initiate disciples in ISKCON. Soem local or regional committee nominates someone, forwards recommendations from that committee and maybe some senior ISKCON leaders, and the GBC has six months to respond. If three GBC members don't veto the nomination in six months, I guess the candidate for initiating disciples is accepted (or not rejected, or something like that). The language is probably very carefully crafted to keep ISKCON and the GBC aloof from any real responsibility.

 

Does that mean I agree with the process? No. But because I honestly don't know the details I won't condemn it out of hand, either. I don' tget too involved because there's really not much I could ever do from my position.

 

To respond to an earlier question, I think Srila Prabhupada said something to the efect that the leaders could increase the number of devotees initiating disciples as they found it appropriate.

[Guest guest]

"Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava acarya. A Vaisnava acarya is self effulgent, and there is no need for any court judgement. A false acarya may try to override a Vaisnava by a High Court decision, but Bhaktivinode Thakura says that he is nothing but a disciple of Kali-yuga. "

(CC (BBT 1975) Madhya 1.220)

 

"Srila Jiva Gosvami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social, and ecclesiastical conventions. "

(CC (BBT 1975) Adi 1.35)

[Guest guest]

If Urmila has devotees who are taking siksha from her and who are inspired to seek diksha from her and she also has the inspiration to serve Srila Prabhupada by helping others who seek her help, then what problem should anyone who is outside that circle have with it?

 

It is a personal issue. Sridhara Maharaja advocated the free flow of faith of devotees - it is not something that can be legislated. I think that much is agreed upon for the most part by those who have engaged in this discussion. I think the voting issue comes up when a large society such as Iskcon is involved. But whether one is ratified by the vote or not, if the inspiration is real then the devotee who is recieving that internal instruction must follow their heart, not the institution. In such a case then the Guru and disciples must establish their own mission.

 

I want to make a comment about qualifications here. I agree with the premise that the devotee who is going to function as Guru should be well read and have a firm grasp on the philosophy of Krsna consciousness. This is certainly supported by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. But I think it is also pertinent to point out that academic knowing is quite different than experiential knowing. Theory is one thing, and practice is another. So the ideal Guru is obviously one who has both and academic or intellectual understanding of the philosophy and has genuine practical knowledge based on revelation. That is why it is stressed over and over again in many different ways that mere intellectual knowing is not really knowing at all - it is compared to a bee licking the outside of the honey jar - no taste is there. Practically speaking that devotee who has actual spritual life and has attained the stage of bhava will be able to clear doubts more based on their ability to share that inner weath of feeling than based on their intellectual presention. Their ability to clear doubts is based on their ability to touch the heart of the aspiring sadhaka, not so much on their ability to make a logical and apealing presention to the intellect of the devotee. When Krsna told Arjuna that one should try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master he said that the spiritual master can impart the truth to you because he has seen the truth - it is actual experience and attainment of bhava - it is not that Krsna said go to the University and learn from someone who can recite mantras backwards and forwards and who has a great intellect. Remember that actual knowing in the sense of some glimpse of the infinite is granted from above - it is not based on any material qualification whatsoever. Krsna is adhoksaja - no one can force their way in - only if he chooses will anyone have any real understanding.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Kulapavana]

SP instructions just prior to his passing from our view were interpreted to create this "zonal acharya" concept, clearly in order to concentrate both material as well as ideological power (or "spiritual" power if you prefer). That was a very risky move with dubious motivations... and the price was terrible... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[stonehearted]

I'll line up right behind Audarya-lila here. I have often said that this is a personal relationship and that bureaucratic and legislative interference is often unseemly and counterproductive. When I heard Srila Sridhar Maharaja's "free flow of faith," it immediately resonated with my own poor understanding.

 

I also agree with Audarya-lila about qualifications. Experiential knowledge (realization) is much more important than having memorized many verses, etc.

[Guest guest]

It is not even the voting in or confirming of ISKCON gurus that is the most illicit and anit-siddhantic principle of the ISKCON guru system - it is the legislating, regulating and restricting of the spiritual masters that is the most heinous assault on the position of a Vaishnava spiritual master.

Srila Prabhupada has said in the NOI:

Nectar of Instruction text 6 purport:

 

It is also an offense to consider an empowered Vaishnava an object of disciplinary action. It is offensive to try and give him advice or to correct him..........

The spiritual master must not be subjected to the advice of a disciple, nor should a spiritual master be obliged to take instructions from those who are not his disciples. This is the sum and substance of Srila Rupa Goswami's advice in this sixth verse.

 

 

It is the violation of this principle by the GBC policy of restricting, regulating and instructing ISKCON gurus through laws and rules that renders the ISKCON guru system as illict and anti-siddhantic. Thus it is quite obvious that a GBC system is not congruent with a multiplicity of spiritual masters under the authority of a GBC committee.

[Guest guest]

I thought you had debated this issue "to death" and weren't going to respond anymore here. But anyway....

 

 

(1) Who said anywhere that Bhaktivinoda ever rejected his guru in any way?

 

 

Precisely my point. I don't think you will ever find such explicit condemnation, nor should you expect to. Certain uncultured individuals (and please note I mean this in terms of Vedic culture, not racial as some individual very stupidly took it earlier) would unabashedly lash out at a guru whom they had left. But one would not expect this of Srila Bhaktivinod. He just quietly accepted a new one. That is perfectly in line with brahminical behavior.

 

 

Can you show me a place where Siddhanta Saraswati himself said that?

 

 

Ditto for the same reason. Of course, if you are as interested in Siddhanta Saraswati's opinion as it appears here, there is the fact that he did not list Bhaktivinod's guru as Bipin Bihari, even though this would have been the obvious choice based on formality. And then of course, there is the well known anecdote that Srila Siddhanta Saraswati objected to Bipin Bihari placing his feet on Bhaktivinod's head.

 

 

Obviously some people are saying it, but show me some kind of evidence. On the other hand, Lalita Prasad Thakur, Bhaktivinoda's own son and initiated disciple, testified that Bhaktivinoda was true to his commitment to the end.

 

 

Well, if I can't accept Siddhanta Saraswati's opinion that the parampara proper is listed through Jagannatha dasa babaji, I don't see why I should accept LPT's opinion to the contrary.

 

 

(2) As to your other point as to what constitutes "true" commitment to the guru, this is a question I have debated many times.

 

 

 

Not very convincingly, imho.

 

 

To me, this is a complex matter dealing with essentials and peripherals. What teaching is which is the crux of the matter. You may insist on a certain orthodox understanding and the scope of your essential, indispensible truths may be quite different from mine.

 

 

While it is true that one should not oversimplify that which is not simple, it is also true that one can needlessly paint something as complicated when it in fact is not.

 

Certain beliefs held by secular academicians are clearly at odds with fundamental beliefs accepted by all Vaishnava Vedaantins. They should avoid claiming to have a Vaishnava "guru" when they espouse such contradictory ideas as their own. Of course, they can say they were formerly initiated by so-and-so, or that they were very inspired by so-and-so Swami. That would be acceptable.

 

 

At any rate, Mahaprabhu sent me to him as a way of honoring the choices he made...

 

 

 

Well, if you'll pardon me for pulling you out of the clouds for a minute... I would like to point out that everyone claims some sort of divine inspiration in being sent to their guru, even when that guru later turns out to be a disappointment.

 

 

On another tack, I believe that my recent campaign against anti-semitism is a way that I am honoring Srila Prabhupada and all the different Vaishnava institutions for which his trip across the ocean is the one and only root cause.

 

 

 

That's perfectly acceptable. I just want to make clear that "Vaishnavas" who really accept such Vivekandana-esque ideas as "Krishna is a fictional, mythological character" or "Vedas are written by sages over so many years," or "Truth is relative, not absolute," are understood rationally not to be loyal followers of the Vaishnava tradition.

 

 

But enough about me. I'll leave you to debate over Urmila Devi and her divorce.

 

 

 

Sure.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[Guest guest]

Look, you really seem quite quick to offend and ready to fight over nothing. Many American devotee friends of mine also criticize aspects of "American culture" (their words) which are not Vedic. This is precisely what I was doing. I could have said "karmi" to more accurately reflect what I was talking about, but I don't want people to think that because they're in ISKCON/Narayana Maharaj society/etc, therefore they aren't karmis, and thus the critique does not apply to them.

 

There is a tendency among certain low-class individuals to quickly and harshly criticize a guru's character despite whatever benefit they might have gotten from that guru. Neal Delmonico is quite unabashed in his criticism of Prabupada, for example. I am simply pointing out that such behavior is not observed by followers of Vaishnava/Vedic culture even when philosophical differences exist, and thus one would not expect to see it of Bhaktivinod Thakura.

 

Also, regarding GHQ and its ideas: I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that GHQ believes in certain conservative ideals which happen to be common to Vedic culture. If that is the case, then I must say I agree with those ideas, as I understood them so far. Of course, I don't know if I got their ideas right, since your representation of them seems a little bit less than objective. Similarly, I don't know any GHQ people, so I can't even begin to guess at their motivations. But good ideas can also be proposed by people with bad motivations. We shouldn't reject them on that basis - if we did, then should we also reject varnaashrama dharma, since the perverted caste-by-birth system has evolved from it? Obviously not.

 

I have a very lovely and chaste wife. She dresses and decorates herself very carefully. She annually performs a puja for my benefit and seeks my blessings after doing this by touching my feet. She also cooks and maintains my house along with preparing the daily offerings to our Deities. I never required any of these things of her, but she does them anyway. She put aside all sorts of career ambitions for her marriage, even though she is smart enough to do whatever she wants. If I told her to stop doing these things and get a so-called "real job", she would likely object (in fact, I did this once and her response was as I predicted). A lot of Indian karmis criticize her for her sense of duty, and they think I am a chauvinisit who is the only beneficiary of this system. But I also had to compromise with some of my dreams in order to take up a profession that was more stable and would better allow me to take care of her. Those karmis also don't understand that, as a devotee, I don't define anyone by the academic degree they posess or the profession which they take up, but rather by their adherence to dharma.

 

Now I suspect that GHQ people, from what I understand, would be pleased with our customs. Am I right? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Well, I see no reason to change who we are to please someone else, especially when who we are is according to our guru's instructions on householder life. If someone tells my wife that she should be more independent of me she will get insulted at the idea! Even I don't want to be indepedent of her. We have a relationship of mutual dependence.

 

I also reject the attempt by some individuals who equate our customs with "belief in rape of wife" or "male chauvinism" as just narrow-minded prejudice.

 

But anyway, if you don't believe me, then feel free to believe whatever you want. Yes, I'm in an Indian/Hindu body. Therefore it must naturally follow that I'm a Hindu fundamentalist/racist/supremacist, etc etc. Just villify me if it makes you feel good. I really don't want to argue with people who have a bone to pick with me because of my culture.

 

Alpa

[Jagat]

Could you give me a date and place for that monumental event please?

 

Only a scoundrel would expect anyone to accept that the absence of evidence was "proof" of anything.

 

=================

 

I was quite pleased to see the following article by Bhakti Bibudh Bodhayan Maharaj, the current successor of Bhakti Promoda Puri Maharaj. As you may or may not know, Puri Maharaj came from a village in Jessore district where there happened to be many disciples of Bipin Bihari Goswami. As a matter of fact, his vartma-pradarsaka guru was a disciple of B.B.Goswami, and through him he learned about Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. I assume that the position Bodhayan Maharaj has taken here comes from his guru, though I personally have not yet seen Puri Maharaj state this explicitly anywhere.

 

<hr><h3><center>Does taking a siksha guru mean rejecting one’s diksha guru?</h3>B.B.Bodhayan

All Glories to Sri Guru, Sri Saraswata Gaudiya Vaishnavas and Sri Gauranga!</center>

I have recently heard that a particular group of preachers has taken a position that is, in my opinion, quite unusual. They say that Srila Sachidananda Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected his diksha gurudeva, Bipin Bihari Goswami, and they support this as legitimate by citing the example of Shyamananda Prabhu, who they say rejected his guru Hridaya Chaitanya Thakur.

 

I have not been able to understand their object in spreading this particular point of view, which I take as wrong. I personally saw the way our guru-vargas related to Bipin Bihari Goswami. As I saw it, they kept sound faith in Bipin Bihari Goswami even though His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Thakur Prabhupada did not include him in our Bhagavata parampara, nor place his photo on the altar for worship.

 

It is clear from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's writings that he held Srila Bipin Bihari Goswami in a favorable light, for we find the following statements:

 

1. In the mangalacaranam (auspicious beginning) of Sri Krishna Karnamritam, Bhaktivinode Thakur writes:

 

sri-krsna-caitanya-krpa-patra-sri-bilvamangalaya namah

guror hareh padam dhyatva sri-vipina-viharinah

krsna-karnamrtasyeyam bhasa-vyakhya viracyate

 

Simple translation: “I offer respectful obeisance to Sri Bilvamangala Thakur, the recipient of Lord Krishna Chaitanya’s mercy. Meditating on the holy feet of my guru Sri Bipina Bihari and Lord Hari, I am writing this Bengali translation and explanation of the Krishna Karnamritam.

 

2. In two of the concluding verses of the Amrita-pravaha Bhashya to the Chaitanya Charitamrta, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur writes:

 

bipina bihari hari, tanr sakti avatari,

bipin bihari prabhuvar

sri guru-goswami rupe, dekhi more bhava-kupe

uddharila apana kinkar

 

tad-ajna palana kame, amrta-prabaha name

caitanya-caritamrta artha

racilam sayatane, arpilam bhakta-gane

path kari ghucao anartha

 

Translation: “Lord Hari, who loves playing in Vrindaban, incarnated (as) His potency in the form of my spiritual master Bipin Bihari Prabhu. In this form as my Sri Guru Goswami, he saved me, his servant, who had fallen in the pit of material existence. In order to carry out his instruction, I have carefully composed this commentary named Amrita-pravaha Bhashya, which describes the true meaning of Chaitanya Charitamrita. I herein dedicate this commentary to the devotees of the Lord and sincerely wish that people in general will be able to remove all the sinful impediments and obstacles in their lives by reading it in devotion.”

 

3. In a concluding verse of Bhagavatarka-marichi-mala, Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur writes:

 

bipin bihari prabhu mora prabhu vara

sri vamsi-vadanananda-vamsa-sasadhara

sei prabhupader anujna sire dhari

bhagavata-slokasvada nirantar kari

 

Translation: “Bipin Bihari Prabhu is my spiritual master, who is like a moon in the succession of Sri Vamsivadanananda Thakur. Respectfully taking my Prabhupada's (Bipin Bihari Prabhu's) instruction on my head, I engage in tasting the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam constantly.”

 

In my continuing research I have not yet discovered any conclusive statement confirming that Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur rejected his diksha guru, Srila Bipin Bihari Goswami, even though they may sometimes have had differences of opinion. We remain open-minded on this matter and ready to accept any valid proof to the contrary.

 

Now, is it true that Shyamananda Prabhu rejected his guru?

 

Shyamananda Prabhu was first initiated by Sri Hridaya Chaitanya Thakur of Ambika Kalna and his initiated name was Krishna Das. Later, inspired by Srila Hridaya Chaitanya Thakur and through the affectionate guidance of Srila Raghunath Das Goswami Prabhu, he came in contact with Srila Jiva Goswamipad and accepted him as his beloved siksha gurudeva. He was then given the name Shyamananda. Finally, he received the benevolent mercy of Srimati Radharani when She imprinted Her anklet on his forehead in a tilaka-shape, promoting him to be a servitor in the spirit of madhurya-rasa.

 

However, it is nowhere said that Shyamananda rejected his diksha guru in order to accept Jiva as his siksha guru. Rather, he accommodated both Srila Hridaya Chaitanya Thakur and Srila Jiva Goswami Prabhu with full respect. In Bhakti-ratnakara, Narahari Chakravarti clearly states that Hridaya Chaitanya Prabhu accepted Shyamananda’s activities and that Shyamananda continued to glorify his guru even after changing his mood from the sakhya rasa to the madhura rasa.

 

vrindavane shyamananda je je karya kare

se kevala sri-gurudeva-ajna anusare

 

Translation : “Whatever activities Shyamananda engaged in in Vrindavan, all was done only in accordance with the order of his spiritual master.” (Brk 1.404)

 

sri guru sri hridaya caitanya prabhu boli

yamunara tire sada nace bahu tuli

siddha bhakta kriya na bujhiya jiva murkha

karaye kutarka ithe paya maha duhkha

 

Translation: “[After receiving Radha’s mercy] Shyamanada would dance on the banks of the Yamuna with his arms raised, saying, ‘My Guru is Sri Hridaya Chaitanya Prabhu!’ Foolish jivas do not understand the activities of the perfected devotees and so fall into the misery of useless arguments. (Brk 6.56-57)

 

Even the Prema-vilasa, where it is said that Hridaya Chaitanya Thakur did not immediately accept Shyamananda’s changes, comes to the conclusion that the question was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction and that Shyamananda’s guru accepted his disciple’s activities and relation to Jiva Goswami. Shyamananda continued to respect Hridaya Chaitanya as his initiating spiritual master.

 

It is thus clear that taking a siksha guru does not mean we have to reject or avoid the instruction of our diksha guru. The diksha and siksha gurus should be accepted in harmony with each other. This siddhanta is fully supported by the shastras.

 

Neither Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Thakur nor Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur ever mentioned in any of their writings that he rejected Srila Bipin Bihari Goswami, nor that Shyamananda Prabhu rejected his diksha guru, Hridaya Chaitanya Prabhu.

 

I have refuted these proposals, with which I was confronted while engaged in my preaching activities. If anybody can establish that I am wrong with authentic statements by Srila Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur, please inform me so I may be cured of my foolish ignorance in these matters. I humbly request, however, that any responses not be based on any self-motivated speculation or logic. Speculation and emotion are the cause of our demotion.

 

Those who have been speculating in the name of my grand spiritual master in this way are doing a great disservice because they go against one of the most fundamental teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, found in the Sikshastaka's third shloka--amanina mana-dena kirtaniyah sada harih. Whereas we are to always pay due respects to even unqualified persons to chant the Hare Krishna maha mantra in humility, we are instead doing the opposite in the name of spreading the teachings of Mahaprabhu.

The actual inner meaning of religion is proper adjustment of our identity--to realize the purpose of this human birth by establishing ourselves as the eternal servants of God. The purpose of the established religious institutions of our sampradaya, the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Saraswata Sampradaya, is to preach this message, to enforce the proper behavior of all its members and to respect <u>all</u> Vaishnavas like family members. But instead of doing that, we are quarreling with each other within our own sampradaya.

 

Where are the activities by which we show honor to each other?

 

All the Vaishnava institutions should be unified to fight against the impersonal philosophy and to open the eyes of ignorant people to the glories of the guru, Vaishnavas and Krishna, the Supreme Lord of all the universes.

 

B.B. Bodhayan

bodhayan@mandala.org

Sri Gopinath Gaudiya Math

P.O. Sree Mayapur

District Nadia, West Bengal

PIN 741313, INDIA

p: 91-3472-45307

352 Summit Ave

San Rafael, CA 94901

USA

p:415-482-0211

fax:415-482-0213

 

===============

 

By the way, Alpamedhasa, how about a real name?

 

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles

 

[Guest guest]

 

Wrong again. When Srila Prabhupada drew up the list for the first GBC, several women were on that list.

 

--

 

News to me. Good to hear it. How do you know this? Can you give any sources or quotes or dates? Could prove very helpful.

 

 

Well in one of my last posts, I said that this was written in a 1999 issue of BTG in an article by Visakha-devi. Visakha-devi is a senior female disciple of Srila Prabhupada who has been writing female-oriented articles in BTG for years. Besides that, another site was provided that stated that Govinda and Yamuna dasis were probably the first nominated female GBCs, nominated by Srila Prabhupada himself.

[Guest guest]

 

I'm not sure what I think about Urmila's nomination to initiate disciples (she's awfully conservative, but she has been a solid disciple for 30 years), but this campaign of slander has riled me.

 

 

I fully agree. I do not personally know Urmila dasi. In fact, all I know of her is all of the articles she has been publishing in BTG for years. Besides that, she visted our temples her ein the UK sometime last year, and even wrote an article about her visit in BTG. I did not have the opportunity to meet her, but I heard from my Vaishnava and Vaishnavi friends that she had given extraordinary lectures and that she is a devotee of some exceptional realisations and enlightenment.

 

I also agree that this campaign of slander is thoroughly disgusting. I still say that in the recent posts I have not seen a single question about her qualification. The idea about "politics" seems to be almost totally about gender and I find that shameless.

 

And here's me thinking we are not our bodies. This just shows how ISKCON is not even out of the Dark Ages.

 

Gaurasundara

 

P.S. And one more note. Those who know me would also know that I am/was an ultra-conservative type of person who also has rather strong opinions on certian issues. But even I accept that:

 

a) There is a history of female gurus in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

b) Nothing is required for a guru except qualification.

c) Srila Prabhupada himself accepted the possibility of female gurus.

 

These three facts alone are the sum and substance of the whol issue.