Women and sannyasa

stonehearted · January 17, 2003

Vaishnava_das108 wrote: What I meant to say was that Srila Prabhupada is the last recognised sampradaya-acharya for ISKCON.

Actually, his term was "Founder-Acharya." He never claimed to be sampradaya-acharya; for that matter, he never claimed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati was, either. These are nice ssentiments, but if we turn them into dogma without support of guru, sadhu, and shastra, we risk courting fanatacism.

I don't think it's necessary to make up titles for Srila Prabhupada in order to glorify him. We glorify him by our sincere service. I wrote an essay presenting some of my understanding of how he is unique in extending the revolutionary approach to Krishna consciousness brought by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and continued by Thakur Bhaktivinoda and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. It has been published on VNN and CHAKRA. If you like, I could send you a copy or post it here.

Regarding Tripurari Maharaja, all I can say is that he has been steady in preaching Krishna consciousness vigorously ever since I met him in early 1973. He never flagged, even when the GBC told him to leave ISKCON for the offense of finding Srila Sridhar Maharaja more inspiring association than Bhavananda, Bhagavan, or Ramesvara. Over the years, his efforts have favorably impressed many, including leading academic and many of his godbrothers. Yes, there are stories about him in (and outside) ISKCON; whoever you may aspire to take initiation from, I can guarantee there are stories about him, too (even Radhanath Swami, I'd guess).

You should also note that Maharaj was responding to a question with a general principle. There's no indication he's ready to give any woman sannayas. Moreover, his work is outside ISKCON, so if your service and association are within ISKCON, the effect of his thinking is not likely to have a great impact on your life any time soon.

As a general principle, it's better for us to focus on our own progress and not worry so much about others. That is the path most likely to ensure our progress on the path back to Godhead. If you don't find Tripurari Swami's association inspiring, that's your business. I'm not going to clobber you because of it. I hope you'll afford me the same courtesy if I have reservations about your gurus. You'll also find me reluctant to criticise them in public, despite those reservations.

stonehearted · January 18, 2003

for all the bluster here about defying Srila Prabhupada, no one has really addressed what Tripurari Maharaja actually wrote. Some of us have characterized him as throwing out all tradition and advocating initiating women into the sannyas ashram. What he really said was that society's great need is more reonounced men and women teaching Krishna consciouness, regardless of their dress. Here is his article:

"The heart of Vaisnava sannyasa is renouncing material life and embracing the service of Sri Krsna. This is open to both men and women. Whereas the formality of accepting the renounced order of sannyasa has largely been restricted to men in consideration of socioreligious concerns. However, as circumstances change and these concerns are no longer relevant, I see no reason why women should be barred from accepting sannyasa.

"In our times the relevance of anyone formally accepting sannyasa is questionable in terms of how it is perceived by the public. Furthermore, the tendency to equate the formal acceptance of sannyasa with spiritual advancement has caused many devotees to aspire for the formality of sannyasa rather than the substance of the order.

"Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu took the renounced order of life for the sake of preaching. At that time sannyasis were respected in Indian society, and thus Mahaprabhu took advantage of this in order to bring attention to his message. Similarly, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura instituted Vaisnava sannyasa in his lineage nearly a century ago. Among other reasons, he did this for the purpose of bringing dignity to the Gaudiya lineage in the eyes of the masses, who, due to the influence of the Advaitins and smarta brahmanas, over-identified the formal order of sannyasa with spiritual advancement and believed that one must be born in a brahmana family and then take sannyasa in order to attain liberation.

"In his lineage, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta gave sannyasa only to those who were born in brahmana families and he engaged them in preaching widely. In that lineage the practice of accepting sannyasa continues to this day although the criteria for accepting this order of life is no longer restricted to those born in brahmana families. Indeed we now have sannyasis who by socioreligious caste consideration were born as "untouchables."

"Today the general public does not automatically identify the sannyasa dress with spiritual advancement, and thus it may not always be conducive to furthering the message of Mahaprabhu. For example, although Srila Prabhupada gave me sannyasa, at one point he also wrote that in consideration of my preaching service at the time, which involved dressing in secular clothes, such acceptance of the formalities of sannyasa might be more of a hindrance than anything else. Therefore advanced devotees should determine whom to give sannyasa to in consideration of a number of factors, among which public opinion and perception is as important as is the devotee's level of spiritual advancement. At some point public opinion could warrant either the need for woman sannyasis or no sannyasis at all. At the same time, the tradition very much needs the guidance of spiritually advanced devotees, both male and female, who have renounced material life.

"My personal opinion in consideration of public perception is that there is considerable merit in continuing the sannyasa tradition today but that the criteria for its acceptance should rest in greater spiritual advancement and scriptural knowledge than has been the standard in the recent past. I also believe that it is likely that there are a number of women who meet these criteria."

So if we read carefully, we can see that he really says that it's conceivable to him that there may come a day when preaching may be facilitated by giving some women access to sannyasa-vesha; conversely, there may also come a day when sannyasa may not command the kind of respect it has traditionally (care to guess one possible reason?) and may therefore no longer be useful. The important thing is renunciation and genuine spiritual advancement.

theist · January 18, 2003

Its one thing to make an adjustment according to time and place, its quite another to go straight on against the acarya's wishes. I believe someone made that point earlier and I agree.

For myself I'm not linking up with any of your groups anytime soon. Much to my loss I'm sure but I just can't stomach a lot of it. I guess I haven't recovered from the Romaharsan-asanas that srung up in 1978. Probably never will.

I view most of this tinkering around with the formalities of religious practice and tradition as whimsical nonsense engaged in by people who don't really want to love Krsna so they adopt an involvement with a religious institution as a substitute. The problem is they then want that institution to reflect their worldview in some way. I avoid true Krsna Consciousness myself but in less destructive ways. I don't try to mold the teachings of Krsna's rep's to my liking. i turn on the TV instead and watch a movie.

Sometime back shiva used the term "overthought". A great term and it carries a weighty truth. Instead of always thinking on novel ways to change what Prabhupada just gave us let's just practice what we can of it as it is. I mean why is this even a question? Should women accept formal sannyasa or not. Best to not be so clever and just follow what the previous acaryas have charted out in these regards.

I remember the first time I sat and listen to a woman give class on KC. Katyayani dd gave a lecture and it was great. She wore some simply western style dress,very modest, and just sat down and gave a very inspiring talk.

At first I was alarmed, "What, a women is going to speak"? But by the end of the discourse I had grown considerably in these matters.

She didn' need a big stick or shaved head or saffron cloth to demand my respect, she did that by simply letting flow with the Krsna katha.

Makes me wonder how she is doing now, such a nice soul.

stonehearted · January 18, 2003

The theist writes: For myself I'm not linking up with any of your groups anytime soon.

My groups? Oh, my. You don't know anything about me. But you've told us a lot about yourself, beginning with a penchant for judging others you don't know. But that's your problem, not mine.

Actually, in your story about Katyayani, you made Tripurari Maharaja's point for him. His point is that Krishna consciousness is the point, not some uniform.

As for Katyayani, who I've known for 33 years, last I heard she's living in Southern California and still preaching without any external trappings.

theist · January 18, 2003

The theist writes: For myself I'm not linking up with any of your groups anytime soon.

My groups? Oh, my. You don't know anything about me.

I didn't address that to you. Why would you think it was to you? this is a big forum. I did address it to all the various factions and camps that have sprung up, all having some problem between them and their cousins. i simply choose to remain faction free.

But you've told us a lot about yourself, beginning with a penchant for judging others you don't know. But that's your problem, not mine.

yes i'm sure you are free from judging others, besides me that is.

Actually, in your story about Katyayani, you made Tripurari Maharaja's point for him. His point is that Krishna consciousness is the point, not some uniform.

Not exactly.He didn't stop there. If he had there would be no dissenting opinions. Here he leaves the door open for women taking on he formalities of sannyasa.

"The heart of Vaisnava sannyasa is renouncing material life and embracing the service of Sri Krsna. This is open to both men and women. Whereas the formality of accepting the renounced order of sannyasa has largely been restricted to men in consideration of socioreligious concerns. However, as circumstances change and these concerns are no longer relevant, I see no reason why women should be barred from accepting sannyasa.

As for Katyayani, who I've known for 33 years, last I heard she's living in Southern California and still preaching without any external trappings.

That's nice to hear.

theist · January 18, 2003

Kardama Muni followed the Vedic injunction that no one in sannyäsa life can have any kind of relationship with women. But what is the position of a woman who is left by her husband? She is entrusted to the son, and the son promises that he will deliver his mother from entanglement. A woman is not supposed to take sannyäsa. So-called spiritual societies concocted in modern times give sannyäsa even to women, although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman's accepting sannyäsa. Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his wife and given her sannyäsa. SB 2.24.40 purport

This quote was offered by Jndas in the post that opened this thread. Of course if we disagree we can just write this out in the name of being progressive.

theist · January 18, 2003

But when one is going to retire, that is another thing. Because life is divided into four parts: brahmacäri, grhastha, vänaprastha and sannyäsa. So woman has got three positions. They require protection. Women is never allowed to become renounced order of life. No.

theist · January 18, 2003

So this is our life. Everyone should take sannyäsa. But because it is Kali-yuga, it is restricted because it is very difficult. But as far as possible, we have to preach the Krsna consciousness. So although it is little difficult, so we should practice it, especially those who are in Krsna consciousness movement, and for preaching work should take sannyäsa, particularly of our Guru däsa. Now he is Guru däsa Swami, his name is. So his particular life is: since the beginning of Krsna consciousness movement, he is my faithful disciple, and from 1965 or 66, he is with me. And he is very innocent boy, and I got him married. His wife is also great devotee, you know, Yamunä. So now Yamunä has taken a very nice path. She has also become sannyäsini. Although there is no sannyäsini for women, but she has voluntarily taken. She is doing very nice; therefore I advised her husband that you also take sannyäsa.

------

So Yamuna was said to be a sannyasini by Prabhupada. Did she carry a tridanda? Did she wear saffron? Did she keep her head shaved? Gurudas however was instructed to. The consciousness of renunciation for Krsna's sake was there in both but the formality was given to the male.

Different roles that's all. When in male form live as a male. When in female form live as a female. Why try to confuse the two?

January 18, 2003

from chakra

WOMEN AND SANNYASA: Self-Realized devotees are not controlled by the scriptures.

by Brahma Das

Posted January 17, 2003

"According to Bhaktivinode Thakura realized souls are not bound by the dictates of the scriptures. On the contrary he says that any new practice established by such souls should be followed as religious code even if not found in the writings of previous sages."

"Bhaktivinode writes: "Devotees of the Supreme Lord are not controlled by the scriptures since their activities are congenial to divine wisdom. Therefore when the self-realized devotees ordain any new arrangement, this should be followed as a religious code, even if such new arrangements are not found in the scriptural dictums of the previous sages." (Sri Krishna Samhita)"

...

"Following in the footsteps of recent great acharyas, in the foreseeable future devotees who are "authorized due to advancement" will likely adjust quite a number of rules, some even established by their own empowered guru. This will need to be done in order to further the cause of Mahaprabhu by presenting his teachings in a way that is more relevant to the times. This is the preaching methodology and mood of devotees in the line of Bhaktivinode (Bhaktivinode Parivara) who himself was known as the Seventh Goswami."

Don't you understand! All these deviations are because they are self-realized devotees who are not controlled by the scriptures. This includes Kirtanananda.

January 18, 2003

Kirtanananda - yay

Rajneeesh (Osho) - yay

Tripurari - yay

Prabhupada - nay

The nays have it.

Guru means heavy and Srila Prabhupada outweighs them all.

January 18, 2003

If Srila Prabhupada was still here he would be making adjustments according to the times as well. Some of you people really need to get out a bit more and recognize that what was the 'correct' place for a woman in the 1950's in India, or in the sixties and early seventies as judged by Srila Prabhupada at the time in America has changed considerably. The 'external trappings' are just that, external. Acknowledging the internal advancement externally according to the times in which we live in not inappropriate in any way. How about reading what Swami Tripurari wrote and paying a little more attention to the 'details' rather than getting riled up and trying to dig up every quote where Srila Prabhupada said women sannyasa is unauthorized. Women chanting brahma gayatri is also unauthorized. Many say that sannyasa is 'unauthorized' in this age and Srila Prabhupada's Prabhupada only gave it our to Brahmins. Prabhupada extended that to the lowest of the low. So many seemingly unauthorized things have been adopted and will continue to be adopted for the preaching of Mahaprabhu's mission. Think about it a little bit before reacting without actually considering the idea properly

stonehearted · January 18, 2003

theist writes: I didn't address that to you. Why would you think it was to you? this is a big forum. I did address it to all the various factions and camps that have sprung up, all having some problem between them and their cousins. i simply choose to remain faction free.

I guess I thought it was addressed to me because you and I had been most involved in the recent exchange and it was a reply to my posting. I'm sorry for being presumptuous. I'm also considered pretty free from faction membership, which many devotees here and where I lived before find valuable. That doesn't mean, though, that I remain aloof from the association of serious, progressive devotees. I hava friends inside and outside ISKCON and have made no secret of helping and hearing from devotees such as Turiya das, Tripurari Maharaja, Narasingha Maharaja, Paramadvaiti Maharaja, Bodhayana Maharaja, Naryana Maharaj and others, as well as maintaining respect for my old friend Siddhasvarupananda.

Yes, Tripurari Maharaja's posting leaves room for women in sannyasa. That, however, is a detail in his article, not the main point. Those who see that as a deviation, for whatever reason, and there are many which have beem expressed, will continue to do so whether I try to "convert" them or not. Most of us here have been around a while and have strong opinions. I'm interested in discussing different points, but not in contentious debate. While it may be good exercise, it ultimately yields little or nothing of substantive value (tarko ’pratishtah shrutayo vibhinnah).

Jahnava Nitai Das · January 18, 2003

People always like to fall back on the argument that "times have changed" since Prabhupada left, and if Prabhupada were here, he would be making these adjustments to cater to people's bodily consciousness.

Prabhupada arrived in America at a time when women's liberation was very strong, yet he did not change his message to catter to their bodily identifications. He spoke against women's liberation. He would have gotten more followers if he did as some other "Swamis" did, like Rajneesh, and accepted such things as women's liberation, sannyasa to women, non-celibate "sannyasi's", etc. But he did not compromise his position. Even though he knew it would be unpopular, he said women require the protection of a man. He said this to those who were preaching women's liberation.

Thus this idea that time's have changed and if Prabhupada was here today he would be changing his instructions is just nonsense.

Women chanting brahma gayatri is also unauthorized.

Please substantiate this if you believe it. Many of the Vedic mantras are revealed by female rishis.

Jahnava Nitai Das · January 18, 2003

Many say that sannyasa is 'unauthorized' in this age and Srila Prabhupada's Prabhupada only gave it our to Brahmins.

Women and Sannyasa: A comment

by Jalakara dasa

I respectfully take exception to the statement made by Sri Gopa Kumar Dasa in his article on Women and Sannyasa, wherein he states "Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur...established the system of giving sannyasa only to male members of his mission who had been born in brahmana families."

This is the first time I have heard of this. In fact, as Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur was the son of Srila Bhaktivenode Thakur, who manifested his birth in a kyastha family, it is incredible to imagine he awarded the order of sannyasa only to those born of brahmana families.

In fact, prior to the intervention of Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, Gaudiya Vaishnavas did not wear brahmana threads, and if they were born in brahmana families, they generally discarded their sacred threads.

Similarly, there was no Gaudiya Vaishnava sannyasa, and no saffron at all. Gaudiya vaishnava renounciates accepted the title of babaji and wore white. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati traveled to South India and studied the Ramanuja system for accepting sannyasa, and then he adopted it and became the first Gaudiya Vaishnava sannyasi. Our present system of sannyasa comes directly from him, just as our system of accepting the sacred thread does.

To suggest that "The disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta, most prominently Srila Prabhupada, extended the ashram of sannyasa to all appropriately disposed men regardless of their birth caste" is both incorrect and inappropriate.

In fact, Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur initiated one German disciple as a sannyasi, and there were Indian sannyasis from non-brahmana families.

Thus, by distorting historical facts, the author makes it appear that The awarding of sannyasa to women is only a logical progression in sannyasa liberalization began by Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and continued down through the present day. This rather historically dubious argument is disingenuous and is transparent to any student with knowledge of the actual historical position.

Not only is there distinction made between men and women in the eligibility of men as opposed to women to receive sannyasa, so also Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur discriminated between the sexes in the awarding of sannyasa. Not only are women never actually given a thread, but also the first line of the Gayatri mantra, namely the "Om bhur bhuvah..." stanza, was only given to men, and never to women.

Why he did so is inappropriate to discuss here, as the subject matter justifies discussion in a separate article.

However, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada did expand from his guru in that he awarded that first line of gayatri to his female disciples, and he did empower female disciples to perform pujari functions.

It is interesting to note in this regard that while most other Gaudiya Vaishnava acharyas continue to withhold the first line of Gayatri from women, there is also often some difference in the exact wording of the Gayatri as given or in the number of times it is chanted.

Therefore, while it can be said that in the case of the Gayatri mantra there has been minor contextual change by different acharyas since Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, there has been little or no change in the manner of award of sannyasa.

In fact, the award of sannyasa to women was ridiculed by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada showed himself to be staunchly traditional in these fields, in spite of making some allowances according to time, place and circumstances.

To suggest that Srila Prabhupada approved of women taking sannyasa, or that the acceptance of sannyasa by women is in some way the logical extension of a vast trend of liberalizations begun by him is not only incorrect but also illogical. A study of Srila Prabhupada's lectures and writings will leave the reader with a clear understanding of where he stood on that issue.

January 18, 2003

what you quoted is indeed accurate and comendable,

oh wait a sec... not that bit about Kirtanananda,

when he states that women must become renounced,

that is not a new revelation or the perogative

of a realized soul.

How can one tell ?

The self realized soul may institute measures

to increase the flow of the ocean of nectar, but he/she doesn't preach philosophy that is inherently

wrong.

to teach that women need to be renounced,or in fact

that anyone needs to be renounced is simply not

the teaching of anyone in our sampradaya,

it is in the teaching of other sampradayas,

that is why i asked what sampradaya he belongs to.

Then line of Mahaprabhu has no such teaching, and anyone

who claims it does is not a realized soul, it least

in terms of realization of the teachings of

Sri Chaitanya.

The facts of the matter, say, wanting to gain the favor

of, or influence certain people to act in a desired way,

say, maybe leave their husband, or gain financially from that, telling people what they want to hear for profit,

playing to material desire for fame,etc.,

is not the actions of self realized souls.

January 20, 2003

Posted by Audarya Lila Dasa

No one said that Srila Prabhupada would make concessions to cater to people's bodily consciousness - that's purely your invention JNDAS. Srila Prabhupada did make changes in the way he presented Krsna consciousness - that is a historical fact. He made the changes in order to bring more people to take up the mission of Mahaprabhu, not for the reasons that you suggest. Here's one simple example: at first he didn't want his preachers to go out in western dress, but when he found that they would have more success in distributing his books by doing so, he changed his policy.

I have personally seen many people turned off from K.C. over the years because of the misogynistic tendencies displayed by devotees and due to their perceptions of some of the things in Srila Prabhupada's books. A very good friend of mine, who is not only highly educated but also a woman, read the Bhagavad Gita As it is at my request and her comments to me were that while she felt that there were very interesting and valid points made in the book she could not take it seriously due to her feeling that women were portrayed as less intelligent than men. That is merely one example, but it is a real impediment for many people. Women have also been abused and trampled on by many men wearing vaishnava dress who adopted misogynistic attitudes.

Personally I think one would be hard pressed given the times at hand to justify the continued oppression of women and categorization of them as 'less' than men in any way shape or form. Women have proven themselves to be as intelligent as men, as capable of leadership and also have proven that they are also quite capable physically.

Regarding giving women Brahma gayatri, I don't have a quote to offer you. I do know that in GM it is not given and women do not perform puja. My understanding of this policy was that it was in accordance with 'Vedic tradition', but I have nothing to offer you in that regard other than that. Srila Prabhupada did change this standard set by his Guru Maharaja and many of his god brothers could not accomodate such a change.

At any rate we, as followers of Srila Prabhupada, should not worry about whether or not something is 'Vedic' or not anyway. We should try to see that the teaching

is current with the times such that as many people as possbile will take up the banner of Mahaprabhu. Now don't go off and start suggesting that anyone and everyone can make any adjustment they like in order to attract more people. That is not at all what I am suggesting. I do suggest that there are advanced vaishanvas who are capable of making titular adjustments to suit the times. These will not be changes which will compromise the purity of the mission or the moral and ethical standards. They will be changes which will fit the teaching to the times and make it accessible to a broader audience. GV is a living faith, not some dry old relic that gets put in a museum or is read about in history books.

Srila Prabhupada recognized that boys and girls mix freely in western society and that what may have been practical in India would not work if he wished to spread his message beyond a few individuals. He therefore had women living in his ashramas - something unheard of in GM. Personally, I don't think it's a stretch to say that times have changed and that women's rights and their social and intellectual standing in society have improved considerably since the beginning of the women's liberation movement. The GV movement in general will have to 'read the times' and re-present the message of Mahaprabhu such that it can grow beyond the limited growth it has acheived to date. Rather than speaking about being beyond bodily consciousness and talking of 'spiritual equality' whilst at the same time denigating women, the movement will have to adjust it's presentation and develop equality on the corporeal level as well.

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

January 20, 2003

Posted by Jndas

I'm not sure what all the talk about denigrating women was about. I don't think you will find anyone here who is suggesting we denigrate women. I also don't think you will find anyone here who will say Srila Prabhupada denigrated women.

The topic was whether women should be given sannyasa. Prabhupada's stance was that it should never happen, and he refused to do it.

All the talk about abuse and mistreatment of women is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not someone has been mistreated has no bearing on whether women should be given sannyasa.

At any rate we, as followers of Srila Prabhupada, should not worry about whether or not something is 'Vedic' or not anyway. We should try to see that the teaching is current with the times such that as many people as possbile will take up the banner of Mahaprabhu.

I seem to disagree with you on this point. It is my view that we as followers of Srila Prabhupada are duty bound to follow his instructions and take them as our life and soul. We should really try to follow them rather than adjust them. This seems to be where we both disagree.

January 20, 2003

Posted by Paul108

Audarya lila prabhu,

In response to your statement, "A very good friend of mine, who is not only highly educated but also a woman, read the Bhagavad Gita As it is at my request and her comments to me were that while she felt that there were very interesting and valid points made in the book she could not take it seriously due to her feeling that women were portrayed as less intelligent than men.":

Intelligence doesn't necessarily have to do with being educated. Many highly educated people do not believe in God, so I don't think they can properly be called intelligent. I remember reading about when one woman asked Srila Prabupada about the statements of women being less intelligent than men; Srila Prabhupada replied that "If you think you are a woman, you are less intelligent." I may have taken birth in many millions of bodies; plants, animals, men, women, and who knows what. Why should I or anyone be insulted to not be the most intelligent? Isn't the important thing to have bhakti? If I am lacking in some physical characteristic like strength, intelligence, wealth, etc., then isn't that Krishna's mercy urging me to surrender to Him?

Hare Krishna

January 20, 2003

Posted by Jndas

When our strict adherence to the letter of his instructions becomes a hindrance to progressive Krsna consciousness we need to think a little more deeply about what we are doing and why we are doing it.

Strictly following the instructions of the spiritual master is never a hindrance to progressing in devotional service.

January 20, 2003

Posted by Guest

Denigration of women and thoughts about women is indeed connected to devotees thoughts about women and sannyasa. Make no mistake about it, a persons general thoughts about women will influence their thoughts about specifics such as dress and ashrama as well.

I would have thought that the connection was obvious and didn't need to be spelled out.

For the record, in all the time I have seen this discussion progress on various forum sites, "denigrating thoughts" against women never once crossed my mind. I don't know what that means, but I can only say that I have tried to follow the "spirit" of Srila Prabhupada's instructions that the bodily distinctions (man and woman, etc) are immaterial and that it is the soul that counts.

I believe I recalled from memory a statement in Hari Sauri das' memoirs that Srila Prabhupada specifically gave this as the reason why women could not take sannyasa; because although they were spiritually (atmically) equal, they are materially different and it is for this reason that they cannot be given sannyasa.

As for adjusting principles, several people have brought up the point that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura initiated only his brahmana disciples as sannyasis. So I have a question here; did Srila Sarasvati Thakura ever say that ONLY brahmanas can take sannyasa? Sannyasa could NEVER be taken by any other caste?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he did. It may be that his brahmana disciples became initiated as sannyasis, for what purpose? To follow tradition? Who knows, but is this a final arrangement?

If Srila Sarasvati Thakura did not say that ONLY brahmanas can take sannyasa, then it is perfectly OK for Srila Prabhupada to "adjust" this principle to initiate non-brahmanas as sannyasis as there is no forbidding instruction. On the other hand, we specifically have statements from Srila Prabhupada that women can never be given sannyasa. How anyone can "adjust" this principle is beyond me.

Much is made of Srila Prabhupada's supposedly "sexist" attitude to women, but we tend to forget that Srila Prabhupada allowed for women to become pujaris, temple presidents, and so on. In fact, when Srila Prabhupada first drew up a list of appointments for the first GBC, there were a significant number of female disciples on it. The reason why they were not chosen is perhaps because the other men on that list were more capable of preaching or managerial skills.

Srila Prabhupada also did not disapprove of women becoming diksa-gurus in ISKCON. For a woman to attain a position of diksa-guru is certainly higher than "tridandi-sannyasa," for a sannyasi in ISKCON may not necessarily be a guru.

The conclusion is clear; Srila Prabhupada forbade female sannyasa. If someone ordains a female as a sannyasini, he is deviating. The consequences are unspeakable.

January 20, 2003

Posted by Audarya Lila Dasa

Dear Paul 108,

Intelligence is part of the material energy, it is not inherently spiritual. Intelligence can be measured in many ways including standard intelligence tests. The woman I spoke of is a Phd. Biochemist and is certainly by all standards quite intelligent. The ideas of keeping women in the kitchen and out of the classroom have been long left behind in modern societies.

Of course the best use of one's intelligence is to engage it in Krsna's service, but what I am pointing to is how to inspire all people to do so. Women are not less intelligent than men. Some are less intelligent than some men and vise versa. Intelligence can not be measured simply by one's gender, nor can devotion, renunciation, sincerity, purity etc.

Just for further reference regarding my friend, she is an eastern orthodox christian and understands the spiritual ground of being.

While I agree with you that one should not be offended one way or the other, the fact remains that many people are repelled by the overall message due to culturally outdated ideas such as this.

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

January 20, 2003

Posted by Audarya Lila Dasa

{Note: This message was actually posted four messages up, but had been misplaced while moving servers and is being reposted here.)

Denigration of women and thoughts about women is indeed connected to devotees thoughts about women and sannyasa. Make no mistake about it, a persons general thoughts about women will influence their thoughts about specifics such as dress and ashrama as well.

I would have thought that the connection was obvious and didn't need to be spelled out.

What we disagree on in my view is not whether or not to follow Srila Prabhupada's instructions. Our disagreement really is concerned with whether or not we follow the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. I believe we should place the highest concern on the spirit of Srila Prabhpada's instructions which is to become Krsna conscious. When our strict adherence to the letter of his instructions becomes a hindrance to progressive Krsna consciousness we need to think a little more deeply about what we are doing and why we are doing it.

Srila Prabhupada wanted all his sisyas to become Krsna conscious and to use their intelligence to spread Krsna consciousness to others. Just as he made adjustments according to time, place and circumstance in order to spread Krsna consciousness his sincere disciples will continue to keep the lineage vital by making adjustments appropriate for broad dissemination of the message.

Why do you think that Srila Prabhupada stressed over and over again that his only credit was that he brought the message of Krsna consciousness to others 'without any alteration' from his Guru Maharaja? He made certain external ajustments as did his Guru Maharaja, but do you think that they deviated? (some of his more inflexible and fundamentalist god brothers did) Were they somehow supposed to push the movement forward to the masses of the world without making the proper ajustments to actually do so?

Anyway, we can certainly simply agree to disagree on this point.

Hari Bol!

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

January 20, 2003

Denigration of women and thoughts about women is indeed connected to devotees thoughts about women and sannyasa. Make no mistake about it, a persons general thoughts about women will influence their thoughts about specifics such as dress and ashrama as well.

I find this to be an insulting and denigrating statement. The idea that by simply disagreeing with the idea that the 5,000 yr. old (or whatever the actual age)traditon of the sannyasa ashrama being for men and women remaining under the support and protection of family for life makes one a denigrating misogynist is offensive.

How does the author avoid applying his rank observations onto Srila Prabhupada, or does he think his speculation applies there as well?

January 20, 2003

Dear Guest,

No need to be insulted by my statements. Please take them for what they are and don't try to read something else into them.

The history of Iskcon with it's women is one which few, if any, would point out as an area of pride or honor. The abuses have been many. How can that be in a society that sees beyond the body and speaks of a 'higher spiritual vision'? - this is certainly a question that any one who has witnessed the history unfold should ask.

I don't wish to pick on Iskcon in this regard so I will simply say that any spiritual society that speaks of spiritual equality but that practices segregation and provides accolades, honor, position, power, prestige, recognition and opportunity based on gender needs to re-think their overall paradigm and evaluate their honesty and integrity.

Besides the above, you really missed my point. My point wasn't that those who disagree with the idea that women are qualified to take sannyasa are misogynistic or involved in denigrating women. My point is, and was, that a persons thoughts about women in general will influence their thoughts about women when it comes to specifics. There is an overall sense amongst devotees that women need to be protected (although as a society Iskcon has done a miserable job in that arena) and that they are not as capable as men. They are spoken of as less intelligent even to the point of speaking of them in terms such that they should only be educated to cook and clean. If you don't think this type of mentality is denigrating, that's fine - but I know plenty of women who certainly do find such ideas to be not only absurd and outdated, but certainly they take offense to them.

Now I ask you honestly, in a society where the consensus is that women are less intellgent and need protecting is it possible to envision a woman occupying what amounts to the topmost position? In a society where Sannyasi's are given respect by all and are seen as leaders will there be room for those who are less intelligent? In need to protection rather than capable of giving it?

The Gaudiya Sampradaya certainly does have a history of women who were leaders and functioned as Guru's, but not in recent times - and that is not because women have become less capable.

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

Vaishnava_das108 · January 21, 2003