Tripurari Maharaja

[theist]

 

Try to get past saffron and white thinking.

 

 

I view this truth from a different direction. It's this very problem of saffron and white thinking that causes one to only offer respect to advanced women if it is propped up by their having taken a place in an ashrama that was designed for men.

 

To me it looks like an attempt at some artifical equality.

 

If one truly wanted to be innovative they would develop a separate designation for a similar type of renounced order that was tailored just for women.

 

Not a new idea I don't think, Catholic nuns for example. It may have been done before in GV vaisnavism for all I know.

 

Why a women renuciate would give up her natural advantages of being a women to be accepted as a sannyasini is beyond me.

 

Frankly I question the relevancy of the whole sannyasi ashrama system for either sexes in the west in the first place but am not qualified to have a firm opinion either way.

[theist]

The point JNdas made on risk I thought went right to the heart of the matter and was very clear.

[Guest guest]

 

 

It is risky business indeed to suggest that a stalwart devotee of the Lord has some agenda to fulfill other than fulfilling the orders of his spiritual master.

 

 

 

 

I have suggested no such thing, and putting words in my mouth is not a fitting response to a serious concern. All I have stated is that there has been departure from the shAstric precedent, and I believe I have more than backed that up.

 

 

 

I would like to ask the anonymous guest who posted the comment about women and sannyasa

 

 

 

 

First of all, my name is "Unnamed Guest Prabhu." Not "Anonymous Guest." You can also call me "His Grace, Unnamed Guest Prabhu," but I do not require such honorifics. Definitely do not call me "Srila Unnamed Guest Prabhu" as this might cause a stir.

 

 

 

where all this protection of women is taking place?

 

 

 

 

And what exactly does this have to with women and sannyAsa? Women should be protected at all stages of their life (Manu's commandments, not mine), therefore they should not be ordained into sannyAsa which is the opposite of such a situation.

 

 

Iskcon is the biggest mission in the Bhaktivinoda Parivara - shall we look to Iskcon to see if this Vedic ideal is established?

 

 

 

No, you should look to ISKCON and learn from their mistakes. Though I believe the mistakes ISKCON made are in regards to their treatment of children in gurukulas and wives in marriages. I don't know that ISKCON initiates women into sannyAsa, but if they did it is still a deviation.

 

 

 

women in American society are much better protected because they are given equal rights and full access to education. Tripurari Maharaja made the point in response to his 'Vedic' critics that the best protection for women is education at this time.

 

 

 

 

I still fail to see how this justifies giving women sannyAsa. Or does "education" in this context not include obedience to Vedic literature?

 

 

 

Many Gaudiya's find the adjustments made by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta in instituting the sannyasa ashrama to be a deviation. The reality is that according to time, place and circumstance ajustments will be made such that the message of Mahaprabhu will reach everyone in a relevant way such that they are inspired to act.

 

 

 

 

Now, now, this is hardly a fitting example. The institution of varnAshrama dharma was not made up by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta - it comes from shAstra and as such is good to be practiced by anyone not yet on the platform of sharanAgati.

 

What does this have to with giving sannyAsa to women? This latter point has no basis in shAstra. It is not an "adjustment" based on "time, place, and circumstances." It is a concoction.

 

 

 

Women are leaders in all aspects of society - business, science, sports, politics - why should they not be leaders in religious institutions? The answer is obvious - they should be leaders and those who have the capacity and realization should be pushed forward to represent the Sankirtan movement.

 

 

 

 

Very good. Let them be leaders within their own capacity. But not as sannyAsinis. So far I don't follow your argument. "Manu says women should be protected, but he didn't mean that to be the case in Kali Yuga. So if they aren't given protection, then give them sannyAsa instead?" Maybe we should just do as Manu says rather than inventing some institution to cover up for our failure to follow his directions?

 

 

 

Try to get past saffron and white thinking. The principle is simple enough - anyone - regardless of age, color, gender or race should be given respect according to their level of attainment.

 

 

 

I agree. But what about respecting scripture and Vedic tradition? Do these things not also deserve respect?

 

 

 

Try to get past saffron and white thinking. The principle is simple enough - anyone - regardless of age, color, gender or race should be given respect according to their level of attainment.

 

 

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta instituted varnAshrama according to the reality that it is a real institution within the Vedic culture, which also coincidentally happened to be useful for widespread preaching.

 

Women getting sannyAsa is not accepted in Vedic culture. I don't agree with your use of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's example. Did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta deviate from Vedic codes in any way by his adjustments?

 

 

 

Women are accepted as leaders and are given full rights and access in so many areas throughout the world.

 

 

 

They are also exploited and made to feel that they cannot look attractive if they aren't anorexic and flirtatious. But anyway, I digress. I just hope we aren't using karmi models as something to emulate.

 

 

 

The question as devotees we should ask ourselves is: why should we have a position of status and leadership that is only available to men? That is, afterall, what sannyasa has come to mean in contemporary GV society. It is awarded to individuals based on advancement and the society in general holds the sannyasis in high regard.

 

 

 

 

SannyAsa is only given to men. Manu states that women should be protected at all stages of life and never given indepedence. At the very least you should admit that to give women sannyAsa is to depart from Manu's instructions, however you try to justify it.

 

 

 

There is absoultely no reason why women should not be leading kirtans, giving talks, writing books and initiating disciples if they are qualified to do so. The only impediment besides qualification is a society which is decidedly partiarchal and in which many men feel they are superior and more intelligent than the women.

 

 

 

 

I don't know about "leading kirtans, giving talks, writing books" as I was only referring to the awarding of sannyAsa, for which there is clearly opposition from dharma-shAstras.

 

Unnamed Guest Prabhu

[Guest guest]

 

I view this truth from a different direction. It's this very problem of saffron and white thinking that causes one to only offer respect to advanced women if it is propped up by their having taken a place in an ashrama that was designed for men.

 

 

 

Precisely. A woman who is widowed deserves comparable respect to a sannyAsi, though the widow still is not required to be indepedent. She does not need saffron robes to be given such respect. And if one feels that respect should not be given to her, that that person is the one who is at fault and must be corrected.

 

Unnamed guest Prabhu

[Guest guest]

What relevance does dharma sastra have for those following bhakti sastra?

 

"I don't know about "leading kirtans, giving talks, writing books" as I was only referring to the awarding of sannyAsa, for which there is clearly opposition from dharma-shAstras."

 

What does giving sannyas have to do with bhakti sastra? It is clearly an inovation of sorts, the chief promoter of which was Bhaktivinoda, and it was Bhaktivinoda who wrote that some exceptional women could take sannyasa.

 

Giving talks (about Krsna), leading kirtans, and writing books (about Krsna) is Bhgavata dharma. Any form of dharma sastra that a paerson engaged in these activities conforms to will be an adjusted form.

 

If this is agreed upon here, then the only argument I read is "Prabhupada is a pure devotee who can make these adjustments and Tripurari is not and is thus bound to follow the standard of his guru." This is not a very good or interesting argument. Furthermore "Prabhupada's standard" is a question of interpretation. In one sense it was adjusting in consideration of time and circumstances and judging by the results.

 

Does anyone really think that giving a highly qualified woman sannyas today will somwhow damage her or anyone elses's capcity to advance in devotional service, or that in our day and age it will amount to leaving her unprotected, whatever that means today?

 

And is it really a deviation to consider that there might be circumstances that warrant giving a woman sannyasa? This, I believe, was Tripurari's point.

 

[stonehearted]

There has been much written here about strictly adhering to Srila Prabhupada's standard and following dharma -shastra. These are nice sentiments, I suppose, but in practical terms ratehr hollow, if not outright bluff.

 

Regarding initiation, do you know anyone who has been initiated without shaving his head? Prabhupada's standard was that to be initiated one must shave his head. I remember hearing how he told a successful Indian businessman to come back when he was ready to shave up.

 

Do you wear tilak everywhere, including to work? We find plenty of instances where Srila Prabhupada insisted on our wearing tilak all the time. These were not considered details at the time, but essential orders of our spiritual master. Nowadays, ISKCON's gurus initiate men with hair, initiated, otherwise-strict devotees work in the business and professional world and don't wear tilak except when worshipping at home or at the temple.

 

Nevertheless, we find many here and on other boards getting excited about Tripurari Maharaja's putative deviations without carefully considering what they're really discussing. He responded in the abstract to questions about the propriety of giving women sannyasa. He has never advocated it and clearly stated that he has no plans to do so himself. And in dealing with gay disciples, he's really talking about how he may deal with individual cases, as I remember, not laying down broad principles that he advocates all devotees follow. In the meantime, because he's careful about who he initiates and insists on a period of mutual examination, you'll find in the company of his disciples and friends great enthusiasm for understanding what Krishna consciousness is, and even greater enthusiasm for hearing and chanting the glories of Krishna's name, form, pastimes, and qualities. And manyof his disciples are enthusiastic preachers. Some go out with Gopavrindapal-style book tables, while others work with ISKCON centers to distribute Srila Prabhupada's books. Srila Prabhupada often advised us to judge a thing by its fruit: phalena parichiyate.

 

If you have some reservations about Tripurari Maharaja's preaching and practice, you're not required to spend any time with him. It's better that you find association that inspires you to become a progressive saragrahi vaishnava and stay there.

[Guest guest]

 

What relevance does dharma sastra have for those following bhakti sastra?

 

 

According to Bhagavad-giitaa, one who does not obey the regulative principles of shaastra never attains the supreme goal:

 

yaH shaastra-vidhim utsR^ijya vartate kaama-kaarataH |

na sa siddhim avaapnoti na sukha.m na paraa.m gatim || giitaa 16.23 ||

 

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.23)

 

tasmaach chhaastra.m pramaaNa.m te kaaryaakaarya-vyavasthitau |

j~naatvaa shaastra-vidhaanokta.m karma kartum ihaarhasi || giitaa 16.24 ||

 

One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated. (bhagavad-giitaa 16.24)

 

Dharmas are taught by dharma-shaastras. The the extent that most who are on the path of bhakti are not themselves pure devotees on the platform of ultimate surrender, dharma-shaastras are relevant for regulating the conduct of human beings.

 

Srila Prabhupada has the following to say about Manu-Dharma-Shaastra in his purports:

 

"Actually the qualified braahmanaas are meant to give direction to the kings for proper administration in terms of the scriptures like the Manu-samhitaa; and Dharma-shaastras of Paraashara." (SB 1.9.27 purport)

 

" Mahaaraaja Parikshit was a mahaa-bhaagavata, or a first-class devotee, who was not only well versed in the science of devotion but also able to convert others to become devotees by his transcendental instructions. Mahaaraaja Parikshit was, therefore, a devotee of the first order, and thus he used to consult great sages and learned braahmanaas, who could advise him by the shaastras how to execute the state administration. Such great kings were more responsible than modern elected executive heads because they obliged the great authorities by following their instructions left in Vedic literatures. There was no need for impractical fools to enact daily a new legislative bill and to conveniently alter it again and again to serve some purpose. The rules and regulations were already set forth by great sages like Manu, Yaajñavalkya, Paraashara and other liberated sages, and the enactments were all suitable for all ages in all places. Therefore the rules and regulations were standard and without flaw or defect.(SB 1.16.1 purport)

 

As far as Manu's qualifications, Srila Prabhupada also wrote:

 

"Ordinarily there are twelve great devotees of the Lord, namely Brahmaa, Naarada, Shiva, Kumaara, Kapila, Manu, Prahlaada, Bhiishma, Janaka, Shukadeva Gosvaamii;, Bali Mahaaraaja and Yamaraaja." (SB 1.9.19 purport)

 

 

How important is it that one chanting the Holy Name, who allows his daughter to reach maturity before being married, eat her first period?

 

 

 

I don't even know what the above has to do with Dharma-shaastras. Perhaps you could clarify?

 

 

"I don't know about "leading kirtans, giving talks, writing books" as I was only referring to the awarding of sannyAsa, for which there is clearly opposition from dharma-shAstras."

 

What does giving sannyas have to do with bhakti sastra? It is clearly an inovation of sorts, the chief promoter of which was Bhaktivinoda,

 

 

Giving of sannyaasa is a Vedic institution, part of the varnaashrama system. It is not a creation by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta simply reinstituted what had been followed up to Lord Chaitanya's time.

 

 

and it was Bhaktivinoda who wrote that some exceptional women could take sannyasa.

 

 

And where, praytell, did he write this? Are you planning on presenting that evidence? Or must I believe it merely because you say he did?

 

 

Giving talks (about Krsna), leading kirtans, and writing books (about Krsna) is Bhgavata dharma. Any form of dharma sastra that a paerson engaged in these activities conforms to will be an adjusted form.

 

 

That is nothing more than a blanket generalization with no basis whatsoever. Why do you speculate that following of dharma-shaastras will conflict with following of Bhaagavata-dharma? Manu, the author of one of the dharma-shaastras is himself one of the twelve mahaajanas. Pariikshit Mahaaraaja himself followed advisors whose principles were based on dharma-shaastras. All of this is based on the quotes given earlier.

 

There is indeed a danger in speculating prematurely that one is above the principles of shaastra.

 

 

If this is agreed upon here, then the only argument I read is "Prabhupada is a pure devotee who can make these adjustments and Tripurari is not and is thus bound to follow the standard of his guru." This is not a very good or interesting argument. Furthermore "Prabhupada's standard" is a question of interpretation. In one sense it was adjusting in consideration of time and circumstances and judging by the results.

 

 

As a matter of fact, belief in Srila Prabhupada's pure devotion is not required to accept the validity of the changes he proposed. Just as Naarada did, Srila Prabhupada only changed certain external principles; he did not compromise with the four basic regulative principles. He has done nothing more than to follow the shaastric precedent about "time, place, and circumstances" without taking more than was due.

 

As far as giving women sannyaasa is concerned, there has been to date no logical reason offered as to why such an "innovation" would actually increase anyone's Krishna-bhakti. If devotees are failing to give respect to women because they don't wear saffron robes, then it is they whose wrong ideas must be corrected. If the purpose is to inspire respect from Hindus, that would counter-productive since female-sannyaasa is not accepted even in Hindu society. And saffron robes would make no difference to non-Hindu Westerners since they aren't even familiar with the concept of sannyaasa.

 

So it's no wonder that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize such a process. Since there is no reason why such an innovation would be of any devotional benefit to anyone, there is no reason to contradict the position of dharma-shaastras in this regard.

 

 

Does anyone really think that giving a highly qualified woman sannyas today will somwhow damage her or anyone elses's capcity to advance in devotional service, or that in our day and age it will amount to leaving her unprotected, whatever that means today?

 

 

The institution of sannyaasa is meant to recognize those who, having attained a certain qualification, are cutting off all ties with society and live a life that is completely dependent on the Supreme Lord. This is the antithesis of what is prescribed for women, who must remain in the protection of their father, husband, or sons depending on their stage of life. A sannyaasi does not associate with family members as a matter of custom.

 

 

And is it really a deviation to consider that there might be circumstances that warrant giving a woman sannyasa? This, I believe, was Tripurari's point.

 

 

 

I'm only aware of one female sannyaasi in our tradition - Ganga-Maata Gosvaaminii. As far as I know, she behaved very much like a sannyaasii, but even she was never ordained into the saffron robes.

 

Women should not be encouraged to think they are treated the same as men. Nor should they be made to feel that they do not deserve respect because they are women. Men and women have different scripturally-based duties. Traditionally women do not study the shruti and do not take to the saffron robes of sannyaasa. These kinds of differences should not be glossed over just to make the whole culture palatable to unqualified Westerners. Rather, they should be respected as part of the eternal sanaatana-dharma.

[Guest guest]

 

Do you wear tilak everywhere, including to work? We find plenty of instances where Srila Prabhupada insisted on our wearing tilak all the time. These were not considered details at the time, but essential orders of our spiritual master. Nowadays, ISKCON's gurus initiate men with hair, initiated, otherwise-strict devotees work in the business and professional world and don't wear tilak except when worshipping at home or at the temple.

 

 

So, if ISKCON devotees do not follow the principles strictly, shall we then take it that such laxity is acceptable? That is precisely how degradation begins - each generation compromises more than the one previous to it. In this regard, one can learn a lot from the history of Hinduism (which did the same thing and now suffers as a result).

 

 

Nevertheless, we find many here and on other boards getting excited about Tripurari Maharaja's putative deviations without carefully considering what they're really discussing.

 

 

What I am more concerned about are the deviations that occur as a result of what Tripurari Maharaja is perceived to have said. Already now we have claims being made that dharma-shaastras are not relevant to devotees, that whatever devotees do is dharma-shaastra, and so on - all spoken by those trying to defend Tripurari Swami.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"In the meantime, because he's careful about who he initiates and insists on a period of mutual examination.."

 

Ha. You must be really out of touch with Tripurari Swami's group. Many have been initiated after a very short period of time.

[stonehearted]

Guest: What I am more concerned about are the deviations that occur as a result of what Tripurari Maharaja is perceived to have said.

 

Well, then it would seem a good idea to carefully read what he actually says and discuss that. I think that's what I've suggested every time this comes up. Still, most of us would prefer for some reason to discuss what others think he said.

[stonehearted]

Guest: So, if ISKCON devotees do not follow the principles strictly, shall we then take it that such laxity is acceptable?

 

That's not my point. Actually, I asked if you--personally--wear tilak everywhere. That may help us determine your qualification for judging deviations from principles. Anyway, the examples I gave were written off the top of my head and may not be very useful. Still, ISKCON and its leaders do present themselves as the real deal, the actual followers of Srila Prabhupada. Nevertheless, they have different standards for initiation than Srila Prabhupada and have sanctioned variations in what we understood as sad-achara in the early '70s. It may be more to the point to discuss their deviations, since ISKCON is still the largest and most energetic branch of the Sarasvata Gaudiya family. But that won't get us anywhere, either. Srila Sarasvati Thakura counselled his disciples to focus on their own shortcomings rather than on those they perceived in others. In a 1931 letter to a disciple, he wrote, "My instruction to you is not to criticize others, but to correct and purify yourself. I am forced to criticize my own disciples and those who have come to me for instruction. I do not understand why you woudl go out of your way to try to perform such a difficult task."

 

Sound advice, I think.

 

In the meantime, I don't think Tripurari Maharaja needs defending. His service speaks for itself. Rather, we need to understand how we can increase our own surrrender to the the Lord's will, deepen our realization, and share more broadly whatever we have receieved from our spiritual masters. If we can benefit by deepening our appreciation of what he is trying to do, or from the example of so many other stalwart preachers of the holy name among us, then let's discuss these things in that mood.

[livingentity]

thread ever die?

[Guest guest]

As mentioned by me previously, I was more interested in the actual concepts than whether or not BVT believes in them. It appears Kulapavana is quite convinced that BVT said it. By presenting the scriptural side of the issue, it might encourage him to reexamine what BVT has actually said. Since Kulapavana is a BVT follower or at least admirer, I trust he would take it upon himself to examine his guru's remarks when presented with seemingly contradictory evidence from elsewhere. I am not a BVT follower and hence I could care less personally. But it does concern me that one might take the attitude of "yeah, so what if he isn't following the scripture, he's so advanced so he doesn't have to...."

 

While I believe that one should strive to attain sad-AchAra and even higher stages of bhakti, I don't agree with the philosophy that one has to be completely above fault before recognizing someone else's difference of opinion vis-a-vis shaastra. By that logic, one would not even be qualified to disagree with mAyAvAda until one had attained the same level of perceived spiritual advancement as an hypothetical Advaitin yogi. Given the huge number of people in ISKCON who can't even follow basic principles of dharma, I'm sure you can appreciate how impractical that would be.

 

But I do agree that one should not find fault in another person's character unless he himself is faultless. But as I said before, I am not interested in finding fault with anyone - only in discussing the scriptural validity of certain practices/beliefs. Unfortunately, in forums like these, it's very difficult for some individuals to see the difference between "criticizing a belief" and "criticizing a guru," the practical result being that all individuals touted as gurus must be immediately and unconditionally accepted as such by one and all, and no questioning is allowed unless the questioner promises in advance to be convinced by whatever answer is given.

 

 

[Kulapavana]

UGP: "It appears Kulapavana is quite convinced that BVT said it. By presenting the scriptural side of the issue, it might encourage him to reexamine what BVT has actually said. Since Kulapavana is a BVT follower or at least admirer, I trust he would take it upon himself to examine his guru's remarks when presented with seemingly contradictory evidence from elsewhere"

 

I like and respect BVT, thats about it. Like yourself (I presume from your posts) I also responded just to concepts presented in the thread. What people say publicly may not always reflect the full picture on any given issue. And some people are even afraid to use their real name when going public. I have been examining "seemingly contradictory evidence" on many issues for many years and rarely try to pass a "final" judgement without observing what kind of fruit this issue bears in time. I do not claim to have great spiritual knowledge but I managed just fine using this approach through many, many big or small trials and tribulations since I joined in 1979. And I still have a great enthusiasm about spreading Lord Caitanya's mission... go figure... ;-)

[Guest guest]

Shri Chaitanya-shikshamrita 2/4:

 

-----------------------

 

strilokera grihastha ashrama o sthala visheshe vanaprastha vyatita anya kona ashrama svikarya naya. kona asadharana-bhaktisampanna stri vidya, dharma o samarthya labha karatah yadi brahmacharya va sannyasa ashrama grahana kariya saphalya labha kariya thakena va labha karena, taha sadharanataha komala sraddha, komala sharira, komala buddhi stri jatira pakshe vidhi nahe.

 

"There are no ashramas acceptable by women other then the householder (grihastha) ashrama or in specific cases as per time, place and circumstance the vanaprastha ashrama. Of course there can be some exceptional rare cases when an extraordinary and greatly advanced woman in bhakti can accept the brahmacharya and sannyasa ashramas and make a success of her spiritual life.

 

But in the normal and general case, these ashramas are not meant for women because of their delicate faith, delicate body and delicate intelligence

[Guest guest]

Dharma sastra is relevant for those not elegible for jnana marg. Injunctions of dharma sastra and for jnana marg are not relevant for those who have attained eligibility for bhakti marg. Implementing "daiva varnasrama" for those on the bhakti marg involves picking and choosing just how much of dharma sastra is relevant. This is what Bhaktisiddhanta did. So too Prabhupada.

[Guest guest]

 

Dharma sastra is relevant for those not elegible for jnana marg. Injunctions of dharma sastra and for jnana marg are not relevant for those who have attained eligibility for bhakti marg. Implementing "daiva varnasrama" for those on the bhakti marg involves picking and choosing just how much of dharma sastra is relevant. This is what Bhaktisiddhanta did. So too Prabhupada.

 

 

 

Can you please back up the above with shAstra? Because as mentioned previously, Srila Prabhupada spoke of dharma-shAstras in a devotional context.

 

If someone being on "bhakti-marg" no longer need follow dharma-shAstra, then it is only fair to question what being on "bhakti-marg" means. Is anyone who is chanting 16 rounds and has a guru automatically on "bhakti-marg," regardless of whatever material desires he/she might posess? Or does being on bhakti-marg imply having attained a certain level of devotion (bhAva-bhakti?). Or does it mean that anyone who accepts bhakti as the goal, regardless of what yoga stage he may be practicing (sakAma karma yoga?) is on "bhakti marg?"

 

These points should be made clear, unless we want to have thousands of ISKCON followers suddenly declare to all and sundry "we're Vaishnavas, so we don't have to follow dharma." In this day and age, we don't need to give them more excuses not to follow regulative principles.

 

Also, if you say dharma-shAstra is not relevant for those on bhakti-marg, but again say that some of it can be chosen to be followed by bhaktas, then this is at least a partial contradiction. Surely you can agree that dharma-shAstra is not "irrelevant." Maybe what you mean to say is that *some* portions of it are not relevant. The latter would be a much more believeable position. And in such a case, we still have to realize that we aren't authorized to reject any part of the dharma-shAstra unless we have clearly contradictory pramAnas from a higher source (i.e. the BhAgavatam) or specific instructions to do so by the guru.

 

What I am pointing out here is that rejecting some parts of dharma-shAstras is not something to be done by individual bhaktas according to their own whims. "Time, place, and circumstances" is a very convenient argument given by many, but that argument must involve the guru and *his* application of those principles, not the individual sAdhaka's whims.

 

Regarding women in the sannyAsa ashrama, again I think it's important to point out how rare such a thing is. There is one personality in the RAmAyana by the name "Swayamprabha" I think, who was a female ascetic who once entertained Hanuman and his division of vAnara soldiers. Otherwise, the vast majority of ascetics are male. Some might cry "sexism!" but I prefer to think of it as a more mature acceptance of our capabilities based on bodily differences. On the other hand, you have societies like the International Society of Divine Love, whose guru quite readily gives out "sannyAsa" to "eligible" young women in their 20's and 30's. This is most certainly not consistent with dharma-shAstra, nor is it reasonable nor bona fide.

 

I would like to see those scriptural references indicating that dharma-shAstra is not relevant for those on "bhakti-marg."

 

Unnamed Guest Prabhu

[theist]

 

These points should be made clear, unless we want to have thousands of ISKCON followers suddenly declare to all and sundry "we're Vaishnavas, so we don't have to follow dharma." In this day and age, we don't need to give them more excuses not to follow regulative principles.

 

 

This has already happened in the 1970's and the results were disasterous.

 

"I can lie and steal because I am doing it for Krsna...I'm a devotee and beyond karma..etc"

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

In the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu Rupa Goswami establishes a contrary view:

 

shruti-smriti-puranadi-

pancaratra-vidhim vina

aikantiki harer bhaktir

utpatayaiva kalpate

 

"Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Shruti, Smriti and Pancaratras is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society." - (1.2.101)

 

This verse is also quoted by Srila Prabhupada in his Gita purport to text 3 of chapter 7. That Bhagavad Gita verse deals with the rarity of true devotees ("Out of thousands of men, hardly one endeavours for perfection..."). Thus there may be many people pursuing so-called devotional paths, but out of thousands of such people very few are genuine as they choose to follow manufactured processes of dharma based on their whims and mind.

[Guest guest]

Precisely my point. Dharma should not be deemphasized. Or else history will repeat itself.

 

 

[Guest guest]

sruti smriti . . . is saying that bhakti that is concocted rather than scripturaly based is a disturbance. It has been used by Rupa Goswami to distinguish Pure Land Buddhism from Krsna bhakti.

It is not saying that bhaktas must follow dharma sastra. Of course bhaktas will be dharmic in the general sense because the bhakti sastras mandate this. Otherwise as Madhavenra Puri says "Farewell oblations to the forefathers . . . " Dharma sastra, varnasrama, etc. are for those who are not eleigible for bhakti. According to Bhaktivinoda they are also applicable in an adjusted form form neophyte devotees. This is the idea of daiva varnasrma, varnasrama for bhaktas.

 

Sanantana Goswami says viramita dharma dhyana pujadi yatanam . . . , "Giving up dharma (sastra) meditation (jnana marg), ritualistic worship, etc. . . . if one takes to the chanting of the holy name, Krsna nama will deliver him."

[Guest guest]

sarva dharman parityaja

 

This does not mean one can steal in the name of Krsna. It menas that surrendering to Krsna frees one from the necessity to follow lesser scriptural injunctions. It refers either to jnana marg or bhakti marg.

 

If then we are to introduce something from dharma sastra into bhakti marg or something from jnana marg like sannyasa, such picking and choosing on the part of preacher is permissable if it serves the purpose of promoting bhakti.

 

Furthermore, Some insist that giving sannyas to women is against dharma sastra. Please provide a scriptural quote to support this. However, even if you can, Vaisnava acaryas like Bhaktivinoda Thakura differ.

[Guest guest]

 

Furthermore, Some insist that giving sannyas to women is against dharma sastra. Please provide a scriptural quote to support this. However, even if you can, Vaisnava acaryas like Bhaktivinoda Thakura differ.

 

 

 

It was already mentioned earlier in this thread with explicit evidence that Dharma-shAstra forbids women to be independent at any stage of life. This is as clear a prohibition against sannyAsa for women as I can imagine. I doubt if you will find a commandment like "thou shalt not give sannyAsa to women," just like you won't find a commandment like "thou shalt not watch television." Using a little intelligence, and the explicit principles already mentioned in the shAstras, such principles are clearly inferred.

 

Bhaktivinod Thakura seems to state that sannyAsa for women is extremely rare. This would be in keeping with the scriptural view that women in general should not get sannyAsa. But again, there is the example of Swayamprabha - a very accomplished ascetic from the RAmAyana. Still, I don't think that gives license to start encouraging women today to start taking sannyAsa. I only say this because, by alluding to such rare examples, the more widespread application of the principle seems to invariably follow by those seeking more widespread acceptance among egalitarian-minded individuals.

 

A request was made earlier for scriptural evidence stating that one who was on "bhakti-mArg" could give up the commandments of the dharma-shAstras. In return, all that was provided was an unreferenced statement by Sanatana Gosvami in which he authorized devotees to give up "dharma-dhyAna," which you associate with jnAna-mArg. Of course, I don't think anyone will argue that a bhakta can give up a lower path of self-realization; the issue was whether or not a bhakta can give up the regulative principles of dharma-shAstras, and how elevated he had to be in order to do so.

 

For that matter, before you can say "followers of bhakti-mArg can give up dharma-shAstra," I think you should clearly define for that purpose what "bhakti-mArg" is. Does it refer to anyone who chants Hare Krishna, understanding intellectually that Krishna is Supreme Lord? Or does it only refer to those who have attained sharaNAgati? I'm sure you can understand why clarity would be needed here. There are many thousands of devotees who chant Hare Krishna though they might not yet be purified of anarthas, and telling them that they can give up dharma-shAstras strikes me as premature.

 

In Bhagavad-gItA, Krishna tells Arjuna that it is better for him to perform his own duty imperfectly than another's duty perfectly. Arjuna was born into a kshatriya family and trained as such. But he clearly had such devotion to Krishna that he was already better than a common brahmin (based on the GaudIya principle that pure Vaishnavas are above even brahmins). This being the case, why did not Arjuna change his varna? I think the answer is obvious - once you are assigned a varna based on your guna and karma, you have to keep it as a matter of convention. Arjuna remaining a kshatriya did not keep him from going back to Godhead.

 

Similarly, women are not, by their nature, designed for the Ashrama of sannyAsa. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura appears to concede this as a general principle, and Manu seems to accept it implicitly. This does not make the Supreme Lord inaccessible to them; it just means that they have certain dharmas assigned to them by virtue of their gender (just as males have their dharmas), and these should be followed based on the principle that one should stick to one's dharma as instructed by Lord Krishna.

 

Yours,

 

Rascal_Number_One

 

[Guest guest]

Guest: "It was already mentioned earlier in this thread with explicit evidence that Dharma-shAstra forbids women to be independent at any stage of life. This is as clear a prohibition against sannyAsa for women as I can imagine. I doubt if you will find a commandment like "thou shalt not give sannyAsa to women,""

 

Voice: It is a fact that dharma includes new things in itself as the human race advances in to the future. For example, once upon a time, we only had advisors to the king. Whose dharma was to speculate about the results of the actions made by the king and advice him to take action with respect to the outcome. But today, we look at senators and Reps... their dharma is not only to advice the executive administration, it is also to force the executive administration to act in the best interest of people.

 

Similarly, the dharma also advances as the human race advances. In the past, women were considered to be weak and in great need of protection. I can understand that to some extent. Furthermore, women were also branded into the family life due their status in the society, which was of dependency. Today, it is not like that at all. Women can protect themselves with the law. The myth that women are emotionally/physicially weak is proven to be false in many instances due to the many examples where women have succeeded in many jobs.So, women are fit for Sanyassa.

 

Guest: "But he clearly had such devotion to Krishna that he was already better than a common brahmin (based on the GaudIya principle that pure Vaishnavas are above even brahmins). This being the case, why did not Arjuna change his varna? I think the answer is obvious - once you are assigned a varna based on your guna and karma, you have to keep it as a matter of convention. Arjuna remaining a kshatriya did not keep him from going back to Godhead..."

"Similarly, women are not, by their nature, designed for the Ashrama of sannyAsa."

 

Voice: In family life, the man should take care of his family by providing them with financial support.

 

In family life, the women should take care of the children and also the husband by providing emotional support.

 

A man can give up his family dharma and go into sanyassa. Why can't a woman do so? Oh is it a fact that woman has to create babies even if she does not want to ? When she can conserve that time and serve her beloved lord krishna... why should she be stuck in the family life? (I am not talking about family life after there are already children born.)

 

Furthermore, we are not our bodies but spirit souls. If men are allowed to give up family life, then women should also be eligible to give up family life for God.

 

If this is not to be done, then there is no meaning to the teachings of vedas. There is no point in saying "You are a spirit soul, you are not your body" , the only thing this would output is more sexism and false superiority.

 

I think women are as eligible as men under God, so if some one has done so much for God then it is God's right to have her/him lead a group to God regardless of their gender in this life.

 

The above statements were written while practicing humility.

Yea yea, I have a sc name, I just don't want to reveal my identity.

 

-VOICE-

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The ashrama of Brahmachari was spoken of in the same context in the quote given by Bhaktivinoda Thakur. There also doesn't seem to be any Vedic prescedent for women living in such an ashrama. Srila Prabhupada in his infinite wisdom did establish the Brahmacharini ashrama in western countries. He did this based on cultural considerations and adapting the Vedic paradigm in general to the practical environment that he encountered.

 

The real issue for each of us is how best to become Krsna conscious ourselves and how to present the philosophy and culture of Krsna consciousness such that it has relevance in today's world and thus help facilitate the broader acceptance of Mahaprabhu's teachings and spreading the Sankirtan movement to every town and village.

 

My own personal view is that until women are seen as men's equals with the same rights and privledges and the same ability to advance their own Krsna consciousness and help others in their march toward divinity, Krsna consciousness will be viewed not for what it is or can be, but for what it is not - a sexually bigoted religion that views women not only as subordinate but as inferior and incapable of fully representing God on earth. Of course, presently there is a lot of company in that particlar fold - for example the Catholic Church seems to hold dearly to similar views in terms of keeping the heirachy firmly in the hands of the 'good old boys'.

 

All of these issues are really based on external and social considerations which change according to time and place. These are not essential elements of siddhanta. The presentation of siddhanta can and should be adjusted according to the external and social conditions such that the teachings are relevant and will be embraced rather than scoffed at as pre-historic or irrelevant to the times in which we live.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa