Tripurari Maharaja

[Guest guest]

What your 'opponent' is arguing is not abandoning morality or justifying the obvious descrepencies in individual devotees lifes - he/she already pointed out that the argument is that upon coming to devotional life (the beginning of surrender) one's obligations to follow lesser dharma's which interfere with the higher consideration of devotional service are already fulfilled. This is clearly what Srila Prabhupada was referring to in the quote which you feel was somehow misused.

 

What you are arguing against - divorce, child abuse, drug abuse, illicit sex - is NOT being advocated by your opponent - so therefore it has no real place in the discussion at hand - which is the importance of Dharma sastras in devotional life.

 

You are correct about where the illicit sex idea comes from. The reason that this instruction is relevant for Srila Prabhupada's disciples is that he stressed it. He didn't stress many other instructions from the Dharma sastras - in fact he clearly said on many occasions that those duties are not necessary to perform for those who have taken up a life of devotional service. Coming to the west and seeing the lack of basic morality and in particular the sexual promiscuity, Srila Prabhupada no doubt, saw a need to stress regulation of the senses for people who were so engrossed in sexual and sensual life.

 

I think it should be clear that illicit sex, child abuse, drug abuse and whatever other practice you may want to bring up are not in line with devotional service. No one can argue that they can engage in these practices due to being 'free' from the restrictions or rules of Dharma sastra - when they are clearly against the principles of devotion. This type of argument has no basis. How is child abuse service to Krsna? How is drug use service to Krsna? How is illicit sex service to Krsna? Clearly they are not. The principle is that the lower duty (which is meant to ultimately bring one to the higher duty) can be given up in consideration of performing a higher duty. That duty is surrender to Krsna and performing devotional service under his representative. That is the point - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[theist]

 

How is drug use service to Krsna?

 

 

It's been tried. Remember Jayatirtha's LSD cult?

 

I have seen a danger in thinking we have reached a stage where we think we can act in contrary ways because "devotees" are free from those restrictions and since I am a "devotee" it follows I am free to do what every I like in Krsna's name.

 

The result has been only so much havoc.

[Guest guest]

It is stated in the Saknda Purana that "A Vaisnava is one who has sex only for procreation." You can also find such things in Hari Bhakti vilasa.

 

As I have already stated, acaryas may take what they choose from Dharma sastra and incorporate it into a system like Bhaktivinoda has in his daiva varnasrama concept. This is differnt from following varnasrama and being obliged to dharma sastra.

 

It is you who have chosen to quote Prabhupada selectively. I have admitted that there are places where he advocates dharma sastra for gereral purposes. But when he says that only advanced devotees can give up regulative practices, the practices he is referring to are those of vaidhi bhakti such as Deity worship, etc.

 

Your explanation is different. You say that only advanced devotees can be considered surrendered and thus only they can give up dharma sastra. But adherence to dharma sastra involves worship of the devas and many other things that require faith in these activites, as opposed to the faith of a devotee that simply by worshiping Krsna all obligations are fulifilled. Surrender is not the end. It is the beginning of bhakti. Again, I have demonstrated from scripture that it is a limb of sadhana bhakti, not prema bhakti.

 

When one surrenders to Krsna he accepts everything favorable to bhakti and rejects everything unfavorable to bhakti. He takes initiation from a Vaisnava and follows the sadacara of bhakti. He does bhajan kriya of bhakti. As Prabhupada says, such a devotee has no time for even reading dharma sastra, what to speak of following it. Prabhupad is not speaking about advanced devotees here. He is talking to you.

 

You would to do better to chant japa than spend time reading dharma sastra. However, your desire to perform the sraddha etc. can be fulfilled by adopting the smriti of Hari bhakti vilasa, where things such as Gaudiya Vaisnava versions of the sraddha, etc. are enjoined. This again is an example of how Gaudiya Vaisnavas deal with adherence to dharma within the context of surrendering to Krsna.

 

Now, what about sannyas for women? Is this discussed anywhere in Hari bhakti vilasa or in the writings of Bhaktivinoda? Although one can say that it is not Vedic for women to take sannyasa, one can argue that this applies strictly to karma sannyas or jnana sannyasa, but not Vaisnava sannyasa. How so? There are many restrictions in the karma marg and jnana marg that we do not find in bhakti marg because of its generosity and power. For example, women are only allowed to assist their husbands in rituals in the karma marg, whereas in bhakti marg they can directly engage in Deity worship themselves. Furthermore, in speaking of Vaisnava sannyasa we know that Bhaktivinoda says that is it acceptable under certain cisrcumstances for women to accept it.

 

[Guest guest]

I cannot resist saying something more on sarva dharman parityaja. It is such an important verse.

 

Krsna is not saying that by surrendering you will be complete in bhakti. Nor is he saying this is the goal or principle teaching of the Gita.

 

The main teaching of the Gita is man mana bhava mad bhakto, be a devotee of Krsna, meaning fix your mind on him, worship him, engage in sravanam, kirtanam, etc.

 

After making this clear he says that in order to do so one must surrender, sarva dharman parityaja. He says that this surrender will free one from all other dharmic obligations, don’t worry. In other words if you place your faith in him and him alone he will relieve you of any other obligations in consideration of dharma sastra, etc. He does not say that by such surrender one will get prema bhakti immediately, but rather that one who becomes a sarangata will immediately be free from other obligations that can be time consuming and troublesome making it possible to engage completely in devotional service.

 

It is a very strong statement indeed and it stands the religious world on its head. He is saying that you will not incur sin for forgoing the obligations of dharma sastra if you place all faith in him and act accordingly. There is no question of this resulting in adharma.

 

Attachment to dharma satsra and mere moral life is hard to break. What will be come of one if he does so. Arjuna also asked about this earlier in chapter six. “What if I take up this bhakti but am unsuccessful? Then I will have lost my position in the world of dharma as well as that of bhakti.” Krsna replies that he has everything to gain.

 

In saying sarvan dharman parityaja he is teaching us that the at its core bhakti involves the spirit of surrender and resolve to serve Krsna and Krsna alone. This saranagati is the life breath of one’s devotional practice. Without it one’s practice is lifeless.

 

Prahlada says the same thing in his famous Bhagavat verse that explains what bhakti is:

 

 

sravanam kirtanam visnoh

smaranam päda-sevanam

arcanam vandanam däsyam

sakhyam ätma-nivedanam

 

iti pumsärpitä visnau

bhaktis cen nava-laksanä

kriyeta bhagavaty addhä

tan manye ’dhitam uttamam

 

The words bhagavaty addha indicate that the practices of hearing and chanting should be done with a sense of completeness, complete surrender. Then they will be effective in gradually elevating one to prema. Thus again, saranagati is not the goal. It is the life breath of one’s sadhana.

 

Now is this so hard to surrender to? Is it not a charming idea? Is this not much of what makes Him so loveable and worthy of the surrender he askes for?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki-vidhim vina. Any system we accept, it must be supported by the evidences of sruti-smriti-puranadi-pancaratriki. Aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayai... Anything which is not supported by sruti-smriti... Just like Manu-smriti. This is Smriti. And Vedas are sruti. sruti-smriti-puranadi pancaratriki-vi... aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate. Which is not evidence, which is not true by these pramanas, then it is disturbance. - Srila Prabhupada

 

 

This is clearly what Srila Prabhupada was referring to in the quote which you feel was somehow misused.

 

 

 

Why would he feel it is being misused? Because throughout Srila Prabhupada's teachings (when not taken out of context) he speaks differently about the dharma shastras such as Manu-samhita and about their author, Manu, who is a pure devotee of the Lord. In addition to this the idea that dharma-shastras are irrelevant to devotees is not supported in the Gita, where Krishna specifically says those who do not follow the regulative principles of scripture attain no success. Add to this the fact that Rupa Goswami condemns false devotional practices not performed according to scriptures such as the dharma-shastras, and Prabhupada's statement in his Gita purport:

 

 

Therefore, a teacher must follow the principles of sastra (scripture) to reach the common man. The teacher cannot manufacture rules against the principles of revealed scriptures. The revealed scriptures, like Manu-samhita and similar others, are considered the standard books to be followed by human society. Thus the leader’s teaching should be based on the principles of the standard rules as they are practiced by the great teachers.

 

 

 

This view is strikingly different to what is being proposed here, namely that devotees need not give any thought to the dharma-shastras for such regulations don't apply to bhaktas.

 

Simply because devotees are exempted from the prayascitta (attonement) ceremonies found in the dharma-shastras does not mean they are also exempted from the regulations and injunctions of the dharma-shastra. Why are devotees exempted from the prayascita ceremonies? Because worship of Vishnu automatically fulfills the purpose of such ceremonies. As "Rascal_Number_One" had pointed out earlier, devotees already worship the devas because the devas are limbs of the Lord's virat-purusha. By worshiping Vishnu worship of the devas is automatically fulfilled. Thus devotees become free from lower dharmas by accepting a higher dharma, and this is where exemption from rituals comes in. Injunctions within the dharma-shastra governing sinful conduct is a completely different matter. One does not become exempt to these regulations simply because one is a devotee.

 

We were first offered the evidence that Madhavendra Puri states he no longer performs sandhya-vandana, no longer takes bath, and no longer worships the devas, therefore common devotees don't do these things either. Of course it was pointed out that this is not a true statement. Devotees do perform sandhya-vandana and they do take bath daily as is enjoined in hari-bhakti vilasa. Madhavendra Puri's statement was against even the Gaudiya vaishnava's smriti shastra and thus cannot be taken as an example for rank and file bhaktas. It is indeed only the personal prayer of a very advanced devotee in raganuga bhakti.

 

Next Rascal_Number_One was criticized for saying he would perform the shraddha ceremony for his parents when they pass away, and it was stated that Vaishnavas don't perform this ceremony. I guess the anonymous poster then found out that Gaudiya Vaishnavas do perform shraddha ceremonies as well as the dasha-samskaras enjoined in manu-samhita, so he suddenly changed his stance and said that Hari-bhakti-vilasa has special instructions to perform the shraddha ceremony for vaishnavas.

 

Next we were told how Rascal_Number_One was just flouting his stupidity.

 

This thread began mainly focused on the concepts of sannyasa for women and homosexual marriages. So let us look at these points again. Srila Prabhupada himself cites many times the same verse from Manu Samhita that Rascal_Number_One quoted forbidding women from being independent. Yet when Rascal_Number_One quotes it, he is told that such a verse is irrelevant because devotees don't need to follow dharma-shastras. Why would a Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharya quote such a verse if it was meaningless and not meant to be followed. Why would Srila Prabhupada turn to Manu-samhita to validate his statements (i.e. to provide scriptural backing) if the entire book was not meant to be followed anyway. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that our position must be established from shastra, but it can be done so with selective quoting. In other words, we accept one or two verses from Manu-samhita when they agree with our conclusions, but reject the rest of the book because we don't find it palatable or in line with our views.

 

It is this very line of thinking that gives life to the hodge-podge that is Hinduism. Selective quoting allows one to establish any belief as authentic, by rejecting all verses that disagree with it as irrelevant. This is not an honest system of analysis. Believe it or not, there is harmony in our scriptures, and when they are analysed systematically, everything will clearly and harmoniously establish worship of Vishnu as the ultimate goal of life.

 

When asked specifically if women can be given sannyasa, Srila Prabhupada replied:

 

 

Anyone acting for Krishna, he is a sannyasi or sannyasini. It is also stated: striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te'pi yanti param gatim. So spiritually everyone is equal. But materially a woman cannot be given Sannyasa. But you should not be bothered because you are serving on the spiritual platform.

 

 

 

He did not say that devotees do not need to follow dharma-shastras, so they can manufacture speculative processes without worry.

 

Elsewhere in his Bhagavatam purports he states the following, paraphrasing the verse from Manu-samhita:

 

 

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 sannyasa. So-called spiritual societies concocted in modern times give sannyasa even to women, although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman’s accepting sannyasa. Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his wife and given her sannyasa. The woman must remain at home. She has only three stages of life: dependency on the father in childhood, dependency on the husband in youth and, in old age, dependency on the grown-up son, such as Kapila.

 

 

 

This injunction of Manu is described by Prabhupada as "truth". It is a fact of reality, not an opinion to be accepted or rejected:

 

 

According to Manu-samhita, our Vedic literature, the Manu-samhita says, na striyam svatantratam arhati: “Women should not be given independence” or “Women are not independent.” That is a truth, Vedic truth.

 

 

 

Some may say, "but today women are so qualified, educated and advanced..." to which Prabhupada states (again citing Manu)

 

 

We have got Mahabharata, there is not a single instance... We had very, very great, qualified women. But they were in charge of state...? Very, very qualified women. You know. Na svatantratam arhati, striyah. For woman there is no independence. The Manu-samhita. They must stay under father, under husband, or under elderly sons. Three stages.

 

 

 

How about another example of devotees disobeying the dharma-shastras of Manu under the false guise of bhakti? In a Bhagavatam purport Prabhupade cites from Manu that divorce is not allowed:

 

 

According to Manu-smriti, one should never desert his wife and children.

 

 

 

This injunction is relevant to all people. It is not that devotees are exempted from this injunction of dharma simply because they have taken to bhakti. But countless devotees choose to ignore these injunctions, following the same faulty line of thinking as presented in this thread, that devotees are exempted from such "mundane social regulations" as found in dharma-shastra.

 

What is the relevance of the Manu-samhita and dharma shastras? Srila Prabhupada's view is as follows:

 

 

Without undergoing the process of sruti—means Vedas—smriti, the Puranas, and other corollary literatures, Bhagavad-gita, Mahabharata, Smriti, Manu-smriti, the laws given by Manu, Parasara... So Hari-bhakti, devotional service to the Lord, must be approved by Vedas, Puranas. Pancaratriki-vidhi. Otherwise, any show of devotional service is simply disturbance. Anyone can manufacture. And it is being supported by some very big missionary activities: yata mata tata pata. You can manufacture your way of religious principles. But that is not Vedic way.

 

 

 

The anonymous poster claimed that shastra-vidhi mentioned in the Gita does not refer to the dharma-shastras, but Srila Prabhupada's conclusion is the opposite. Shastra-vidhi of the Gita does refer to the dharma-shastras:

 

 

sastra-vidhim, sastra-vidhim, that must be observed. Yah sastra-vidhim utsrijya vartate kama-karatah na sa siddhim avapnoti. If one violates the regulative principle mentioned in the sastra, he’ll never get success. Na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham, neither happiness. Na sukham na param gatim: Then what to speak of going back to home, back to...? He’ll rot in this material world.

So sastra-vidhim is required. So here is one sastra-vidhim from Parasara-smriti. Parasara was the father of Vyasadeva. He has got his regulative principles. They’re also realized souls on Vedic principles.

 

 

 

Krishna says one who does not follow this shastra-vidhi does not attain success:

 

yah shastra-vidhim utsrijya

vartate kama-karatah

na sa siddhim avapnoti

na sukham na param gatim

 

"But he who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination."

 

In the purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada states:

 

 

A person who knowingly violates the rules acts in lust. He knows that this is forbidden, still he acts. This is called acting whimsically. He knows that this should be done, but still he does not do it; therefore he is called whimsical. Such persons are destined to be condemned by the Supreme Lord. Such persons cannot have the perfection which is meant for the human life. The human life is especially meant for purifying one’s existence, and one who does not follow the rules and regulations cannot purify himself, nor can he attain the real stage of happiness.

 

 

 

Regarding the sruti-smriti-puranadi verse, Srila Prabhupada has stated on several occasions that it refers to dharma-shastras:

 

 

The smriti, the scriptures following the principles of Vedic knowledge, are considered the evidence of Vedic principles. There are twenty different types of scripture for following religious principles, and among them the scriptures of Manu and Yajnavalkya are considered to be all-pervading authorities. In the Yajnavalkya-smriti it is said:

 

sruti-smriti-sadacarah

svasya ca priyam atmanah

samyak sankalpajah kamo

dharma-mülam idam smritam

 

One should learn human behavior from sruti, the Vedas, and from smriti, the scriptures following the Vedic principles. srila Rüpa Gosvami in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu says:

 

sruti-smriti-puranadi-

pancaratra-vidhim vina

aikantiki harer bhaktir

utpatayaiva kalpate

[bRS 1.2.101]

 

The purport is that to become a devotee one must follow the principles laid down in sruti and smriti. One must follow the codes of the puranas and the pancaratriki-vidhi. One cannot be a pure devotee without following the sruti and smriti, and the sruti and smriti without devotional service cannot lead one to the perfection of life.

 

 

 

 

And elsewhere:

 

 

In Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, srila Rüpa Gosvami says that if one poses himself as advanced in spiritual life but does not refer to the srutis and smritis he is simply a disturbance in society. One should follow the principles laid down in srutis and smritis not only in one’s spiritual life but in material life as well. As far as human society is concerned, it should follow the Manu-smriti as well, for these laws are given by Manu, the father of mankind.

 

 

 

Regarding Manu's laws, Srila Prabhupada states:

 

 

The law given by Manu was so perfect that it can be applicable for all the time. This is perfect. Tri-kala-jnah. The word is there, tri-kala-jnah, past, present, future.

 

 

 

 

The teacher cannot manufacture rules against the principles of revealed scriptures. The revealed scriptures, like Manu-samhita and similar others, are considered the standard books to be followed by human society. Thus the leader’s teaching should be based on the principles of the standard rules as they are practiced by the great teachers. The Srimad-Bhagavatam also affirms that one should follow in the footsteps of great devotees, and that is the way of progress on the path of spiritual realization.

 

 

 

The anonymous poster claimed Dharma-shastras were all karma-kanda, but the real purpose of Manu-samhita is not karma-kanda but devotional service:

 

 

The lawbook for the entire human society is the Manu-samhita, which directs all activities towards the transcendental service of the Lord.

 

 

 

It had been claimed that I had distorted the phrase "dharman tu sakshad bhagavat pranitam" by claiming it also refers to dharma-shastras. But Prabhupada also holds this view:

 

 

Dharmam tu sakñad bhagavat-pranitam [sB 6.3.19]. The laws are given by Bhagavan and are written in books like Manu-samhita and other Vedic literatures.

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada's view on the Manu samhita is as follows, quite distinct from the selective quoting used by the anonymous guest:

 

 

Svayambhuva Manu is the leader of mankind, and he has given a book called Manu-samhita to guide human society. Herein he directs us to follow the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His different incarnations.

 

 

 

 

The Manu-samhita is the standard lawbook for humanity, and every human being is advised to follow this great book of social knowledge.

 

 

 

Bhagavad Gita 7.15p (Those who do not follow Manu-smriti are the Naradhamas, the lowest of mankind):

 

The ten processes of reformatory ceremonies, as enjoined in the Manu-smriti, which is the guide to religious principles, are meant for reviving God consciousness in the system of varnasrama. However, no process is strictly followed now in any part of the world, and therefore 99.9 percent of the population is naradhama. (7.15)

 

 

 

Bhagavad Gita (16.7p) regarding the exact verse quoted by "Rascal_Number_One" in reference to women not taking sannyasa:

 

As for behavior, there are many rules and regulations guiding human behavior, such as the Manu-samhita, which is the law of the human race. Even up to today, those who are Hindu follow the Manu-samhita. Laws of inheritance and other legalities are derived from this book. Now, in the Manu-samhita it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men.

 

 

 

Bhagavatam (1.16.1p), the Manu Samhita is applicable to all times and ages:

 

The rules and regulations were already set forth by great sages like Manu, Yajnavalkya, Parashara and other liberated sages, and the enactments were all suitable for all ages in all places."

 

 

 

Thus it is clear the view that dharma-shastras are irrelevant to devotees is incorrect according to Srila Prabhupada's opnion.

 

And for those who say the scripture is out-dated, oddly enough, it is Vivekananda who holds the popular opinion that Manu-samhita is not relevant to us today, not Srila Prabhupada.

 

Of course I, like Rascal_Number_One, am just flouting my stupidity. After all, the anonymous poster already rested his case so I should just accept it on his word.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

It is stated in the Skanda Purana that "A Vaisnava is one who has sex only for procreation." You can also find such things in Hari Bhakti vilasa.

 

 

Do you accept Skanda Purana as an authoritative reference, or are you selectively quoting verses that are convenient to your belief system?

 

If I provide verses from Skanda Purana, will you then say that Vaishnava's don't need to follow Skanda Purana as it is a karma kanda book?

 

There really is no way to logically discuss with someone who does not have a fixed pramana to measure statements against. The whole concept that teachings must be in line with the scriptures is just a big joke then, because we selectively choose to quote only that which we are comfortable with. Anything that disagrees with our conclusion can be labeled as karma-kanda and not relevant for "devotees". And regarding proper conduct, we can say that "All the scriptural regulations are for materialists following varnashrama dharma. Since we are bhaktas and 'above' varnashrama there is no scriptural standard of conduct that we must follow."

 

If someone quotes the Gita, then we just reply that Krishna speaks many paths in the Gita, but ultimately the only important verse is sarva dharman parityajya. We can ignore the rest of the verses and context.

 

Back to the question, will you accept all references to Skanda Purana? If not, then you should withdraw your use of Skanda Purana as an evidence.

[Guest guest]

Well, let me ask you this - since you feel that there is no scope for making adjustments and anyone who does so is to be labelled as a psuedo religionist.

 

Here is an excerpt from a Sanga where Tripurari Maharaja answers to the basic line of criticism that you are suggesting.

 

 

""Actually, there is no... brahmacarini is not allowed in the sastra. Where is the question of brahmacarini? Because according to Vedic system, as soon as a girl is fourteen years old or sixteen years old, she is at once married. According to Vedic system, no girl should be allowed remaining unmarried. So there is no question of brahmacarini. Every girl is supposed to be married. That is the Vedic system."

 

Yet in spite of quotes like this he established a brahmacarini asrama! He also said the following in this regard:

 

"So at the present moment we cannot strictly follow [the Vedic culture]; neither we are strictly following; neither it is possible to strictly follow. As far as possible, that's all. Our conception of brahmacarini is in the Krsna society, because. Especially in India, there is no brahmacarini. But here, in your country, the boys and girls mix very freely, but just to restrict such free mixing, we think that the unmarried girls should remain separately. That is the contemplation. Actually, in the Vedic system there is no brahmacarini system."

 

In the above quote Srila Prabhupada speaks of establishing a brahmacarini asrama in his society in spite of the fact that it is not Vedic to do so. He said the following about this non-Vedic asrama:

 

"I am so pleased that you are guiding your God-sisters in N.Y. so nicely. But some of your God-sisters in San Francisco want you for 2 months. I have asked them to write you directly and if you can spare yourself for that time to organize a brahmacarini asrama in S.F., please think it over. I have seen the article put in Boston newspaper about your activities there, and I am so glad to see your picture, just a brahmacarini. The picture was very attractive for me, and I pray Krsna that you may make further progress in Krsna consciousness so your spiritual beauty may come out more and more."

 

"If you can organize a brahmacarini asrama, it will be very nice idea."

 

I raised this issue earlier and no one responded to it. But the question remains - why did Srila Prabhupada establish an ashrama in his society that wasn't Vedic and didn't follow Vedic injuctions?

 

Srila Prahbupada said it wasn't possible to srictly follow Vedic injunctions and freely admitted 'neither we are strictly following'. Srila Prahupada definitely made adjustments according to time, place and circumstance in order to push forward the mission of Mahaprabhu. It is clear that he was not trying to recreate a 'Vedic society', but rather was interested in spreading love of God.

 

The context within which the very idea of women sannyasis came up is important to take into consideration. We also have the words of Bhaktivinoda Thakur, quoted earlier in this thread where he states there is scope for women in brahmachari and sannyasa ashramas. Our acharyas are expert at reading the times and making adjustments such that the movement maintains it's spritual vitality and at the same time is relevant to the times at hand.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

 

[Guest guest]

My Guru Maharaja said this in regards to women and Sannyasa:

 

"I believe that the question of whether or not women can accept the sannyasa order or not is a detail. Indeed, in my original article I pointed out that the entire institution of sannyasa within Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a detail, one that can be added or deleted as time and circumstances warrant in the determination of spiritually advanced preachers. Details can be changed, as was done by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura when he instituted sannyasa for our sampradaya. It can be changed in order to underscore essential principles. As I have stated in the article in question, I personally believe that there is merit in considering the possibility that it may be useful for preaching to award sannyasa to women in our sampradaya. Yet, I personally have not done this, nor do I have any plans to do so. Furthermore, I remain open to consider that this may not be prudent at this time."

 

I think it is very clear from this that the consideration is based on preaching and spreading Krsna consciousness and that he is merely pointing out a principle whose application it may not be time to implement.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

 

 

[theist]

I have not heard anyone lay out the specific benefits that this would bring to society or the specific women involved? A cost benefit analysis might be in order. I can see the danger in further fracturing the devotee community but I can't really see any benefits.

 

I can see the obvious benefit in Prabhupada starting a brahmacarini ashrama though. That is very clear.

[stonehearted]

Audarya-lila: I think it is very clear from this that the consideration is based on preaching and spreading Krsna consciousness and that he is merely pointing out a principle whose application it may not be time to implement.

 

I think I've tried to point this out on a couple of occasions, with little success. Tripurari Maharaj has never advocated either sannyasa for women or homosexual marriage. Rather, he has responded to queries that we may find it helpful to preaching to make some superficial adjustments with regard to social considerations. There's a tendency to see Srila Prabhupada as very conservative. However, he insisted repeatedly that he was very liberal; otherwise, how could he have had such success preaching in the West?

 

In this regard, I'd like to share a couple of quotations from Srila Prabhupada. One is something he said to my wife, my godbrother Tarun Kanti, and me. He told us, "Devotees and devotional service cannot be stereotyped. There is nothing that cannot be used in Krishna's service. The trick is that we require guidance from the expert spiritual master how to engage everything in Krishna's service. That is the only catch." On another occasion, he told my my friend Gopavrindapal, "Preaching depends on circumstances, and each man must be his own genius."

[Guest guest]

 

I can see the obvious benefit in Prabhupada starting a brahmacarini ashrama though. That is very clear

 

 

 

Right, I don't see why the "brahmacharini" ashrama is regarded by some as such a revolutionary thing. The concept of young women being brought up chaste is there in Vedic culture too, but at the level of the household. Today, householders of society are corrupt and ignorant of Vedic principles, and chastity is becoming less important to them. So all Srila Prabhupada did was take the same principle and reapply it to the temple - ladies will be brought up chaste and protected - but in the temple - because their home environments are not ideal for this currently.

 

I don't see how one can use the "brahmacharini" ashram as an example to suggest that a "sannyasini" ashram would also be along the same lines.

 

Also, to Audarya-lila, I wish to point out that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not "institute" the system of sannyasa for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. He "Reinstituted" it. You might think it a minor point, but I do not. My point is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not make anything up - he simply revived a tradition that is found in scripture, and in fact had been practiced right up the time of Lord Chaitanya. Why it wasn't practiced by the Gosvamis and the acharyas after them may be an interesting discussion in and of itself; but it certainly was not "revolutionary" or "innovative" for BSST to have done this.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[Guest guest]

JNdas,

 

Thank you for this extremely well researched presentation. I am personally quite discouraged by the crowd which suggests that devotees are above certain regulative principles. But I was very impressed with your thorough, point-by-point refutation of their ideas.

 

I would like to make two requests, if you'll excuse my presumption. First, can you please provide the exact citations for all of the quotes you provided? I recognize many of them as Bhagavatam purports, but having the specific verse numbers and/or Vedabase references will be helpful for me so that I can use these quotes in future discussions. You provided them in some cases but not all.

 

Secondly, may I request that you archive this article on your website - perhaps even make it available elsewhere (Chakra? VNN? Dipika?) so that intelligent devotees can see these arguments? I just don't want all your work to go to waste when this thread is no longer active.

 

Also, I would like your permission to save a copy of this article (preferably with all the Vedabase references if you have them), and repost the article in other forums as needed.

 

Thanks again for this very excellent article!

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Alpa-medhasa

[stonehearted]

Guest: don't see why the "brahmacharini" ashrama is regarded by some as such a revolutionary thing.

 

Babhru: It's revolutionary in the context given--that it is not vedic, as stated by Srila Prabhupada himself. It was an innovation and not much appreciated by many of his Godbrothers. Its value now seems self-evident after many years.

 

G: Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not "institute" the system of sannyasa for Gaudiya Vaishnavas. He "Reinstituted" it. You might think it a minor point, but I do not. My point is that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta did not make anything up - he simply revived a tradition that is found in scripture, and in fact had been practiced right up the time of Lord Chaitanya. Why it wasn't practiced by the Gosvamis and the acharyas after them may be an interesting discussion in and of itself; but it certainly was not "revolutionary" or "innovative" for BSST to have done this.

 

B: Yes, he re-instituted the tridandi sannyasa ashram. To say that to do so was not revolutionary or innovative is to ignore the social context in which he did so. His revival of tridandi sannyasa and giving his disciples upavitam and brahma-gayatri were seen as revolutionary (heretical, even) by traditionalists both inside and outside the Gaudiya-vaishnava community. These are both still criticized by Gaudiyas outside the Sarasvata-gaudiya community.

[Guest guest]

Jndas says that the sruti smiti . . . of Brahmayamala tells us that devotees must follow dharma sastra. Yes and no.

 

I think you have to understand that the Goswamis have picked and chosen from the entirety of revealed scripture and charted a course for the sampradaya. Although they accepted and respected all scripture, they determined that all of it did not apply to devotional service. They have rejected portions of the scripture as being irrelevant to bhakti, including the injunctions of dharma sastra as a whole.

 

I have quoted Visvantha Cakravarti on this and his point is very clear. Adherence to dharma sastra’s many injunctions is not required by one who fulfills the highest ideal of dharma sastra by becoming a devotee.

 

Bhakti in accordance with dharma sastra therefore means that bhakti as indicated in dharma sastra itself superceeds its own juisdiction. Dharma sastra itself supports the idea that devotional service to Krsna is beyond its jurisdiction. Again this is clearly brought out in the story of Ajamila. Prabhupada’s purports are clear and emphatic. Ajamila violated dharma sastra by not following its injunctions. However, because he chanted the Holy Name he was no culpable for this infraction. This is an extreme example of my point, one the Bhagavatam makes in order to distinguish between the jurisdiction of dharma sastra and Bhagavata dharma.

 

In order to give an example of those who do not follow the srcipture but appear to be enthusiastic about devotion, in their commentaries the acaryas point to the devtional Buddhists. No misunderstanding on my part here.

 

As an aside, here is what Jiva Goswami says on the sruti sriti verse.

 

“Reference to the injunctions of Sruti, Smriti, etc, means that each devotee must follow these texts relative to their adhikara. Hence each Vaisnava will have to select portions that apply to his individual case. Non observance refers to an atheistic stance as opposed to non observence resulting from indolence or ignorance. In this regard the Bhagavatam says ‘Oh King! One who takes to bhakti never has to meet with obstacles, and even if he runs blindly in ignorance of of the successive stages he does not go astray as in the case of karma marg (dharma sastra) where non observance of details in the proper order is a source of sin and suffering.”

 

 

 

I must also point out that saying I have quoted Prabhupada “out of context” when I quote him in support of my point does not in any prove that I have done so. I have quoted several paragraphs in which Prabhupada says exactly what I have said in even stronger terms than I did. He says there is no need for devotees to even read dharma sastra, what to speak of following it, etc. How is this “out of context?” I have also dealt with the quote you continually bring up where he comments of the sruti smrit verse. I have explained it in a way that not only supports my own position, but also makes sense out of apparently contradictory statements of Srila Prabhupada. You have failed to do the same. Your other quote in which Prabhupada extols the virtues of dharma sastra speaks about human society in general and its leaders. No disagreement there.

 

Next you admit that devotees are exempted from the attonements enjoined in dharma sastra. Thank you. But then you go on to say that they are nonetheless bound to follow its other injunctions. Which ones? You explain that devotees must follow the injunctions of dharma sastra that govern sinful life. However, what you have overlooked is the fact that I have already explained that sinful life is not an option for a saranagata. Any important injunction governing sinful life is already incorporated in Bhagavata dharma. Still for emphasis the case of Ajamila is given to emphasize the power of bhakti.

 

But let’s remember that dharma sastra speaks of much more than all of this. It says we must do so many things, such as perform the sraddha ritual, as enjoined in dharma satra, etc. Do we have to do this? No, according to Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura.

 

As for Madhavendra Puri’s prayer, yes he is exempt from the smriti of Hari Bahkti vilasa., whereas others are not. I have also made this clear. No points here.

 

Now here is an important misconception:

 

“There is a fundamental flaw in the logic that our position must be established from shastra, but it can be done so with selective quoting. “

 

Everyone must selectively quote, dismissing certain portions of scripture that are either not relevant to the individual’s adhikara or his path in general. The Goswamis for example reject verses from Puranas and elsewhere that do not agree with the conclusion of the Bhagavatam. Verses from the Gita stressing karma yoga, or jana yoga will be dismissed by devotees as irrelevant to their path.

 

Then we have quotes from Prabhupada that women cannot take sannyas, but the quote of Bhaktivinoda in which he endorses the idea that women can on occasion take sannyas is not mentioned. I tried to bring these two statements into harmony by suggesting different kinds of sannyas are being referred. You have simply ignored the apparent contradiction. Is Bhaktivinoda a deviant?

 

As for sastra viddhim, no objection here. Devotees should follow all the sastras relative to their path. What has Prabhupada said? Sarva dharman parityaja refers to abandoning dharma sastra also. Again you have only quoted selectively (in this case inappropriately) without harmonizing apparent contradictions in Prabhupada’s words.

 

As for dharman to saksad bhagavat pranitam you have cheated here. Let the reader look back at what I said and then as I suggested read Prabhupada’s purport.

 

Good luck! You two make a good team.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Right, I don't see why the "brahmacharini" ashrama is regarded by some as such a revolutionary thing.

 

 

It is actually inline with Manu's statement that women must not be left unprotected. Since the women were independent and under no one's protection the brahmacarini ashram provided them protection and guidance under temple authorities. This was a more suitable situation then having them living independently without protection. It should be noted that this "brahmacarini ashram" till this day does not exist within ISKCON in India, for the obvious reason that Vedic culture is still somewhat followed in India thereby removing the necessity for this innovation.

 

A secondary point is that none of my statements are refering to Tripurari Swami, as I don't believe he has made any concrete statement regarding actually giving sannyasa to women. For some reason this thread is named "Tripurari Maharaja" but I am simply replying to the concepts of creating innovations without reference to scripture such as giving sannyasa to women, and the concept that common devotees are completely exempt from following scriptural regulations found in dharma shastras.

 

Another point is that we need not be overly concerned with separately following the dharma-shastras, as strictly following the bhakti-marga automatically includes the rules of dharma shastra. (In other words we are following the dharma-shastras without even knowing it.) It is only when concocting new innovations that the chance of contradicting the dharma-shastra's regulations becomes very possible.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I have quoted Visvantha Cakravarti on this and his point is very clear. Adherence to dharma sastra’s many injunctions is not required by one who fulfills the highest ideal of dharma sastra by becoming a devotee.

 

 

You have simply provided an english paraphrased translation of an alleged statement (without reference) wherein Visvanatha Chakravarti ridicules the prayascita procedures of the dharma-shastras.

[Guest guest]

 

It is actually inline with Manu's statement that women must not be left unprotected. Since the women were independent and under no one's protection the brahmacarini ashram provided them protection and guidance under temple authorities. This was a more suitable situation then having them living independently without protection. It should be noted that this "brahmacarini ashram" till this day does not exist within ISKCON in India, for the obvious reason that Vedic culture is still somewhat followed in India thereby removing the necessity for this innovation.

 

 

 

I agree. Although the outward manifestation is not a part of Vedic culture, the principle of the brahmacharini ashram is to protect women - which is right in line with what Manu has instructed. Manu never made up the idea of a brahmacharini ashram, but this is a case where one has to understand the instruction and the principle behind it.

 

Thus, I don't agree that a brahmacharini ashram can justify the creation of a sannyasini ashram. The former is meant to protect women, as Manu would have wanted. What is the latter supposed to do? Certainly not protect women, since sannyasis traditionally live outside the protection of society.

 

 

A secondary point is that none of my statements are refering to Tripurari Swami, as I don't believe he has made any concrete statement regarding actually giving sannyasa to women. For some reason this thread is named "Tripurari Maharaja" but I am simply replying to the concepts of creating innovations without reference to scripture such as giving sannyasa to women, and the concept that common devotees are completely exempt from following scriptural regulations found in dharma shastras.

 

 

 

I am in agreement with this also. I am more interested in discussing the principles which his comments have brought up. Perhaps Swami Tripurari's comments were meant to be ambiguous so as to "test the waters," so to speak.

 

 

Another point is that we need not be overly concerned with separately following the dharma-shastras, as strictly following the bhakti-marga automatically includes the rules of dharma shastra. (In other words we are following the dharma-shastras without even knowing it.) It is only when concocting new innovations that the chance of contradicting the dharma-shastra's regulations becomes very possible.

 

 

I agree completely with this. Just follow the Bhagavatam and Srila Prabhupada properly, and we are automatically following dharma-shastras. We don't have to make a separate effort to study dharma-shastras. But at the same time we have to be loyal to dharma-shastras. We can't make up something that goes against principles of Manu. The mere fact that we don't actively study dharma-shastras does not mean that we reject them.

 

Alpa

[Guest guest]

I don't believe we are dicussing 'traditional' sannyasa in the sense that you have mentioned it - living outside of the society. If you look carefully at the institution as practiced and instituted by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta clearly sannyasis are living within the Gaudiya Vaishnava society and are usually very well supported by it's many members. In fact, if anything, Sannyasis are much more protected and cared for than any other member of the society in general. When they come to visit a temple they are given the best rooms and accomodations and have ample prasadam at their disposal. I mention this because the discussion should be centered on the ashrama as a preaching tool, which it is within the Sarasvata Gaudiya lineage. They also usally travel with a group of dedicated devotees who serve them and assist them in their services.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

 

sannyasis are living within the Gaudiya Vaishnava society and are usually very well supported by it's many members. In fact, if anything, Sannyasis are much more protected and cared for than any other member of the society in general. When they come to visit a temple they are given the best rooms and accomodations and have ample prasadam at their disposal.

 

 

Of course, a sannyaasi has to be given all respect. But the point remains that the order of sannyaasa really means wandering about and preaching Krishna-consciousness. This is the traditional understanding. A sannyaasi can be pampered by disciples one day, only to be journeying into parts unknown some other day to spread Krishna's name around. This latter point is not an acceptable role for women, at least, not when alone or unprotected.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[Guest guest]

In reply to:

 

I have quoted Visvantha Cakravarti on this and his point is very clear. Adherence to dharma sastra’s many injunctions is not required by one who fulfills the highest ideal of dharma sastra by becoming a devotee.

......

 

 

You have simply provided an english paraphrased translation of an alleged statement (without reference) wherein Visvanatha Chakravarti ridicules the prayascita procedures of the dharma-shastras.

 

.......

 

The sraddha rite is not a prayascita ritual.

 

I did paraphrase form Visvanatha Cakravarti's Brs commentary on 1.1.11 ayabhilasitam sunyam . . . Thought I made that clear. Sorry

 

Here is Narayana Maharaja's translation of Visvantha Cakravarti's Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu bindu on the same verse.

 

VCT says "By the word karma used in this verse (karmady anavrtam), all smarta-karma, or in other words all nitya-naimittika-karma (daily and occasional duties) mentioned in the Smrti sastras as well as all types of karma misra and jnana misra bhakti have been forbidden."

 

"The coverings of bhakti are of two kinds: (1) the fear that by not performing the nitya karma in conformity with the injunctions of the sastras, one will incur sin; and (2) the conviction that by carryiong out the nityanaimittika karma one will obtain the desired fruit in the form of bhakti."

 

The publication from which I am quoting, the Gaudiya Vedanta Samiti edition of Bhaktirasamrta-sindhu-bindu, is avaialable with the Sanskrit of VCT included. Look at it for yourself if you do not think Narayana Maharaj has translated it corrrectly.