HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[Guest guest]

September 11, 2003 VNN8342

 

ISKCON Nominates First Female Diksha Guru

 

BY RADHA KRISHNA DASA

 

USA, Sep 11 (VNN) — To, The members of ISKCON GBC SOCIETY

 

Dear Maharajas and Prabhus, Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

In compliance with the relevant ISKCON LAWS, we have received the following Letter of Nomination from the North Carolina Area Council, HH Bir Krishna Goswami, nominating H.G. Urmila Prabhu as a diksa-guru. The nomination has been duly endorsed by the members of the council. The following letter was received from HH Bir Krishna Maharaja.

 

We have verified the same, it contains: 1. A thorough description of the qualifications of the candidate, showing point by point how she conforms to the GBC standards and guidelines for guru.

 

2. A complete history of the devotional service of the candidate, including the dates and places of her engagements.

 

3. A list of the names of the members of the nominating council, giving for each member the service, the seniority, his vote, and an explanation for his vote.

 

We are hereby sending the name of H.G. Urmila Prabhu as a diksa-guru candidate to all the members of the GBC.

 

As per GBC Laws if any member of the GBC who has a misgiving concerning the suitability of the candidate, or who would prefer the matter to be discussed and decided by the GBC body, has six months from this date of notification to file a written statement of non-approval with the GBC Corresponding Secretary. If the Corresponding Secretary receives at least three letters of non-approval, the candidate shall not take up the role of guru, and her candidacy shall be considered by the GBC body at its next annual general meeting.

 

For your ready reference the relevant clauses of the ISKCON LAWS are given below.

 

Your Servants,

Radha Krishna dasa, GBC Secretary

Lilasuka dasa, Corresponding Secretary

2nd Sept 2003

 

 

--

 

 

LETTER RECEIVED FROM H. H. Bir Krishna Maharaj

 

"As chairman of the area council I submit the following nomination of Urmila devi dasi to become an ISKCON diksa guru.

 

I am the local GBC with no co-GBCs in my area. So there are 10 people on the council plus myself as the sole GBC in North Carolina where she resides. The vote is 10 yes and 1 no.

 

August 27, 2003

 

Local GBC and group of ten devotees in zone or area of service: Krishna Priya devi dasidisciple of Hridayananda Maharaja.

 

Batu Gopala dasadisciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Hridayananda Maharaja.

 

Garuda dasadisciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Bhakti Caru Maharaja.

 

Bir Krishna Goswami.

 

Brajabihari dasadisciple of Bhurijana Prabhu.

 

Kamala Mukha Krishna dasadisciple of Jayapataka Maharaja.

 

Yogindra Vandana dasadisciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Pundarika dasadisciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Balabadra dasadisciple of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

[theist]

Is anybody going to bother and ask Supersoul? Does He get a vote too?

[livingentity]

to everyone here but livingentity is speechless. I actually do not know what to say.

[theist]

I know what you mean, what is left to say.

 

 

Mundane votes have no jurisdiction to elect a Vaisnava äcärya. A Vaisnava äcärya is self-effulgent,...

 

 

I guess they aren't considered mundane being GBC. Which raises the question that since they aren't mundane wouldn't they all see the self-effulgent nature of any person in question and therefore be expected to vote the same on any one candidate?

 

So one member should speak for all? Why the need for a vote?

 

And why are there dissenting votes? What does that mean?

 

But some people desire an ecclesiastical guru so Krsna provides.

[livingentity]

do not understand this. I am going to have to read it over some more and try to comprehend. Is it just me or is it meant to confuse? I am distracted right now so maybe it is just me.

[Guest guest]

I wasn't confused at all about what they are saying. But I always thought giving of diksha was traditionally done by males, even according to the PancharAtric system which ISKCON follows. Am I incorrect in that presumption?

 

Also, and I absolutely do not mean to offend, but would very much appreciate a correction. I am under the impression that there is an ISKCON devotee by the name of "Urmila" who is divorced. Is this one who is going to become a guru that same devotee? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Thanks,

 

Fool Number One

[theist]

it is confusing. Good for organizational unity but it appears to me to weaken the guru disciple relationship.

 

I mean shouldn't someone who is initiating one into Krsna consciousness themselves be able to hear Krsna's instruction to do so from within their own heart?

 

What happens if Krsna says do it and the GBC votes against you doing it?

 

Also if one of these guru's decides to work on his own he is supposed to surrender his disciples to ISKCON at the door as he leaves. So whose disciples are they? The guru's or the GBC's?

 

Of course the abandoned disciples are told to then take shelter of Prabhupada until they can get reinitiated. Which brings up the question that if I can still take shelter of Prabhupada as my guru then why do I even need another offical one from ISKCON? Why did I need the one that just left?

 

Is this what they call soft ritvik? Is ISKCON already ritvik in essence, even as they verbaly decry it?

[stonehearted]

Guest: I wasn't confused at all about what they are saying. But I always thought giving of diksha was traditionally done by males, even according to the PancharAtric system which ISKCON follows. Am I incorrect in that presumption?

 

I think it may be more accurate to say ISKCON follows pancharatrika and bhagavat systems simultaneously. There is a history of women initiating in our sampradaya.

 

G: I am under the impression that there is an ISKCON devotee by the name of "Urmila" who is divorced.

 

As far as I know, there's only one disciple of Srila Prabhupada's named Urmila. She and her husband separated several years ago under circumstances I don't think she wants publicized. Publicly, they entered the vanaprastha ashram. I don't know whether that entailed a divorce. Such legal action is usually public record, so anyone who wants to could investigate, if that's their bent. I believe there's an ISKCON "law" proscribing divorced devotees' membership on the GBC, unless the other partner left the practice of Krishna consciousness, or something like that. I don't know if that applies to certified gurus. Someone more actively invlolved with ISKCON could probably say.

 

That said, Urmila has been a staunch disciple and preacher for 30 years and has sacrificed much (beginning with much money) to remain so. She has run schools for devotee children in Detroit and North Carolina. If there is a group of aspiring devotees who find her example inspring and who are convinced that she is the best person to give them personal guidance, it's natural that the question would arise. I heard some time back that this may be coming. Now it's here. I reserve any judgment for the moment, especially since it's none of my business.

[yasodanandana]

if one is a pure devotee there's no problem if a committee or an assembly recognizes it and gives his approvation when this devotee act as a guru

 

gbs are not pickin people randomly... "you are guru"

 

so the system is not bad, a guru is a guru, an assembly recognizes it and tells it to the members of an organization: "if you want to take shelter, we also are agree"

 

..

 

i read with very much pleasure the messages and letters of urmila prabhu in various sites, i appreciated mostly one of the latest when she was explaining that illicit sex is not all of the same gravity, there's having sex of husband and wife, and there's sex with prostitutes or adulterine.. one can say that it is not so difficult, but having said it officially is very important to end sexual repression and to give real value to chastity

 

so.. urmila mataji prabhu ki jay.. let us hope for the best

[Guest guest]

 

I think it may be more accurate to say ISKCON follows pancharatrika and bhagavat systems simultaneously. There is a history of women initiating in our sampradaya.

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, could you give examples from either the BhAgavata or GaudIya traditions of women serving as dIksha (not just shiksha) gurus? This is indeed a new phenomenon to me, and I would be interested in hearing more.

 

[Kulapavana]

Historicaly, diksa gurus in our sampradaya represented many levels and flavours of Krishna consciousness. While GBC decisions regarding allowing different devotees to initiate disciples seem a little hasty at times, lets not be too quick to pass our judgement here. Urmila d.d. is a serious Vaishnava and has proven it with her life. May she inspire many people to take up Krishna consciousness! Haribol!

[Guest guest]

Didn't Srila Prabhupada indicate that acharyas are self-effulgent and do not need endorsement from committees to become guru?

It looks like supply and demand would be more pertinent in the self-manifesting of acharyas than official endorsement by any committee. Is there a list of devotees standing in line begging her to become their guru? Has necessity dictated that she should become guru or is it just some political move by the GBC to appease the women of the movement and attract them all to the anti-ritvik camp?

 

My guess is that this is just so much political maneuvering by the GBC to rally more support for their failed guru system that continues to contribute one fallen guru after another to the long list of disgraces that ISKCON already has to it's credit.

 

 

[yasodanandana]

GBCs may be able to recognize pure devotees or may be not able... but it is not our subject now

 

to judge if one is a GURU we read SHASTRA to verify if the qualities and the behaviour are right, then we ask to recognized living and present SADHUS and we compare with the life of previous SADHUS in parampara

 

GBC is an instituzionalized (and in the spiritual environment INSTITUTION is not the devil!!) version of SADHU... what is the problem?

 

the discussion perhaps has not to be on the system...

 

the discussion, if you want to do it, is if in the system there are sadhus or bogus!!!

 

even prabhupada was a GBC member and voted raising the hand.....

 

---

---

 

if you want to bring your idea of post samadhi initiation, you have to bring more substantial arguments

[Guest guest]

GBC can't recognize anything better then any other devotee can. They are not exalted in their positions, just in positions. Not an offense, they're regular devotees. New devotees dont see this for mucho years.

 

Prabhupada said no voting in of guru, ever. Show one quote of his where he said yes to voting. You wont find.

 

When Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada speaks, it surpases all shastra. He knows what is in shastra, so if he gives contradictory instruction, how dare we think we know better.

 

No problem Urmilla's woman. Cintamani was guru of Bilvamangala Thakura. Problem is voting system.

 

That shes been staunch for many years, yes. Does stauch = uttama? It could = fanaticism.

 

Is this all about Urmilla? It's more about ISKCON and its standard and its system.

 

If devotees really love iskcon and are determined to defend it, instead of sticking up for its mistakes, take off blinders and help them see the light.

[yasodanandana]

"GBC can't recognize anything better then any other devotee can"

(this is a different subject that has to be debated with more care...)

 

"Prabhupada said no voting in of guru"

(we are not speaking of voting.. she's a guru already because she has followers who judge that she has the qualities.

 

the GBC said: "for us is allright... we recognise that she belongs to IskCon"..... it is not a vote... it is an approvation, a recognition, an "imprimatur")

 

so, no problem if you want to discuss the GBC system, but they do not make gurus.. they approve.. not so subtle and very different

 

[Guest guest]

Historically, in the Gaudiya sampradaya since the time of the Six Goswamis, until the Gaudiya Math break-up, there was generally accepted that the seniormost Vaishnava goswami was THE acharya and his seniority was respected and acknowledged by all the junior Vaishnavas. After the Gaudiya Math fiasco it has become fashionable that seniority is not respected and all the disciples assume acharya position without regard to senior or junior. This same problem has infected ISKCON despite Srila Prabhupada's teaching of the principle of maryada-vyatikrama which is the overstepping the seniority of the Godbrothers or Goduncles.

When junior Vaishnavas come forward to be guru in the presence of more senior Vaishnavas this becomes the offense of maryada-vyatikrama which is a very important aspect of Vaishnava ettiquete. This principle is totally ignored in the ISKCON system of elected gurus who arise from committee vote.

In the Bhagavatam Prabhupada says that a senior Godbrother should be respected on a level almost equal to the spiritual master. The current ISKCON system clearly disregards this system as junior devotees neglect to show proper respect for the seniormost devotees by assuming the position of guru in the presence of senior Vaishnavas.

[Guest guest]

 

so, no problem if you want to discuss the GBC system, but they do not make gurus.. they approve.. not so subtle and very different

 

 

Yes, that is the way it should be, but in practicality it is not so. Although in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, the guru is independent of any ecclesiastical committees, in present-day ISKCON that is not the case. They are, in fact, appointed by the GBC.

[Guest guest]

They are not "appointed" in that the GBC does not initially select them. The GBC approves them, after others, for vaious reasons, recommend them.

[theist]

Who appointed Prabhupada?

 

Who voted for Prabhupada?

 

Whose offical seal of approval did Prabhupada seek to prove he was guru?

 

How was Prabhupada recognized by others as guru?

 

Under whose order did Prabhupada ascend to the vyasasana and accept worship on Krsna's behalf?

 

Isn't Supersoul the answer to all of the above?

 

Isn't thinking we can improve on this system a faithless act?

[Guest guest]

 

They are not "appointed" in that the GBC does not initially select them. The GBC approves them, after others, for vaious reasons, recommend them.

 

 

Okay, you can say that they are not "appointed" because someone else initially recommends them (the recommenders, by the way, can also be GBC members) but the gurus do serve within Iskcon at the pleasure of the GBC. This puts the GBC in a position superior to the guru.

 

If someone is qualified to be guru, then why does he need to conduct his activities within the institution of his own guru? Srila Prabhupada never did that. He formed his own organization.

 

Srila Prabhupada set up the GBC to manage Iskcon and stated that after his departure that the GBC should run Iskcon. They, however, have no business in regulating gurus. A self effulgent guru will, along with his own followers, form his own organization. If Iskcon had been maintained for Srila Prabhupada's disciples and followers, and if other gurus had gone on to form their own organizations, many of the problems we see now would not exist (in my humble opinion).

 

[Guest guest]

 

(this is a different subject that has to be debated with more care...)

 

 

Is simply word jugglery.

 

Even from your point of view, is not what's going on.

 

 

(we are not speaking of voting.. she's a guru already because she has followers who judge that she has the qualities.

 

 

Since when has having followers been a way to evalute who has guru qualification? To be qualified guru has nothing to do with opinions of one follower or one thousand followers. It must meet up to shastric qualifications. It is shastra that is the judge, not me, not you, not her followers.

 

This line of thought is not helping iskcon at all. Its helping it to maintain its maya.

[yasodanandana]

ehem... please appreciate the fact that i am disciple of a "non iskcon" gaudya math guru and my gurudeva was not approved by any gbc or committee... so i am not in any way partial

 

but, i repeat, if you think that GBC is not consultive you have to substantiate a little more, otherwise giving these strong critics without a good explaination you fall in vaishnava aparadha very easily

 

a guru is a guru, if they (GBC) agree he preaches in iskcon temples, if not he remains a guru but not approved by iskcon... then we will decide if the opinion of that commitee of sadhus is important for us or not... or we will decide that they are not sadhus and that this devotee is rejected for material motivations

 

the same thing is in all gaudya math

 

guru, shastra, sadhu

 

maybe other "not iskcon" sadhus are not organized in a "parliament" or "vatican" or "sanga" or "committee" but the result is the same.. they give an opinion.. we decide

 

so the problem is if you trust in the GBC sadhus, systems and labels are indifferent

 

the system (created by srila prabhupada) is pure and parampara'

[Guest guest]

 

This puts the GBC in a position superior to the guru.

 

 

therefore, not guru. GBC becomes real guru. only its kept hidden and the newbie doesn't know or want to admit or see.

 

 

They, however, have no business in regulating gurus.

 

 

Agreed. no one can give proof either, that SP instructed GBC should regulate gurus, so they are not helping iskcon by supporting it.

 

 

and if other gurus had gone on to form their own organizations, many of the problems we see now would not exist (in my humble opinion).

 

 

 

Never read anything where SP said once a qualified guru is found, that guru should not be part of iskcon but start their own mission with own disciples in that mission. can you give evidence of this?

[yasodanandana]

"Since when has having followers been a way to evalute who has guru qualification? To be qualified guru has nothing to do with opinions of one follower or one thousand followers. It must meet up to shastric qualifications. It is shastra that is the judge, not me, not you, not her followers"

 

yes.. but who judge if one meets up these qualifications? you ? me? your committee ? my vatican? george bush?

 

a follower makes his considerations (rationality, sentiment, scriptures, culture, opinion of others, conditionament etc..) and decides to take shelter or not, exactly like the prabhupada followers in the 60'

 

where's the jugglery?

 

my point is that the important thing is devotees... not the way they assembly themselves

[Guest guest]

first, no disrespect is meant to you, only i've seen so much that my eyes see much more now than when new, i am not exempt from that wonder of newness. but since i have seen what i have, i realize their maya. part of which is to convince everyone of their greatness while they have decades of wrong activities in their history, and we do not see enough change.

 

 

but, i repeat, if you think that GBC is not consultive you have to substantiate a little more, otherwise giving these strong critics without a good explaination you fall in vaishnava aparadha very easily

 

 

What u want me to be more conclusive on? U want to know of all the henious deeds many did? those who didn't, still not all are first class devotee, but they get to pick guru? so who is commiting vaishnava aparada so easily? Closing eyes to whats really going on with these persons in big position is vaishnava aparadha.

 

 

the system (created by srila prabhupada) is pure and parampara'

 

 

who told u this is the system created by SP? He created a system, but not this one. not this nonsense one in current use, no. it is their own concoction. SP always said "self effulgent," and NO VOTING. Appointing, voting, agreeing, all same thing. and dont fool yourself, they only vote in who will not interefere with their paycheck, their position, their plans, etc. its not as ttranscendental as u would like to believe. its politics.