HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[transient]

The problem here is the way to supposedly recognize her as guru, is flawed; since to vote someone to become a guru has never been supported by shastra. She isn't voted yet isn't it? What if the GBC will vote against her becoming a guru? Notwithstanding all the recommendations? Does it mean she isn't a guru after all?

 

She is or she isn't a guru (a pure devotee). But the selection / voting process will have nothing to do with it. Let the Lord Paramatma confirm or deny this. Let us hear from shastra whether she has symptoms of a person who is a pure devotee. Let us listen to the words of the recognized sadhus whether her position is being supported. It will be an individual challenge, an individual responsibility to find out -- to those who really want to find out anyway. But the problem with many of us is we are too lazy to dig deeper and only need an imprimatur by someone or group to do the job for us. But this is a very risky business because we are supposed to give our life to a person who we accept as our guru. What if in the future we realized we made a mistake as what happened to many people within Iskcon the past many number of years? I greatly symphatized to many of them and hope their devotional lives were not totally destroyed. However, in the end, we only have ourselves to blame because spiritual life is always a life of individual responsibility.

[Guest guest]

" Of course, they haven't opened temples all over the world either, so you could probably laugh and snicker at them. "

 

Prabhu, I do not laugh or snicker at any one, I myself am new to this , but I do have a tendency to speak out when I feel that what I believe is right. I was just trying to make "R" prabhu see the same issue from another perspective.

 

"And what happens if (God forbid) you are proven wrong in the future? Will you recant the logic which you used to dismiss scriptural tradition? Or will you use it again for another "exceptional" guru who supposedly does not need to follow the rules?"

 

When I say genius, I meant a person who can change people's hearts and revive that dormant devotion that they have for krishna. So, I don't think giving a person like that the chance to be a diksha guru is something horrible or something so terrible that it would prove to be a disaster. Also, The odds of a female guru messing up are not significantly more compared to the odds of a male guru messing up or falling down from the path.

 

I see no logical reason for people to stop women from becoming diksha gurus... the only thing the opposers hold on to is an age old shastra which talked about the "protection" of women.

 

But I do not think you people are going to agree with the women diksha guru thing and even if we discuss this over here, the only thing that will happen is we basically waste our time...So, I am out .

 

 

I_love_krishna_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[theist]

 

Let the Lord Paramatma confirm or deny this.

 

 

I fear this is too simple transient. It also means my say in the matter is not needed. This whole material world is here because some of us souls want to take Krsna place. This process is a reflection of that desire I'm afraid."Krsna won't or can't do it so I/we better step in and save the day."

 

Actually I see taking part in a system like this to be a disqualification more than a qualification. Shouldn't a real guru at least have enough faith that the Lord is in control and too leave it in His hands?

[theist]

 

You said that the purpose of all of this is to establish a direct relationship with the Lord in the heart. Well, I don't want to turn you away from Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but the truth is that this is not the siddhanta. Our relationship is eternally indirect - we are always in the position of dasa dasanudasa. Here in this world we are connected to Krsna through his devotee, through the parampara. When we enter the lila itself we will also be connected as the servant of the servant of one of Krsna's devotees. Depending on our relationship we will be posted as a helper of the friends of Krsna or the sakis of Radharani etc. Our experience of rasa is complete - we experience through the experience of Radha, Subala etc.

 

 

Well actually it is the siddhanta as the quote from Prabhupada below confirms. Because the spiritual world is one Krsna, indirect is there but it is non-different from direct. But the point is how to recognize guru. No use talking of Radha if we can't perceive Supersoul in terms of following directions to determine who is Krsna's representative or not.

 

Don't worry about turning me away from GV. That is not in your power.But thank you for the concern. I am learning to rely on the Supersoul to direct me. I'll either learn from the Lord or I won't learn. Please understand that when I say the Lord that includes His representatives, but I won't be able to recognize or hear properly from them without His grace.

 

From Prabhupada's Gita intro.

 

Here the Lord clearly tells Arjuna that He is making him the first receiver of a new paramparä (disciplic succession) because the old succession was broken. It was the Lord’s wish, therefore, to establish another paramparä in the same line of thought that was coming down from the sun-god to others, and it was His wish that His teaching be distributed anew by Arjuna. He wanted Arjuna to become the authority in understanding the Bhagavad-gétä. So we see that Bhagavad-gétä is instructed to Arjuna especially because Arjuna was a devotee of the Lord, a direct student of Krsna, and His intimate friend. Therefore Bhagavad-gétä is best understood by a person who has qualities similar to Arjuna’s. That is to say he must be a devotee in a direct relationship with the Lord. As soon as one becomes a devotee of the Lord, he also has a direct relationship with the Lord. That is a very elaborate subject matter, but briefly it can be stated that a devotee is in a relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead in one of five different ways:

 

1. One may be a devotee in a passive state;

2. One may be a devotee in an active state;

3. One may be a devotee as a friend;

4. One may be a devotee as a parent;

5. One may be a devotee as a conjugal lover.

 

Arjuna was in a relationship with the Lord as friend.

[Guest guest]

 

I see no logical reason for people to stop women from becoming diksha gurus... the only thing the opposers hold on to is an age old shastra which talked about the "protection" of women.

 

 

 

ILK, the basic premise behind your argument (and forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I just want cut to the chase here), is that the scriptural regulations (such as those specifying that the guru is male) are at least in some cases not relevant today.

 

I have a problem with any point of view which arbitrarily dismisses the authority of some or all of a given scripture within the Vedic corpus. In the Tripurari Maharaja thread, JNdas posted a very excellent article proving that devotees are still obligated to follow the regulations of Manu.

 

I'm guessing that you are young and idealistic. I am too (idealistic, though maybe not so young). My feeling is that at some point, we have to admit that we don't know as much as we think we do, and hence we have to just accept (really accept, as in 100%) some authority upon which we will base our understanding of spiritual life. For Vaishnavas, that authority means Vedas + supplementary literatures like the smritis. There is no precedent in such scriptures for a lady to give diksha, as far as I am aware. To adopt such a practice will make us look bizarre in the eyes of other orthodox Vaishnavas, to say the least.

 

Also, please note that I am not saying that a lady cannot become a "guru." Only that, as far as I am aware, there is not a scriptural precedent for a lady to become a "diksha guru." If a mother on the level of a Kunti or a Draupadi were to show up, I would not hesitate to touch her feet, offer service, and take whatever instruction I can from her about serving the Lord. Please remember that even shiksha gurus are held in high regard, especially qualified ones. But as a matter of formality women don't offer diksha, at least not according to norms of Vedic culture.

 

Nor does my view have anything to do with any perception on my part that a woman is more likely to "fall down" from spiritual life. If anything, given ISKCON's history, I suspect the reverse is true. But as someone who isn't all that impressed with most ISKCON gurus to begin with, I see it as premature to open the doors for more initiating gurus when there is a basic lack of "guru-ness" in the first place.

 

What I mean by this (and I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here) is that I don't really feel very confident in the maturity and depth of scriptural (bhagavatam, bhagavad-gita) knowledge of many gurus whom I meet, though they might otherwise be very well situated and engaged in Krishna's service. I hate to say it because I don't want to offend anyone. But I just get the sense that what I can learn about scripture from many gurus whom I have met, is no greater than what I could learn on my own. Of course, a guru isn't just there to teach scripture - he should chastise you when you get puffed up, know how to put you back in your place, know how to get you engaged in Lord's service, etc. But he should be able to understand and comment on scripture, I should think. I feel that this critical element - being able to engage one's mind in proper study of the scriptures like bhagavatam, is really missing.

 

So with all the fuss about Mother Urmila becoming an initiating guru, I find myself thinking: "Ok, let's put aside tradition and scripture for a moment. Does she have the depth of knowledge to remove logical doubts one might have in reading the Bhagavatam? Does she have the strength of conviction to defend our conclusions properly with reference to scriptures?" When I am forced to admit that I don't even think most male ISKCON gurus have these abilities (including many gurus in ISKCON-sister societies), I find myself understandably skeptical about Mother Urmila's nomination.

 

Instead of finding ways to have more gurus, maybe the society should concentrate on better training up all would-be brahmins. Instead of having people becoming brahmins because they have been in the society for a certain number of years, maybe in addition to that, they should also demonstrate a certain mastery of Srila Prabhupada's teachings - like knowing the fundamentals of the Bhagavatam.

 

Please forgive if I have caused any offense.

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

 

 

[yasodanandana]

" When I am forced to admit that I don't even think most male ISKCON gurus have these abilities (including many gurus in ISKCON-sister societies), I find myself understandably skeptical about Mother Urmila's nomination. "

 

it means: "if iskcon men gurus are bogus.. what to speak of women !??!?!?!!!!?"

 

many devotees in any messages (citing also our acharyas) have clearly demonstrated that a female guru is only apparently out of tradition.. if she is a pure devotee

 

if she's not pure... she's bogus like a male bogus guru, not more and not less...

[Guest guest]

 

it means: "if iskcon men gurus are bogus.. what to speak of women !??!?!?!!!!?"

 

many devotees in any messages (citing also our acharyas) have clearly demonstrated that a female guru is only apparently out of tradition.. if she is a pure devotee

 

if she's not pure... she's bogus like a male bogus guru, not more and not less...

 

 

 

Yasodananda, I wish you hadn't misunderstood what I said earlier. I don't want to repeat something which might potentially be perceived as offensive. But here goes one more time.

 

I am NOT saying that because many male gurus are "bogus" therefore female gurus are also bound to be "bogus" because males are somehow superior to females.

 

In fact, I didn't say anything at all about ISKCON gurus being "bogus." That was you word.

 

All I said was that many (albeit not all) ISKCON gurus whom I have met seem to *not* have a very in-depth level of understanding of our scriptures, compared with what I would expect from a guru. Of course, they aren't "bogus," since they might otherwise be serving Krishna very nicely and be engaged in His service. But practically speaking, I would expect that devotees wishing to serve as gurus should have both devotion and depth of shastric knowledge. Otherwise, I don't see why Srila Bhaktisiddhanta reinstituted the varnasharama system with sacred thread, brahmin initiations, etc.

 

My point earlier, was that because a candidate's knowledge is not emphasized in ISKCON to become a guru, perhaps it would be better for ISKCON to be a little more selective about who it nominates to the guru position. I'm not saying Mother Urmila is automatically unqualified because many men are unqualified and therefore she being a woman must also be unqualified. What I am saying is that I don't see anything different about Mother Urmila's (based on what I have read of her writing) qualification compared to other male ISKCON gurus. In other words, I'm sure they all have seniority, are pious, engaged in Krishna's service, etc but I don't see that any of them really have the depth of knowledge that a brahmin should practically have so that he/she can instruct disciples.

 

This is above and beyond my previous arguments about scriptural precedents for women giving initiation. I suggest that ISKCON should have a more pragmatic concept of "guru" rather than looking for innovative ways to get new gurus and thus appeal to less traditional elements of society. I expect that, like Srila Prabhupada, a bona fide guru should be able to give answers based on shastra, rather than becoming angry when someone asks a question he/she cannot answer.

 

Please note also that a conditioned person cannot recognize a pure devotee reliably - he either accepts it on faith, or simply accepts the possibility and offers respect the way he would any other devotee. The idea that "this person is a pure devotee, therefore he/she can become a guru" is not a very defensible position. Who determines who is a pure devotee? I think you understand.

 

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"All I said was that many (albeit not all) ISKCON gurus whom I have met seem to *not* have a very in-depth level of understanding of our scriptures, compared with what I would expect from a guru"

"Of course, they aren't "bogus," since they might otherwise be serving Krishna very nicely and be engaged in His service"

" but I don't see that any of them really have the depth of knowledge that a brahmin should practically have so that he/she can instruct disciples. "

 

- mmh... your words...

-------

 

"This is above and beyond my previous arguments about scriptural precedents for women giving initiation. I suggest that ISKCON should have a more pragmatic concept of "guru" rather than looking for innovative ways to get new gurus and thus appeal to less traditional elements of society."

 

- this supposes that iskcon is accepting urmila prabhu as a guru to appeal the society.... are you sure of that?IMHO i understand it as a wrong equation : a man is proposed as guru because he is able to do it, or, as opposite, for some material consideration... a woman is proposed only to appeal the public... (=only material consideration)

-------

 

"this person is a pure devotee, therefore he/she can become a guru" is not a very defensible position."

-i do not defend it and i have not said it in any way.... "IF this person is a pure devotee" .. this is the right version

 

my idea is simply that a guru is to be recognized on the plane of pure devotion not on bodily basis... so if we want to know if this mataji prabhu is able or not we have to speak of her devotion not of her sexual gender...

-------

 

"Who determines who is a pure devotee?"

- surely not what is hidden by the underwear

 

"how to recognise a pure devotee.." or "is IskCon recommending pure devotees as gurus?" are other subjects :-)...

 

(but i apologize if i seemed to be arsh and rude.... this is due to my limited english language)

[theist]

If someone is a guru by qualification already then why the need for the GBC to vote on it?

 

I mean what is the point?

 

Or is it supposed that that person is transformed somehow by the winning the vote?

 

What exactly is the point of the vote? To let others know?

 

Wouldn't that be done by Supersoul?

[yasodanandana]

"What exactly is the point of the vote? To let others know?"

 

-yes this is their purpose... it is not a vote.. a guru is already there and they say "he fulfill our expectations for a guru"

 

"Wouldn't that be done by Supersoul? "

 

-listening by supersoul is not a very practiced sport today... because it requires pure people, not conditioned by matter

 

there's nothing wrong in the system: i am looking for a guru, i ask suggestion from sadhus.. plain and natural

 

the discussion is "are they sadhus?" if they are, there's nothing wrong in asking or , by them, giving suggestions on choosing a guru... informally or officially.. no difference

[Guest guest]

 

" but I don't see that any of them really have the depth of knowledge that a brahmin should practically have so that he/she can instruct disciples. "

 

- mmh... your words...

 

 

 

By the way, I meant to say "but I don't see that MANY of them..." not ANY of them. Sorry for the typo.

 

 

- this supposes that iskcon is accepting urmila prabhu as a guru to appeal the society.... are you sure of that?

 

 

 

No I'm not sure about that, and I will be relieved if I am mistaken.

 

However, the point remains that whatever its motivations in selecting Urmila dd as a guru, ISKCON should really overhaul its concept of "guru" to begin with. As I said before, I am concerned about the ability of many gurus to properly communicate the philosphical basis of our sampradaya. This is true both for men and women.

 

 

IMHO i understand it as a wrong equation : a man is proposed as guru because he is able to do it, or, as opposite, for some material consideration... a woman is proposed only to appeal the public... (=only material consideration)

 

 

 

As a matter of fact, I suspect that many gurus, male or female, are chosen for the wrong reasons, i.e. because someone thinks they are a pure devotee (which he can't objectively determine) or because the selection satisfies someone whose interests are not compatible with Srila Prabhupada's.

 

However, as mentioned previously, there is no Vedic precedent for women becoming initiating gurus, so naturally the tendency to be more suspicious in the latter case.

 

 

my idea is simply that a guru is to be recognized on the plane of pure devotion not on bodily basis... so if we want to know if this mataji prabhu is able or not we have to speak of her devotion not of her sexual gender...

 

 

 

First of all, we have to do what is ordained in scripture. It's not for us to second guess the institutions of the very scripture we claim to venerate.

 

Secondly, while one can be reasonably sure that some individuals are not advanced (i.e. those who are not even able to follow basic regulative principles), one cannot tell a pure devotee from other devotees objectively. I can't say that Mother Urmila is a pure devotee, or that she is not. Neither can you. Thus, the whole logic that "she can be guru because of her devotion" is questionable at best. On the other hand, one can say that Vedas do not make an allowance for women to become initiating gurus - "guru" in this context is usually spoken of in the masculine sense in Vedic literatures. On this point I am happy to be proven wrong, but assuming I am not, it is not offensive to state what is the scriptural norm.

 

Saying that Mother Urmila cannot be a diksha guru based on Vedic precedent is not the same thing as saying that she is not a pure devotee. Draupadi and Kunti were pure devotees, but neither of them became initiating gurus. By pointing this out, am I disrespecting them or suggesting that their devotion was not pure? Clearly not.

 

"Pure devotion" as the sole criterion for determining who can and cannot be a guru, is very difficult if not impossible to evaluate by outsiders. Traditionally, a brahmin is brought up in the gurukula under the close supervision of another qualified guru, and he is systematically taught all of the Vedic literatures. As far as his knowledge of scripture is considered, one can at least evalute this to some basis by submissive questioning.

 

But the current ISKCON paradigm prevents even this. Doubts are quickly shushed on the grounds that the "guru" is a pure devotee and one had better not question him or else he is Offensive. There is little effort to try to encourage deep thinking. On the contrary, one is not supposed to know more than one's guru, so if one is a little bit intellectual, he quickly finds that he surpasses his guru's ability to give satisfying answers. At this point he either has to shut his mouth and just serve, hoping for his doubts to be removed some other way, or he just becomes unsatisfied and/or offensive. In this way, medicore, superficial understanding is encouraged and unqualified gurus are protected.

 

Ofcourse, Srila Prabhupada did not learn like this from his own spiritual master. But nevertheless he clearly had the erudition to not only translate the entire Bhagavatam, but comment on it and field all kinds of questions from every different angle without advance preparation. He was an exceptional individual, but I somehow doubt that this system (in which one has at most 10-11 lifetime encounters with one's guru, the rest of the time being spent in solo reading) was meant to permanently replace the traditional model of personal cultivation by the guru and systematic study of the relevant scriptures (in this case, Gita and Bhagavatam). If at least most of his disciples absorbed from his writings a comparable quantity of knowledge as Srila Prabhupada, then perhaps that system would be ok. But on the contrary, I have seen writings by Satsvarupa Gosvami lamenting the fact that many senior devotees no longer read Srila Prabhupada's books - a tacit admission by one senior devotee on the lack of scriptural study by other devotees!

 

 

"Who determines who is a pure devotee?"

- surely not what is hidden by the underwear

 

 

 

Please, I don't think this kind of comment is appropriate.

 

And the fact that you would chose to respond like this is uncalled for.

 

I have already stated that I am not objecting to the possibility that a mataji can be a pure devotee. Mother Urmila may very well be a pure devotee. I can't say one way or another. Neither can you.

 

But you idea is that being a pure devotee automatically means one can become a diksha guru. I am simply pointing out that this is not the case.

 

yours,

 

Alpa-medhasa

[yasodanandana]

"But you idea is that being a pure devotee automatically means one can become a diksha guru. I am simply pointing out that this is not the case. "

 

yes... this is my real idea... if one is a pure devotee, and krsna desire is that he preach and take disciples... all the required skills automatically are automatically manifested:

.

.

.

.

.

..

 

vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam

jihva-vegam udaropastha-vegam

etan vegan yo visaheta dhirah

sarvam apimarh prthivim sa sisyat

 

(Upadeshamrita - 1st sloka)

 

A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The bottom line of the issue is whether or not any guru is subjected to the dictates and discipline of the GBC. The fact that Prabhupada established the GBC as the Governing Authority for ISKCON rules out the possibility of any diksha gurus in ISKCON except him. Prabhupada ruled out the diksha guru system in ISKCON by saying that a bona-fide spiritual master is never subjected to the discipline or restrictions of a GBC or anyone else. The fact that the GBC is in the position of having to regulate and restrict the activities of the ISKCON gurus shows that indeed there can be no gurus in ISKCON except Prabhupada. A real guru is never subjected to the control and discipline of any committee, Godbrother, disciple or anyone else. Sri Guru is a free agent independent of committee regulation or control. ISKCON clearly has a whole set of rules and laws that regulate, discipline and restrict all the diksha gurus in ISKCON. This situation is clearly in violation of the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

We find his instructions in the matter in the Nectar of Instruction text 6 purport:

 

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

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

 

Srila Prabhupada is saying here that in the Rupanuga sampradaya a spiritual master should not be subjected to the discipline or regulations of any committee, individual or group of individuals.

A real spiritual master is not subject to such regulation.

 

Therefore, by establishing the GBC as the managing authority of ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada ruled out the possibility of a multiplicity of gurus in ISKCON by making the GBC as the functioning authority over all ISKCON affairs. In ISKCON today there is a class of spiritual masters who are all subjected to the regulation and discipline of the GBC. This is totally incongruent with the concept of a traditional spiritual master who is above and

beyond all such committee regulation.

 

Prabhupada said it is an offense to try and discipline or regulate a spiritual master. Therefore either the regulating of ISKCON spiritual masters by the GBC must stop or diksha guru system must stop. Refusing to do so results in offenses which will destroy devotional service and make it fruitless and futile

[stonehearted]

I don't know what you-all mean by "vedic precedent." There is, however, plenty of precedent among Gaudiya vaishnavas of women accepting disciples. Some examples:

1. Sita Thakurani - The wife of Advaita Prabhu. According to the Prema-vilasa of Nityananda Das, Sita Thakurani had a woman disciple called Jangali. Nityananda-vamsa-vistara relates an account in which Virabhadra Prabhu, the son of Nityananda and Vasudha, once saught shelter of Sita Thakurani, desiring to become her disciple, but she sent him back home to instead take shelter of Jahnava Thakurani, her step-mother, the other wife of Nityananda.

 

2. Jahnava Thakurani - The wife of Nityananda Prabhu. Jahnava Thakurani came to be one of the greatest leaders of the tradition in its second generation. Virabhadra and Ramacandra, the sons (biological and adopted respectively) of Nityananda, were perhaps two of the most famous among her initiated disciples. Other well-known disciples of hers are Jnana das, the famous poet, and Nityananda das, the author of Prema-vilasa. Acting as a diksa-guru, she left a deep influence on practically all the lineages descending from Nityananda, in which female diksa-gurus are very common; so much so that some of them have a majority of women in their parampara.

 

3. Hemalata Thakurani - The daughter of Srinivasa Acarya. Hemalata Thakurani, a contemporary of Jahnava, was one of the prominent leaders of the tradition at her time. Among her numerous disciples, Yadunandan, the author of Karnananda, is particularly known. She is well known for ousting Rupa Kaviraja from the sampradaya.

 

4. Gaurangapriya - The second wife and a disciple of Srinivasa Acarya. She was a Cakravarti brahmin from Gopalpura, and initiated a number of disciples.

 

5. Krishnapriya and Vishnupriya - Two renunciate sisters, daughters and disciples of Narottama Das's chief disciple Ganganarayan Chakravarti. They lived at Radha Kunda for a period of time. The Govardhana-sila of Raghunatha das Gosvami was entrusted in their care by Mukunda das, a disciple of Krishnadas Kaviraja. According to Narottama Vilasa of Narahari Cakravarti, Krishnapriya accepted a number of disciples.

 

6. Ganga Mata Goswamini - A disciple of Haridas Goswami, the sevaite of Govindaji mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita. Among others, King Mukundadeva of Jagannath Puri and a number of Jagannath's sevaites received diksa from her. She was also an eloquent speaker and explained Srimad Bhagavata for large audiences.

 

 

Another example that we should find interesting is Bhaktivinoda Thakura's own diksa line:

 

1. (Nityananda Prabhu) Jahnava Mata

2. Ramacandra Goswami

3 Rajavallabha Goswami

4. Kesavacandra Goswami

5. Rudresvara Goswami

6. Dayarama Goswami

7. Mahesvari Goswamini

8. Gunamañjari Goswamini

9. Ramamani Goswamini

10. Yajñesvara Goswami

11. Vipina Vihari Goswami (1850-1919)

12. Bhaktivinoda Thakur (1838-1914)

[yasodanandana]

A is a devotee without initiation

B is a devotee who can teach

CDE are other three devotees who A trust

 

A wants to take shelter from B

 

A asks for an opinion to CDE

 

CDE say that for them B is able to be a spiritual master

 

A takes initiation from B

 

after some time B has no more a right behaviour

 

A goes to CDE and asks : "what can i do?"

 

CDE answer : "for us B is not behaving as a guru, better for you to leave him"

 

heard this..

 

B choose to continue or not to act as guru

A choose to continue or not to follow B

.

.

(between the devotees of the 60' there are surely some who were asking to others, "seniors" of some month, : "is it good to take shelter to this swamiji, are you satisfacted?".... where's the mistake?)

.

.

.

your equation "GBC = no more diksa" is weak.... GBC, as a system, technically speaking, is nothing more than a sadhu sanga who give opinions on devotional matters

 

 

(if the member of GBC think that they are creating and destroying gurus........... and the GURUS think that their power comes from GBC obviously they're all wrong......but it is another matter... the system in itself does not work in this way)

[Guest guest]

The bottom line about this whole subject is not so much the gender. A pure devotee could be in any body indeed. Babhru prabhu has pointed out some good examples. One area of contention, though. In regards to Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's diksha line, it should be well known that our own Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur did not appear to consider Vipin Bihari Thakur to be a bonifide diksha guru.

 

The first example is when Srila Bhaktivode Thakur received Diksha from Vipina Bihari. While the latter was symbolically placing his foot upon the former's head, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, only a young boy, got up and protested, saying to the effect that his father was a far greater devotee than Vipin Bihari.

 

The second example is when Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada gave diksha to Srila Bhakti-vivek Bharati Maharaj. Bharati Maharaj had already received diksha from Bipin Bihari, thus it would be fair to conclude that Bhaktisiddhanta did not consider Bipin Bihari's initiation of Bharati Maharaj to be bonefide.

 

Ultimately, the problem here is, is that Urmila Prabhu is considering becoming a guru to an organization that failed to provide fair meditiation in her "seperation". Even churches and Mosques provide these services, and are able to make "seperations" amicable. Yet Urmila and her husband had to use the state court system.

[stonehearted]

Guest: In regards to

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur's diksha line, it should be well known that our own Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakur did not appear to consider Vipin Bihari Thakur to be a bonifide diksha guru.

 

We know well Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's misgivings about Bipin Bihari Goswami. Nevertheless, Srila Bhaktivinoda accepted him as his guru, after looking for a long time for someone he could trust enough. We stress his relationship with Jagannath das because, especially later, after the controversy over the Yoga-pitha, Bhaktivinoda seemed to think Jagannath's influence was more profound.

 

So although the relationship suffered in later years, Bhaktivinoda Thakura carefully chose this line for diksha, knowing well it included women giving diksha.

[theist]

guest:

We find his instructions in the matter in the Nectar of Instruction text 6 purport:

 

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

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

 

 

[Gaurasundara]

 

The first example is when Srila Bhaktivode Thakur received Diksha from Vipina Bihari. While the latter was symbolically placing his foot upon the former's head, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, only a young boy, got up and protested, saying to the effect that his father was a far greater devotee than Vipin Bihari.

 

The second example is when Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada gave diksha to Srila Bhakti-vivek Bharati Maharaj. Bharati Maharaj had already received diksha from Bipin Bihari, thus it would be fair to conclude that Bhaktisiddhanta did not consider Bipin Bihari's initiation of Bharati Maharaj to be bonefide.

 

 

What proof do you have that suggests that these stories are true?

 

It should be wellknown that Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura himself firmly disapproved of slander like this, and himself worshipped his Gurudeva Vipin Vihari Goswami with choice phrases.

[Gaurasundara]

This is what is written in the article "What's a Woman To Do?" by Visakha-devi-dasi, published in BTG Mar/Apr 1999:

 

 

[June 18, 1976]Professor O'Connell of the University of Toronto asked Prabhupada, "Is it possible, Swamiji, for a woman to be a guru in the line of disciplic succession?"

Srila Prabhupada replied, "Yes. Jahnava Devi was Nityananda's wife. She became. [Jahnava Devi was an initiating spiritual master who had male disciples.] If she is able to go to the highest perfection of life, why is it not possible to become a guru? But not so many. Actually one who has attained the perfection, she can become a guru. But man or woman, unless one has attained the perfection ... Yei krsna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya. The qualification of the guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Krsna. Then he or she can become a guru. Yei krsna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya. In the material world, is there any prohibition that a woman cannot become a professor? If she is qualified, she can become a professor. What is the wrong there? She must be qualified. That is the position. So similarly, if the woman understands Krsna consciousness perfectly, she can become a guru."

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

I don't know what you-all mean by "vedic precedent." There is, however, plenty of precedent among Gaudiya vaishnavas of women accepting disciples. Some examples:

 

 

I think what he is saying that there is no precedent for it in the Vedic texts like Srimad Bhagavatam. Even in our Gaudiya literature there is almost no precedent for such practice and most of what we know about any female gurus in the sampradaya is coming down through sadhu and not shastra.

The Vedic texts have no examples of female gurus in the strict sense of diksha guru acharyas. At least the order of disciplic succession of the Gaudiya sampradaya does not contain any female gurus in the chain. If the acharyas would have wanted exemplary female acharyas in the line of succession they would have included them in the list of acharyas in the parampara.

The Saraswata Gaudiya acharyas in the past have not introduced any females into the order of the acharya succession and it would be a departure from the tradition if female devotees become represented in the parampara of ISKCON.

Prabhupada had many female disciples yet he never appointed any of them to the GBC or named them as ritviks. If Prabhupada would have desired that women in the movement be given such positions he would have established the precedent by appointing some as ritviks or GBC.

 

If we think that the movement is now ours to toy and tinker with then we are displacing Prabhupada as the acharya of ISKCON. Prabhupada gave strict orders not to change anything after his departure. That means don't add or subtract to what he has given. Adding women to the already controversial diksha guru order of ISKCON is a change to the established standard of Srila Prabhupada. It should not be adopted.

[Guest guest]

I dont know that adding women to Prabhupada's diksha guru order of ISKCON is a change to his established standard. He never said one way or the other. More concern should be the "qualificaitons" of any guru, male or female. Lets face it, if a female guru were to be self effulgent and be able to properly reinstate Prabhuapada's real diskha order, to put him back in the center and so on, personally I would be relieved! I wouldn't give a hoot if this was a woman or a man doing it, all I would care about is that it gets done!

 

[Guest guest]

Prabhupada appointed Yamuna as GBC. Devotees will be quick to rush in with that quote where he says her only disqualification is that she is not a man. However there were other quotes, and one of them, I suspect spoken after this one, was that she should be GBC. If anyone has both, please post here, with dates.

[Gaurasundara]

 

I think what he is saying that there is no precedent for it in the Vedic texts like Srimad Bhagavatam. Even in our Gaudiya literature there is almost no precedent for such practice and most of what we know about any female gurus in the sampradaya is coming down through sadhu and not shastra.

The Vedic texts have no examples of female gurus in the strict sense of diksha guru acharyas. At least the order of disciplic succession of the Gaudiya sampradaya does not contain any female gurus in the chain. If the acharyas would have wanted exemplary female acharyas in the line of succession they would have included them in the list of acharyas in the parampara.

 

 

Stonehearted (Babhru das) has just posted enough evidence that shows conclusively that females have always acted as gurus in the Gaudiya tradition. This in itself shows that you are incorrect when you say that the Gaudiya disciplic successions have not included females. In fact, the very quote that I posted earlier is a quote from Srila Prabhupada. Even he acknowledged that Jahnava Devi was a guru.

 

 

The Saraswata Gaudiya acharyas in the past have not introduced any females into the order of the acharya succession and it would be a departure from the tradition if female devotees become represented in the parampara of ISKCON.

 

 

Now the context of your point becomes slightly clearer in that you seem to be talking only of the Sarasvata Gaudiyas. Sadly, you are again incorrect since Srila Prabhupada himself just acknowledged that Jahnava Devi was a guru. Why should Srila Prabhupada have prevented it happening in ISKCON when he allows the possibility of it happening at all? His quote shows that perhaps the only thing required is a sound knowledge of Krsna-tattva. Nityananda is included in the disciplic succession of the Sarasvata Gaudiyas, that means His Wife is also included. How can it not be?

 

 

Prabhupada had many female disciples yet he never appointed any of them to the GBC or named them as ritviks. If Prabhupada would have desired that women in the movement be given such positions he would have established the precedent by appointing some as ritviks or GBC.

 

 

Wrong again. When Srila Prabhupada drew up the list for the first GBC, several women were on that list. Why those women did not become a GBC is not known, but the simple fact that Srila Prabhupada included their names on the list shows that he allowed the possibility. Moreover, did you know that to start ISKCON's mission in England, Srila Prabhupada sent three married couples to do this task? Why did he do that, if he didn't allow women to have any form of power? And it is thanks to those three married couples that we have ISKCON in England.

Also, did you know that Srila Prabhupada also allowed the possibility of women becoming temple presidents?

 

 

Prabhupada gave strict orders not to change anything after his departure. That means don't add or subtract to what he has given. Adding women to the already controversial diksha guru order of ISKCON is a change to the established standard of Srila Prabhupada. It should not be adopted.

 

 

Well basically, I see that you are presenting a most bold opinion under an anonymous identity. Why do that if you are obviously proud of your views? Your above comment is itself incorrect considering that Srila Prabhupada himself is on record as allowing the possibility of females taking places of power in ISKCON. Just because it never happened during his presence does not necessarily mean it is not to be adopted. By that logic, Srila Prabhupada unfortunately did not finish his magnum opus, Srimad-Bhagavatam. Does this mean that the work should have been left unfinished?

 

Basically I think your opinions are out of line with even basic Krishna Conscious philosophy. It's the same simple philosophy that "you are not the body," therefore why should women be denied positions of power in ISKCON simply because they are females? In your entire post I didn't see one logical point about the qualifications of females to take up responsible positions. I find that to be a most disturbing and chauvinistic attitude.

[Guest guest]

This nomination is obviously politics. It just so happens that Urmila kicked her husband Pratyatosh out of the house and restrained him with legal measures because he is an avowed, outspoken ritvik proponent. Despite his otherwise Vaishnava standards and standing she violated Vaishnava morals and ethics by divorcing a devoted Vaishnava husband for the sake of retaining her relationship with a large group of men called the GBC.

Her nomination is politics pure and simple and nothing more than the GBC trying to abuse and exploit this woman for their own ambitions. She is a pawn, a ploy - a strategy. It is not about pure devotion. It is about pure politics.