HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[Gaurasundara]

I found just a brief statement:

 

"Srila Prabhupada trusted Govinda dasi to the extent that when he first formed the GBC, he selected Govinda dasi and Yamuna dasi to serve on it." - http://www.adi-vani.org/authors.php

 

Otherwise I couldn't find the quotes that you were referring to, perhaps someone else has them.

However, I found some interesting stuff about Yamuna devi, an extremely senior disciple of Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

So far your question regarding women, I have always accepted the service of women without any discrimination, so I have no objection if Yamuna devi contributes her ideas on this construction project. Nothing should be done without group consultation. (letter to Guru Das, 1972)

 

Srila Prabhupada had Yamuna (one of our best singers) lead kirtans in front of crowds of guests and devotees, which included of course sannyasis and brahmacaris. * Yamuna, Lilavati, Kausalya, and later Parijata, Jyotirmayi and many others used to routinely lead kirtans.

 

In every ISKCON temple of the world the assembled devotees offer their obeisances to the Deities in the morning as the Govindam prayers loudly play. George Harrison recorded it, and Yamuna sings the mantras. Disturbed by this custom, Jaysacinandana quoted Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur (as well as Srila Prabhupada) that if a brahmacari hears and is attracted to a woman’s singing, it is a subtle fall down. "In light of this, he wrote, many of the brahmacaris approached the temple president to see if it would be possible that when the Deities are greeted in the morning, instead of listening to Gurudasa Maharaja’s former wife singing the Brahma-samhita prayers, we could listen to Your Divine Grace rather than hear a woman sing." He did not want to change the tape because it has been a standard thing in ISKCON since 1970. "So requested by many devotees, I am inquiring from Your Divine Grace if we could play a tape recording of your singing instead of a woman when the Deities of Rukmini Dvarkadhisha are greeted in the morning. I am sure that all the devotees would be enlivened to hear you instead of electric guitars, the London symphonic orchestra, etc., etc......"

 

Prabhupada was not pleased. He said that constantly changing things is "our Western disease." His reply was short and direct. "No! You have made some discovery. All along you have been hearing the recording of Yamuna dasi and now you want to change. It is not ordinary singing, it is not concert. Many people are singing, so it is not bad. Just like Sankirtana. I approve of it. Here in the Krishna-Balarama temple we are hearing the same recording every morning. So if it is good here, why not there?" (Hari Sauri, Dec 1975, Vrndavan, "A Transcendental Diary.")

 

Srila Prabhupada said about Yamuna in the early 70’s that she had reached the stage of bhava.

 

-- http://www.vaisnavi.com/Articles/Women%20in%20ISKCON%20in%20Prabhupada's%20Time.htm

 

 

A collection of articles by female disciples of Srila Prabhupada published in the ISKCON Communications Journal -- http://www.iskcon.com/icj/8_1/women.html

 

"In late 1974, not long after I had left my householder asrama, Srila Prabhupada pronounced it ‘good that you have left your husband’, and encouraged me to become a ‘sannyasini’." -- http://www.iskcon.com/icj/8_1/yamuna.html

 

And check out this site: http://www.vaisnavi.com/Articles/Articles.htm

 

There's a whole section about becoming gurus!

[Gaurasundara]

What you makes you think that Pratyatosa was a devoted husband?

 

As for the rest of your posting, it is so chauvinistic and degrading towards women that it barely needs comment.

[Guest guest]

 

In reply to:

 

"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.

 

 

News to me. Good to hear it. How do you know this? Can you give any sources or quotes or dates? Could prove very helpful.

 

 

Why those women did not become a GBC is not known,

 

 

Not known but also known. No facts but we all know it has to do with politics of control of the movement. When they control the women, they control the men.

 

 

but the simple fact that Srila Prabhupada included their names on the list shows that he allowed the possibility.

 

 

You definitely have my attention! I heard the tape, though doctored, but never heard any womans name mentioned ever. Please tell us more.

 

 

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?

 

 

Agreed. While its important to follow Prabhupada's instruction, devotees should make sure they are following HIs instruction and not any desires related to material bodies. Qualification is all that has ever mattered. This is required to be on the highest platform, when Krishna consciousness properly understood and properly repeated is on the highest platform.

[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

 

 

I don't find Urmilla fittings qualifications of guru, but the above information is incomplete. True or untrue, but incomplete. She was reguarly undergoing abuse by him which may be a reason she kicked him out. If she did. Unless you have quotes or evidence that her only reason was his ritvik position, I feel compelled to add his Vaishnava behavior became questionable when he became abusive. Oddly I agree with much of what he preaches, and overall find the guy decent and sensible in many ways. I do not find his propensity to abuse agreeable. He has admited he abused some gurukuli's, which I give him credit for coming forward. Then why not his wife? Besides I know for a fact he abused her. Better to stick to whether she is qualified as guru or unqualfied. Is she pure devotee? Being strict does not equate purity. Could even mean obsessive compulisve or addictive behavor. I do not say she has this. No. I do not know. What I've seen however is many devotees do, and are lumped in as 'pure,' when they really need therapy.

[stonehearted]

"Guest": 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.

 

It actually happens that the restraining order was a response to Pratyatosha's repeatedly beating his wife. What kind of "vaishnava standards" does that reflect? If I remember correctly, her children insisted that she get him out of the house for her own protection. In his VNN article (my best guess is that "Dharma-yuddha das" is a fictitious name), Pratyatosha claims he was forced to sign the separation decree. What sort of leverage could Urmila's attorneys have had to coerce him? Perhaps prosecution for his spousal abuse, and perhaps even for his abuse of gurukula students. This is a smear campaign, pure and simple.

 

There is of course some chance I'm mistaken. If so, I apologize. If I'm right, I think we all have some apologies due us.

 

I'm not sure what I think about Urmila's nomination to initiate disciples (she's awfully conservative, but she has been a solid disciple for 30 years), but this campaign of slander has riled me.

[Guest guest]

./ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001330

[Guest guest]

I don't wish to slander anyone. But I again want to point out something. Everyone says that we shouldn't be concerned with the would-be guru's gender or other external bodily factors which we can easily identify. Very good.

 

But instead, they say we should be concerned with whether or not the candidate is "self-effulgent" and a "pure devotee," the logic being that if he/she is these things, then he/she can become a guru.

 

To me, this is bizarre logic. We insist that the would-be guru fulfill certain criteria which we cannot validate in any meaningful sense. By contrast, we play down other, more observable factors like varna and aashrama.

 

In contrast, in traditional (ideal) Vedic society, one who is trained up as a brahmin, and retains that qualification, can become a guru. The brahmins are the spiritual masters of society. In our pancharaatra tradition, we allow individuals to become brahmins even if they are not born as seminal brahmins. But in any case, the point is that as long as the individual is trained up as a brahmin, has studied the scriptures, and has at least sad-aachaara level of behavior, then he can become a spiritual master. Of course, as far as we are concerned, the brahmin should also be a devotee of Lord Krishna, and one who knows our Gaudiya Vaishnava conclusions as Srila Prabhupada taught them.

 

It seems to me that these requirements are a little more realistic than requiring someone to be "self-effulgent" in order to be a guru. What does that mean, anyway? I can't imagine that other Vaishnava traditions have this problem - "oh, he can't be a guru, because he isn't self-effulgent."

 

Perhaps this problem is a direct result of the breakdown of varnaashrama. In an ideal Vaishnava varnaashrama society, brahmins would simply become gurus if they so desired, and there would be none of the guilt and finger-pointing associated with it. It was just expected. But in ISKCON it isn't clear who is brahmin and who is not. Nor is it clear who is a pure devotee and who is not. We have all these exotic, high expectations of gurus which they almost invariably can't meet. We expect them to be "self-effulgent" but we don't care whether or not they know the Vedaanta-suutra. We expect them to be "pure devotees" but we don't care if they understand the Bhaagavatam well enough to answer logical doubts that arise out of serious study. It seems pretty silly to me.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[Guest guest]

 

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.

 

 

 

Individuals like Neal Delmonico, Madhavananda, Jan Brezinski etc once worshipped Srila Prabhupada with choice phrases. That was before they changed gurus. But given the first statement, can I safely conclude that they are still Prabhupada disciples and that they won't object to this characterization?

 

If you know the correct answer, then you know why your own statement is itself begging the question.

 

[Jagat]

(1) Alpamedhasa is not alpamedhasa.

 

(2) You may characterize me as Prabhupada's disciple, but with an asterisk. I accept and honor Prabhupada's role in bringing me to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the Divine Couple Radha and Krishna, and I continue to feel loyalty to this movement.

 

However, I do not believe that loyalty is static. I believe it requires active and personal interaction with one's faith and tradition.

 

True loyalty is not blind obedience. This is something that is regularly confused everywhere, understandably so and I don't blame anyone for doing so.

 

After 9/11, anyone who questioned the U.S.'s role in the world or its reactions was immediately suspected of hating America. Where emotion reigns, reason is suspect.

 

It is my feeling that loyalty to the essence of what Prabhupada wanted us to achieve--true consciousness of Krishna--requires a lot more of us than fighting over legalistic arguments about succession. It requires more than protests of being more of a Prabhupadanuga than the next guy.

 

Here is the heresy, but dig it, as they say: Becoming a true student means surpassing the teacher. Be humble, but don't be a wimp.

 

(3) Where Bipin Bihari Goswami is concerned, we have numerous records of his approval of his guru, no written evidence of the contrary.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's nitya-siddha identity as Kamala Manjari is accepted everywhere. This was given to him in initiation by Bipin Bihari Goswami. Is there any indication that he rejected this? Or his mantra?

 

Please don't expect me to follow up on this discussion about Bipin Bihari Goswami. I have discussed it to death and have written articles on the subject, which you can read on my website.

 

In view of what I have just said above, however, can we accept that Bhaktivinoda Thakur superseded his guru without rejecting him?

 

[Jagat]

...not in all respects, mind you. Maybe only in one little thing...

[Guest guest]

This notwithstanding, I would like to point out that the proposed Guru candidacy for Urmila Devi Dasi violates the GBC's own rules for the nomination of a Guru. Urmila Devi Dasi by her own admission has been separated from her husband for the last 7 years. She has justified this separation in the guise of living as a 'vanaprastha' (retired life):

 

"I'm living separated from husband as vanaprastha since 1996; we have a legal separation agreement."

(Urmila Devi Dasi, 2-Sep-03, PAMHO text:7197401)

 

However, this is in DIRECT VIOLATION of Srila Prabhupada's teaching on this subject:

 

?There is NO question of separation between husband and wife until the time when the husband takes sannyasa. At that time the wife cannot remain with the husband. *Even in vanaprastha stage*, or retired life, the wife remains with the husband, but without any sex relations."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Himavati, 24/1/69)

 

"The chaste wife?s duty is to keep her husband pleased in householder life in all respects, and when the husband retires from family life, she is to go to the forest and adopt the life of vanaprastha, or vana-vasi. At that time the wife is to follow her husband and take care of him, just as she took care of him in householder life."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.23.20)

 

"Just as in the vanaprastha stage the wife follows the husband, ..."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.28.34)

 

"The vanaprastha stage is exactly like this. Although the wife remains with the husband, she undergoes severe austerities and penances so that although both husband and wife live together, there is no question of sex. In this way both husband and wife can live together perpetually."

(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.28.44)

 

 

Srila Prabhupada clearly states that there is *no question* of separation between husband and wife until the husband takes sannyasa (complete renunciation), and in vanaprastha life the wife must remain with and follow her husband. So it is quite clear that vanaprastha does NOT mean separation as claimed by Urmila Devi Dasi. The GBC rules for the 'qualification of Guru' clearly state that the candidate:

 

"5. Must be free from the following undesirable qualities:

© nisiddhacara, behavior contrary to Vaisnava principles;

(d) kuti-nati, diplomatic or duplicitous behavior;

 

7. Must exhibit proficiency in knowledge and understanding of sastra."

(GBC Law Book, ?Qualifications For A Guru?)

 

By being separate from her husband even though the husband has not taken sannyasa, Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of nisiddhacara, or behaviour contrary to Vaisnava principles.

 

By disguising this separation as being 'vanaprastha', Urmila Devi Dasi is guilty of kuti-nati, duplictous behaviour.

 

By not being aware that in the vanaprastha stage the wife is still supposed to remain and follow her husband, she is guilty of not exhibiting proficiency in knowledge and understanding of sastra (scripture).

 

Thus the GBC should nominate a Vaisnavi who at least satisfies their own qualifications for a bogus Guru to increase their unauthorised Guru program. Of course, the GBC have not previously shown much interest in following their own rules, what to speak of Srila Prabhuapda's instructions, so we will not be surprised if they will as usual continue with their self-contradictory behaviour.

 

Urmila Devi Dasi also states in her 'application resume' to become Guru that she is:

 

"under the authority of our sons and son-in-law."

(Urmila Devi Dasi, 2-Sep-03, PAMHO:7197401)

 

Even for the GBC, whose weird and wacky unauthorised Guru program knows no bounds, this is a new one. A Guru, who is supposedly directly under the authority of Krishna, and under whose authority everyone else will be, will now be under the authority of her kids!!

[yasodanandana]

i don't understand very well your point.. the definition of guru is beyond all material considerations and knowing bhagavatam is not a mere scholarship consideration because if one devote is bhagavata, he understands the message of bhagavata and bhagavatam

 

the same with answering doubts

 

if you express a doubt to the spiritual master he can surely answer using culture and scholarship, right verses and right examples... but, and we can see this in srila prabhupada and other big devotees, he can also not answer or say a paradoxal or apparently inappropriate thing directed specifically to you to chastize for an offence or so..

another aspect of this is that an instruction given to me on the same subject, could be extremely wrong if given to you!!

 

the "brahminical" point is equally controversial, because, in our sampradaya we have almost all the gurus who , externally, have not the "traditional hindu" status of the brahminic renunciated spiritual master

 

some grihastas, some babaji and "not erudite", some "ex muslims", some coming from vaisha class.. and so

 

i am surely for an increasing of the general level, and also the "hindu/indian/vedic" awareness of all iskcon and other western devotees, but the thing is more simple and more difficult at the same time:

 

some one think that one is a guru and asks others for an advice

these "others" say that they agree

the first, reading the sastras and having the counseling of the sadhus, take shelter in this guru

 

the main problem is that if we are not serious, krsna often sends a not so serious guru

 

other material considerations (bureaucracy, sympathy, zone, nationality etc.) will not help... neither other material consideration like the compatibility to certain traditional (=hindu?) standards

 

complex and easy at the same time or, if we think that the guru situation in iskcon is not good, your remedy is not enough ... neither for the 0.000000001% of the problem

 

i am very sorry for my strange english.. please be mercyful!! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

 

(2) You may characterize me as Prabhupada's disciple, but with an asterisk. I accept and honor Prabhupada's role in bringing me to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the Divine Couple Radha and Krishna, and I continue to feel loyalty to this movement.

 

However, I do not believe that loyalty is static. I believe it requires active and personal interaction with one's faith and tradition.

 

 

 

If you say you continue to respect Srila Prabhupada's role in bringing you to Krishna-consciousness, then I can accept that. I also agree that loyalty must be challenged by deep thinking, questioning, and challenging of ideas accepted based on blind faith.

 

However, it's pretty meaningless to say someone is your guru if your conclusions on some important points differ from his.

 

Anyway, the reason I brought this up is obvious. There are certain individuals who once called Srila Prabhupada "guru." Today, they can't deny that Srila Prabhupada gave them diksha. But for whatever reason, they have gone elsewhere for instruction (possibly also diksha) and now preferentially refer to someone else as "guru." That's okay, and I am not debating their decision.

 

What I am saying is this: saying that Srila Prabhupada was their guru, because they themselves said it at one point, is clearly misleading. Similarly, saying that Bhaktivinod Thakur's guru was Bipin Bihari Gosvami, simply because Bhaktivinod wrote this before meeting Jagannatha dasa Babaji, is also misleading.

 

 

True loyalty is not blind obedience.

 

 

 

I agree. True loyalty to a guru is based on conviction, based on evidence, that what the guru teaches is true.

 

 

After 9/11, anyone who questioned the U.S.'s role in the world or its reactions was immediately suspected of hating America. Where emotion reigns, reason is suspect.

 

It is my feeling that loyalty to the essence of what Prabhupada wanted us to achieve--true consciousness of Krishna--requires a lot more of us than fighting over legalistic arguments about succession. It requires more than protests of being more of a Prabhupadanuga than the next guy.

 

 

These are all very nice, "mom and apple-pie" arguments, designed as they no doubt are, as a response to the typical uninformed fanatics whom you are no doubt challenged by on a regular basis.

 

However, the point remains that if one adopts certain fundamental misconceptions as correct, i.e. "Vedas were written over several thousand years by different sages," or "the Vaishnava tradition is not eternal, it has evolved into being," or "truth is not absolute, but depends on the individual," etc, then one cannot claim loyalty to a guru who teaches the opposite. One cannot claim "loyalty to the essence of Krishna-consciousness" when one disagrees with the fundamental premise upon which it is based. That's like a Buddhist saying he is loyal to Hinduism even though he rejects the Vedas.

 

 

(3) Where Bipin Bihari Goswami is concerned, we have numerous records of his approval of his guru, no written evidence of the contrary.

 

Bhaktivinoda Thakur's nitya-siddha identity as Kamala Manjari is accepted everywhere. This was given to him in initiation by Bipin Bihari Goswami. Is there any indication that he rejected this? Or his mantra?

 

 

 

Unlike the Americans of today, who accept a guru one day and then kick him away the next with all sorts of harsh words, Bhaktivinod Thakura was cultured. You probably won't find the sort of explicit rejection of Bipin Bihari Gosvami in Bhaktivinod's writings as you would of Srila Prabhupada from the likes of Neal Delmonico. That's because, rather than making a stink, it's more likely that a cultured Vaishnava would simply move on from a less qualified guru to a more qualified one. And an intelligent person with any sense of tact ought to be bright enough to catch the change of guru, rather than require some obvious, vulgar, and hostile statement to the effect. It's only because they don't that it has to be pointed out to them.

 

Alpa-medhasa

[Guest guest]

If Mother Urmila was abused by her husband, then good riddance to him. I don't see any reason why she should stay with him. Separation was the only logical move. At least she did not get a divorce.

 

But I don't understand why people separate from their spouse and call it "vaanaprastha." The vaanaprastha stage simply means that sexual relations are ceased, and the married couple stop other material engagements (like maintaining a house, etc) in favor of pilgrimmage and other activities to directly increase their Krishna-consciousness.

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

[Guest guest]

 

Unlike the Americans of today,

 

 

This is yet another bodily concept, and if you are contrary to Prabhupada's instructions to his 'american' disciples, then you should not be name calling Urmila or anyone, and should not be giving instruction instead. Yes, there is no doubt Urmila was abused. I agree calling it varnaprasta is just hiding facts, but varnaprastha is not only about giving up sex. Prabhupada instructed his disciples to give up sex long ago, starting from brahmacari ashrama to the grahasta ashrama, where it was only allowed to have a child, only after chanting 50 rounds, and then no more sex at all. There all ready was giving up of sex. Varnaprasta is about renunciation. Whether she and he used it in that way or to cover up personal problems which were theirs to have and should remain private, I don't know.

 

It does remain fact that qualification for guru is all that matters, and saying this does not indicate agreement with her as guru at all. I say it, and I do not agree she should be guru. Therefore maybe you fear that looking at her qualifications 'does' qualify her, so lets not look at them. I feel the opposite, looking at her qualifications proves she is not following Prabhupada's instructions on how future initiations should be carried out, so lets contunue to focus not on her private life, which was controlled more by her husband then herself, but on her qualificaitons as guru, and she if she makes the cut.

[Guest guest]

[quoteand she if she makes the cut.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Post deleted by Admin5

 

note from moderators: We have removed this post as we thing it is better not to post other people's private emails in an open internet forum. Also, we would hope that respect is shown to all on both sides of a question.

[Guest guest]

What is the purpose of posting all this about Pratyatos and his private dealings with his wife? This is none of our business. Though the points about his dealings with the authorities and how they ignored his genuine complaints are worth posting, but not surprising. I doubt the overall treatment of them are surprising to any devotee who has been around a while. The details may cause interest, however well all know how they respond by now. It was said early on in this thread many of us feel she is being nominated as guru only because she feeds the GBC and related, what they want to be fed. This is not news.

 

These are all just details, and we remain with the topic of facts or lack of facts, whether Urmila is qualified as guru or not.

[Guest guest]

How can Urmila dd's guruship be bona fide if her husband does not approve of it? Wouldn't it be better for her and her disciples to start their own independent institution, like Srila Prabhupada did, with her husbands blessings?

[Guest guest]

Why must her husband approve of anything? Are you a GHQ member? Its whether Prabhupada approves or disapproves. It is her purity or lack thereof which must be examined, not this disguised machoism as devotee lifestyle. All bodily concept. You posted a letter by two GHQ members, so again I ask if you are GHQ?

[Guest guest]

 

 

This is yet another bodily concept, and if you are contrary to Prabhupada's instructions to his 'american' disciples

 

 

 

Uh oh. Look, I'm not spoiling for a fight, and I think you shouldn't take my words out of context just to start one.

 

Please look at my original message. The context was in reference to individuals who took initiating from Srila Prabhupada and then spurned him later. I was simply pointing out that this sort of behavior is uncultured, even for ordinary Indians what to speak of Vaishnavas who practice Vedic culture. In America I have noticed that many people see no problem with insulting and even attacking a guru whom they have given up, though that guru might have otherwise been very merciful to them. I was simply pointing out that in Vaishnava culture, while one might criticize another guru's philosophy, this sort of thing (i.e. attacking a guru that one no longer accepts) is not observed, which is probably why Bhaktivinod Thakura never explicitly rejected Bipin Bihari Gosvami.

 

Please don't try to start fights or see "race" wars where they do not exist.

 

 

you should not be name calling Urmila or anyone, and should not be giving instruction instead.

 

 

 

I have not called Mother Urmila anything. You are confusing me with another poster. Nor have I "given instruction." Not unless expressing logical doubts counts as giving instruction.

 

Please try to avoid knee-jerk, fanatical responses. This is a civil discussion. Not a war.

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

 

[Guest guest]

What is GHQ?

 

Alpa-medhasa

 

[I_love_krishna_]

Why must her husband approve of anything? Are you a GHQ member? Its whether Prabhupada approves or disapproves. It is her purity or lack thereof which must be examined, not this disguised machoism as devotee lifestyle. All bodily concept. You posted a letter by two GHQ members, so again I ask if you are GHQ?

 

 

 

Because in Vedic culture husband and wife are not considered as two entites even though they are. They are considered as a team and one team member's decision affects the other's. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif That is why he has to approve of her being guru... but I think this goes only one way which shows a bit of instability and tyranny in the system.

 

 

I would also like to know what a GHQ is please.

[Guest guest]

 

Unlike the Americans of today, who accept a guru one day and then kick him away the next with all sorts of harsh words, Bhaktivinod Thakura was cultured. You probably won't find the sort of explicit rejection of Bipin Bihari Gosvami in Bhaktivinod's writings as you would of Srila Prabhupada from the likes of Neal Delmonico. That's because, rather than making a stink, it's more likely that a cultured Vaishnava would simply move on from a less qualified guru to a more qualified one. And an intelligent person with any sense of tact ought to be bright enough to catch the change of guru, rather than require some obvious, vulgar, and hostile statement to the effect. It's only because they don't that it has to be pointed out to them.

 

 

There is your full quote, which was not meant out of context, I simply did not wish to fill up the message boards with long paragraphs of quotes. The point is, you are making a very clear American accusation here, regardless of other points. Although they too are worth discussing since the entire paragraph must now be posted. Nevertheless, this 'american' accusation is bodily concept.

 

 

Uh oh. Look, I'm not spoiling for a fight, and I think you shouldn't take my words out of context just to start one.

 

 

Such sarcasm, yet you claim you are NOT fighting, not insulting, and more cultured than the rest of us. Yeah right.

 

Incidentally, all you have done is speculate why Bhaktivinod Thakura did what he did. You have no quotes, no proof, and I suggest you stop speculating on the mind of the pure deovtee. No one knows why he made the choices he made without his personal quotes on the topic or commentary by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta G or Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

Please look at my original message. The context was in reference to individuals who took initiating from Srila Prabhupada and then spurned him later.

 

 

This part I am in agreement with, that many took initiation from Prabhupada and later spurned him.

 

 

I was simply pointing out that this sort of behavior is uncultured, even for ordinary Indians what to speak of Vaishnavas who practice Vedic culture. In America

 

 

You claim I should not start race wars where they do not exist, yet you keep comparing us 'american's to you cultured Hindus. You are starting the race war, I am merely trying to get it cleared away and discontinued so we can go on to higher discussions. Krishna consciousness is not about culture, it is about transcendence to the spiritual world. If a culture should also be transcendental in their practice and 'understanding' of Krishna consciousness, we go along with that. However in this degraded age of kali yuga even culture has been contaminated. Thus it is best and safest to follow the higher instructions of Srila Prabhupada and not be attached to any one culture of tihs fallen age.

 

 

I have noticed that many people see no problem with insulting and even attacking a guru whom they have given up, though that guru might have otherwise been very merciful to them. I was simply pointing out that in Vaishnava culture, while one might criticize another guru's philosophy, this sort of thing (i.e. attacking a guru that one no longer accepts) is not observed, which is probably why Bhaktivinod Thakura never explicitly rejected Bipin Bihari Gosvami.

 

 

As for our 'uncultured' manner, and it being 'american,' Srila Prabhuapda taught not to sit back in the face of a bogus guru, and to chastize him. Not this so called culture where everyone is ok. I will agree insulting should be a last restort and only toward those who are blasphemous or similar, but sarcasm and sneaky insulting are not the slightest bit better, but instead the same quality which manifests itself when the obvious is not acceptable. Its not different.

 

Srila Prabhupada hismelf was very strong in his arguments with, and against, mayavadi's, impersonalists, and even those who were Vaisnava's but altered or modified the philosophy to their liking, and to make them feel comfortable in the face of an offense. What you see as an 'american' trait, is not so much american. Possibly to a degree, but had we been instructed otherwise, we would have done otherwise. This is not to place blame on Prabhupada. No, not at all, no. In some cases it is true we could correct others in nicer ways (hint, hint), but this idea of a 'cultured' devotee does not insult someone who is insulting Krishna's highest teachings by changing them or those of jagat guru, is just wishy washy. First we should try kindness, yes, but if they refuse to see the light, then they must be told we will not tolerate offenses.

 

And this is as far as I wish to continue something I can see you will go on and on with. The topic of this thread was not hinduism, culture, us americans, etc, but if Urmila or any other 'voted in' guru is really qualified as guru. I hope other posters will continue with that, philosophically and with facts. Not with insulting attacks.

[Guest guest]

Gender issues really have nothing to do with the diqualifications of Urmilla to be a diksha guru. It is not her gender that has rendered her unfit. It is her affiliation with and endorsement of illicit GBC policy that has shown her lack of spiritual advancement. Her alliance with devotees who have undermined the mission of Srila Prabhupada is what has discredited her. Being a woman is not the issue. It is being a party to disobeying the orders of her spiritual master that have rendered her unfit.