Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati's opinion on women and sannyasa

[Guest guest]

"The sannyasa-asrama is not suitable for women. Performing hari-bhajana while remaining at home will bestow auspiciousness upon them. In the name of giving sannyasa, bheka, and so on to women, much disturbance is present in the world. Imitation of exceptional cases is not advisable. Persons wishing to have detailed knowledge of bheka and related topics may see Srila Gopala Bhatta Gosvami Prabhupada's Samskara-dipika."

 

From Gaudiya magazine, 16th year, 11th volume, p. 256. 26 Nov 1932.

 

N.B. bheka refers to babaji-type initation.

 

[Guest guest]

I estimate the probability that these words will matter to the women-can-be-sannyasis proponents to be somewhere close to zero.

 

 

[Guest guest]

and it is not a problem in that sense. Every guru changes some instructions of his predecessor according to time, place and circumstance. The matter has to be resolved asking to a present pure devotee recognized as acharya.... there's some great and old devotees in gaudya math, also godbrothers of srila prabhupada... the GBCs of iskcon, being younger, can easily ask advices to them, according to tradition and etiquette

[Guest guest]

i thought it said would could not be sanyasi. if i'm incorrect, please show me where he said women 'can' be sanyasi.

[Guest guest]

i meant -

 

i thought it said women could not be sanyasi. if i'm incorrect, please show me where he said women 'can' be sanyasi.

[Guest guest]

 

and it is not a problem in that sense. Every guru changes some instructions of his predecessor according to time, place and circumstance. The matter has to be resolved asking to a present pure devotee recognized as acharya.... there's some great and old devotees in gaudya math, also godbrothers of srila prabhupada... the GBCs of iskcon, being younger, can easily ask advices to them, according to tradition and etiquette

 

 

Permit me to rephrase what you just said.

 

"Any guru who disagrees with a pure devotee predecessor is also a pure devotee, and thus he has the right to change things according to time, place, and circumstance."

 

You and i both know that the "yeah, but he's a pure devotee" excuse will always be used to justify an individual guru's departure from instructions given by predecessors.

 

[Guest guest]

 

Permit me to rephrase what you just said.

 

"Any guru who disagrees with a pure devotee predecessor is also a pure devotee, and thus he has the right to change things according to time, place, and circumstance."

 

You and i both know that the "yeah, but he's a pure devotee" excuse will always be used to justify an individual guru's departure from instructions given by predecessors.

 

 

This is the 'modern' philosophy on that. Ever since Prabhupada left there's been rubber stamping of 'pure devotee' status. Then they can change anything they want to change.

 

To genuinely fit in the category of pure devotee, they must match up to every single shastric qualification of pure devotee, not vox populi opinions.

[Guest guest]

 

This is the 'modern' philosophy on that. Ever since Prabhupada left there's been rubber stamping of 'pure devotee' status. Then they can change anything they want to change.

 

To genuinely fit in the category of pure devotee, they must match up to every single shastric qualification of pure devotee, not vox populi opinions.

 

 

 

I agree.

 

These days anyone with a following and the hubris to disagree with his guru is rubber-stamped "pure devotee."

 

And if you fail to accept this unquestioningly, you are immediately labeled as an "offender."

 

It rather reminds me of some Advaitins who claim that all philosophies are right, but then accuse you of "intolerance" merely because you disagree with them.

 

[Guest guest]

To claim they are an 'offender' is the way to control the masses. Its psychological control. Its also politics, not Krishna consciousness.

 

Those who have nothing to compare it to, for them its the highest they have known and hard to convince them of the VAST difference.

 

For the handful who were around then but still go along with it, this pays their rent or allows them temple attendance without getting kicked out, and just keeps them on the good side of the 'law.' Its easier to 'cooperate' then to challenge the maya.

[Guest guest]

"Any guru who disagrees with a pure devotee predecessor is also a pure devotee"

–––the right version is "one who's a pure devote changes some details to have a more efficient and effective preaching according to time, place and circumstance"(every acharya is a big revolutionary see some biographies... bhaktisiddhanta do not allow women in temples, prabhupada do, bhaktivinoda throws away sacred thread, bhaktisiddhanta reintroduces it)

 

 

You and i both know that the "yeah, but he's a pure devotee" excuse will always be used to justify an individual guru's departure from instructions given by predecessors.

––––maya is strong .. but a devotee cannot avoid to preach following the principle of opportunity, time, place, circumstance, guna and karma of the disciple... think of arjuna in the gita, his sadhana is to kill thousands of people for krsna

 

so one is a cheater if he preach deviations and speculations, but one's a cheater too if he preach right things to wrong persons

[Guest guest]

"To genuinely fit in the category of pure devotee, they must match up to every single shastric qualification of pure devotee"

––––and one qualification of a pure devotee is that he's perfectly conscious of the principle of the opportunity... and he invariably changes something marginal to preach krsna consciousness in specifical circumstance.. (we are all following a guru, srila prabhupada, who has done innumerable changes... but changes, not deviations)

[Guest guest]

 

––––and one qualification of a pure devotee is that he's perfectly conscious of the principle of the opportunity... and he invariably changes something marginal to preach krsna consciousness in specifical circumstance.. (we are all following a guru, srila prabhupada, who has done innumerable changes... but changes, not deviations)

 

 

Why the focus on change? We all love this 'lets change it' meantallity, especially because Prabhupada did it, we can use it to justify all types of changes.

 

Not deviations? So what do we check it out against to make sure its not deviation since so much change is allowed? Can't see if its bonafide from anything in the past since change is the in-thing to do.

 

Ahh but if we accept change, change, change, we dont have to strictly follow those regs, regs, regs, while remaining in good status in our mind. and the modern gurus who advocate this, we dont have to admit our guru is in the wrong.

 

A true pure devotee does not want to change what Prabhupada taught. One thing he specificially taught was us westerners love to change things and should stop this nonsense. (in a letter to Jayasachinandana.)

[yasodanandana]

prabhu.. surely you have perfectly understood... maya is powerful and can ruin everything...

 

a deviation is to change whimisically to follow less regulations and so on

 

another deviation is to apply the same instruction to different people in different circumstances

 

so, to recognise who's really following prabhupada or parampara is a very difficult and subtle matter. My suggestion is that if one's not pure, he's bogus even if he try to act as a carbon copy of prabhupada.. if one's pure, he can make many changes and simultaneously be perfectly in line with acharya. Like when we see prabhupada doing innumerable changes but remaining perfectly in the gaudya vaishnava siddhanta.

 

the problem is if one's an uttama adhikari or not... if he's uttama he can preach as he wants, asking 1, 4, 1000, 0 regulative principles.. allowing women in the temple or not etc... but he will bring people back to godhead, as prabhupada, bhatkisiddhanta, chaitanya, krishna want

[theist]

How to know if that power and authority is real or assumed?

 

Personally, I see no need to add or subtract from the basics that Prabhupada has laid out.

 

Now as we attempt to apply those there will be some adjustments some will have to make to harmonize with our external lives. There are many more advanced devotees to receive such siksa from.

 

But I see no need for any changes in temple life beyond the allowances he has already given.

 

Change for change sake has the devil's fingerprint stamped on it.

 

Doesn't directly affect me as I have shown an in

ability to even adhere to the basics but it would be nice to keep Prabhupada's established ways intact.

 

 

[yasodanandana]

How to know if that power and authority is real or assumed?

••••being in this world because we want to cheat krishna, we have to pray Him to not fall in the hands of a cheater. On the other hands the problems we had with bogus gurus in the recent past, being very gross, were not so difficult (i say it admitting also my faults) to check reading seriously bhagavad gita and the prabhupada's and previous acharya's instructions.

We have to choose carefully (acharyas, shastra, sadhu) and we have to be selective and pray... our seriousness and care will be taken by krsna as an intense desire to find a real vaishnava. And the master will find us, not the opposite.

If we think about, when we act in the devotional realm, we are not actually making things happen... it is the mercy of krsna who does everything fullfilling our intense desire.. "hare krishna.. oh radhe, oh mercy of krsna!! please give me krsna!!"

 

Personally, I see no need to add or subtract from the basics that Prabhupada has laid out.

••••me too.. from the basics to the highest things.. but the spiritual world is variety, i can expect to see the chatya guru manifested in a person different from prabhupada, and to see this person acting differently on some (marginal) subjects and simultaneously bring people to krsna as prabhupada did and does. As i said, if we think that masters are made with the xerox, it is a great problem.. because who changes for material purposes is a cheater but who instructs without considering the guna and karma of the person, time , place and circumstance is an impersonalist

 

Now as we attempt to apply those there will be some adjustments some will have to make to harmonize with our external lives.

••••yes.. this is what spiritual masters are made for, we can read general subjects in the books and begin to understand some principles.. but we, as "little arjunas" we need krishna or his representative teaching us how to apply the principles in our life, wich principles are for us, wich ones are made for others.. and as arjuna, maybe , we will have to surrender to an instruction that we before considered the exact opposite of what is the right thing to do for us to advance in krsna consciousness

 

There are many more advanced devotees to receive such siksa from.

••••yes, but siksa is not to find a friend a little more advanced than us, ask something, and decide to follow or not. This is friendship, not discipleship.. Guru is "janme janme prabhu sei" siksa or diksa, he has to be a pure devotee and we must abandon ourselves to him.

 

And if we are not initiated, he will give initiation or he will bring us to his guru to be initiated. So siksa has to be pure as diksa, and who teachs has to be ready to take the full responsability. Otherwise we are friends and there's no harm in exchanging realizations, not only, it is necessary and saint...

 

But I see no need for any changes in temple life beyond the allowances he has already given.

•••••it is not a very important subject (imho), in vrindaban some one has mangala arati at 4...... 4.30....... 5. The secret is to follow the instructions of a master and to be ready also to be heavily personally chastized, we follow the instructions basically to learn what we have forgotten escaping from the spiritual world... to be humble servants of krsna and the vaishnavas. So if the pure guru says 4 we have to be ready at 4. In this way we follow, in principle, prabhupada.. much better than one without guru or with a bogus one who sleeps with the folio and the lilamrita aside ready to spread blood on the mangala arati at 4.30, or carrots, or to shave or not in chaturmasya etc.

 

Change for change sake has the devil's fingerprint stamped on it.

•••of course... it is the 3rd offence: "3) To disobey the orders of the spiritual master."... one has to have a master and follow

 

Doesn't directly affect me as I have shown an in

ability to even adhere to the basics

••••oh, no problem, wich devotee can say "i am following!!!" a devotee is humble, and saying what you have said, you're behaving as a devotee

 

but it would be nice to keep Prabhupada's established ways intact.

•••••yes of course... i wanted only to point that "exact" can also be judged different by "literal" by pure devotees in different times, places, circumstances and followers...... and that we have to ask advices to present pure vaishnavas who know what is actually to follow exacly the acharyas. We, often, can see only external things, better to ask to people who see the deep...... soul and krishna

 

excuse me for the "preaching" flavor(?!?!?!) but my english is very limited (my consciousness too)

[Guest guest]

 

and one qualification of a pure devotee is that he's perfectly conscious of the principle of the opportunity... and he invariably changes something marginal to preach krsna consciousness in specifical circumstance..

 

 

Where in the shAstras (vedas, purANas, itihAsas, etc) is it stated that one qualification of a "pure devotee" is that he "invariably changes something marginal to preach krsna consciousness?"

 

Please quote chapter, section, and verse.

 

Otherwise you should admit that this is not necessarily a qualification of a pure devotee.

[Guest guest]

 

Why the focus on change? We all love this 'lets change it' meantallity, especially because Prabhupada did it, we can use it to justify all types of changes.

 

Not deviations? So what do we check it out against to make sure its not deviation since so much change is allowed? Can't see if its bonafide from anything in the past since change is the in-thing to do.

 

 

All good questions. And it's quitely likely that the answers, though obvious to us, will not be appreciated by those whom you ask. We know there is a certain objective authority against which we measure everything. The problem is that some people say that that objective authority is the "pure devotee." Well, how do you know who is a pure devotee? Is there some authority by which you can know him? That is a question many have difficulty answering. Why answer it, when you can simply cut down anyone who doubts you?

 

Prabhupada is a pure devotee. Yet Prabhupada did not ask anyone to believe him on this basis. His relatively uncompromising nature was symptomatic of his unalloyed devotion - his refusal to lower the scriptural standards just to increase the number of disciples, in contrast to other gurus who are motivated, even subtly, to have lots of disciples or become "jagad-gurus."

 

 

Ahh but if we accept change, change, change, we dont have to strictly follow those regs, regs, regs, while remaining in good status in our mind. and the modern gurus who advocate this, we dont have to admit our guru is in the wrong.

 

A true pure devotee does not want to change what Prabhupada taught. One thing he specificially taught was us westerners love to change things and should stop this nonsense. (in a letter to Jayasachinandana.)

 

 

 

It's becoming more and more obvious to me that the Western Vaishnava community (both Indians and Westerners) are increasingly oblivious to the large number of compromises Prabhupada made with regulative principles just to build the foundation of his movement.

 

So, when they propose more changes, it is with the premise that what Prabhupada laid down as standard is in fact a highly conservative position.

 

In fact, if you want real conservatism, then make all initiated brahmins read the scriptures their gurus have translated. Make them learn Sanskrit, and memorize the shrutis backwards and forewards, and learn them inside and out until they know how every word in every shruti is in fact a glorification of Lord Krishna. Make them skilled enough in scriptural knowledge that they can defeat any atheistic position without serious effort. What, don't these devotees love Krishna enough that they want to refute the misguided philosphies which conceal His glories? Make them abandon this dating, boyfriend-girlfriend nonsense. Get rid of divorce - one marriage per lifetime, period. No more eating at restaurants, watching television, talking about Xena this or Madonna that. No more bullying people into believing in something - proof based on scripture or nothing at all.

 

No more jeans, shorts and punjabi dresses in temples. Men should wear dhoti and women should wear sari, period. Tilak for all initiated devotees. Chant rounds during the brahma-muhurta in front of the Deities with full concentration. Live simply.

 

This is what being Krishna-conscious really involves. If you can't meet this standard, then follow Prabhupada's standard. Don't compromise with Prabhupada because you are too weak to follow his already compromised standards. If you can't follow what Prabhupada taught, then be a congregational member - but don't seek initiation until you can follow what he laid down.

[yasodanandana]

Where in the shAstras (vedas, purANas, itihAsas, etc) is it stated that one qualification of a "pure devotee" is that he "invariably changes something marginal to preach krsna consciousness?"

•••••you can read in the nectar of devotion, between the qualities of sri krsna that he's the master of judging according time, place and circumstance.

So time changes, place can change, circumstance changes.. krsna and the pure devotee preach considering these aspect... always

 

otherwise why have a master ? the books are full of instructions

[yasodanandana]

"Don't compromise with Prabhupada because you are too weak to follow his already compromised standards"

•••••it is very easy to understand that it is not my intention, i am speaking of a principle, not advocating a possible deviation from that principle.

 

let us not say that who is speaking of radharani is necessarily a sahajia.. for example

[Guest guest]

 

Where in the shAstras (vedas, purANas, itihAsas, etc) is it stated that one qualification of a "pure devotee" is that he "invariably changes something marginal to preach krsna consciousness?"

•••••you can read in the nectar of devotion, between the qualities of sri krsna that he's the master of judging according time, place and circumstance.

 

 

 

Yes but the question was - where is it stated that it is a quality of the pure devotee.

 

[yasodanandana]

i have not folio with me, but for example i remember a prabhupada comment where he says that it is demoniac to criticize a pure devotee of the lord when he makes marginal changes in the siddhanta or even irregolarities with the purpose to spread krishna consciousness.

 

It is not even clear for me why the fact that if krsna behaves like that it is not enough to say that this is a qualification also for a devotee.

 

And, as a logic, i cannot imagine a master (spiritual, musical, sportive, latin, medicine, computer, rhumba, cooking) who does not teach according the principle of opportunity.

 

Or you think that this is ended with prabhupada and now it is the time of Xerox gurus from here to the next 9500 years?

 

now you have also a citation... jaya prabhupada

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Guest guest]

 

It's becoming more and more obvious to me that the Western Vaishnava community (both Indians and Westerners) are increasingly oblivious to the large number of compromises Prabhupada made with regulative principles just to build the foundation of his movement.

 

 

Whats becoming more and more obvious to me are how few of the new devotees and some hindus who do not understand it is perfectly 100% ok for Prabhupada to make such changes, that his disciples are not blind to his changes but understand them automatically as part of the process. That his specific changes need to be brought up or torn apart shows this is not yet understood - that Prabhupada did make changes but we don't care, they are transcendental and part of his process. Now for others to think they are on the same platform as him and they can next make changes to what he all ready made as easy for us as possible, this is wrong and big problem. While it should be within the premise of what Prabhupada did or said, it is not. That is a large part of this point. It is not.

 

Divorce/boyfriend/dating/jeans/tshirts/restaurants/food/Madona/etc, have all ready been figured out by Prabhupada and explained from various perspectives. In accordance to what you write, I can tell you have not read ALL he said about them. I dont know why you bring it up in the first place because it is not on the highest, except maybe this is something that annoys you. Let's not change the subject: Change, or who has the right to make changes.

 

Again, one recognizes a pure devotee by shastric qualification and not a vote, not someone's opinion. Only a pure devotee can make change.

[Guest guest]

 

And, as a logic, i cannot imagine a master (spiritual, musical, sportive, latin, medicine, computer, rhumba, cooking) who does not teach according the principle of opportunity.

 

Or you think that this is ended with prabhupada and now it is the time of Xerox gurus from here to the next 9500 years?

 

 

Xerox? Its called ParamPara. What makes our religion absolute and perfect is that every single word or instruction came directly from Krishna or his pure deovtee without being twisted by others. That's what ParamPara means. So to think this is xerox is not shastric but vox populi opinions. It wasn't too good for the past acharyas but now we think we are 'special,' times are 'differen't' for us, and Prabhupada taught to a different group of people things that would not apply these days. (Aren't we so great!) Neverhteless, this is not to be found anywhere in his lectures, that what he was preaching would have to be changed for future generations. It is also not to be found by any guru of the past. What worked before coming down from Krishna Himself, works now. We simply are looking for loopholes to make things easier on ourself. To waterdown the process simultaneously thining we are fine. We just love those 3 1/2 regulative principles.

[yasodanandana]

Xerox? Its called ParamPara.

••••yes.. parampara is made by big and huge different personalities... perfectly devoted to spread the message also changing some details to improve the preaching... the xerox is not parampara. If you negate the variety, it is like you are saying that there are not or there will not be more pure devotees after the prabhupada's departure but only copies... or RITVIKS!

 

What worked before coming down from Krishna Himself, works now.

••••••yes, that every acharya is in many things different from the previous

 

We simply are looking for loopholes to make things easier on ourself.

••••why are you doing like that? it is not good prabhu! :-)

 

We just love those 3 1/2 regulative principles.

•••••i just wonder what is the 1/2 that you do not like :-D

 

it is clear that you had discussions with people about a subject that you wrongly believe having something to do with the (simple and basic) things i have said about the time, place and circumstance principle... i am very sorry, but it has nothing to do with me

 

 

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

It is not even clear for me why the fact that if krsna behaves like that it is not enough to say that this is a qualification also for a devotee.

 

 

Krishna dances with the gopis as well. There are some gurus who use your logic to support the gurus performing rasa lila.

 

Regarding the topic at hand, it should be noted that Bhaktivinoda Thakur, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati and Srila Prabhupada all advised against sannyasa for women. Prabhupada even condemned it thoroughly. Furthermore, the scriptures do not support it.

 

Of course if you find some "pure devotee" who tells you its ok, good luck. There have been many such pure devotees come and go.