HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru - Page 3

09-12-2003, 06:25 PM

Clearly, most individuals are upset about the whole "voting-in" process of appointing gurus. I don't doubt that this is an important issue that is worth discussing. But I'm more concerned with something a little more concrete than the perceived qualifications (or lack thereof) of GBC officials or bhaktas seeking a guru.

Specifically, I want to know about the validity of women becoming diksha gurus. As per my understanding, this is unheard of in Vedic culture. Stonehearted mentioned that in ISKCON, the initiation system is based on a combination of bhAgavata and pancharAtra traditions. If this is so, then do we have any examples in the bhAgavatam of women giving out initiation (not just giving shiksha, but actual diksha)?

I mean no disrespect to Mother Urmila - I'm only concerned with the concept that ISKCON is bringing into being. Such ideas as "female gurus" and "female sannyAsis" will no doubt appeal to those who see our traditions as "backward" and "irrelevant" in this day and age. I'm sure that new-age Hinduism magazines like _Hinduism Today_ will praise this decision of ISKCON's as "progressive" and "innovative," for example (Hinduism Today, by the way, is published by a group of Shaivite mAyAvAdis who like just about everything that is "Hindu" regardless of how far removed from "Vedic" it is).

But I personally admire the ISKCON that Srila Prabhupada wanted, which seemed to eschew such meaningless innovations in favor of direct and straightforward preaching according to the traditions of Chaitanya and Vedic culture. The Bhagavad-GItA teaches us to be satisfied performing our own duties, even if imperfectly, as opposed to the duties of another (even when done perfectly). Is it not the case that different duties are prescribed to men and women? And if being a guru is generally for qualified males only, then isn't having a female guru a violation of the principal which Lord Krishna Himself gave to Arjuna?

To be honest, I have a lot of problems in the first place understanding the ISKCON concept of "guru," irrespective of the gender of that person. This may be another issue altogether, and by bringing it up now, I certainly don't mean to put Mother Urmila alone under the microscope. In fact these concerns are based on my experiences with a number of ISKCON gurus, all of whom are still, per my understanding, "in good standing." What I'm getting at is, I always thought a "guru" was referred to as such, because he is "heavy" with knowledge. In older days, this would be knowledge of the Vedas and vedAnta-sUtras. But since that is no longer practical today, one would think that, in keeping with the gaudIya tradition, at least knowledge of the bhAgavatam, bhagavad-gItA, chaitanya-charitamRta would have to be mastered in order to become guru. From BG 4.23 verse + purport I understand that a guru must be knowledgeable in the truth and able to remove the sincere disciple's doubts. But in ISKCON, it seems that one can become a guru if one has a certain seniority, years of service, steadiness, etc but in-depth knowledge of these important scriptures does not appear to be a prerequisite. Does anyone else get this impression? At least I often find that, from classes I have attended on BG/SB, the discussion does not seem very rooted in the verse or its context, and logical doubts that might arise from the verse or its translation rarely seem to get a very satisfying answer. On the contrary, everyone seems to emphasize that the guru is a "pure devotee" and is on such high levels of devotion, is a knower of past, present, future, etc. Like that, devotees in ISKCON seem to have all kinds of extremely exotic expectations of the guru - but the one practical thing which a guru should have (and which would seem to me, a necessary prerequisite to such advanced levels of bhakti), namely mastery of shrImad bhAgavatam, gets scarcely a second thought in "guru discussions."

I just don't know anymore if I have it all wrong. I would like a guru who is situated in Krishna-consciousness, and who can also think deeply and give answers based on shAstra (at least, the shAstras we GaudIyas are supposed to know as given by Srila Prabhupada). I would also like to belong to an association of devotees who practice, I mean really practice, "Vedic culture." I used to look up to ISKCON as the ideal paradigm in this regard, which could influence others (like my unqualified self) to take up the same good habits and culture, but each year just brings me face to face with more ISKCON "innovations" that have little if anything to do with a professed interest in "Vedic" or "Aryan" culture.

I apologize if any disrespect was perceived by this, as such is not my intention. I remember reading in Srila Rupa Gosvami's Nectar of Instruction that revealing one's mind in confidence is one of the six activities of devotees associating with each other. This is offered in that spirit only.

yours,

Rascal_Number_One

yasodanandana · 09-12-2003, 06:44 PM

"Such ideas as "female gurus" and "female sannyAsis" will no doubt appeal to those who see our traditions as "backward" and "irrelevant" in this day and age"

no, it is not so simple, maybe i can be wrong, but i do not think that this is good because we are getting out from some useless traditions.. and like me, it is the same for many western devotees who are literally in love with india

i think that only "post samadhi initiation followers" are heavily interested to cut with india, making IskCon a new religion, to avoid much as possible confrontation with orthodox gaudya math realities

..

for the rest of your article.... i am reading with interest...

09-12-2003, 07:22 PM

I don't know if there are any examples of women giving diksa in the Srimad Bhagavatam. However, there have been Gaudiya Vaisnavis who have done so:

Jahnava devi (Lord Nityananda's wife)
Hemalata Thakurani (this is Srivas's daughter, I recall. I may have butchered her name)
Gangamata Gosvamini

and in the official diksa lineage of Bhaktivinode Thakura there are three women:

1. (Nityananda Prabhu) Jahnava Mata*

2. Ramacandra Gosvami

3. Rajavallabha Gosvami

4. Kesavacandra Gosvami

5. Rudresvara Gosvami

6. Dayarama Gosvami

7. Mahesvari Gosvamini*

8. Gunamanjari Gosvamini*

9. Ramamani Gosvamini*

10. Yajnesvara Gosvami

11. Vipina Vihari Gosvami

12. Bhaktivinoda Thakura

stonehearted · 09-12-2003, 07:33 PM

"Rascal": I want to know about the validity of women becoming diksha gurus. As per my understanding, this
is unheard of in Vedic culture. Stonehearted mentioned that in ISKCON, the initiation system is based on a
combination of bhAgavata and pancharAtra traditions. If this is so, then do we have any examples in the
bhAgavatam of women giving out initiation (not just giving shiksha, but actual diksha)?

In our line we have Jahanva-devi and Gangamata Gosvamini, at the least. I remember Srila Sridhar Maharaj mentioning something about possible others in Sri Guru and His Grace. If you really want to know, and if you have any faith in ISKCON, you may want to approach someone on the Shastric Advisory Council.

Regarding approaching GBC members or SAC members, those of you who want to participate in shping ISKCON (or protecting it) should be clever enough to find someone with whom you may be able to establish some rapport. LE mentioned that she's hesitant because sheonce pissed off the GBC, or some GBC's. And those who, like LE and I, don't live near an ISKCON center, or who don't have a good relationship with local GBC rep, could find someone else who may be more inclined to give you an ear. And remember two important principles in communication: audience and purpose. The person you're addressing is likely ot feel some sense of superiority by virtue of having that position. If you open up by dismissing or challenging that, you'll turn them off for sure. And know why you're contacting them. If it's just to vent, or just to get more information, or to hear their view, you maybe able to speak (or write) differently from the way you'd have to if you actually want to persuade them of your position.

Vaishnava_das108 · 09-13-2003, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Remember that the GBC who is approving this person is the same GBC that was going to vote to "suspend" Gour Govinda Maharaja from being a Guru.

In such matters their vote is irrelevant in my opinion.

Fully agreed. That incident was shameful.

The real question is whether Urmila did is qualified to be a guru, never mind if she is a woman or a man.

As for voting, that is also agreed. This voting business is nonsensical when it comes to guruship.

Vaishnava_das108 · 09-13-2003, 12:21 AM

This post is not necessarily in reply to Stonehearted, but I would just like to address some of the points he made.

Quote:

In our line we have Jahanva-devi and Gangamata Gosvamini, at the least. I remember Srila Sridhar Maharaj mentioning something about possible others in Sri Guru and His Grace.

Do we really have Jahnava Mata and Gangamata Gosvamini in our line, directly? I don't think so. How is that possible.

Also it is true that Sridhara Maharaja predicted that thee would be female gurus in ISKCON. But to tell the truth, Srila Prabhupada himself said that it was a possibility. Visakha dd should know, she's been writing articles in BTG about it for years.

I just read that whole VNN article for the first time today, and I am now joining this discussion thread. Personally I am happy that ISKCON is finally moving on in regards to women, as well as opening minds and hearts. After all, a couple of posts ago showed how women have been gurus in Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the past, they are there in the present, so why not in ISKCON. Personally I would like to see this happen in the Gaudiya Matha as well. Has anyone wondered what Narayana Maharaja thinks about this issue? Or any of the other GM gurus?

Joining this discussion has its own advantages. Caught up in my happiness about ISKCON's "moving on," I failed to acknowledge another important point; the business of voting. Now that's just a strict no-no.

09-13-2003, 01:06 AM

"Out of many millions of wandering entities, one who is very fortunate gets an opportunity to associate with a bona fide spiritual master by the grace of Krishna." -- Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya-lila 19.151

Krishna is within everyone's heart as the Paramatma and He will give guidance to those who want guidance. If a person is sincere, then by Krishna's grace that person gets a guru. It is not said that it is by guru's grace that one gets guru. It states in the shastra that it is by the grace of Krishna, who is within my heart and who speaks in shastra, that I come in contact with my guru and it is also by Krishna's grace that I am able to perceive his purity. Then by the grace of my guru I will get Krishna. He gives me Krishna by his instructions and I follow them. And by that path I come to love Krishna. It is not that by the grace of Krishna's representative I get Krishna's representative; in other words, by appointment. This denies Krishna. It is not a bona fide teaching

stonehearted · 09-13-2003, 01:24 AM

Vaishnava_das108: Do we really have Jahnava Mata and Gangamata Gosvamini in our line, directly? I don't think so.

Actually, you're correct. They're not literally in our line. I guess I meant that in a loose sense. They are in our sampradaya, our spiritual community.

09-13-2003, 02:15 AM

town and village and subculture.

09-13-2003, 02:23 AM

Did they vote?

09-13-2003, 04:42 AM

I'll have to look it up in Sri Guru and His Grace, but I seem to recall Sridhara Maharaja mentioning that the Guru's in Iskcon should be increased over time as it is not an 'exclusive' club. I think he mentioned a system of voting others in as appropriate. On the practical level it really only serves as a check to try to make sure that obviously unqualified devotees don't take up the post. Obviously the history of Iskcon and it's Guru's speaks to the intelligence of trying to put some safeguards in place so that devotees aren't taken advantage of. That doens't mean that the GBC doesn't make mistakes as was already pointed out in this thread earlier.

Of course, all of this presupposes that those who would take up the calling to help guide others have some level of sincerity - it looks at the bright side, the happy side and doesn't take into consideration the negative, insincere side of the sadhakas who would venture to take such a risk.

On the absolute platform, it is obvious that if Krsna calls and the devotee hears that call then he/she must take up the position according to that calling. On the practical side you have an institution which is worldwide and which brings many new aspirants through it's doors daily. There must be some method in place to ensure, as much as possible, that those who function within the society as Guru are qualified to do so in terms of their knowledge of sastra, their devotional record and their daily activities and sadhana. If this doesn't take place in the society then anyone and everyone who feels inspired either by the Lord or by their own egos would take up postions as leaders and guides and all sorts of problems would arise. I think it's really quite practical and necessary in a society that is as large as Iskcon.

But ultimately each individual whether they are in Iskcon or outside of Iskcon will have to decide for themselves based on their own understanding of sastra and their careful examination of their prospective guide if they are the right one or not. But while we are on the topic of Guru and qualications of Guru we should not forget to think about disciple and qualifications of disciple. It is probably just as hard, if not harder, to find a qualified disciple as it is to find a qualified Guru.

Your servant,
Audarya-lila dasa

09-13-2003, 08:53 AM

Its not about having a calling. Any sahajiya can claim they had a calling. Its about being qualified as an Uttama adhikari, and about following Prabhupada's instructions. We make it complicated. Its quite simple. Is she is a pure deovtee or not? Dont answer here, not for starting arguments. Its for pointing out qualification.

But this voting in system is nonsense too. Its all bad. Maya comes knocking on our door and we let her in with our various philosophies to jusitfy this or that thing going on, when all we need to do is listen to Prabhupada.

Tho much else I agree in previous post, not argueing, clarifying.

I'm done.

theist · 09-13-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

theist: "Or is it we don't really believe there is a personal God in everyone heart that will hear and answer?"

if we are not able to recognize pure devotees, that is a feature of madyam adhikari, how can we be able to currently communicate with paramatma that is a feature of uttama? how can we know if what comes from our heart is not coming from maya?

Paramatma is already controling, directing the wanderings of all conditioned souls. Do we really believe that or just quote it to others?

Since He is directing everything already why don't we believe He would then also direct the sincere soul to His true devotee?

We may not be able to always hear His voice, or feel His impressions upon our heart but still He is already directing us and has been since time immemorable. Another point is that He can make His will known dispite our lack of hearing ability.

How did anyone recognize Prabhupada as a pure devotee? There were no GBC committees to direct them. Who told them?

You seem to believe that only the GBC is in contact with the Supersoul. So you must listen to them because you can't hear Supersoul yourself. So again I ask the question why then is there a need for a vote? One person hearing from Supersoul should be enough. Or is it Supersoul that is telling one to vote yes and another to vote no? Why the disagreement?

Here is the hard core truth. Unless you are sure that the Lord is directing you to accept someone as guru you have no business formally accepting a guru. Just continue hearing and chanting and praying and serving until you do hear His will for you from Him.

By accepting the GBC's word as final in the matter you are really accepting GBC as guru.

And then how is it that you can be sure their opinions are bone fide? Do you require another committee for that? ad infinitum.

This process is cleverly disquised atheism. Theism as philosophy but without any direct faith in the Lord. Sorry to be so blunt.

It is also a form of robbery against the new people trying to learn. They are being robbed of the hard but necessary learning process that one must go through in order to establish their own connection with the Lord in the heart. Instead their faith is lazily directed to some managerial board. No need to pray on their own, or study on their own under some more advanced devotees guidance, "just believe in the GBC brother."

All in the name of get them offically initiated. Where have I heard something similar? O' yeah, from some Christians, "Just believe brother and be saved."

Robbery. Straight up street hustle. Think you're looking for Vrndaban and you get misdirected to New Jack City along the way.

Directing someone to have their own connection with the Lord is the whole point of this movement.

It may seem harder and longer but that is just tough. It's the only reality.

Hare Krsna

stonehearted · 09-13-2003, 02:05 PM

My problem is less with the voting itself than with the bureaucratic mind set. I was among the first to say publicly that it's clear from Srila Prabhupada's books that the guru should have the highest qualifications, that guru should (not must, but should, ideally) be on the highest platform of realization. There's certainly plenty of evidence that those acting on the platform of solid madhyam-adhikari are fit for such service to guru and the vaishnavas. But when bureaucracy and political considerations enter the picture, things get weird.

One thing that complicates the supposedly simply calculus involved in "is he/she an uttama adhikari or not? Bas!" is that the uttama adhikaris see themselves as least qualified and everyoneelse as more qualified. It's not an act; rather, there's a healthy lack of discrimination (unlike the kanistha's less salutary lack of discrimination) that makes "objective" classification a little messy.

livingentity · 09-13-2003, 02:20 PM

these questions are not necessarily directed at Stonehearted - his just was the last post and I clicked on it to reply.

1. Did Srila Prabhupada authorized voting in gurus?

2. If not, then how, why and when did this procedure of voting in guru start?

3. Is it too far gone to start running Iskcon in the manner that Prabhupada desired?

09-13-2003, 05:41 PM

This was one of the issues that ISKCON took Kirtanananda Swami to task for. (amongst many others) Funny that......

09-13-2003, 05:53 PM

Good for Iskcon! Congratulations to Urmila for having gained recognition.

As for the rest of you, worry about your own qualifications.

09-13-2003, 10:56 PM

Babhru Prabhu,

In Search For Sri Krishna, Srila Sridhar Maharaj speaks about Professor Nixon (Swami Krishna Prema) who took initiation in the 1920's from a Gaudiya Vaishnava lady (Yasoda). They are in the line of the Radha-Ramana mandir sevaits.

And there is also that quote in Sri Guru and His Grace about the lady gurus in the predecessor list of Vipin Vihari Goswami. But those lady gurus were not accepted by Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati. Also, in regard to Gangamata Goswamini, she was apparently the Guru of the initiating Guru of Srila Jagannatha das Babaji Maharaj. But again, the name of Gangamata Goswamini is not mentioned in the parampara list given by Sri Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati.

Another lady guru who comes to mind is the Lady who gave transcendental initiation to Syamananda Prabhu. She was certainly qualified. And certainly Jahnava devi was a genuine Guru, and she is in our Gaudia Sampradaya. Who would dare say she isn't?

The main point is whether the guru is qualified, isn't it? The gender, or even the species, is irrelevant, in my humble opinion. Could Garuda be a Guru? He isn't human.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj told us, and in Hari Bhakti Vilasa it says it too, that a less qualified Guru should not initiate when a more qualified guru is present within any particular community. I believe it is also said somewhere that a lady should not become initiating guru if a qualified man is available within their community. Also, I have heard that a lady should only initiate other ladies, generally, (but I can't remember who said this, though I believe it was my Guru Maharaj).

Some western born sannyasis connected to Srila Sridhar Maharaj in the 1980's were keen to become gurus, and my Guru Maharaj allowed it. But we persons who took direct shelter of Srila Sridhar Maharaj often had discussions at the Math about the fact that these western sannyasis were initiating disciples when in fact they could have been connecting new persons directly to Srila Guru Maharaj. My personal feeling is, and always has been, that the new initiates should be encouraged to take initiation directly from the highest Guru available.

This is my main issue with ISKCON method of "guru appointment". I feel quite sure that qualified persons in ISKCON such as Sripad Bhakti Swarup Damodar Maharaj are genuine gurus, but why should devotees take initiation from a guru of more junior realization if a higher person is available within a community? It seems to me that this policy of having gurus in zones such as "North Carolina" in the way that the statement about Urmila didi is mentioned, is almost like the old "zonal guru" mentality.

Personally I believe Urmila didi is a good devotee and not disqualified from being a Guru, but what standard of Guru is she? Uttama, Madhyama, Kanistha? I cannot say.

your servant,
Muralidhar das