Women Gurus in Gaudiya Matha? - Will there be any?

I can't seem to find chocolate mentioned anywhere in his books. That being the case, I suppose we need not concern ourselves with the issue.

Beats me, I've never read such a thing. I've read quite a few of his works but have never come upon such a reference. At any rate, given the climate of his times, if he indeed said such a thing he was pretty much just stating the obvious and inevitable with industrialization well underway and with global travel becoming more and more accessible.

May I ask, what are the criteria you use for evaluating the qualifications of gurus? There is certainly no standard in the shastra which says that all gurus but those predicted in the scriptures are kanistha. You could refer us to a verse or two which set the standards you follow in this regard.

You just have to love his English. Let us also try and follow in His footsteps, being jolly beings instead of resorting to petty quarreling despite our differences.

The IRM has indeed put together quotes of all sorts, disregarding quotes which sometimes state the exact opposite. For example, when Prabhupada says that he considers Sridhar Maharaja his respected siksha-guru, are we then to consider that Prabhupada had accepted a kanistha as his siksa-guru? If that were the case, it would call into question his own eligibility as a judge of spiritual matters. Would we extend the "courtesy" to his sannyasa-guru, BP Keshava Maharaja, as well?

Ironically, a good majority of Western members of Gaudiya Math are in one way or another connected with these two sannyasins of Gaudiya Matha. If we recognize their status as his gurus, we would have to respect their judgement as well, wouldn't you agree? They again revered others as their gurus or respected peers, certainly not considering them to be at the level of kanistha.

All in all, the consideration of one guru being uttama and all others being kanistha does not portray a a mentality much beyond kanistha from the one making the claim. One who is beyond kanistha can recognize spiritual merit wherever it appears (and it does appear), just as one may experience the presence of Hari in all spheres of life instead of only in the temple.

Dear Ms Gopidust, just in case you are still reading this thread. I also wish you the best in your spiritual quest. For your benefit please forgive me if I once again point out that you have not given one single solitary quote from the books of His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada which you have said are accepted by you wholeheartedly.

No one here is asking that you memorise anything, but surely you have a copy of SP's books and can quote something that you wish to discuss.

Quoting stories from Lilamrta is not the same as quoting directly from SP's books. Lilamrta is not a book by SP. It is what we call a hagiography. Admittedly it was researched and written very soon after the depature of His Divine Grace, which makes its statements more believable. Yet I can tell you for certain that there are things given in it which are not accepted, especially by those who were actually present, as the historical facts. Be that as it may, it remains a valuable secondary source on the life and teachings of His Divine Grace, but not in any way shape or form a substitute for his actually written instructions. I hope that I have made this point clear.

There is a tendency for all spiritual movements that have charismatic founders to fall into the mode of elevating the worship of that founder after his departure. Srila Prabhupada himself showed us the exception to this. Instead of obsessing over Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, he followed Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's intructions to preach about Krsna. Compare what new devotees were taught during Srila Prabhupada's time to today. It is more likely today that someone (like yourself perhaps) is familiar with the stories of Lilamrta than with the actual books of His Divine Grace.

I do not mean any disrespect of any of the above books, devotees, or instructions.

All I am trying to point out is that with a myriad of source material available one needs to place it all in its proper context. Some things are ex cathedra, some not, some sources are primary, some secondary. It is because people do not think deeply, logically and philosophically about these matters that most common disagreements occur even between disciples of the same guru. What to speak of inter-group dynamics.

Your reference to Hrsikesh (a member of this forum) and his life's story shows a very shallow understanding of what actually occurred. I don't know if you got this from reading the thread on this forum or not. But you could have certainly inquired directly from him about the incident if you felt the need. It is not always easy to judge others motives. Vaisnavera kriya mudra, etc. "One cannot understand the activities of a Vaishnava."

As for your statement about 64 maths and 500 temples, etc. I would propose to you that numbers are not everything. If they are, then surely there are millions more Christians and Moslems in this world than Vaishnavas. Srila Prabhupada is also known to have said, "Better one moon than a sky full of stars." So next time, please consider that the amount of followers, bank balance, number of buildings, etc., may not actually be the only method of accessing the value of a spiritual movement or its leader.

I do not understand what you meant by, "In the meantime why should we accept a guru who we are warned not to accept by our guru, Srila Prabhupada?"

Sorry I am not a mindreader, but if this refers to Sridhara Maharaja or Naranaya Maharaja or other members of the GM, then it would only be fair to present all the direct quotes by His Divine Grace on those persons as well as to know the circumstances under which they were spoken or written.

This statement could also be seen as an indictment of all the present gurus in ISKCON. In ISKCON gurus are approved of or appointed by the GBC through an ecclesiastical convention. No matter what they call it there is a definite ecclesiastical process to become a guru in ISKCON and there is certainly customary social pressure within ISKCON to take only ISKCON approved gurus as spiritual masters. This is expressly forbidden by Srila Prabhuapda as follows:

"It is imperative that a serious person accept a bonafide spiritual master in terms of sastric injunctions. Sri Jiva Goswami advises that one not accept a spiritual master in terms of hereditary or customary social and ecclesiastical conventions. One should simply try to find a genuinely qualified spiritual master for actual advancement in spiritual understanding." (CC.Adi 1.35 purport)

Of course, this does not mean that one may not accept a person who is truly qualified if that person is also considered hereditarily, socially and ecclesiastically qualified as well. What it means is that the foremost consideration should not be those things, but the true qualifications.

This should be the reason for taking a spiritual master. Not as a fad. Or because everyone else is going to him. Or because he was recommended by someone. Or comes from a certain group, caste, family, organization, etc. It is in fact the disciple that makes someone a guru. Without a disciple who has implicit faith in one's qualities, one cannot claim to be a guru.

Regarding "the British tradition of apologizing for any offenses he may have committed, it was necessary for preaching." Please note that this is not just a British tradition; it is certainly a Vaisnava tradition to beg forgiveness of others at the time of departure from this world (if not at other times as well!).

You certainly did learn many things in society where you spend most of your time. If your friends teach you that they are one and only, and that rest are just bloopers, they must be really one and only in their imaginary world of Willy Wonka and Chocolate Factory.

Good luck,

you are not MY servant.
It's me who holds up
that yellow umbrella .....