Tag Archives: bhakti vidya purna swami

Hridayananda Goswami’s ‘dhoti discomfort’ argument defeated by BVPS

“Dhotis are not comfortable”, yet another baseless argument given by our modern practical fellow iskcon members, by Hridayananda Maharaj and Krishna West, his “sinister cult” (as he once jokingly referred to). The natural question of ‘culture versus comfort’ has been answered by Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj in his confident style of presenting the siddhanta in a logical way.


BVPS Fully Destroys Krishna West, Iskcon’s latest Deviant Sect

Hridayananda Goswami’s Theories Smashed by Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj

Bhakti Vidya Purna Maharaj Smashes Hridayananda Maharaj’s Deviations!
Download lecture here: http://bit.ly/29LeH2Xoriginal: http://bit.ly/29REYQL
Devotee: What about this Krishna West?
BVPS: See is, Krishna West is working on the same philosophIcal principle that you have primary and secondary, and it’s about the primary, not the secondary. So it’s being applied that since it’s about the primary, the secondary doesn’t matter. But what’s missed is, no, it’s the secondary that manifests the primary. So what primary will be manifest by the secondary that’s being used? Because if it says it doesn’t matter what dress you wear, what food you eat, in one sense, yes, it’s true, it’s about the devotion. But what’s the reason that you would choose one over the other? Because there is a choice. Right?
Means, those devotees that accept that, okay, you wear the dress and food that Prabhupada gave, it’s that that’s part of Krishna consciousness, because that’s what the tradition, that’s because that’s been done by great personalities since time immemorial. As we mentioned, you go to any of the sampradayas, they all have the same opinion as us as what is Vedic dress and Vedic food, Vedic music, Vedic… It’s all the same. In other words, the Vedic, there is one lifestyle, there is the brahminical lifestyle, they don’t have a difference. They have a difference in philosophy, but not in religion. So, amongst the Hindus, one religion, many philosophies. Do you understand?
So therefore to say that, by modern academia that you… That there is no support because the word ‘dhoti’ is not used, this is just as foolish as the ritviks and their whatever it is… ‘Herefore after,’ whatever it is the word that they choose out of a letter and then base their whole philosophy off that, even though that there is evidence in the books and everything else. And Prabhupada said, the books are the basis, letters should be seen as details to show what the books are. They are taking that as the main evidence, because everything else proves them wrong. Do you understand? So this is selective reasoning. It’s just like we were discussing the six schools of philosophy, the first four. So nyaya, vaisesika, sankhya and yoga, they only quote verses that support what they do, they can’t, they don’t have an interpretation of all the verses. They take verses or sections within the Veda and from that put together a philosophy. They are not taking from the whole Veda any verse they can explain according to the philosophy, only purva-mimamsa and uttara-mimamsa can do that, like Jaimini and Vyasadeva. Does that make sense? So therefore then they are using that same kind of narrow definition that they have a word or a particular concept and they are basing it all off that, even though that there is evidence against that.
So yes, maybe the Veda doesn’t use the word ‘dhoti’, but it’s not that the word ‘dhoti’ doesn’t mean something. Right? And just because someone doesn’t have the academic knowledge to understand that, doesn’t mean that it authorizes it. You know what I am saying? The modern college level understanding of Sanskrit grammar in the Vedic would be considered the first level. It wouldn’t be considered very developed at all. All the kids would know that much grammar, in fact, they would probably know more. When I took up the Gurukula service in 1982 there was one South Indian devotee there from a brahmana background, he knew the Sanskrit, he knew all the things like that. He said when he was starting with 3 and 4 what they would do in their tradition is the kids learn Amarakosha, which is a… I think there is, I forgot how many verses, I mean, it’s… I can’t remember how many verses, but it’s basically a dictionary in verse form. So his point was, when the kids started Gurukula at five, he already had a 10,000 word vocabulary. I think your standard average, whatever it is, educated person in the West has a 2,000 word vocabulary. Individuals may have more, but that’s pretty much the average. So this is, you are starting over with 10,000 word vocabulary, and you are already starting off with grammatical principles that probably in your first years, even in university, unless you specialize in English grammar you won’t learn. Do you understand? So, we are talking… All I am saying, I am just bringing this out, is that’s the level of Sanskrit grammar we are working with. And English grammar doesn’t even have comparative elements to the Sanskrit grammar. In other words, everything in English is in Sanskrit, but everything in Sanskrit is not in English. You know what I am saying?
So therefore for the academic to think that they know everything about the Vedas just because they are an academic, it’s like the modern academy in medicine. Because they are a doctor, they know everything, and if they don’t know it it doesn’t exist, even though in Ayurveda and Chinese medicine they have cures for things that the West doesn’t have cures for. And if you scientifically check it, it works. But because they don’t know about it, it doesn’t exist. That’s called narrow-minded, that’s not called broad-minded, that’s not called liberal. That’s called very narrow-minded and conservative. It’s a fact, you could probably even say xenophobia. You know what I am saying? But the point is is, they have fancy words, so that they don’t look like that. You know what I am saying? And, in other words, if you believe in something, then you just qualify yourself. But this is where the point comes is, according to the modern academy then they will say that the dhoti and all that is not mentioned. But according to their own attachments they disqualify themselves. According to their own… You can’t use one and then go against it. Because according to that, if it doesn’t say that, but it doesn’t not say that either. So therefore, according to that, it could be, it could not be. But no, it’s taken that we throw out the tradition in favor of the modern. Does that make sense? So it’s a direct choice. So if it doesn’t matter, then why does it have to be Western? Then there is a whole theory behind that, but what I am saying, where they are connecting that to philosophy is at this point, but that’s why in here it’s saying is that it’s got to be logical, it has to be according to shastra and it has to be according to what the acaryas say.
So even if you haven’t found a verse that says ‘The dhoti as A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada introduced in the Hare Krishna movement in 26 Second Avenue that’s the way it should be worn,’ you don’t find a verse like that, then what about Prabhupada introducing it? What about you come to India, everybody is wearing it? Not only all the Gaudiyas, all the other Vaishnavas, all the smartas, everybody. It’s a standard thing in India, you can’t do puja unless you are wearing a dhoti. It’s just that’s the rule, that’s the Pancaratric rule. Now, the respected Swami will say, ‘I don’t know Pancaratra,’ but that’s not an excuse. You can’t say, ‘I don’t know the things that prove I’m wrong,’ and then say, ‘I can go on with my own philosophy.’ Does that make sense?
So we are dealing with someone here who is extremely intelligent, extremely qualified, extremely fortunate, done many wonderful things for Prabhupada, very thoughtful. How you say? You have to say, a real brahmana, because he is always happy, always happy, like that, and that’s a symptom of a brahmana, and he doesn’t get disturbed by things much. So very brahminical. But somehow or another the environment that he grew up in must not have had a very eclectic, or much exposure to other cultures, which could be. You have those from the aristocratic background that deal with no one but themselves, and those that deal with a very wide range. You know what I am saying? And in the intellectual field you would expect the wider range, unless you were a major in some scientific area, you were like a physicist or something, then they have a very narrow range and they are very socially disfunctional. But he is very socially functionable. Like it’s very pleasant to be with him, you can sit and talk with him for hours, he is a nice person to be with. Like that, relates to so many things, especially language. But somehow other than language he doesn’t relate. So it seems he has a very wide range in the language aspect, but on the personal aspect of culture and dress and this, not very wide at all, not much exposure.
So therefore then that’s a weakness that if one has those attachments, or one’s own preference, or comfortableness, then you do that, but you don’t have to make a philosophy to prove it, especially when you are in a position of a sannyasi, and sannyasis, Prabhupada wanted to wear the traditional outfit. Others may or may not, according to the preaching situation. I think it came up in connection with Singapore. Prabhupada went to Singapore dressed in how he dressed. They wouldn’t let him in. So devotees suggested he wear karmi clothes, he said, ‘No, we are sannyasis, we don’t do that.’ And there is a whole discussion, I’m not sure, it’s one of the discussions where one sannyasi is bringing up this whole thing about this and that and trying to say exactly the same things, so this whole idea of this kind-of Krishna West thing, this was brought up when Prabhupada was here, directly to Prabhupada. And Prabhupada just said, ‘No, we are sannyasis.’ So he was asking like, ‘You please wear this.’ Like that. I don’t think he is around anymore, and I don’t think he wears it, but whatever it is, that’s the point. It was already discussed, it’s not like it was something new and Prabhupada didn’t know about this. These things have been around forever.
So you have your standard dress, like Prabhupada would wear his dress and then wear accessories that may be modern. He would wear his clothes and then the coat, or the shoes, or the hat. Like that, you see Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura do that. Like that. Do you understand? So that is okay, because that fits it, you are working in these environments, you have got to keep warm, so you can wear a chaddar, you can wear a coat, whatever works. You know what I am saying? What’s available. But to make the mistake that ‘My preference is actually what I am going to go with,’ when you see so many are taking what Prabhupada gave. And just that Prabhupada gave it, why wouldn’t that be taken as evidence? You say, ‘It doesn’t say in the shastras,’ so Prabhupada is wrong? Why did Prabhupada translate that Prithu Maharaja’s dress specifically is dhoti? You know what I am saying? Because we know the word. We use whatever the other word is, trikaccha, or whatever it is.
See, the point is, just because it says… It’s just like this. Amongst, let’s say, Bohemians had a term, your clothes, you call them ‘threads.’ Do you understand? Because clothes are made out of thread. Or, you call them duds, you know you have all kinds of slang terms of just generally used terms. So people know those, they might not know something else. Like if I told someone, ‘Oh, nice pantalones,’ most people wouldn’t know what I am talking about, unless they would have a Hispanic background, that they knew some Spanish, you know, something like that. If I said, ‘Great dungarees,’ you still wouldn’t know what I am talking about. Like dungaree is the cloth that it’s made out of. The jean material is actually dungaree cloth, it comes from the sails that one village in South India uses for their boats. It’s really, really strong. And so that weave, that make, that’s what nowadays is jean material. So therefore pants made out of that can be called ‘dungarees,’ because they are pants, ‘pants’ are short from of ‘pantalones.’ Do you understand? So you use terms that people know, because they may not know the more technical terms. But that Prabhupada used the term, why wouldn’t that be evidence? And if a disciple doesn’t use that as evidence, then the question comes up, as Vishnu said, if you don’t accept the Vedic literature, then are you actually a devotee?
So, I have no doubt that here in this case it is a devotee, because we are only talking about a little bit of distraction when it comes to what he eats and what he wears. Other things then, no problem at all. You know what I am saying? So everybody has got some… How you say? Some anartha somewhere, so that’s there, but you don’t make a philosophy out of your anartha. You connect your anartha to Krishna. You know what I am saying? Does that make sense? So you don’t make it. Otherwise then, like we were saying before, it’s that it doesn’t even have the glory of Paul, it ends up more like Descartes. How do you say his name? That French guy, Descartes?
Devotee: Day-KART
BVPS: Day-KART. Right? So he was doing things that shouldn’t be doing, and he made a philosophy to back it up, just so that people would leave him alone. So that’s not bonafide, Manu says that. He says, you do something what you do, you want to do, do! But if you make a philosophy about it and preach it, you get a 100 times the reaction. So whatever is wrong with it, you get a 100 times reaction, so it’s not recommended. You can’t bluff the Vedic system, especially when Prabhupada introduced it. He was very clear on that. You know what I am saying?
So, for us is we know, you wear, you don’t wear, it doesn’t matter to us. But you shouldn’t make a philosophy out of not wearing. We are wearing it because Prabhupada gave it, all the Gaudiyas wear it, all the Vaishnavas wear it, all the Hindus wear it, everybody wears it. And so to come up with… How did the academic come up with ‘There is no evidence’? They have to be blind, literally, blind. And if they don’t know enough Sanskrit, they don’t study enough literature, that’s no excuse. They can’t get off and say ,’Yes, I am a big academic and I am so smart because I am not very well read.’ That’s cheating. That’s all. But according to the modern theory they are the only ones that are smart, so even if they are cheating, they are still superior to everybody else. So false ego is not a symptom of knowledge, humility is. Does that make sense?
So the reason we speak so strong is because they are saying there is no evidence when Prabhupada gives it. Prabhupada gave it. If Prabhupada didn’t give it and devotees just found it and Prabhupada didn’t care, but ‘It’s okay, you can wear what you want, it’s not important…’ But Prabhupada introduced. In fact, there was more ways to wear the cloth then. You look at the pictures from the 1960s, there would be more variety of how they’d wear, they’d wear turbans and chaddars, all the different things, and variety of ways they would wear their dhotis. Where did they learn those from? Americans, they naturally grew up, they went to their grandmother, and she told them how to wear a persimmon? Or they came over on the main floor, there everybody was wearing like that? [Laughter] You know what I am saying? No, they got it from Prabhupada. And they went to India and they learned from there. You know, Acyutananda and Jayapataka Maharaja, they were living in the Gaudiya Matha, they would learn so many things, they made them show all the little details how to do them. Like that. Prabhupada, when they were travelling in North India with that first crew, I think in 1971, and Yamuna was there and the other senior ladies, then they would stay in these very wealthy, aristocratic people’s houses. He told them to learn from the ladies about the culture and all that. She learned the cooking and all that. Right? So the whole thing, how to dress, how to do, how women behave, how to… You know what I am saying?
So it’s just like… Simple things like that… I think it came up in Hungary. Like about how often does a lady wash her hair? No one knew, not even some senior ladies, no one knew. But the standard in India – twice a week. Once a week if it’s cold, twice a week if it’s warm. But not more than that, because Prabhupada mentioned, if you wet it every day, you got a cold. Right? If the ladies would shave their heads, they are recluses, then they can, they don’t have to worry about it. Right? Then they can wash their head every day. But otherwise, the other ladies don’t. Therefore this restriction in the big temple worship, because the ladies aren’t as clean as is ideal. While the men, they shave. Like in South India, the ones that do really technical Pujas, you know, the karma-kanda stuff, and that, they shave the whole body. They only leave their eyebrow and sikha. I mean, literally, they shave their arms, their legs, everything, because it’s just the standard of cleanliness. So these are standards that are there, these are what you learn. So Prabhupada wanted them to learn, you know, Jayapataka Maharaja and Acyutananda to learn these things, teach the others, which they did. And Yamuna, I guess, she took cooking, but other things they didn’t catch, because they didn’t know they were there. You know what I am saying?
So therefore Prabhupada is introducing this tradition, and then to oppose that and say it doesn’t exist, because from an academic point of view it’s not there and not important? That is not a disciple, that’s not what a disciple does. Rupa Goswami mentioned many things that previously were not discussed and other Vaishnavas criticized. So did Jiva Goswami say, ‘Well we have to remove this stuff from Rupa Goswami’s books,’? No, he wrote books to prove that Rupa Goswami was right. That’s disciple. Right? We are not saying anyone here is not a disciple, we are just pointing out what is disciple, the mentality of a disciple. Is that the acarya did it, you prove it. Not that, ‘Well, no one else knows. Oh, it’s politically incorrect,’ all this, and then you change stuff. That’s not how a disciple thinks or works. That’s like Jesus said, ‘You will all deny me.’ And the one who actually made a mess was an academic. [Laughter] Right? They had to replace him as one of the 12. Right? And then, 50 years later another academic makes problem, and which we discussed in the first part of the class, Paul [indistinct]. Like that. But if we remember, Jesus didn’t say… He said his church would be founded on Peter, not Paul. In fact, in Rome, I was mentioning, if you go around and see there is the cathedral for Peter, and that’s the center of Christianity. There is also cathedral for Paul, which nobody cares about. It’s big, and nobody cares, it’s just a parking lot around, nothing happening, no crowds of people, no decorations, nobody is building, it has been there quite a while. But I mean, Peter’s, there has been 5 developments of it. Like that, and the greatest artists and everything, and all that, and the courtyard around, that thing with all the columns and how perfect they are in place, you know, like this. But for Paul, nothing has been built. So somehow or another is that he is the one that has influence. But then look at how Jesus, his teachings, it’s watered down to the point you can’t even recognize it. Other than you got the guy there with a little beard and all that, and he wears really un… How you say? Clothes, you wish he wasn’t wearing. Right?
And just as a side point, it’s also said that by us wearing these clothes then we are subtly hinting that if you want to take up Krishna consciousness, then you have to wear these clothes. But if that’s true, then the Buddhists all wear their clothes, so is that hinting? The Westerners who are Buddhists, do they wear Buddhist clothes? No. Sometimes they wear a little bit of an orientally kind-of shirt, now and again when they are hanging around. But they don’t wear Buddhist clothes, even though they are Buddhists. How many Christians were those kind-of black outfits? You know, the common guy in the street, how many wear? It’s no, only the priests wear. So why would that have anything to do with… They would think it’s a priest. Anybody who dresses like this must be really serious about what they are doing. So one, you can go to them and discuss about philosophy and religion, that’s what Prabhupada said, that’s why he dresses like that. Because people know, okay, here is someone you can go and talk to, he gives the example. Just like you have a problem, you know you can go up to a police. How do you know he is a police? Because he is dressed in a uniform. You know, you don’t think ‘Why can’t the citizen of the state… Because the police dress like this, I have to dress like a police man?’ That’s a fallacious argument, very fallacious. Because then you are trying to say that even by doing this we are wrong. At the same time is then… And what’s the problem? And since when is the West so fabulous anyway? Then we are working on it that the West actually has something to offer. And the point is is, everybody is a devotee, because the West doesn’t have anything to offer. Does that make sense? If it did, why would we be devotees? We would be out there being successful. But we are not, that’s why we are here. Does that make sense? So what does it have to offer?
So we have to be very, very careful. Because these things have a specific point, and Prabhupada has explained that. And if we don’t accept the acarya, we don’t accept the previous personalities, then technically we don’t accept the shastra either, because if we do give the quote, it won’t be good enough. I have seen that with the ritviks, no matter what you bring up, it’s never exactly… Because it doesn’t have the word that they want to hear, right? Because their vocabulary is really wanting, and so when push comes to show Monier-Williams is wanting. Like I said, the 5-year old joins with a 10,000 vocabulary, you know. I am not saying we have that, but I am saying, Prabhupada can translate Vedic Sanskrit. That means, he knows Nirukta, means, he knows Sanskrit. And so, for anybody else to oppose that, you can’t call yourself being a disciple of the guru. You would really have to stretch it. Just say, ‘I am opposing what Prabhupada is saying here and I am doing this because I am a great disciple.’ You cannot say that. But the point is is, b this point here is that when you say it’s not there in shastra, what about what Prabhupada did? We just shove that aside so easily, how serious are we? What is our intent?
I am using the philosophy, okay, it’s not about the primary, it’s about the secondary, but what’s my intent? Pure devotional service? Or to wear Western clothes? Because all you ever hear talked about is their Western clothes and how it’s okay to wear their Western clothes. What about getting on with life and getting down to pure devotional service? It’s just like I used to find it interesting, as a side point. Sitting here in Mayapur, we are surrounded by Gaudiya Mathas. We got more Gaudiya Mathas around us than probably any other temple in the movement. Right? And we go every day of our life for years and never think about the Gaudiya Mathas. But devotees from ISKCON that go to Gaudiya Mathas, all they ever do is talk about ISKCON. [Laughter] Somehow or another their position is that we are bad. And we go on fine without even thinking about them. You know what I am saying?
So that’s my whole point, is that if it’s not important then why are they talking about it? And if it’s so important then why would they interpret it the way they do? Why don’t they make it obvious? Just like grihastha, they have a particular form. We don’t we sit around talking about how fabulous grihastha life is and this and that? ‘I am such a happy grihastha,’ you’d think it’s a little weird. [Laughter] Right? So why would we talk about, you know, ‘I am such a happy western-dressed mode-of-goodness gentleman.’ Though, guaranteed, whatever any of those persons are saying, they would not be able to get into a good restaurant, or into any place of worship. You could not wear what they are wearing and walk into a church on Sunday. Right? But they will sit on the Vyasasana and give class like that. So they are not a Western gentleman and should not kid themselves. Western gentleman would be wearing a suit in that kind-of formal occasion. So… That you make the connection? [Laughter] You had something?
Devotee: No, that’s just later in the chapter it’s mentioned that one simple definition of a Vaishnava by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is one that when you see him, you immediately remember Krishna…
BVPS: Oh, yes
Devotee: …and dhoti also facilitates that.
BVPS: Yes, that was the idea, because then they see us, they say, ‘Hare Krishna.’ Even if someone is a neophyte, that’s how you know that they are liberated, otherwise why does the neophyte remind? The guy is just shaved up, wearing his tilak, wearing his dhoti, immediately they chant, ‘Hare Krishna.’
Devotee: And they ask, ‘Where have you guys been?’ [Laughter]
BVPS: Yeah, that’s the worst part, that’s the worst part.
Devotee: On a jet walk in Long Island last week a car parked by, ‘Hare Krishna!’
BVPS: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah…
Devotee: I was wearing dhoti. If I was not wearing dhoti…
BVPS: Yeah, of course not. So that’s the whole thing. It’s not about us, it’s about the preaching. Interesting thing, I just noticed. I don’t remember what’s there in the beginning because we started last year, but I was just looking at it in the Introduction, or the Preface, I forgot where it said, that Prabhupada wrote in the 4th Canto. So then he is offering his obeisances to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, by whose grace then we can get the mercy of Lord Caitanya. Now, this is the fun part. He said, ‘by whose grace we can get the shelter of the six Gosvamis, by whose mercy then we can understand Radha and Krishna. ‘You know what I am saying? So it wasn’t even… So they are working to please Lord Caitanya, and so anything that will preach… So even if you just dress, it’s preaching already. But we are looking at it, ‘Well I feel bad,’ and ‘I feel uncomfortable,’ and ‘I feel this,’ and ‘I feel that,’ and ‘I this,’ and ‘I that,’ and just ‘I, I, I, I…’ And then what happened to preaching?
It’s one thing if they give you trouble, you are going from preaching and they stop you at the borders and you cannot preach, that’s another thing. But for the preaching then people expect it. They expect it. So it’s part of a bigger picture, it’s a whole culture, there is a religion that’s there, because the point is is then they define what the religion is, so then you are seeing what’s a Western Oriental gentleman. [Laughter] What does a gentleman wear? And I’ve heard two cases, one where he is wearing shorts and a T-shirt, and that’s what a gentleman wears, and since when does a gentleman wear that? [Laughter]
Devotee: And Gasquet. And shoes Gasquet. Tennis shoes.
BVPS: Tennis shoes? Okay, yeah. The point is is, okay, I can understand the tennis shoes along with a real high-end pair of pants, shirt, scarf and some other, few other things like that, watch, some other thing on the wrist and that, then it will be more avant-garde kind-of thing. And the tennis shoes would probably be untied, they would be the high ones that are untied. Unless it was a lady, then they would be low-ones and tied, unless she was a [indistinct], then they would be high ones and untied. And most likely they would be [indistinct], whatever. You know what I am saying? So it’s not matching gentleman on that kind-of avant-garde thing, but it’s not matching standard gentleman. You know. So…
Devotee: And a cap.
BVPS: And a cap, yeah, baseball cap. Who wears baseball cap? No one. A gentleman wears a baseball cap maybe when he is golfing, but not when he is going to a temple. The guy would not wear that to a church. No gentleman would wear a baseball hat and a T-shirt and like that, or even a polo shirt and some slacks. They wouldn’t wear unless their denomination specifically did that and probably they’d only find that in some variety of protestants. But most even wouldn’t do that. And there is a good chance, the priest is wearing a little beret. Like that.
Devotee: If I look at the karmis I have been preaching to over the last couple of years, very few of them would appreciate that type of Western dress.
BVPS: Yeah. No, very few. Because, I mean, as I am saying, it’s there, but as you say you want to do something according to culture, then you said, yeah, Jesus West, but then you had Jesus East. Right? And you had Jesus South and you had Jesus ‘Don’t like the West’, you know? ‘Jesus don’t like Jesus West.’
Devotee: Yes.
BVPS: So, you know…
Devotee: Jesus Tribal.
BVPS: Yes. Yeah, then you go to South America, then you have Jesus Tribal, they do what they like to do, they have their own customs and have a good time, like that. Church sometimes accepts it, sometimes doesn’t, but, hey. Like that, I think it’s in the… I don’t know about now, but before, like Bolivia, Ecuador, I think you wore bowlers. You know, like in England, the bowler hat, the general wear? Their ladies were wearing bowlers. Why I don’t know, how it got introduced I have no idea, but that was the standard hat. So whatever.
So the thing is is that Europeans don’t like, no one else likes. I remember like over here, this side from here over. They will wear the Western dress and up-to-date, but it looks sharp. You go to Orient, you go to Singapore, you go to Hong Kong, inside China, they look sharp. Clean, properly, everything matching, nothing baggy, nothing old, nothing rugby. But I remember sitting in JFK, which is a major airport in America, you have to kind-of agree it’s major.
Devotee: Pretty.
BVPS: Pretty central. And I think in sitting there for either 2 to 4 hours I saw three people dressed like a gentleman that you could say is this guy looks good. Everybody else looked like a slob. [Laughter] Everybody else looked like if it was Sunday morning and they were sitting on their couch in their living room or out in the back yard and they’d be properly dressed. But for anything else they looked bad. And now we are going to say that’s the universal dress? No one else in the world accepts it. So that’s the thing. So it’s also saying ‘Krishna West’ is also a misnomer. Say ‘Krishna America,’ ‘Krishna West Coast,’ ‘Krishna West Coast America,’ ‘Krishna Southern California,’ you know. But don’t say ‘Krishna West’ meaning that this is the international, because it’s not at all, not at all.
[Laughter] I remember one devotee here, American. There were some French people who came to visit, just tourists, and because they were Westerner and at that time the president who happened to be American, he saw them, called them, took them around and took care of their day, gave them tour and all that. And so when he came back to the place he fed them I think peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. [Laughter] And then he was thinking he was doing something nice for them, you know. And then he mentioned something about it, and they said, ‘Yes, the last time we had this was when the Americans were occupying France during World War II. [Laughter] You know, like that. [Laughter] So that was about how much they appreciated America.
Devotee: It’s happening again.
BVPS: Yeah, so, like that. So that’s this whole thing, we have to be very, very careful, is that the Vedic is actually the universal, because it goes beyond, like that, because there is principles that work there, but you have to get the principles, you can’t just say you are getting the principles. It’s just like McDonald’s will say that they have family restaurant, good food and all that, but, you know, people who know know better than that. But people say anything. You want to sell something, you say anything. You go out, you buy some product, the things that it says about it are amazing what they do. I was just hearing there was this little like glass thing, and it’s got these little holes in it that I think has these little kind-of like, some kind-of signs, some kind of like mandalas in it. And you take this, it costs 500 dollars, just a piece of glass, right? You could probably go down to Tesco and buy a glass that has more glass in it than this piece of glass, probably for… I don’t know, 5 bucks or something, like that. So this is 500. And you put it in your water, and amazing things that it says it will do for you, it’s like incredible. It’s just like, why is anybody using anything else, why is anybody drinking any other water? You know, it’s just like it cures all these diseases and mental things, and intellect, and you will sleep better, just it goes on and on. Like that. Then there is reality.
So you can say what you want. And one can say, well, I am just saying what I want. But you can see, it’s here in the shastra, I am only saying it because it’s here. You know, I may be limited in my understanding of applying it, but at least Prabhupada did it, the shastras say it, we are trying to do it, it’s there in the tradition, we are trying. We may not be good at it, but we don’t appreciate someone oppose us, because Krishna Himself said He doesn’t appreciate. Does that work? Yes? Good? Yeah? Okay. So tomorrow we’ll continue… [Laughter]

She Can’t Become Guru by Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami

She can’t become guru

Audio link here http://seminary.bhaktivedantaacademy.com/content/uploads/2015/06/Why_can_women_be_SIksa-Guru_but_not_Diksa-Guru.mp3

Devotee: I would like to ask a question regarding the previous part of the study … Suniti being the siksha guru of Dhruva maharaj, and it says in the purport of the verse 32 According to Sastric injuctions there is no difference between siksha guru and diskha guru. The only difference is later the Siksha guru later on becomes diskha guru. Suniti however being a woman … and specifically his… mother could not become Dhruva maharajs Disha guru. Why is that?

BVPS: See, because you are dealing with the diksha guru is formal relationship. Shiksha is… doesnt have that formality. So since the feminine nature.. you are dealing with the sense of possession, then it fits with Siksha guru but not with diksha guru. Because even though one would think it’s the other way, the problem is, because of the sense of possession, then you expect them to do everything how you say based on your emotions, not based on your instruction. You know what I’m saying? The mother may be giving good instruction or not, or know what instruction to give or not, but she expects her child to behave in a particular way because they are her child. You understand? So you can’t have that in a Diksha relationship. The point is: It’s based on siskha. But if formalized, that instruction has to be followed. But what’s happening here is: it’s not about the instruction. One can say, No, it’s about the instruction. No, but then it’s about them following the instruction. You understand? So that feminine aspect will come into it. And it’s just not supposed to be there. Because then it turns something spiritual into this whole emotional thing and the control and you know care and you know what im saying? So thats the whole thing. So that can be applied onto the husband, onto the family members, onto the children. You know onto your house, onto your community…But you cant do that on the spiritual platform. So thats why then women dont become diksha gurus. That’s the basic reason. You know, I mean then theres so many details behind that. Just the strength required to do it. And a women only whos protected can do that. You know. So the point is is, women gets the strength when she is in a protected environment she becomes very strong, very powerful, outgoing and that. If that is lacking, she becomes weak. So when she becomes weak, …the protective … becomes nasty. So then if you combine that with the need that her identity is based on that and if you dont follow what she says, you doubt it. Then it puts into question her postion, her existence, her identity as the diksha guru. So that’s gonna create so much mental turmoil and it will about her. So thats the whole point. …..one who’s a diksha guru, its about what works for the disciple. But if the woman is the guru, because of the sense of possession, its always about her. So its just opposite. Its just incompatible. Now as a siksha guru, it could work. Why is that? Because the siksha doesn’t have that sense of possession. So they follow or not follow, it’s one of those.. they follow, you have a good relation; you dont follow, then ‘hey, what to do’. Just like the grandparents, they will always tell you good advice. Right? And you take it, great! If you dont, its kinda like, ‘hey, it’s my child’s problem, not my problem’. Right? Because they are the child of their child. So if they are going off in the wrong direction, that’s their child’s business, to take care of. They are just trying to help. So that’s why the siksha position is the strongest. So the difficulty is: is in the contemporary environment, is due to the neophyte mentality, there isn’t a proper respect for siksha guru. Because to have respect for the siksha guru, means you have to have respect for the principle of authority. And that knowledge is the highest. Does that make sense? But in an environment where authority issues is basically kinda standard and accepted as thats normal. And if you accept authority, there is something wrong with you, or you are sentimental. Right? And on top of that, when you add it to the contemporary social values from the platform of Pranamoy, you know from Artha, that these things are of importance. Then you could see is that, that undermines the whole position of what siksha guru represents and what needs to be there. So, Neophyte mentality especially when it has the aspect of the modern contemporary pranamoy values, then you cant establish Siksha gurus. So only Diksha. Because then there is, seemingly Diksha is like a ritual. So there is that formal external relationship. Siksha guru is based not on external, its based on the more subtle. Its on the knowledge, on the metaphysical. Right? But the Diksha… then the Neophyte takes it that its based on the external. You know, just like you have any kind of ritual, there is a connection there by the external. When you have a marriage, you are connecting the external.Right? You are not connecting the souls. They are just agreeing to work together. Its the external you are connecting.
So then that
1. Makes it strong for the neophyte,
2. Makes it weak for them to go beyond that and understand the position of siksha guru.

Because if Siksha guru is respected, that means all senior vaishnavas, especially those who are more close to the giving instructions would be on that same platform of the Diksha guru. Right? Then you wouldn’t have the need for trying to bring out this thing based on social values. It’s not based on spiritual values. No one should fool themselves on this. It’s based purely on social values, modern social values, that the women should be diksha gurus. You know what I’m saying.

The point is right here Prabhupada is saying it is according to sashtra. So that’s just the way it is. You know I am saying? But diksha guru is the highest in the formal. But that’s within pancharatra but higher than pancharatra is bhagavat. Bhagavat just functions on siksha. You understand? So that’s the whole thing, we have we turn everything upside down due to mode of ignorance. So actually someone being a siksha guru based on the bhagavat principle that’s technically a higher position but by formality they are not, right? In the formal environment they are not. So you have to balance these things. And balance is not of the fortes of contemporary society. It just doesn’t know how. It doesn’t know what the elements are. Because to balance you have to know where your hands are, you have to know those funny little balls you are juggling, you have to know the rhythm, you have to know all those things, you know I’m saying? You have to know but the problem is you can’t even define these things how do you get people…people don’t what are diksha and siksha guru and how …the diksha formulate and what are the technical points of initiation? What’s the masculine principle and the feminine principle? What is Bhagavat, pancaratrik, vedic? How’re their relationships? All those things. If you can define that then you can discuss balance. But what we are dealing with is: It’s thrown out of balance because you are taking a modern social phenomenon and trying to make that as a spiritual, how do you say, spiritual vanguard. What it actually is not. It’s just a social…you know. It’s a social issue so that people have enough bile to digest lunch, you know, that is basically what it’s benefit is. You know I am saying? So the thing is that the diksha guru is not just recommended. They say,

This other [modern] one is not a solution. You know, the men they deal nastily with the ladies. They say mataji with a cringe on their lips. So now the men say Prabhu instead of mataji. Now it solves the whole problem? You know. How does that work? You can say Prabhuuuu with a cringe on your lip also. Plus you got the ‘bhuuu’ so you can spit at the same time, you know. You call ‘matajiii’ there is not chance to spit (laughter in background) you got to wait.’

‘But no, there are some examples in lines in history’. But who cares if Prabhupada says, ‘it is not’ and he is quoting from shashtra. Who cares[about those examples that people may bring out]?
Because if I say, let’s say, there is another modern issue [for which] I have examples from history, right? And if it goes against the modern principle, then what would be the point? [The people will say,]
‘Well, Prabhupada does not talk about it so we don’t we don’t accept it’.
But if Prabhupada does talk about it and you find an example to oppose it and it supports the modern [values] and it supports the modern, then it is something to discuss – so this is politics. This not philosophy. This is not spiritual. It’s just down right, you can say, ‘equal opportunities’. What does it mean? You know I’m saying? The difficulty is that these aren’t defined. And if you push the issue then you just get emotional blowup which is how a woman deals with these things. In another words, if a woman wants something but she knows it’s logically wrong. As soon as you logically approach it then she immediately becomes angry and stops talking and stuff like that the natural defense. You know crying this and that. You know she just brings it back to her so then you have to drop it, ‘ohh ohh no no no’ Like that. That is just the way it works. And we are going to accept that is how we are going to deal with such an important philosophical point? That shashtra doesn’t…That’s why shashtra doesn’t support it. It is very simple. It is very straight forward, you know.
Min 10
And people may say this and that and we are not this body and so many things. Yes we are not the body but the body is the body. You have to understand that I’m not the body but the body is the body and it has a nature and it functions according to that nature. No ‘ifs’. No ‘ands’ and no ‘buts’.
Like the car is sitting there and it’s a car but when I get in it I am the soul but I am separate from the car. Now the car can do anything? How does that work? It’s only a car when I am not in the car when I get in the car now the car can be anything, the sky is the limit, you know. What do u mean? It’s still a car. So whether there is a soul in the body or soul is not in the body. Whether the soul identifies with the body or does not identify with the body. The body is still the body. It just straight forward logical facts. So, it not about a problem here. Why put women in a position that is not favorable for them as a woman
‘you are talking about insanity’

‘everyone is going feel the brunt of it. The temple presidents especially because it’s her disciples that are in the temple and things have to go the way she wants because she is the guru. The zonal acharyas of the 80s are kids stuff compared to a woman being guru because the others [zonal acharyas] don’t pull an emotional trip. They feel…they may get emotional but as soon as you point it out, they say, ‘ya ya right’. But you trying doing that on a woman [point out that she is being emotional], its not going to work. It’s only going to create havoc’

‘Point is, if you do have an exception which is on the liberated platform. It’s an expection [Jahnava Mata, Gangamata Goswamini]. That exception, as Vishvanath points out proves the rule. We take- an exception breaks the rule. That is the difference between the vedic and the modern. If you have an exception it breaks the rule. [In] the vedic, if you have an exception it proves the rule because it is only this exception. That shows the rule stands. And the exception is an exception. So, therefore the principle of exception means there is only an exception. You can’t make a general rule- women can’t be gurus. That is against the rules. It is against Krishna, it’s against shastras, it’s against what Prabhupada teaches. And to make it, it is against women because you can imagine how much trouble the men are going to get for this woman guru now imagine what the women are gonna have to go through. That’s gonna be…you’re gonna see riots.

And then, now what’s that woman guru is going to feel when there is a temple where the community doesn’t want her to come. And she’s got this, ‘I was a this and that’. What’s going to happen? You just tell her there is a thing that can’t do something that she wants to do, as an ordinary thing and there is a total meltdown. Let alone something that is seen on this [platform]: You are on the highest position and you can’t do. This is gonna be devastating. And then where is that… and because this is a social issue here. I’ve said from the beginning. It is social from beginning to end. There is nothing spiritual about it. If it is about spiritual and preaching you can do that as a siksha guru. Therefore then, where is that social support for such a guru? Where is that support? Who is giving it? Where is that ideal husband? Where are the ideal families and communities that are going to support a woman on this great of a meltdown? It is hard enough to find someone to support on little day to day issue: You came out and somebody moved your shoes and you freaked out. Let alone, like this: Someone removed your disciples or doesn’t want you coming to the temple, doesn’t want you dealing with disciples.
They do that to the men gurus. There are men gurus who are not allowed to go to certain zones because the administrators don’t appreciate how they deal with. And they’ve had……..melt downs. And those are men. And those are tough men. I’m not talking about weak men. I’m talking about tough men. And so now what’s gonna happen to the woman? Because her whole sense of ownership has been questioned. And that [this sense of ownership] is the point of strength of a woman. That’s why you have to tell her that you love her a million times, right? But she is not going to tell thet man that because he is the one who has to figure that out? So every body is gonna have to constantly telling her how great she is. So, I mean, whose business is that? That is a husband’s business. That is the family’s business, father’s business, son’s business, you know, close friend’s, well wisher’s business. Not everybody [who is] general’s business because diksha guru is a formal position. So it is a formal relationship. So that formality doesn’t warrant this.

So this is a total lack of understanding of the masculine and feminine principles which is shown in the 3rd Canto. And everybody is here talking like Caitanya Caritamrita or something. This is the 3rd Canto. Social issues…Can’t even figure out varnaashrama. So if you can’t figure out varnaashrama so ‘position of women in varnaashrama’ is a detail. So how are we going to know that? ‘How communities work?’ All these things are…all those are within. Then you can discuss it…
Discuss it means we can discuss it pleasantly. This other…this kind of thing…you know…we’ve been talking…[for] 5 years so this [FDG issue] goes smoothly. But if you put this into a general environment…you’ve got fireworks after the first two words.

27:40 Like, ladies that I know of that I know of that I would consider are on the level of Guru – then they do their duties very nicely as siksha gurus. They arrange environments that which they can give instruction by it the way that matches their feminine nature. And it’s not that they’re sitting in the, you know, out of the way – they do big programs and everyone – they do programs on their own terms. It’s they’re doing the program and whoever wants to be there comes. Does that make sense? While if you do a formal thing, like I said, the woman is giving a seminar, it’s not official, so then who goes? – Those who wanna be there. So then reciprocation with everybody is very nice. Right? You have official temple class, that everybody is supposed to be there, now whether they like you speaking or not it’s another thing. You know that’s not gonna be very inspiring. Cause the energy may be very low. But if it’s a program, that is her program, and you’re coming to it voluntarily, then it’s gonna be high energy. So it creates a match very nicely. So the point is, the faminine nature is glorious because of the amount of energy it produces. And so that could only be produced if the environment is proper. You know what I’m saying? The man’s neutral, so whether it’s nice or not nice, it goes up a little bit or down a little bit; buf for the woman it’s nice – then it goes up incredibly, if it’s bad – it goes down incredibly. So it’s not going to work nicely. So that’s the whole point is understanding where each nature has it’s strenghts and then everybody’s place in that position. You know, it works really nice. So that’s why I said