Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

New Models for Gaudiya Vaisnavism

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 25, 2004 6:07 pm

As those who were at Audarya for Govardhana-puja know, Guru Maharaja has an exciting new model for training at Audarya. He is also developing a new vision for preaching centers in the West. Before he initiates the new programs he would like to get feedback from the community. Therefore, in the coming weeks I plan to post information about the new vision. To begin with, I will post here an outline of the new programs at the monastery.

Guru Maharaja feels that the monastic model in the West is in shambles, due mostly to the fact that so many people have been no sooner grabbed off the street than they are convinced to be renunciates and wrapped in saffron. He envisions a more dignified model. He would also like to alleviate the guilt and disappointment that devotees feel when they realize that they are better suited to living as lay practitioners. He plans to do this by not trying to convince people to be renunciates from the start, when they tend to have romantic notions about being a monk and are therefore more easily convinced, but rather providing a solid training program that can lead to being either a monk or a lay practitioner, the decision being made after a long enough time to make a well-considered decision.

Here is a skeleton outline of the new Audarya model:

The first program for new members is a six-month foundation program. During this time, they will get acquainted with the Audarya lifestyle and lay a solid groundwork for a life of devotional service. Participants in the foundational program will begin systematically learning the scripture under Guru Maharaja's supervision. Participants will also learn different aspects of the culture of Krsna consciousness, such as cooking and devotional music (kartalas and mridanga). The focus during this period is to begin laying a solid foundation for someone's entire devotional life, whether one decides to pursue the path of a monastic or a lay practitioner.

After the foundation program, graduates and the monastery both have an opportunity to decide whether further time in the monastery in the teacher-training program is desirable. This program, which takes two years to complete, gives the necessary training for taking a leadership role in a Satsang preaching program. Participants will be trained in the Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam (level one), and Tattva-sandarbha and will be able to lead a kirtan, cook a feast, give a class, read Sanskrit and Bengali, and perform Deity seva.

Those who complete the teacher-training program and feel called to living their whole lives as monastics in service to Audarya and the lay community have the opportunity to be considered for brahmacari training to in preparation for taking vanacari (lifetime) vows. The brahmacari program includes intense training in the Gaudiya scriptures, building on the solid foundation established in the foundation and teacher-training programs. Additional areas of study are Caitanya-caritamrta, Upadesamrta, Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu, and Jaiva Dharma. This program is the basis for a lifetime of full dedication and surrender to Guru Maharaja, Audarya, and the worldwide Audarya lay community. When brahmacaris have completed a minimum of five years of in the program (in addition to 2.5 years in the foundation and teacher-training programs) and are at least 30 years old, they are eligible for taking vanacari (lifetime renunciate) vows. Vanacaris who show exceptional leadership qualities are eligible for taking sannyasa.

Notes: It is proposed that those who enter the brahmacari training (which begins after two and a half years in the temple and is meant for those who intend to eventually take lifetime vows), either men or women, will shave their heads and wear saffron lungis. Guru Maharaja likes the fact that Christian, Buddhist, and many Hindu renunciates have identical monastic dress, thus diminishing distinction and sexism. He particularly dislikes when women renunciates in Gaudiya temples wear colorful saris and sometimes even makeup and gopi dots. He see this antithetical to the renounced order. The number one problem that devotees, men and women alike, bring up with Gaudiya Vaisnavism is sexism and Guru Maharaja is committed to addressing this problem.

Bhrigu - November 25, 2004 7:17 pm

I think the new scheme sounds great, but I dislike the idea of men and women dressing in the same way. My main reason for not liking it is that it will court criticism from other groups, and create an unnatural and unnecessary distance between our group and the rest of the Gaudiya Matha.

I realise that the idea is to practically show the equality between the sexes, but I still don't agree. After all, we are not saying that men and women are the same, are we? Equality means equal value, rights etc, not being the same. Or at least that's how I see it.

Also, Christians and Buddhists do not have the same monastic dress for both men and women. They are more similar than dhoti vs. sari, but still quite distinct.

However, I agree that makeup, gopidots and colourful saris are not appropriate for brahmacarinis. Shaven head and sikha -- like Vrindaranya already has -- is a good idea, but rather than a saffron lungi I think a simple white sari would be better. Or why not a saffron sari? Perhaps that could be an alternative.

Anyway, I may be a shallow-minded person. I confess that I like the way the Audarya brahmacaris dress right now, and I am in general wary of changing "traditional" things. What does everyone else think?

Bhrgu

Valerio Giannini - November 25, 2004 10:52 pm

The training program is a very nice idea ! It reminds me of FPMT's training programs. FPMT is the Foundation for the Preservation of Mahayana Tradition, a tibetan buddhist international organization. I surfed their italian website and they offer very nice programs. Their master's program last 7 years, after completion of 2-3 years foundation program. Their international website is:

www.fpmt.org

Perhaps it can give good ideas.

I think giving training in spiritual life is the only real business of a guru, so I am very happy to hear the news. Many devotees around the world are facing many troubles in their spiritual lilfe just because of this lack of training, even in the basics.

I am also happy to know there will be a distinction between monastics and non-monastics. But it seems that devotees who don't live at Audarya as monks cannot take full benefit from these programs. Take a new devotee family as an example. Perhaps different learning options could help, i.e. week-end programs, summer programs, etc.

Valerio

Forrest - November 26, 2004 2:07 am

Vrindaranya, when I heard you talking about these plans at Audarya I was really excited. I felt excited to gain connection with a mission that has such a wonderfully dynamic and progressive approach to the practical application of our movement's vision in modern times.

I am also happy to know there will be a distinction between monastics and non-monastics. But it seems that devotees who don't live at Audarya as monks cannot take full benefit from these programs. Take a new devotee family as an example. Perhaps different learning options could help, i.e. week-end programs, summer programs, etc.

That seems like a very nice idea to me. By the lay practitioners being able to taste ashram life even in small "bites" they will develop a natural appreciation for the "full-time" monks and the monks will appreciate the lay members more by seeing their practical signs of seriousness in their practice. That seems quite ideal for developing a strong community based on love and trust.

Also by having such regular programs the ashram of the guru becomes a place of spiritual learning and experience even more for the lay members. In that way it would deepen their (our ) connection with Audarya.

I for one would be *very* happy to come to Audarya for a weekend for a structured "course" of some sort.

However, I agree that makeup, gopidots and colourful saris are not appropriate for brahmacarinis. Shaven head and sikha -- like Vrindaranya already has -- is a good idea, but rather than a saffron lungi I think a simple white sari would be better. Or why not a saffron sari? Perhaps that could be an alternative.

Although I have to admit that when I first heard this idea I was not sure what to think of it, now I am very fond of this idea.

The aim of lessoning the distinction between sexes through external symbols seems very important in bringing Gaudiya monastic life into modern times.

The difference between a lungi and a sari is pretty distinct, just in the amount of cloth. Part of accepting the cloth of a monk seems to be practically minimizing ones material needs and focusing ones attention inwards. It seems to be a very practical tool in monastic life. To have women to wear a cloth that demands more attention to maintain creates a strong distinction. Just a thought

Audarya-lila Dasa - November 26, 2004 7:54 am

I think the idea of a structured program which gives sadhakas a firm foundation in scripture, music, cooking, teaching, linguistics etc. is an excellent idea. I also very much like the ideas around monasticism and reform. I'd like to suggest that an emphasis on devotional practice and attainment be the measuring stick for advancement and that monasticism or lay life not enter into the equation of standing or devotional position. If renunciation, humility and simplicity are stressed as integral to monastic life then maybe some of the lure based on pratistha or status may fall away.

Since I'm not a monastic I find it hard to form a strong opinion at this point about the external symbols. I totally agree with the equal value and treatment model and with incorporating a system which is not sex-biased. I am having a little harder time with the idea of trying to remove all distinction by having a similar practice of shaving heads and wearing identical clothing. I think the idea of simple dress is a given. I don't think that keeping male and female dress - in this case dhoti and sari as is traditional in our lineage would not take away from or lessen the impact of the reform. I see no reason to not acknowledge the differences between the sexes and allow for them naturally. This could easily be done by both males and females wearing very simple, plain clothing. It may be that having women wearing saffron will distance our group considerably from other Gaudiya groups. In consideration of that, I think keeping it simple would be a better course.

I'm curious about the idea of reading sanskrit and bengali. Will the training be to just read the roman transliterations and learn proper pronunciation or will this be a more rigorous program to actually learn the languages and read in the orignal scripts?

Babhru Das - November 26, 2004 7:56 am

I need to think more carefully about this, but my immediate reaction is that I strongly favor a systematic program for training those who will be teaching Gaudiya vedanta in different ways, and for approaching the different stages of life. Some of the other groups seem to have a process for preparing men for sannyasa, at least, and new folks don't just throw on saffron cloth the day they move in.

I certainly agree that the pretty clothes for brahmacharinis can be jarring. When my wife was a brahmacharini, she had two saris, both polyester yardage. However, like Bhrigu, I balk at the drastic change in dress. But I do need to think about why. I appreciate the increased simplicity, and there is a precedent in Buddhist monastics' dress. I haven't seen this in Christian monastics. Most nuns I see wear simple, modest street clothes or habits, some more traditional, some less. But I think trying too hard to play down the distinction between men and women, even renunciates, may be jarring even for outsiders. My experience is that men and women, even in professional life, dress very differently. (And women seem to have a much broader range of options than men. ) I think that most folks may not be too put off by renounced women wearing simple saris. And I think I may agree with Bhrigu about creating what may be unnecessary distance between us and the rest of the Sarasvata Gaudiya family. That said, my mind isn't closed to the idea. That's just how I'm inclined at the moment.

Bhrigu - November 26, 2004 1:08 pm

Another note re. changing the dress: perhaps more important in furthering the cause of equality between the sexes in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is giving responsibility and authority to women devotees. This is something happening in our group already (after all, who is TP at Audarya?), but should perhaps be broadcast more widely. Our Guru Maharaja is famous (or infamous!) for his stance on homosexuality, but perhaps not enough for this. Something for a future Sanga, Brahmaji?

In ISKCON, at least here in Finland, women almost never give class or lead kirtana in the temple, and when they do, they will be nervous and inexperienced -- so that the men can shake their heads and go "what did I say". I used to lead our Gita-classes in Porvoo, but now we have started taking turns so that everyone will get to practice leading kirtana and speaking. I think it was a good idea: last time, it was Krishangi's turn, and she did great.

One more question: why have a special class of "vanacaris"? If their vow of celibacy is lifelong, why not just call them sannyasis and initiate them as such?

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 26, 2004 1:10 pm

But it seems that devotees who don't live at Audarya as monks cannot take full benefit from these programs. Take a new devotee family as an example. Perhaps different learning options could help, i.e. week-end programs, summer programs, etc.

This is an excellent point. We would like to have weekend and/or evening courses in Santa Rosa in which we break up the training into individual classes. These classes would be led by devotees who have been trained at Audarya or have received similar training. An important aspect of the new model is training devotees to be leaders, because otherwise we will always be limited by how much Guru Maharaja can personally do.

For those who don’t live in Santa Rosa, we should have online classes available. It would be helpful if someone could do research about companies that have online programs that facilitate such an online school.

Valerio Giannini - November 26, 2004 1:40 pm

Vrindaranya,

United States are the goldmine par excellence of distance education. A good start point to approach the matter as a whole could be John Bear's website:

www.degree.net

For more special references we should surf the web...

Valerio

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 26, 2004 1:58 pm

I realise that the idea is to practically show the equality between the sexes, but I still don't agree. After all, we are not saying that men and women are the same, are we? Equality means equal value, rights etc, not being the same. Or at least that's how I see it.

Differences come into play more for lay practitioners. In what ways are male and female monastics different that needs to be signified by different dress? Guru Maharaja is saying that women should have equal access to any position in the monastery that men do and should have the same expectations in terms of leading others, learning the philosophy, etc. Monastic life is the perfect opportunity to put in practice the fact that the concepts of man and woman are illusory. We’re obviously not going to have men and women sharing a bathroom or yurts, but otherwise what is the difference?

The problem with the white saris is that it signifies a widow, which is considered inauspicious in Indian culture. By having women renunciates wear the attire of a widow it buys into the idea that all women should be married and the only place for women renunciates is for those who had their husband die--a tragedy no one wants to fall on their head. It is a rather undignified position. This is reflected in how women who wear white, in Iskcon for example, are looked at differently than say a sannyasi.

In America at least Buddhist men and women monastics wear the same dress and in Christianity the traditional dress for men and women is a black robe. The monks and nuns used to shave their heads, although they don't seem to do that anymore.

Notice in the picture below that you can hardly differenciate between the men and women and that they don't sit in different groups.

Valerio Giannini - November 26, 2004 2:00 pm

Some notes about dress.

To keep men and women wearing different clothes is as much important as keeping them from freely mixing like nondevotees do. The only simple reason is to keep purity in the mission and riminding oneself the goal of life: prema. Otherwise they could sleep in the same bedroom and take shower in the same bathroom.

I live in Italy, a more traditional country than US. Here nuns wear just like they did centuries ago. They wear black or white clothes: long skirt, shirt. jacket, and a cloth to cover their heads (how do you call it in English?). But perhaps covering one's heads is more near to muslims' habits

Anyway priests wear a different black dress, while male monks wear the particular dress of their monastic order. I am referring to catholicism. Even if they are member of the same religion, they wear different clothes. You all know there are different monastic orders in christianity. So the same could be for Gaudiya viashnavas: monks from Svami Tripurari's order wear such and such...

Sripad Govinda Maharaja has got a female sannyasini disciple. I saw pcitures and videos. She wears saffron cloth. I don't know exactly if it is sari or lungi. Jananivas could be of help in this.

It is unavoidable that a spiritual tradition changes a little when it is spread in countries different than the original one. Not crossing the line between changing details and loosing the essence is the real task.

Valerio

Valerio Giannini - November 26, 2004 2:15 pm

We’re obviously not going to have men and women sharing a bathroom or yurts, but otherwise what is the difference?

The difference is the body itself to some extent. There is nothing strange in seeing a brahmacari wearing dhoti and cadar during summer. But it would be somehow strange for a brahmacarini to do the same. The difference is not in giving access to the same rights like studying scriptures or accepting disciples. This was already a reality when mataji Sita Thakurani was present (right?). The difference is only practical.

As for equal rights in contemporary vaishnava groups, my personal experience (different missions) is that female devotees do plenty of service for their guru and do hold responsibility positions. I know a female devotee in Italy who is the seniormost disciple of her guru here and she leads the mission here. But why should we clean up all the variety Krishna gave to this material world? Is it not an Advaitin tendency?

Valerio

Swami - November 26, 2004 2:56 pm

In contemporary Buddhist monasteries in the US, segregation of men and women is for the most part relegated to sleeping and bathing only. We follow this standard here at Audarya. Men are also not allowed to go bare chested becasue here in the West it is generally a macho and sexually based thing to do so.

Contemporary Western Buddhist traditions are setting new standards. Although it is ture that some traditional Buddists sects distinguish men form women is terms of dress, this seems to stem largely from sexism. In the traditional lineages in the East, often Buddhist nuns are not given the same respect as monks . In contemporarly forms of these tradtions here in the West this is being addressed. It seems that one significant way in which they are doing this is in terms of the dress—same dress.

So far this dress issue seems to be the only contentious point, and the only significant point raised against it is that it may raise eyebrows (which may be a good reason to change and thereby distance ourselves from other organizations that we do not want to be identified with). I don't think that the fact that the two, men and women, are physically different is significant. If anything this might serve as futrther justification for dressing an a manner that does away with this as much as possible. Incidentally, I had Vrindaranya dress in a saffron lungi and kurta for a day to see the effect, and I was quite surprised at the reuslt. Initially I myself had some resistence to the idea, but after seeing her inthe same robes as the other monks I changed my mind. It really served to diminish the bodily difference and potential attraction between the sexes. However, I remain open at this point. I would like to see her in the same cloth and color as the men, but in a sari to see the effect.

More thoughts welcome. I would like to hear as many different voices as possible.

Swami - November 26, 2004 3:15 pm

I'm curious about the idea of reading sanskrit and bengali. Will the training be to just read the roman transliterations and learn proper pronunciation or will this be a more rigorous program to actually learn the languages and read in the orignal scripts?

They will learn to read the Bengali and Devanagari characters.

Swami - November 26, 2004 3:20 pm

One more question: why have a special class of "vanacaris"? If their vow of celibacy is lifelong, why not just call them sannyasis and initiate them as such?

In my opinion there is more to sannyasa than merely a standard of renunciation. Sannyasis should be in the front preaching. All renounced persons are not suited for this, but their renunciation should be acknowledged in some way, especially if they are senior and experienced as opposed to merely being students. I don't think vanaprastha is exclusively for married people who have retired.

Dhiralalita - November 26, 2004 3:39 pm

I am very interested by this vision of sripad Tripurari Swami. The dress code does not bother me at all and if the other vaisnavas groups want to have a fit, they can...(As a matter of fact I will say that I always abhorred saris and wore dothis sometimes to clean bathrooms and do gardening when i was a new devotee in Switzerland).

Maharaja is formulating a gaudiya system for the west. We know how his speech is inspired; now these words are about to take shape into a formula for the benefit of all. This is what we need. I pray it becomes a success and that I may be able to serve his vision a little.

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 26, 2004 4:09 pm

Here are pictures of the three options:

1. White sari for women

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 26, 2004 4:09 pm

2. Saffron sari for women.

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 26, 2004 4:11 pm

3. Saffron lungi for everyone.

Shyam Gopal Das - November 26, 2004 4:53 pm

I hesitated a bit before responding, but here are my comments.

Before responding to the color/dress issue, allow me respond to the main issue of this thread, the new model for Gaudiya Vaisnavism. I think the idea of a structured training program is very good. I appreciate it that persons do not have to make definite choices yet between monastic or householder life. This offers them the chance to lay a good foundation. As a short comment, it should be cared for that this program does not become something static or institutionalized where it turns into law. Please let there be some room for individual changes and adjustments.

About the color/dress issue, I feel a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, I appreciate the attempt to equalize male and female monastics by means of their outer dress. I think it would be a good idea to have both wear saffron cloth. As wearing the same color would stress their equal position in my opinion most. Further, I don't really see a problem with women wearing lungis. Many in the west often think those are dresses anyway.

On the other hand, lungis and saris cannot be compared to the dress of buddhists and christian monks. I feel like their dresses are much more unisex than lungis and saris. The dresses of buddhists or christians are more interchangeble than ours. For instance, a kurta kind of looks like a dress shirt and gives a female monastic more the appearance of a male. There should be some sort of unisex middle ground that does not make men more femine and women more male, but should rather stress the neutrality of their position.

I'm curious about the opinion of the Audarya brahmacaris too.

Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 26, 2004 5:53 pm

Be curious no longer for here is the opinion of one of the Audarya brahmacaris.

I'd like to address some of the points brought up thus far from a variety of the previous posts. Instead of responding directly to the person I'll just post the view and then respond.

I don't think that keeping male and female dress - in this case dhoti and sari as is traditional in our lineage would not take away from or lessen the impact of the reform.

It should be kept in mind that the dress of our lineage is basicly Indian dress, albeit more traditional than is worn by most in India today. Other monastic traditions wear monastic dress, not simply the dress of the culture dyed a different colour.

I see no reason to not acknowledge the differences between the sexes and allow for them naturally

I dissagree. We are talking about the monastic model, a model in which upon entering, one renounces their 'worldy' persona of 'male' or 'female'. I feel that every part of the monastic tradition should reflect this: naham vipro na ca nara patir napi vaisyo na sudro, naham varnir na ca griha patir no vanasta yatir va… (forgive spelling)

But I think trying too hard to play down the distinction between men and women, even renunciates, may be jarring even for outsiders.

Again I disagree. Do you feel that people are jarred by seeing western buddhist monks and nuns dressing the same? I think that people almost expect it of monastics.

Indeed many people, including devotees, do not even think that Vrindaranya is a monk, even in a white sari and shaven head! It is this that needs to be addressed.

For instance, a kurta kind of looks like a dress shirt and gives a female monastic more the appearance of a male.

Looking at the pictures I kind of agree with you. Maybe there needs to be more thought about the exact style of shirt (maybe a different style of kurta or t-shirt, or something).

There should be some sort of unisex middle ground that does not make men more femine and women more male, but should rather stress the neutrality of their position.

To follow on from above, that is what we were thinking in choosing the kurta/lungi look since it has a more androgenous feel. Men step into the middle ground by wearing a 'skirt' (to all intents and purposes) yet women are expected to stay in female dress. Why? I see absolutely no reason why this distinction is made.

A further point:

I have the utmost respect and admiration for Vrindaranya and her position. I look to her for guidance and council in almost all aspects of my life since I know that she will treat me with compassion and has true insight which she draws from to facilitate the growth of the whole community (monks and laity).

It was interesting, therefore, that when she first donned a saffron kurta and lungi I felt my respect for her grow since I could 'see' her position by her dress. I never really thought of myself as being swayed by externals, but this clearly showed me that it really does have an impact on our perception of people.

I have seen situations where people assume that Vrindaranya is married, or will be married at some point, yet they never assume the same of me. (At least they know that I'm not married. The track record of many brahmacaris has made people wary of assuming they will never be.) This is an important distinction. It shows that people (yes I'm generalizing) do not think of women monastics as being quite as serious and commited as the men. Maybe they think they are not capable, but maybe they do not realise how much dress plays a factor in their perceptions of someones standing.

Just some things to think about.

daso 'smi

Dayal Govinda dasa

Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 26, 2004 6:14 pm

One more thing about the dress:

I think that having cloth draped over the left shoulder takes the dress farther away from the masculine look of wearing a kurta (as in picture 2). Obviously this is a sari, but maybe making a chadar part of the dress would level the ground even more?

Babhru Das - November 26, 2004 6:43 pm

I'm thinking more about the lungi and kurta for renounced women. I remember that when I was at the Bhaktivedanta Village gurukula in the '80s, two detached women, whose names escape me for some reason, wore long kurtas and lungis and shaved their heads. It actually looked pretty nice, and the only problem was that it was unique, which raised questions about pratistha.

Regarding vanacharis, I agree with Swami that, at least now and in the West, such an ashram may not only be appropriate for retired family people. I don't see much evidence that many groups have figured out what vanaprastha is anyway. I see a few in ISKCON who are vanaprasthas, but it's mostly husbands and wifes whose marriages failed and are making the best of their situations. In Narayan Maharaja's group, some of the Western men moving toward sannyasa call themselves vanachari, but they also have a couple of young men wearing saffron--a move not made easily in that sanga--who would fit the bill just as Swami suggests. And I do agree with him that tridandi sannyasa is more than just withdrawing from the world. As Srila Prabhupada points out in his Vaisisyashtakam, Mahaprabhu's sannyasa is for engaging with the world on Krishna's behalf.

Babhru Das - November 26, 2004 6:53 pm

More was posted as I composed by post above. I like the idea of a chaddar over the shoulder. Svati and Shasthi (it came back) did so, as do many householders. I wear a chaddar over my left shoulder on really dress-up occasions (such as Govardhana-puja), but usually wear a T-shirt. When I do puja at home, I wear a silk lungi and shirts I keep just for puja (I'm thinking about getting one of those silk undershirts from Land's End.) I agree with Dhira-lalita that we don't necessarily have to kowtow to other groups' perception. And the picures bring it home. I think the saffron sari seems more appropriate on Vrindaranya than the whilte one. (I'm not so sure about the simple white sari being necessarily inauspicious; on Mother Theresa [whom I met briefly twice] and her nuns, it seems to have an auspicious effect. And it's also interesting to note that she adapted the nun's habit for the environment in which she worked. On the other hand, that sari is their habit even in the West, as I saw in her sisters in Tijuana.) And I think the kurta-lungi outfit is not as jarring as I might have expected. I think that if the kurta were a little longer or styled a little differently, it may be easier to accept. This is a very productive disussion. The future is now!

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 26, 2004 7:04 pm

From the very first monent that I heard this from Vrindaranya I became very excited about it. It is very hard to contain myself in the face of such excitement (yes I do have and exhibit strong feelings). For my part I hope to do anything that I can to help Audarya make these new changes into reality. The importance of these changes cannot be overemphasized in the curren social climate. My reasons are many, but as a starting point I would like to identify three of the most imporant resons for going forward with these changes:

1. They reflect Guru Maharaja's heart

2. The reflect the needs of his followers

3. They reflect the contemporary views of the society at large

I'd like to comment a little on all three.

In terms of Guru Maharaja's heart I think that both he and Vrindaranya said a lot about it. I think it is very congruent with his whole presentation and teachings. He lives what he preaches and therefore that should also be reflected in his community as well as those who are closest to him. Here I am mostly refering to abolishing gender-role differences with monks. This is an extremely important point I will return to later. I'm sure that these ideas have come about after much reflection and discussion (as everything else does at Audarya) so that we have to cerefully listen to what is actually being said by this.

Secondly, we as Guru Maharaja's disciples and friends, need to be more aware of the prejudice that we have internilized from the other institutions and work on ourselves to become better in overcoming those problems that hinder our actual progress. In this light, we need to become more aware that we actually need to become more open minded and challenge our views and beliefs. In order for us to develop in a healthy way we need to be congruent. If we wish equality between men and women then it should be reflected on all aspects of our lives and not only those that least threaten our preconceved notions of gender roles and their meanings.

Lastly, the society has been moving in this direction since the sixties while we were adopting the "Vedic" standards of gender roles. These "Vedic" injustions, in my view, have always reflected and enforced the prejudice and misogyni of the Hindu society that is not only inapplicable for the modern socety but is wrong. There is no inherent difference between men and women that would make one sex better to preform any aspect of religious life (or secular for that matter) be it Arcana, preaching, or preform kirtan or bhajan. The restrictions imposed on women are only meant to "keep them in their place," devoid of any power or voice, and subject them to the will of the men so that any competition for power can be eliminated.

I have alway found distasetful the hypocricy of ISKCON in their treatment of women. One thing is to preach that as jivas we are all the same and Krishna's wifes but another is to eliminate these difference in reality. While striving to understand these concepts theoretically, actually, no one gives them any weight. This is primeraly due to the fact that the inslavement of women works well for the men because they have a cleaning lady and a cook (not to mention all other roles) at their disposal all the time. Women are not allowed to serve on the main altars in India, but if they need to scrub the floors or do manual labor when the curtain is closed then it is OK. I really dispise such hypocricy and unjust treatment.

While men and women are not the same they are in all respects equal. This is what it means to be progressive. It is not just something we carry as a banner but actually something we must put in practice. This is especially imposrtant for our community bacause we are made up by such different people and cultures. As such we bring baggage of different kinds of prejudice internalized from our environments. We have to be able to face them.

The sari, regardless its color, is a reflection of an enslavement of women. It does not belong to our culture it is uncomfortable and wierd (if any men dont believe this you are welcome to try to wear it for one day. I doubt you will ever look at it in the same way... perhaps this should be a requirement?). I also think that its direct purpose is to imprison a women in her prescribed gender role. She is either "the help" or the sexual object. None of these have a place in a progressive spiritual community that seeks to enter into a social discorse.

Therefore, I whole hardledly support the option number three of saffron lungi for every one.

I think that Guru Maharaja teaches us by his example that we have to face some challenges and criticisam for what we believe. I think that our community is fortunate to have such a techer and also to have such a progressive and thoughtful leader as Vrindaranya.

If these changes raise eye brows then good riddens with those who dont like it I say, (although I do not really know how to spell it). We should take distance from those groups that will impose their harsh jugements on us for being less fundamentalist and crazy than them.

What is good about looking at Buddhist monks is that their teaching is reflected outside on how they treat genders. If nothing else it appears to be so in the West. If we want to become relevant as a group we cannot follow some prescribed injuctions that are going to further alienate us from the world at least in the way that we appear in it. Our appearance has a profound and lasting effect on others that cannot be undermined. It is the sad truth that our characters come secondly because they take time to be revealed.

From a personal perspective I have encountered many difficulties in the intellectual and professional community when I would "come out" about my spiritual practice. Actually, given that I keep a sikha and shaved head it does come up in almost every conversation. If I mention the Hare Krishnas people look at me in disbelief becaue they do not understand that someone like me (in my personal, intellectual and professional aspects) can be associated with such a group. I have to then explain how my Guru Maharaja is different from them in what ways and so forth. The words Hare Krishnas have become permanently tarnished in the eyes of the larger society (which is impossible in reality given that they are the names of God) but, sadly, that remains the lagacy of those who lead ISKCON at present. So taking distance from such groups and actuallizing our difference from then is very importan for all of us. What I thik is the most important part of these changes is that Guru Maharaja seeks to re-establish the value of "the cloth", which has been lost through misuse by unqualified persons.

I think that what Guru Maharaja and the others are trying to do is to change the apearance of thins so that we can begin to look differently at them. Kurta gives a women an appearance of a man only because we have prescriptively adopted it as man's dress. If we see more women in kurtas then this will cease to be true. This goes for everything else.

As for the "Advaitin" tendencies pointed by Valerio nothing can be further from the truth. I think to suggest that is offenssive and misundertanding of what both KC and mosltly Guru Maharaja are about. It also reflects confusion between bodily diversity and psychological and social equality which is a reality.

In humble service,

Vamsidhari dasa

Citta Hari Dasa - November 26, 2004 8:24 pm

I wanted to address a couple of related points before giving my opinion on the actual style of dress.

But why should we clean up all the variety Krishna gave to this material world? Is it not an Advaitin tendency?

We are talking about creating a unified dress code for monastics in our mission, not doing away with all variety. Moreover, a unified dress code for a monastic order has nothing to do with advaitavada (unless it's an advaitin monastic order!) and everything to do with a coherent, distinct, dignified presentation.

Not crossing the line between changing details and loosing the essence is the real task.

The business of the acarya is to change the details so that the essence can be delivered, which of course is not done in a whimsical fashion. The overriding purpose of any change in detail is to facilitate preaching. We must understand that one's dress is a detail and is in no way essential to the attainment of prema.

To me it would be inconsistent for a monastic order to not have a unified dress code for both sexes. Naturally, then, once one is a member of that order then one wears the dress of the order, whether one is male or female. I personally feel that monastics come in one flavor regardless of sex: the flavor of renunciate. It is the spirit of renunciation and a certain psychology favorable for monastic life that makes a person a monk, neither of which have any basis in male or female. The Canakya pandita quotes must be burned to ash and forgotten; such mysoginistic views have no place in a progressive mission, just as they already have none in Western society. This being the case it would be hypocritical to acknowledge the obvious ability of women to be renunciates and leaders but to not allow them to look the part by wearing the dress of a renunciate or shaving the head.

To have both men and women shave the head and wear saffron is in my opinion the very least we can do, but I think we can do better. The saffron sari is still too much of a distinction and makes a statement of concession ("Okay, women can be monastics, but they still have to dress like women!"). To me it perpetuates sexism by saying "Now you (_______dasi or dasa) are a member of the monastic order of Audarya. Here are your robes," but the women will think, "Why are my robes different from the men's robes when monks are supposed to be beyond bodily designation? Why don't we live this most basic point of our theory out in practice?" As Dayal said:

We are talking about the monastic model, a model in which upon entering, one renounces their 'worldy' persona of 'male' or 'female'.

This is the essential point. In light of this I'm in favor of the langhi over the sari. However, I think that the kurta could do with some improvement. They never did (and still don't) seem very monkly to me. I think I would prefer a slightly looser, more flowing, sans buttons top piece, although I don't have a clear idea of exactly what that would look like.

So far this dress issue seems to be the only contentious point, and the only significant point raised against it is that it may raise eyebrows (which may be a good reason to change and thereby distance ourselves from other organizations that we do not want to be identified with).

If these changes raise eye brows then good riddens with those who dont like it I say, (although I do not really know how to spell it). We should take distance from those groups that will impose their harsh jugements on us for being less fundamentalist and crazy than them.

I agree fully with both quotes. Guru Maharaja being the distinct and sometimes controversial Gaudiya acarya he is it is only fitting that the form of his mission coincide fully with the spirit of his presentation. Thus the form should be distinct and should also engender thought (or even wrath) in those who are in need of a deeper understanding of what Gaudiya Vaisnavism really is. I am personally (and think we all should be as a group) prepared to weather the storm of criticism that will undoubtedly come in the interest of furthering Guru Maharaja's preaching of Mahaprabhu's cause. Taking a visible stand on such issues will undoubtedly polarize many people, but then, standing up for the truth always does, as Guru Maharaja's example has shown over the years. Sexism is just more ignorance. We have to deal with it as such, with no compromises. Those who stubbornly cling to such ideas are hardly fit to be devotees, and we definitely do not want to be identified with them.

Madangopal - November 26, 2004 10:07 pm

This is a really great thread. I really appreciate someone like Swami who acts as an acarya, deciding wisely how to interpret the spirit and letter of the law. How refreshing! And all of you who follow him are such fresh association. I just keep remembering the distaste of stagnant, conditioned, chewing the chewed thinking that I have experienced among ISKCON devotees. Not to make any harsh generalizations...

Personally, I really like the idea of minimizing the external differences between the sexes in the monastary. Why not, that's what a monastary is all about!

Specifically, I can say that I don't ever look at a young woman in a white sari as a widow. There are a couple women in white with shaved heads where I live and they have an air and presence of renunciation. I think Vrindaranya has the same presence. In this case I think the vibe may rule over the dress...

That being said, I think it is good if men and women wear the same thing. Even in some of my classes discussing human development the point is made that society is pushing a gender identity on us from the time of our birth. Blue is for boys, pink for girls. Dresses for girls, pants for boys. We are being brainwashed constantly and a sheltered monastary is a great place to strip away that programming. If one is living a life where the first step is to overcome the upadhis, especially the gender designation, why not assist that by breaking down what holds those differences in place?

To me it perpetuates sexism by saying "Now you (_______dasi or dasa) are a member of the monastic order of Audarya.

Now here's an idea that may stretch some people's brains... Maybe everyone should be named _______ DASI. We are all prakrti in relation to the supreme purusha right? If you are trying to live the spiritual reality in a community, take it all the way! I have to admit, I might smile at the thought of a Dayal Govinda dasi, but it is something to think about.

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 26, 2004 10:31 pm

Pranams.

Several days ago I was speaking with one person about the lectures of one Swami. We were saying that the lectures were really wonderful and then I added that even though I know a lot of wonderful Swamis, from the very beginning, I see a difference between Guru Maharaja and many other wonderful devotees today. It does not only mean that I see him as my Guru but there is also something more. This person asked me what this was and after a moment of thought I said that since meeting Guru Maharaja I have the feeling that Guru Maharaja will change a lot in contemporary Gaudiya Vaisnavism and fix a lot of problems troubling us. I said that I know that his specific mission is to change a lot of things.

And what happens? Yesterday I look on Tattva Viveka and I see the prognosis of huge change.

Since yesterday I am thinking about this subject. I had a storm of thoughts in my mind. My thoughts about this would change every several minutes and one time I was thinking one thing and then another but as a result I was becoming more and more comfortable with this. My first reaction was to run away somewhere, thinking that this is too many changes for me . The problem was that I did not understand the word "lungis" at first, and I did not have any idea about what Guru Maharaja wants to change and in what. I thought "Oh, does this mean that the men will be dressing the same as the women? Will the vaisnavis be simply putting on the mens' dress or maybe Guru Maharaja wants to change both the male and female dress and will give us something completely new for everyone?" I started to search for this word in the dictionary and then I thought that Guru Maharaja must want to completely change the mens' and womens' dress. At first I thought that this may be disturbing to other devotee groups and can also be a problem while preaching. One important argument that I am using here in Poland in discussions with different devotees is that Guru Maharaja is very true to the spiritual tradition while at the same time showing the tradition in a way in which it can be practiced in the West in today's times. At that point I thought that everyone will say that we will be completely different from everyone else and this can be a problem when I will be speaking to others.

Now I know more about what Guru Maharaja wants, yet I wanted to share what I was thinking when I had no idea. Vrindaranya prabhu put a picture on the forum of women and men who are Buddhist monks. This established me more in thinking that this is to be a completely new dress which is identical for everyone resembling the outfit of the monks of other traditions. I then remembered the picture of New Vrindavan from the times of Kirtanananda Swami and all of the monk robes in which everyone was dressed then. I thought that maybe this is about something like this. This caused an even more pressing concern in me.

At the beginning this scared me a little. Why such large changes and such a large difference between us and other vaisnava groups? What purpose does Guru Maharaj have in this? I understand that the matter with sexism is a very large problem and that it should be resolved, but is the price too high? Maybe Guru Maharaja has some different goal in this?

This is what I thought through this whole time.

Sexism is a large problem here in Poland also. I remember when in 1993 Yamuna Devi came to Polish temples and made a wonderful round of lectures on the subject of Srila Prabhupada. It was wonderful to hear all of the histories from her life but at the same time, many brahmacarins did not come because they were taught not to speak with women and that they should not come in order to not hear her voice. In Poland, sexism amongst devotees is a serious thing, and this is not only amongst brahmacarins and brahmacarinis. I heard many lectures in which there was said that in order to please a wife a man must give her a lot of colorful saris and bracelets for her arms so that they will jingle together and remind her of the sound that money makes and that then she will not expect the husband to make a lot of money. It was said that women like good food in their bowls, a lot of colorful saris, and the jingling of shiny objects. I was personally present at special secret teachings for brahmacarins at which one of the Swamis explained that women like to be raped and that they know the worth of the males seed and that they will do everything so that it will be inside them. We were also taught there that when a man controls his sexual desire, his whole energy goes to his intelligence but when a women controls her sexual desire then the energy goes to her teeth and hair. Truly in this country, chauvinism and sexism amongst devotees, is something strongly tied into the consciousness of devotees since for a long time everyone was taught in this way. The situation has changed somewhat because women are starting to search for their own self worth as women devotees, but unfortunately the vision of males on this subject rarely changes. This was always hard for me and I could never accept this. So I can understand that Guru Maharaja wants to start serious changes to finally stop this from happening.

I was afraid though that even having this positive point, these changes can bring with them a negative reaction from other groups of devotees and because of this a separation with them. Here I started to think how much these changes of dress will be possible. Vrindaranya commented on Christian and Buddhist women monks and I thought then that a sari is much more practical. I remembered that Mother Teresa adopted the wearing of very simple saris in her monastery and not only in India but also throughout the whole world, because of their simplicity and practicality. I thought that if she did this then she had to have some reason since saris like this dry faster, are lighter to wear, and are very simple. ( I remind you that at this point I was still thinking that Guru Maharaja wants to instill some kind of dress that is very similar to the dress in other traditions of monks. )

I thought that maybe it would be better if the men stayed with their clotheses and the women simply wore saffron saris from the same material and of the same color and maybe both sexes would wear the same chadars to blend both sexes together. This seamed to be more practical to me. My mind was satisfied.

Yet I thought if Guru Maharaja wants to introduce some type of changes then this means that this is important and even if this will be difficult, it is surely necessary. I started to think about what positive things this would bring. I thought about that Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada also established many changes even as dress was concerned and that this would not be something completely new. Of course it is harder to start something and be completely different from a certain earlier tradition but if Guru Maharaja sees the sense in this then my heart is in it, even if the mind will have a problem with this for some time. It is hard to start something but even if we had saffron monk robes with hoods, tied at the waist with a rope, then after 50 or 100 years this would be something normal. Besides each one of us had to at one point get used to a dhoti or sari so what would be the problem?

Later I analyzed this from the point of view of preaching. I often hear from people that our clotheses are so wonderful and colorful and happy and that people like this very much. Yet they only like this because they do not take us seriously. Once one person said to me that they can not take us seriously because we look like children who are playing and not like people who are interested in spiritual life and now I thought that maybe this truly does have some relevance in some degree to monks. If someone, because of the changes, would start to treat us seriously and what we do seriously, and if thanks to this someone looking at us would see that this is a monk and not some exotic weirdo, then this would surely help in preaching and in the opinion about us.

It was hard for a women monk in a sari with flowers on it to look like a renounced and simple person. I thought that if Guru Maharaja was to change the dress completely, there would be no problem. Gaudiya Vaisnavism went through a lot of changes in its history. We had the change of the color of the dress, the introduction of the sannyasin dress, the brahmin threads, the introduction of songs in Bengali and many many other changes. If Guru Maharaja thinks that certain changes are necessary, then they must be and I accept them. I just wanted to understand why Guru Maharaj thinks this way.

Now I looked on the forum and saw the picture that Guru Maharaja sent. I also finally found a more clear definition of the word "lungis" . If this is the only thing that this is concerning then I do not see a problem in this. Vrindaranya looks very good in the association of Guru Maharaja, Citta Hari, and Dayal Govinda. This is surely very good in order to equal out the position of all of the monks in the asram. This type of change is almost no change. Even after this type of storm with my mind I thought "OH, SUCH A SMALL CHANGE, WHY ONLY SO SMALL?" I think that this is a good idea as well as having saffron saris from the same material as well as a kurta for brahmacarinis. Whatever Guru Maharaja will choose I think that it is ok. And if he will want to introduce some more changes then I think that this will be surely important for us all and for the future of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 26, 2004 10:41 pm

This is the essential point. In light of this I'm in favor of the langhi over the sari. However, I  think that the kurta could do with some improvement. They never did (and still don't) seem very monkly to me. I think I would prefer a slightly looser, more flowing, sans buttons top piece, although I don't have a clear idea of exactly what that would look like.

Yes, Citta Hari. This is a wonderful idea. I have to admit that I never liked wearing kurtas and I do this only because Guru Maharaja gave me them. But a kurta like you described would be super.

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 26, 2004 10:45 pm

This is an excellent point. We would like to have weekend and/or evening courses in Santa Rosa in which we break up the training into individual classes. These classes would be led by devotees who have been trained at Audarya or have received similar training. An important aspect of the new model is training devotees to be leaders, because otherwise we will always be limited by how much Guru Maharaja can personally do.

This sounds wonderful. I will have to really work hard on my english and maybe come to visit for a little more then a month each year to also benefit from the teaching.

Babhru Das - November 26, 2004 11:22 pm

A quick note on less essential aspects of the discussion. It's not hard to tell from the pictures which outfit Maharaja and Vrindaranya like best. There seems to be a progression of facial expressions.

Saris can be visually very graceful. Both of my daughters, who are not renounced but are also not grossly materialistic, enjoy wearing pretty saris--sometimes. My wife will wear a sari when it's appropriate, but she doesn't find them particularly comfortable. I have worn a sari, also (I played Kubja in a play at Bhaktivedanta Village), and I remember that I didn't find it very comfortable. But I also don't always feel comfrotable in a dhoti. I much prefer a lungi, and I often wear a pareu around the house when it's warm. I also like nice, comfortable shorts, but that isn't something likely to be considered seriously in the discussion at hand. (Before she died, Mulaprakriti asked Gopavrindapal if he would take sannyasa after she was gone. He just laughed and said, "Maybe--if I can wear shorts!") I think that one thing that contributed to whatever effectiveness saris may have had in spreading devotional culture is their exoticism. That can also be a liability as well as an asset.

Audarya-lila Dasa - November 26, 2004 11:34 pm

I'm not sure I agree with the concept that women are dressed in a certain fashion because men want them to be kept in a subordinant position. My wife freely chooses her dress which she identifies with, not something that is forced on her by society.

In my line of work men and women are equal in all respects but they don't need to have a single dress code to signify it. I know the discussion revolves around the dress of a monastic but my point is that in other spheres of life where men and women are equals the external issue of dress is just not part of the equation. Why? Because equality in this context means leadership, responsibility, compensation etc. In other words equality exists on the level of professionalism without having to signify by a dress code that mimics it. The real important thing is full equality.

I'm not so sure about equating identification with the body with the sexes dressing differently. The truth is that we are embodied and there are physiological differences between different body types. How exactly does dressing individuals with of different sexes the same help one in transcending bodily identification? The body is still being dressed, cleaned, groomed etc.

I have another question regarding the idea of dress. The idea that what others think of these adjustments is irrelevant is well taken but at the same time the argument is given that women who wear white are identified a certain way. The question is - by who? and does it matter since we are distancing ourselves from the opinions and conventions of others? For that matter - why saffron? I don't feel any particular reverance for the color outside of the conditioning that was imparted by an institution we are talking about distancing ourselves from.

Personally I have great regard and respect for Vrndaranya and that won't be affected by how she dresses. She obviously thinks and feels deeply about our tradition and the affection she has for Guru Maharaja and the the affection he has for her speaks for itself.

Anyway, I am really just trying to understand the ideas being presented. I am all for all of them in principle and am a firm believer that the sex of an invidual does not dictate the ability to succeed and excel in all human endeavors.

One thing worth thinking about is the fact that some of the most receptive people to Guru Maharaja's message has actually come from other Gaudiya institutions. By distancing our group further from them it may make it harder for some people to cross the gap and find solace for their thirsty hearts. What I mean to say is that we may want to distance ourselves from other groups for some very obvious reasons, but we may also want to keep ourselves close for some very obvious reasons as well.

Madangopal - November 27, 2004 12:13 am

I'm not so sure about equating identification with the body with the sexes dressing differently.

I think this is precisely because the condition that mainstream society lives in promotes, exploits and feeds on duality. I don't want to bring up any examples, but think of how the dress emphasizes the gender in advertisements...

I think that a monastary is a place that impresses one as being transcendental because it should be just that - TRANSCENDENT to this world of duality. It is a launching ground for looking at life in a different way than we are used to when we live in the thick of it like so many of us do. For the members it could be a place to put into practice some of those ideals and for the visitors it can be a relief from the world of duality.

I know some of this may sound mayavada or something, but I'm speaking about the non-duality that is in a way a beginning and foundation of realizing spiritual variety.

Valerio Giannini - November 27, 2004 12:24 am

Could it be good to suggest that brahmacarinis may wear saffron sari while more experienced and more renunciated female devotees, i.e. vanacarinis and sannyasinis, wear saffron lungi? If so, it should be done for male devotees as well (not the sari for brahmacaris, of course ) in order to differentiate all ashramas from each other without distinguish between male and female practitioners.

I like the idea of having monks wear the same dress to diminish the potential attraction.

Valerio

Brahma Dasa - November 27, 2004 2:56 am

Our Guru Maharaja is famous (or infamous!) for his stance on homosexuality, but perhaps not enough for this (having a female temple president). Something for a future Sanga, Brahmaji?

I don't think that the idea of a female temple president is quite that revolutionary any more. I believe that iskcon now has a few of them (Alachua has one) and there are even a couple of women on the GBC. If a new dress code is adopted its more likely that Guru Maharaja will become famous (or infamous) for this novel change. At least for a while.

While this might be the best course in the long run, it will in the short run (perhaps for the next five to ten years) create a certain amount of controversy. The question is do we need or want this type of controversy?

We teach that the details can be adjusted in order to deliver the principle. If we adjust this detail..the dress code..will the change actually serve to deliver the principle? While I agree with the general idea of unisex monastic attire, I have my doubts as to whether such a change at this time will best serve the essential cause.

Perhaps in realtion to the spiritual scene in Northern California such a change might be helpful. From that point of view it would be helpful to distance ourselves from Iskcon as much as we possibly can.

However, the fact remains that the vast majority of converts to Guru Maharaja's mission do not come from the Northern California quasi-Buddhist spiritual scene.

Where do they come from? They come from iskcon.

Sanga is Guru Maharaja's primary outreach program. Members, ex-members, and various types of associates of Iskcon and other gaudiya groups make up the vast majority of Sanga readers. These people connect through Sanga and then go on to buy books, CDs, give donations, and become affiliates of Audarya in some way or another.

Guru Maharaja is of course a boat rocker but considering that its unlikely that any of the other Gaudiya groups will follow suit why rock this particular boat at this time. Even sympathetic India based groups like Narasigha M, or Paramadwaiti M are not likely to support such a change, what to speak of Gaudiya Math or Iskcon. So the question again is why make a change that might serve to distance us even from our friends, what to speak of our critics?

Therefore, rather than one big change I would be more in favor of making gradual changes? In other words going from phote one (white sari) to photo 2 (saffron sari) and after the dust settles in a few years then go to full unisex attire.

In other words: In like a needle and out like a plough...... Brahma

Babhru Das - November 27, 2004 4:57 am

Brahma's suggestion bears further consideration and discussion, I think. The more I think about it, the more I like the look of a lungi and an adjusted kurta-type shirt, at least on Vrindaranya. Moving toward this in stages may obscure the essential principle less than a big jump. Or maybe having her dress like that at Audarya, and maybe at retreat programs such as the devotees had in Finland, and wear a saffron sari when traveling to engagements that may be largely attended by ISKCON or other GM-related folks. And I don't think a saffron sari would cause such a bug fuss. Every time I see a picture of ISKCON's Malati, she's wearing a saffron-colored sari. And women serving as temple presidents is no big deal any more. Besides Alachua, ISKCON San Diego had a woman, Gandharvika, serving as TP for several years, and Kusa spent a couple of years managing the Honolulu ISKCON center.

Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 27, 2004 5:01 am

I have been thinking about this for most of the day (as you would expect) and have decided that I don't think a saffron sari is enough. Here's why:

Part of what we want to do is to address the fact that Gaudiya vaisnavism does not have a strong monastic model. This is reflected quite heavily in the atire of devotees.

We are, as far as I know, the only group whose lay practitioners wear overtly cultural clothing (dhoti/kurta/sari). I for one have never seen a lay western buddhist practitioner in Tibetan clothes.

Following in that vein, we do not make much of a distinction between the monks and the laity in terms of atire other than the monks wear a different colour cultural clothing.

I believe that it is time to address this and establish a monastic dress code that will serve the gaudiya community (at least our group for the time being) in the same way as every other monastic tradition.

To insist on a distinction between genders simply on the basis of atire is, to my mind, outdated.

I have worked within companies where men and women wore exactly the same uniform, no questions asked. I don't recall anyone having an issue with it.

Sure, when women started wearing pants there was an outcry but who looks twice now? Isn't it now odd to see a women who never wears pants?

If you try and change gradually I think that the people who will be shocked, will be shocked every step of the way. "Just see, the saffron saris were bad enough but now he's putting women in lungis!"

I also think that a saffron sari has other connotations that I'm not all too happy with. I feel that it is saying "sure I'm a woman, but I can be renounced too", rather than "I'm a female monastic".

I hope you can appreciate the subtle but important distinction I'm trying to make.

Just some more thoughts

daso 'smi

Dayal Govinda dasa

Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 27, 2004 5:17 am

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, 1918, the day he took sannyasa.

This started a huge wave of controversy within the Gaudiya community, people were out for his blood over the changes he was proposing (and of course the critique he was leveling at others), but he went on undeterred.

We are at the point now where brahmacaris and sannyasis within the Gaudiya community are the norm, this wasn't the case 100 years ago.

Nobody wore saffron, certainly nobody took tridandi sannyasa, nobody gave the Brahma gayatri at diksa, nobody gave the thread at diksa, the mantras he gave were not the same as other groups were giving, he was considered as heterodox as they come. But how does the world know about Gaudiya vaisnavism? Through the saraswata parampara.

Our lineage is one of controversy. Bhaktivinoda, Bhaktisiddhanta, Prabhupada, Guru maharaja, all were and are considered heterodox by peers and those within other Gaudiya lineages.

I say embrace the controversy and push forward Mahaprabhus movement in the spirt of the Bhaktivinoda paraivara. Saying that, I'm not advocating the changes for the mere sake of controversy, I truly feel them to be a necessary part of our traditions growth, but I am not one to shy away from it either.

True, we gather most people within our group from ISKCON, but we also find that people that come into the group may, and do, have problems adjusting to the way Guru maharaja presents the teachings. I feel that these external changes will hold a flag that says "we do things different over here. If you join us, you will have to change the way you think" in no uncertain terms.

daso 'smi

Dayal Govinda dasa

Swami - November 27, 2004 5:38 am

What I see happening is that progressive devotees affiliated with other missions that are not progressive identify with our mission because it is progressive, and sometimes they end up joining us. We are a relief for them, a breath of fresh air. And we are so deeply Gaudiya in terms of philosophical and theological insight, and so full of common sense, that we cannot be and are not being dismissed by those who disagree with some of our policies. In short we are gaining ground by being progressive. Here is another opportunity to be so.

Senior preachers outside of ISKCON like Paramadvaiti Maharaja, and Narasingha Maharaja love me, even though they may at times differ from me on policy. They will never abandon me. Never. Some senior preachers in ISKCON like me and some do not. Again, the ones who like me do so because I am progressive. Current day Gaudiya Matha acaryas may shake their heads sometimes about my policies, but they are for the most part affectionate and respectful and some of them even ask me for advice.

This is about a principle that has not been addressed adequately by Gaudiya preachers to date. Could the mentality it seeks to address be tied to the fact that Gaudiya missions have few if any monastic women? Meanwhile other Hindu preaching missions and yoga societies who have addressed this issue abound with them, as do Buddhist missions in the West.

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 27, 2004 7:33 am

The various responses to this thread are a perfect example of how much challenging gender roles stirs up in all of us. Anxiety and reservation in the face of such a needed change are, in my view, of personal nature, but they get transfered to some kind of outer realities (like for example, the imagined opposition from Iskcon). I also finf it interesting that every women who so far spoke on this issue seemed to be in favor while the men have all kinds of ideas as to how a women should look or appear in the world. What is that about? Again, it is about anxiety to see a women differently then what is socially prescribed. As Madan Gopal (you are taking some good classes it seems) pointed out, we are socially programed to internalize and uphold rules that govern bahaviors and appearance of diferent genders. These rules not only tell us who the other people are and how they should behave but also tell us who we are. Children do not start out as gendered as adults become. Huge gaps are a bi-product of culture not inherit difference between men and women. I would like to specify that I am not using the term gender and sex interchangebly. The sex refers to a biological characteristic that is largely genetically determined and unchangable (i.e., it is a stable state, like to be male or female) while gender refers to the identity acquired from the outiside world that govern one's bahavior (i.e., it is a quality like masculine or feminine). What is appropriate masculine or feminine behavior will largely depend on the culture and social norms while how one's sex is expressed will largely depend on biology.

So when we are internally stired up, those pre-conceved notions of what it means to be male or female, masculine or feminine, are challenged and the opposition is created because it challenges not only how we see others, but who we think of our selves.

In humble service,

Vamsidhari dasa

Bhrigu - November 27, 2004 8:37 am

Vamsidhari, you are of course right about gender being a social construct. However, the sex is not. It is part of our prarabdha karma, and unlikely to go away until we leave this body, regardless of how we dress. A monastic will naturally renounce his or her sexuality, but will in many ways still remain a man or woman. Claiming something else, through dress or in other ways, at least before the stage of sannyasa, seems a little unrealistic to me. That is why all traditions of renounciants that I know of will have monks (male) and nuns (female). Apart from the picture of American buddhists Vrindaranya posted, I have never seen monks and nuns dress in the same way. I do not think that having different clothes is the main reason for monks and nuns being treated differently by others. That has probably much more to do with the social norms and the customs of the surrounding society. For example, the first step to improving the lot of the widows of Vrindavana would surely not be to have them all dress as men.

I think it is unfair to accuse those not comfortable about the idea of only one dress for all monastics to be upset about "challenging gender roles." Nobody is saying that women should only stay at home and take care of the family. I, for one, think that the problem here is rather that this is a change that is unnecessarily provocative. Where is the need for this particular change? Do you have throngs of women demanding the right to wear kurtas and lungis? In my experience (which I admit is limited) devotee women are more concerned with sexist statements in the books, unequal opportunities and disempowering politics. I think that publicly and broadly adressing these issues would have a more powerful impact than changing the clothes.

All that said, I think that Vrindaranya has a point about white and the widows of Vrindavana. White may also put the brahmacarinis in the same group as novice brahmacaris not yet given the saffron clothes in the eyes of outsiders. So why not go for the saffron sari for brahmacarinis, while brahmacaris would wear dhoti + kurta/ t-shirt + uttariya.

And if everyone should wear the same, I suppose the most philosophically correct statement would be for all to wear saris.

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 27, 2004 9:09 am

Vamsidhari, you are of course right about gender being a social construct. However, the sex is not. It is part of our prarabdha karma, and unlikely to go away until we leave this body, regardless of how we dress.

I never claimed that sex is a social construct, as a matter of fact I clearly stated that it is a biological fact (for most people because we cannot forget that biologically there exists a state of being inter-sexed in 1-3% of people). I am not advocating to get rid of sex but of gender roles and norms which are reflected in the dress (note: im not saying sex here). For a distinction between gender and sex please read my previous post. Gender roles have always been relfected in the dress in every culture and they continue to be. I do not understand why is this so difficult to see?

I think it is unfair to accuse those not comfortable about the idea of only one dress for all monastics to be upset about "challenging gender roles." Nobody is saying that women should only stay at home and take care of the family. I, for one, think that the problem here is rather that this is a change that is unnecessarily provocative. Where is the need for this particular change?

I am not accusing anyone but stating what for me is obvious based on my knowledge of what happends to people when their pre-concieved notions are challenged (in this case gender roles) and what I see in people'e responses. I still have not heard one argument based on personal belief or some informed knowledge that satisfyingly argues against such changes. All the arguments here that I can think of are based on some percieved opposition from the outside or that such change is not appropriate because it is PROVOCATIVE. I have to ask provocative to whom? Why is it provokative? What does it provoke? Why is it important not to provoke?

As to your question of where is the need for such a change it is exactly at Audarya which reflects Guru Maharaja's heart.

Those who wish to change the world cannot be shy about it.

I think that publicly and broadly adressing these issues would have a more powerful impact than changing the clothes.

I think you are wrong. It is very important and it has a very powerful impact. Isn't this discussion an example of it?

And if everyone should wear the same, I suppose the most philosophically correct statement would be for all to wear saris

Hahahah, curiously enough that was also my first suggestion!

In humble service,

Vamsidhari dasa

Bhakta Ivar - November 27, 2004 12:09 pm

Guru Maharaja likes the fact that Christian, Buddhist, and many Hindu renunciates have identical monastic dress, thus diminishing distinction and sexism. He particularly dislikes when women renunciates in Gaudiya temples wear colorful saris and sometimes even makeup and gopi dots. He see this antithetical to the renounced order.

I totally agree with that. I never understood the colorful saris and the naked (!) belly. As a fresh brahmacari I asked some seniors about that, but nobody had a satisfactory answer.

Ivar

Bhakta Ivar - November 27, 2004 2:17 pm

Another thing to think about: we say we wear saffron, but it's perceived as pink. Well, it really is pink. I think it would be better if it's a bit closer to orange (not totally orange). Even from the point of view of colour therapy, it''s more conducive to our goals.

As far as dhoti versus lungi, lunga looks much better (i.e. the ankles). I have heard people refer to dhotis as diapers.

Kurtas are practical. Chadders have style. Transcendental fashion?

Ivar

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 27, 2004 2:42 pm

Where is the need for this particular change? Do you have throngs of women demanding the right to wear kurtas and lungis?

It is hard for me to express my opinion because normally I speak in complicated polish and now I have to express what I think in simple English. I also maybe do not exactly understand everything that you write, but I will try to take some part in this discussion.

I do not think we are talking here about changing the dress of women and introducing a revolution on every level, but only about monastery life and destroying sexism in this sphere. Also the establishment of an even more monastic model for life in Gaudiya society. When I met Guru Maharaja for the first time, I noticed that Audarya is very different from temple models and farm societies that I found until this time. This difference was that for the first time I saw a monastery. I see this discussion as another step in this direction. As Guru Maharaja wrote, Gaudiya missions do not have any model of monastic women. I think also that the model of monastery life on the west and in India are very different. There is no question here if we have here groups of women who have to be accepted in kurtas, because here we are not concerned with large crowds but only singular persons. But does the fact that we are only speaking about singular persons, make this problem smaller?

Sometimes people tell me that Srila Prabhupada was very merciful to allow women to live in the temples, but I see this more healthy practicality and reasonableness of Srila Prabhupada. I think that the step that Guru Maharaja wants to take is the next step in this direction. In India in the asrams there are women who have become widows or who have renounced life in society completely because of their overwhelming holiness. Here though, we have a completely different situation. Women who want to live in monasteries do not necessarily have to be holy persons nor widows. One can be holy and live in the monastery or live outside the monastery and just the fact that they live in the monastery does not mean that they are necessary holy but only means that this is their nature.

I think that our monasteries on the west will never become popular and overcrowded. They will never become the in thing to do, but will always be just a natural place for part of the society. For ages, only a small present of western society makes up monastery life and we can not fill this hole with our present model of a temple. I think that the only thing that can successfully do this is the model that Guru Maharaja presents. This type of model is necessary for a small group of persons who will never feel good in their lives if they do not find their rightful place in it.

Arguments are made that most of the people come after all from Iskcon and it will be hard for them to accept this. I though that we must look a little broader since most people do not come only from Iskcon but from societies in which the model for monasteries has been existing for ages. It is not important if someone is a believer or not since this model is part of their world and not only the religion. A part of these persons, I am not saying a big part but a small part of these persons had they not met a devotee in their life times, would have gone to live in some type of monastery of some religion since this would have been most natural for them. These persons were lucky enough to have met on their path a devotee and become a devotee themselves, yet they were never lucky enough to find a monastery here that they were searching for.

I can say this from my own experience. Throughout all of these years I did not live in any temple for even a little while. Temples were tiring for me. They disturbed me more then put me at peace. I suffocated in them. This was not the model of monastic life that I was searching for. Since childhood I wanted to be a Catholic monk. This was my main dream. I played by giving holy mass and in organizing outings for all of the neighborhood kids to the church. Other games did not attract me as much as this. I read a lot of books about God calling to a person inside their heart, inspiring them to follow Him and I wanted to go to the monastery. Jet my parents said for me to first finish high school and later make a decision.

I agreed, but in high school I met the devotees and my life found a completely new direction. Yet I never found my place in any temple and I simply traveled, preached and established new centers to not live in the temple. This after all suited me because I always wanted to be a missionary and not close myself behind a gate the whole time. I think that there is more people like this, and that the society is composed of a lot of different people. We have people who will feel like fish in water in a temple, we have people that will want to go through brahmacari training and later marry, and we have people that want to live in partnerships and we also have people that will want to live in monasteries but unfortunately there is no such monasteries. Such monasteries are a part of western civilization. A sort of scale balancer for the many other creations being formed in the society. There will always be people who will want to sacrifice their whole life in this way and I think that Guru Maharaja does a wonderful thing helping these people to find a place because later they will happily pay this back with their whole hearts to the rest of devotee society.

It is worth noticing that even in Catholic churches there is a separation into priests and monks. A monk is also a priest but has a different job. A monk sacrifices his life to the hard work of the monastery. A monk sacrifices his life to meditation. A monk prays for others and often in some convents, the main service of a monk is prayer for others including missionaries and priests. This model has existed for hundreds of years and often people have it more conditioned within themselves then the several years in Iskcon. A model like this exists and a need like this exists and we can not ignore that. I think that if properly presented and showed as Guru Maharaja explains this, then there will truly not be such a large problem with acceptance of this by others. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe in the USA a model of life such as this is not so well known, yet in Poland and I think in several other counties of Europe, the understanding and acceptance of such a model will come quite easily to the people. I think that even our society can easily understand such a model of monastic life even more then a Hare Krsna temple which you can see presently.

I think that even though the matter concerns a small percentage of people in a society, it is very important and can help us all. I think that such monasteries have a chance to become the heart of a society and a place which all will love. We see this in the example of Audarya. Did any of you find a more wonderful place anywhere else then Audarya Asram?

Of course, what I am writing may seem not to go with the tradition very well. Yes maybe this sounds like heresy. I think I always stayed more Christian then Hindu. I am interested in loving Krsna and not becoming Hindu and accepting something that in many cultural aspects, even though many years have passed, is still foreign to me. Maybe that is why I like this idea so much. I think that this is very important and that a model such as this has to exist because there are people who really need it.

Returning to the matter with the dress of the women, I am more and more convinced towards a kurta for the women and a similar dress for the men and women monks. This is not some kind of feminist war and the propagation of feminism under the guise of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, as some opponents of Guru Maharaja would like to see this. It does not have as its goal the attention of feminist followers in order to gain followers. This is an answer to the call of great burning desire. I think that this is good and from the point of view that it is good for the singular persons who want to live in this way so that they can finally stop going in circles from temple to temple in their search for a place for themselves. This is important from the point of view of preaching and the rest of the society's view of us because the mission of preaching is not directed towards Iskcon but to giving a chance to the whole society and for this society a model such as this will be much more easier to accept then other forms of preaching. This is also important from the point of view that has been mentioned so many times, that of sexism. People who will of course in the outside world will be functioning according to their separations based on sex, which has a certain role in today's society and we can not deny this, will be able to learn a lot by observing such a society of monks. I would personally feel good in an environment like this and I think that if Guru Maharaja sees a sens in bringing equilibrium in this way of equality in dress, then surely under his direction and acceptance this will bring success. After all this is not concerning a model of renounced men and renounced women, but only about the creation of a model of monasteries and a monastic life for women and men. A model such as this will surely differ from traditional temples and will be progressive, but as Guru Maharaja noticed, so many groups have already seen a sens in the creation of such a model, so maybe it is worth it to think about introducing similar changes in Gaudiya Vaisnavism in the West. This after all does not endanger the essence. The essence stays as it is and maybe even more, the essence is only more underlined.

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 27, 2004 5:19 pm

Where is the need for this particular change? Do you have throngs of women demanding the right to wear kurtas and lungis? In my experience (which I admit is limited) devotee women are more concerned with sexist statements in the books, unequal opportunities and disempowering politics. I think that publicly and broadly adressing these issues would have a more powerful impact than changing the clothes.

The need for this change is that Guru Maharaja sees the Gaudiya monastic model in the West to be in shambles. It is in light of this that he started revisioning the monastic model. An area of particular weakness is that we don’t have many strong women monastic leaders. There should be a lot of Gaudiya women renunciates in leadership positions because as we see in other traditions, there are usually more of them: women are more likely to become renunciates than men. We don’t see this in our tradition because it has been widely propagated that women like to be raped, are materialistic, less intelligent, undependable, and nine times more lusty than men. In our tradition, women have been systematically barred or at least heavily discouraged from positions of leadership, such as giving classes, leading kirtans, becoming temple presidents, sannyasis, gurus, etc.

Challenging misogynist attitudes in writing and giving equal opportunities is one way of addressing the problem, and allowing women to wear accepted color of renunciates is another. If we have a policy of women shaving their heads and wearing saffron, this will undoubtedly be too provocative for a lot of Iskcon devotees. Why? Because a lot of them have sexist and misogynist views. Otherwise, what is the issue?

Having a unisex outfit is a further development on the concept of empowering women. As Dayal Govinda pointed out, wearing a saffron sari is basically an act of empowering women as equal renunciates. The unisex monastic dress makes an even more profound point. It is a way of saying, “We’re not women or men. We aren’t our body.” Guru Maharaja likes the lungi because it is worn by both men and women in India. I personally dislike the idea of men wearing the traditional clothes of women or vice versa. Therefore, we discarded the idea of men wearing saris or women wearing dhotis from the very beginning. I really like Dayal’s insight that it would be ideal to have a dress that is uniquely monastic, not the common dress of a particular culture.

It was suggested that having dress that reflects the philosophical point that we are neither men nor women is artificial, but I would question what philosophical point is being made by having men and women wear different dress. In other words, if someone were to ask you why men and women monastics have different dress, what would your answer be? Think about it.

Why is it important to distinguish between male and female monastics? What purpose does it serve? I have yet to hear any compelling reasons.

What we are seeing in the West is that people’s male and female sides are becoming more balanced, and men and women are moving closer together. The differences are diminishing. It has long been the case that as people’s IQs get higher, the differences between the sexes diminish. This phenomenon is also apparent in class: those in the lower rungs of society have sharper distinctions between male and female. I think this trend towards men and women becoming more similar is good in society at large and important for monasteries. I find macho monks, which you find a lot of in Gaudiya matha and Iskcon, and girly nuns to be distasteful.

Therefore, in my mind the unisex monastic dress is becoming more and more attractive.

P.S. The picture below is an Indian woman guru wearing a lungi and kurta.

Mathura-natha Das - November 27, 2004 5:30 pm

About the dress issue: I think that it is a very good idea to have the same dress for both male and females in the monastic order. Then on the other hand i´m not sure which kind of dress it should be. But some kind of a unisex model would be best. I´m not concerned about stirring things up and creating controversy, because i´m totaly confident in Guru Maharaj and the vision he has for the Gaudiya Vaishnavism to come. Of course other groups may think that this kind of a change is too much, but then again everything progressive has always started as "too much". You know: First it will be ridiculed, Then fought, and finally accepted.

And for the online courses....HARIBOL!! BRING IT ON!!!

Brahma Dasa - November 27, 2004 5:59 pm

In this photo: What are the people behind the guru wearing? (I can't quite make it out.) And what is the general dess of the renounciates there?

Also the lady guru is wearing some kind of top cover over her kurta, is this idea being considered?

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 27, 2004 6:09 pm

In this photo: What are the people behind the guru wearing? (I can't quite make it out.) And what is the general dess of the renounciates there?

 

Also the lady guru is wearing some kind of top cover over her kurta, is this idea being considered?

The women behind her are wearing punjabis. I have no idea if they are married or renunciates. The guru has a folded chaddar over her shoulder. I meant to show that women wear lungis in India.

By the way, perhaps we should talk about the dress for the foundation program, the teacher-training program, and the lay congregation. Here is a starting point for discussion:

foundation program: saris for women, dhotis for men. [in light of the current discussion, perhaps there should be a unisex outfit here too.]

teacher-training program: white lungis and kurta for both men and women.

lay community: sattvik yoga-style clothes.

There was some talk of the lay community wearing white yoga-style clothing for programs. Perhaps people in the lay community don't want to have suggested clothing.

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 27, 2004 6:14 pm

foundation program: saris for women, dhotis for men. [in light of the current discussion, perhaps there should be a unisex outfit here too.]

teacher-training program: white lungis and kurta for both men and women.

lay community: sattvik yoga-style clothes.

 

There was some talk of the lay community wearing white yoga-style clothing for programs.

I agree that fundation program dress should be equilized too in both form and color.

I do not know that sattvik yoga style clothes mean but I do agree that we should dress appropriatelly for the public programs.

Swami - November 27, 2004 6:18 pm

I have made no decisions on monastic dress thus far, although I am strongly leaning in the direction of unisex dress for monastics—lungi and kurta (maybe the kind of kurta that is ties on the side instead of buttons—not sure).

This development has influenced me:

I spoke with the two most prominent Buddhist centers in the US this morning, one on the West coast, the other on the East coast. They consider themselves to be setting the pace for progessive and ultimately the most truly "Buddhist" form of Buddhism. It is worth noting how they combine the two, Buddhist and progresssive. With regard to monks and nuns and their dress, both centers have adopted a unisex robe and in this way departed from the cultural past in Japan, which they feel was clearly influenced by sexism. They see different robes for men and women as a clear expression of sexist conditioning. The East coast center did not use the terms monks and nuns, but rather the gender neutral "monstics."

These two groups have huge Western followings that are anything but cultish and socially backward, yet very serious about ataining enlightenment and traditional in more respects than not. They love the tradition and its customs, ritual, etc. but see the need to separate out that which is not central to Buddhism when it conflicts with modern sensibilities. Talking with these people makes one yearn to see a similar representation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism here int he West. Such a presentation would have the power to dwarf the most prominent face of our tradition, as big as it is, and hopefully to influence it to change and be as big and contemporary as its founder hoped for.

If most of our members are coming from ISKCON and other Gaudiya institutions, this is a great shortcoming on our part. Relif work, as Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja termed it, is only one half of our prescribed duty. The world lies in the balance, and all of you, for your own benefit, need to get involved in establishing a contemporary yet traditional presentation of Guadiya Vaisnavism of intellectual and personal integrity. As Babhru said earlier, the future is now!

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 27, 2004 6:41 pm

The photo belows show how Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur, as an innovative preaching strategy, had some of his monks wear black suits with priests' collars and leather shoes. I believe that he even had them dressed in this way in Vrindavana and it caused such a stir that they were stoned.

Krsangi Dasi - November 27, 2004 7:13 pm

Firstly I must say that I'm very enthusiastic about the idea of creating a clear distinction between grihasta and renunciate women. People often seem to see have problems taking brahmacarinis seriously, and even think that they're only come to live at the temple in order to find themselves a husband. It doesn't really help if they're dressed in pretty colorful saris and cholis (which I personally dislike, I feel half-naked wearing one) and use a lot of make-up.

The role offered to girls in Iskcon temples (at least in my limited experience) seems to be that of a giggling idiot who needs a man to take care of herself, which is ridiculous, as all the non-devotee girls are perfectly capable of living alone and supporting themselves.

I've also often wondered about the "devotional clothing" status of the sari. As far as I've understood it has no spiritual meaning for Indian women, they wear it in their everyday life like I wear my jeans and t-shirt. For me it is a special spiritual thing to wear a sari as it reminds me of Krishna, but isn't it originally just a regular Indian women's dress?

Having said this I have some reservations about the unisex outfit shown in the photo posted here earlier. I don't have that much experience of lungis and dhotis, so in my eyes they looked pretty much the same. So to me it looked like everyone was wearing men's clothes instead of an all new unisex outfit. Looking at the photo quickly I would have said there were four men in it. For me, as a feminist, this is a problem. The question that comes to my mind is whether the best thing a woman can become is a man?

If women dress like men there's a danger of them becoming invisible. Seeing a large crowd of male devotees I often get a feeling that women are being excluded from the group, left behind to take care of the kids and the kitchen. I think that what Gaudiya Vaishnava women need are strong female role models (like Vrindaranya is for me personally) and therefore it's important that the women are visible, that they stand out from the traditional masculine devotee crowd. As long as we're not completely pure Vaishnavas we think of ourselves, as well as other people, as men and women, and I feel that women should be proud of their gender, in a healthy way, instead of trying to hide it.

So even though I find the sari quite impractical to wear I feel that a saffron sari would still be better than a unisex outfit, if the unisex outfit resembles an outfit we're used to seen men wearing. The saffron color has a strong meaning for devotees, so I feel it would be the logical choice for all renunciates, as well as the shaved head, but I feel that women should have their own dress to encourage other women to take on the path of renunciation.

In any case I'll respect the decision that will be made about the new dress. These are just some thoughts that have been on my mind the last few days.

Yours,

Krsangi

Swami - November 27, 2004 7:42 pm

Note: A lungi is hardly masculine when viewed through Western culture. When I use an airport rest room the looks I get are, well, wierd, like "Are you sure you are in the right room honey?" Some facial growth helps in these situations. Overall the lungi seems to me to be more about men moving away from masculinity, towards kindness, empathy, and so on. It sure has been abused!

Swami - November 27, 2004 8:11 pm

Another point: At least in the West, interest in monastic life has never been viewed as masculine.

On dress: All of the Buddhist traditions dealing with this issue have adopted the traditional dress of monastics and rejected the dress for nuns that was given later as a concession. Thus one dress that represents renunciation for all. I like how they have stayed inside the tradition yet contemporized, it seems to me, without compromise.

Vrindaranya Dasi - November 27, 2004 8:24 pm

I actually get people thinking I'm a man (a boy actually) even while wearing a sari. Ten minutes into a conversation with a devotee at a program he said something about me being a brahmacari. When I corrected him, he admitted that he thought I was a fourteen-year-old boy! His head was spinning when I told him I'm a 32-year-old woman.

Growing out my hair would be the only solution to this situation, but Guru Maharaja is firm about all monastics shaving their heads.

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 27, 2004 9:01 pm

but I feel that women should have their own dress to encourage other women to take on the path of renunciation.

Although my possition on this issue is well known by now I wuold like to point out a very important thing Krisangi says here: "women must be rocognized as women in order to help other women achieve the same goal."

I whole hardedly agree with this in any aspect of social life, but here we are talking abut monastic life.

Due to women's subordinate position in society they do appear to be absorbed into the "masculine" in order to gain their rightful position. Where there is a preponderance of males, females tend to blend in just because to our eyes men take precedence. I say this because masculine is priviledged over the feminine in general. A good point about feminisam is that it recognizes and celebrates a womewn for who she is and how she is.

I also do not think that wearing a longi is masculine therefore, it does not mean that a woman is moveing towards being a man.

However, the "androgenous" appearence challenges both males and females about their notions of gender. It also challenges feminisam in its view of gender. The monastic life, as it is presented to us here, presuposes that while both genders overtly appear dressed in the same way internally they also gradually seek to transcend the divisions between genders. This does not mean that monks are supposed to artifically abandon their gender identity. It only means that a facilitating environment is provided in order to promote internal changes. It is of curious note that gender research, most notable Sandra Bem, identifies people with psychological androgeny as superior in both psychological well being and social adjustment.

In humble service,

Vamsidhari dasa

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 27, 2004 9:03 pm

I actually get people thinking I'm a man (a boy actually) even while wearing a sari. Ten minutes into a conversation with a devotee at a program he said something about me being a brahmacari. When I corrected him, he admitted that he thought I was a fourteen-year-old boy

I think this confusion is actually because of your cowheard boy nature that shines trhough

Dayal Govinda Dasa - November 27, 2004 9:40 pm

I just wanted to briefly address an issue that has been dealt with previously, that of preaching to ISKCON, just to shed a bit more light on it.

As Guru maharaja pointed out, if we think of ISKCON as our main preaching ground then we are doing something wrong. We should be, and are, seeking new pastures to spread Mahaprabhu's message. To simply concentrate on those coming from a failing organisation is to turn Guru maharaja into a relief worker, a shame considering all he has to offer the world.

Another point is that when we do preach to ISKCON, we should preach to ISKCON, not pander to their preconceived misconceptions.

The fact remains that they are simply wrong on a number of issues, issues that we feel passionate about. Surely we could reach ISKCON better if Guru maharaja didn't mention Sridhara maharaja (and that has been suggested), is that a way forward?

To preach is to 'rock the boat'.

Someone once complained to Prabhupada that some people were disturbed by Guru maharaja's preaching. Prabhupada replied (I paraphrase) "if no one is disturbed, what is the use of preaching?"

daso 'smi

Dayal Govinda dasa

Shyam Gopal Das - November 27, 2004 9:50 pm

I've been thinking about this all day. First of all, coming back to my earlier comments, I applaud a unisex dress and think that the reasons why are all clear.

Secondly, the best way for female monastics to speak out would be to wear unisex dress. In that way, they establish their equal position as monastics. It shows there is no difference, men and women are both pursuing the same path with no restrictions for either sex.

Thirdly, I see no problem with the lungi, but still the kurta with buttons looks masculine to me. You can say that is a culturally inflicted idea, but then I am not the only one holding it. As Vamsidhari prabhu said too, our outside appearance to society at large is important. So better to choose a piece of clothing that stresses neutrality. (the buddhist dress does not look like any western piece of clothing and in that way, i feel it instills its neutrality. Though this maybe not the case if I were japanese)

If the kurta could be made more neutral and thus less masculine looking, I see no problem at all. Especially the buttons give it a masculine feel.

Citta Hari Dasa - November 27, 2004 10:11 pm

By the way, perhaps we should talk about the dress for the foundation program, the teacher-training program, and the lay congregation. Here is a starting point for discussion:

foundation program: saris for women, dhotis for men. [in light of the current discussion, perhaps there should be a unisex outfit here too.]

I think a unisex outfit for all the stages would be appropriate; after all, the training is taking place at a monastery regardless of which direction the student wants to go after graduation. I have experience with the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Society and they have a unisex uniform for their teacher training courses; when I took the TTC at the Sivananda Yoga Ranch everyone wore white yoga pants and yellow t-shirts. The fact that both men and women wore it was a complete non-issue; rather, it would have been very strange if there had been different outfits for men and women. Their sannyasis often wore orange sweat pants and sweatshirts, or orange yoga pants and kurtas, or langhi and kurta--both men and women. I don't remember ever seeing a female sannyasi in an orange sari while there.

Valerio Giannini - November 27, 2004 10:13 pm

Some points.

When I went to India some years ago I saw many indian people wearing very long kurtas on both dhoti and pence. Why do we western devotees wear short kurtas instead ? I always wondered this. Perhaps a longer kurta can add a monastic appeal to the unisex dress.

Although already well supported, the idea of a unisex dress can be supported by further observing the world around us: big companies have a unisex dress for their employees, police-men and women have the same dress, martial artists - both male and female - use the same dress.

Take the martial arts dress as an example. You can recognize which martial art syle one is practising by the dress he/she wears. Karategi for karate, hy fu for kungfu, and so on. And his level of competence in the art by the belt's color. White for beginners, black for accomplished practitioners, etc. Shaolin monks even use differently colored hyfus to distinguish their competence level. This could be the same for Gaudiya monastics' dress. Long kurtas and lungi for brahmacari/ni, vanacari/ni, and the sadhu for sannyasi/ni.

A question: what about the lay practioners' look? Should an initiated grihastha brahmin shave his/her head and wear some kind of special dress like married christian priests do?

Valerio

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 27, 2004 10:38 pm

To simply concentrate on those coming from a failing organisation is to turn Guru maharaja into a relief worker, a shame considering all he has to offer the world.

It would be such a shame and also why should Guru Maharaja clean up other peoples messes? Espacially in the light of how much mess they have been causing him? I guess the answer could be found in his infinite m,ercy and compassion but also in his fervor for spreading Sriman Mahaprabhu's mission.

To preach is to 'rock the boat'.

I was just thinking that for Guru Maharaja's vision we could also rock the ocean itself!

I have experience with the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Society and they have a unisex uniform for their teacher training courses;

I have seen the wonem renunciates in Sri Ramakrishna's mission (the Vedanta society) and they wear female saffron skirts and shirts, while the men wear lungis (I guess). This greatly distressed me because although apparently "equalizing" in color it was sharply dividing in style. There was something fake to me about this I could not undertand. Now it is clearer to me. Women were still expected to appear as women in their dress.

In humble service,

Vamsidhari dasa

Hari Bhakti - November 27, 2004 10:58 pm

I am truly shocked at the amount of response on this topic. What a wonderful exercise in changing our angle of vision.

It is safe to say there is a consensus on the training programs – this will be a great addition to our spiritual community. The idea of the training is inspiring and gives the whole community opportunities to contribute in new capacities.

As a person who has donned a sari on many an occasion, I can agree with the facts that they are cumbersome and restrictive, and when adorned with all of the “fancy” bells and whistles can seem a bit over the top. Not to mention the obvious distinction is causes between the sexes. I can not tell you how many times I have had to try to justify this attire (sari) to other western women – often coming up empty handed about the saris sexual stigmatisms.

If we think about this in terms of outsiders point of view: Will it change how an individual outside of our mission may increase/decrease attraction based on cloth? Knowing this is subjective as we all have our ideas of what is or is not aesthetically pleasing, I will give my perspective as a single woman in her very late 20’s who is fairly in touch with the urban community. That is that the ideas of equality are much more charming than those of separatism. That being said I think from an outsider perspective the unified cloth will cause much less of an obstacle for the newly interested.

There has been mention of not disturbing our extended spiritual family by our attire change. I think two things about this idea. The first is…are we selling these people short by thinking they will view us differently because we changed our cloth? As sited in this string we come from a dynamic lineage, not afraid to challenge our conceptual limits. And secondly it makes me think of the way Guru Maharaja speaks of family members saying the Bush girls may not have even voted for their farther, yet he loves them more than all of the millions who did vote for him…surely if George can exhibit this love of family we have nothing to fear of “shaking up” our family based on a piece of cloth.

Now as for the lungi idea, this is just an exercise in flexibility. We are all different people in different places on the path and Guru Maharaja is ultimately flexible, knowing where people are at and what they may or may not be ready for. If he feels Vrindaranya should be in saffron lungi, so be it. As far as I can tell this is the real issue since there are currently no other women at this point (that I know of) at Audarya. Will this challenge the way we think of women in our community? It has definitely put it in the forefront of our thoughts based on all of the responses to the string. Why not sit with the idea for a week or so and revisit the conversation with a renewed perspective. Since I was at Audarya for Govardhana-puja I have been stewing about this for a while, and can honestly say my initial thought were not those of elation. Having spent some time with the idea I have removed some of my fears of change and softened to it – as you can see.

The only thing I feel like this may change is the outsiders perspective. Either way to the outsider Gaudiya Vaishnava attire seems odd, but maybe some how less difficult to digest when there are not such distinct sex-based differences.

I want to end by recognizing there are many other more qualified people in this forum, to whom I pray I do not offend by this post. Although I have been requested by Vrindararanya to add my two cents and having the utmost respect for her I could not pass it up.

Babhru Das - November 27, 2004 11:33 pm

I have some reservations about the unisex outfit shown in the photo posted here earlier. I don't have that much experience of lungis and dhotis, so in my eyes they looked pretty much the same. So to me it looked like everyone was wearing men's clothes instead of an all new unisex outfit. Looking at the photo quickly I would have said there were four men in it. For me, as a feminist, this is a problem. The question that comes to my mind is whether the best thing a woman can become is a man?

 

If women dress like men there's a danger of them becoming invisible. Seeing a large crowd of male devotees I often get a feeling that women are being excluded from the group, left behind to take care of the kids and the kitchen. I think that what Gaudiya Vaishnava women need are strong female role models (like Vrindaranya is for me personally) and therefore it's important that the women are visible, that they stand out from the traditional masculine devotee crowd.

I need to think a little more about the points Krishangi makes here, but I think this is a position that should not be ignored or dismissed too easily. The fact that I believe I need to consider them more means that I take them seriously. And the fact that she makes them after expressing quite clearly her ambivalence about saris lends them a little more weight in my view. One point that comes to mind is that the number of women in this position are likely to be very few. We have few enough now in our group that the issue has a face and a name. As we grow, the number of sannyasis and other renunciates--male of female--is likely to remain small. The renunciates will be contemplative (bhajananandi?) or teachers, and the sannyasis exemplary models of dedication to teaching without any extraneous consideration. So I'm not too worried about public programs with large groups of renunciate women who may be mistaken for men.

And I think that Vrindaranya is right when she suggested that the lay community may not like to be told how to dress. I think that most will undersand that dignified, clean, modest clothes are always appropriate for devotional gatherings. Some ladies will like to wear saris sometimes, others may prefer salwar-kameez ("punjabis"), and some men may like wearing dhotis. And many will prefer to wear clean, comfortable, modest casual clothes appropriate to the culture in which they live.

As far as lungis and sex, they are certainly adrogynous. In many cultures around the world, men and women wear something like them. (I have always understood that the sannyasis' accepting a lungi, uttariya, and kaupins was an expression of a desire for simplicity. And about 20 years ago, I found myself worrying that ISKCON's big-guru sannyasis may turn a beggar's garb into something too extravagant to be recognizable as such, much as the Roman Catholic Church has turned a shepherd's outfit into those outfits priests and bishops wear.) Here in Hawaii, many women wear pareus in public as a sort of casual wear, and I often see men, mostly Hawaiians or other Pacific islanders, or hippies, wear them, too. I like to wear one around the house because it's comfortable, easy to put on, and easy to keep clean.

As I said before, at BV Shasthi and Svati wore raw-silk lungis, longer kurtas (the bandhi type, I think), and a chaddar over the shoulder. They looked sharp, and, although it took a little time to get used to their dress, no one had strong objections. And this was an ISKCON project.

Speaking of ISKCON, I think that many ISKCON devotees, like me, will find our approach attractive, but I agree that we should not be thinking of ISKCON as our preaching field. We would like to set an example for ISKCON to consider and emulate to the extent its leadership sees it would be advantageous, but devotees coming directly from ISKCON should not be our object. (I think I may have been something of an anomaly, anyway. I lived near an ISKCON center and served there because the devotees appreciated what I had to offer, but I haven't considered myself an ISKCON member in the sense that I have any confidence in or feel any loyalty to its management structure since 1985. And before that, I had often been considered suspect by some hard-liners because of my Hawaii background.) Our object should be to demonstrate to everyone the wonder and dignity of the Gaudiya vaishnava vision. And that includes the dignity of the different ashrams, however they may be expressed in 21st-century terms. Now, among us there may be some whose interests include finding ways to increase the unity (in the unity-in-diversity formula) between our group and other Gaudiya groups, and among all the Bhaktivinoda/Sarasvata family. The requirement for scholarship and dedication will be great for these devotees. Part of the trick will be to highlight common ground without effacing our own identity.

And in a corner of my mind, I'm sitting in front of Srila Prabhupada in December of 1973, along with my friend Tarun Kanti and my wife. After Tarun explained how he hoped to make a living as a flight instructor, Srila Prabhupada, absolutely unfazed, wagged his head and said to all of us, "Devotees and devotional service cannot be stereotyped. There is nothing that cannot be used in Krishna's service. Simply we need guidance form the expert spiritual master how to engage evereything; that is the only trick."

As I said above, I need to think about this more and welcome the other devotees' insights. And this post is far too long.

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 28, 2004 2:36 am

foundation program: saris for women, dhotis for men. [in light of the current discussion, perhaps there should be a unisex outfit here too.]

teacher-training program: white lungis and kurta for both men and women.

lay community: sattvik yoga-style clothes.

If we say that we want to change a tradition and set up our own way of doing things for our group, we can be received as crazy, yet I know that if we create this change as a model for monastic living, a lot of different people will be ready to listen to our arguments. Our opposition will criticize us for whatever we do and will always search out faults in what we do and surely we can expect that for certain people this will be the main argument against us and Guru Maharaja. Yet if we show that our motivations are sincere and that this only pertains to creating a special model of monasteries and not making a revolution and isolating ourselves from others, then many people will appreciate this even if they themselves will have a different view point.

In many traditions, monasteries were created and this always involved the creation of a special monastic rule and often with special dress for that group of monks. These types of changes always brought with them criticism, yet the purity of the motivation is the power which is a very powerful argument. If some organization or group will not accept this, then surely this will create a distance, yet if in preaching alone, this can help us to get closer to people and to give them our example, then it is worth to do this. Mahaprabhu accepted sannyasa only for the good of his mission so that others could better respect it. I think that even though we should not expect respect for ourselves, we can do something for what we want to give to be respected. I personally see a lot of pluses resulting from this type of change.

As I already wrote earlier, for many people just because of our dress we look exotic and happy, yet many people that I speak to, do not treat us seriously for this same reason. If Guru Maharaja decides to introduce the same dress for all monks and establishes our asrams on a strong foundation, then this public reaction could change drastically. Not only will we benefit from this, but also others. In my country, people are very favorable to monastic life and to monasteries which are respected for ages and I think that society is very favorable to such places and it respects them. Also from conversations with many devotees in Poland, I can discern that they would look very positively at a monastery like this and I think that in this case, the problem of dress would not be so shocking. Many people would very much appreciate a place like this even though it would be hard to find people to want to live there . We do not have to worry so much about the reaction of other groups since the truth is that we are not creating new and strange temples or farm communities but only a monastery and there is no model that we can use to base it on. For sure, this will not go through easily, yet if this is the vision of Guru Maharaja then I am sure that this will function wonderfully and the example will be the most powerful argument on our side.

My question is if a model such as this for the dress at least, would exist only for Audarya Asram or would it also be introduced in the future in Poland or other countries if there would be such opportunity there? What kind of dress would I wear for example, and what kind of conditions would I have to meet from my side, and if this would not be too realistic then could I come for a longer time of teaching? I am asking this out of curiosity because we were thinking about how this would look for other communities other then there in Audarya.

The proposition of Guru Maharaja and his comparison with Buddhist temples, are understandable for me and I see a deep sens of making this happen. My early doubts disappeared and with impatience I await the final outcome of this discussion and what will be introduced into life. I think that it is also worth to look at many other aspects such as climate when planning such an outfit for all monks and the different solutions that will result.

I sincerely admit that when I read about this for the first time I was not impressed but then I suddenly remembered that picture and I remembered the question that I had when I saw it for the first time; "Why does Sridhar Maharaja look so different here in his dress then any other devotee that I had seen until this time? Is a dress like this worn normally or is this something unusual?" Today I found this picture in my computer so I am pasting it in.

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 28, 2004 3:21 am

Here is a skeleton outline of the new Audarya model:

 

The whole program of preaching seams wonderful to me and it is straight from my dreams, yet I do not know how I could take part in this. I have hope that I will be able to benefit from it somehow. I am thinking how to at least a little introduce this into Poland slowly and maybe later in our Saragrahi Asram that will be established. I hope that at least a little we will be able to do this.

Babhru Das - November 28, 2004 5:01 am

I mentioned this discussion to my wife this afternoon. She thinks it's an interesting topic, but finds the idea of a unisex dress a little odd. My wife is largely responsible for my seriously reconsidering gender issues. She brought the subject up relentlessly beginning in the '80s. And I have heard her complain about the hassle of saris more times than I can count. Nevertheless, she mentioned that she thinks the variety is something that makes Gaudiya vaishnavism attractive--that there is some distinction between men and women. I mentioned that what we're discussing is likely to apply to a very few women, and she relented a little. Then she mentioned Mother Teresa (she knows this is one of my easily pushed buttons), and I told her that I brought this into the conversation, and that I also acknowledged that Mother had come from another order and adapted the sari to better facilitate her service in the cultural environment of Kolkata. Then I also had to mention that I acknowledged that her Missionaries of Charity wear the same sari wherever they serve. In any event, I expect that the two of us will continue to discuss this, and I'll share anything helpful that comes out of those conversations.

I think I may also bring this up with my daughters, who are 25 and 28. They're both bright, and although they're faithful devotees, they are also very aware of the inequities devotee women have had to put up with. I'm curious to see how they might respond to the points being made here. Would it be acceptable for me to copy and paste some of the comments made on this thread?

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - November 28, 2004 6:14 am

Well, I hope I’m not too late. That always happens -- don’t check forum for couple of days and look -- you’ve already missed something existing! I’ve heard talks about unisex uniforms when I’ve been at Audarya for Govardhan-puja, so I had some time to think about it.

Fiddler on the Roof.

Tradition! Tradition.

Being of Jewish heritage myself I’m very traditional, so my first thought was -- no way! Unification not separation -- uniqueness can be harmful, why abandon old dress code? Why be different? Kirtanananda’s New Vrindavan came to mind as well…

The words Hare Krishnas have become permanently tarnished in the eyes of the larger society.

Then I thought -- we must differentiate, we are already by our teachings so why not by clothes as well? When I saw the picture I thought that Vrindaranya looks great and for new people without previous baggage (ISKCON or any other) new uniform will look pretty organic and natural.

In any case, do you really care what you dressed in? Sukadev Goswami didn’t, so I would like to go back to the training courses which is way more important subject to discuss. Several questions/concerns:

1. What is the minimum age to start? 20 years old? Do they have to finish collage before joining Audarya? Any specific degree preferred? Will students pay tuition? Do they have to pass entry exam? How will you prevent Audarya turning into a boy scout camp?

2. What is the ultimate goal of the training? To make more monks? To deploy them into more monasteries? What about lay people? Any 2-3 day intensive training targeted to new or old-timers on specific subject?

3. "…will be able to lead a kirtan, cook a feast, give a class, read Sanskrit and Bengali, and perform Deity seva…" Why diversify? Some people can have natural affinity to one service but not all, shouldn’t they pursue something they have a talent for? Traditional Christian monasteries have pretty specific tasks for each monk to perform, so shouldn’t we follow same model?

4. Audarya resources are very limited -- it can only support small number of people on daily bases: food, size of the temple room, electricity, etc. How this will be addressed?

5. “Learning the scripture under Guru Maharaja's supervision, intense training in the Gaudiya scriptures” -- this requires deep personal involvement of Guru Maharaja and this will heavily impact his writing/traveling, etc. How this will be addressed? Will he write text books instead of personally teaching? Will you hire teachers for Sanskrit/Bengali, etc?

6. Do we know of any friends in Bhaktivedanta College or Rupanuga Vedic College to talk to? They offer courses in Vaishnava Studies, so they might have some good pointers on where to start and what pitfalls to avoid.

7. Any thoughts about accreditation? For example Bhaktivedanta College is offering a Certificate in Vaishnava Studies accredited by the University of Wales, Lampeter through the Open Learning Theology and Religious Studies programme. The credits earned by the Certificate and Diploma programmes are equivalent respectively to years 1 and 2 of an undergraduate study.

Babhru Das - November 28, 2004 6:38 am

"Why does Sridhar Maharaja look so different here in his dress then any other devotee that I had seen until this time? Is a dress like this worn normally or is this something unusual?"

I've seen other pictures of Srila Sridhar Maharaja wearing something similar. I think it's a coat (or a bathrobe worn as a coat), worn for warmth. I believe his health was poor at the time, and I'd assume that since he didn't get much physical exercise, his circulation was likely poor, which would make him feel cold. I'm assuming he has a kurta and lungi underneath, since we can see his uttariya over the coat. I think this is a symptom of Maharaja's detachment.

Babhru Das - November 28, 2004 6:53 am

Regarding concern 2, my best guess is that its purpose would be to sytematically train disciples in our tradition's philosophy and practices. These devotees would then, depending on their status and inclinations, carry this training back to their lives in the world of work and civil engagement, engage in a life of more profound bhajan at Audarya, go elsewhere to help establish other monasteries, or go out and share what they've learned from their guru maharaja. Some combination of the latter three may also be an option. He has often said that our interest is not in finding disciples but in finding gurus.

Regarding concern 3, I would imagine that some would indeed specialize more. But I'd guess that Maharaja will encourage as many as possible to develop a broad range of talents so they could go anywhere and replicate what's going on at Audarya. Srila Prabhupad also wrote of his desire that his disciples become competent at many of the things necessary for establishing Krishna consciousness in new places and developing those communities of devotees. He did not favor over-specialization, centralization, and bureaucracy.

Regarding concern 4, I've heard that Maharaja has concrete plans for developing the facilities at Audarya. That will, of course, be easier with different kinds of help from the rest of us.

Regarding concern 5, studying under Maharaja's supervision doesn't mean that he necessarily has to do everything himself, at least not indefinitely. He would clearly need good helpers to assist with the teaching there and to relieve him with regard to the travel sometimes.

These are, as I said, my best guesses. I'm out in the middle of the ocean, far from the action. I'm sure we'll get more definitive answers to your questions in the morning.

These are exciting plans. They stir (agitate?) my heart, as I imagine they must do to others. Maharaja seems intent on giving even more fully of himself(if we can imagine such a thing) and on drawing the rest of us into the game. Our complacently is in great danger. Beware!

Bhrigu - November 28, 2004 8:29 am

A few more notes on the clothes for monastics:

1) The picture Vrindaranya posted did not show standard brahmacaris. The two persons dressed in black are (left to right) Kunjavihari Vidyabhusana (later Bhaktivilasa Tirtha Maharaja), general secretary of the Gaudiya Matha, and Vinodbihari Kritiratna (later Bhaktiprajnana Keshava Maharaja), manager of Sri Caitanya Matha, Mayapur, where the picture was taken. Kunjavihari was a householder, Vinodbihari a brahmacari in white. Both were leading managers. Sarasvati Thakur would sometimes dress his leading managers in western style clothes when interacting with westerners. Here's another picture, this time with Kunjavihari to the left of Srila Sarasvati Thakura, and Aprakrita Bhaktisaranga Goswami (later Bhaktisaranga Goswami Maharaja), another householder and leading fundraiser, despite the title.

Bhrigu - November 28, 2004 8:37 am

2. The general dress for brahmacaris has varied somewhat in Gaudiya Matha history. Here is a picture from Sarasvati Thakura's time. As you can see, dhoti + uttariya (a small and thin cotton chaddar) was the standard in those times, sometimes with a t-shirt or a sleeveless undershirt underneath.

Bhrigu - November 28, 2004 8:41 am

3) The kurta is not really a "traditional" hindu piece of clothing, but has (in its short version) gradually entered into GM style. One can find some interesting variations; here is a picture of Bhaktihridaya Bon Maharaja in Berlin. Note that he wears another shirt underneath.

Bhrigu - November 28, 2004 8:55 am

4. In modern times, most Gaudiya Matha brahmacaris will wear a kurta only on formal occasions; generally they will wear a dhoti, a t-shirt, sweater or whatever fits the weather + an uttariya around the neck. The uttariya is seen as essential. Here is a picture from the Bhajankutir of Bon Maharaja in Vrindavana. The small boys in the foreground are brahmacaris in white, the rest are sannyasis. Brahmacaris in saffron would wear the same style of clothes.

Note also the "trikaccha" style of wearing the dhoti (as at Audarya), tucked in once at the back, twice in front. Nimai Pandit wore trikaccha dhoti according to the CB, although that may have been in a slightly different way, the way they do in South India.

Bhrigu - November 28, 2004 9:13 am

5. Another thing that has changed a lot is the use of turbans, which was very common in Sarasvati Thakura's time. Nowadays turbans are used almost only by the brahmacaris and sannyasis at Keshavji Gaudiya Matha, which is famous for this. This is of course connected with the fact that turbans are hopelessly out of fashion amongst hindus today.

In other words, changing the kurta into something else would not be a big thing. Having brahmacaris wear a lungi instead of trikaccha dhoti is not unique either: it is done in the Gaudiya Mission (founded by Ananta Vasudeva), headquartered at Baghbazaar, Calcutta. Unfortunately, I cannot find a picture right now. They will generally wear lungi, t-shirt and uttariya. Their argument for it is that brahmacaris are renunciants, and should therefore dress in a different type of clothing than householders. The problem with this is that everybody else will mistake their brahmacaris for sannyasis. This mission is also something of the black sheep in the family: they claim to be the only real successors to Sarasvati Thakura and keep exlusively to themselves. Other Gaudiya Mathas consider them somewhat off, not mainly because of the dress, but it is seen as a symptom.

Having men and women renunciants dress in the same type of clothes has also been done before, at New Vrindavana, but may also be something we wouldn't want to identify ourselves with.

Anyway, these are just a few historical and comparative notes that may be of interest. Even though I favour dressing brahmacaris and brahmacarinis differently -- and I think Krishangi has a very important point why -- I am not dead against the idea, and if it is introduced, I will not oppose it in any way. But since feedback was asked for, I wanted to give my input. As Kamalaksa said the other day, Swami has told us that Prabhupada said that his only problem was that he didn't have anyone to speak to. We are not (or at least I am not) on Swami's level in any way, but we can try to offer some constructive input. In that sense, I think that it's great that this discussion has engaged so many.

Your servant,

Bhrgu

Brahma Dasa - November 28, 2004 4:43 pm

Take another look at the Buddhist photo on page one. In introducing unisex attire for monastics I would think an uttariya would be essential. An uttariya would bridge the gender gap and even looks kind of Buddhist.

Ratna Cintamani Dasi - November 28, 2004 6:21 pm

Since this is my first time on Tattva-viveka I would like to introduce myself. I am a resident of the Santa Rosa community and moved here 2 years ago. form Eugene, OR, with my husband Agnideva Dasa and our 2 daughters Nadia and Nimai. Our son Sahdbuja attends the University of Hawaii. I joined Iskcon in Laguna Beach, CA in 1975, after hanging around Iskcon for 5 years, and left in 1987. We moved to Eugene in 1991 and shortly thereafter connected with Guru Maharaja.

Having said that here is my 2 cents worth on the subject, which I will give as I am aspiring to be a monastic in the future and would like to wrap up life in this body at Audarya. I very much like the Lungi idea but am not too sold on the Kurta, I think a good quality T-shirt with a cotton chadha worn as a sash across the chest would look appropriate. We need to consider that bodies come in different shapes and sizes and therefore I think a chadha is essential. Saffron is a good color for monastics and I think also a plum colored chadha or T-shirt could be worn. For the new trianees that same attire in a natural fiber gives a kind on nondescript look. For the lay community I am still on the fence. Agni has worn white lungis and kurtas for years now for the comfort factor, I am not sure for myself at this point.

Audarya-lila Dasa - November 28, 2004 7:47 pm

Mentioning the fact that most of the members of Audarya had first contact with GV through another institution was by no means meant as a statement that our outreach or vision should be lessened. It is really a matter of acknowledging a fact - one which I might add is likely to remain with us for some time. People who resonate with the ideal of GV will become dissillusioned with the present external presentation of it fairly quickly. I know that when I first visited an Iskcon temple in the 70's I was very uncomfortable with the fact that women were in the back and things were so obviously segragated and sexist. This was a big obstacle for me in terms of joining the movement - ultimately I simply ignored many things that were obviously wrong due to being convinced about the higher end. But that only lasted so long - I eventually couldn't live with all the obvious flaws of how GV was being institutionalized.

This is really an important step for us as the Audarya community grows and I am very happy to see the progressive nature of the entire program.

BTW, just because what ultimately happened at New Vrndavana was horribly tragic doesn't mean that everything that happened there must be seen in a negative light.

Got to go - I just wanted to say that I see all of this as very positive. I support Guru Maharaja in whatever decision he makes.

Vamsidhari Dasa - November 28, 2004 9:26 pm

People who resonate with the ideal of GV will become dissillusioned with the present external presentation of it fairly quickly. I know that when I first visited an Iskcon temple in the 70's I was very uncomfortable with the fact that women were in the back and things were so obviously segragated and sexist. This was a big obstacle for me in terms of joining the movement - ultimately I simply ignored many things that were obviously wrong due to being convinced about the higher end. But that only lasted so long .....

These are very good points I would just like to add to this that external presentation in Iskcon DOES reflect internal values and that is the hardest thing to deal with. This is best exemplifies by what we have been discussion on another thread ("When religion..."). Segregation and sexisam are values that are promoted and they are justified as "Vedic" or as reflecting "spiritual reality." I think that all of us at time chose to ignore these things for very similar reasons but as you pointed out that can be done only temporeraly or with great psychological sacrifices (i.e., by becoming fanatical).

BTW, just because what ultimately happened at New Vrndavana was horribly tragic doesn't mean that everything that happened there must be seen in a negative light.

Exactly! Things do not translate so literaly only if there are some similarities. Also the sorourse of the changes at Audarya is, as we know, completely different.

I would also like to add that it is wonderful to hear from women in our group and I hope more will honor us with their thoughts and reflections. Also thank you Brighu prabhu for such a comprehensive historical analysis.

In humble service,

Vamsidhari dasa

Babhru Das - November 28, 2004 10:08 pm

I think Ratna Cintamani's suggestion of good-quality t-shirts, at least as an option. The companies that make these have long- and short-sleeved shirts. I don't know about colors. I see many sannyasis and brahamacharis wearing plum or burgundy sweaters and sweat shirts. I heard a long time ago that brown and gray were standard for sannyasis, so I'd probably tend to favor that, out of habit of mind, I guess. (Okay, Vamsi--here's your opening!) And I think a top cloth is good, too. Some may want to wear it around their necks, as we see some of the brahmacharis in Bhrigu's pictures doing, some on one shoulder, and some wrapped around their chest. Satyaki and I remember Shasthi and Svati often wearing their top cloth either over the shoulder or around the chest. (Svati, I think, wore it over her head inside the temple.)

One of the things I've been enjoying about this discussion is the variety and the honesty. As Bhrigu mentioned earlier, Maharaja often cites Srila Prabhupada as sometimes complaining that he didn't have anyone who could offer him reliable advice. Maharaja has made it clear that he would prefer vigorous discussion to an echo chamber. I appreciate that even younger, "less-experienced" devotees have been among those whose opinions diverged a little from the echo-chamber model of disciple. What a nice community of devotees!

Gaura-sakti Dasa - November 28, 2004 10:19 pm

I've seen other pictures of Srila Sridhar Maharaja wearing something similar. I think it's a coat (or a bathrobe worn as a coat), worn for warmth. I believe his health was poor at the time, and I'd assume that since he didn't get much physical exercise, his circulation was likely poor, which would make him feel cold. I'm assuming he has a kurta and lungi underneath, since we can see his uttariya over the coat. I think this is a symptom of Maharaja's detachment.

Thank you Babhru Prabhu for the answer, I thought this might be the reason...Well, in Poland it is quite cold so maybe here this could be introduced as some part of the dress for the monks for colder days

Narada-kunda Dasi - November 29, 2004 2:17 pm

Since Swami requested "as many voices as possible", my vote goes to saffron lunghi, ordinary shirt (definitely not kurta!) such as the one Vrindaranya wore in the picture, and uttariya (chadar) (as worn by the Buddhist monks, not the sannyasis) by all means. It does away with the (in)voluntary appraisal of the physical form. Prabhupada emphasized the chest should be covered twice.

I agree that white has a negative connotation, and that saris are such a hassle -- uncomfortable, impractical, alluring, and so much excess cloth taking up extra space in the closet or when traveling (requiring petticoats to boot)...

Catering to the prejudices of other communities I do not support. If one takes a stand, at least they will know who their friends are. In this way there is no time wasted arguing with obstructionists posing as important personalities or with those lacking the courage for a sincere spiritual practice. They can only benefit from seeing an example of bold integrity.

Upon reading the first post about Swami's vision, I felt exhilerated. At long last an empowered personality is here to continue the mission on a large scale. I feel Krishna is so pleased with him, and I am very joyful and grateful for the privilege of being even remotely (for now anyway) connected with his project -- and with all the nice devotees sharing their hearts in this forum. Thank you all for being so honest, simple and kind. After 11 years of ISKCON, I can hardly believe my good fortune in finding genuine shelter in sadhu-sanga...

Bhakta Ivar - November 29, 2004 2:26 pm

When I'll become a monk again I don't really want to wear the type of clothes ISKCON members wear. I don't want people to get the impression I'm of the same group that still indirectly allows child abuse to take place. Or has done and will do so many other crazy things.

Another note: there's a travelling preacher in Eastern Europe who actually wants his female disciples to wear as many gopi dots, hair pins, colorful saris etc. as possible, for preaching purposes. But then again, what exactly are you preaching, and what kind of people do you want to join?

Ivar

Swami - November 30, 2004 6:31 pm

My conclusion:

Praying for the blessings of Thakura Bhaktivinoda and my gurus and param gurus in his illustrious parivara, and this after hearing all the sincere devotee's insights, my decision on monastic dress and a very basic outline of the steps and training required to adopt it is as follows:

Both men and women who have taken vows of renunciation will wear a saffron lunghi and bandhi kurta.

Before fully embracing monastic life I think it best to keep the male attire the same as we find in most branches of Gaudiya Math, with novices wearing white kurtas and dhotis in the style of Mahaprabhu for 2.5 years and saffron in the same style after that with shaved head. Women novices will wear white saris and waist length cholis in the style of Jahnava Devi for 2.5 years and then change to saffron in the same style and shave their heads.

After a total of 7.5 years in training and service, and at the age of 30 or older and at my sole discretion, again, men and women can become monastics and wear a saffron lunghi and bandhi kurta, indicating that they are renounced for life. Those qualified to preach may be given sannyasa and accept the uttariya and tridanda.

I am also considering some type of chaddar for chest attire.

Some have commented on the sari being uncomfortable. Traditional dhotis are also somewhat awkward. However, neither of these are as uncomfortable as the attire of other monastic orders. Positively speaking, they are steeped in Gaudiya tradition, being the attire of Jahnava and Mahaprabhu respectively. Furthermore, those who wear these will not have made life commitments to monasticism, although they may be aspiring to do so. Once again, when the life commitment is made by either men or women, their attire will be unisex and traditional.

Those in the 2.5 year training period who intend to pursue monastic vows, as opposed to pursuing training and eventual entrance into the lay community, can with my permission shave their heads after completing the first six months of training.

Lastly, special consideration may be given to elder devotees who have served as householders for most of their lives and then express interest in monastic life under my direction, especially if they are my Godbrothers or Godsisters.

…………............................

The above is but one aspect of one part of my vision for broader preaching. Under the inspiration of Pujyapada B.R. Sridhara Maharaja we have been conduction mostly “relief work,” for the last twenty years. We have, that is, been preaching to devotees. Now I would like to turn my attention more to the general public. While this involves establishing monastic training and standards, it is much more concerned with empowering the lay community.

We are developing a new outreach and support model that we hope to start implementing here in the San Francisco Bay area after I finish my Siksastakam commentary. It will be a model that can be duplicated anywhere in the world. I hope to post more on this at a later date.

Karnamrita Das - December 1, 2004 3:06 am

I have been meaning to say some words on this topic, though now the discussion is finished. I certainly will support any innovation which might assist the preaching efforts and the creation of a renounced order that has meaning and spiritual potency.

Having said that I would like to say that my perspective is a bit different from most here in the sense that although I have a deep siksa connection with Swami and consider him my main source of siddhanta, I and my wife are basically working within ISKCON to offer counseling services to its members, and resources and training for Grihastha devotees. I appreciate all the comments about the shortcomings of ISKCON yet I haven't given up on it, and don't consider Swami's "relief work" for ISKCON such a bad thing. For our work it is essential to make the guidance that Maharaja gives available. While some here want to pull Swami away from such a "lost cause" we are trying to pull him closer at least in some way for progressive views.

I am thinking that the change in dress may be make it even more difficult to bring Swami forward. Certainly there will always be devotees who will not give him a chance, who are black and white thinking uprogressive types, yet here is another thing which seems to widen the differences. My perspective may seem rather irrelevant for dynamic preaching, but I thought I would share it.

I do realize that distiguishing the renounciates at Audarya may also be a good thing, but for my wife and I, we make a bit of a sigh, take a deep breathe and pray for the best outcome for everyone. I guess this is more opportunities for Swami to preach about these changes to the wider circle of devotees.

Babhru Das - December 1, 2004 4:34 am

I appreciate my old friend Karnamrita's sentiments here (he was one of the sane ones at the temple we had in Moanalua Valley in '74), partly, I suppose, because I also haven't burned all bridges yet. Although I'm no longer working very closely with ISKCON, and certainly not as deeply as Karnam and Archana, I have hoped that I may some day help build bridges between our group and parts of ISKCON. That may become progressively difficult to realize as I write more, but I'll peacefully accept that, if it's what's in the stars. I certainly appreciate their dedication, and from what I heard of the talks at their home this past September, Swami's presence there dissolved the misgivings some devotees may have about his influence. If it's possible to help grow the appreciation in ISKCON for our Swami, it will be a great boon to that institution.

I fully support Maharaja's plan, and I have confidence that progressive, essence-seeking leaders of other missions will come to accept it, perhaps eventually embrace it. I find the calls to bold integrity quite moving.

And Karnam, I really like that line from CB: "gotra badauna krsna ama sabakara."

Karnamrita Das - December 1, 2004 3:18 pm

Thanks Babhru for your kind words. I was very busy at that time in Hawaii and didn't have much personal interaction with you or anyone, but I always have fond memories of you and your wife. All the my godbrothers and sisters I have served with, and who are still endeavoring for loving service to Sri Guru and Gaura-Nityananda after 30 years bring a real smile to me. Very special, very enduring and endearing. Thank you again for your contributions and years of service.

Another way I am feeling about this new direction is its' like growing pains, or a snake giving up its' old skin to grow bigger. Another analogy is the butterfly struggling to get out of its' cocoon to emerge as a beautiful flying creature. I don't like effort, yet nothing worthy is ever accomplished without effort and Krsna's mercy. That knowledge doesn't make it easier for me. Change is usually not appreciated, however needed it is. Human beings are creature of habit. The status quo dies a hard death, if at all.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - December 1, 2004 7:46 pm

So with uniform issues out of the way, can we go back to discussion of the curriculum, etc? I’ve posted some question before in this thread and was wondering if somebody can reply to them.

Babhru Das - December 1, 2004 11:55 pm

I made some guesses at 2, 3, and 4. It might be more useful, though, to hear from those involved in developing the plan.

Sridama Dasa - December 2, 2004 6:28 am

I'm also curious to hear more about the curriculum that will be offered, particularly in the way of weekend or long weekend retreats and online courses. I feel like I lack to a degree a good foundation of sastric knowledge, so I'm very interested in what will be available in that arena.

Shyam Gopal Das - December 2, 2004 8:17 am

With regards to the online courses, it may also be a good and cheap option to look at some php scripts that could be installed on tattvaviveka.com eg. This may be cheaper and easier than having to buy space from an online 'education merchant.'

Vrindaranya Dasi - December 3, 2004 2:05 pm

Dandavats,

We still don't have satellite Internet access at Audarya, so other than Guru Maharaja (who himself can only go online briefly) we can hardly get online, and when we do get online it is a struggle to even answer all our emails. Therefore, until our Internet company resumes service, we unfortunately won't be able to participate in much discussion about the curriculum.

That said, what I already posted is about as far as we have gotten on the curriculum. The only other development is that Guru Maharaja wants to video the Bhagavad-gita and other scriptural lessons so that they can be used in study groups or individual study.

Ys,

Vrindaranya

Ratna Cintamani Dasi - December 3, 2004 5:10 pm

I would like to respectfully respond to Karnamrita das's thoughtful comments on Iskcon relief efforts. I also have feelings for many friends still dedicated to Iskcon and of course would like to see a harmonious realtionship with all Gaudiya devotees but to consider this in planning our future seems a little counter-productive. Some will be attracted and some will be distracted but we need to deliniate ourselves in such way as to feel inspiration to grow within ourselves and then to share that with those actively seeking to change. Agnideva and I have the unique opportunity of meeting fresh people really looking for spirtual guidance, at Govinda's. There is a wealth of people not yet connected to any group who are just waiting for the progressive spirtiual path that Tripurai Maharaja is offering. We have such a unique opportunity and I am feeling an awakening that I haven't felt in many years. Really this is not such a radical change and those who seek to criticize will find something to find fault with. Even in Catholicsm the different sects have different attire to establish their individuality.

Ys,

Ratna-cintamani

Karnamrita Das - December 4, 2004 9:38 am

Ratna Cintamini Prabhu: Thanks for your comments. I do agree that being distracted or diverted by relief efforts for ISKCON would be counter productive. I was just reacting to Dayal prabhu's statement sort of looking down (as I saw it) such relieve efforts which basically I am involved with. I am being a bit defensive since I obviously see what I am doing as valuable. We all have different preaching arenas. I do think your relationships with ISKCON devotees is important. Our experience is that because devotees believe in and trust us, they have been willing to hear from Swami with positive results.

I am just expressing the difficult position I am in, sort of being in two worlds. This is where I am at for now and the foreseeable future. I just wanted to share that dilemma. Nothing influences like success, so if Swami and his preaching is successful (he is already of course) then that will get the attention of ISKCON---sort of like the Japanese cars did to American cars; their better cars became the standard and the American cars had to come up to that standard.

The Jesuits were a new order (with a new dress) that really saved Catholicsm. They became well educated and started Universities etc. So ideally Swamis model will do that (creating a revival) for the Gaudiya community. If the various warring factions could get along or at least respectfully agree to disagree, how must more would be accomplished in our own KC and in outreach.

By the way I don't think my wife or I have ever met you, so hopefully we will when we visit Audarya. I know Santa Rosa well---at least I did many years ago, having been brought up in SF, and visiting there regularly. Your and Agni's restaurant sounds great. It is an effective way to preach.

Dayal Govinda Dasa - December 4, 2004 5:35 pm

Karnamrta prabhu

This, I assume, is what you are referring to:

As Guru maharaja pointed out, if we think of ISKCON as our main preaching ground then we are doing something wrong. We should be, and are, seeking new pastures to spread Mahaprabhu's message. To simply concentrate on those coming from a failing organisation is to turn Guru maharaja into a relief worker, a shame considering all he has to offer the world.

Firstly I apologise if this caused offence, this was in no way my intention.

What I was reacting to was the sugestion that Guru maharaja should not change things too drastically since his main audience is ISKCON, and since most of our members come from that organisation.

I was, and am, in no way against relief work, I was just trying to convey that Guru maharaja has so much to offer it would be a shame if his only consideration was to not upset ISKCON. Guru maharaja has been preaching in this way for 20 years, at the behest of Sridhara maharaja, and now feels that it is time to make a mark independently of ISKCON in a way in which the contemporary world can be captivated by his unique presentation of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

For those involved with Guru maharaja who still have ties to ISKCON, such as yourself, it is immensly valuable work to inroduce him and his presentation to the wider mass of devotees who are becomming increasingly dissatisfied with the way ISKCON is going.

I was there in NC on this groundbreaking visit in which so many devotees were charmed by Guru maharaja, who organised that? You and Arcana Siddhi devi, without whom a good number of devotees on this forum would not have come in touch with Guru maharaja.

In all sincerity, I offer my pranams to you.

As you know by now, I can get a little heated in these debates and write before I think things over too carefully. I think the wording in this instance was not the best, but I hope I have cleared up any doubts over my intentions.

daso 'smi

Dayal Govinda dasa

Vrindaranya Dasi - December 4, 2004 5:46 pm

We're finally back online here at Audarya, so I can give an update on Guru Maharaja’s thoughts about the courses at Audarya.

To start with, here is an update on the Foundatation program:

Guru Maharaja decided to teach the Bhagavad-gita during the Foundation program. Gita classes will be held Monday through Friday, and each class will be about an hour long. There will be tests on each chapter, as well as midterms on each of the three sections and a comprehensive final exam. The classes will be videotaped, so it will be possible for everyone to take part in the course. An ideal situation would be for several devotees to do the course as a group, with one devotee facilitating and administering the tests. Perhaps one class a week would be a realistic pace. For those who can’t do the class with a group, the classes could be watched alone and the tests could be emailed.

Guru Maharaja will also give a Foundation class on Saturdays called Introduction to Gaudiya Ritual, which will be videotaped. It will cover the Gaudiya conception of ritual, standards of purity (cleanliness), how to make an offering (for those without second initiation), and other topics. On Sundays there will be a cooking class in Santa Rosa, which will be taught by Gaura Krsna dasa. Also on Sundays, Citta Hari will give a class on hatha-yoga and Guru Maharaja will give a class for the weekly Satsang program. Dayal Govinda dasa will give a course called Intro to Devotional Music on a day that is yet to be determined.

Because Guru Maharaja is currently working on his commentary to Siksastakam, he would like to wait until Gaura Purnima to start the courses. This will give him time to develop the Bhagavad-gita curriculum.