Tattva-viveka
Did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura have any women disciples?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 5, 2006 7:40 pm
Any names?
Babhru Das - July 6, 2006 12:28 am
Srila Prabhupada's sister had Harinama. Her name was Bhavatarini; we called her Pishima (aunty). I'm sure there were many others.
Bijaya Kumara Das - July 7, 2006 7:23 am
Any names?
No names but in the picture inside cover of his book Phabhupada Saraswati Thakur there is a group of 6-8 ladies on the left and 2 or 3 small girls on the right of the picture of the 1932 Parikaram party on the back inside cover.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 7, 2006 12:46 pm
Anybody has a scan of that picture?
Bhrigu - July 20, 2006 12:52 pm
Sorry for not noticing this thread before now, Nandatanujaji. I've tried to look through some biographies of BSST but could not find the names of any female disciples there. He did have a lot of them, though, they are just usually not mentioned (sorry, Krishangi! 
). BP Puri Maharaja's mother, for example, was one. There is an interview with one in the Bhaktisiddhanta DVD from Nrisimha Maharaja, and some are mentioned in the "Srila Prabhupada, our dearest friend" book of Mulaprakriti Didi.
The system in most Gaudiya Mathas (and for example ISKCON Chowpatty) still today is that women get intiated together with their husbands. Unmarried women are generally not initiated, perhaps to avoid the kind of "guru-groupie" thing one can sometimes see.
Swami - July 20, 2006 1:48 pm
Sorry for not noticing this thread before now, Nandatanujaji. I've tried to look through some biographies of BSST but could not find the names of any female disciples there. He did have a lot of them, though, they are just usually not mentioned (sorry, Krishangi!
The system in most Gaudiya Mathas (and for example ISKCON Chowpatty) still today is that women get intiated together with their husbands. Unmarried women are generally not initiated, perhaps to avoid the kind of "guru-groupie" thing one can sometimes see.
Is the "guru-groupie" thing something that pertains only to women? The same fanaticism is found in some men who surropund the guru, although it may be expressed diferently owing to the different psychologies of men and women. I suspect that there are very few single women that approach the maths in India. The religious sector being very conservative and orthodox does not foster independent educated women.
However, Srila Sridhara Maharaja initiated a couple of unmarried Indian women before he had Western students, among whom there were a number of unmarried women. Come to think of it Sripada Bharati Maharaja of Godruma also has unmarried women disciples and didn't BSST establish a Visnupriyadevi Ashram, or was that only for widows?
Bhrigu - July 20, 2006 2:10 pm
Is the "guru-groupie" thing something that pertains only to women?
I'm not thinking so much about fanaticism in general but more of intense, sublimated erotic feelings for gurus.
I'm sure the same thing would be there for female gurus from male disciples.
I don't know whether BSST actually did establish a Vishnupriya Ashram, but judging from the name at least it would have been for widows. But yes, what I mentioned was the norm, from which there always will be exceptions.
And just to make sure I don't offend anyone: I do *not* mean that all unmarried women disciples would be examples of what I wrote above. By no means. I have seen a few such examples, but never in our Sangha.
Swami - July 20, 2006 2:41 pm
". . . We have been trying for a long time to also give women the opportunity for devotional service. Of course those who have the facility and opportunity for bhakti in their own homes do not neet a separate residence. But very often we hear that many of them get impeded in their bhakti due to bad association. It will be very beneficial for them if we can build Visnupriya-palli (neighborhood) in Sri Dhama Mayapura near the residence of Sriman Mahaprabhu, and if they can live there separately from their families and render devotional service. . . . It is necessary to have such an exemplary neighborhood so that the women can read scripture every day, discuss devotional topics with each other, and have ista-gosthi about bhakti, so they can give up all luxury and live exemplary, saintly life and always chant the Holy Name and take care of the ingredinets of Sriman Mahaprabhu's service and serve him in every way."
BSST
Lecture 9.21.1925
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 20, 2006 2:41 pm
The system in most Gaudiya Mathas (and for example ISKCON Chowpatty) still today is that women get intiated together with their husbands. Unmarried women are generally not initiated.
I met an unmarried female disciple of Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaja too. She is living in a math in Vrindavana with other of his disciples.
Calling it the "system" in Gaudiya Mathas sounds like a deliberate policy and casts it in what may be a misleading light. I wonder if it is not just a circumstantial trend. I am surprised that Radhanatha Maharaja has that policy in Chowpatty. He doesn't elsewhere. Are you sure of it?
On a side note, I have found Gaudiya Maths to be less sexist than Iskcon temples.
Guru-nistha Das - July 20, 2006 3:54 pm
Interesting topic. Actually, we were talking about something that's related to this yesterday with Citta Hari:
It is unclear to me why BSST didn't allow women to cook for the Deities? And what is the exact raeson why some Indian devotees don't even eat the prasad cooked by western devotees?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 20, 2006 4:57 pm
Interesting topic.
The tread was originated because of rampant sexism which I found on Russian devotional boards which I browse once in a while and drop a line or two. One of the statements, for example, was that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura never had any women disciples, which I personally found surprising.
Babhru Das - July 20, 2006 5:29 pm
I also think Srila Sarasvati Thakura had a western woman disciple. When Bon Maharaja was in England, a lady named Daisy something-or-another was initiated as Vinoda-vani dasi. Goursundar and Tarun Kanti met her when they visited her place in suburban London (which served as the Gaudiya Math outpost) in 1973.
Swami - July 20, 2006 6:33 pm
Interesting topic. Actually, we were talking about something that's related to this yesterday with Citta Hari:
It is unclear to me why BSST didn't allow women to cook for the Deities?
There were no women living inthe matha. So they did not cook for the deities. But as we see fromt he excerpt above, he awnted to maek an arrangement for them to do so in the Visnupriya-palli.
And what is the exact raeson why some Indian devotees don't even eat the prasad cooked by western devotees?
Perhaps they are to some extent in the bodily conception of life and not entirely faithful to sastra.
Bhrigu - July 20, 2006 6:45 pm
Calling it the "system" in Gaudiya Mathas sounds like a deliberate policy and casts it in what may be a misleading light. I wonder if it is not just a circumstantial trend. I am surprised that Radhanatha Maharaja has that policy in Chowpatty. He doesn't elsewhere. Are you sure of it?
Ok, perhaps it is more of a custom than a deliberate policy. But re. Chowpatty I am sure; I just heard it from one of his disciples the other day. The reason he gave for it is the one I quoted above.
It is unclear to me why BSST didn't allow women to cook for the Deities? And what is the exact raeson why some Indian devotees don't even eat the prasad cooked by western devotees?
BSST:s strict stance against women is something he inherited from his father. Bhaktivinoda is extremely strict re. women and renunciates in for example Jaiva Dharma. It is one of his favourite themes, in fact, and one clearly influenced by Victorian morals and the perceived degradation of Gaudiya Vaishnava renunciants.
Cooking is also a very important thing in Indian culture, strictly bound by caste etc rules. If a renunciant eats food cooked by a woman, he is practically married. That seems to be the idea. Today, women are sometimes allowed in Gaudiya Mathas to clean up after cooking, but even that is frowned upon by some, wishing to return to the glory days of BSST.
As for westerners, that is more a caste thing. After all, most Western devotees were meat-eaters just a few years ago, and that seems to mean a lot to many Indian devotees as well.
It is a bit unclear who initiated Daisy Bowtell, but I think it was AB Goswami Prabhu, on behalf of Ananta Vasudeva, BSST successor. Her place is still a Gaudiya Mission temple, and a very nice one as well.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 20, 2006 6:47 pm
Note: I wrote this not realizing that Guru Maharaja was also making a post, so there is some overlap, but I’ll post it anyway. Oops. I didn't see Brighu's post before I wrote this either.
Interesting topic. Actually, we were talking about something that's related to this yesterday with Citta Hari:
It is unclear to me why BSST didn't allow women to cook for the Deities? And what is the exact raeson why some Indian devotees don't even eat the prasad cooked by western devotees?
I'm wondering whether Bhaktisidhanta Saraswati Thakur actually had a policy that women couldn't cook for the Deities. I think it was probably more the case that women didn’t cook because the temples were run by men and the mixing of men and women in the kitchen was the issue at hand rather than the women contaminating the offering or something. After all, Mahaprabhu himself ate food cooked by women. I would be surprised if Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur didn’t eat food cooked by women (when traveling and eating at the house of grhasta disciples, for example). There is a picture of him eating with women in the Prabhupada Saraswati Thakur book. Srila Sridhara Maharaja and of course Srila Prabhupada had women cook in their temples.
However, there are some branches of the Gaudiya Math in which the renunciates won’t eat the cooking of either women or male Westerners. I think this is the case in Madhava Maharaja’s mission and perhaps others. Perhaps Brighu knows more?
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 20, 2006 9:06 pm
didn't allow women to cook for the Deities
Another idea, which seems more plausible, is that food must be cooked by the temple priests who by defenition are male and brahmins.
don't even eat the prasad cooked by western devotees
This is couple of quotes I've found, all revolving around caste rules:
The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, Section CXXXV
Bhishma said: A brahmana may take his food from another Brahmana or from a Kshatriya or a Vaisya, but he must never accept food from a Sudra. A Kshatriya may take his food from a Brahmana, a Kshatriya or a Vaisya. He must, however, eschew food given by Sudras who are addicted to evil ways and who partake of all manner of food without any scruple.
Brahmanas and Kshatriyas can partake of food given by such Vaisyas as tend the sacred fire every day, as are faultless in character, and as perform the vow of Chaturmasya ... Verily, those Brahmanas that take their food from Sudras, take the dirt of the earth. .... Those who impudently partake of food offered at ceremonials in a Sudra's house are afflicted with a terrible calamity. In consequence of partaking such forbidden food they lose their family, strength, and energy, and attain to the status of animals, descending to the position of dogs, fallen in virtue and devoid of all religious observances.
The acceptance of food from a wicked person is considered as reprehensible as the slaying of a Brahmana. One should not accept food if one is slighted and not received with due honours by the giver. A Brahmana, who does so, is soon overtaken by disease, and his race soon becomes extinct.
The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, Section CXLIII
Mahadev said:
Those that are righteous and desirous of acquiring merit always pursue with firmness the culture of the soul. The food that comes from cruel and fierce persons is censurable. So also is the food that has been cooked for serving a large number of persons. The same is said of the food that is cooked in view of the first Sraddha of a diseased person. So also is the food that is stained in consequence of the usual faults and the food that is supplied by a Sudra. These should never be taken by a Brahmana at any time. The food of a Sudra, O goddess, is always disapproved of by the high-souled deities. ..... In consequence of those remains of a Sudra's food in his stomach, he falls away from the status of a Brahmana.
Such a Brahmana becomes invested with the status of a Sudra, there is no doubt in this. This Brahmana in his next life becomes invested with the status of that order upon whose food he subsists through life or with the undigested portion of whose food in his stomach he breathes his last.
That man who, having attained to the auspicious status of a Brahmana which is so difficult to acquire, disregards it and eats interdicted food, falls away from his high status. That Brahmana who drinks alcohol, who becomes guilty of Brahmanicide or mean in his behaviour, or a thief, or who breaks his vows, or becomes impure, or unmindful of his Vedic studies, or sinful, or characterised by cupidity, or guilty of cunning or cheating, or who does not observe vows, or who weds a Sudra woman, or who derives his subsistence by pandering to the lusts of other people, or who sells the Soma plant, or who serves a person of an order below his, falls away from his status of Brahmanhood.
That Brahmana who violates the bed of his preceptor, or who cherishes malice towards him, or who takes pleasure in speaking ill of him. falls away from the status of Brahmanhood even if he be conversant with Brahmana. By these good acts, again, O goddess, when performed, a Sudra becomes a Brahmana.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 20, 2006 9:22 pm
Favorite themes? That isn’t the impression I get.BSST:s strict stance against women is something he inherited from his father. Bhaktivinoda is extremely strict re. women and renunciates in for example Jaiva Dharma. It is one of his favourite themes, in fact, and one clearly influenced by Victorian morals and the perceived degradation of Gaudiya Vaishnava renunciants.
In my edition of Jaiva Dharma there are only three references to women and they are aren’t any more strict than Mahaprabbhu's position. Nothing about not eating something a woman has cooked.
I realize that there was bias against women, but this sounds extreme. Are you sure this isn’t just someone’s slant on Gaudiya Matha? What are you basing this on?If a renunciant eats food cooked by a woman, he is practically married. That seems to be the idea. Today, women are sometimes allowed in Gaudiya Mathas to clean up after cooking, but even that is frowned upon by some, wishing to return to the glory days of BSST.
You find different slants with Srila Prabhupada's disciples and it can be hard to know the true mood.
Babhru Das - July 20, 2006 10:00 pm
Favorite themes? That isn’t the impression I get.
In my edition of Jaiva Dharma there are only three references to women and they are aren’t any more strict than Mahaprabbhu's position. Nothing about not eating something a woman has cooked.
The babajis did madhukari, which meant going to the homes of local grihasthas. I assume the ladies did much of the cooking in those homes, especially since it included begging at local cowherds' homes.
I remember two problems with women in Jaiva Dharma: Madhava das babaji's late-night visits from his former wife, and the lady (forget her name) who sat outside the kunja when her husband went to hear the babajis' discourses. What was the other?
And I'm with you, Vrindaranya: I don't see bias against women as a theme at all, much less a favorite theme in Sri Thakura's writing. In fact, early on, he wrote strongly against polygamy because it exploited women so terribly:
Igor - July 20, 2006 10:37 pm
And what about female disciples before BSST in Gaudiya lineage? Is there some recorded examples or history? Srilla Bhaktivinoda, Jagganatha Sarvabhauma etc.
Babhru Das - July 20, 2006 10:45 pm
Some lineages include women as gurus, not just disciples.
Gaurangi-priya Devi - July 21, 2006 1:50 am
The system in most Gaudiya Mathas (and for example ISKCON Chowpatty) still today is that women get intiated together with their husbands. Unmarried women are generally not initiated, perhaps to avoid the kind of "guru-groupie" thing one can sometimes see.
I think the main reason this kind of thing is done is that the traditional Indian woman is taught to see her husband as guru-pati, and to obey her husband above all others. Also it may help with marital relations to have the same guru. I have a few friends that grew up as devotees that decided to wait to take initiation until after they were married to just take the same guru as their husband. For me it never made much sense, and I knew that for me I would have to have my own relationship with my guru to be able to take initiation. But for woman like that they were satisfied enough in just accepting the guru their husband decided on and then developing a relationship with him.
As far as "guru-groupie" mentality, I find it more prevalant in woman who are emotionally un-healthy and see the guru not as just a spiritual figure but as someone that can fill their emotional needs. It can be an added drain on a guru if these woman become too emotionally dependent. Of course it could happen with men as well, but somehow in my experience women tend to be more needy in that respect.
This IS an interesting topic, in so much to me that it shows that gurus have to adapt to time, place, and circumstances. What BSST did and what goes on in Maths today in India is good for that time and place. ISKCON Chowpatty is a temple primarily for Indian people, so I imagine that is why Radhanath Swami has that policy. In America he definetely doesn't have that policy, as I have a friend who is aspiring initiation from him, but her husband isn't. Fortunately our Gurumaharaj is not trying to transplant an artificial time and place, and encourages womens' bhakti in a very special and personal way. One has to preach to the times. My husband was talking with a co-worker at his social work internship the other day about his religion. The two things the man asked about, and which show the mindset of the times, were what about homosexual relationships in a spiritual relationship and if there were woman gurus. Interesting!
Bhrigu - July 21, 2006 6:49 am
Favorite themes? That isn’t the impression I get.
In my edition of Jaiva Dharma there are only three references to women and they are aren’t any more strict than Mahaprabbhu's position. Nothing about not eating something a woman has cooked.
You can hardly get anything stricter than Mahaprabhu's position! 
The instances in Jaiva-dharma are telling. In Madhava Dasa Babaji's case, he was practically ostracised by the Vaishnava community for (involuntarily!) speaking with his ex-wife. In the other case, the (married!) woman wasn't even allowed to enter the grove where the Babajis were giving their talks. Both examples are much stricter than Gaudiya Vaishnavism has ever been, before or after Bhaktivinoda.
Why did he write like this? Because he hates women? Hardly. He was himself married, twice, and I see no indications that he wouldn't have been a loving husband. His point is rather to establish the ideal of how renunciant Vaishnavas are to deal with women -- that is, not at all. Much like Mahaprabhu in the Chota Haridasa lila. For Bhaktivinoda, this is extremely important, since GV renunciants during his time had an extremely bad reputation. They would have "matajis" living in their ashrams apparently as disciples and sevakas, but would in reality have illicit relationships with them. According to a reliable source, this is still widely going on in for example Radhakunda. For Bhaktivinoda, who wanted to reform GV, this was one of the main problems, one that he dealt with repeatedly in the Sajjana-toshani. We have to remember that this was a time when Victorian standards of morality were widely accepted among the educated class in India. Being against mixing men and women renunciants is thus in this particular context seen as progressive.
In his Prema-pradipa, chapter seven, Bhaktivinoda gives an illuminating counter-example. As the Jaiva-dharma, that book portrays an almost exclusively male religious milieu. Here, Bhaktivinoda describes the room of the Vaishnavis in the ashrama Prema-kunja. It is a separate room, he writes, but male Vaishnavas are allowed to enter. One of the characters of the novel then states that this is just as in the case of the Brahmo Samajis. "There the women read and sing, here they read and sing". Bhaktivinoda thus wishes to show that also in GV, both genders are allowed to do the same spiritual practices, as they are in the progressive Brahmo Samaj -- but separately from the men. The conversation between two Vaishnavis in this room, Rasa-bhavini and Prema-bhavini is on a very high level, and Prema-bhavini is portrayed as an advanced devotee.
It is thus not that women are a problem per se -- it is women and renunciant men combined. As Babhru pointed out, Bhaktivinoda wrote against polygamy, and he may even have written something in favour of widow remarriage (but I'm not sure here). So I don't really see a bias against women at all, either in Bhaktivinoda or BSST. They are simply responding to time, place and circumstance, just as Radhanatha Maharaja does in different ways in Chowpatty and the West.
I realize that there was bias against women, but this sounds extreme. Are you sure this isn’t just someone’s slant on Gaudiya Matha? What are you basing this on?
My own pratyaksha-pramana and what I have heard from GM devotees. I have seen women help out with some pot-washing etc in some Gaudiya Maths, but never with the direct cooking.
I have only once been with Indian GM devotees to a householder for a feast, and in that case the temple brahmacaris cooked the feast at that house. I don't know if that is always the custom or just in that case, but I suspect that it isn't. I know that Prabhupada at times accepted food cooked by women already before leaving for the West. Some (most?) of his Godbrothers also accepted prasadam cooked by Western devotees.
All in all, there are tons of rules to do with cooking in Indian culture and Vaishnava sad-acara. Some Vaishnavas follow Mahaprabhu's rule in the CB that he will not accept anything from a person who doesn't chant 64 rounds, others will only eat what a member of their own parivara has cooked. Many will eat at bhandars (festivals), others will not, considering the worldliness of the sponsors to contaminate the prasadam. There are several stories about this in the "Vaishnava Saints" books by O.B.L. Kapoor. Compared to this, the followers of Bhaktisiddhanta are very lenient!
Now, I'm not saying that the example of the GM is something to be followed in the West today. I'm sure Bhaktisiddhanta himself would not have done so -- he was ready to adjust many things for the Western preaching. I'm just trying to present a historically correct picture here. I also don't know whether it is useful to follow such a system in India today.
And as Vrindaranya pointed out, all of this does not have to mean that GM devotees hate women. In fact, from my experience, sannyasis and brahmacaris in GM temples speak much more freely with (also Indian) women than they do in many ISKCON temples. It probably feels more safe, knowing that the women are just visiting.
Good point, Gaurangi-priya! That is probably a more important issue than the one I mentioned.
Bijaya Kumara Das - July 21, 2006 10:23 am
This all sounds nice but Krsnas' mother made sure that Krsna only ate prashadam cooked by
Rhada or herself right?
So to me this says it is for sure okay to accept cooking of properly intiated woman disciples and to guard against the improper mixing or what could be construded to be improper mixing of the sexs.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Sri Sanat-kumara-samhita 209-210:
The sage Durvasa had blessed Her, saying, "O Devi! By the power of my boon, whatever you cook will taste more nectarean than the ambrosia of immortality tasted by the devas; furthermore, such foodstuffs will certainly increase the longevity of one who takes them."
Yasoda Maiya, knowing of this boon, wants her son, Krsna, to eat the cooking of Srimati Radhika. Being full of parental love and care for Krsna, Yasoda always prays for Krsna to have a long life and relish palatable food; therefore, daily she calls for Srimati Radhika to cook.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 21, 2006 4:14 pm
The separation of men and women in BSST’s mission was not in question, it was whether he had a policy of male renunciates not eating the cooking of women. You cited the strict stance of BVT and BSST in this regard, however, how does this establish the above?
As for not being able to get stricter than Mahaprabhu, in regard to eating food cooked by women this doesn’t appear to be the case. Whereas Mahaprabhu would not eat food cooked by non-brahmanas, he would eat the cooking of women. In some missions stemming from Gaudiya Math, I have heard that male renunciates will not eat the cooking of women. In others women can cook for the Deities. So at least in post-BSST-Gaudiya Math there isn’t a standard in this regard. As far as I have heard, this is only the case (in addition to not eating the cooking of Westerners) with Madhava Maharaja’s mission (now led by Bhakti Vallabha Tirtha Maharaja); however, my experience is that renunciates from their mission ate the prasadam that I cooked when they visited here, although Bhakti Vallabha Tirtha Maharaja had his own cook. Therefore, I can't say for sure. It is definitely not the case with Srila Sridhara Maharaja, Srila Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja, Govinda Maharaja, Bodhayana Maharaja, Bharati Maharaja, and others. I don’t know about renunciates in Bon Maharaja’s mission. Perhaps you could let us know their standard.
You said, “If a renunciant eats food cooked by a woman, he is practically married. That seems to be the idea.” However, when so many gurus in the line of BSST don’t follow this, I wonder if it wasn’t just the particular mood of some disciples/missions. That is why I asked what you were basing this on...which missions? Do you have any evidence that BSST had this standard? I wasn’t questioning whether women cooked in Gaudiya Math temples. To me, this seems to be more of an issue of separation of the sexes.
It is one thing to advocate separate facility and quite another, I believe, to say that a male renunciant who eats food cooked by a woman is practically married or—as one might also argue--that the food becomes contaminated.
I agree that BVT had a progressive standard, while at the same time addressing the degradation of the times, as well as the necessity of preaching according to time, place, and circumstance. As you wrote, “Bhaktivinoda thus wishes to show that also in GV, both genders are allowed to do the same spiritual practices, as they are in the progressive Brahmo Samaj -- but separately from the men.” As Guru Maharaja quoted, BSST felt similarly. Despite the name Visnupriya-palli, I doubt that it was only for widows, both from what BSST wrote and from my experience of Indian women who renounced despite the social norms—I find it hard to believe that there weren’t some in the time of BSST too. Another point on stricter standards on women: sometimes Srila Prabhupada said that all women should marry and I believe he said that a woman can’t be a sannyasi, so in this sense BVT seems to be more progressive.
Bhrigu - July 21, 2006 7:08 pm
I do not know for certain whether BSST had such a policy; I simply assumed so from Nandatanuja's question and the fact that in most GMs women are not allowed to cook in Mathas. I know this is true at least in Gaudiya Mission, Caitanya Matha & Gaudiya Mathas, Madhava Maharaja's Maths, BS Siddhanti Maharaja's Maths and Bon Maharaja's Maths, but I have been given the impression that it is the norm. I am sure there are many exceptions, and for all I know, it is possible that BSST didn't really have such a policy, but that it is something others have made up. But if true, since renunciants in the GM generally do not eat outside the Matha, they would not eat the food cooked by women.
You said, “If a renunciant eats food cooked by a woman, he is practically married. That seems to be the idea.” However, when so many gurus in the line of BSST don’t follow this, I wonder if it wasn’t just the particular mood of some disciples/missions.
Again, I have been told by GM brahmacaris in Mayapur and Calcutta that BSST did not allow women to cook, but they may have given me wrong information. The "married" thing is the rationale they gave me. Perhaps I should emphasise that I do not agree with this myself, I was merely trying to answer Nandatanuja's question. As for the food becoming contaminated, I have never heard anyone say that.
Vrindaranya Dasi - July 22, 2006 1:12 am
Do you mean Guru-nistha's question? I think we may have a crossed wire. We seem to be addressing different things. I wasn't questioning whether BSST had women cook in his temples. I had spun off on a tangent about why BSST didn't have women cook in his temples--whether it was just a matter of separating the sexes or a matter of purity (as in Guru-nistha's other question about Western devotees) and I guess I got confused. Sorry about that! It has been interesting. 
Vamsidhari Dasa - July 22, 2006 4:38 am
I am very happy that our Guru Maharaja has a clear and superlative understanding of the ways in which the cultrural prejudice infiltrates spiritual groups and that we do not really have to worry about losing our caste for having eaten something prepared by a different gender.
OTHERWISE, JUST TRY TO IMAGINE NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THOSE TRANSCENDENTALY TASTEFUL FEASTS AT AUDARYA COOKED BY DEAR VRINDARANYA!!!!!! [FILLS ME WITH SHEER TERROR]
V d.
Bhrigu - July 22, 2006 7:41 am
Do you mean Guru-nistha's question? I think we may have a crossed wire.
Yes, that's what I meant. Confused is my middle name. Anyway, I think the reason for not eating the food cooked by women (in the cases that it really is followed even outside the Mathas, which seems to be rather rare) has less to do with purity than with strictly separating the sexes, since cooking is often seen as very intimate service in India. And yes, it does always get interesting when we get our heads together, Vrindaranya!
OTHERWISE, JUST TRY TO IMAGINE NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THOSE TRANSCENDENTALY TASTEFUL FEASTS AT AUDARYA COOKED BY DEAR VRINDARANYA!!!!!! [FILLS ME WITH SHEER TERROR]
Or Krishangi's "pätkis"-simpleys, strawberry sherbet and cinnamon rolls! Definately not the way to go.
Syamasundara - July 22, 2006 8:53 am
"The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, Section CXXXV"...........
These quotes gave me such a chuckle. How can people recur to that instead of brushing up the basics, like kalau sudra sambhava, naham vipro na ca narapatir napi vaisyo na sudro, etc.
Those injunctions refer to an era when there were real brahmanas, who were really absorbed in Brahman (no offense to the Tattva Vivekis who are absorbed in Brahman), really pure.
By the way, the whole idea behind cooking is that grains absorb the consciousness of those who cook them; also, it is said that if someone is pure, he or she will not be burnt by fire (think of Sita). So naturally brahmanas are the best candidates to deal with grains and fire.
Talk about consciousness in the grains, times have changed so much that since the 70's we've eaten wheat that has been genetically modified with gamma radiations (like the incredible Hulk) to make a sturdier, taller variety that's easy to machine-harvest and better withstand weather and bugs; too bad it's been shamelessly increasing the rate of gluten intolerance. Yet this is the wheat we have to use for our Guru and the deities.
Clean and unclean, proper and improper, this is a joke in the material world, like saying: "Hmmm this stool is dry, but that one over there is still wet and steaming. Mmmmm and look at that one, no bugs!
What needs to be cleansed (and what these injunctions really aim to) is our consciousness. Then we won't see any more women, Westerners, etc.
Of course, I am also tooting my horn, as on Gaura Purnima I was allowed to dress and cook for the deities. Ok, I am no woman, and to most of you Americans I am very Eastern (haha), but as Haribhakti said, I am a lust bucket.
And as GM says: "We shouldn't cry for justice when mercy comes." Otherwise turn everything off and let's go, as the Spanish say.
Did that drop of mercy make me advance? Then where's the harm. I am sure Vamsi also relates to this.
Here is another basic:
patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah
How can people not keep these things in mind? GM mentioned my eccentricity many times, but I think we are surrounded by weirdos. We Tattvavivekis should learn from the cows and stick together tightly like cattle in a snow storm, or surrounded by predators.
Does everyone here know of when Sanatana Gosvami saw a lady cleaning her teeth with a stick and stirring kitchri for two kids with the same stick, he instructed her on how to do everything properly, but the kids were crying and hungry, he realized they were Rama and Krsna and told the lady to just do all like before?
Well, in case you didn't, that's how I just killed it.
Vamsidhari Dasa - July 22, 2006 5:53 pm
"And as GM says: "We shouldn't cry for justice when mercy comes." Otherwise turn everything off and let's go, as the Spanish say.
Did that drop of mercy make me advance? Then where's the harm. I am sure Vamsi also relates to this.
Yes, I can relate. I do not think that gender, sexual orientation, or any external definition or quality automatically qualifies or disqualifies one from service. Otherwise spiritual life and advancement would be available for only a few. I do not think that any one would disagree with me on this. It is time to abandon these distinction for others that are more real like sincerity, effort, eagerness to serve etc.
As for the mistery of Mercy I am continuosly "floored" (or should I say dandavated) by its flow in my direction. Even a drop of sincerity brings an ocean of mercy.
I've had a Tulasi plant for a while that is always at the brink of leaving me. I mean she only gives enough leaves so that I can offer food to the Deities every day. And then Guru Maharaja came to visit and stayed at my house for one night and the next day my Tulasi plant developed new branches from her base. That is my fortune.
Yours,
Vamsi
Vivek - July 24, 2006 2:31 am
Haribol,
As tripurari Maharaja said, we have look at flexibility about women being given opportunities in terms of the present times.
It is not accurate that in India, Radhanath Maharaja gives initiation to only married women, in face I knew some devotees who had got initiated even before they were married.
I think in today's world it is hard to get accurate information so it should be double checked before it is posted.
Vivek
Bhrigu - July 24, 2006 7:39 am
It is not accurate that in India, Radhanath Maharaja gives initiation to only married women, in face I knew some devotees who had got initiated even before they were married.I think in today's world it is hard to get accurate information so it should be double checked before it is posted.
My source told me that he generally only does so, but that there are exceptions. It is of course possible that my source (a disciple of Radhanatha Maharaja who has spent time in Chowpatty and who plans to get married to a devotee from there) was mistaken alltogether, in which case I apologise.
Vivek - July 24, 2006 2:34 pm
My source told me that he generally only does so, but that there are exceptions. It is of course possible that my source (a disciple of Radhanatha Maharaja who has spent time in Chowpatty and who plans to get married to a devotee from there) was mistaken alltogether, in which case I apologise.
No, bhrigu prabhu no need to apologise. It is just that many women devotees get initiated with their husbands and hence that devotee generalised too much. That is somewhat a problem in chowpatty sometimes people without even knowing Radhanath Swami's views firsthand just attribute their biases to him. But it happens everywhere nothing new. And it had happened with the first disciple of Tripurari Swami I met, who had left his association but he was just ranting bad things about him. Then from there on I decided until I have very concrete first hand information about anybody I cannot really believe anybody as it just creates unnecessary disturbances in the mind.
Bhrigu Prabhu, you are one of the most learned disciple of Tripurari Maharaja, and I just aspire that i can be as fixed in sadhana like you. Forgive me for any offences commited.
Vivek
Bhrigu - July 24, 2006 7:19 pm
Forgive me for any offences commited.
None taken at all! I'm happy to stand corrected on this issue. And yes, you are right about how difficult it can be to find out true information nowadays. I've been reading something about this issue in Jiva Goswami's Sarvasamvadini lately, perhaps I'll post something of it in another thread...
Vinode Vani Dasa - July 25, 2006 4:27 am
What needs to be cleansed (and what these injunctions really aim to) is our consciousness. Then we won't see any more women, Westerners, etc.
Well said, Syamasundara. I suspect that often we as devotees equate "Indian-ness" with Krishna consciousness, believing that we should model our own culture on that of India. I think that many of the above posts provide enough evidence of the fallacy of this position. Perhaps a more progressive attitude is to take what appears useful for our advancement from wherever we find it, whether it be in India, America, or elsewhere. Clearly equality between men and women should be part and parcel of our attitude--to claim to be devotees of Mahaprabhu and simultaneously regard any person as beneath ourselves would be hypocrisy.
Krsangi Dasi - August 2, 2006 9:39 am
Despite the name Visnupriya-palli, I doubt that it was only for widows, both from what BSST wrote and from my experience of Indian women who renounced despite the social norms—I find it hard to believe that there weren’t some in the time of BSST too.
Vrindaranya, I'd be really interested in hearing more about your experiences about Indian female renounciates. It really puzzles me how it seems that Indian women in general hold on to the country's oppressive traditions (like aborting/killing baby girls) and don't seem to want to change them. Or does it just seem like that for someone whose only source of information about these things is the mainstream media? I know there are Indian women's rights activists, but there don't seem to be that many of them - what about the female renounciates? How influential are they, and how do the people in general feel about them? Are the spiritual communities more liberal or conservative than the mainstream society?