Vedic Authorities?

If Krishna had decided to show just how disgusting and crude masculine behavior can be "in public" by saying—excuse me sir, but your wife stinks... (honestly, I wonder how an Ascetic would have felt in a moment like that)—the whole room would've absolutely lost it. Instead of someone normal—and clearly there wasn't anyone normal there—calling him out for talking nonsense without a shred of respect... now that I think back on all the stuff we used to laugh at, I actually feel kind of bad. It was mostly just mocking people—like those yogis who spent days staring blankly at the tip of their noses thinking they were so great, or making fun of those clueless Maya followers. All in all, we had a blast, but when you really dig beneath the surface... hm...

granitebadger23 said:Why all the fighting?

The way you spoke to him wasn't polite, but he does have a point when he claims women are categorized as less intelligent or as fallen (candala). Just look at the evidence—how many female gurus are there in ISKCON or the Theosophical Society?

It’s also interesting that this isn't the case with other Vaishnavism traditions, which have many women in their lineage who served as gurus. The idea that women are less intelligent doesn't come from Krishna. In fact, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says He is intelligence among women. So, how could women be less intelligent?

Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...

boldsailor2 said:If Krishna had decided to show just how disgusting and crude masculine behavior can be "in public" by saying—excuse me sir, but your wife stinks... (honestly, I wonder how an Ascetic would have felt in a moment like that)—the whole room would've absolutely lost it. Instead of someone normal—and clearly there wasn't anyone normal there—calling him out for talking nonsense without a shred of respect... now that I think back on all the stuff we used to laugh at, I actually feel kind of bad. It was mostly just mocking people—like those yogis who spent days staring blankly at the tip of their noses thinking they were so great, or making fun of those clueless Maya followers. All in all, we had a blast, but when you really dig beneath the surface... hm...

I actually never heard anything like that from Krishna. Even if he did say something along those lines, it wasn't aimed exclusively at women; he used to joke at everyone's expense, including his own (and especially his own).
You're talking nonsense. There were some who truly utilized sexist language. Even the gurus.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...

Oh my god... you completely misread the situation 🤷 when I tell someone to quit messing around—that isn't offensive at all... it's actually the exact opposite! Everyone I've been chatting with for years knows that... clearly I just lost track of the fact that you aren't part of the inner circle that uses our specific forum slang... sorry!

Andrew Sanchez572 said:So, apparently, exclusive rights to uttama adikaryu are reserved solely for members of Indian lineages, for instance,

And yet, here we are, seeing everyone dancing side-by-side at the temple and during the Sunday feasts.

But I’m not making any excuses for anyone; sexism remains a massive, pervasive issue.
I think I touched upon all of this when I previously wrote about having a "hard heart."
Though, I suppose I could start listing things now too—sexism, and all that other stuff...

Honestly, is there any "spiritual following" out there that isn't plagued by sexism?

Why on earth would you assume sexism has to be everywhere? I guess my own lineage includes ten female gurus and a few men. A Vaishnava shouldn't be making distinctions based on physical bodies, I suppose.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I actually never heard anything like that from Krishna. Even if he did say something along those lines, it wasn't aimed exclusively at women; he used to joke at everyone's expense, including his own (and especially his own).
You're talking nonsense. There were some who truly utilized sexist language. Even the gurus.

I'm not even questioning if he was witty or fun... the whole point was just being raw about everything in a "charming" way... I mean, whatever, we were all laughing our heads off... but without that humor, there really wasn't much to it...

Hehe, haha—so we just do a little chanting, then some kirtan, then more hehe haha, acting like we're all so clueless and nobody else matters, 🙂it's all just so much fun... and then suddenly, boom, we're all shot straight into Heaven🤣

boldsailor2 said:Oh my god... you completely misread the situation 🤷 when I tell someone to quit messing around—that isn't offensive at all... it's actually the exact opposite! Everyone I've been chatting with for years knows that... clearly I just lost track of the fact that you aren't part of the inner circle that uses our specific forum slang... sorry!

It isn't the slang or being called "little one" that bothers me🙄—it’s the accusation that I’m defending sexism or that I find it acceptable.
To me, sexism is abhorrent, and I have always been, and will always be, against it. I have dealt with countless conflicts, both as a devotee and in my daily life, because of my feminist views, so being accused of this is genuinely infuriating. 😠

Some of those statements from Krishna were clearly just part of our "internal" shorthand. If I held someone in high regard and respected them, it feels incredibly unjust to characterize them this way. It's like if someone told you a classic joke about Joe and Hasi, and you suddenly accused them of discriminating against minorities.

If there truly is a Vaishnava follower out there who isn't sexist, then I am truly happy to hear it. I welcome that. 🙏

Okay, I definitely went a bit overboard there... MY BAD! 🙂

boldsailor2 said:Okay, I definitely went a bit overboard there... MY BAD! 🙂

I appreciate that, truly kind of you to say

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...

I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

granitebadger23 said:I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

It feels even more awkward being singled out for something you are fundamentally opposed to...
And besides, we are all human beings, after all, so these kinds of misunderstandings are bound to happen from time to time. We aren't exactly typewriters, are we?...

granitebadger23 said:I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

I wasn't actually thinking of her, but rather a disciple of SP, though the name escapes me at the moment. She was encouraged for years to take that position, but she declined. I don't know the full story, so I can't go into much detail...

granitebadger23 said:I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

I am not suggesting there is a direct link, but SP quotes him quite often, as do many prabhus whenever it serves their purposes...
And please, don't try to argue that there isn't sexism in the Vedas or even a hint of patriarchy within Vaishnavism, because if you go down that road, you will certainly have to provide a very detailed defense...😛

Andrew Sanchez572 said:It feels even more awkward being singled out for something you are fundamentally opposed to...
And besides, we are all human beings, after all, so these kinds of misunderstandings are bound to happen from time to time. We aren't exactly typewriters, are we?...

I wasn't actually thinking of her, but rather a disciple of SP, though the name escapes me at the moment. She was encouraged for years to take that position, but she declined. I don't know the full story, so I can't go into much detail...

I am not suggesting there is a direct link, but SP quotes him quite often, as do many prabhus whenever it serves their purposes...
And please, don't try to argue that there isn't sexism in the Vedas or even a hint of patriarchy within Vaishnavism, because if you go down that road, you will certainly have to provide a very detailed defense...😛

She’s an SP student and actually the first woman ever nominated for a guru position within ISKCON. As for the other woman, maybe you're thinking of the former Yaduran?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:It feels even more awkward being singled out for something you are fundamentally opposed to...
And besides, we are all human beings, after all, so these kinds of misunderstandings are bound to happen from time to time. We aren't exactly typewriters, are we?...

I wasn't actually thinking of her, but rather a disciple of SP, though the name escapes me at the moment. She was encouraged for years to take that position, but she declined. I don't know the full story, so I can't go into much detail...

I am not suggesting there is a direct link, but SP quotes him quite often, as do many prabhus whenever it serves their purposes...
And please, don't try to argue that there isn't sexism in the Vedas or even a hint of patriarchy within Vaishnavism, because if you go down that road, you will certainly have to provide a very detailed defense...😛

Sure, sexism pops up in some texts, but I don't think it actually comes from spirituality itself. It’s more like the biases held by certain scholars back then. In the verses of The Bhagavad Gita, you don't really see it, even though if I remember correctly, there's this one verse in "The Bhagavad Gita As It Is" that's translated like this: "O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth—women, merchants and workers—can attain the supreme destination." According to that translation, it implies all those groups are "lower birth," which is—forgive my language—just stupid. Actually, you can translate it quite differently, and it makes way more sense: "those born of sinful women." Basically, children of prostitutes or people involved in adultery. Merchants are mentioned because they're known for cheating in business, and workers because of things like drinking or gambling. As far as I know, Narayana Maharaja translates that verse that way in his version of The Bhagavad Gita, unlike SP's translation.

When it comes to Vaishnavism in general, I completely agree that patriarchy is everywhere. But with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the whole situation changes. You have Mother Saci, Visnupriye, and Laxmipriye, followed by Jahnava Devi, who was a true leader for Vaishnavas. Even within the philosophy itself, the Gopis—led by Radha—hold the most important place in Gaudiya devotion. All the Goswamis are just minor players in their pastimes. There really isn't any room for patriarchy here, I guess.

Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

She went to see Narayana Maharaja and now she goes by Syamarani, which I guess pretty much seals her fate regarding ever becoming a guru in New York City during this "kalpa."

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

It’s not like everything is patriarchal all the time in daily life. Sure, New York City and The Salvation Army are extremely patriarchal organizations, but I guess they only represent a tiny fraction of the Gaudiya Vaishnava community. The real issue is that you just don't see representatives from the other groups out here in the West—or if you do, there are hardly any.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

Regarding an individual's karma: I guess what Krishna is actually saying in that verse is that neither the bad karma from past lives nor the mess we're making right now can stop us from taking refuge in Him and reaching the ultimate destination. Maybe it's not as big of a hurdle as people think.

Alright, thanks for the heads-up.
I’m still a bit skeptical about this whole karma thing, but I'll take your word for it...
(And I really won't even get started on comparing a prostitute to a mother practicing self-denial)

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Alright, thanks for the heads-up.
I’m still a bit skeptical about this whole karma thing, but I'll take your word for it...
(And I really won't even get started on comparing a prostitute to a mother practicing self-denial)

Since when are an adulterer (I was talking about the children of adulterers) and a single mother the same thing? 🤷

Also, don't forget we're talking about a different era entirely. Back then, family ties were much stronger and you couldn't just blow off a marriage like people do today. Families used to be massive, whereas now they're tiny. It used to be kids, moms, dads, siblings, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles... everyone lived together. 🙂

There's no shortage of room when the house is full.😁

😂
But what if someone is just a child when it comes to infidelity?
And really, how do we even define adultery in this day and age?
Honestly, it all feels like questions born from some outdated, rigid moral code...
What does it even mean to be a prostitute?
Even a woman who is married but doesn't have a job could arguably be labeled that way under certain definitions.
Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from (though you might have missed my point entirely), so let's avoid drifting too far off-topic. There is already a dedicated thread about women and spirituality, so perhaps we should move this discussion over there...

Andrew Sanchez572 said:😂
But what if someone is just a child when it comes to infidelity?
And really, how do we even define adultery in this day and age?
Honestly, it all feels like questions born from some outdated, rigid moral code...
What does it even mean to be a prostitute?
Even a woman who is married but doesn't have a job could arguably be labeled that way under certain definitions.
Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from (though you might have missed my point entirely), so let's avoid drifting too far off-topic. There is already a dedicated thread about women and spirituality, so perhaps we should move this discussion over there...

Isn't a robber just someone trying to feed themselves and their family? 😂🤣

Well, I suppose it’s much more efficient to be a politician or a corporate tycoon, isn't it? That way, one can engage in legalized plunder without any of the usual messy consequences...👍

boldsailor2 said:.. those specific lines—they honestly make me twitch a little bit... 😁

.. and man, Bore—he’s got more ego than Bruca Leo 🤣

Basically, someone was clearly desperate to keep the whole group together while spreading that kind of propaganda... I don't think SP had much to do with it—it feels totally taken out of context...

Actually, he does, because he said it himself. He called Radhakund Babajija a fraud and a bunch of other things globally. I doubt Lovica is the issue here; I'd say these are just sincere beliefs. They're exclusive and wrong, sure, but they're sincere. 😁

As for the ritvik dilemma... it's true they functioned as ritviks during SP's lifetime. But from what I've noticed, it’s actually pretty common among Vaishnavas for a student not to accept disciples personally while their own Guru is still alive and active. However, once they pass away... it becomes very difficult to know what SP intended or who was following whom. Especially since the group I started the ritvik controversy with stopped showing me much trust once I saw how they actually operate. I just don't know.