BY: ROCANA DASA
Mar 26, CANADA (SUN) — A weekly response to Dandavats editorials.
Today's Obeisances is in reply to the article by Visakha Priya dasi entitled " Response to the Ongoing Debate", in which she directs her comments to Amara dasa. Visakha Priya dasi and Amara dasa have exchanged several blog comments in the ongoing discussion of Krishna-kirti Prabhu's article, "A Response to Hridayananda das Goswami’s “Vaisnava Moral Theology and Homosexuality". The reader will find it much easier to understand my comments if they first read the previous thread of discussion and the article that precipitated the author's comments, to familiarize themselves with both the author and the context of her comments regarding homosexuals.
Visakha Priya dasi's "Response to the Ongoing Debate" appears to be more of a blog comment than an article. Perhaps site editor Praghosa dasa felt her comments merited front-page mention, so he relocated her blog response to a more prominent placement.
The author has revealed the fact that she's been initiated three times, although she now assumes she's got a guru who won't fall down, HH Giriraja Swami. Time will tell if that's true, and we certainly hope that it is. Giriraja Swami is apparently the one who came up with the money that was required to create the women's asrama that Visakha Priya dasi is now in charge of. In her previous comment she indicated that if Giriraja Swami falls down, then she's out of ISKCON, because he's all that's keeping her in the society:
"I must confess that it is only the strong shelter of my gurudeva, His Holiness Giriraj Swami Maharaj, which prevents me from taking association outside of ISKCON."
The main point the author is trying to make in her most recent article is that the Vedic literatures state that homosexuals, by definition, are sudras. I'm not very familiar with the position of homosexuals in their communities during Vedic times, but this appears to be a pretty broad-brush type of conclusion.
It seems to me that Visakha Priya dasi is in the same kind of predicament as Jaya Govinda Caran das, to whom I directed my remarks in last week's Obeisances, in that they are both handicapped in actually calling a spade a spade - namely, in pointing out that the revered Hridayananda das Gosvami Acaryadev is essentially contradicting himself.
Visakha Priya clips out a section of purport that he wrote on the 11th Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, Chapter 21, text 11, which contradicts a statement he made in his recent paper on gay monogamy. While she can't really call him up for being hypocritical or contradictory in his statements, she makes the point that Hridayananda is justifying a fallen position sastrically, which I'm in agreement should never be done. In other words, if you're fallen you should just accept the fact that you're fallen, and from that position one can go about purifying oneself rather than trying to change the philosophy and/or the teachings of the Sampradaya Acarya to justify your personal circumstances.
The author initially states that Srila Prabhupada's number one goal was to create a society of brahmans, and by definition brahmans don't engage in illicit sex. This, of course, is one of the dictates of brahminical initiation. While this statement is true, she doesn't qualify it by saying that Srila Prabhupada actually wished to create a society of Vaisnavas. True Vaisnavas by definition, are on a higher status than brahmans, according to their position in the Varnasrama system. A Vaisnava can act in the capacity of a brahman under certain circumstances, and a Vaisnava's training takes one to a higher level than a brahman can reach. Of course, neither brahmans nor Vaisnavas engage in illicit sex.
She goes on to state that brahmans and sudras don't mix, but in what capacity don't they mix? The sudras can't associate with brahmans, but both in Kali-yuga and in the Krsna Consciousness movement, we're really speaking of Vaisnavas. We don't have a Varnasrama system, and we know plenty of devotees who consider themselves to be followers of Srila Prabhupada and members of our Sampradaya while simultaneously engaging in sudra-like professions while essentially living up to Vaisnava standards.
The point the author makes at the beginning of her article and pursues throughout is that you have to take Vaisnava diksa in order to actually be following this process, and diksa requires you to follow standards that are on the brahminical level. Of course, the author doesn't elaborate upon the question of what Vaisnava diksa actually is. If one reads her previous blog, we discover that she's supposedly taken Vaisnava diksa three times, but still holds to the principle that you need a living guru, which she now feels she has in the form of Giriraja Swami. One assumes she also felt she had that with her previous gurus.
Nowhere in her blog does she mention the fact that Srila Prabhupada, the Sampradaya Acarya, is the actual true connection to the Sampradaya. It's his standards that we're trying to maintain, and it's through his mercy that we're connected to the Sampradaya. Visakha Priya dasi has been able to withstand the shock and disappointment of having successive gurus fall down, all of whom were putting themselves forward as Srila Prabhupada's bona fide representatives, and now she's clinging to the hope that Giriraja Swami is not going to disappoint her.
She mentions the fact that her Spiritual Master quoted Srila Prabhupada as stating that Krsna consciousness is 95% association, and that association is required in order to maintain one's determination to chant. One has to assume that "association" also means associating with a qualified guru, but at the same time association includes our daily association. In her case, that means associating with the women in her asrama who are, by definition, also celibate. In fact, it appears that they are expected to be living practically on the same level as a sannyasi in terms of association with the opposite sex.
All this does appear to be rather confusing to me. For example, consider the fact that it was a sannyasis, namely her guru, who came up with the funds to build the women's asrama. Where does a sannyasis get that kind of money? We often hear of ISKCON sannyasis/gurus being millionaires, and we have also heard reports that Giriraja Swami inherited a great deal of money from Tamal Krishna Goswami, who was said to be a multi-millionaire when he left his body. So we assume the money either came from the Swami's personal account, or that he had his other disciples collect the money for him. But if that's the case, why is he investing the money in the direction of a women's asrama?
Visakha Priya dasi is obviously a sincere, hard-working devotee of Krsna and follower of Srila Prabhupada but at the same time, her own confusion is coming through. In a previous blog comment in this thread she offered a quote from Radhanatha Swami:
"Of course, H. H. Radhanath Swami has said that “a truly humble person seldom appears to be humble,” and I am not advanced enough to see the situation clearly."
The author's confusion is quite understandable. Her guru, a renounced sannyasi, is funding a women's asrama. And this whole discussion came as the result of the writings of another big Swami, Hridayananda, who is focused on sex and gay monogamy - a somewhat strange subject matter for a sannyasi to focus on. So here we have all these Swamis - Giriraj, Hridayananda, Radhanatha - sending out all these confusing messages to their followers and disciples.
What I'm primarily interested in communicating to the reader is that I find the articles in Dandavats, both last weeks article by Jaya Govinda Caran das and this weeks article by Visakha Priya dasi, to be written by obviously sincere devotees who are very confused and ill-trained. Both are trying to make sense out of their circumstances, and trying to use the philosophy towards that end. But they apparently can't see clearly enough to actually resolve the issues they are applying their intelligence to, because seeing clearly would require them to find fault with the ISKCON leadership. And to do that puts one at risk of being chastised, if not ostracized.
Throughout both her recent article and her preceding blog comments, Visakha Priya dasi makes comments such as 'Srila Prabhupada said you absolutely need to have a living Vaisnava guru', or 'you need the guidance of a living guru', but she offers no quotations or qualifications for these assertions. Srila Prabhupada said you have to be connected to the Sampradaya. Ideally, if one can find someone who is actually a qualified diksa guru then one should become initiated by them, but that may not be possible. Consequently, one has to rely on being connected to the Sampradaya through the Sampradaya Acarya. In the same way, homosexuals or sudras, or anyone else who can't come up to the standard, can get the mercy of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu by chanting Hare Krsna. You can read Srila Prabhupada's books and get encouragement and direction by hearing from or taking counsel of those who are properly following the Sampradaya Acarya. To what degree someone is connected to the Sampradaya is ultimately a private matter. Only Caitya Guru, Krsna within the heart, knows accurately just how connected you are to the Sampradaya.
There are endless examples of persons who claim to be connected to the Sampradaya as diksa gurus in ISKCON, but Caitya Guru knows they aren't diksa gurus at all. And this author has had to experience this three times over. Now it could well have been that she was connected to the Sampradaya all along because of her faith in Srila Prabhupada, and that her continually going to find another diksa guru was unnecessary. I know many devotees who have now given up on the whole idea of trying to find a qualified diksa guru within ISKCON, or even outside of ISKCON, yet they have full faith in Srila Prabhupada. If their faith is complete, then these devotees are already members of the Sampradaya, and in that sense they are initiated. This has nothing to do with bogus ideas like post-samadhi diksa initiation, but everything to do with complete and sincere surrender to the pure Sampradaya Acarya.
In summary, the whole idea of initiation is a very difficult concept to understand, and this difficulty goes back since time immemorial. It's obvious that the author is still very confused on this point, regardless of the fact that she now assumes she's found bona fide diksa shelter in Giriraja Swami. Being connected to the Sampradaya by surrendering to the Sampradaya Acarya rather than taking diksa from an unqualified guru is somewhat akin to the difference between a brahman and a Vaisnava. One is form, the other substance. Purity is the real substance, and it is always more potent than form.
Obeisances to Dandavats, and to HG Visakha Priya dasi.
