Nov 19, 2014 — INDIA (SUN) — It is not surprising that Bhaktivedanta College in Radhadesha is so confused about the questions that Haladhara Prabhu asked in Reflections on Vaisnavi-dharma. They actually reject what Srila Prabhupada and sastra say about women's duties and concoct their own idea. How has this come about? By the influence of feminists like Urmila dd, Laxmimoni dd, Annuttama Prabhu and his wife Rukmini, Ravindra Svarupa Prabhu and Sacinandana Swami.
Sacinandana Swami has a big influence at Bhaktivedanta College because the husband of Anupama dd, Dinadayal Prabhu is a disciple of Sacinandana Swami. Dinadayal Prabhu is one of the heads at Bhaktivedanta College plus has a big role in the Euro GBC.
This nonsense about women having their own varna with their own duties is especially promoted by Urmila dd, (who considers herself a brahmana in her own right and promotes herself as an acarya and guru). Why is it nonsense? Because the only duty that the woman has is to serve her husband as explained by Narada Muni in Srimad Bhagavatam 7.11.25:
"To render service to the husband, to be always favorably disposed toward the husband, to be equally well disposed toward the husband's relatives and friends, and to follow the vows of the husband — these are the four principles to be followed by women described as chaste."
So whatever the husband tells her to do, that is her duty. Not that she has duties beyond the purview of her husband. Not that she says, "I can't do what you told me to do because I have my own 'varna' duties to perform, sorry." Her only duty is to do as her husband desires -- no more, no less. But unchaste women like Urmila dd who are extremely rebellious to their husbands (and having great envy of Krsna in their heart) imagine for themselves that they are above the laws of dharma (dharma is Krsna's method of practically applying the philosophy of Krsna consciousness into our life) and speculate something different. (Sound familiar?)
To understand what I mean by rebellious and unchaste (recalling Narada Muni's definition of a chaste woman SB 7.11.25) take a look at this text by Pratyatosha Prabhu, Urmila's former husband. He explains how Urmila dd developed an unchaste relationship with another man, Bir Krsna Goswami, and conspired with him to have her husband Pratyatosa Prabhu removed from the board of directors of the school they had started. She then forced him into a legal separation. He writes:
"In 1996, she obtained a restraining order and a legal separation from me against my wishes. Now that I've been gone for over 3 years, BKG is more than likely still doing things for her that a husband would normally do."
Yet she claims in her application to be a guru that:
"My situation has been stable for some time. I'm living separated from husband as vanaprastha since 1996; we have a legal separation agreement. I'm under the authority of our sons and son-in-law. I will soon have own cabin for residence."
(urmiladasi.wordpress.com)
In vanaprastha it s the husband who is the vanaprastha, not the wife, she continues to serve him. But in Urmila's typical twisted logic she is the "vanaprastha" and having an unchaste relationship with another man forces her husband to leave. She has violated sastra by renouncing her prescribed duties Bg 18.7-8.
Thus to rationalize her adharmaic and unchaste behavior Urmila dd has concocted a bogus philosophy that women have their own varna and duties so that she can act independently. And since she is allowed to have an influence in ISKCON by fellow feminists in the NA GBC (Bir Krsna Goswami (her mentor and maybe more), Anuttama, Malati, Bhakti Marga Swami, Ravindra Swarupa et al.) who all have a major influence at the Bhaktivedanta College. She then teaches her concocted appasiddhantic ideas at the Bhaktivedanta College and it is then no wonder why the college is philosophically at odds with sastra and put women in charge of teaching men.
So here we have textbook example of an unchaste woman*, Urmila dd, being promoted by the leadership of the NA GBC to be a diksha guru in ISKCON. She is now also the Chairman of the SAC (Sastra Advisory Committee), and is using this position along with other corrupt members of SAC like Yadunanda Swami (principle of Bhaktivedanta College), Drutakarma, Madana Mohana, Caitanya Charan (Pune) et al. to persuade the GBC to install Female Diksha Gurus. She of course wants to be one of them.
So considering all the secular influences on this school it is not surprising that in such a short time Bhaktivedanta College has already become useless. Any student who attends this college will be permanently scarred spiritually and it will take a great deal of effort for them to ever have the correct understanding of siddhanta.
Respected universities like Oxford and Cambridge started out as schools of theology but over time compromised with secular society and are now bastions of atheism. If in such a short time secular culture has gotten such a strong grip at Bhaktivedanta College, the future doesn't look good. And considering that the sentimentalist sahajiya Sacinandana Swami has a strong influence there we can only imagine what this strange brew will produce.
*We would never allow a sannyasi,** vanaprastha, grhasta or brahmacari who didn't follow the dharma of their respective ashrama to give class. Why then should we allow an unchaste woman (Urmila dd) who rejects Stri-dharma to give classes in ISKCON, what to speak of being a teacher at Bhaktivedanta College or chairperson of the SAC!
**Maybe that is changing since Sacinandana Swami is practically, for all intents and purposes, married to his girlfriend Bhanunandini dd.
