Urmila Dasi Claims that She is a Vanaprastha but is She?

Posted by Keshava Dasa

Urmila Dasi lives separately from her husband and travels the globe as a “preacher” and claims she does this as a Vanaprastha. First we note that women have no varna or ashrama. The only ashrama for them is that of grhasta either in the ashrama of father, husband or son. By definition they can not be vanaprasthas. Like in the grhasta life the wife follows the vows of her husband when he is vanaprastha, but she is not a vanaprastha on her own.

It is the husband who becomes a vanaprastha not the wife. The husband does so in preparation for the next ashrama, sannyasa. The following is Srila Prabhupada’s direct statements regarding the position of the wife when the husband becomes a vanaprastha.

The chaste wife’s duty is to keep her husband pleased in householder life in all respects, and when the husband retires from family life, she is to go to the forest and adopt the life of vanaprastha, or vana-vasi. At that time the wife is to follow her husband and take care of him, just as she took care of him in householder life.” —Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.23.20

“Just as in the vanaprastha stage the wife follows the husband, …” —Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.28.34

“The vanaprastha stage is exactly like this. Although the wife remains with the husband, she undergoes severe austerities and penances so that although both husband and wife live together, there is no question of sex. In this way both husband and wife can live together perpetually.”– Srimad-Bhagavatam, 4.28.44

Thus if Urmila Dasi claims that her husband is a vanaprastha then she must act accordingly and dutifully serve her husband as a chaste wife would. But Urmila Dasi doesn’t want to follow the instruction of Srila Prabhupada as clearly stated above. Instead she uses the following argument to support her unchaste behaviour.

To whom it may concern: Srila Prabhupada and his wife lived separately as vanaprasthas; I guess we shouldn’t hear philosophy from him, either. How many times did Prabhupada say that a man should not remain in householder life after age 50, and that an older woman should be under the protection of her sons? These people are actually propounding a Western model of husband and wife living together until old age or death, not a Vedic model. Of course a woman may stay with her husband in vanaprastha; it is allowed. But my understanding is that more renunciation is preferred

She claims she is following the example of Srila Prabhupada and his wife. But she is not. Why? Srila Prabhupada and his wife didn’t agree that he would become a vanaprastha and she would stay at home. No. The circumstances were very different. His wife was very antagonistic to Srila Prabhupada’s devotional activities and to spite him she traded his precious Bhagavatam for its weight in tea biscuits. This lead to Srila Prabhupada leaving home without his hostile wife. She was not a dharma-patni who would serve him on pilgrimage and help in preaching. She was an antagonist. That is why she didn’t accompany him. She was the enemy of his devotional service. So there is absolutely no comparison between Srila Prabhupada’s situation and the situation of Pratyatosha and Urmila. So since their situation is very different it is not optional that they stay together as she says but mandatory until the husband takes sannyasa.

She says “I guess we shouldn’t hear philosophy from him, either.” It seems that way because Srila Prabhupada clearly states how a wife should behave when the husband becomes a vanapratha — that she doesn’t want to hear.

She also implies that she is living under the protection of her sons. This is a blatant lie. “Protection” means under the control of the sons. Just as “protection” of the father and husband means under the control of father or husband. Where are her sons when she travels around the world? No where to be seen. So not only is she unchaste but also a liar.

We are led to believe that Urmila Dasi is either not very intelligent because she can not see the vast disparity between Prabhupada’s household situation and hers. Or she is purposely obtuse and using any excuse to leave her husband and be in the association of other men. I have personally seen on many occasions Urmila Dasi initiating uninvited conversations with men. She has serious underlying sexual issues and craves male attention and association and will do whatever it takes to get it. Be it chatting up males who are not related to her, giving classes or seminars to men, being a crusader for FDG etc — anything to be the center of male attention. Behaving like a prostitute is not on the level of Jahnava mata. But undoubtedly Urmila Dasi, before she leaves her body, will become a diksha guru in ISKCON West because they are both equally degraded.

The original post can be found at: Everything you wanted to know about Urmila but were afraid to ask