Summary of our research on FDG
stri-sudra-pukkasa-yavanadi kena naya
krsna-nama gaya, seo guru pujya haya
“Those who chant the name of Kṛṣṇa, whether they are women, laborers, persons of mixed caste, outcasts, or otherwise, become worshippable gurus.” (Prema-vivarta, 151)
*******************************
SUMMARY: In brief remarks below, I attempt to show that Krsna Kirti Prabhu and Damodar Prabhu drastically differ from Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in their attempts to establish that women require a much higher spiritual status than men to act as diksa-gurus. I also clarify what those instructions of Srila Prabhupada are.
*******************************
Dear Krsna Kirti Prabhu and Damodar Prabhu,
please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Being included in the long list of addressees of your original message looked to me like an invitation to comment. But if it wasn’t meant to be, please forgive my brief remarks below and disregard them.
Still, I would like to sincerely thank you both for keeping this discussion civil and respectful. This is an appropriate and welcome departure in style from some other recent texts on the topic, in which those professing high ideals of Vedic culture often fail to follow even basic human decorum, much less the Vedic culture.
However, if you find my comments below of interest, I would need to explain their brevity and lack of your quotes. I did peruse (with pleasure) most of what you both had written on the topic, and watched a few videos. However, as much as I would want to, there simply isn’t enough time now for pedantic quoting and counter-quoting, nor do I believe doing so will aid the readability of this thread. So, I will simply comment on what I have gathered from your previous postings to be your views, and will gladly accept corrections should I inadvertently misrepresent you.
In this text I will focus only on your use of Bharadvaja-samhita in analyzing women eligibility as diksa-gurus.
You quote a series of verses from Bharadvaja-samhita, chapter 1, which describe, in part, qualifications for being a diksa-guru. In a nutshell, the verses state that:
13-15: anyone with transcendental faith is qualified for pancaratriki-vidhi;
38-40: one should then accept a qualified devotee brahmana, ideally hailing from a pure lineage, as one’s diksa-guru;
41: without an emergency, one should not initiate those superior to oneself in terms of birth or age;
42: women, sudras, outcastes, criminals and those who are fallen and/or lustful cannot act as diksa-gurus;
43: they can give moral instructions but can never be accepted as acaryas, unless…
44. …they are pratyaksitatma-nathas, literally ”those to whom the Lord of the soul is revealed”, which overrides their aforementioned disqualifications for the role of an acarya such as birth, gender, etc.
You then cite a mid-19th-century commentator Sarayu Prasada Misra in glossing ‘pratyaksitatma-nathanam’ as ‘saksat-krta-bhagavat-tattvanam’, or, literally, “of those with direct realization of the truth of the Lord”. Then, citing Harinama-cintamani, you equate direct perception of the Lord with bhava-bhakti and conclude that women must be on the level of bhava-bhakti to have their otherwise incorrigible bodily disqualification (gender) for the role of diksa-guru erased. Next, you cite Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu to remind us that bhava-bhakti is ‘sudurlabha’ (very rare), and such, too, must necessarily be women acting as diksa-gurus.
I hope the above is an accurate summary of your line of argument. If so, while not doubting its diligence and scholarly value, here is what, to me, appears problematic:
(1) Your treatment of ‘pratyaksitatma-nathas’ as synonymous with bhava-bhakti is arbitrary, because this conclusion follows neither from the term itself, nor even from its gloss by a relatively unknown commentator.
‘Pratyaksitatma-nathas’ literally means “those to whom the Lord of the soul is revealed”, and its gloss ‘saksat-krta-bhagavat-tattvas’ literally means “those with direct realization of the truth of the Lord”.
However, the exact nature, form and degree of that revelation of the Lord or realization on the truth of/about Him is not evident from these terms themselves. And your own arbitrary explanation of what it might mean — bhava-bhakti — understandably disregards alternative yet no less viable interpretations of the term in question.
For instance:
* according to Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura’s explanation of ‘bhagavat-tattva-vijanam’ in his commentary on SB 1.2.20, ‘saksat-krta-bhagavat-tattva’ might refer to prema-bhakti, or
* ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’ might as well refer to the stage of ‘murcchita-kasaya’ per Jiva Gosvami in Bhakti-sandarbha 187. There Jiva Gosvami describes three categories of bhakta-siddhas (perfected devotees), with the third being murcchita-kasaya (a devotee not yet completely free from material desires but unaffected by them). Jiva Gosvami says such devotees are still bhakta-siddhas and can also have direct vision of the Lord (saksatkara) inwardly or outwardly, while retaining residual material desires but not pursuing their fulfillment. Narada in his previous life is quoted by him as one such example.
This is simply to show that legitimate interpretations of the term ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’, that is pivotal to your conclusion, may have a much wider range both ways than ‘bhava-bhakti’ — and so would necessarily be the eligibility criteria for women to act as diksa-gurus, even on the basis of Bharadvaja-samhita.
Otherwise, insisting to “harmonize” differing statements by Srila Prabhupada on the topic of Vaisnavis as diksa-gurus exclusively under the auspices of Bharadvaja-samhita and by arbitrarily equating these two terms with bhava-bhakti places yourselves in a position of an acarya per ‘acinoti ca sastrartham acare sthapayaty api’ (“An acarya is one who fully understands the conclusions of the revealed scriptures and whose behavior reflects his deep realization.”— Vayu Purana 59.30)
Therefore, I humbly suggest, hoping that our preferences in this regards fully concur, to try and “harmonize” our reading of Bharadvaja-samhita and other sastra with our founder-acarya Srila Prabhupada’s own explanations of eligibility for ‘pratyaksitatma-natha-tva’, or the ability/state of seeing the Lord face to face — and not the other way around. One such statement on the topic, archetypal of the rest, is found in his purport on SB 4.28.51:
“When one becomes serious to follow the mission of the spiritual master, his resolution is tantamount to seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. As explained before, this means meeting the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the instruction of the spiritual master. This is technically called vani-seva. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura states in his Bhagavad-gita commentary on the verse vyavasayatmika buddhir ekeha kuru-nandana (Bg. 2.41) that one should serve the words of the spiritual master. The disciple must stick to whatever the spiritual master orders. Simply by following on that line, one sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
“In conclusion, if a disciple is very serious to execute the mission of the spiritual master, he immediately associates with the Supreme Personality of Godhead by vani or vapu. This is the only secret of success in seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Instead of being eager to see the Lord in some bush of Vrndavana while at the same time engaging in sense gratification, if one instead sticks to the principle of following the words of the spiritual master, he will see the Supreme Lord without difficulty. (…) If one is very highly advanced in devotional service, he will have no difficulty in seeing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one engages in the service of the spiritual master, he not only sees the Supreme Personality of Godhead but attains liberation.” (SB 4.28.51 purp.)
Please note that throughout his purport Srila Prabhupada equates “very highly advanced” with “very seriously … engaged in the service/mission of the spiritual master” as synonymous prerequisites for seeing the Lord.
There are, of course, numerous and highly consistent statements by Srila Prabhupada to the same effect, for example:
“But somehow or other if someone hears with rapt attention from the right person, at the very beginning one can assuredly see Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa in person in the pages of the Bhāgavatam.” (SB 1.3.44 purp.)
“One should therefore choose a bona fide servant of the Lord constantly engaged in His service, accept such a servant as the spiritual master and engage himself in his (the spiritual master’s) service. Such a spiritual master is the transparent medium by which to visualize the Lord, who is beyond the conception of the material senses. By service of the bona fide spiritual master, the Lord consents to reveal Himself in proportion to the service rendered. (…) The whole cosmic creation becomes at once identical with the Lord as soon as service in relation with the Lord is rendered under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master.” (SB 1.5.23 purp.)
Do these and other similar statements by Srila Prabhupada, in your view, qualify as acceptable interpretations of what it means to be a ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’? And if not, why? And if this is how Srila Prabhupada himself consistently suggests we judge one’s ability to see the Lord face to face, why should we introduce any other gauge in this discussion — like ‘bhava-bhakti’?
As far as the need to be a siddha for initiate — again, Srila Prabhupada does not deny this but suggests that we judge one’s status as a siddha in a specific and very practical way. Here is just one of many such highly consistent statements:
“Presently people are so fallen that they cannot distinguish between a liberated soul and a conditioned soul. A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons. This Krsna consciousness movement directly receives instructions from the Supreme Personality of Godhead via persons who are strictly following His instructions. Although a follower may not be a liberated person, if he follows the supreme, liberated Personality of Godhead, his actions are naturally liberated from the contamination of the material nature. Lord Caitanya therefore says: “By My order you may become a spiritual master.” One can immediately become a spiritual master by having full faith in the transcendental words of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and by following His instructions. Materialistic men are not interested in taking directions from a liberated person, but they are very much interested in their own concocted ideas, which make them repeatedly fail in their attempts.” (SB 4.18.5 purp.)
Shall we accept Srila Prabhupada’s own eligibility criteria for acting as a spiritual master to be equally applicable to all of his followers, regardless of jati, linga, and varna? And if not, why?
And Srila Prabhupada’s consistency on this topic can be highlighted even further:
The term ‘pratyaksitatma-nathas’ that you have arbitrarily translated as “[those] who are on the stage of yoga-pratyaksa (i.e. are self-realized – seeing God face-to-face)”, literally means “those to whom the Lord of atma is revealed”.
The following well-known verses, spoken either by Lord Krsna Himself or by His pure devotee, actually describe the spiritual master as the lord of one’s atma . This perfectly aligns with Srila Prabhupada’s treatment of service to the spiritual master as “tantamount” to seeing the Lord in person:
SB 11.2.37:
bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syad isad apetasya viparyayo ‘smrtih
tan-mayayato budha abhajet tam bhaktyaikayesam guru-devatatma
Word-for-word: guru-devata-atma — one who sees his own spiritual master as his lord and very soul.
Translation: “…an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul.”
SB 11.10.5:
yaman abhiksnam seveta niyaman mat-parah kvacit
mad-abhijnam gurum santam upasita mad-atmakam
Word-for-word: gurum — the spiritual master; santam — peaceful; upasita — one should serve; mat-atmakam — who is not different from Me.
Translation: “One who has accepted Me as the supreme goal of life should strictly observe the scriptural injunctions forbidding sinful activities and, as far as possible, should execute the injunctions prescribing minor regulative duties such as cleanliness. Ultimately, however, one should approach a bona fide spiritual master who is full in knowledge of Me as I am, who is peaceful, and who by spiritual elevation is not different from Me.”
and SB 11.17.27:
acaryam mam vijaniyan navamanyeta karhicit
na martya-buddhyasuyeta sarva-deva-mayo guruh
Word-for-word: acaryam — the spiritual master; mam — Myself; vijaniyat — one should know;
Translation: “One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way.”
Thus, even from a purely grammatical point of view, as corroborated by Srimad-Bhagavatam, the requirement for a woman, sudra or antyaja to be a pratyaksitatma-natha, or one to whom the Lord of one’s atma is revealed, is fulfilled by their serious acceptance of the spiritual master followed by committed surrender to his (or, yes, her) instructions and mission:
Conclusion (1): According to Srila Prabhupada, one becomes qualified to see the Lord directly by being serious in following the instructions and mission of one’s spiritual master and serving the Lord under his guidance, which doesn’t necessarily require attaining level of bhava-bhakti as its prerequisite.
(2) Singling out women as requiring to be siddhas to initiate, unlike men
You also attempt to prove that, unlike men, women must be siddhas seeing the Lord in order to initiate. While the general, both easily observable and practicable, eligibility criteria for seeing the Lord have already been established above by Srila Prabhupada’s many statements, the notion of “greater conditioning” by gender might deserve a separate analysis.
Your attempt, however, is refuted by the very verses from Bharadvaja-samhita you quote.
Verses 1.42-43 disqualify not only women, but also sudras, antyajas, criminals, fallen and lustful, from being diksa-gurus. In the same vein, the stipulation in verse 1.44 that one can be a diksa-guru regardless of the previously listed disqualifications of gender, birth etc. only by becoming a ‘pratyaksitatma-natha’ applies not excisively to women, but also to sudras, antyajas, criminals, fallen and lustful mentioned along with them in 1.42-43.
Moreover, this list of “spiritual pariahs” (for lack of a better moniker) who can be redeemed by the power of bhakti is a standard occurrence in BG, SB, CC, Hari-bhakti-vilasa and other Vaisnava scriptures.
To mention just a few:
* ‘striyo vaisyas tatha sudras te ‘pi yanti param gatim’ (BG 9.32)
* ‘stri-sudra-huna-sabara api papa-jivah’ (SB 2.7.46)
* ‘striyah sudra vrajaukasah khaga mrgah papa-jivah’ (SB 7.7.54)
* ‘stri-bala-vrddha, ara ’candala’ ’yavana’’ (CC Madhya 18.123)
* ‘stri sudrah pukkaso vapi ye canye papa-yonayah’ (HBV 11.405)
Such verses then often proceed to explain how these otherwise disqualified, per Vedic norms, classes of people become elevated by bhakti — even to the position of gurus:
stri-sudra-pukkasa-yavanadi kena naya
krsna-nama gaya, seo guru pujya haya
“Those who chant the name of Krsna, whether they are women, laborers, persons of mixed caste, outcasts, or otherwise, become worshippable gurus.” (Prema-vivarta, 151)
In other words, we are yet to find any sastric proof for your notion that the redeeming power of bhakti somehow acts differently or less effectively on women as compared to the other “spiritual pariahs”. We are also yet to see an authentic Vedic lineage, Vaisnava or not, that would disqualify women from their spiritual practice but qualify sudras, antyajas, etc. — or visa versa.
In fact, you in your conviction to the contrary seem to be one of a kind.
Incidentally, if you maintain that women must be on the level of bhava-bhakti to initiate, you must also hold the majority of ISKCON diksa-gurus, including your esteemed spiritual master, to the same standard — bhava-bhakti and no less.
In fact, in the famous conversation with prof. O’Connell of June 18, 1976, Srila Prabhupada says exactly that — the adhikara for both women and men to act as diksa-gurus is the same [note his “he or she”]:
“The qualification of guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Krsna. Then **he or she** can become guru. Yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya. [break] In our material world, is it any prohibition that woman cannot become professor? If she is qualified, she can become professor. What is the wrong there? She must be qualified. That is the position. So similarly, if the woman understands Krsna consciousness perfectly, she can become guru.
However, Srila Prabhupada then explains that the adhikara “to be fully/perfectly cognizant of the science of Krsna” is to “agree to understand” — which brings us back to the previous point of qualifying to see the Lord by serving one’s gurus instructions:
Indian man: Well, to understand Krsna consciousness, do you not require adhikārī?
Prabhupada: Adhikari means he must agree to understand. That is adhikari. But we do not agree. That is our fault.
Conclusion (2): There is not sastric support for your notion that women must be on a higher level of bhakti to initiate than their male “fallen” counterparts.
(3) Brahmanas don’t need to be siddhas to initiate
You also try to establish the advantage of being born in a brahmana family for serving as a diksa-guru:
“But in case he has all the required qualities, plus he has the fortune to be born in such a great family tradition, he certainly has an advantage… Hence, Bharadvaja-saṁhita designates such a guru with the advantage of birth in an unbroken and sinless family tradition as sresthatama, or the best of all”.
You even quote Srila Prabhupada to substantiate that claim:
“Srila Prabhupada in his commentary on Bhagavad-giita 6.42 says, “Birth in a family of yogiis or transcendentalists—those with great wisdom—is praised herein because the child born in such a family receives a spiritual impetus from the very beginning of his life.” He further notes that “such families are very learned and devoted by tradition and training, and thus they become spiritual masters”.”
Granted, similar statements about the preeminence of brahmana-gurus over gurus of other varnas are also found in Hari-bhakti-vilasa.
Volumes have been written and spoken on the subject, the most famous being Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s “Brahmanas and Vaisnavas”. But for our purposes it will suffice, again, to quote a conclusive statement by Srila Prabhupada in which he puts all such sastric statements in a pure Krsna conscious perspective:
“In the Hari-bhakti-vilasa it is stated that if one bona fide spiritual master is born in a brahmana family and another qualified spiritual master is born in a sudra family, one should accept the one who is born in a brahmana family. This statement serves as a social compromise, but it has nothing to do with spiritual understanding. This injunction is applicable only for those who consider social status more important than spiritual status. It is not for people who are spiritually serious. A serious person would accept Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s instruction that anyone conversant with the science of Krsna must be accepted as the spiritual master, regardless of his social position. There is an injunction in the Padma Purana which states that though a highly elevated, spiritually advanced devotee of the Lord may have been born in a family of dog-eaters, he can be a spiritual master, but that a highly elevated person born in a brahmana family cannot be a spiritual master unless he is a devotee of the Lord. A person born in a brahmana family may be conversant with all of the rituals of the Vedic scriptures, but if he is not a pure devotee he cannot be a spiritual master. In all sastras the chief qualification of a bona fide spiritual master is that he be conversant in the science of Krsna.” (TLC 31)
Conclusion (3): Your attempt, based on Bharadvaja-samhita 1.39 to present birth in a brahminical lineage as an advantage for becoming diksa-guru, according to Srila Prabhupada “has nothing to do with spiritual understanding” and is “only for those who consider social status more important than spiritual status … [and] not for people who are spiritually serious”.
Please forgive me for what was intented to be “brief remarks” and please let me know if I am mistaken in any on the points above. I live to be corrected.
Again, thank you both for your scholarship, culture and civility. It is very much needed and appreciated.
Begging to remain
your servant,
Madana-mohan das
—