If that letter is the only thing that counts, then Srila Prabhupada was
mistaken when he he wrote this:
“Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not
become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru.” (SB 4.12.32 purport)
Hare Krishna;
For a variety of reasons having a protracted exchange on this topic is not possible but I’ve been listening to this discussion for some years now and have read much on it from both sides, as well as sastra. So I’ll offer the below but will likely not comment further, thank you for your understanding
The presentation that Suniti could not become Dhruva’s diksa guru because she was a woman and specifically his mother, while there is merit to that presentation, it is not the full picture. In the caste by birth varnasrama society that Suniti and Dhruva lived in during Satya yuga, women did not take initiation at all. It was considered enough for them to follow the directions of their husband who was seen as their guru. So at that time women and mothers could not be diksa gurus as they were not initiated, thus they were not able to give a mantra which they were never initiated into themselves
In the next verse and purport Srila Prabhupada addresses this point:
The great associates of Vaikunthaloka, Nanda and Sunanda, could understand the mind of Dhruva Maharaja, and thus they showed him that his mother, Suniti, was going forward in another plane.
PURPORT
This incident proves that the siksa or diksa guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Maharaja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. Although Suniti was an instructor to Dhruva Maharaja she could not go to the forest because she was a woman, nor could she execute austerities and penances as Dhruva Maharaja did. Still, Dhruva Maharaja was able to take his mother with him. Similarly, Prahlada Maharaja also delivered his atheistic father, Hiranyakasipu. The conclusion is that a disciple or an offspring who is a very strong devotee can carry with him to Vaikunthaloka either his father, mother or siksa or diksa guru. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura used to say, “If I could perfectly deliver even one soul back home, back to Godhead, I would think my mission—propagating Krsna consciousness—to be successful.” The Krsna consciousness movement is spreading now all over the world and sometimes I think that even though I am crippled in many ways, if one of my disciples becomes as strong as Dhruva Maharaja, then he will be able to carry me with him to Vaikunthaloka.
(Although Suniti was an instructor to Dhruva Maharaja, she could not go to the forest because she was a woman, nor could she execute austerities and penances as Dhruva Maharaja did)
So Suniti, as a woman could not go to the forest and could not execute austerities and penances, therefore she was not able to perform the yuga dharma for that yuga (Satya). So how then could she go back to Godhead…
Well in Satya yuga a woman could go back to Godhead by following her guru husband, or in this case taking shelter of her qualified son. She was not initiated, as the society she lived in expected her to simply follow her husband and not to take initiation herself or go to the forest and perform austerities and penances
“The conclusion is that a disciple or an offspring who is a very strong devotee can carry with him to Vaikunthaloka either his father, mother or siksa or diksa guru.”
So women in Satya yuga could attain Vaikuntha either by following their husbands path, or by having a siksa disciple like Dhruva maharaja, who became perfect by going to the forest, performing austerities and penances and practicing meditation on the mantra given by his diksa guru, Narada Muni. However women at that time could not give mantra diksa because they had never taken mantra diksa, neither could they go to the forest and perform austerities, penances and meditation
In ISKCON today the situation is wholly different. The yuga dharma is harinama sankirtana which does not require one to go to the forest and perform austerities, nor perform long stretches of meditation. Indeed focusing on those activities would essentially restrict our harinam sankirtan
As we all know the Hare Krishna mahamantra has been freely given by Lord Caitanya to every man, woman and child, regardless of their high or low birth. This in spite of the caste by birth conscious brahmanas of Nadia strongly objecting. Not only that but all diksa mantras given to men are also given to women, including gayatri. Thus women & men are equally initiated in ISKCON and both can and do perform brahminical duties like deity worship (which according to caste by birth varnasarama, was only allowed for men born in dvija families to do so). So this is far from the same circumstance as Suniti, who was living in a caste by birth Satya yuga society
As the circumstances are not at all the same, the example of Suniti not giving diksa is not a viable example for ISKCON to follow
Ys Praghosa dasa
In support of Praghosha’s point, we must distinguish between the descriptive and the prescriptive, an often neglected distinction.
Many scriptural passages describe what life was like. These passages are not all prescriptive, they don’t all say what one must do.
Further, as Praghosha pointed out a while ago, there are time and place restrictions. The Bhagavatam is full of detailed instructions regarding dress, ritual, yoga practice, tapasaya etc that no Acaryas followed, because they were historically specific and not universal. Prabhupada often makes the same point.
So Prabhupada’s description of what was possible for Dhruva and Suniti is not automatically prescriptive for our time.
hdg
On Mar 3, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Badrinarayan Swami (San Diego – US) wrote:
As you rightly asking me to consider the Suniti quote, you must in turn consider the 1968 letter. You cannot give weight only to a statement by Srila Prabhupada that you agree with. The duty of a disciple is not to look at two apparently contradictory statements and pick the one he likes. The duty of a disciple is to consider how both statements are true.
Thus, the conundrum remains.
I believe that the letter you are referring to is this one:
“I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program. So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self-realization.”
(Letter to: Hansadutta — Los Angeles 3 January, 1969)
Both before and after this letter, Srila Prabhupada in his books, lectures, letters and conversations, never mentioned that simply passing a scriptural test was sufficient qualification to give initiations. So the letter was not about a process of authorizing anyone, men or women, to give initiations, but an encouragement to both men and women to study his books.
As Srila Prabhupada further confirmed this 9 days:
Regarding the examination, you are already a passed student so don’t be afraid of it. When the examination will be held, you will find the questions so easy that within a few minutes you shall be able to answer them all. I wish to introduce this examination system so that in the future our students may not remained unconcerned with these books we are publishing.
(Letter to: Hansadutta — Los Angeles 12 January, 1969)
Your servant,
Prahladananda Swami
Respected Praghosa Prabhu and Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances, Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and his faithful followers.
By your permission, a small fallen person like me would want to address some of the points from Praghosa Prabhu.
POINT #1: Issue of Suniti is not applicable today because it is from satyuga
* Almost all the incidences mentioned in Bhagavatam are not from Kaliyuga where the yuga dharma was different and where in general women were not allowed to perform austerities etc..
* The logic that Praghosa Prabhu puts, advances us to believe that most of the instructions and ideals of Srimad Bhagavatam are not meant for Kaliyuga
* But this is completely wrong because SB is meant specifically for Kaliyuga (kalau nasta drsam esa puranarko ‘dhunoditah)
* Moreover, in the verse itself, SB 4.12.32, there is no clue of any gurus mentioned. However, SP specifically brings this point up in the purport. Why would he do that, if he doesn’t want us to follow the example.
POINT #2: Because Suniti (and women in general) could not receive initiation, thus could not give initiation
* This presupposes the idea that if women could have received initiation they could have given also. Thus, in present scenario where women can receive initiation, they can give also.
* However, this presupposition is not true. We see that in Krishna’s Vedic culture, even dvija men other than brahmanas received initiation (and in all mantras that brahmanas receive). But, it was only brahmanas who could give initiation.
* Thus, even if Suniti could have been initiated, she could not have been able to give initiation as she was a woman. Same holds true for today.
* In kaliyuga, in ISKCON we follow pancharatrika process for initiation as mentioned by SP himself.
### Quote ###
“Therefore this diksa is offered according to Pancaratrika-vidhi.
That is recommended in this age.” (BG 7.3, Bombay, Mar 29, 1971)
###Un-quote###
* Pancharatras allow women to take diksha (Bharadvaja samhita 1.13-15) while prohibits them from becoming diksa-gurus (BS 1.42-43).
* Thus, our explanation is based on sastras, not presuppositions; while the above proposal was based on a presuppositon that clashes with sastras and tradition.
Point #3: Kaliyuga dharma doesn’t need one to go to forest etc.and thus just follow husband etc.
* Going back to Godhead and being a diksa-guru are completely different things
* One doesn’t need to be guru for going back to Godhead or be a pure devotee.
* One only needs to perform devotional service prominent of which is hearing and chanting.
* Thus, how women’s not being guru prohibits them from going back to Godhead?
* Everyone has right to go backt o Godhead.
* No one has right to become guru;guruship is not a matter of right.
* As soon as one aspires to become guru, one is immediately unqualified for the service of diksa-guru. This applies equally to all.
* Thus, When sastras and Prabhupada prohibit women from becoming guru, they are not depriving them their right to serve and go back to Godhead.
Thankyou,
Your servant,
damodara das
Respected Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances, Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and his faithful followers.
I would like to try to answer the explanations of Hrdayananda Maharaja.
In support of Praghosha’s point, we must distinguish between the descriptive and the prescriptive, an often neglected distinction.
Many scriptural passages describe what life was like. These passages are not all prescriptive, they don’t all say what one must do.
I have studied Mimamsa sastras, where this discussion comes. This is also detailed in a commentary to Manu samhita by Medhatithi, when the pramanas are discussed in the beginning of second chapter.
The idea that only the prescriptive are applicable for being followed is exactly what the karma-mimamsakas say. They consider the descriptive statements as useless, or just for the matter of encouraging action based on prescriptive statements.
This is called arthavada, which is actually wrong (at least when applied for spiritual matters). If you take Vedas in their direct meaning then prescriptive statements for bhakti and mukti are very less (traigunya visaya veda). However, the upanisads describe the meaning of all descriptive statements as prescribing action and thus mukti and bhakti becomes prominent. Karma-mimamsakas reject this and thus they do not accept the conception of mukti. However, mimamsa sutras begins with the point that the “the fact for which karmas are mentioned to motivate people to reach to that fact, is defined as dharma.” (codanA lakSaNo ‘rthaH dharmaH) This is bhakti. This is exactly echoed by SB 11.5.11 and quoted many times by SP.
Vedanta Desika (Sri Vaisnava Acharya) has written a commentary on mimamsa sutras (called Seshvara Mimamsa) proving the existence of personal God (Ishvara) from it.
Anyways, this a big logical discussion from sastras and can be had if anyone wants to.
The conclusion, in short, is:
* It is not that the prescriptive statements only form the sources of action
* It is not that the prescriptive statements even form the prominent source of action
* Actually the descriptive statements give us knowledge of the purpose and thus form the main basis of action. This is according to Bhagavad-gita whose whole theme is to work in knowledge; not just work; nor just knowledge. Thus, Lord Krishna derides veda-vadis in BG 2.42-44, who say one has to just work according to prescriptive statements of sastras and that there is no other meaning to sastras accept this.
Dear Damodar Dasa,
Jaya Prabhupada! Thank you for yoru comments, which I will address:
1. Although you say below that Shastras and gurus forbid women to become gurus, that is not true. We find women gurus in the Vedas, and some previous Acaryas also approved of this practice.
2. Regarding SBh 4.12.32, the Bhagavatam does not say that Suniti could not become a guru. So, even if the Bhagavatam is meant for this age, the Bhagavatam does not rule out women gurus in this age.
3. In fact, all of the Bhagavatam is certainly not for this age. For example, the Bhagavatam enjoins that sannyasis should wear deerskin but Mahaprabhu forbid this practice. Similarly, often states that a particular advanced yoga process enjoined in the Bhagavatam is not meant for this age.
4. You state:
> No one has right to become guru;guruship is not a matter of right.
Incorrect. Krishna uses the word ‘right’ once in the Gita, at 2.47. Krishna says that we have a right to do our duty. Krishna also teaches many times in the Gita that our duty is born of our nature. So if it is a devotee’s nature to serve as a guru, that devotee has a God-given right to be a guru.
Also: yei krsna-tattva-veta, sei guru haya. amara ajñay guru haya tar ei desh.
5. You state:
> * As soon as one aspires to become guru, one is immediately unqualified for the service of diksa-guru. This applies equally to all.
Incorrect. Prabhupada offered his service to the Gaudiya Matha before he came to the US. But they wanted to keep him in a lower position, whereas he knew he had to serve as a spiritual leader and guru. So he left and came to the West. One may desire to be a guru because it is one’s nature to serve in that way. Krishna says in the Gita that we have a right to serve according to our nature. Also one may desire to be a Vaishnavi guru because one knows that without this example, intelligent Western people will not accept us.
By the way, for all those who oppose Vaishnavi gurus, the standing invitation is still open: come to the West and show that your style works here. As they say, put up or eat a sweet ball. Prabhupada basically says this in his purport to SBh 4.8.54:
“Sometimes our Indian friends, puffed up with concocted notions, criticize, “This has not been done. That has not been done.” But they forget this instruction of Nārada Muni to one of the greatest Vaiṣṇavas, Dhruva Mahārāja. One has to consider the particular time, country and conveniences. What is convenient in India may not be convenient in the Western countries…The fact is that such critics cannot do anything personally to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If someone does go and preach, taking all risks and allowing all considerations for time and place, it might be that there are changes in the manner of worship, but that is not at all faulty according to śāstra.
Prabhupada says to take all risks and allow all considerations for time and place. So come and show that you can rebuild Prabhupada’s Western mission. Or don’t hinder those of us who are trying to do so, with some success.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda dasa Goswami
Hare Krishna,
Your claim that Suniti could not give initiation because she could not be initiated is not mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in his purport. Instead Srila Prabhupada’s purport is a glorification of the role of siksa guru played by Suniti. Srila Prabhupada simply says that:
“According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru. Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru.”
(SB 4.12.32)
Srila Prabhupada said in the conversation with Prof O’Connel:
Prabhupada: Yes. Jähnavi devi was Nityänanda’s wife. She became. If she is able to go to the highest perfection of life, why it is not possible to become guru? But, not so many. Actually one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru”
Narada-pancaratna confirms that only women on the highest platform of spiritual attainment can give diksa.
Lord Caitanya gave the same instruction that was followed by Suniti when she instructed Dhruva Maharaja, millions of years ago—to tell others about Lord Krishna.
“Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore advised everyone to become a guru-devotee and preach Krsna consciousness (yare dekha, tare kaha ‘krsna’-upadesa [Cc. Madhya 7.128]). That is the easiest way to realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead. By such preaching, the preacher becomes satisfied, and those to whom he preaches are also satisfied. This is the process of bringing peace and tranquillity to the entire world.”
(SB 7.6.24)
The process of making spiritual advancement and going back to Godhead is not by becoming a diksa guru, but by following the spiritual practices given by the acaraya and working to help bring Lord Krishna other children back to the spiritual world. Everyone, whether a man or woman, has an equal opportunity to serve the mission of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and make theirs and others lives perfect. But while one is conditioned by the material energy, should do the duties given by guru/sadhu/sastra and not take up duties meant for someone else.
Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada
Prahladananda Swami
Dear Damodara Dasa,
Jaya Prabhupada! You state:
> The idea that only the prescriptive are applicable for being followed is exactly what the karma-mimamsakas say. They consider the
> descriptive statements as useless, or just for the matter of encouraging action based on prescriptive statements.
Here are the problems with your argument:
1. History shows that in certain technical matters, other schools including Vaishnavas accepted certain Mimamsa arguments. Obviously we reject the impersonal, atheist Mimamsa conclusion, but not all technical points.
2. You cite the Mimamsa school but do not give evidence that the Vaishnavas specifically rejected that argument.
3. In my last letter, I gave examples, and there are many more, where Prabhupada and other Acaryas taught that we do not follow certain descriptive statements, such as those regarding dress, ritual, technical yoga, tapasya etc. For example, but Bhagavatam both describes and prescribes that sannyasis wear deerskin, but Mahaprabhu forbid it.
4. I did not say the descriptive statements are useless. I said that some of them, not all, are contingent on historical circumstances that don’t pertain now. I did not categorically reject all Shastra that grammatatically is descriptive rather than prescriptive. I don’t know where you got that idea.
5. This statement is illogical:
> * It is not that the prescriptive statements even form the prominent source of action
Obviously, if a descriptive statement should be followed, then logically it is also a prescriptive statement and your distinction collapses.
The real point: all the Acaryas declare that many Shastric statements are time-bound, hence descriptive, not prescriptive.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda dasa Goswami
On Mar 3, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Prahladananda Swami wrote:
> Hare Krishna,
> > Your claim that Suniti could not give initiation because she could not be initiated is not mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in his purport.
Prabhupada famously said that if we study the Bhagavatam, every day “there will be new lights.” Prabhupada did not forbid us to try to understand Shastra, he encouraged it within the boundaries of siddhanta. That is called philosophical (not mental) speculation, and Prabhupada personally taught me to do it. If we simply repeat what Prabhupada said, it is not a “new light.”
Respected Hrdayananda Maharaja,
Please accept my humble obeisances, All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
1. Although you say below that Shastras and gurus forbid women to become
> gurus, that is not true. We find women gurus in the Vedas, and some previous
> Acaryas also approved of this practice.
Please bring those cases. Also Exceptions are not meant to be rules or norms; they support the rule. Bringing one or two examples from sastras and tradition and projecting it a rule, is exactly the process that was developed by British scholars in order to ruin Krishna’s Vedic Culture in order to be able to rule India.
Thus, you need to bring clear cut statements from sastras and acharyas that mention that those women who are still not siddhas (or below bhava stage) can become diksa-gurus. Until then whatever, examples you bring will be considered an exception, not the rule.
> 2. Regarding SBh 4.12.32, the Bhagavatam does not say that Suniti could not
> become a guru. So, even if the Bhagavatam is meant for this age, the
> Bhagavatam does not rule out women gurus in this age.
>
But, Srila Prabhupada talks about women gurus in the purport. So you cannot rule this out; its right there. Bhagavatam is meant for Kaliyuga and Srila Prabhupada is meant to preach in Kaliyuga, who has
written this in his commentary. How can we rule this out.
> 3. In fact, all of the Bhagavatam is certainly not for this age. For
> example, the Bhagavatam enjoins that sannyasis should wear deerskin but
> Mahaprabhu forbid this practice. Similarly, often states that a particular
> advanced yoga process enjoined in the Bhagavatam is not meant for this age.
>
So, my logical question is,
Who will decide what part of Bhagavatam is for kaliyuga and what part is not?
If your answer is that we will decide, then the question would be how we can say whose decision is truth and whose decision is false?
If both decisions are correct in their perspectives, then why fight?
However, this will only increase the number of factions as nasav rsir yasya matam na bhinnam.
Thus, we need to follow sastras and take guidance from all of Guru AND sadhu AND sastra; then we know the truth.
Whatever amendments are there for kaliyuga are already mentioned there and we do not need to try to figure out what is applicable now and what not. This will only give rise to millions of speculations.
Whatever adjustments you need to do are already mentioned in sruti smriti etc. and an expert preacher needs to select from them; not concoct his own adjustments. Please see below quote of SP who says
this—-
#### QUOTE ######
Pusta Krsna: Is it necessary from time to time to change the Smrtis?
Prabhupada: That cannot be changed.
. . .Prabhupada: Nothing can be changed. But according to the time you have
to… Just like in Kali-yuga the Smrti order is kirtanad eva Krsnasya
mukta-sangah param vrajet [SB 12.3.51]. So you have to do this. Just
like a physician gives a medicine that “Morning you take this
medicine, in the evening you take this medicine.” It is not a change
of treatment. It is according to the time a different medicine. But it
is recommended by the physician, not by your whims. Sruti-Smrti cannot
be changed, but they have recommended different process in different
times. So the reference to the sruti-Smrti is there, authority is
there. It is… You cannot modify.Pusta Krsna: There is no question then of, as he says, “new Smrti.”
Prabhupada: No. New Smrti, they may take it, “new Smrti.” But Smrti is
Smrti. It is not new. You have to give reference to the past
sruti-Smrti. Otherwise, it is not… Veda pramana, sabda pramana.
Otherwise there is no evidence. It is invalid, not valid. You cannot
change the original sruti-Smrti, but you have to take the timely
recommendation. Just like Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, harer nama
harer nama harer namaiva kevalam, kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty
eva… [Adi 17.21]. This is the only method. You take it. But this is
sruti-Smrti-pramana.Answers to Bhavans Journal, Vrindavan, June 28, 1976
#### Un-QUOTE #####
> 4. You state:
No one has right to become guru;guruship is not a matter of right.
>
> Incorrect. Krishna uses the word ‘right’ once in the Gita, at 2.47. Krishna
> says that we have a right to do our duty. Krishna also teaches many times in
> the Gita that our duty is born of our nature. So if it is a devotee’s nature
> to serve as a guru, that devotee has a God-given right to be a guru.
> Also: yei krsna-tattva-veta, sei guru haya. amara ajñay guru haya tar ei
> desh.
>
Yes, everyone has right to perform his duty; and it is not the duty of women to become diksa-gurus; it is duty of brahmanas. Thus, no one has right to perform others’ duty (para-dharma) as told by Lord Krishna in BG 3.35 & 18.47 — sreyan svadharmo vigunahg, para-dharmat svanusthitat, svadharme nidhanam sreyah, paradharmo bhayavahah.
In SB 7.15.12-3, paradharma is mentioned as one type of sinful activity. Thus, due to these repeated instructions, we find that even the liberated nitya-siddha women like Kunti, Devahuti, etc. did not become diksa-gurus or even demanded to do so.
> 5. You state:
* As soon as one aspires to become guru, one is immediately unqualified
for the service of diksa-guru. This applies equally to all.
>
>
> Incorrect. Prabhupada offered his service to the Gaudiya Matha before he
> came to the US. But they wanted to keep him in a lower position, whereas he
> knew he had to serve as a spiritual leader and guru. So he left and came to
> the West. One may desire to be a guru because it is one’s nature to serve in
> that way. Krishna says in the Gita that we have a right to serve according
> to our nature. Also one may desire to be a Vaishnavi guru because one knows
> that without this example, intelligent Western people will not accept us.
> By the way, for all those who oppose Vaishnavi gurus, the standing
> invitation is still open: come to the West and show that your style works
> here. As they say, put up or eat a sweet ball. Prabhupada basically says
> this in his purport to SBh 4.8.54:
>
Aspiring to become guru and becoming guru are two different things. One must become guru to serve the orders of his own guru. That is what Srila Prabhupada did. He never thought that he is guru; but he always thought that he is servant of his own guru.
### QUOTE ###
Prior to this, Siddhänta Sarasvaté had never given initiation to
anyone. His character was such that he never regarded his disciples as
his disciples, but he used to see them as being that which was
received from the lotus feet of his guru. He used to address them as
“Prabhu.” In his address to the Gaudiya Math’s first Vyasa-puja, he
has addressed his disciples as, “My friends, rescuers from danger.” He
also wrote, “If a Vaisnava does not do the work of a guru, then the
spiritual Vaisnava lineage will stop. Again, if he does the work of a
guru, then he becomes a non-Vaisnava. For if a guru thinks, ‘I am a
guru.’ then the first ‘u’ letter in the word guru disappears (the word
becomes ‘garu’ or cow). A real guru does not make disciples and thus
remains a guru. Here we see Siddhanta Sarasvati giving a very strong
warning about entertaining the conception of overlordship or being the
master of anyone. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
observed that when he offered obeisances to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvaté
Thakura, he used to return, “Daso ‘smi”: “I am your servant.” And in a
lecture in 1973 on the occasion of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s
Disappearance Day observance, Srila Prabhupada in the same ecstatic
mood spoke, ‘Anyway, it is by his grace I was forced to give up my
family life, and he brought me some way or other in preaching his
gospel. So, this is a memorable day. What he desired, I am trying a
little bit and you are all helping me, so I have to thank you more.
You are actually representatives of my Guru Maharaja, because you are
helping me in executing the order of my Guru Maharaja. Thank you very
much.”Ray of Visnu, 5
### Un-QUOTE ###
> “Sometimes our Indian friends, puffed up with concocted notions, criticize,
> “This has not been done. That has not been done.” But they forget this
> instruction of Nārada Muni to one of the greatest Vaiṣṇavas, Dhruva
> Mahārāja. One has to consider the particular time, country and conveniences.
> What is convenient in India may not be convenient in the Western
> countries…The fact is that such critics cannot do anything personally to
> spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. If someone does go and preach, taking all risks
> and allowing all considerations for time and place, it might be that there
> are changes in the manner of worship, but that is not at all faulty
> according to śāstra.
>
That changes are to be approved by sastras and tradition. They should not be against them, as already proved in the previous quote above.
Whatever changes that are needed to be introduced due to incapability (asamarthya) must be reverted back to the standards (for that particular Time, Place, Circumstance as mentioned in sastras); they are not meant to be eternal dharma.
Moreover, there are two things: compulsory duties and non-compulsory duties. Compulsory duties are those for which it is mentioned that not performing them degrades one. For such duties only adjustments are allowed according to TPC not for other duties.
Being diksa-guru is not a compulsory duty as not being guru one doesn’t degrade. Thus, all the rules mentioned in guru-sadhu-sastras, regarding becoming guru, must be followed; they cannot be adjusted.
(This is from the rules of mimamsa-sastras). If we see SP’s action applying these rules of mimamsa sastras, we are able to see that whatever he did was strictly according to sastras, and we also get to understand what adjustments he made are meant to be permanent while what adjustments are meant to be temporary.
This, is a big topic and can be discussed at length if time permits.
Thankyou very much for allowing a rack like me to answer,
Your servant,
damodara das
Respecte Maharaja,
Pranams.
My answers below.
Your servant,
damodara das
> Here are the problems with your argument:
>
> 1. History shows that in certain technical matters, other schools including
> Vaishnavas accepted certain Mimamsa arguments. Obviously we reject the
> impersonal, atheist Mimamsa conclusion, but not all technical points.
>
Yes. However, Vaishnavas never cherry picked rules from sastras (like mimamsa) and mixed them with their own understanding. On the contrary they have proved the actulal meaning of these statements using the same rules of mimamsa. They have established this with all erudite scholarship that is based on sastras. Seshvara Mimamsa is one such attempt. Vedanta Sutra is the magnus opum in this attempt. Vedanta
sutra is nothing but mimamsa explained in its right meaning; thus it is also called uttara mimamsa
> 2. You cite the Mimamsa school but do not give evidence that the Vaishnavas
> specifically rejected that argument.
>
Vaishnavas did not reject mimamsa argument but the wrong understanding of mimamsa rules that bring forth the karma-mimamsa philosophy. How vaishnavas prove this is a matter of whole treatise called Vedanta Sutras (uttara mimamsa) and I think it is not possible to produce that whole evidence here. So I told that anyone who wants to discuss in detail are welcome.
3. In my last letter, I gave examples, and there are many more, where
> Prabhupada and other Acaryas taught that we do not follow certain
> descriptive statements, such as those regarding dress, ritual, technical
> yoga, tapasya etc. For example, but Bhagavatam both describes and prescribes
> that sannyasis wear deerskin, but Mahaprabhu forbid it.
It is not that we do not follow such descriptive statements out of our own descrition, but out of the allowances given by sastras themselves. For instance, main spiritual activity in kali-yuga is Harinama
Sankirtana. This conclusion is not arrived to by personal discretion but by sastras who repeatedly mention this. Please refere to the conversation I sent in previous email (Bhavan’s Journal answers).
Even about dress of brahmacari and sannyasi, sastras mention options. For instance, it says sikhi va jati va — one can be shaven headed or keep matted hairs. [Vaikhanasa Dharmasutras 01.03.(113.16-114.3), Varaha Upanishad 1.17]
Thus, according to mimamsa sutras, it forms an instance of option unless it is prohibited by the acharyas of our line (starting from Brahma). As it is not prohibited, Srila Prabhupada selected sikhi (shaven head) over having matted hairs, seeing the TPC that hippies already have the habit of being unclean and this will not help them; also that circumstance or people today consider such matted hair people as hippy and thus will not be ready to listen to them although they may be devotees.
This is an example of Srila Prabhupada applying instructions of sastras in varying TPC, strictly according to the guidance of sastras, and not going against sastras.
There are many such things by which it can be proved that SP never strew away from the sastric path.
> 5. This statement is illogical:
* It is not that the prescriptive statements even form the prominent
source of action
>
> Obviously, if a descriptive statement should be followed, then logically it
> is also a prescriptive statement and your distinction collapses.
Yes. I did not say that prescriptive statement should not be followed. I said that it is not the prominent source of action if compared to descriptive statement. Not being prominent source of action and not following are two different things.
Not being prominent source of action means that when there is a clash between the two (prominent and non-prominent), the meaning of prominent statement should be taken in direct meaning while the non-prominent statement should be interpreted to fit the meaning of prominent statement.
In our case the prominent statement is SB 4.12.32, purport and non-prominent statement is that of the letter to Hamsaduta (where even the topic under discussion is not about eligibility to become diksa-guru but to encourage disciples to seriously read his books). Thus, we undestand SP’s intention from SB 4.12.32, purport, which resonates with all the instructions from sastras and tradition. Thus, his other statements should be interpreted to fit this understanding.
> The real point: all the Acaryas declare that many Shastric statements are
> time-bound, hence descriptive, not prescriptive.
Please bring those declarations of acharyas and we will try to understand that.
There are also many sastric statements which are descriptive and which are told to us by acharyas to follow. So, who will judge which descriptive statements are to be followed and which not to be?
I have already answered this in my previous email, that it is to be based on guru AND sadhu AND sastra, quoting SP. Thus, if we go to harmonizing GSS accoring to the rules of pramana sastras, we find basis on which SP followed certain descriptive statements and adjusted others.
Also, same is true for prescriptive statements of sastras. Sruti says, Yavaj-jiveta agnihotram juhuyat– you must perform agnihotra as long as you live. This is prescriptive statement of sruti. However, same sruti says that for kaliyuga Harinam is compulsory duty and that agnihotras are not. Thus, harmonizing both we see that for kaliyuga Harinam is prescribed; thus, acharyas gave us one over the other. It is not their cherry picking.
Obviously, if a descriptive statement should be followed, then logically it is also a prescriptive statement and your distinction collapses.
No. It is not a prescriptive statement as it doesn’t directly prescribe any action. However, action is to be based on descriptive statement.
Example of prescriptive statement: A brahmana should never speak lie. (Action of speaking is mentioned)
Example of descriptive statement: A brahmana never speaks lie. (Action of speaking is not mandated for brahmanas but just a fact is mentioned)
However, it is clear from the descriptive statement that prescription is that for not speaking lie.
Thakyou,
Your servant,
damodara das
I said that descriptive and prescriptive do not depend on grammar.
So you proced to argue against me by saying the same thing I said:
> However, it is clear from the descriptive statement that prescription is that for not speaking lie.
Apart from grammar, prescriptive means that a statement, whatever its grammar, is taken to prescribe. I’m glad we agree.
hdg
Pranam Maharajas and Prabhus,
All glories to Srila Prabhupada and his faithful followers.
>
> Prabhupada famously said that if we study the Bhagavatam, every day “there
> will be new lights.” Prabhupada did not forbid us to try to understand
> Shastra, he encouraged it within the boundaries of siddhanta. That is called
> philosophical (not mental) speculation, and Prabhupada personally taught me
> to do it. If we simply repeat what Prabhupada said, it is not a “new
> light.”
>
Yes, understanding sastras and Bhagavatam from various perspectives is very essential. However, these perspectives are to be derived from guru-sadhu-sastras themselves.
It is elusive to say that it is correct to arrive to an understanding of Bhagavatam that is not in clash with the siddhanta. This is because what is siddhata and what is not, we come to know from guru-sadhu-sastra. So one one is based on GSS it is not at all speculation — neither philosophical not mental (or whatever other name we call). It is truth.
There are many so called Bhagavtam experts from sahajiyas, mayavadis, and other apasiddhantis. However, their commentaries on Bhagavatam has created a havoc. Thus, our understanding of Bhagavatam has to be inside the boundaries set by guru-sadhu-sastra.
Regarding the word Philosophical speculation, SP has not used it in much positive sense (at least for devotees). See Bg 3.3, purport.
The term “Philosophical speculation” is used for sanskrit word “Sankhya” which means to understand based on analysis of the world. However, it is to be known that this philosophy is based on sastras.
For our case in discussion Srila Prabhupada answers this in regard to philosophical speculation:
### QUOTE ####
The pancaratrika system has the most authorized codes for
transcendental devotional service. Without the help of such codes, one
cannot approach the Lord, certainly not by dry philosophical
speculation. The pancaratrika system is both practical and suitable
for this age of quarrel. (SB 1.5.38, purport)
## Un-QUOTE ####
Thus. it is established that in our case, pancharatrika rules are above philosophical speculations and thus to be followed and thus women cannot be diksa-gurus.
Please see references in ps. It establishes that SP did not want philosophical speculation and that he used this word interchangeably with mental speculation and thus there is no difference.
Thankyou,
Your servant,
damodara das
ps. For word Philosophical speculation see–
BG 3.3, 4.10 ppt, 4.25 ppt (used for Mayadis), 7.16 ppt, 8.9 ppt (used for word tarka), 13.8-12 ppt (this word used for useless materialist athiests), and many more.
### QUIOTE ###
The Vedic truths are all perfect descriptions of the factual truth without any mistake or illusion, and Sukadeva Gosvami wants to present the truths of creation not as a metaphysical theory of philosophical speculation, but as the actual facts and figures of the subject, since he would be dictated to by the Lord exactly in the same manner as Brahmaji was inspired. (SB 2.4.23, purport)
### Un-QUOTE ###
Those who take Bhakti-shastra tests know our siddhanta. That is not the point of discussion.
Regarding seeing Bhagavatam from many perspectives and philosophical speculation:
If we see, Lord Chaitanya derided Vallabhacharya because he presented his views on Bhagavatam which were not matching with the explanations of Sridhara Swami. Thus it proves that the understanding of Bhagavatam should be under the parlance of guru-sadhu-sastra.
Your servant,
damodara das
Respected Maharajas and Prabhus,
Pranams.
1. History shows that in certain technical matters, other schools
> including
> Vaishnavas accepted certain Mimamsa arguments. Obviously we reject the
> impersonal, atheist Mimamsa conclusion, but not all technical points.
>
Yes. However, Vaishnavas never cherry picked rules from sastras (like mimamsa) and mixed them with their own understanding.
> That is exactly what they did: cherry-picking. It’s called yukta-vairagya.
> We do it all the time, taking what is favorable, rejecting what is
> unfavorable. Again, I am departing this discussion.
> hdg
Please forgive me Maharaja for any offenses. However, to say that acharyas cherry picked is accusing them for ardha-kukkuti-nyaya.
To justify or compare cherry picking with yukta vairagya is wrong. Yukta vairagya doesn’t involve vairagya (renunciation) from Krishna’s statements coming through guru-sadhu-sastras.
What is favorable and what is unfavorable for devotional service we understand from guru-sadhu-sastras. We cannot base ourselves simply on our experience. For instance, one who has addiction of smoking ciagarrettes will get severe headache and become uneasy if he doesn’t get to smoke. Thus, he will not be able to chant or concentrate properly on service. However, if he concludes that because smoking cigarrette relieves him from uneasiness and thus is favorable for him, he is doomed. We find details of what is favorable for KC and what is not from guru-sadhu-sastra.
### QUOTE ###
This method of worship is recommended in the pancaratrika system,
which is both recognized and authorized.
The pancaratrika system has the most authorized codes for
transcendental devotional service. Without the help of such codes,
one cannot approach the Lord, certainly not by dry philosophical
speculation.
The pancaratrika system is both practical and suitable for this
age of quarrel.
SB 1.5.38, purport
### Un-QUOTE ###
The way of seeing things and explanations that Hrdayananda Maharaja is proposing needs to tag SP as cherry picker. However, if we are able to explain actions of SP strictly in accordance with sastras and sadhus, which explanation should be accepted?
Please forgive for my arrogance. In Sastrartha, it sometimes becomes inevitable.
Thankyou,
Your humble servant,
damodara das
I give up. I have explained over and over again how the Acaryas accept some Shastric injunctions, and reject others that are not suitable for this age.
Damodar, let’s stop here, please.
Pranam Maharaja.
Okay. Your order, my fortune.
I will not drag this conversation further.
Thankyou for considering me.
Your servant,
damodara das
ps. Anyone who wants to undestand how Srila Prabhupada acted strictly according to sastras even in adjustments he did, based on the principles of sastras; we are here at your service, if you can spend some time with us.
> hdg 1. Although you say below that Shastras and gurus forbid women to become gurus, that is not true. We find women gurus in the Vedas, and some previous Acaryas also approved of this practice.
>
> Please bring those cases. Also Exceptions are not meant to be rules or norms; they support the rule.
Exceptions establish the rule that there can be exceptions. The cases have been given too many times. Google women Vedic gurus.
> Bringing one or two examples from sastras and tradition and projecting it a rule, is exactly the process that was developed by British scholars in order to ruin Krishna’s Vedic Culture in order to be able to rule India.
To say that only an oppressive colonial scholar would claim that a few cases establishes permissibility is beyond my power of comprehension. So I will end here.
hdg
Thank you.
> Hare Krishna. I have my own concerns about Vaisnavi diksa gurus. But the
> conundrum for me is the following simple historical fact.
>
> In 1968 Srila Prabhupada wrote:
>
> “I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this
> title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will
> continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of
> Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples. Maybe by 1975, all of
> my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the
> generations. That is my program.” (Letter to Hamsaduta-Los Angeles 3
> December, 1968)
>
> BnS: In other words, at one point in time Srila Prabhupada thought that
> Vaisnavis initiating disciples was a valid principle. That in the ultimate
> issue, he did not implement this consideration is another topic. But the
> fact remains that at one point in time, Srila Prabhupada considered
> Vaisnavi diksa gurus to be a legitimate practice.
>
> Does this mean that in 1968, Srila Prabhupada was he in illusion? Was he
> in violation of shastra? In 1968 was Srila Prabhupada going against the
> essential, eternal truth of the Vedas?
The letter mentioned above continues:
That is my program. So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self-realization.” (Letter to Hamsaduta-Los Angeles 3 December, 1968)
Both before and after this letter, Srila Prabhupada in his books, lectures, letters and conversations, never mentioned that simply passing a scriptural test was sufficient qualification to give initiations, the qualifications was much different. This letter was not about a process of authorizing anyone, men or women, to give initiations, but an encouragement to both men and women to study his books.
Srila Prabhupada confirmed this in his letter to Hansadutta 9 days later:
Regarding the examination, you are already a passed student so don’t be afraid of it. When the examination will be held, you will find the questions so easy that within a few minutes you shall be able to answer them all. I wish to introduce this examination system so that in the future our students may not remained unconcerned with these books we are publishing. (Letter to: Hansadutta — Los Angeles 12 January, 1969)
Your servant,
Prahladananda Swami
Dear Devotees,We hope you are well and progressing in your spiritual journey. We areexcited to…
Dear devotees, Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada! Gopal Krishna Maharaj ki jaya! The ISKCON India Governing…
IISB members Basu Ghosh Das (ACBSP) and Krishna Kirti Das (Convenor, IISB) discuss Srila Prabhupada’s…
The proof of how dishonest the Poison allegations are is those who endorse this horrible…
Abstract In Kṛṣṇa’s Vedic civilization, upanayana — the investiture with the sacred thread and brahma-gāyatrī…