A couple of days ago one Russian devotee who is a “GBC Deputy”, which means he serves in some sort of an advisory role, gave a long talk answering various concerns regarding recent GBC resolution authorizing Female Diksha Gurus. He was present during that meeting, translating for a Russian GBC member, and, incidentally, he gives vote tally as 16+9+4, meaning there were almost twice as many “yes” votes as there were “nos”. Anyway, this devotee has presented the most comprehensive explanation for this resolution so far. Most likely his arguments will be included in the promised “milestones leading to this decision”. Still, it’s not an official position so whatever deficiencies are there in his talk, they might not be present in actual GBC explanations.
The arguments below are not meant for GBC bashing, they are meant for deeper understanding of the issue. They are not meant as a call to action and I do not propose any alternatives. It’s meant for sambandha, not for abhidheya, nor for prayojana. In the talk this devotee also warned about this from the start – those who are looking merely for more reasons to “defeat GBC” should skip it altogether.
I’m not going to comment on this talk minute by minute either but start with what I think is the most important point. By important I mean the point which allows us to understand not only GBC position but to reconcile it with the position of FDG opponents – because they must have forked at some point before which there was unity, and I think I found it. In the video it’s about 29:30 minute mark and it’s the definition of diksha itself. It relies on CC Adi 1.35 and CC Antya 4.192
In short, it means that a devotee meets many siksha gurus and, after carefully listening to them, selects one guru who speaks to his heart and in whose words he can see Krishna. By speaking sabda-brahman this one special guru reveals Krishna himself, and so a devotee surrenders to him completely, seeing him as no different from God. This act not only cements their existing relationships, where all the doubts of mundanity are finally removed, but also signifies the beginning of the new stage where disciple’s body, mind, and soul belong to his guru – atma-samarpanam.
When this happens I don’t think any arguments will matter at all – this kind of revelation is self-evident, and I don’t think any FDG opponent will object here. If we look at it in light of Bharadvaja Samhita, then there’s a concluding text (1.44) in a series related to FDG and it says that those who are pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ are not subjected to regulations covering women, shudras, etc. The exact meaning of pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ is disputable, but everyone agrees it has something to do with direct perception of the Absolute. The diksha definition of GBC goes even further than that – not only the guru has this perception but at the moment of diksha this direct perception develops in the heart of the disciple, too. In other words, it totally satisfies Bharadvaja Samhita requirements.
The opponents, however, do not mean this kind of diksha in their arguments, and I have serious questions whether our actual ISKCON initiation practices reach that lofty goal either. In the zonal acharya days one could be initiated by anyone, I mean anyone who is put in charge of your geographical location, and it was all the same – all the gurus preached the same things, gave the same lectures, and presented Srila Prabhupada in one unified voice. There was nothing magic happening during those initiations either, no actual revelation of the full glory of the holy name. For this reason our whole guru system is often criticized like, for example, in this Aindra’s video. His presentation is a bit unusual, but I don’t know who can disagree with his argument that unless one has the necessary purity in his bhajan there’s no question of giving a pure name to a disciple, and if one has this purity then what does it matter if he is in a male or a female body? In other words, by arguing about bodily differences we miss the most important thing – purity of the shuddha nam. If one doesn’t have it, it can’t be fixed by passing resolutions. And, conversely, when it’s present no resolution can stop it either.
In recent years, maybe decades even, there have appeared voices nudging us to re-calibrate our diksha vs siksha preferences. The society grows, gurus are few and far in between, all the good ones have thousands of disciples already, and there’s no question for a new initiate to develop any kind of personal relationships with any of them to make an informed choice, and there’s no hope of developing such relationships after initiation either. Every guru can give a solid class, with all the quotes and dramatic pauses in all the right places. Quite often they give the same class in different temples and polish it to perfection – what can the prospective disciple learn from it? Does his guru have any character faults? How does he deal with those? How does he deal with anger? How does he deal with upsets and inconveniences? All you have is these classes which by now the guru can give in his sleep, if it comes to that. So, there’s a push to recognize local siksha gurus, to recognize devotees who actually guide people in their spiritual life day in and day out, helping them deal with their problems, giving them little boosts of inspiration, sheltering and protecting them from troubles – all the things necessary to nurture someone’s tender creeper of devotion. Alternatively, more devotees can be allowed to give diksha, considering that nothing magical is expected to happen anyway. But here’s the problem, though – if there’s no actual revelation of the holy name in the heart of the disciple at the moment of diksha, then GBC selected definition does not apply to our everyday practices.
That’s where Bharadvaja Samhita’s warning about not taking diksha from women, shudras, fallen persons etc fits very nicely – if we make diksha an institutional formality, then it’s a different kind of initiation and it’s subject to a different set of rules. In Caitanya Caritamrita Srila Prabhupada describes maybe half a dozen different “initiations”. Look through all the search results here. Sometimes Srila Prabhupada talks about two different kinds of initiations even in the same purport. Sometimes he says that for chanting the pure name initiation is not required at all. In this case it still means someone should give you the holy name first, which is a kind of initiation, but what is not required is a pancaratrika process of getting a new name and a brahman thread etc.
Having spent a bit of time on thinking in terms of Sankhya, I think we are making a mistake of not recognizing the distinctions between different kinds of diksha, and then not understanding of how they all fit together – which are more important, which are less, and then we make a mistake of not recognizing which kind of diksha is applicable to which situation or which Prabhupada quote to use where.
This is all there really is to it at the moment – it’s the source of all our disagreements. The kind of diksha GBC is talking about is appropriate for Bhagavata parampara, but they want to institutionalize it for diksha parampara. Both are required, but requirements are not the same. One is wholly spiritual in nature, the other one is social. Just like in Vedic or Hindu society – everyone should get diksha, everyone should get upanayana when the age comes, there’s social pressure to be initiated, too, and one does not require supergurus for that kind of initiation. The fact that the resolution put in social requirements for FDG – minimum age limit and family/temple protection, is evidence that here we are talking about social function which depends on social conditions. Bhagavata parampara diksha, on the other hand, does not depend on any conditions, including gender, and it does not require any change in social status. No need change of names, no big temple yajnas, nothing. In some cases it could even fall under Hari Bhakti Vilasa’s prescription to hide one’s ishta devata, one’s guru, and one’s mantra. If we try to mix the two different kinds together we are bound to run into all kinds of problems.
Back to the talk – this is one of my big concerns with it – they read into quotes what is in their heads already. Just take the first quote in GBC resolution, from this Vyasa Puja address, second paragraph from the bottom. Yes, it does say “men and women” and “become spiritual master”, but “become spiritual master” was repeated ten times in that class and Srila Prabhupada gave many many examples of what he meant by it and none of them had anything to do with the right to initiate.
Devotee giving the talk accused the opponents of relying on “Yes, Prabhupada said that, but what he actually meant was…” argument. Well, I don’t know about opponents, but this is an example of Srila Prabhupada asking us to humbly approach people, praise them, and then beg them to forget everything they know and take instructions of Lord Caitanya instead. That’s how we should “become spiritual master” and that’s what “follow the principle” refers to in GBC quote, but then the resolution defender says that what Prabhupada actually meant is gender parity in giving initiations. Really?
Or take the famous “Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples” from this letter to Hansadutta. The bulk of that paragraph is about examinations, books studies, titles awarded and so on, but from one sentence which wouldn’t be noticed if it was missing, we conclude that it set Prabhupada’s vision for gender equality in giving diksha. It has never been repeated again and I suspect no one knew of this vision until many years after Srila Prabhupada’s departure when it was included in Vedabase Folio. And so it becomes the case of “in the letter Srila Prabhupada talked about exams, but what he actually meant was…”
Or take the second quote in GBC resolution, duly mentioned in the talk, too: “The word guru is equally applicable to the vartma-pradarśaka-guru, śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru.” It’s from the purport to the kiba vipra kiba ‘nyasi verse where guru means a person who knows science of Krishna. Yes, this person can perform the role of all three of these kinds of guru, “but what Prabhupada actually meant was that vartma-pradarśaka-guru can give diksha, too.” No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Bilvanmangala Thakur’s vartma-pradarśaka-guru was a prostitute, and just because some “working girl” can give you directions to the temple it doesn’t make her potential diksha guru as well.
Even more worrying is the general understanding expressed over and over again – Srila Prabhupada always wished that his female disciples were initiating people on par with men. Over the course of my life I’ve spent some time reading Srila Prabhupada’s books, I’ve listened to his lectures, I’ve read his letters, I’ve read his biographies, I’ve listened to people telling stories about their time with him, but I’ve never heard any indication that he meant gender parity in giving diksha. I might be wrong, of course, but when they say his every quote proves exactly that and anyone who disagrees actually disagrees with Prabhupada I don’t know how to accept this argument. The fact remains that not a single time he said anything about women devotees giving diksha on par with men. Never. And yet we are told “but what he actually meant is exactly that”. I want to understand this logic, but so far it escapes me. I mean I can’t find a rational explanation behind it. I have no problem imagining an explanation where devotees get carried away and become blinded, but I don’t want to think that about vaishnavas.
Accusing the opposition of applying this argument doesn’t seem to be fair, especially when you yourself indulge plenty.
Then there’s an objection to characterizing FDG agenda as being influenced by feminism and to using that word itself when addressing pro-FDG devotees. Okay, maybe it’s better to refrain from using such labels, and maybe there’s no such thing as “feminist lobby”, but let’s not pretend that feminism has no influence on how devotees think about FDG issue whatsoever. As I mentioned, when we start treating diksha as a social formality which does not necessarily require revealing Krishna in one’s heart, the opposition has the right to say that this is not about spiritual equality anymore, but about social equality between sexes, ie feminism.
There’s a She Can Become Guru video where many devotees and scholars present many arguments for FDG, and equality between genders is one recurring theme there. It literally starts with words “The crown jewel of discrimination against women in ISKCON is the refusal of the GBC to allow them to initiate disciples” – how’s that not feminism? Why is it “discrimination against” instead of plain discrimination based on qualities, shastra etc? That first speech ends with saying that there’s no doubt inequality in having gurus turns people off our organization. How’s that not a pressure from people desiring gender equality, ie feminists? Then there’s one young woman who is ashamed to tell her friends that in her religion there are no women gurus. Where does this shame come from if not from orienting oneself relative to feminist values?
One could say “it’s just one video”, but it has roughly five times more views than the most popular “controversial” videos by Bhakti Vikasa Swami and eight times more views than FDG resolution posted on dandavats. Therefore I can’t accept the argument that there’s no feminist influence on these issues in our society. Maybe not among GBC members themselves and not in their meetings, but it is definitely felt everywhere else.
Let’s not forget that Srila Prabhupada’s concessions to his female disciples concerning second initiations, brahmacharini ashrams etc was solely due to prevailing social conditions at the time, and those conditions were dictated by feminist norms taking over American society. It’s not that he wanted to introduce those in his League of Devotees in Jhansi. Our devotee girls were born into a feminist society and absorbed its values when growing up. In other often quoted purport he writes: “…one cannot suddenly change a community’s social customs”, which means the pressure to deal with feminism was felt even by him. But now we say we are immune to it while there are often repeated calls to stay in tune with modern times or risk becoming irrelevant. Doesn’t compute. “I’m not a feminist, I just want gender parity and justice for women’s suffering.”
In the talk that devotee said that there’s no way Srila Prabhupada could have been swayed by feminism, that all the revolutionary changes he introduced, sending his unmarried female disciples to solicit donations or sell books, could not have been made under pressure from his equality seeking disciples. But how to explain Mother Govinda’s account of the first ever brahmana initiation when she sulked and pouted and refused to attend because girls were not included, and how Srila Prabhupada eventually agreed to hold a second initiation for the girls the next day? That’s ISKCON classic and an example of women devotees strong-arming Prabhupada, how can we deny it happened? Or how to explain an episode told by Prabhupada’s servant, I don’t remember if it was Srutakirti or Nanda Kumar, but one devotee asked Srila Prabhupada for permission to divorce his wife and it was granted! The servant later asked Srila Prabhupada why he went against his usual instructions against it. “He would have divorced with or without my permission, but now at least he is not guilty of disobeying guru’s order,” Prabhupada replied. So I don’t buy the argument that Srila Prabhupada was completely immune to our requests for social liberties and that he meant all the revolutionary changes right from the start. These objections don’t matter in the big picture of FDG discussion, but I thought these were unacceptable arguments in defense of GBC decision.
Back to the main topic – I’m really alarmed how so many devotees read diksha gender parity into his quotes. As I already said, not once he mentioned it explicitly whereas he made countless other statements regarding duties of women or treating guru as male by default. To me this interpretation of Prabhupada’s words looks like an invention, and while pro-FDG devotees do not treat it as such, the speaker quickly ran into a problem here – because he discovered that Srila Prabhupada didn’t leave us any language to describe these female guru related terms. “Female guru” by itself is nonsense – the word “guru” is masculine gender and feminine form should be “gurvi”, with long “i” at the end. Good luck finding Srila Prabhupada or anyone else using this word in our tradition. Gurudevi, anyone? Is it grammatically correct? Then the speaker turned to fellow Gaudiya Vaishnavas where female gurus were very common in at least some lineages, and said that there they were addressed as Thakurani. Or Goswamini… And I think that was the point where he realized he better stop because this takes us into caste goswami practices which Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati before him opposed without any reservations.
About inventions – once you invent something you will find there are faults in it which need to be fixed and so you have to invent a patch, which will create more problems in turn – and that’s how the living entity gets entangled in the chain of actions and reactions. It wasn’t specified what weakness was found there in FDG, but I suspect something was felt so that additional constraints where introduced – minimum age of 55 and family protection. It wasn’t spelled out, and the devotee presenting it avoided the topic, as a brahmachari should, but are we talking about female hormonal levels here? Are we talking about “don’t worry about her, she’s just on her period”? It’s an important consideration, but since when it had to be factored when choosing a guru? Especially according to the earlier given definition. The guru should be free from all these things, otherwise there’s no question of possessing the pure name, nor of possessing science of Krishna, which had to be realized. Same argument goes for requirement of family protection. The guru should be niskincanasya and he should depend solely on Krishna, not on the mercy of a son-in-law or something. To be fair, the resolution mentions protection of vaishnava sanga, too, and the speaker mentioned that even male gurus depend on such protection, but if we compare it to a stable family situation then it’s not the same thing. We should depend on mercy, not on the accommodations for material bodies. Once again, there’s a mix of purely spiritual and social functions here. Not to mention that Srila Prabhupada wouldn’t qualify himself. Nor, if we are looking at FDG precedents, Gangamata Goswamini, who left protection of her family very early in her life.
We have plenty examples of devotees who were sent out to preach without any material support whatsoever, to foreign and sometimes dangerous countries, and later on many of them became gurus in our society. It’s possible, it was a expected in our early history, and it’s a requirement stated many many times in shastra. But now we have to select gurus from among the materially well-off devotees? Where does this come from, spiritually speaking? Is it defensible in any way? I’d say – yes, if we treat diksha as a social function under rules of varnashrama where everybody had to get it when they reach a certain age.
There’s another accusation leveled against anti-FDG arguments – that they don’t rely on Srila Prabhupada for their support. Not true. Take the book “Masters and Mothers” by Bhakti Vikasa Swami which is based entirely on Srila Prabhupada’s quotes and which had to be unbanned partly for this reason – it was like banning Srila Prabhupada himself. A lot of anti-FDG arguments can be sourced from there. Statements about women’s duties are plentiful in Srila Prabhupada’s works, too, and so are statements implying that gurus are male, like in “second birth is made possible by the spiritual father” in SB 4.12.48 or “Under the guidance of the spiritual master, the spiritual father, one can return home, back to Godhead” in SB 6.16.6. Or this passage from a lecture in 1968:
second birth is Vedic knowledge, the mother, and the spiritual master, the father.
Incidentally, this [public] lecture was given just a couple of months before that [private] letter to Hansadutta, which FDG proponents take as a statement of Prabhupada’s actual intentions.
Of course there’s only one statement explicitly concerning female qualifications for giving diksha, too – that of “Suniti, being a woman”, but the speaker didn’t have time to address it as promised. I wonder how it will be reconciled in the promised GBC paper. Even when the opponents cite from Manu Samhita they do so on the strength of Srila Prabhupada’s numerous references to it and his instructions to treat it as a law book on dharma. Anyway, I find this argument, that opponents don’t rely on Prabhupada, to be unacceptable, too. It doesn’t meant that in my opinion the victory should go to anti-FDG devotees, but it’s not a fair characterization of their position and I expected better.
There was another argument from tradition – the lineage of Haridas Shastri, who was called the greatest Gaudiya scholar of the 20th century. I hope no one will dispute that, but he appeared in the line from Gadadhara Pandit where, according to him, ALL initiations were done by women. He himself didn’t get one from his mother because she passed away before he came of age. Once again, Srila Prabhupada never said anything good about those caste goswami practices. In 2013 SAC issued a paper where they presented a count of numerous female gurus in half a dozen lineages they examined. I can’t repeat their research, but in the line of Bhaktivinoda Thakura there appears a string of three female gurus and what I do know is that the last one of them gave diksha to her son, who then gave diksha to Vipina Bihari Goswami, who gave diksha to Bhaktivinoda Thakur. I suspect that all three of these female gurus where simply mothers and daughters. I heard that this count of female gurus didn’t factor in the resolution, but I think it should have – because it establishes not only the precedent, but also consequences of having FDG. One important result being that no one remembers they existed, so why bother again? Srila Sridhar Swami knew about them and mentioned their example in “Dead Mantra” chapter of his book on guru tattva. Should we be impressed by this historic precedent? I don’t think so.
Speaking of 2013 SAC paper. The speaker mentioned it as acceptable evidence and he also mentioned Mukunda Datta Prabhu as a trusted devotee who worked on this research, but Mukunda Datta resigned from working on that paper, very tactfully and without assigning any blame, but he made it clear that, in plain words, the outcome of that research had been fixed beforehand and no one was really interested in what he had to contribute. The paper itself is not listed on the official GBC website, but, apparently, its arguments live on, though they shouldn’t. Again, I expected better.
Then there was treatment of Bharadvaja Samhita. First time it was dismissed as “never heard before” but towards the end of the talk the speaker explained why they didn’t accept arguments against FDG based on it. There was some medieval commentator on it, Saryu Prasad Mishra, and on the crucial verse regarding women there he said that the same conditions should be applied to brahmanas as well. It would take me too much time to clarify this issue, but it was something like “self-realized person is not constrained by considerations of birth”, which leaves a kind of loophole for women to become gurus, and the commentator added “brahmanas should be self-realized as well”. This has been discussed a while ago already, this is all that I remember, sorry. I thought it was a misinterpretation on the part of GBC Sanskrit scholar who discovered it – the commentator’s statement was meant to stress the importance of self-realization, not to rewrite the slokas themselves. It’s a noble sentiment glorifying the ideal, but not an actual requirement stated in the text.
In another verse Bharadvaja Samhita says that one should not choose a guru who has more material attachments than oneself – meaning that total and absolute purity was not expected and deficiencies in prospective guru’s realizations had to be considered as well. An aspiring disciple cannot see absolute purity anyway, he can only conclude that he sees something “better than myself”.
In any case, I don’t think Bharadvaja Samhita was given a fair hearing. First of all, half of the anti-FDG presentation based on it was about general description of diksha and about proving that our process, given to us by Srila Prabhupada, complies with all the essential principles of it. Secondly, it demonstrates a clear connection between demands of purity and resulting rituals. It’s not a set of mindless commands like “wave the lamp three times”. It bridges the gap between “Bhagavat diksha” and “Pancaratrica diksha” and demonstrates how the principles of the first manifests as rituals of the second. I also know of Sanat Kumara Samhita, also part of Narada Pandaratra, which does the same thing but doesn’t mention women. In other words, by carefully studying these texts we can learn how Bhagavat and Diksha paramparas are but two different aspects of the same reality. This should help us figure out their commonalities, special features, relevant applications and so on. Earlier I mentioned this difference already, and studying Pancaratra texts should help us to learn about their commonalities as well. It’s sad that this was given a miss.
To sum it all up – there’s nothing wrong with FDG when we go by the given definition of diksha, but I’m afraid we are trying to apply it in the wrong place – as a societal function governed by an institution with somewhat different goals in mind. To solve this problem we should study the shades of meaning of diksha first and then proceed on the basis of that. I can’t do it in this article, sorry, but I think I do get the gist of it. I also don’t think that the speaker was entirely honest or maybe not knowledgeable enough, which is a milder accusation, when describing the process and motivations behind this decision. I think it’s far better to deal with feminists influences in our common psyche than deny that they even exist. I also don’t want to see lumping pro-FDG devotees with feminists and gays, and with characterization of anti-FDG devotees as narrow-minded fools and wife beaters I heard elsewhere. I’m actually against this dual vision altogether. I believe it should disappear once we honestly focus our attention on Srila Prabhupada’s instruction and then another type of vision, one that of harmony in diversity, will take over our consciousness.
PS. I apologize for not using diacritic marks consistently for transcription of Sanskrit words.
Your Servant,
Sitalatma das
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…
View Comments
When I put 2013 SAC paper and Mukunda Datta Prabhu in the same sentence it appeared that the speaker mispresented Mukunda Datta's disagreement as support. This understanding is not correct - Mukunda Datta Prabhu contributed to the earlier, 2005 SAC paper and there were no disagreements back then, so there was no fault on the speaker's part in this regard.
Hare Krsna. A point of clarification though Mukunda datta Prabhu was a member of SAC in 2005 he was not one of the authors of the 2005 SAC FDG paper, nor was he he a signer of that paper to the best of my knowledge. Gopiparanadhana Prabhu who was also a member of SAC in 2005 was also NOT an author of that paper but he DID sign off on it.
Regarding the circumstances of why Mukunda Datta Prabhu resigned we can learn a lot from this article. http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-14/editorials11393.htm . He was definitely not in agreement with either paper. If you need further clarification you can personally contact Mukunda datta Prabhu.
Atma Atma, I don't think anyone really cares about any of these details now. Sampradaya Sun link is a welcome addition because it provides a nice background to decision making process. Thank you.
Many persons made negative comments on Madana Mohan's talk and gave links to other sources (including Vedabase) that countered his arguments. He blocked them all claiming they were false accounts. We can see that he is a just a FDG aparatchik.
Hare Krsna. Thank you for your article.
I would like to make a few points.
What the pro-FDG camp totally ignores is that Srila Prabhupada wanted to establish Daiva Varna Ashrama Dharma in ISKCON. Why? He explains that in the Feb 14, 1977 VAD conversation in Mayapura. Hari Sauri and SDG argued against it with SP's own arguments. But SP swept all their arguments away ultimately stating "that our sanyasis are falling down." And not just sannyasis but many devotees during SP presence had fallen but since SP was present ISKCON kept on growing. But afterwards it was a blood bath and ultimately led to the growth of the Rtvik movement because of so many fall downs which happened because VAD principles of segregation of the sexes and strict gender rules were ignored. So to implement FDG you have ignore Srila Prabhupada's many statements about the need to implement DVAD. And this was something that previous acaryas like BSST and BVT also stressed. So if you leave VAD out of the picture then it is completely turning one's back on SP desires.
We follow three vidhis: Bhagavat vidhi, Pancaratrik vidhi and Vaidika vidhi.
In "Brahmana Vaisnava Debate" we find out that the Brahma Sampradaya is a Bhagavat sampradaya because our emphasis is chanting the Holy Name. For this there is no need of diksha.
"One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class [caṇḍāla] can be delivered." CC 2.15.108
https://vedabase.io/en/library/cc/madhya/15/108/
So for Bhagavat vidhi there is no need of diksha or diksha guru what to speak of FDG.
But since we also follow the path of Narada Muni regarding Deity worship which speeds up the process of attaining prema bhakti (as seen in the purport of CC 2.15.108) then for that we require Pancaratrik diksha, that is the panca samskara, which is followed by ISKCON and is described in Bharadvaja Samhita of the Narada Pancaratra. It seems that somehow it is forgotten that Narada Pancaratra exists as the Bharadvaja Samhita. Sort of like Manu Samhita is actually spoken by Brghu who heard it from Manu. The point being that the diksha that we do is Pancaratrik diksha.
Pancaratrik diksha is available for female and sudras. But they cannot give diksha. Just as Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are dvijas and have had upanayanam, but only a Brahmana can give upanayanam.
Which brings us to Vaidika Diksha in ISKCON that is in regard to Varna Ashrama dharma and is only given to males after they have received full pancaratrik diksha.
In traditional Vedic culture the male would get upanayanam by a certain age, and if he passes a certain age without upanayanam he becomes a vratya and is outcaste.
But after getting upanayanam (dvija - second birth) the person can get Vaisnava Diksha aka panca samskara by which they become trija (thrice born).
But if a vratya gets panca samskara he then becomes dvija and is newly born and now no longer a vratya and thus eligible for upanayanam and becoems a trija.
This is what BSST did and why males would get upanayanam at the 2nd initiation which is actually the completion of panca samskara. This is explained in the book done by Damodara Prabhu.
The main point being that our diksha process is actually a combination of pancaratrik for Vaisnava diksha and Vaidika for upanayanam which is for VAD. There is no diksha for Bhagavat vidhi as mentioned in CC 2.15.108.
Again thank you for your article.
These are all excellent points (in Atma Atma comment). I didn't mention VAD in the article because it's too big of a subject.
Regarding different initiations you mention, I tend to think of them as essentially one diksha manifesting at different levels. At the top of this hierarchy is Bhagavat diksha, which forms our Bhagavat parampara, but as it spreads out to include other portions of society it becomes pancatrika diksha with less strict requirements and some permissions for material desires, and eventually to a typical upanayana where people get initiated into god knows what. Moreover, the conception of the Absolute also gets diluted in the process - from Bhagavan to impersonal Brahman to Pancopasana, which includes demigods, to present day atheistic societies where kings, originally legitimate representatives of God, have been replaced by vox populi. All these societies get their own kind of diksha corresponding to their level. Swearing oath of allegiance is also a kind of diksha, however degraded. In this way we can learn to see how nothing in this world is truly separate from Krishna. He is everywhere and the whole universe is sustained solely by His mercy. It just doesn't always look like uttama adhikari spiritual master.
It's hard to say where FDG fits in all of this. Not in pancaratrika level diksha, as has been demonstrated, but for societies lower than that it might be perfectly acceptable manifestation of sat-guru. I can understand our western devotees giving up hopes on building VAD in their lifetimes and people need their diksha right now, they can't wait either. Maybe for them FDG will be better than nothing, like a blind uncle. I'm surprised that our ISKCON has come to this but if this is the reality then what can be done? I don't have a quick answer.
Hare Krsna.
I respectfully disagree with your second paragraph as there is no Bhagavat diksha. If you think there is then tell what exactly it is in our diksha process?
The diksha process we follow is strictly pancaratra for being allowed to worship the Deity. And Vaidika (upanayana for men) for entry in Vedic study and Varna Ashrama Dharma to become a human being. You can not worship the Deity unless you have pancaratrik diksha in our sampradaya. And that is what our diksha process is about if you study that booklet by Damodara Prabhu on what panca samskara entails.
As SP said in the Feb 14, 1977 VAD conversation that we have to aspire to become Kanishtha Adhikaris, that is, 1st class brahamana. The situation in ISKCON is actually worse now than it was in 1977 because of feminism.
As for FDG it is not Bhagavat Sampradaya because diksha not necesssary. It is not allowed in Panca Ratra unless she is nitya siddha, in which case she could be 5 year old child and not 55 year old grandma. Thus she would be rarest of the rare. and it is definitely not allowed in VAD.
The pro-FDG camp can not explain why personalities like Devahuti who was a Brahmavadani (as per Bhagavatam) was not a diksha guru but just stayed at home and performed her sadhana. Nor why other mahabhagavatas like Draupadi, Yashoda, Kunti, Devaki, Rohini, Kausalya, Sumitra etc were not diksa gurus, even though they are worshipable by the 3 worlds. It is because they being ure followed their prescribed duties of Stri-dharma in VAD. That is why the point about VAD is so important.
Yes 30% of gurus in the "sampradayas" the purvapaksha mentions were FDGs but those were from 100% bogus apasampradayas. The conslusion is that FDG is a prominent symptom of an apasampradaya.
There most definitely is such a thing as "Bhagavat diksha", though exact term might be different. It's the definition used by GBC, which relies on relevant verses from Caitanya Caritamrita. I think Lord Caitanya Himself received this kind of diksha. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's initiation also might fall into this category. In any case, as long as we accept the principle of Bhagavat parampara we can talk about Bhagavat Diksha.
But you are right - the process that we follow in ISKCON looks like Pancaratrika diksha and half "Vaishnava Diksha" book is about that, but somehow it wasn't considered by GBC and their advisers.
But you didn't answer his question. What exactly is Bhagavata diksha. Pancaratrik diksha is clearly described, what then is Bhagavat diksha? If it exists then you should be able to describe what it is. But if no one is able to describe it, with sastra pramana, then that suggests what the sastra says that there is no need for diksha.
CC Antya 4.192 already linked in the article describes what could be called Bhagavata diksha - because Lord Caitanya didn't initiate Sanatana Goswami according to Pancaratrica rules. The word diksha was used and Sanatana Goswami is listed after Caitanya Mahaprabhu in "Bhagavata parampara" given to us by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. There are people who dispute existence of "Bhagavata parampara" itself, but associating ourselves with them and using their counterarguments is considered toxic for followers of Srila Prabhupada and Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati before him. I hope no one does that here.
There is no description of diksha in CC 3.4.192 all it says is:
At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto
the service of the Lord, Kṛṣṇa accepts him to be as good as Himself.
The verse gives a description of what happens during diksha, specifically as it applies to Sanatana Goswami whose body was oozing pus form itching sores and who had not received Pancaratrika diksha, but was still considered initiated by Caitanya Mahaprabhu. This initiation puts Sanatana Goswami on a list of our Bhagavata parampara.
Other examples of "Bhagavata diksha" are Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati whose initiation is decried as invalid by his detractors because it didn't follow established norms. Our first initiation is also "Bhagavata diksha" because no secret mantras are given, which is reserved for our second initiation.
Jiva Goswami defines diksha based on Padma Purana and says that "di" stands for "divya jnana" and "ksha" stands for "kshaya" - deliverance from sins. This definition is not restricted to Pancaratrika ritual and such "dikshas" can manifest in a wide variety of forms.
Many persons made negative comments on Madana Mohan's talk and gave links to other sources (including Vedabase) that countered his arguments. He blocked them all claiming they were false accounts. We can see that he is a just a FDG aparatchik.
I have received these comments on a FB post regarding the FDG issue and I want you to please check these facts and reply accordingly.
From an ongoing debate on Female Diksa gurus in ISKCON:
Information/statistics on female Gaudiya gurus:
1. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani and Narayani Devi down to Prana Gopal Goswami, a respected acarya of the sampradaya in the early 1900's in Bengal: 2 men, 9 ladies.
2. Lineage descending from Lokanatha Gosvami and Narottama Das Thakura down to Siddha Sakhicaran Das Babaji: 10 men.
3. Lineage descending from Advaita Acarya and his son Krishna Mishra down to Nikunja Gopal Goswami of Navadvip: 6 men, 6 ladies.
4. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani and Dhananjaya Pandit down to Kunjabihari Das Babaji: 13 men, 1 lady.
5. Lineage descending from Lokanatha Gosvami and Narottama Das Thakura down to Jnanananda Cakravarti Thakura: 10 men, 7 ladies.
6. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani down to Tinkadi Goswami: 14 men.
7. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani down to Bhaktivinoda Thakura: 8 men, 4 ladies.
This makes a total of 62 men and 27 ladies— 30% ladies out of the total 89 gurus in the lines given above. It should give us an idea of the general pattern one will find throughout the Gaudiya lineages.
(Courtesy of HH Tripurari Swami)
----------------------------------------This is not new. The standard is self-realized -means beyond bodily conception. The fact that this has been such a big deal tells me there is a serious lack of self-realized souls. Anyone who has seen the truth truly is capable of transmitting that truth and awakening others. That is Krsnas statement.
----------------------------------------
Of course, those who feel so strongly against, you are free to avoid such a situation, but why obstruct others?
This is answered in this text.
https://akincana.net/2019/11/15/his-divine-grace-srila-prabhupada-condemned-the-caste-goswamis/
They are 30% of a 100% apasampradayas. So they are bogus.
This list is from 2013 SAC paper in support of FDG. To my knowledge, it has not been considered as a "pro" argument when making decision in 2019, mainly because neither Srila Prabhupada nor Srila Bhakitisiddhanta Saraswati before him never had anything good to say about those lineages. It's my impression that those vaishnavis weren't diksha gurus in a modern sense but rather mothers passing diksha to their daughters and sons to keep it in the family. Famous Gaudiya scholar Haridas Shastri, who left this world in 2013, said that in his lineage all the gurus were women and he himself had to be initiated by his father only because his mother passed away before he came out of age. I heard this in the video the article is based on.
I have received these comments on a FB post regarding the FDG issue and I want you to please check these facts and reply accordingly.
From an ongoing debate on Female Diksa gurus in ISKCON:
Information/statistics on female Gaudiya gurus:
1. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani and Narayani Devi down to Prana Gopal Goswami, a respected acarya of the sampradaya in the early 1900's in Bengal: 2 men, 9 ladies.
2. Lineage descending from Lokanatha Gosvami and Narottama Das Thakura down to Siddha Sakhicaran Das Babaji: 10 men.
3. Lineage descending from Advaita Acarya and his son Krishna Mishra down to Nikunja Gopal Goswami of Navadvip: 6 men, 6 ladies.
4. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani and Dhananjaya Pandit down to Kunjabihari Das Babaji: 13 men, 1 lady.
5. Lineage descending from Lokanatha Gosvami and Narottama Das Thakura down to Jnanananda Cakravarti Thakura: 10 men, 7 ladies.
6. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani down to Tinkadi Goswami: 14 men.
7. Lineage descending from Jahnava Thakurani down to Bhaktivinoda Thakura: 8 men, 4 ladies.
This makes a total of 62 men and 27 ladies— 30% ladies out of the total 89 gurus in the lines given above. It should give us an idea of the general pattern one will find throughout the Gaudiya lineages.
(Courtesy of HH Tripurari Swami)
----------------------------------------This is not new. The standard is self-realized -means beyond bodily conception. The fact that this has been such a big deal tells me there is a serious lack of self-realized souls. Anyone who has seen the truth truly is capable of transmitting that truth and awakening others. That is Krsnas statement.
----------------------------------------
Of course, those who feel so strongly against, you are free to avoid such a situation, but why obstruct others?
This list is from 2013 SAC paper in support of FDG. To my knowledge, it has not been considered as a "pro" argument when making decision in 2019, mainly because neither Srila Prabhupada nor Srila Bhakitisiddhanta Saraswati before him never had anything good to say about those lineages. It's my impression that those vaishnavis weren't diksha gurus in a modern sense but rather mothers passing diksha to their daughters and sons to keep it in the family. Famous Gaudiya scholar Haridas Shastri, who left this world in 2013, said that in his lineage all the gurus were women and he himself had to be initiated by his father only because his mother passed away before he came out of age. I heard this in the video the article is based on.
This is answered in this text.
https://akincana.net/2019/11/15/his-divine-grace-srila-prabhupada-condemned-the-caste-goswamis/
They are 30% of a 100% apasampradayas. So they are bogus.
With great interest I have read Sitalatma's article. Also the back and forth discussions above.
All very interesting.
With respect I would suggest that the crux of the problem can be summed up by two points.
1) Maya of Mayavada philosophy
I could go into a lengthy comparison of Mayavada and Vaisnavism. I will not for the sake of brevity.
Instead I will suggest that the Mayavadis cannot fake Vaisnava understanding. Therefore it would be a simple policy to implement--tests of GBC members, potential gurus--as to philosophical understanding.
We can rout out the cheaters. We have never tried. ( AC Bhaktivedanta apparently once suggested such tests for awarding title of Bhaktivedanta. Nothing of the kind was ever implemented instead a faux varnasrama college is now extant in ISKCON in Europe )
2) Maya of the necessary for Inclusion
The presentation that we must dilute ISKCON so that homosexuals and transgenders ( and other of the " new gender " society ) into ISKCON for their benefit is insanity based on Mayavada.
This goes to the heart of varnasrama which most devotees completely misunderstand as something the Founder-acharya wanted implemented in ISKCON.
That was not his desire because varnasrama is not for a select group since it requires army and executive head ( king ) ISKCON already operates as a microcosm of varnasrama thus His Divine Grace was actually referring to States embracing varnasrama.
Within varnasrama there is room for homosexuals, etc. They DO NOT have to be placed as gurus. Vedic philosophy is that we progress from life to life--it is absolute ignorance to attempt a quota or equality in varnasrama society.
Summation:
The majority of present leaders of the GBC evidently are Mayavadis. This surprises the Kanistha who ASSUME that Mayavada philosophy is absent in ISKCON.
In reality then the general mass of devotees, everyone from top to bottom is discovered to be embracing Mayavada philosophy. And that shines light on the real purpose of ISKCON--education of pure gurus who have shed all traces of Mayavada philosophy.
ISKCON's ( parampara's ) purpose never was to create an inclusive organization.
Mayesa dasa ACBSP
I think mayavadis CAN fake vaishnava understanding and do it successfully. As a case study we can look at countless complaints of mayavada infiltration in our society. Either way, whichever side we choose - whether it happens or it doesn't - the other side automatically becomes unable to discern. Either we can't spot mayavada, or we look at genuine vaishnavism, can't recognize it, and think it's mayavada instead.
With great interest I have read Sitalatma's article. Also the back and forth discussions above.
All very interesting.
With respect I would suggest that the crux of the problem can be summed up by two points.
1) Maya of Mayavada philosophy
I could go into a lengthy comparison of Mayavada and Vaisnavism. I will not for the sake of brevity.
Instead I will suggest that the Mayavadis cannot fake Vaisnava understanding. Therefore it would be a simple policy to implement--tests of GBC members, potential gurus--as to philosophical understanding.
We can rout out the cheaters. We have never tried. ( AC Bhaktivedanta apparently once suggested such tests for awarding title of Bhaktivedanta. Nothing of the kind was ever implemented instead a faux varnasrama college is now extant in ISKCON in Europe )
2) Maya of the necessary for Inclusion
The presentation that we must dilute ISKCON so that homosexuals and transgenders ( and other of the " new gender " society ) into ISKCON for their benefit is insanity based on Mayavada.
This goes to the heart of varnasrama which most devotees completely misunderstand as something the Founder-acharya wanted implemented in ISKCON.
That was not his desire because varnasrama is not for a select group since it requires army and executive head ( king ) ISKCON already operates as a microcosm of varnasrama thus His Divine Grace was actually referring to States embracing varnasrama.
Within varnasrama there is room for homosexuals, etc. They DO NOT have to be placed as gurus. Vedic philosophy is that we progress from life to life--it is absolute ignorance to attempt a quota or equality in varnasrama society.
Summation:
The majority of present leaders of the GBC evidently are Mayavadis. This surprises the Kanistha who ASSUME that Mayavada philosophy is absent in ISKCON.
In reality then the general mass of devotees, everyone from top to bottom is discovered to be embracing Mayavada philosophy. And that shines light on the real purpose of ISKCON--education of pure gurus who have shed all traces of Mayavada philosophy.
ISKCON's ( parampara's ) purpose never was to create an inclusive organization.
Mayesa dasa ACBSP
I think mayavadis CAN fake vaishnava understanding and do it successfully. As a case study we can look at countless complaints of mayavada infiltration in our society. Either way, whichever side we choose - whether it happens or it doesn't - the other side automatically becomes unable to discern. Either we can't spot mayavada, or we look at genuine vaishnavism, can't recognize it, and think it's mayavada instead.
Atma Atma, "I totally disagree. You are assuming that Lord Caitanya is dependent on ISKCON’s mercy" - well, I disagree that I make such an assumption. When I said that feminists and homosexuals need gurus as well, this proposal falls outside of ISKCON jurisdiction at the moment. These degraded people WILL get Lord Caitanya's mercy, but it might happen without us. For some ISKCON members getting Lord Caitanya's mercy means developing varnashrama and proper brahmanical qualities, for others it means reaching out to the most degraded and helping them to learn at least something about Krishna. Lord Caitanya's mercy should be available to all, and so if some (GBC) think that in order to follow that mercy we need to expand definition of ISKCON to include female gurus and homosexual marriages then I'm not going to object. I just think we need to do it properly and introduce proper ranks, so that we don't equate mamasans in Calcutta's brothels introducing girls to Lord Caitanya, which is a kind of initiation, to ISKCON diksha gurus. Calcutta mention is based on a description of Gaudiya Vaishnavism of a hundred years ago when all these sex workers were initiated by caste goswamis.
It's an extreme example, but "She Can Become Guru" video has a young bhaktin complaining that she is ashamed to tell her friends about her religion because there are no female gurus in "Hare Krishna". Another speaker said there also that it turns people off. There should be some way to put their minds at ease, but it's not going to be the same kind of guru we usually mean by this term. We have a similar problem with deity abhishekas on festival occasions - everyone is allowed to participate, but usually only qualified brahmanas can engage in such direct service to the deity. What to do?
Sitalatma Prabhu,
There is a saying something is better than nothing. But how about the corollary of that saying "nothing is better than nonsense."
Sometime back a leading Sri Vaishnava acarya of Andhra Pradesh criticized ISKCON with exactly the same proverb. At that time he had misunderstood Iskcon to be preaching that there is only Krishna and no Rama, Narasimha, Vamana etc.. Which he thought was against sastra and Vaishnava siddhantha.
But if we see his comments in line of today's iskcon implement FDG for the sake of social pressure that something is better than nothing, then since we are going ahead with FDG even at the expense of going against sastra and Vaishnava siddhantha ISKCON will become or fit the second part of that proverb, which is NOTHING IS BETTER THAN NONSENSE.
Your comments please...
"Better to have no wife than a bad wife. Better to have no son than a bad son. Better to have no servant than a bad servant." Canakya.
If you have gangrene better to cut off the infected part than the whole body infected. That is the situation here.
So if we can't save all of ISKCON then it is better to leave and at least save ISKCON India where 80-90% of the devotees are. Let ISKCON West rot as an asastric apasmapradaya.
I don't disagree, but we can't stop time from destroying everything. There's a price to pay for every little deviation from a very strict and narrow path charted for us by Srila Prabhupada. FDG for the sake of social pressure is bad, but what is worse, in my opinion, is the conviction that Srila Prabhupada wanted it all along. Not once in all his recorded legacy he said that female devotees can initiate on par with males. Everybody understood that guru is a man's job and nobody ever even raised this question, not after lectures, not in their letters. It took a professor to ask Prabhupada about that and in the answer Srila Prabhupada didn't display any kind of plans about it, just a historic reference to Jahnavi Mata, and that's how it has been understood - when there are exceptionally empowered female devotees they CAN become gurus, but now all kinds of innocuous statements are interpreted as part of newly discovered grand vision for total parity between sexes. There will be a price to pay for this revisionism as well. Not every FDG proponent indulges in it, I don't think the speaker in the video in the OP does, but I definitely heard such opinions elsewhere.
I have nothing to comment further except to disagree with your last statement. In our personal experience of dealing with the "speaker," whom you are referring to, does go out of way to stretch sastric terminology to juggle sanskrit grammar and words to fit the feminists agenda. This was clear that the SAC papers over the years did exactly that of which the "speaker" played a major part. Even the "speaker" is listed as the GBC deputy, which means he is the GBC sastric councillor for GBC members and thus by cleverly keeping the GBC out of discussion with the conservatives he managed to influence the GBC with the liberals side of the story.
What you are describing in the 1st paragraph regarding accommodating feminists and gays are apasampradayas. Jiva Goswami made the point that just having a sentiment for Krsna is not "bhakti" but sentimentalism. Bhakti to be real must be based on Vedanta. And Rupa Goswami stated that it must be according to sruti, smrta puran adi.... It has to be based on sastra not some concocted imaginary ideas.
I think you are right, but this is what's going to happen anyway. We HAVE a precedent of this happening in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and in the presence of very elevated acharyas, too. If they couldn't stop it in their time, we have a much more limited power now. I think we have to understand that bhakti is voluntary. We can't force people to love God unconditionally, and if they don't have that they MUST develop some kind of deviations. Somebody quoted Srila Prabhupada once - if we, meaning ISKCON, turn into sahajiyas, we will become very powerful ones. Everybody wants their anarthas to flourish for one last time and begs the Lord to give a last chance to their dream of happy existence in the material world. Thus, the closer we approach to God, the more we expect to be able to get away with.
Even the FDG proponents realize this problem. Earlier this year, when they were working on crowd flow control for the upcoming TOVP, they realized that at every door where you are not supposed to go every conversation will start with "Do you know who I am?" Everybody expects to ride his status and privilege. That is thousands of Jaya Vijaya and four Kumaras replays being set up for years to come. Each incident produces powerful demons, and let's not discount the multiplying effect of committing offenses in the Holy Dham. Lord Caitanya forgives everything, and so we expect to get away with even more. There WILL be results for that, and it won't be pretty.
The only way to survive through this madness is absolute humility and tolerance of other people's faults, which means we need to completely abandon all notions of mundane morality. The Lord is always in control and we are not judges of anything. He has His plans and they are executed for everyone's ultimate benefit, we can't improve on them. There's no entrance to His association unless we become paramahmsas - seeing everyone as a devotee and ourselves as most fallen. Any deviation from this path and we ourselves will become problems for everybody else.
You wrote "I think you are right, but this is what’s going to happen anyway. ..." As my mother used to say "just because X jumps off the cliff does that mean you have too?"
Srila Prabhupada told us"We all have to fly our own airplane." Just because the ISKCON 747 crashes into a mountain doesn't mean I will follow. There are obviously many devotees who do not agree with this nonsense. And as one GBC pointed out 80-90% of ISKCON devotees live in India so you can not ignore the desires of ISKCON India which historically has been against FDG. This month ISKCON India will be meeting, let's see how they vote. Assuming worst case scenario that they do nothing, then I still think it will cause immense pressure inside India and lead to a schism between those who want to follow sastra and those who want to follow feminism. But I think that ISKCON India will take same stand as before and this will lay groundwork for schism between ISKCON India and ISKCON West.
In any case what ever ISKCON India does those who follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction to implement Varnashrama will succeed others will not, no matter how much land and money they may presently have. Because they will not have the blessings of Guru and Krsna
Let's see what happens at that India meeting. I don't want to see schisms in our society, and I don't believe that everyone who voted for this resolution is a demon intent on destroying ISKCON. They do come across as bit cold towards their opponents but the resolution itself is warm and accommodating. Coldness, however, is what really worries me personally. Difference of opinions is fine, but coldness in our relationships isn't.
Atma Atma, "I totally disagree. You are assuming that Lord Caitanya is dependent on ISKCON's mercy" - well, I disagree that I make such an assumption. When I said that feminists and homosexuals need gurus as well, this proposal falls outside of ISKCON jurisdiction at the moment. These degraded people WILL get Lord Caitanya's mercy, but it might happen without us. For some ISKCON members getting Lord Caitanya's mercy means developing varnashrama and proper brahmanical qualities, for others it means reaching out to the most degraded and helping them to learn at least something about Krishna. Lord Caitanya's mercy should be available to all, and so if some (GBC) think that in order to follow that mercy we need to expand definition of ISKCON to include female gurus and homosexual marriages then I'm not going to object. I just think we need to do it properly and introduce proper ranks, so that we don't equate mamasans in Calcutta's brothels introducing girls to Lord Caitanya, which is a kind of initiation, to ISKCON diksha gurus. Calcutta mention is based on a description of Gaudiya Vaishnavism of a hundred years ago when all these sex workers were initiated by caste goswamis.
It's an extreme example, but "She Can Become Guru" video has a young bhaktin complaining that she is ashamed to tell her friends about her religion because there are no female gurus in "Hare Krishna". Another speaker said there also that it turns people off. There should be some way to put their minds at ease, but it's not going to be the same kind of guru we usually mean by this term. We have a similar problem with deity abhishekas on festival occasions - everyone is allowed to participate, but usually only qualified brahmanas can engage in such direct service to the deity. What to do?
What you are describing in the 1st paragraph regarding accommodating feminists and gays are apasampradayas. Jiva Goswami made the point that just having a sentiment for Krsna is not "bhakti" but sentimentalism. Bhakti to be real must be based on Vedanta. And Rupa Goswami stated that it must be according to sruti, smrta puran adi.... It has to be based on sastra not some concocted imaginary ideas.
I think you are right, but this is what's going to happen anyway. We HAVE a precedent of this happening in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and in the presence of very elevated acharyas, too. If they couldn't stop it in their time, we have a much more limited power now. I think we have to understand that bhakti is voluntary. We can't force people to love God unconditionally, and if they don't have that they MUST develop some kind of deviations. Somebody quoted Srila Prabhupada once - if we, meaning ISKCON, turn into sahajiyas, we will become very powerful ones. Everybody wants their anarthas to flourish for one last time and begs the Lord to give a last chance to their dream of happy existence in the material world. Thus, the closer we approach to God, the more we expect to be able to get away with.
Even the FDG proponents realize this problem. Earlier this year, when they were working on crowd flow control for the upcoming TOVP, they realized that at every door where you are not supposed to go every conversation will start with "Do you know who I am?" Everybody expects to ride his status and privilege. That is thousands of Jaya Vijaya and four Kumaras replays being set up for years to come. Each incident produces powerful demons, and let's not discount the multiplying effect of committing offenses in the Holy Dham. Lord Caitanya forgives everything, and so we expect to get away with even more. There WILL be results for that, and it won't be pretty.
The only way to survive through this madness is absolute humility and tolerance of other people's faults, which means we need to completely abandon all notions of mundane morality. The Lord is always in control and we are not judges of anything. He has His plans and they are executed for everyone's ultimate benefit, we can't improve on them. There's no entrance to His association unless we become paramahmsas - seeing everyone as a devotee and ourselves as most fallen. Any deviation from this path and we ourselves will become problems for everybody else.
You wrote "I think you are right, but this is what's going to happen anyway. ..." As my mother used to say "just because X jumps off the cliff does that mean you have too?"
Srila Prabhupada told us"We all have to fly our own airplane." Just because the ISKCON 747 crashes into a mountain doesn't mean I will follow. There are obviously many devotees who do not agree with this nonsense. And as one GBC pointed out 80-90% of ISKCON devotees live in India so you can not ignore the desires of ISKCON India which historically has been against FDG. This month ISKCON India will be meeting, let's see how they vote. Assuming worst case scenario that they do nothing, then I still think it will cause immense pressure inside India and lead to a schism between those who want to follow sastra and those who want to follow feminism. But I think that ISKCON India will take same stand as before and this will lay groundwork for schism between ISKCON India and ISKCON West.
In any case what ever ISKCON India does those who follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction to implement Varnashrama will succeed others will not, no matter how much land and money they may presently have. Because they will not have the blessings of Guru and Krsna
Let's see what happens at that India meeting. I don't want to see schisms in our society, and I don't believe that everyone who voted for this resolution is a demon intent on destroying ISKCON. They do come across as bit cold towards their opponents but the resolution itself is warm and accommodating. Coldness, however, is what really worries me personally. Difference of opinions is fine, but coldness in our relationships isn't.
Sitalatma Prabhu,
There is a saying something is better than nothing. But how about the corollary of that saying "nothing is better than nonsense."
Sometime back a leading Sri Vaishnava acarya of Andhra Pradesh criticized ISKCON with exactly the same proverb. At that time he had misunderstood Iskcon to be preaching that there is only Krishna and no Rama, Narasimha, Vamana etc.. Which he thought was against sastra and Vaishnava siddhantha.
But if we see his comments in line of today's iskcon implement FDG for the sake of social pressure that something is better than nothing, then since we are going ahead with FDG even at the expense of going against sastra and Vaishnava siddhantha ISKCON will become or fit the second part of that proverb, which is NOTHING IS BETTER THAN NONSENSE.
Your comments please...
"Better to have no wife than a bad wife. Better to have no son than a bad son. Better to have no servant than a bad servant." Canakya.
If you have gangrene better to cut off the infected part than the whole body infected. That is the situation here.
So if we can't save all of ISKCON then it is better to leave and at least save ISKCON India where 80-90% of the devotees are. Let ISKCON West rot as an asastric apasmapradaya.
I don't disagree, but we can't stop time from destroying everything. There's a price to pay for every little deviation from a very strict and narrow path charted for us by Srila Prabhupada. FDG for the sake of social pressure is bad, but what is worse, in my opinion, is the conviction that Srila Prabhupada wanted it all along. Not once in all his recorded legacy he said that female devotees can initiate on par with males. Everybody understood that guru is a man's job and nobody ever even raised this question, not after lectures, not in their letters. It took a professor to ask Prabhupada about that and in the answer Srila Prabhupada didn't display any kind of plans about it, just a historic reference to Jahnavi Mata, and that's how it has been understood - when there are exceptionally empowered female devotees they CAN become gurus, but now all kinds of innocuous statements are interpreted as part of newly discovered grand vision for total parity between sexes. There will be a price to pay for this revisionism as well. Not every FDG proponent indulges in it, I don't think the speaker in the video in the OP does, but I definitely heard such opinions elsewhere.
I have nothing to comment further except to disagree with your last statement. In our personal experience of dealing with the "speaker," whom you are referring to, does go out of way to stretch sastric terminology to juggle sanskrit grammar and words to fit the feminists agenda. This was clear that the SAC papers over the years did exactly that of which the "speaker" played a major part. Even the "speaker" is listed as the GBC deputy, which means he is the GBC sastric councillor for GBC members and thus by cleverly keeping the GBC out of discussion with the conservatives he managed to influence the GBC with the liberals side of the story.