Discussion On The Female Diksha Guru Issue: Amongst Godbrothers

Dear ACBSP #1 Prabhu,

Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Received your message:

Whereas, we all know that “books are the basis”, and in our foundational book, Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.12.32, Prabhupada clearly stated that “being a woman” Suniti could not be Dhruva’s diksha guru”. The Bureau finds that the said resolution instituting female diksha gurus is in our understanding a contravention of this specific instruction of Srila Prabhupada, What do you think of this analysis by Krishna Dasa?

How does, “pure speculation” sound?

Please see the att edited manuscript page.

Seen.

Krishna Dasa wrote: “We can see that Srila Prahupada’s original words convey a very different idea than the edited sentence printed in the book.”

Really? I didn’t get that impression at all from the manuscript. Prabhupada changed it to what we read in the print edition, is what I see.

There are other factors involved. Not only is it uncommon for a father or mother to become diksa guru of the children, but at the time (satya-yuga) people were following the vaidika system of initiation, instead of the pancaratric system that is followed today. The vaidika system is much more strict (appropriate for the time), barring ladies from even being initiated, what to speak of giving initiation. The pancaratric system is much more liberal (more appropriate for our time), allowing people of lower birth or that had done sinful things in the past to accept initiation, or even give initiations, provided they become first qualified by following the appropriate process.
“If we take all these factors into consideration, it becomes clear (at least to me) what Srila Prabhupada in explaining here: Suniti, being Druva Maharaja’s mother, being a woman living in satya-yuga, subjected to the rules of the vaidika system in use at the time, having not been initiated nor having received spiritual education, could not become the diksa guru of Druva Maharaja. Simple as that. In my humble opinion, this passage doesn’t at all apply to the situation we have now, it is just irrelevant to the discussion.”

First of all, here are the quotes from Narada Pancharatra specifically in regards to women giving initiation mantras:

na jatu mantrada nari na sudro nantarodbhavah
nabhisasto na patitah kama-kamo’py akaminah

(Bharadvaja Samhita, Narada Pancaratra, 1.42)

Even then, a woman, a sudra and an antyaja can never act as initiating gurus, nor can anyone who is accused of a great sin or is fallen. And an aspiring disciple who is already accomplished in detachment (akami) should never accept a guru who is infected with material desires.

TEXT 59

atha stri-sudra-sankirna-nirmalapatitadisu
ananyenanya-drstau ca krtapi na krta bhavet

If one surrenders to a woman, sudra, sankirna (one of mixed birth), one who has not accepted an acarya, or a sinful and fallen person, his initiation is useless or as if not done. This is so even if he takes shelter with unalloyed attitude.

TEXT 60

ato ‘nyatrasu vidhivat kartavya saranagatih
upadesta tu mantrasya mudhah pracyavate hy adhah

Such a disciple should quickly take shelter of another spiritual master who is bonafide according to rules and regulations. A foolish person (as described in 59th verse), who becomes a spiritual master by giving mantras, falls down.

TEXT 61

anader vasana-yogad viparitad ihatmanah
smrtir na jayate visnau kuta evarpane matih

From time immemorial conditioned souls in this world are addicted to sense gratification which is opposed to their real self-interest. This prevents them from even remembering Lord Visnu, what to speak of understanding the necessity of surrendering to Him.

————————————–

Now regarding the Suniti purport, if Srila Prabhupada wanted us to consider that this was applicable specifically [pardon my using this word] to the Satya yuga – it seems logical to me that he would have written that.

He did not.

What I see that is key, that all the pro-FDG devotees conveniently ignore, is what Prabhupada clearly wrote: “according to shastric injunctions”.

Those injunctions are meant for all time – sanaatan dharma – and consider that Srila Prabhupada was [specifically] instructing his disciples through his purports.

Besides this one “whereas”, and I stand by what it conveys 100%, there are the myriad instructions that pro-FDG devotees do not take into consideration because it hurts their case and egalitarian outlook. From shastras. About the role of women in society – stridharma(s).

As convyed in other “whereas” clauses, i.e.:

Whereas, the members of the Bureau find the said resolution instituting female diksha gurus to contradict established vaishnava practices, traditions, and the culture of the Saraswat line of Gaudiyas, as set down in various vedic scriptures, Whereas, the effort to institute female diksa-gurus in ISKCON contravenes Srila Prabhupada’s instruction to institute varnashrama-dharma as the social system for ISKCON,

Whereas, Srila Prabhupada did not confer the sacred thread to women, therefore we understand that they are thus unauthorized to confer it to others, Whereas, Srila Prabhupada had so many sincere and senior female disicples, but still he never appointed a single woman as a TP, GBC, or ritvik (guru – as per the July 9 letter), thus establishing his intent that as per teaching of the shastra that woman should always be protected and not have authority over men,

Whereas, the Bureau is afraid that since the GBC has the tendency to appoint women as TPs and GBCs, and now female diksha gurus, it will open the doors to more Western liberal egalitarian ideas that men and women are absolutely equal, a view that Prabhupada condemned time and again…

———–

You see, to the majority of ISKCON leaders here in India, FDG is “avidhipurvakam”, against the system given in shastras for being a diksha guru.

The Suniti purport clearly conveys that women can be shiksha gurus and that shiksha guru is “non-different” from diksha guru! Then why this egalitarian “push” – affirmative action – by passing a resolution that ignores the “being a woman Suniti could NOT be Dhruva’s diksha guru” instruction, and, well, all the rest of the shastric injunctions on the role of women in society?

In the classic vedic supplementary literatures, i.e. the Mahabharata, Valmiki Ramayana, the Bhagavatam, and the Puranas, etc., women are always depicted as “grihinis” – housewives, and not as rishis, munis, or gurus.

There was no concept of a “Queen who ruled”, but only men. Here is a specific quote – an instruction from Srila Prabhupada in one of his Bhagavatam purports, that directly speaks of the disqualification of women from ruling:

[From the purport to SB 4.16.23]

It is very appropriate to compare a powerful king like Prithu to a lion. In India, kshatriya kings are still called singh, which means “lion.” Unless rogues, thieves and other demoniac people in a state are afraid of the executive head, who rules the kingdom with a strong hand, there cannot be peace or prosperity in the state. Thus it is most regrettable when a woman becomes the executive head instead of a lionlike king. In such a situation the people are considered very unfortunate.

————–

Women were “wives”, such as the wife of Sandipani Muni, wives of various Rajas, and the wives of the brahmanas. Another example worth reviewing.

The dvijapatnis – wives of the brahmanas of Vraja who Lord Krishna sent the cowherd boys to beg from in Srimad Bhagavatam, tenth canto, twenty third chapter.

In short, they were “better devotees than their husbands”, the brahmanas who were performing the sacrifies.

The logic here is that according to the Western liberal egalitarian view, Lord Krishna would have told them when they came to him with profuse foodstuffs: “you are better devotees then your husbands. So now, you go, take up their brahminical activities of performing the vedic sacrifices, and they will stay home and cook, and look after the children!”.

But no. Lord Krishna simply told them to go home to your families and they will accept you. In verse 28, Lord Krishna tells them to go assist their husbands – not be become them!

“You should thus return to the sacrificial arena, because your husbands, the learned brahmanas, are householders and need your assistance to finish their respective sacrifices.” (SB 10.23.28)

After all, it is Lord Krishna who promulgated varnashram dharma, and stridharma – the specific duties of women – is a part of that!

In fact, in text 41 in that chapter, the brahmanas state that they are supposed to be the gurus of society! THAT IS THE SYSTEM, and they were well aware of their varnashram duties:

nunam bhagavato maya
yoginam api mohini
yad vayam guravo nrnam
svarthe muhyamahe dvijah

Synonyms
nunam — indeed; bhagavatah — of the Supreme Lord; maya — the illusory potency; yoginam — for great mystics; api — even; mohini — is bewildering; yat — since; vayam — we; guravah — the spiritual masters; nrnam — of society in general; sva-arthe — about our own real interest; muhyamahe — have become bewildered; dvijah — brahmanas.

Translation
The illusory potency of the Supreme Lord certainly bewilders even the great mystics, what to speak of us. As brahmanas we are supposed to be the spiritual masters of all classes of men, yet we have been bewildered about our own real interest.

[SB 10,23.41]

Note the word, “guravaha” – plural for “guru”!

You see, it is a fact that we are not as elevated as we may think. Therefore Prabhupada did stress varnashram dharma, to elevate us to the highest platform of bhakti, but gradually.