Discussion On The Female Diksha Guru Issue: Amongst Godbrothers-5

Dear Godbrother Prabhu,

Namonamaha.  Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Received your message.

Godbrother: Now, India is flourishing and America is struggling. When we in America who are still managing to reach Americans ask our Indian brothers to allow us to do what works (both for Srila Prabhupada and us) in America, we are told we are not following Srila Prabhupada, we are feminists, we are deviants, all of which you have said to me in this very letter.

Earlier Godbrother wrote: 1. Our application of Srila Prabhupada’s approach continues to work well. Today, our ashrams are stuffed full of blissful young devotees.

2. In recent years, though, I and others, after carefully studying Srila Prabhupada’s approach, have been able to again regularly recruit young Americans to ISKCON–some 300 in the last 12 years. These young men and women have become the top book distributors, temple presidents, and, in general, enthusiastic ISKCON devotees.

Then Godbrother wrote (my statement also appears, before your’s): It just isn’t honest to write as if the majority of ISKCON temples in the USA are “stuffed full with blissful young devotees” when the talk is that “there are more Deities than devotees” in most of the temples here!

 I agree 100%. This is exactly the problem. Other than congregational devotees of Indian descent, very few devotees at all are joining ISKCON in America. Ashrams are empty. Devotees such as you and I are rapidly becoming an endangered species.

Basu Ghosh Das: The above-quoted contradictory statements are not an honest and straightforward presentation of the facts. You can’t have it two ways.  Either the ashrams are full, or they are empty!

Godbrother: If the GBC were to now rescind this resolution, it would likely mark the end of this renaissance of recruiting young Americans. That is why in our correspondence I initially asked and was encouraged by your response that yes, recruiting young Americans is still important.

Basu Ghosh Das: Prabhu, as per what you yourself have written, there is no “renaissance”.

“The ashrams are empty”. So, it seems quite clear that a false picture of the situation in ISKCON in the USA is being presented to me, and the aim of creating this fantasy is to convince me that the institution of female diksha gurus is thus imperative. Is it not?

Godbrother: I have already presented explicit evidence that Srila Prabhupada endorsed different standards in America and India (CC.ML.23.105).

Basu Ghosh Das:  Different standards?  No.
Here is what Prabhupada wrote in the purport that is relevant: “A candidate for Krsna consciousness in the Western countries should be taught about the renunciation of material existence, but one would teach candidates from a country like India in a different way. The teacher (acarya) has to consider time, candidate and country. He must avoid the principle of niyamagraha – that is, he should not try to perform the impossible. What is possible in one country may not be possible in another. The acarya’s duty is to accept the essence of devotional service. There may be a little change here and there as far as yukta-vairagya (proper renunciation) is concerned.”  (purport, CC Madhya 23. 105)

This has to do with how strict Prabhupada himself was acting in terms of dealing with his Western disciples.
There is no indication that he is endorsing FDGs here by any stretch. And further in this cited purport,

“A Vaisnava is immediately purified, provided he follows the rules and regulations of his bona fide spiritual master. It is not necessary that the rules and regulations followed in India be exactly the same as those in Europe, America, and other Western countries. Simply imitating without effect is called niyamagraha. Not following the regulative principles but instead living extravagantly is also called niyamagraha. The word niyama means “regulative principles,” and agraha means “eagerness.” The word agraha means “not to accept.” We should not follow regulative principles without an effect, nor should we fail to accept the regulative principles. What is
required is a special technique according to country, time and candidate. Without the sanction of the spiritual master, we should not try to imitate.” (purport CC Madhya 23. 105)

The words, “nor should we fail to accept the regulative principles” indicates that the context of what Prabhupada wrote was about the details of following the regulative principles.

For example, second initiated devotees must chant the gayatri mantra, but before doing so other purificatory mantras are to be chanted.  Both vaishnava and smarta brahmanas, who are strict, do so. Prabhupada did not
insist on these details. Or when chanting japa, of the Hare Krishna mahamantra, generally it is done while sitting.  And yet Prabhupada – on occasion – instructed his Western disciples that “sitting means sleeping”!  [from Hari Sauri Prabhu’s TD Vol 1, date Dec. 19, 1975].

So these are a couple of examples of the “details” Prabhupada was referring to.  But sure, I can understand how this can be misconstrued to mean something that Prabhupada did not intend it to!  To suit an agenda that is
not in consonance with the “entire body of what Prabhupada taught”!

Just like I – and most of our godbrothers – are certain that the letter of July 9, 1977 was not intended to change the time and again instruction that we follow “guru parampara” – disciplic succession – and not the recently
concocted, so-called “ritvik system of initiation”, that is nowhere to be seen in any vaishnava sampradaya or outlined in detail in any vedic shastra! 
A parallel here?

Absolutely!

You see, what we are contending is that FDG is a concoction – not something Prabhupada clearly introduced – and something that has no basis in vedic shastras.

Prabhupada would have, time and again through his instructions in his books, letters, lectures, and conversations taught us that women could be diksha gurus.  He did not!
If Prabhupada or vedic shastras had endorsed FDG there would be no confusion, and we would all accept FDG.
Prabhupada gave no such direct instruction.  And so those amongst us who are inclined – by subtle influence – to the Western liberal, leftist,  Marxist, egalitarian, feminist outlook, are taking things out of context to support
this “politically correct” (for much of the urban population in the USA and Europe) agenda!

On the contrary, his instructions were to follow vedic literatures – shastras – and vedic culture.  (You wrote that they aren’t applicable to the preaching efforts in the USA and I quote you: “But we who preach to Westerners every day know that what Srila Prabhupada did in America still works, and imposing Vedic social constructs does not.”)

Citations that we must follow shastras – quotions from Srila Rupa Goswami and Srila Prabhupada appear, as addenda. So:
1. “We are not these bodies” does not mean that varnashram dharma is invalid.  “We are not these bodies” isn’t justification for gender equality.
You wrote that you are not a feminist, and at the same time you are demanding gender equality in diksha guruship.  That is feminism. Here is the dictionary definition of feminism: “the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” This describes perfectly the campaign for FDGs in ISKCON.

2. Female diksha guru does not conform to “shastra pramanas” – evidence in shastras.  Some evidence has been presented herein – and herein before proving that FDG is not “pramanic” – adhering to shastras. In his purport
to SB 4.12.32, Prabhupada, while clearly stating “being a woman Suniti could not be Dhruva’s diksha guru”, and also wrote, “according to shastric injunction”.

3.  Vedic knowledge does not change:
Advancement means… But we don’t change our Vedic knowledge. We do not say, “Now, Krishna, five thousand years ago, said like this. Now we are advanced. We change this line.”
[From Srila Prabhupada’s Lecture on SB 1.3.15 at Los Angeles, September 20, 1972]

Prabhupada wrote in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.18.3:
“Vedic civilization takes advantage of the perfect knowledge presented in the Vedas and presented by great sages and brahmanas for the benefit of human society. Vedic injunctions are known as shruti, and the additional supplementary presentations of these principles, as given by the great sages, are known as smriti. They follow the principles of Vedic instruction. Human society should take advantage of the instructions from both shruti and smrti. If one wants to advance in spiritual life, he must take these instructions and follow the principles. In Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, Srila Rupa Gosvami says that if one poses himself as advanced in spiritual life but does not refer to the shrutis and smritis he is simply a disturbance in society. One should follow the principles laid down in shrutis and smritis not only in one’s spiritual life but in material life as well. As far as
human society is concerned, it should follow the Manu-smriti as well, for these laws are given by Manu, the father of mankind. [Note: BRS 1.2.101 appears fully, below in the addenda].

In the Manu-smriti it is stated that a woman should not be given independence, but should be given protection by her father, husband and elderly sons. In all circumstances a woman should remain dependent upon some
guardian. Presently women are given full independence like men, but actually we can see that such independent women are no happier than those women who are placed under guardians. If people follow the injunctions given by the great sages, shrutis and smritis, they can actually be happy in both this life and the next. Unfortunately rascals are manufacturing so many ways and means to be happy. Everyone is inventing so many methods. Consequently human society has lost the standard ways of life, both materially and spiritually, and as a result people are bewildered and there is no peace or happiness in the world. Although they are trying to solve the problems of human society in the United Nations, they are still baffled. Because they do not follow the liberated instructions of the Vedas, they are unhappy.”

—————-

Prabhu, until you can prove that the FDG concept is what Srila Prabhupada and shastras directly teach, it will not be accepted by devotees who have studied both.  Prabhupada taught – and vedic shastras teach – that women
have their own duties, stridharma, distinct from the duties of men!

The GBC is now imposing FDGs: a system we find no shastric basis for, as stated over and over again during this correspondence!  It is highly regrettable.  It’s not just my subjective opinion: the vast majority of ISKCON India’s leaders, four GBC men amongst them, feel likewise and therefore voted to petition the GBC to rescind their un-bona fide authorization of FDGs.

Below the addenda – the quotes mentioned above – are further thoughts on what you wrote on a more “point for point” basis.

Happy reading!  Oh, and, “have a good day”!  (Just trying to be a bit “politically and culturally correct” here – “proper ethos” for those of us in the US of A)! 
——————————–
sruti-smrti-puranadi-pancharatra-vidhim vina |
aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate ||

[Bhakti Rasmrita Sindhu 1.2.101]

Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upanisads, Puranas and Narada-pancaratra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society.

In Narada Pancharatra, we find the following verse:

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. Prabhupada’s purport in 4.12.32 is a major indication that women cannot be diksha gurus, as well.

Here are some further thoughts…

Godbrother: Note that you found success in preaching WITHOUT female diksha gurus! So the logical deduction is that they aren’t required to obtain success in preaching to non-Hindus. That’s not quite accurate. The young American devotees (and their elders, who are their teachers and exemplars) have been incensed by the absence of even a single elderly Vaishnavi being allowed to give diksa in ISKCON. To them, this belies ISKCON’s preaching that we are not the body and makes them feel that the current ISKCON leadership is betraying Srila Prabhupada’s assertions that on the spiritual platform, men and women are equal and that female preachers are as good as their brothers.

Basu Ghosh Das: This can be explained by the fact that you yourself feel that way, and then you pass that on to students and disciples under your care and communicate that to the people in your area you are preaching to. In your video She Can Become Guru, you say that women not being allowed to give diksha is “the crown jewel of the discrimination against women in ISKCON”, and you further say that people shy away from ISKCON “because of regressive attitudes like this from the leadership.” So, the problem is not just that you aren’t making devotees, it’s that you have a problem with the idea itself. You feel very strongly that it’s unfair that women in ISKCON have not been allowed to give diksha regardless of what others think.

Am I wrong here?

I mean, you are calling this attitude “regressive”.  So, what do your students and disciples think about the fact that women aren’t allowed to take sannyasa?  Is this prohibition another of those regressive attitudes that others – young Americans and “their elders, who are their teachers and exemplars” have a problem with?

Godbrother: “Some but not many,” Vaishnavis giving diksa is sufficient, as is the notion of some parts of the ISKCON world opting out. But none, anywhere, is so discouraging that young women in America lose interest in ISKCON. And one of the most important lessons I have learned over the past 12 years is that if there are no young women in the temple, there will be few if any young men either.

Basu Ghosh Das:  Perhaps it’s not because there is discrimination against women, but because as devotees and preachers our advancement as compared with someone like Srila Prabhupada is on a lower level, as was already mentioned earlier,  but you did not respond to this point.

Earlier I referred to the essay of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura on Vaishnava Ninda, or criticizing Vaishnavas, wherein he wrote that there are persons who resemble Vaishnavas and are thus called Vaishnava-praya.  These are those who are trying to become Vaishnavas but still chant the Lord’s Holy Names with offenses.  But those who have chanted shuddha-nama are properly called Vaishnavas, and they are of three kinds – Vaishnava, Vaishnava-tara, and Vaishnava-tama. Vaishnava is defined as someone who has once chanted the holy name of the Lord purely. Vaishnava-tara is someone who incessantly chants the Lord’s Holy Name. And Vaishnava-tama is one for whom people start chanting just by seeing him. Srila Prabhupada was in this topmost category, Vaishnava-tama. And the effect he had on all those around him just electrified everyone.

In other words, there is no material gimmick involved here.  Srila Prabhupada was so advanced that devotees joined in droves when he was here. The corollary of this is that now that he’s not here and now we’re in the
driver’s seat, so to speak, and we are not so advanced, it’s much more of a struggle. Do you agree?

Godbrother: In spite of that obstacle we have found success, but only by counseling patience and working vigorously to correct the situation. To keep the youngsters encouraged with some modicum of faith in ISKCON I have written a book, presented seminars, co-produced a film and preached constantly that the GBC is composed of reasonable devotees who recognize the needs of the whole world. After many years of waiting, this is why the recent GBC decision in Tirupati has unleashed such a flood of enthusiasm among the young devotees. The GBC *IS* reasonable. Haribol!

Basu Ghosh Das: According to a GBC member with whom I discussed this, 16 GBC members voted for the resolution, but 14 voted against!.
Such a divisive decision taken on a slim, two-vote majority is unreasonable. Why such a low threshold for such a weighty decision?  It takes 4/5 of the GBC vote to make someone a guru or to become a GBC member.

Godbrother: If the GBC were to now rescind this resolution, it would likely mark the end of this renaissance of recruiting young Americans.

Basu Ghosh Das: It’s only been 1 1/2 months since the decision. What is this “renaissance”?

Godbrother: Also, the use of the word “Westerners” could be interpreted to mean a number of ethnic groups, does it not?  You see, not all Westerners are of European, Christian stock, even if they are the majority in North America. There are other major minorities in North American, such as African Americans, Hispanics, Asians other than Indian Hindus, etc. Yes, absolutely. There is no discrimination whatsoever, and we have students representing many nationalities. Absence of bodily distinctions characterized Srila Prabhupada’s early preaching in America. It still works, but it must be truly impartial for everyone.

Basu Ghosh Das: Why early preaching in America?  Why not later preaching?  After all, that was when we really started making/recruiting large numbers of devotees.  In fact, 75% of all devotees (initiated by Prabhupada) joined between 1973 –1977, the last 5 years of Srila Prabhupada’s presence.  In the early days, only 25% of all devotees joined.  It seems that the later days are a better model for making/recruiting devotees than the early days.
Year Initiates Percent All Disciples Cumulative Percent Notes

Godbrother: Srila Prabhupada preached that we are not these bodies and that anyone, regardless of their birth, could practice pure Krishna consciousness and teach it to others. This message still resonates. However, these days, as in Srila Prabhupada’s time, when Western seekers, male and female, encounter different organizational standards for men and women, they are turned off. They laugh and say, “You’re not this body–unless you’re a woman.” But then if this is actually the case, why should women have to have some sort of institutional support when they become guru?  Why is the GBC requiring that?  Do you agree with that provision?  If so, is that not also an institutional double-standard? The GBC’s restrictions unique to women–age 55 and up, protected, and only where allowed–are all acceptable. The only thing unacceptable is “none.”

Basu Ghosh Das:  According to what authority?  This is just speculation. Where in shastras does it give an age for women gurus?  In Narada Pancharatra, it says na jatu mantra-da nari, that a woman cannot become mantra-da (one who gives the mantras), or guru. So there is no shastric support for women to be diksha gurus.

In Bhagavad-gita As It Is 16.7 purport, Srila Prabhupada says that women are like children, they lack discrimination. How, then, can a woman become a guru when she lacks discrimination?  You may say that “they are fully Krishna conscious, they can do that”.

But what if you/they – the FDGs – are only 99% Krishna conscious?  What if you aren’t fully 100%  (an “uttama adhikari”) Krishna conscious?

“And only where allowed”: would you find it acceptable that if FDGs aren’t allowed in India?  That FDGs and their disciples should not be allowed to do Deity worship or sit on the Vyasasana?

Godbrother: Yet he treated his female disciples evenhandedly. He opened brahamacarini ashrams in all his Western temples. But he meant for that to be a temporary measure, not permanent. In the course of time, if we are progressing as a society, those should eventually close. He indicated this in an Aug 8, 1968 letter to Satsvarupa: “That the Brahmacarini ashram is a good success is very good news. But the best thing will be if the grown-up Brahmacarinis get married. According to Vedic culture, a woman is never to remain independent. I shall be glad if the Brahmacarinis can have nice husbands, and live as Grhasthas. But if they cannot find out good husbands, it is better to remain a Brahmacarini all the life, even though it is a little difficult.” Your point is clear and I fully agree. But you’re adding something here; wherein this letter (or anywhere) does Srila Prabhupada say here that the brahmacarini ashrams should be disbanded? He says that those graduating from the ashrams should get married. Do you think that Srila Prabhupada intended to stop recruiting young Westerners once the first batch progressed out of ashram life?

Basu Ghosh Das:  If we are making progress in changing society, then certainly they should go away.  Why shouldn’t they?  For example, with more grihasthas, why can’t brahmacharinis live with Krishna conscious families?  It’s been done in ISKCON.  Doing so can be an intermediary step toward phasing them out altogether.

In Vedic society there is no brahmacharini ashram. The fact is that women need to be under the shelter of a man, and that must be a father, brother, or grown-up sons.

The point is that brahmacharini ashram is NOT an eternal principal in sanaatan dharma, but was a concession to the free miximg of males and females in Western society, and it was thus “time and circumstance”.

Godbrother: At least we should agree that this adjustment was meant to be temporary. Don’t you agree?

 Temporary for the individual, yes. But not for ISKCON as a whole. Why should we stop recruiting young, unmarried people into Lord Caitanya’s movement? It appears that you are saying that ashrams for men and women were meant to start the movement but are no longer necessary. Have I misunderstood?

Basu Ghosh Das:  I am saying we can measure our progress by how much less and less we need women’s ashramas.  As we make progress in our own society, those will become less and less needed. Those are not supported by shastras, so they should eventually go away.  Men’s ashramas are prescribed by shastras, and they
should, therefore, be a permanent feature. Do you agree?

Godbrother: In India, Prabhupada had us follow the vedic traditions, but yes, he was just a bit more liberal in the West.  Still, he taught that the ideal life was the life of vedic culture as found in India.  He commented that “the Indian village system is the ideal system of life”. It was at Vrindavan just after the Gaur Purnima festival of 1974 – I was there – when Srila Prabhupada divided the 400 foreign devotees in half into two groups, and it was he who sent 200 of those devotees back to Mayapur to “learn varnashrama”!   This is a historical fact… forgotten by some, but not all.  Where you there at that time?  Many devotees who were present at what has become an annual festival (yes, that was one of the earliest), can vouch for this. Certainly, I accept your version, though I did not attend the festival until the next year. Yes, rural varnashram was his intent,

Basu Ghosh Das: Back then they had varnasrhama in cities, too. Dvaraka, Hastinapur, Indraprastha, etc. Varnashrama is not simply rural.

Godbrother: Sorry, Prabhu, but I reject the faulty logic that we must accommodate FDGs as a sign of “good treatment” of women. You are seeing it from afar. I am telling you what is 100% proven to work in America, where all other Western recruiting programs have failed to achieve systematic, consistent results.

Basu Ghosh Das: But is your perception reliable? In other words, what you are seeing might look like progress but might actually be the opposite.  For example, in an essay titled, “The Unraveling of Christianity in America,” (The Public Interest, 2004), the author, Clifford Orwin, traces the decline of religious practice to the adoption of mainstream social values by mainline American churches.

He writes: “Once encouraged to conceive Christianity primarily as a buttress for progressive morality, we might come to see it as superfluous. If we welcome religion only because we cherish liberal social policy, why can’t our
commitment to the policy roll happily along on its own? Of course, the mainline churches have continued to participate in public debate. If anything, they have defined themselves ever more in terms of social activism. What they have increasingly lacked is anything distinctively Christian to bring to the table. Thus, mainline religion, despite its efforts to please, has become merely incidental in the lives of so many who continue to profess it.”
Therefore, Dr. Stillson Judah in his book “Hare Krishna and the Counterculture” (1974) also mentioned this undoing of mainline religious organizations in America:

“Decline of Liberal Christianity in the 1960s. The protest against American forms of religion is very revealing. Even though one must take care not to overstate the universality of a protect, in providing meaning to American
youth in this period of cultural transition this particular protest does point to problems in the liberal Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.

“Today more people seem to be showing a deeper interest in the various forms of religious expression than have other generations for centuries. At the same time, however, membership in our more liberal denominations has
declined. Church giving has fallen off. Many congregations are dwindling; some churches are closing. A few of the respected Christian seminaries in both Europe and America are discontinuing their work; in certain cases their
libraries are being broken up and their books sold.” (page 138)

Later on in the chapter, titled “The Protest against American Forms of Religion”, Dr. Judah compares and contrasts the Hare Krishna Movement at that time with liberal Christianity, and he notes the conservative character of the movement. For example, he writes,

“The liberal churches are reasonable and receptive to outside criticism. This is not true of the Hare Krishna Movement. Although the devotees of Krishna are courteously silent when ridiculed publicly, in their temples
they never leave unchallenged any variant to their views, nor are they interested in what scholars might contribute through literary or historical criticism.” page 145

In fact, all his comparisons are made with liberal Christianity. Here are some other interesting ones:

This one says that devotees were completely disinterested in inter-religious or any other form of dialog short of trying to sell someone a book or preach to them.

“5. Liberal churches are interested in dialogue with others of differing views in the spirit of ecumenism and with the hope of deepening their own understanding (Kelley, 1972:82-83). The devotees are not only disinterested
in listening to other viewpoints, but are also dogmatic about their beliefs. They see their view as being the whole, entire truth. That which varies from their view on any single point falls short of the truth. One must appreciate
that these are youths who had rejected the culture and the ideology of the establishment. They were searching for a new basis for an alternative life style. They feel they have found it, and that it expresses the truth.
Consequently, any dialogue seems meaningless to them, and only threatens their security. Similarly, converts to Christianity in a country where Christianity is a minority religion are often more dogmatic and conservative
in belief than other Christians.” page 146

But nowadays in ISKCON in America, inter-religious dialog is really into this.  This suggests that ISKCON has sold out to become a part of the liberal religious establishment.  It is no longer an alternative.  And as Clifford Orwin noted, those looking for an alternative to the mainstream are probably less likely to find it in ISKCON.

Also back in Srila Prabhupada’s time, devotees took the tenets of scripture, and Srila Prabhupada’s words literally and believed in them:

“6. I should like to add that unlike liberal churches, the Hare Krishna Movement adheres to a literalistic interpretation of its scriptures and emphasizes the importance of religious experience. . . . Whenever possible
they seek scriptural support to validate their alternative ways of life.” page 146

This includes Srila Prabhupada’s words regarding women. As also noted by Dr. Judah:

“The position of women in Society may not appeal to Americans interested in women’s liberation. Swami Bhaktivedanta says that all women other than one’s wife are to be considered as one’s mother, and yet he regards them as prone to degradation, of little intelligence, and untrustworthy. They should not be given as much freedom as men but should be treated like children; they should be protected all during their lives, by their fathers when young, later by their husbands, and in their old age, by their sons (Bhaktivedanta, 1972b:200,24).

This view is largely consonant with the traditional one found in the ancient Indian law books. Females may not become presidents of any temple, nor occupy positions of authority. They may do the cooking, help with the
devotional activities and maintenance of the temple, and prepare flower offerings for Krishna. Regardless of their social positions, they souls of female devotees are to be considered of equal value with their male counterparts–incarnations as male or female depends on one’s karma.”

“Their status has apparently not bothered the female devotees; one of them said:”

“Well, spiritually we have an equal position . . . We’re subordinate now in Kali Yuga, but it doesn’t mean we’re inferior necessarily. Actually we are. . . I can see that women tend to flip out a lot more than men. They are more
emotional. Women’s lib tries to gloss over all of the very obvious differences . . . and it’s nonsense . . . On the whole, we are less intelligent, our attention is not so good . . . So we take our orders from the men and it’s nice. They’re very nice. It’s no problem. You’re protected and you’re given instructions, and you don’t have to make the decisions; it’s really pleasant . . . The boys really have propensities for administration . . . that we just don’t have. So it must be my female body, but I’m very pleased not to have to make very many decisions anymore.”

“Thus the devotees have to a great extent adopted the Hindu culture and practices of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The few notable exceptions include disregard of certain rules concerning pollution, for example, pollution of a
woman following childbirth, or of a family following a death in it. They also permit female devotees to live in their temples and to be pujaris, that is, to officiate at the devotional services in the temple, practices he Gaudiya Vaishnavas forbid. American devotees are more liberal in their inclusion of outsiders in their sankirtans than are their Hindu counterparts. And as we have seen, their Hindu counerparts limit their public use to a much greater degree.” pages 86 – 87

If you don’t mind my saying Prabhu, it seems that you have become part of the liberal establishment that we once rejected in Srila Prabhupada’s time. And if expanding the movement for you means adopting their values, it will
come more and more to the point where you have little to offer than you can already find outside of the temple. Again, this why after a period of expansion, the liberal mainline churches have been hemorrhaging members.
Their gains were temporary, and so will ISKCON’s be if you succeed in dragging the rest of down this path.
So yes, of course, we should do everything we can to stop this.

Godbrother: Srila Prabhupada gave every indication to his young American disciples that they, men and women, could attain the highest spiritual platform. The same message still produces vibrant young non-Hindu devotees in North America. Treating Vaishnavas and Vaishnavis as spiritual equals are not accommodating some mundane social movement. I am a preacher. I am not a feminist. The ONLY thing that is important to me is what works. Phalena pariciyate. Encouraging women as spirit souls works. In America, telling young women what they can and can’t do in ISKCON doesn’t work. It turns both young men and young women away from our movement.

Basu Ghosh Das: Then you are an empiricist.  If only what works before your eyes matters to you, then what need is there for scripture, for acharyas?  But your eyes and experience will ultimately mislead you. yah shastra vidhim utsrijya vartate kama karatah na sa siddhim avapnoti na sukham na param gatim. (Gita 16.23).

It may look like following shastras is impractical, but that’s the difference between direct perception and shastra.  Shastra is perfect whereas perception and experience are not. Just as the mainline Christian churches in America thought they were expanding their preaching, in actuality, they were leading their members away from actual Christianity to secular humanism. You are doing something very similar. Well, you have been lobbying hard for women’s equality in ISKCON, and it’s just not what Srila Prabhupada preached. He preached something quite the opposite. And as what Dr. Stillson Judah has shown in his writings, it was a part of ISKCON’s culture at the time. And that culture came from none other than Srila Prabhupada!

Godbrother: I am sorry to say it feels to many of us that are grown, a successful child is finding his parents’ needs slightly troublesome and is throwing his parents under the bus. This strikes me as both non-varnashrama and non-Vaishnava. What do you think?

Basu Ghosh Das: I think you are now part of the counter-counter culture.  You have found your way back to mainstream American society, and you want to radically reinterpret Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and the way of life we had under him in order to suit your tastes.  But your tastes have more in common with the American liberal Christian and the reform Jewish establishment than with the Krishna Consciousness as Srila Prabhupada had given it to us.

What do YOU think?