My response to your comments on Abhiram Prabhu’s article

Letter from Basu Ghosh Das

Dear Pancharatna Prabhu [ACBSP],

Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!

Received your message, copied herein below, on the topic of the GBC resolution authorizing female diksha gurus in ISKCON, and your consideration for and agreement with some of the points made by Abhiram Prabhu in his article on the www.akincana.net website. Your letter appears copied below.

Why has the word “vaishnavi” has been introduced, changing it from “female”?

My contention is that the terminology has been changed to sanitize the issue, to make ISKCON females seem somehow equal to men.

In his purport in Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi-lila, Chapter 17, verse 137, Prabhupada refers to Madhavi Devi, one of “the three and half” most confidential, and thus most exalted devotees, of Mahaprabhu, as “a woman”.

Here is what Prabhupada wrote in the purport:

“In the Antya-lila of Caitanya-caritamrta, chapter two, verses 104-106, there is a description of Madhavidevi. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu considered her one of the maidservants of Srimati Radharani. Within this world, Caitanya Mahaprabhu had three and a half very confidential devotees. The three were Svarupa Gosasi, Sri Ramananda Raya and Sikhi Mahiti, and Sikhi Mahiti’s sister, Madhavidevi, being a woman, was considered the half. Thus it is known that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees.”

Just as in the purport to SB 4.12.32 – that you so kindly did not neglect to mention in your comments – Prabhupada refers to Suniti as “being a woman”.

So I contend that the language of the original proposition, “female diksha guru” used back during 2005 and 2009 by the GBC and its SAC, is just fine!

My point is that using the words “female”, and “woman”, does not diminish the position of the above mentioned vaishnavis one iota!

In fact, using the word vaishnavi itself indicates gender discrimination, and not gender equality, since it is a feminine word.

However, the insistence of one of our GBC members, that women should be addressed as “Prabhu” – a masculine word – does indeed blur the concept of “gender discrimination”. Gender is an intrinsic part of the nouns in languages such as Samskritam, Bengali, Latin, Greek, Russian, German, Hindi, etc., but yes, not in English nouns. It exists in English by using pronouns.

Now, your argument, and I quote: “my personal opinion that these statements should be given the most weight”, appears to me to be a feeble attempt to deny many, many other statements of both vedic shastras and Srila Prabhupada on the role of women in society, and the question of whether a woman can be a diksha guru.

You referred to SB 4.12.32, but did not present the actual words in Prabhupada purport:

“Actually, Dhruva Maharaja’s mother, Suniti, was his patha-pradarsaka-guru. Patha-pradarsaka-guru means “the guru, or the spiritual master, who shows the way.” Such a guru is sometimes called siksa-guru. Although Narada Muni was his diksa-guru (initiating spiritual master), Suniti, his mother, was the first who gave him instruction on how to achieve the favor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is the duty of the siksa-guru or diksa-guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru. Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru.”

In this purport, Srila Prabhupada deals directly with the various types of gurus, and then specifically instructs “being a woman, Suniti could NOT be Dhurva’s diksha guru”.

Kindly consider Srila Prabhupada’s use of the words, “according to sastric injunctions”, which prove he was instructing his disciples and readers in “the here and now”, and wasn’t explaining this as “something from a remote era in the past”, one of the misleading pro-FDG arguments.

It’s very sad, I feel, that this direct instruction on this very topic by Srila Prabhupada is pooh-poohed, and that Srila Prabhupada’s discussion with Prof. O’Connell, is given more weight, more importance than what Srila Prabhupada wrote in this purport. “Books are the basis”, and “according to shastric injunction” refers directly to the higher authority of books – shastras!

This type of convoluted logic makes me – and many others – feel that the non-vedic concepts of feminism and the popular liberal leftist struggle in Western society for gender equality is more important in the minds of the majority of GBC members, and the pro-FDG devotees, than what Srila Prabhupada taught!

Here is what Prabhupada taught about the role of women in society, from his purport in Srimad Bhagavatam 4.18.3 (a very similarly written purport appears in Bhagavad-gita 16.7):

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 smriti. 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.

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.”

End quote.

Pancharatna Prabhu, with all due respect, and I count you as a friend – and I am by no means “the perfect person”: you and the pro-FDG faction devotees have chosen to ignore the importance of the injuctions of vedic shastras as the final authority on matters of dharma, as Srila Prabhupada taught herein above, and in so many other places.

Just consider how he used this purport to describe the vedic concept of the role of women – and he strongly endorsed it – and how authorizing female diksha gurus contradicts the concept that he endorsed!

Srila Prabhupada taught that women are to be dependent on men. Some pro-FDG devotees, obviously influenced by feminism argue that in modern ISKCON society men have been abusive, and so these instructions do not apply. This argument is quite popular among a section of our devotees, who invoke it when these instructions of Srila Prabhupada are pointed out. Its being used as an excuse to reject what Prabhupada taught, and what vedic shastras teach.

Rupa Goswami taught this:

“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.” (Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu 1.2.101)

Sanaatan Goswami wrote in his commentary on Haribhakti Vilas:

stribhyo’dhikaram na dadyaat iti arthaha

“One should not give authority to women” – from Srila Sanaatana Goswami’s commentary on Haribhakti Vilas 11.708.

And in the Narada Pancharatra it is written: (Bharadvaja Samhita, Narada Pancaratra, 1.42)

“Even then, a woman, a shudra, 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.”

—————–

Srila Prabhupada, and our acharyas would have taught us, time and again, that the role of women in society was to be diksha guru, if they had intended it to be. But no, there no extensive record of any such instructions, and thus there is a great difference of opinion on this issue amongst ISKCON devotees.

Similarly, Srila Prabhupada, and our previous acharyas would have taught us – but did not – that a guru (in our case Srila Prabhupada) could continue to give initiation after his disappearance. They did not.

What they taught was the system of guru paramparaa: the law of disciplic succession. What we have here with FDG is an analogous situation.

By instituting females as diksha gurus, we are not adhering to the vedic concept of womanhood as we learn from Srila Prabhupada’s purports, and from vedic literatures like the Bhagavatam. On the contrary, allowing FDGs will be conform to the Western liberal, feminist, egalitarian ethos, that espouses the concept that society should adopt gender equality through affirmative action to bring about social change.

Seems to me that the pro-FDG devotees just don’t realize that the social change being referred to is a non-vedic idea of what is proper in human society!

Allow me to use as an example of the vedic concept of women’s duties as seen in Srimad Bhagavatam, tenth canto, twenty third chapter, where there is the story of the “dvijapatnis” – the wives of the brahmanas, who were “better devotees of Lord Krishna then their husbands”!

Here is what Lord Krishna instructed the dvijapatnis:

Text 31: The Supreme Personality of Godhead replied: Rest assured that your husbands will not be inimical toward you, nor will your fathers, brothers, sons, other relatives or the general populace. I will personally advise them of the situation. Indeed, even the demigods will express their approval.

Text 32: For you to remain in My bodily association would certainly not please people in this world, nor would it be the best way for you to increase your love for Me. Rather, you should fix your minds on Me, and very soon you will achieve Me.

Text 33: It is by hearing about Me, seeing My Deity form, meditating upon Me and chanting My names and glories that love for Me develops, not by physical proximity. Therefore please go back to your homes.

Text 34: Srila Sukadeva Gosvami said: Thus instructed, the wives of the brahmanas returned to the place of sacrifice. The brahmanas did not find any fault with their wives, and together with them they finished the sacrifice.

https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/10/23/

——————

Notice that Lord Krishna instructed the dvijapatnis to return to their husbands and homes.

Lord Krishna could have instructed the dvijapatnis: “you are greater devotees of Me than your husbands. Now you go, perform the sacrifices, and they will look after the children, cook, and engage in the household chores”.

The reason he did not is simple. In the varnashram system that He Himself created (as per Gita 4.13), it is the brahmanas who are the gurus – diksha gurus – for society. Not the the females. The men – the brahmanas engage in brahminical activities, and their wives support them by engaging in household affairs, such as cooking, clearning, child rearing, etc.

The vedic concept of the role of women – stridharma – is to serve their husbands, and be grihinis – housewives. Mothers, daughters, sisters, and grandmothers.

In India this culture is ingrained in Hindu society for ages. Srila Prabhupada wanted us Western disciples to come to India and learn this culture – vedic culture.

At Hyderabad, during March 1975, Srila Prabhupada told the ten thousand members of the general public who came to hear him speak, “please don’t give up your culture”. It was my good fortune to be present there, then, and I remember this admonition of his well!

Or on the railway platform at Nellore (Andhra Pradesh), on January 3, 1976, Srila Prabhupada told us, his small group of disciples: “vedic culture is more intact in South India”. Why? Because he wanted to impress upon us – his Western disciples, the value of India’s culture and religion.

At Mayapur, on February 14, 1977, Srila Prabhupada spoke to Hari Sauri Prabhu:

Hari-Sauri: But in our community as it is, we are training up as Vaishnavas…

Prabhupada: Vaishnava is not so easy. The varnashrama-dharma should be established to become a Vaishnava. It is not so easy to become Vaishnava.
———————–

The conclusion is this. Introducing female diksha gurus is not in consonance with vaishnava tradition, nor in consonance with varnashram dharma. Srila Prabhupada clearly wrote that a woman cannot be a diksha guru, as pointed out herein above. Women ought to be satisfied being shiksha guru – which Srila Prabhupada pointed out is “non-differnt’ from diksha guru!

Women are, according to vedic shastras, to be the servants of their husbands, and to engage in household affairs, as we see from the lives of the “great women” mentioned in the vedic literatures such as Kunti, Draupadi, Gandhari, Sita, Anasuya, the dvijapatnis, the vrajagopis, the wife of Sandipani Muni, etc., etc.

“A husband is the supreme demigod for a woman. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vasudeva, the husband of the goddess of fortune, is situated in everyone’s heart and is worshiped through the various names and forms of the demigods by fruitive workers. Similarly, a husband represents the Lord as the object of worship for a woman.” Srimad Bhagavatam 6.18.33-34

Srila Prabhupada lamented the role of Indira Gandhi as India’s Prime Minister in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam, 4.16.23 (written at that time):

“It is very appropriate to compare a powerful king like Prthu to a lion. In India, ksatriya 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.”

“Most regrettable”, Srila Prabhupada remarked, and yet these words will be labelled as “sexist” by feminists and egalitarians.

Srila Prabhupada did not appoint even ONE woman as a TP, GBC, BBT trustee, MVT trustee, BCT trustee, and he condemned the concept of sannyasini – as mentioned in the purport to SB 4.18.3, as quoted above. Isn’t his doing so an example for us, his disciples?

Also consider that the position of diksha guru in ISKCON, if adopted by women, doing so would destory the feminine quality of shyness, that Srila Prabhupada pointed out, and exalted, since they would become “public persons”, rather than sheltered at home!

“As far as women are concerned, they are accepted as the power of inspiration for men. As such, women are more powerful than men. Mighty Julius Caesar was controlled by a Cleopatra. Such powerful women are controlled by shyness. Therefore, shyness is important for women. Once this control valve is loosened, women can create havoc in society by adultery. Adultery means production of unwanted children, known as varna-sankara, who disturb the world.” From Prabhupada’s purport of SB 1.9.27

There are SO MANY other quotes from Srila Prabhupada about the role of women in society that the pro-FDG devotees ignore for the reason that doing so will easily defeat the egalitarian/feminist and thus revisionist purposes that they champion.

Anuttama Prabhu, our communications minister, can organize interfaith dialogues at Tirupati and Chennai, but the GBC – till today – has ignored the request of the ISKCON India Governing Bureau [a resolution to that effect was passed at Pune, during February 2019, and sent to the GBC EC] for a dialogue on this subject! Why has this been ignored? Because such a dialogue would most probably not serve the purpose of establishing gender equality – feminism and egalitarianism – in ISKCON. So just avoid it…

Here’s hoping the GBC – which is split on the issue – but obviously garnered more than 50% support for the authorization of FDGs – will rescind the resolution and table the topic – permanently! To become a GBC member requires a four fifths vote of the GBC, but this ideologically crucial change to the vedic culture and traditions was passed by a very thin majority. Why was this allowed for such a momentous decision?

A GBC man told me the vote was 16 in favor and 14 opposed. He said he suggested it be allowed only by a four fifths majority, but the pro-FDG devotees are determined to forcibly impose their views on ISKCON, thus creating conditions for a massive rift and possible schism within ISKCON.

This is not just “little old eccentric” Basu Ghosh Das. Seventy six TPs voted in the ICC meeting to request the Bureau to petition the GBC to rescind authorizing FDGs. The vote was taken after Anuttama Prabhu was given all the time he wanted to present the pro-FDG arguments to the assembled devotees.

The pro-FDG arguments were thereafter rejected by the IIAC, and the Bureau as well!

My hope is that “better sense will prevail” at the upcoming GBC AGM at Mayapur next month, and hopefully the GBC will rescind the resolution authorizing FDGs.

Thanks for your kind consideration of the above.

Hope this meets you well.

dasanudas,

Basu Ghosh Das

 

---

Letter from Pancharatna dasa

Hare Krishna

I’m also in dialog with Abhiram prabhu and I agree with his premise of fidelity to Srila Prabhupada.

I’m particularly concerned as to the basis in Srila Prabhupada’s instructions or anywhere in guru, sadhu and shastra that supports the policy of GBC requiring members to get their no-objection before initiating others. Thus I fully agree when he says : “I am questioning if the GBC have the right to appoint anyone as Guru.”. However, this is a deep discussion, and I am hoping the GBC can address this issue and dispel our doubts.

On his other point: “ISKCON traditions, missions and style were set pre Nov 77 and that is it. Nothing more should be changed. ” First I suggest that it is principles, not details that must not change. Otherwise, we would be stuck in the past unable to advance the mission in the dynamic style that Srila Prabhupada established. Srila Prabhupada wrote to me in 1974

““The world is most sorely in need of education in Krsna Consciousness, but due to the ignorance of the age they are not interested in knowledge of the self. So if by labelling the bottle in some way more to attract them we are still able to teach Krsna Consciousness, let us do it.”

Obviously, many features of our mission will need to be adjusted for time, place and circumstances. But we must always maintain our core principles and values.

So what is the principle Srila Prabhupada established in relation to Vaishnavi gurus? This is the point of contention. Personally, I give the most weight to his direct responses to the question as recorded here:

–begin–

Prof. O’Connell: Is it possible, Svamiji, for a woman to be a guru in the line of disciplic succession?

Prabhupada: Yes. Jahnava Devi was—Nityananda’s wife. She became. If she is able to go to the highest perfection of life, why it is not possible to become guru? But, not so many. Actually one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru. But man or woman, unless one has attained the perfection.. Yei krsna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya [Cc. Madhya 8.128]. The qualification of guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Krsna. Then he or she can become guru. Yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya. [break] In our material world, is it any prohibition that woman cannot become professor? If she is qualified, she can become professor. What is the wrong there? She must be qualified. That is the position. So similarly, if the woman understands Krsna consciousness perfectly, she can become guru.

Indian man: Well, to understand Krsna consciousness, do you not require adhikara?

Prabhupada: Adhikara means he must agree to understand. That is adhikara. But we do not agree. That is our fault. (Interview with Professors O’Connell, Motilal and Shivaram—June 18, 1976, Toronto)

–ref —

Prabhupada: If a woman is perfect in Krsna consciousness. Just like Jahnava Devi, Lord Nityananda’s wife, she was acarya. She was acarya. She was controlling the whole Vaisnava community.

Atreya Rsi: Lord Nityananda?

Prabhupada: Wife. Jahnava Devi. She was controlling the whole Gaudiya Vaisnava community.

Atreya Rsi: Do you have references about that in any of your books, Srila Prabhupada?

Prabhupada: I don’t think. But there are many acaryas. Maybe somewhere I might have mentioned. It is not that woman cannot be acarya. Generally, they do not become. In very special case. But Jahnava Devi was accepted as, but she did not declare.

(Room Conversation: 29 June 1972 San Diego)

–end–

As I said, it is my personal opinion that these statements should be given the most weight. And, I argue that they are in line with many other statements and examples in Srila Prabhupada’s policies regarding Vaishnavis participation in devotional service.

However, I also accept that there can be different interpretations of this and other evidence. like the description of Suniti’s disqualification to initiate her son Dhruva. And, perhaps most significantly what is meant by “rare”. Does “rare” mean that it should be rare, or is it simply a statement of fact? Up to the time of ISKCON, mleccha, foreign born Vaishnavas giving mantra diksa was not only rare but non-existent. But I believe we all accept that birth as mlecchas outside of India is not a disqualification.

Therefore, I suggest that the GBC’s attempt to be the arbiter on this issue is not in some way disloyal to the principle of fidelity to Srila Prabhupada or outside their mandate. That does not make them necessarily right. They have not replaced Srila Prabhupada as the Acharya of ISKCON. They are simply doing their duty to guide the Society as best they can. ISKCON members are not obliged to accept their decisions as infallible and, hopefully, they will keep the door open for dissenting opinions presented respectfully.

I do agree, that the divisiveness of this issue demands much deeper work. I believe that there are core principles regarding varnasrama dharma, stri dharma and guru-tattva that are not resolved and not given adequate attention.

At the root is how to interpret Srila Prabhupada. On every issue that has divided us, from rtvik “ism” to the current VDG issue, I find that it is our differing interpretations of Srila Prabhupada that is at the root.

I also believe that the GBC’s attempts to be the arbiters of interpretation have been seriously flawed and have not produced the unity in diversity that Srila Prabhupada calls for.

I’m hoping that the internal debates on this and many other issues be channeled into more productive systems than email exchanges and .blogs. I suggest that this be the focus of attention right now, rather than the issues themselves.

I also appeal to all concerned to try to understand thoroughly both sides. I would like to see a synopsis of the arguments with pros and cons and comparative interpretations. If I had more time I would attempt this myself. But I have spent too much time on this already. I have no official ISKCON position, outside of my role in ISKCON Online and some other services like the CSR committee, so I am speaking only as a concerned ISKCON member. I expect there may be responses to this post. I beg forgiveness if I do not reply immediately.

Your servant, Pancharatna dasa