Letter by Basu Ghosh Prabhu:
Dear Pancharatna Prabhu,
Namonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Received your message, and it appears herein below.
Before I composed a response to your response to my response to your comments on what Abhiram Prabhu wrote, Damodar Prabhu, a Gujarati brahmachari who is following the discussion, wrote the following that I think serves as a logical, reasonable, and philosophically correct response to what you wrote.
Of course I reserve the right to respond to what you wrote to me, in due course. Damodar Prabhu’s letter, copied just below this, does not cover all you wrote.
Thanks for kindly considering what he wrote.
Hope this meets you well.
dasanudas,
Basu Ghosh Das
Letter by Damodara Dasa:
Editor’s note: This letter is an answer to the letter of Pancharatna Das (ACBSP) which follows below.
Pranam Prabhus, readers of this letter,
Sri Sri Guru Gaurangau Jayatah. Vaishnavebhyo namonamha!
Pancharatna Das (ACBSP) wrote that one needs to interpret the statements of Srila Prabhupada, and he goes on to do that for the statements which are against equality of men women in ISKCON. In his response to what Basu Ghosh Prabhu wrote, he makes a call for the hermeneutical approach also.
Two points to notice here:
1. His choice of which statement to interpret is based purely on his point of view *, i.e. his pratyaksa (his subjective perceptions) and anumana (his subjective inferences).
The person from the other party – who’s views oppose his – will likewise interpret the many other statements of Srila Prabhupada’s.
According to Vedic Hermeneutics and Srila Prabhupada in Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 20.352 (and Prabhupada’s similar statements at many other places), shastra should be the center – the basis of understanding vedic knowledge.
So if Srila Prabhupada’s two statements, say statement A and statement B clash, then the statement of Srila Prabhupada’s which is supported by shastras or Vedic tradition should be taken as a accpetable and followable, and the other statement may be interpreted (for example, one may consider it a “time and circumstance” statement, etc.).
Recently I sent an exegesis on Srimad Bhagavatam 10.33.31 which also articulates the same fact.
Thus, Basu Ghosh Prabhu’s interpretations or harmonization are according to guru-sadhu-shastras, while those of Pancaratna Prabhu’s are as per his own subjective understanding.
In case of the FDGs, the “Suniti purport” [to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.32] is supported by shastras and Krishna’s vedic tradition, and thus acceptable and followable, while other statements should be interpreted to adhere to what Srila Prabhupada wrote in the Suniti purport.
2. Pancharatna Prabhu’s argument is that what Srila Prabhupada directly said when asked is the highest authority, over and above what Srila Prabhupada wrote in his books, or what is held by tradtion and shastras.
So, I would like to ask Pancharatna Prabhu: where has this rule has come from? Who has established this rule? What is the source of this rule and how would you respond if I challenge you that this rule is wrong? Did Srila Prabhupada himself present this rule in his recorded teachings? If so, please provide the evidence to prove this contention of yours!
As per Srila Prabhupada, shastras and tradition, that which is stated by a devotee or even an acharya, but is not in accordance with shastras or tradition has not to be taken as a source of dharma (action to be followed by us), even though such statements may be coming from great authorities or even from the Lord Himself. Lord Buddha is one such example, Arjuna not following Krishna’s order to kill Asvatthama is another. This is explained in commentaries by our acharyas to Srimad Bhagavatam 10.33.31.
[Note here by Basu Ghosh Das: similarly one must reject the advice of one’s own guru if it goes against the Lord, as Bali Maharaj rejected the advice of Shukaracharya.Here is what Prabhupada wrote in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 8.20.1 in this regard:
Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura remarks that Bali Maharaja remained silent at a critical point. How could he disobey the instruction of Shukracharya, his spiritual master? It is the duty of such a sober personality as Bali Maharaja to abide by the orders of his spiritual master immediately, as his spiritual master had advised. But Bali Maharaja also considered that Shukracharya was no longer to be accepted as a spiritual master, for he had deviated from the duty of a spiritual master].
The reason is that even great personalities have to sometimes tell or do things which are not in accordance with shastras and tradition, because circumstances demand so.
For example, Narada Muni had to glorify Hiranyakasipu, Bhisma had to keep quiet while Draupadi was being disrobed, etc.
But because these actions and statements are not as per shastras and tradition they are not followed by followers of vedic dharma, and thus dharma is saved/protected. In this manner we are able to even see what are asura-vimohana-lilas. Srimad Bhagavatam 10.33.31 says that if one doesn’t consider like this and imitates, then one is unintelligent (foolish).
Here are pertinent conclusions that arise from this discussion:
* Within Srila Prabhupada’s books, letters, lectures, or conversations, any statement of Srila Prabhupada’s that is in line with shastras and tradition, ought to be given the foremost importance, force, or priority. My contention is that this is how we should understand what Srila Prabhupada taught.
* Other statements of Srila Prabhupada’s have to be interpreted in favor of this understanding.
Regarding the equality of men and women, equality is not there in the spiritual world also. Equality, when it is said and done, is just to make the point that we are all “eternal spirit souls” and thus servants of Lord Krishna. But then we all have our own svarupas and they are all different from each other; some have male forms, some have female forms, animal forms, trees, rivers, etc., in the Vaikunthalokas or in Krishnaloka.
Trying to take the word equality and to equate it with equal duties is a kind of Mayavada which tries to make everything one and thus destroy variegatedness.
Thank you for your consideration of the above points,
Your servant,
Damodar Das [BVKS]
Letter by Pancharatna Dasa:
Editor’s note: This letter is a response to “My response to your comments on Abhiram Prabhu’s article”.
Dandavat pranams. Srila Prabhupada kijaya.
First, I thank you for your lengthy response, and I apologize that I cannot elaborate as much as you have. I also thank you for considering me your friend even though we disagree. I believe that, somehow or other we have to learn to argue and debate while maintaining respect and friendship as one family by the grace of Srila Prabhupada.
I’m going to respond only to some of what you said due to a lack of time on my part. To make it easier, I am extracting those sections that I’m responding to and leaving the others.
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.
My choice is based on honoring the frequent distinction that Srila Prabhupada made between his female disciples and women in general:
*“These women are not ordinary women. They are preachers. They are Vaishnavas. By their association one becomes a Vaishnava.” (Srila Prabhupada, morning walk, March 27, 1974)*
I believe that the term Vaishnavi honors both the spiritual equality and the difference between men and women devotees. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada used the term Vaishnava to indicate devotees of both genders, so I can also see the value of simply saying female diksa guru.
And, I do believe that there is fundamental spiritual equality between ISKCON men and women and that ISKCON women can be and often are just as spiritually advanced as ISKCON 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.”
This and the quotation you have offered regarding Suniti and Dhruva can be interpreted in various ways. Personally, I always seek to find a way to understand things holistically so that it all comes together.
Thus, this particular quotation can be interpreted that Madhavi devi, being a woman, could only half associate with Mahaprabhu, whereas the others could be with Him 24 hours a day. So, if your point is that there must be some gender discrimination when it comes to male-female interaction than I agree.
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.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. I believe most devotees in favor of female devotees (Vaishnavis) initiating agree that some gender discrimination is required in a healthy society. In particular, there is the special right of women to be protected. And, as I believe you’ve pointed out later, as a general rule, women should ideally be supported as dependents and not, by force or by choice, have to compete with men in material society. Unfortunately, achieving this ideal remains a challenge on account of so many factors.
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.
I don’t deny any other statements. I simply have a different interpretation than you do.
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.
I cannot agree that the term “sastric injunctions” necessarily means for all time. There are many examples of sastric injunctions which are only applicable according to certain ages.
But in this case, I agree that the statement “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.” is applicable now.
However, there are numerous ways to interpret Suniti’s disqualification:
1) mothers do not initiate their children
2) women do not initiate ksatriyas
3) women in the satya yuga do not initiate
4) it is a general statement not an absolute one
etc.
Since we know that Jahnava devi and other Vaishnavis have initiated disciples, then we have the problem of reconciling this statement with that fact. This is where different interpretations come into play.
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!
Here we get to what I believe is the essence of our problem – hermeneutics “the theory and methodology of interpretation,”.
When I wrote that Ihe conversations with Prof O’Connell and Atreya Rsi prabhu should be given the most weight I mean that I believe we should take these very explicitly direct responses to a direct question as the guideline for interpreting other statements that are relevant but are not direct responses to a question.
Also, taking guidance from Yudhisthira’s statement: dharmasya tattva∞ nihita∞ guh†y†∞ mah†jano yena gata¶ sa panth†¶
I believe that Srila Prabhupada’s direct response should be given the most weight.
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! >
Of course you have a right to your opinion. But how to interpret “what Srila Prabhupada taught” is exactly what is in contention. I have quoted two explicit responses to the question of whether women devotees can initiate. And there are others, quoted in the SAC paper that support the principle that women devotees can initiate, But , there is this one statement regarding Suniti that appears to say that her being a women disqualified her to initiate. So we need some way to reconcile these.two statements.I have offered some possible interpretations of the Suniti statement that do this.
What are your interpretations of Srila Prabhupada’s answer to Atreya Rsi and Prof O’Connell on the topic?
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.
Again interpretation is needed as we have to reconcile this with Srila Prabhupada’s instructions below.
–quote–
Prabhupada: If one can remain without marriage, that is the first class.
Rupanuga: Women also?
Prabhupada: Women also. What is the use of this material husband? Make Krishna husband. Krishna’s prepared to become everything – love Him as husband, love Him as son, love Him as friend. (Room conversation, July 6, 1976, Washington, DC)
–end–
and
-quote–
If one becomes Krishna conscious, then he [she] doesn’t require husband. He [she] does not require. He … She knows that ‘Krishna is my protector. Why shall I artificially seek after father or …?’ And what protection for a few days either the father or the son or the husband may give? Real protection is Krishna. (Room conversation, January 7, 1977, Bombay)
–end–
And there are many instances of how he engaged his female disciples that indicate that being under the shelter of one’s guru meets the criteria for not being independent.
I believe that Srila Prabhupada is giving us a nuanced view of what it means for a Vaishnavi not to be independent.
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.
I am not ignoring them. I’m trying to understand them through the lens of all of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions both written, verbal and by practical example.
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. >
I, for one, accept that women in general should be provided for by men as their dependents. However, how this works is again a matter of interpretation. I believe that qualified women are capable of living simply under the shelter of Sri Krishna, as Srila Prabhupada pointed out above.
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.
Another statement needing interpretation. What kind of authority is he speaking of? The authority to instruct someone on the science of Krishna is not limited to men.
Also, women are natural authorities in the family, particularly for their children. So, I question whether this is a blanket statement. It needs elucidation by looking at its context and other dimensions, IMO
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.”
This verse must be taken together with the verse that follows which says:
kim apy atrabhijayante yoginah sarva-yonisu
pratyaksitatma-nathanam naisam cintyam kuladikam (44)
“But, because yogis who are on the stage of pratyaksitatma-nathanam , may take birth in any family tradition, in such cases no consideration of kula, gender, etc. as mentioned earlier apply” [translation from Damodar, I believe]
So here we must interpret what ” pratyaksitatma-nathanam” means. And we must interpret whether this applies to all persons with lower births (like us mlecchas). To reconcile this with the statement – kiba vipra, kiba nyasi, sudra kene naya yei krsna-tattva-vetta, sei ‘guru’ haya – I believe we must interpret ” pratyaksitatma-nathanam” to mean ” krsna-tattva-vetta”.
Also, whichever way we interpret it, even to the extent that it indicates only the most advanced maha-bhagavata devotee then there is the question who is the judge? Our system of guru-disciple relationship is that there is mutual testing between the two. So, is it not up to the disciple to judge if their guru is on this platform?
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.
One can just as easily say that if Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas did NOT want women to be guru they would have taught us “time and again”. The vast majority of statements regarding who can be guru are gender neutral.
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.
In this case there are numerous statements that support the principle that one must receive mantra initiation from a living guru.
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.
Here is the underlying issue. We have failed to go deeply into the topic of stri-dharma and establish a comprehensive understanding of where men and women in ISKCON should have equal rights and where they should be different. I believe that Srila Prabhupada taught and encouraged both equal rights and roles on the basis of spiritual equality and different rights and roles on the basis of material inequality. However, in my opinion, there is much work to be done to understand where to apply spiritual equality and where and how to adjust roles for women in our society according to their material inequality.
I believe that the role of initiating guru is a spiritual role that should not be absolutely constrained by one’s material situation. But, I also understand that there could be many material situations for both men and women that must be considered when establishing a guru disciple relationship.
For example, perhaps sannyasis or brahmacaris should not accept young, unmarried women as their disciples. This might be a better engagement for mature grihasthas or vanaprasthas, male or female.
At the same time, in the absence of any direct instructions on this, I believe the best we can do is to come up with good guidelines and leave it up to the individuals to decide for themselves what is appropriate.
I’m going to skip ahead, as I don’t have time to go .point by point on what you have written. suffice it to say that I agree with you that we have not found deep understanding in our Society of the roles of women and we should be giving this much more attention.
The conclusion is this. Introducing female diksha gurus is not in consonance with vaishnava tradition, nor in consonance with varnashram dharma.
Obviously, we differ on this conclusion What to do?
Srila Prabhupada clearly wrote that a woman cannot be a diksha guru, as pointed out herein above.
I assume you mean the one Suniti quotation. But we also have recordings where he clearly said that they could.
Women ought to be satisfied being shiksha guru – which Srila Prabhupada pointed out is “non-differnt’ from diksha guru! >
And, generally the siksa guru becomes the diksa guru. So, what does the siksa disciple of a Vaishnavi do having developed the siksa relationship? Does she or he simply take diksa from someone else as a formality? What is your opinion on this?
Your next section deals with the societal roles:
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.
You include leadership services in ISKCON the same category as those in general society. I’m not convinced that this is correct. But I believe we should go deeper on this issue.
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?
Maybe. Maybe not. We need to go deeper, in my opinion. That he didn’t do something doesn’t mean it absolutely shouldn’t be done.
And, in any case, accepting disciples is not(or should not be), in my opinion, an official ISKCON position. But that is another discussion.
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!
Srila Prabhupada encouraged his female disciples to be public persons and go out and preach. He was able to reconcile both the quality of shyness in ladies and the service to the mission.
“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.
And there are many quotes and examples from Srila Prabhupada’s interactions with his female disciples that indicate a different perspective for Vaishnavis than a simple feminist/anti-feminist dichotomy.
I disagree with your labels of “egalitarian/feminist” . First I question why we should not be egalitarian in the spiritual sphere. And, in respect of feminism, what’s at issue here is not equal rights for men and women across the board as in contemporary feminism. It is a question of which rights are equal and which are different.
I believe that, though you are certainly anti-feminist, you are not a misogynist and in favor of disrespect and oppression of women. Rather I accept that you sincerely want what is best for both men and women to advance spiritually and promote a healthy, happy society for everyone. I hope that you can see that those who disagree with your particular interpretation of how to do this are also sincere.
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…
I won’t speculate why it has not happened. I too wish it would. But will all concerned be willing to give it the time needed to go deeply into every angle, starting with women’s roles in general?
In the late 60’s the Catholic church was faced with many divisive issues. Pope John called for an ecumenical council, which became known as Vatican II. Practically the entire Catholic leadership (over 2500 people) worked for 3 years and produced defining documents or constitutions addressing all these issues and more.
Is it time for an “ISKCON Council”?
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.
I find it very disturbing that this issue could actually create a schism in ISKCON. In our history we have had two major schisms so far:
1) devotees breaking off to form their own maths on account of their allegiance to B.R. Sridhar Maharaj.
2) devotees breaking off on the rtvik issue.
I’m trying to understand how the GBC’s decision on this issue is of the same quality as these situations to the extent that it could force devotees to leave ISKCON on this account. Or, even worse for ISKCON centers to break away from the GBC.
However, if there are such strong feelings about this, then could we somehow allow for two different policies and maintain unity?
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.
I’m not in favor of rescinding the resolution. But, I would support another hold on its implementation if there was a really serious commitment to more work on the issue, going deeper into both women’s roles in general, and the validity of the GBC authorizing anyone, man or women to initiate.
But, if that doesn’t happen, then what? I continue to hope that we can find unity in diversity.
I continue to pray to Srila Prabhupada for his guidance on how to bridge the gap between the understandings of senior devotees. I pray that any elements of conditioning from our past or present, such as an attraction to liberal or conservative views not cloud our ability to appreciate and understand others points of view.
Where do we go from here? Is it possible that both views can be right? Or must one be right and one wrong? Or is there a third way yet to be articulated? We all want to serve Srila Prabhupada and his mission, but we differ on how. Must one view prevail or can we accommodate more than one and how?
I believe this was the spirit of the GBC resolution, to try to accommodate both views. But it hasn’t worked. I pray for our GBC to find the best way forward.
1 Comment