ISKCON Global Minister for Sannyas, and GBC member Prahladananda Swami also responded to Madan Mohan Das’s essay

Dear Madan Mohan prabhu,

Please accept my greeting and the blessings of Lord Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Thank you for your essay.

However, I think that to support your position you are taking support from elements that are not in line with either Srila Prabhupada or his spiritual master. Srila Prabhupada being the founder Acarya of ISKCON we should see through his eyes rather than others.

For instance, you give examples of teachers such as babajis from Radhakunda (Ananta dasa babaji and Haridasa Sastri) who clearly declare that the line of disciples succession from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati is invalid. At least I know that Haridasa Sastri’s followers actively preach against ISKCON and our acharyas.

When you quote from Bhaktivinoda Thakur you are entering into a realm of perspective. There is much controversy surrounding Bhaktivinoda and his relationship with his initiating spiritual master. Bepin Bihari represents one of the lines of the Goswami families whose philosophy differs in many respects from our line, especially concerning how the parampara goes on. Goswami’s line is often by birth rather than spiritual realization. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura declared our parampara by realization rather than birth. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura did not see Bepin Bihari in the same way that Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes about Bepin Bihari at the time he wrote what you quoted. Whatever Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s personal relationship was with Bepin Bihari, all of Bepin Bihari’s teachings and the relevance and the example of his parampara to ISKCON were not accepted by either Srila Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura.

Rather than brining in other opinions outside of Srila Prabhupada’s, I think it would be better for a discussion within ISKCON to directly show by Srila Prabhupada’s teaching how your views are consistent with his.

For instance, Srila Prabhupada clearly says that because Suniti was a woman should could not be Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa guru. 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. (SB 4.12.32)

Now this is consistent with what Srila Prabhupada did and said in his practical management and stated instructions.

1. He stated repeatedly that unless fully liberated, women should not become leaders*
2. He didn’t appoint any women GBCs or rtviks etc. **
3. He points out that Jahnava although recognized as an Acarya did not “manifest herself” Nor did women such as queen Kunti or Sita devi take roles of leadership although highly exalted spiritually.*

4. Bhagavad-Gita and our acharyas say that as long as one is conditioned one should follow one’s duty according to one’s conditioned nature and at the same time develop a full sense of Krishna consciousness. (Bg 3.35)

5. Srila Prabhupada and our shastras give the role of women who are conditioned as being under protection, which is not compatible with being a “guru-asraya”, a controller, women leading over men.*.

Perhaps you could show from Srila Prabhupada’s teaching and instructions:

1. Where he says that women could become diksa gurus or even independent leaders. There is the letter from 1969 to Hansdutta, which says that he wants all his sons and daughters to become gurus, but later he mentions more fully to professor O’Connell what the qualifications of a woman should be.

2. Can a woman even take sannyasa which is just a spiritual master one the material platform of the varnas and ashramas?

3. Show that one who is conditioned by material nature can take the position of a liberated soul without the deviation of imitating?*

After describing the material energy, bhumir apo analo vayuh [Bg. 7.4], earth, water, air, fire, this material… This is also female, prakrti. Female means… We have got…, in India we have got little experience: the female is always controlled. Female is never given the position of controller. Nowadays it is going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has given the position of controller. This is artificial. In the history of India, greater India, Mahabharata, you will never find that a woman has been given the position of controller. No. It is not possible.(Bhagavad-gita 1.21–22 — July 18, 1973, London)

Hrdayananda: These women leaders are not doing so well. Also, in South America there was a woman leader, and she also was put in jail.

Prabhupada: In the history of India there is no woman leader. Throughout Mahabharata you’ll find… Mahabharata is the greater history, history of greater India. Maha means “greater,” and bharata. So “Greater Bharata.” That means this whole planet. So you won’t find woman leader.
(Prabhupada’s conversation at Bombay on March 24, 1977).**

e.g. Tamal Krishna Maharaja mentions that he would have appointed Yamuna dasi as a GBC if she was not a woman.*

It means that generally the female population is greater than the man and if we want at the, if the father has the responsibility then the girl as soon as she attains puberty before attaining puberty the father must find out a husband and give her in charge of the husband. So long she is, I mean to say, very young she is under the care of father and as soon as she attains youth, when sex appetite is very strong she must be given in charge of her husband and when she is old she must be taken care of by the grown-up children. For women three stages but they are always dependent, na striyam svatantratam arhati, that is the injunction of the Manu-samhita. Women should not have independence they should be protected.

And still we see in India women under the protection either by the father or by the husband or by sons they remain very happily. Even Kunti she was dependent on her five sons the Pandavas, mother of Arjuna. She was not ordinary woman, she had so many qualifications but still she was dependent on the sons. They lost their kingdom, they were banished the five Pandavas. Kunti was not banished but because she was dependent on sons she also went with the sons.

Sitaji, Sitaji, Ramacandra was ordered by his father to go to the forest but she was not ordered, Sita, she was kings daughter and kings wife so why she accepted all the tribulation of the husband? She also went with Ramacandra and because she went with Ramacandra so many mishaps, there was fight with Ravana if she would not have gone, [laughs] then Ravana would have been saved.

But it is the duty of the wife, husband is going to the forest the wife must go. Although Ramacandra denied that, “you remain, I am going, I am all right”, she said, “no I cannot do it”. This is Vedic culture, ardhangani, wife must remain with the husband always. Half body, wife is half body. And the husband also, I mean to say, leaves wife under the care of the sons when they are grown-up, this is Vedic civilisation. [pause]

(Room Conversation — September 13, 1972, Dallas)

———————————————
Dear Prahladananda Maharaja,

please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

The attached document titled “Guru: The Principle, Not the Body” responds to
arguments against VDG on the basis of isolated and misinterpreted verses from
Bharadvaja-samhita. The document is also available at the following link:
https://tinyurl.com/guru-not-the-body

your servant,
Madana-mohan das