A devotee named Madan Mohan Dasa of Russia recently published a lenghty critique of a book titled Vaisnava Diksa according to Narada Pancharatra, of which I am one of the authors. In it there are many errors, among which are also several misrepresentations of our arguments and intentions. I will deal with these in detail in coming messages, but as a preliminary step, I am presenting here in summary form our rationale and overview of some of our book’s conclusions. (The full book is now available online for free.)
But before I present a summary overview of our book’s intent and purpose, some remarks about the Sastric Advisory Council and one of its late members, Sriman Gopiparanadhana, are in order.
The Sastric Advisory Council’s 2005 paper on female diksa-gurus was co-authored by the late Sriman Gopiparanadhana Prabhu. That he was such a great devotee and scholar is beyond dispute. Prabhu Madan Mohan at the beginning of his paper presents a Sanskrit verse extolling Gopiparanadhana Prabhu as being “among the knowers of the perfect philosophical conclusions of the Vedas”. This and other remarks by Madan Mohan Prabhu seem to suggest that my co-author, Damodara Dasa, and I have no standing to critique whatever Gopiparanadhana Prabhu has had a hand in authoring.
While we can recognize Gopiparanadana Prabhu’s wonderful scholarly contributions to Srila Prabhupada’s mission, along with recognizing his other fine Vaisnava qualities, it is not a transgression of Vaisnava etiquette for juniors to dispute points of siddhanta with seniors. Caitanya Mahaprabhu as Nimai Pandita debated the much senior Keshava Kashmiri and exposed significant flaws in his poetry. Nevertheless, as the Lord pointed out to Keshava Kashmiri, his poetry was nonetheless exquisite and beyond compare, and that mistakes are found even in great poets like Jayadeva Goswami and others. And furthermore, such mistakes do not detract from their greatness.
However, it also bears pointing out that no one’s work in ISKCON after Srila Prabhupada’s is considered to be absolutely above the suspicion of defect–even in great matters. For example, the esteemed Gopiparanadhana Prabhu was also one of the contributors for the Srimad-Bhagavatam translations and commentaries written after the departure of Srila Prabhupada. And while this is itself a great achievement, the authority of the work is not considered to be on the same level with Srila Prabhupada’s. Unlike Srila Prabhupada’s work, it does not have the status of being unquestionable in matters of siddhanta.
In other words, to err is human, and in ISKCON no one other than Srila Prabhupada is considered to be liberated from the four defects of a conditioned soul. Moreover, we were skeptical of several of the statements in the Sastric Advisory Council’s 2005 and 2013 papers on female diksa-gurus. Thus, we undertook a critical review of both papers.
Some results from our review of the SAC’s FDG position papers.
In our review, we noticed this statement in the 2005 paper by the Sastric Advisory Council:
“Under the more recent pañcarātrika system, however, qualified women can accept and offer initiation.”
And in their 2013 paper on female diksa-gurus, the Sastric Advisory Council also said,
“It is noted that while Vedic smṛti-śāstras restrict women from position of spiritual leadership, this limitation might be merely subsequent to the smṛti restriction on women accepting dīkṣā – a
restriction obviously overridden by the pañcarātrika-viddhi followed by Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇavas”
Being skeptical, we decided to verify these statements against the Pancaratra Agamas.
What we found is that in one of the samhitas of Narada-pancaratra, specifically the Bharadvaja-samhita, there are indeed special restrictions where women are concerned.
Thus, the statement from the 2005 paper is only partly correct (it is correct only as an exception to a general rule), and the statement from the 2013 paper is totally incorrect.
How big a mistake was this?
The Shastric Advisory Council is officially an advisory body to the GBC. Like their namesake, they are supposed to advise on shastra. Given their status and mission, this was the kind of mistake that cannot be overlooked.
What Shastra is relevant?
Narada Pancharatra is one of the most important shastras governing our system of intiations. There are other shastras, of course, that inform our practice of pancharatrika-vidhi. But Narada-pancharatra is the specific pancharatra agama we follow in the matter of initiations:
“Vaidika-vidhāna requires that one must be born by a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya. Then he’s eligible for being initiated. But in the Kali-yuga, that is not possible. Therefore the Pāñcarātriki-vidhi is accepted. Nārada-Pañcarātra. Tathā dīkṣā-vidhānena. This dīkṣā-vidhāna, recommended by Sanātana Gosvāmī, means Pāñcarātriki-vidhi.” (Srila Prabhupada, NoD lecture, Oct. 27, 1972, Vrindavan)
And there are other statements of Srila Prabhupada’s that further support this.
Some say that only whatever Srila Prabhupada has quoted from shastra should be allowed as pramanas, no others. They say it would be inappropriate to consult Bharadvaja-samhita. But sometimes there are important questions on issues that Srila Prabhupada did not discuss much, if at all, and some other source is needed to get clear answers.
For example, there is a 1995 handbook published by the GBC titled “Gurus and Initiation in ISKCON”, and therein Srila Narahari Sarakara’s Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita is quoted on what actions a disciple should take if his guru deviates or falls down. This is a topic Srila Prabhupada did not talk about much, and he has never quoted from Sri Krishna Bhajanamrita or even mentioned the book. But this book says clearly what a disciple should do in such cases. Thus, quoting other shastras never quoted by Srila Prabhupada or referenced by him is sometimes appropriate.
Srila Prabhupada mentions Bharadvaja-samhita in his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.31.10 and says that it is one among several shastras that give evidence that “the person of a sudra. . . should immediately be accepted as a brahmana” if the brahminical qualifications are found in him. And because the Bharadvaj-samhita is a part of Narada-pancharatra and explicitly mentions women in its directions on qualification for diksha-guru, its evidence cannot be disregarded.
So, what is Narada-pancharatra?
There is actually no grantha, or book, by that title. There are three or four Pancharatra samhitas that are called Narada-pancharatra because either they are spoken by Narada Muni or have been identified as having been given by Sri Narada.
- Jnanamritasara Samhita
- Jayakhya Samhita
- Bharadvaja Samhita
- Naradiya Samhita (?)
In the case of Bharadvaja-samhita, at the end of the samhita, Bharadvaja Muni says that his guru Narada Muni had given him this knowledge. Hence, Bharadvaj-samhita is called Narada-pancharatra.
So, with regard to the Shastric Advisory Council, they had only 3 or 4 pancharatra shastras (out of hunderds) to search for any references, or lack thereof, with regard to women and qualification for becoming mantra-guru (diksha-guru). This would not have required too much effort.
Had they done this research, they would have avoided making mis-statements about Pancharatrika-vidhi in both their papers.
Why is this a big issue?
The pramana from Bharadvaja-samhita refutes the idea that gender has nothing to do with qualification in order to become diksha-guru. One of the conclusions of the 2005 SAC paper was that there is no difference in qualification between men and women. “there cannot be placed any material prohibition on the post of guru—it is transcendental being based on one’s devotion.” The SAC’s position is that no one can be disqualified from being diksa-guru on account of being female.
When one is perfect in his realization of Krishna, then this is true. Not only does Srila Prabhupada say this, Bharadvaj-samhita (1.44) also says this. But when one’s Krishna-realization is still incomplete (i.e. one is acting as diksha-guru while still at the sadhaka stage), there are other rules that must be followed, and Bharadvaj-samhita gives some of those. Thus the SAC in 2005 and in 2013 incorrectly assumed that no such rules exist, at least with regard to gender.
Why does gender matter with regard to diksa-guru?
There are two important reasons this matters. One has to do with reconciling differing statements of Srila Prabhupada’s with regard to female diksa-gurus. The other has to do with the fact that in ISKCON those acting as diksa-guru are generally still sadhakas and, by definition, are not yet perfect in their own Krishna consciousness.
Reconciling different statements
One is that there are only four statements of Srila Prabhupada’s that directly mention the eligibility of women to be diksha-guru, and they variously affirm, deny or qualify their eligibility.
* Affirms: Jan 3, 1969, letter to Hansadutta
"I want all my sons and daughters to inherit
this title of Bhaktivedanta . . . . Those possessing
the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to
initiate disciples."
* Denies: Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.12.32 purport
"Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically
his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja's
diksa-guru."
* Qualifies: June 29, 1972, Room Conv.
"very special case",
"if a woman is perfect in Krsna consciousness"
* Qualifies: June 18, 1976, Conv. Prof. O'Connell,
"not so many",
"has understood Krsna consciousness perfectly"
Because of the differences between these statements, either expressed or implied, further information is needed to reconcile them. Hence, Bharadvaja-samhita has been put forward as giving evidence that nicely reconciles the primary (literal) meanings (mukhya-vritti) of all of these statements without having to resort to any indirect meanings or added assumptions. (See Bharadvaja-samhita verses 1.42-44)
Some say that besides these four statements there are many other statements by Prabhupada that affirm that women can become diksa-guru, but the statements themselves do not mention women. Those who quote them assume that women are included. But since this is the assumption that is being questioned, they cannot be used as evidence. Some other pramana to justify the assumption is required.
Gurus who are not on the perfectional stage
The second reason, why gender is relevant to qualification for diksa-guru, is the fact that gurus in ISKCON are generally sadhakas. This means that the material energy has some influence on their day-to-day life and service, and this applies generally to ISKCON’s gurus.
In the past, among the class of gurus (what to speak of less-elevated devotees) there have been many fall-downs due to transgressing one or more of the four regulative principles. So, a natural question arises that if the men as diksa-gurus have not done so well, why are we insisting that women must reach the perfectional stage of Krishna consciousness before becoming diksa-guru but men can be less-than-perfect?
This is what makes the female diksha-guru issue a special case of a more general problem: less-than-perfect gurus as the general rule, not the exception. Many in our movement understand that guru must not just be a liberated soul but must be on the topmost platform of devotional service. In a letter to Mukunda dated June 10, 1969, Srila Prabhupada writes,
“Unless one is a resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a spiritual master. That is the first proposition. . . a bona fide spiritual master is never a conditioned soul.”
This is typical of Srila Prabhupada’s description of some of the essential qualifications of a spiritual master. He also discusses less-than-liberated but qualified spiritual masters, but those statements are uncommon. And since they are uncommon, the same sastras can be helpful in helping us resolve other ISKCON issues related to guru-tattva.
But more important, the way in which ISKCON’s members (and the GBC institution specifically) reach a conclusion on the female diksa-guru issue, whatever that conclusion may be, the same methods will certainly be used for other issues. Therefore, it is in everyone’s interest that we establish the proper methods for understanding Srila Prabhupada and sadhu and sastra. That is what makes the female diksa-guru issue so important.
Therefore, we made the following statement in our book Vaisnava-diksa according to Narada Pancaratra:
“This presentation is therefore an attempt to move the different sides of this controversy over female diksa-gurus towards employing more formal exegetical principles in establishing their own positions.”
And that continues to be our purpose.
Om Tat Sat
Krishna Kirti Das