Below is the executive summary of our paper, which is a short, initial response to Sriman Madana Mohana Prabhu’s paper “Guru: The Principle, Not the Body” (2020), which is a response to our book Vaisnava-diksa according to Narada-Pancaratra (2019).

Click here for our full paper.

Your servants,

Krishna-kirti Dasa (BVKS)
Damodara Dasa (BVKS)

Executive Summary

1. FDGs in Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s (BVT’s) diksa line, siddha-pranali and Caste Gosvamis

• BVT made a chart of his own diksa-line coming through Bipin Bihari Gosvami and mentions it is siddha-pranali
• In NoD 16, SP rejects siddha-pranali as a concoction^[1]
  • However, even if siddha-pranali is bona fide, it is not meant for ISKCON because:
  • It is not established and propagated by BVT, SBSST, and SP
  • Siddha-pranali is for raganuga sadhakas while candidates for initiation in ISKCON are on the vaidhi bhakti platform; giving them siddha-pranali will create havoc
  • Thus, ISKCON’s initiation process is pancaratriki not siddha-pranali
  • ISKCON’s initiation process (as established by BVT, SBSST, & SP) is sufficient to take one from sraddha level to prema level; artificial svarupa-siddhi and meditation not needed; Holy Name form etc. automatically reveals when time comes
  • FDGs in BVT’s diksa-line may be justified because a guru in siddha-pranali (if bona fide) needs to be on prema platform; he has to realize siddha-svarupa even of his disciple to tell him about it.
• Articles in Gaudiya suggest that BVT rejected his diksa-line. For instance Gaudiya 4.1, 15 Aug 1925, p.27^[2]

2. SB 4.12.32, The Suniti verse and Purport

• MM contends that SPs statement as to why Suniti not become a diksa-guru is ambiguous. Thus it is descriptive, not prescriptive, (i.e. it doesn’t say “no women can initiate.”)
• The primary meaning of SP’s statement for Suniti not being diksa-guru is: “being a woman” and “specifically his mother.” There is no doubt that Sunti’s being a woman is not ambiguous.
• “Sastric injunctions” are the source of reasons SP mentions. Sastras enjoin two vidhis: Vaidika & Pancaratrika
  • According to Vaidika vidhi women cannot become diksa-guru (SB 1.4.25)
  • According to Pancaratrika-vidhi women cannot become diksa-guru (BS 1.42-43)
  • Thus, according to any vidhi, women could not become diksa-guru
  • Thus, Suniti could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru.
• Thus, you don’t need to speculate that there are any other reasons.
• Still if you say that the description of Suniti’s not becoming diksa-guru is not prescription that “no women can initiate,” this is an argument of the karma-mimamsakas, whose argument was defeated by Baladeva Vidyabhusana (Govinda Bhasya, 1.1.1.3).
  • Baladeva’s Argument: if a poor man is told of a hidden treasure in his house and its location, he is greatly benefited by that description alone. The description itself is motivation for action.

3. Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā (BS) 1.42 prohibits diksa-gurus who are born śūdra, so ISKCON’s gurus are not bona fide

• MM’s objection to BS as an authority is that, based on a literal reading, he says BS judges varna by birth.
• However, SP says (SB 4.31.10, purport) that BS judges varna by quality, not birth.
• Scriptures like BS and Manu-smriti appear to judge a person’s varna by birth, but it is actually by quality.
  • SBSST in his famous “Brahmana O Vaisnava”, Prakritijana Kanda, explains how this is so:
  • When shastras mention varna by birth, it is taken for granted that the samskaras are in place.
  • When the samskaras are in place, starting with garbhādhāna samskara, birth reflects actual quality
  • But when the samskaras are not in place, like in Kali-yuga, then birth does not reflect actual quality.
  • Whether samskaras are in place or not, quality alone is always the criterion for judging varna.
• MM’s idea seems to be that any scripture that mentions varna based on birth is to be rejected
• But by MM’s procedure, SB, BG and many other scriptures are also rejected.
  • For instance, SB 7.11.13 mentions varna by birth (janma-karma-avadatanam…)
• Thus, conclusion is that BS prohibition is applicable on those who have quality of sudras and lower, not ISKCON gurus who may have born in less-than-sudra families but who have qualities of brahmana

4. MM’s word Jugglery on “Not So Many”

• MM spends 25 pages giving creative explanations for the phrases “not so many”, “very special case” and “very rare.”

5. Are we accusing SP of being Inconsistent?

• MM accuses that we “have accused Srila Prabhupada of inconsistency just as Vallabhacharya accused Sridhara Svami of inconsistency.”
• Contrary to what MM claims, we say in our book that “Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā in fact enhances the position of Śrīla Prabhupāda as a staunch representative of the śāstras.”
• Vallabhacharya’s criticism of Sridhara Svami was to show how he was not in line with shastra.
• Our harmonization shows how all of Srila Prabhupada’s differing statements on FDG are actually consistent and strictly in accordance with shastra.

6. Are we calling ourselves Acharyas?

• MM says, “you in effect attempt to establish yourself as an ācārya in the matter of initiations — on par with Śrīla Prabhupāda, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura.”
• MM’s argument applies to any book in ISKCON that explains sastra:
  • No one in ISKCON is on the level of SP, SBSST and BVT.
  • This means all books that explain shastra published by ISKCON devotees are not bona fide.
  • All SB purports that were written after SP’s departure are not bona fide.
• Truth is that one should not write books and explanations of sastras by one’s own accord without the order and permission of one’s gurus, and without strictly following their instructions
• We have researched and written this book on the order of senior leader disciples of SP, like HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami, HG Basughosa Prabhu, etc. and by their blessings.
• Whatever conclusion the GBC reaches on this matter, it is SP’s instruction that it must be corroborated not only with his words but also with sadhu and shastra.
• SAC failed to do so in its 2005 and 2013 papers and resorted to speculation.

^[1] “The siddha-pranali process is followed by a class of men … who have manufactured their own way of devotional service.”

^[2] Following the above scriptural injunction … that one should give up a guru who is inimical to Vaiṣṇavas… Śrīmad Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura became indifferent to bad association (asat-saṅga) with a sense gratifier and took shelter of Śrī Jagannātha Dāsa Bābājī, a great personality, the leader among paramahaṁsas.