Basu Ghosh Das answers questions on Female Diksha Gurus

Question no. 1. There is a hermenuetical disagreement in our ranks over the question of women giving spiritual initiation in ISKCON. (Pro-VDGs and Anti-FDGs for this discussion)

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Let’s get this straight – so we are “on the same page”, here is the dictionary definition of “hermeneutic”:

hermeneutic | ˌhərməˈn(y)o͞odik | adjective concerning interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts. noun a method or theory of interpretation.
========================

Our point is clear. There ought NOT be interpretation. Prabhupada clearly told the devotees at Los Angeles in his lecture on Sept 22, 1972, “Therefore initiation, brahminical symbolic representation, is given to the man, not to the woman.”What is there here that needs interpretation?”initiation, brahminical symbolic representation” = “yajnopavita samskara” – the sacred thread – “brahminical initiation”.

There is no history in our sampradaya, in any of the other vaishnava sampradayas, amongst even the un-bonafide the caste goswamis, of women being given the sacred thread, aka “brahminical symbolic representation”.Again: from CC Madhya 8. 128:”Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura therefore introduced the sacred thread ceremony for all Vaiṣṇavas according to the rules and regulations.”

Yet, neither SBSST nor our Srila Prabhupada gave the sacred thread to women.What is so difficult to understand here? There is no need of hermeneutics here to understand what was clearly stated, what Prabhupada and his guru did not do – give women the sacred thread.Just as women are not given sannyas. The following purport proves that Prabhupada propagated a system that already existed regarding the role of women in society. The pro-FDG argument wants to change that concept, and that contradicts what both vedic shastras teach, that Prabhupada taught as well. Remember, Prabhupada often said that he is just a messenger, that has not invented anything, but delivering “sanaatan” (eternal) dharma (vedic religious principles) – without change!

SB 3.24.40 Srimad-Bhagavatam – Third Canto – Chapter 24: The Renunciation of Kardama Muni

TEXT 40

मात्र आध्यात्मिकीं विद्यां शमनीं सर्वकर्मणाम् ।
वितरिष्ये यया चासौ भयं चातितरिष्यति ॥ ४० ॥

mātra ādhyātmikīṁ vidyāṁ śamanīṁ sarva-karmaṇām
vitariṣye yayā cāsau bhayaṁ cātitariṣyati

Padapathaha
mātre—to My mother; ādhyātmikīm—which opens the door of spiritual life; vidyām—knowledge; śamanīm—ending; sarva-karmaṇām—all fruitive activities; vitariṣye—I shall give; yayā—by which; ca—also; asau—she; bhayam—fear; ca—also; atitariṣyati—will overcome.

TRANSLATION
I shall also describe this sublime knowledge, which is the door to spiritual life, to My mother, so that she also can attain perfection and self-realization, ending all reactions to fruitive activities. Thus she also will be freed from all material fear.

PURPORT
Kardama Muni was anxious about his good wife, Devahūti, while leaving home, and so the worthy son promised that not only would Kardama Muni be freed from the material entanglement, but Devahūti would also be freed by receiving instruction from her son. A very good example is set here: the husband goes away, taking the sannyāsa order for self-realization, but his representative, the son, who is equally educated, remains at home to deliver the mother. A sannyāsī is not supposed to take his wife with him. At the vānaprastha stage of retired life, or the stage midway between householder life and renounced life, one may keep his wife as an assistant without sex relations, but in the sannyāsa order of life one cannot keep his wife with him. Otherwise, a person like Kardama Muni could have kept his wife with him, and there would have been no hindrance to his prosecution of self-realization.
Kardama Muni followed the Vedic injunction that no one in sannyāsa life can have any kind of relationship with women. But what is the position of a woman who is left by her husband? She is entrusted to the son, and the son promises that he will deliver his mother from entanglement. A woman is not supposed to take sannyāsa. So-called spiritual societies concocted in modern times give sannyāsa even to women, although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman’s accepting sannyāsa. Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his wife and given her sannyāsa. The woman must remain at home. She has only three stages of life: dependency on the father in childhood, dependency on the husband in youth and, in old age, dependency on the grown-up son, such as Kapila. In old age the progress of woman depends on the grown-up son. The ideal son, Kapila Muni, is assuring His father of the deliverance of His mother so that His father may go peacefully without anxiety for his good wife.
================================

Those who are in favor of female diksha gurus – and remember, women are already pathapradarshaka and shiksha gurus (it is informal), want ISKCON to become a “so-called spiritual society”, because introducing female diksha gurus has no sanction is vedic shastras, just as sannyas for women does not!
“So-called spiritual societies concocted in modern times give sannyāsa even to women, although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman’s accepting sannyāsa. Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his wife and given her sannyāsa.”
Until those who are pro-FDG, either in the sabha, GBC, or XYZ, can show where in vedic shastras it is sanctioned, they have no basis to promote the idea.

This is not a question of a petition signed by 1,500 obviously ignorant “devotees”, or a question of obtaining a majority vote in the GBC. A majority vote by the GBC cannot change the teachings of vedic literature. This so-called majority, and the so-called leadership that adopts any ideology that contradicts the clear teachings of vedic literature and our acharyas, is spiritually bankrupt!

Just as Prabhupada never outlined a “ritivik system of initiation”, in any of his purports, lectures, conversations, and letters, he DID NOT instruct that ISKCON institute female diksha gurus, precisely because it is NOT a system taught in vedic literatures. Hence authorizing female diksha gurus is the same as authorizing “ritvik initiation”. It is NOT bona fide. It is a concoction, having no basis in vedic literature, or our guru parampara.

 

---

 

Question 2. The GBC has voted (16 to 9) in favor of allowing regional ISKCON leadership bodies to decide the issue in their areas.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

That is their foolishness. See the above logic and reasoning as to why.

 

---

 

Question 3. Pro-VDGs are in agreement with this decision, as regional bodies have been advocating for years that it is essential for evangelical work in their areas. They have no objection if Anti-FDGs decide differently elsewhere.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Anti-FDGs cannot agree to this arrangement because FDG is a concoction with no basis in vedic literature or vaishnva tradition. See the same argument presented above in answer to question no. 1, for the detailed explanation.

 

---

 

Question 4. Anti-FDGs have pressured the GBC with threats to separate from ISKCON over the issue if female initating gurus are allowed anywhere, including in areas where Pro-VDGs have found that having at least some is essential.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

The fact of the matter is that the pro-FDG GBC resolution is an imposition forced on India – and the rest of the world, despite our calling for a dialogue in a resolution sent to the GBC during February 2019. The GBC ignored that call, and went ahead and passed this un bonafide resolution sanctioning FDGs.

 

---

 

Question 5. Anti-FDGs assert that ISKCON members initiated by female gurus elsewhere in the world will go to their areas and contaminate their culture. They assert that allowing FDGs will lead to social decay and compromise of the Founder/Acharya’s principles. They have presented no evidence for either claim.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Instituting anything that is not taught in vedic literature is a deviation from vedic culture and religion and ignores Prabhupada’s MANY instructions in this regard. It also contradicts what Lord Krishna taught Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita 16.23.

 

---

 

Question 6. Pro-VDGs assert that by repressing the GBC decision the Anti-FDGs are disallowing them from ministering to those in cultures who do not accept gender discrimination, especially in developed Western countries. The dramatically reduced participation of such people is evident and widely recognized in ISKCON.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Prabhupada was an opponent of so-called women’s liberation and equality in gender roles in society. Numerous statements of his – to press reporters, what to speak of his disciples – proves this. Now, a so-called majority wants to dilute – put water in the milk – of what Prabhupada taught and what vedic literature teaches should be the role of women in society.

Prabhupada did not appoint even ONE – ONE – ONE – woman , as TP, GBC, BBT/MVT/property trustee. When asked what role women should play in society, he advocated householder life, where women look after children, and take care of cows!

As far as leadership roles in society for women, Prabhupada’s comment – and there are other similar comments – in this purport of SB, he wrote, “most regrettable” and “most unfortunate”! I don’t think we owe any apology to women in ISKCON in this regard. They want to remove these concepts from ISKCON. Doing so makes ISKCON into another “so-called spiritual society” and, “asaar” – useless, just as three of Advaita Acharya’s sons are described in Chaitanya Charitamrita. If an Avatar of Mahavishnu’s children could become useless – asaar – then what to speak of those who wish to change what Srila Prabhupada and vedic literature teach!

ŚB 4.16.23
विस्फूर्जयन्नाजगवं धनु: स्वयंयदाचरत्क्ष्मामविषह्यमाजौ । तदा निलिल्युर्दिशि दिश्यसन्तोलाङ्गूलमुद्यम्य यथा मृगेन्द्र: ॥ २३ ॥
visphūrjayann āja-gavaṁ dhanuḥ svayaṁ
yadācarat kṣmām aviṣahyam ājau
tadā nililyur diśi diśy asanto
lāṅgūlam udyamya yathā mṛgendraḥ
visphūrjayan — vibrating; āja-gavam — made of the horns of goats and bulls; dhanuḥ — his bow; svayam — personally; yadā — when; acarat — will travel; kṣmām — on the earth; aviṣahyam — irresistible; ājau — in battle; tadā — at that time; nililyuḥ — will hide themselves; diśi diśi — in all directions; asantaḥ — demoniac men; lāṅgūlam — tail; udyamya — keeping high; yathā — as; mṛgendraḥ — the lion.
Translation
When the lion travels in the forest with its tail turned upward, all menial animals hide themselves. Similarly, when King Pṛthu will travel over his kingdom and vibrate the string of his bow, which is made of the horns of goats and bulls and is irresistible in battle, all demoniac rogues and thieves will hide themselves in all directions.
Purport
It is very appropriate to compare a powerful king like Pṛthu to a lion. In India, kṣatriya kings are still called siṅgh, 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.

 

---

 

Question 7. Pro-VDGs assert that the GBC resolution is fair and will sustain the international composition of ISKCON indicated by its very name and the clearly stated intentions of its Founder/Acharya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Their assertion is useless nonsense – as they are. They have fallen into the lap of maya – daivi hy esha guna mayi mama maya duratyaya, by proposing that we ignore the teachings of vedic literature and Prabhupada. They are bewildered, and are doing a good job of bewildering western devotees who were born in mleccha and yavanas families – as I was – who had no vedic training in their childhood.

Some of these “devotees” propagate that women should be only addressed as “prabhu”, when “prabhu” is masculine, meant ONLY for males! “Prabhvi” is the feminine form of the Samskrita word “prabhu”, and is meant for females. Prabhupada time and again, quoting Chanakya Pandit – who he recognized as a vedic authority – instructed that men address all women other than their own wife as “mother” – mata, mataji, maa, (Amma in South India – comes from Samskrita “Amba” – mother). Even small children in South India are addressed as Amma! Prabhupada told us – I was amongst – his small group of disciples on the railway platform at Nellore, on January 3, 1976, “Vedic culture is more intact in South India”.

The pro-FDG group has “fallen down” from the teachings of Prabhupada and vedic culture, and adopted non-vedic teachings, akin to the Buddhists and Jain(a)s. Gender equality – egalitarianism – is NOT the teachings of vedic literature and Prabhupada. I suggest those who do not agree with Prabhupada and the teachings of vedic literature, well, up and leave ISKCON, and go somewhere, to one of the “so-called spiritual societies” mentioned by Prabhupada in the above quoted purport from the Bhagavatam so they can have their concocted concepts without opposition.

Kindly understand that I do not stand alone. The ISKCON India temple presidents voted overwhelmingly to oppose this nonsensical deviation. The ISKCON India Governing Bureau passed a strongly worded resolution, calling on the GBC to rescind their authorization of FDG. There was no threat in that resolution to split from ISKCON. Rather, the opposite is true, I feel. The GBC has no authority to change what Prabhupada taught, and by forcing such a change, they are the ones causing a schism within ISKCON!

 

---

 

Question 8. Pro-VDGs have submitted to the GBC a petition representing 1500 member signatories from 37 countries supporting the said GBC resolution. Anti-FDGs have managed to represent only India in any significant way.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

See my comments, above. Also see SB 5.19.21, to understand the importance and special status of India.

 

---

 

Question 9. Anti-FDG leaders generally acknowledge that for the past 40 years they have had virtually no experience bringing people from non-gender discriminatory cultures to ISKCON.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

This is a false statement. Wrong. Nonsense. ISKCON India anti-FDG leaders have plenty of experience preaching outside of India. This is rubbish. Stating this is the “give the dog a bad name and hang him” mentality of those who want our society to become degraded and non-vedic.

 

---

 

Answering objections received by email

Question 10:

[Objection] According to Srila Prabhupada:

1. There are many instances in which a born brahmana took initiation from a person who was not born in a brahmana family. The brahminical symptoms are explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam (7.11.35) <https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/7/11/35/>, wherein it is stated:

*yasya yal-laksanam proktam pumso varnabhivyanjakamyad anyatrapi drsyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiset*

If a person is born in a sudra family but has all the qualities of a spiritual master, he should be accepted not only as a brahmana but as a qualified spiritual master also. This is also the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura therefore introduced the sacred thread ceremony for all Vaisnavas according to the rules and regulations.

This is from Srila Prabhupada’s purport to Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya-lila 8.128

The point is that Prabhupada, and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta did NOT give the sacred thread to women. This is a historical fact. When Prabhupada wrote, herein above, “all Vaishnavas”, why then did he NOT give the women the thread, despite giving them the mantras and “second initiation”?

Srila Prabhupada spoke about ‘2 paisa brahmans’ who wore threads but did not have brahminical qualities. Srila Prabhupada gave Gayatri mantra to his female disciples and engaged them in brahminical services such as Deity worship and preaching. Obviously, to Srila Prabhupada, as far as his Vaishnavi disciples being brahmanas, the mantra and qualifications were far more important than the thread. Basu Ghosh Prabhu, for his own reasons, thinks he knows better.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Prabhupada clearly – asked these objectors to hear the audio – said in the quote from the class at LA “Therefore initiation, brahminical symbolic representation, is given to the man, not to the woman. This is the theory.”

The fact remains that while we all know that Prabhupada did give the gayatri mantra to women and had them worship the Deities – outside of India – HE DID NOT GIVE THEM THE THREAD.

Neither did Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati.

Neither do women in any of the caste goswami sects, i.e. Gaudiya, Vallabh, Swaminarayan, or in Ramauja, Madhva, etc., get the thread.

How to understand this? The best I can do is that giving women mantras and allowing them to worship the Deities – which they do in India at home, but not in temples – was a “time and circumstance” arrangement.

There are two logics for his having done so:

1. The movement was in a nascent stage and he was unsure if there would be enough men to do those services outside of India.

2. He indulged in “appeasement” of his female disciples who were upset – as we read in recorded history of the time – that only men – as per shastras and tradition, were receiving the second initiation, but them themselves.

Prabhupada made certain “adjustements” in the movement in its nascent era, but he maintained many core principles. For examples, vedic dress – separate for male and female (equality in dress will also be coming if the egalitarian mentality is allowed to continue to the Nth degree) – tilak, diet, etc.

What Prabhupada spoke in the September 22, 1972 lecture is undeniable. It is corroborated by the historical fact that HE DID NOT GIVE WOMEN THE SACRED THREAD. Even after writing that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta – who too DID NOT GIVE THE SACRED THREAD TO WOMEN – “introduced the sacred thread for ALL [caps by myself] vaishnavas”.

So, it is disingenuous – at the very least – to attribute what Prabhupada said in 1972 – before I joined ISKCON – to myself!

 

---

 

Question 11:

[Objection] 2. Woman, they are generally equipped with the qualities of passion and ignorance. And man also may be, but man can be elevated to the platform of goodness. Woman cannot be. Woman cannot be. Therefore if the husband is nice and the woman follows—woman becomes faithful and chaste to the husband—then their both life becomes successful. There are three qualities of nature = sattva, raja, tama. So rajas-tama, generally, that is the quality of woman. And man can become to the platform of goodness. Therefore initiation, brahminical symbolic representation, is given to the man, not to the woman. This is the theory.

This last sentence is key. Prabhupada said in his lecture: “this is the theory” – meaning it is a principle! “Not to the woman” is clear. Of course, those who don’t want to accept this have made a milion excuses why not to!

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

In which dictionary does Prabhuji find that ‘theory=principle’?

Indian English dictionary. Do you think that Prabhupada was “inventing” a new concept?

Does he thus believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is actually the
principle of evolution?

Irrelevant. Diversionary tactic. Example of obfuscation by changing the subject.

 

---

 

Question 12:

[Objection] The key word in this whole paragraph is the first one: “Generally.” Srila Prabhupada did not consider his female disciples as ordinary women, describing them in Adi 7.31 as, “As good as their brothers.” He considered them exceptional. Sadly, those stuck on the bodily platform consider them the same as women in general.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Sorry, but while it is a fact that Prabhupada wrote this, he also wrote the other statements on women that aren’t so conciliatory – what he spoke in the lecture quoted above proves my point. Kunti Devi referred to herself as an “ordinary woman”: so it is just being arrogant for ISKCON women to ignore Kunti Devi, and feel themselves “jivanmukta” on the liberated platform, when in fact they are indeed in women’s bodies. Prabhupada’s conciliatory words towards women as quoted does not negate the fact that they are indeed women! Bhishmadev is a much greater authority on dharma than you, so please refer to his instructions on the duties of women mentioned in the Bhagavatam 1.9.27, in brief, and in detail in the Mahabharata. The great women of vedic literature followed those dharmas. They never demanded false equality, and stuck to their feminine gender roles. The wives of the brahmanas – the dvijapatnis in SB 10.23 – were “greater devotees then their husbands”. However, after giving up everything and coming to Lord Krishna, he instructed them to go back to their homes, and engage in their grihasta activities. He did not instruct them: “actually, since you are greater devotees than your husbands, now you go perform the vedic sacrifices, and they will cook, clean the home, and look after the children!”

When Arundhati Mataji (ACBSP) wrote to Prabhupada that her child was an obstacle in worshipping her Deities, Prabhupada wrote back that “your child is your Diety”, and you should take car of him as your highest priority!

The question here is can women be diksha guru. The evidence from shastras and acharyas is that they cannot.

 

---

 

Question 13:

[Objection] In the final portion of this same lecture, Srila Prabhupada clarifies the relation of this bodily concept to spiritual advancement:

“So every one of us, spirit soul, part and parcel of God. Now we are embarrassed due to our ignorance. So when this ignorance is moved, we become enlightened, that is called brahma-bhuta, self-realization, spiritual realization.

brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
[Bg. 18.54]

” So without being brahma-bhuta, that “I am spirit soul,” Krsna consciousness does not become very perfect. If we are in the bodily concept of life, then it is rather difficult. It will take time. Because unless you come to the platform to understand that you are not this body, you are spirit soul, the actual devotional service does not begin.

” But to the neophyte student, the chance is given to develop this devotional service = sravanam kirtanam smaranam arcanam vandanam dasyam [SB 7.5.23]. The method is by constantly being engaged in devotional service, one becomes realized soul. God helps him, Krsna helps him. Then he becomes a perfect, liberated soul.

” Liberated soul means hitva anyatha-rupam. Now we are working under the designation of this body. Everyone is working under this designation of this body. When we become above the designation of the body, that is our real, constitutional position.

” So first of all, to realize that “I am not this body,” and the next stage is that “I am spirit soul, part and parcel of Krsna. Therefore as part and parcel is meant for giving service to the whole, therefore my constitutional position is to serve Krsna.” That is perfection of life.”

Srila Prabhupada said, “Every one of us,spirit soul, part and parcel of God…when we become above the designation of the body, that is real, constitutional position.” For their own, nonphilosophical reasons, some people on the bodily platform say, “Every one of us (except those in female bodies) can rise above the designation of the body.”

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

There isn’t a shred of evidence in all these paragraphs that contradicts what Prabhupada stated in the same lecture: women are not given initiation = the sacred thread. So then how can they give it?

That we are spirit souls does not mean that somehow there is no gender distinction. Lord Krishna in Bhagavad-gita 9.32 HIMSELF says that a woman’s body – and vaishyas and shudras – is a “sinful” birth!

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्यु: पापयोनय: ।
स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥ ३२ ॥
māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya ye ’pi syuḥ pāpa-yonayaḥ
striyo vaiśyās tathā śūdrās te ’pi yānti parāṁ gatim
mām — of Me; hi — certainly; pārtha — O son of Pṛthā; vyapāśritya — particularly taking shelter; ye — those who; api — also; syuḥ — are; pāpa-yonayaḥ — born of a lower family; striyaḥ — women; vaiśyāḥ — mercantile people; tathā — also; śūdrāḥ — lower-class men; te api — even they; yānti — go; parām — to the supreme; gatim — destination.
Translation
O son of Pṛthā, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaiśyas [merchants] and śūdras [workers] – can attain the supreme destination.
Even if those who took a lower birth – and we mlecchas and yavanas are born even lower than vaishyas and shudras – can get liberation, gender distinction is a fact not only acknowledged by the Lord Himself, but he created masculine and feminine genders.

What is happening here is that we are in an ideological battle between atheism – the Marxist and thus atheist concept of “classless society” that is the basis of the gender equality – egalitarian – ethos of modern urban Western mleccha and yavana society – and sanaatan dharma, wherein men have dharmas, varna dharmas, and women have “stridharmas”. Those who are arguing for gender equality – female diksha gurus, and later on they will argue for gay rights, sannyas for women, etc., – wish that we ignore both vedic shastras and vedic tradition – the parampara – and their concepts of how men and women should act in society.

 

---

 

Question 14:

[Objection] 3. “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.”

Here, in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.32, Prabhupada clearly wrote that “being a woman” Suniti could not be Dhruva Maharaj’s diksha guru. “Specifically his mother” does not somehow cancel out “being a woman”. So our pro-FDG GBC members explain that “this was from the remote past”.

If we are to accept that logic, then the entire Bhagavatam and vedic system of initiation is from the remote past!

This was from the Satya yuga, when women were protected and cared for, not berated by men born less than sudras insisting that women, being women, could never fully come to the spiritual platform.

Prabhupada is the one who, in the lecture quoted above, clearly says:

Woman, they are generally equipped with the qualities of passion and ignorance. And man also may be, but man can be elevated to the platform of goodness. Woman cannot be. Woman cannot be. Therefore if the husband is nice and the woman follows—woman becomes faithful and chaste to the husband—then their both life becomes successful.

So, this argument contradicts what Prabhpada taught about women.

How I miss Srila Prabhupada and the loving care and encouragement he gave to all, including his female disciples. How quickly he would dismiss such arguments as this old, out of context reference. Does his explicit statement, “I want that all my sons and daughters should inherit the title of Bhaktivedanta,” mean nothing?

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

The “explicit statement” is being taken to be the ultimate instruction of Prabhupada’s, when it’s been taken out of a private letter to a single disciple. A letter of encouragement – NOT a statement of institutional policuy. In the same letter Prabhupada wrote “By 1975 I will institute this”, but HE DID NOT. Just as he did not institute the DoM – Direction of Management. Prabhupada knew what he was doing, I hope you all agree?!

This statement from his letter to Hansadutta from 1969 – the nascent days of ISKCON does not somehow cancel what Prabhupada said in the lecture at Los Angeles, that is corroborated in many other places – and is the direct instruction of the Lord in the Bhagavatam, that the highest duty of a woman is to serve her husband:

ŚB 6.18.33-34
पतिरेव हि नारीणां दैवतं परमं स्मृतम् ।
मानस: सर्वभूतानां वासुदेव: श्रिय: पति: ॥ ३३ ॥
स एव देवतालिङ्गैर्नामरूपविकल्पितै: ।
इज्यते भगवान् पुम्भि: स्त्रीभिश्च पतिरूपधृक् ॥ ३४ ॥
patir eva hi nārīṇāṁ daivataṁ paramaṁ smṛtam
mānasaḥ sarva-bhūtānāṁ vāsudevaḥ śriyaḥ patiḥ
sa eva devatā-liṅgair nāma-rūpa-vikalpitaiḥ
ijyate bhagavān pumbhiḥ strībhiś ca pati-rūpa-dhṛk
patiḥ — the husband; eva — indeed; hi — certainly; nārīṇām — of women; daivatam — demigod; paramam — supreme; smṛtam — is considered; mānasaḥ — situated in the heart; sarva-bhūtānām — of all living entities; vāsudevaḥ — Vāsudeva; śriyaḥ — of the goddess of fortune; patiḥ — the husband; saḥ — He; eva — certainly; devatā-liṅgaiḥ — by the forms of the demigods; nāma — names; rūpa — forms; vikalpitaiḥ — conceived; ijyate — is worshiped; bhagavān — the Supreme Personality of Godhead; pumbhiḥ — by men; strībhiḥ — by women; ca — also; pati-rūpa-dhṛk — in the form of the husband.
Translation
A husband is the supreme demigod for a woman. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Vāsudeva, 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.
Purport
The Lord says in Bhagavad-gītā (9.23):
ye ’py anya-devatā-bhaktā
yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ
te ’pi mām eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam
“Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kuntī, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.” The demigods are various assistants who act like the hands and legs of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. One who is not in direct touch with the Supreme Lord and cannot conceive of the exalted position of the Lord is sometimes advised to worship the demigods as various parts of the Lord. If women, who are usually very much attached to their husbands, worship their husbands as representatives of Vāsudeva, the women benefit, just as Ajāmila benefited by calling for Nārāyaṇa, his son. Ajāmila was concerned with his son, but because of his attachment to the name of Nārāyaṇa, he attained salvation simply by chanting that name. In India a husband is still called pati-guru, the husband spiritual master. If husband and wife are attached to one another for advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, their relationship of cooperation is very effective for such advancement. Although the names of Indra and Agni are sometimes uttered in the Vedic mantras (indrāya svāhā, agnaye svāhā), the Vedic sacrifices are actually performed for the satisfaction of Lord Viṣṇu. As long as one is very much attached to material sense gratification, the worship of the demigods or the worship of one’s husband is recommended.

Do those who raised the above objection feel they are somehow exempt from the instructions of the Bhagavatam here? Are they liberated souls that are above following the injunctions of vedic shastras – that Prabhupada and all our previous acharyas endorsed?

Jahnava is an exceptional case. She was the head of the vaishnavas of Bengal after Mahaprabhu. Yet there is no evidence that she gave the sacred thread to women, or that she Herself wore the thread! Same goes for Gangamata Goswamini, etc.

These female gurus are shiksha gurus, not diksha gurus. Like Suniti. Therefore Prabhupada wrote that “being a woman” Suniti could NOT be Dhruva’s diksha guru”.

 

---

 

Question 15:

[Objection] But we know that what Prabhupada taught in the purports he wrote in his > books, his lectures, his letters, and his conversations were his > instructions to his disciples.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

Hold on; “All my sons and daughters” was in a letter, and one meant for wide
distribution. If we understand context, there is no contradiction.

Untrue. It was NOT meant for wide distribution.

In any case, it does not contradict what Prabhupada wrote in his purport to CC Madhya 8.128, SB 4.12.32, and clearly spoke during the class at Los Angeles on Sept 22, 1972. Women cannot get the sacred thread, and so cannot give it. Even if they are liberated souls they don’t, so as to not disturb the social order – varnashram.

 

---

 

Question 16:

[Objection] Otherwise, it appears that BGP is accusing Srila Prabhupada on contradicting himself between what he said in his purport and what he said in letters, lectures, interviews and other purports.

Answer by Basu Ghosh Das:

It appears that I am doing so because of your egalitarian mindset! Prabhupada’s instructions, actions, and the actions of the Gaudiya and other vaishnava acharyas and paramparas/sampradayas are 100% clear. No sacred threads for women, and so no women diksha gurus! If you can’t get the thread, how can you give it? There is no such tradition. Instituting it is “change”.

Prabhupada commented in a letter to Bhakta Das:

My Dear Bhakta dasa:
Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated November 10, 1974 [rest cut]

Don’t change from this to that. That is your American disease. This is very serious that you always want to change everything.

https://vanisource.org/wiki/741124_-_Letter_to_Bhakta_dasa_written_from_Bombay?hl=American|disease
————————–

Female/women/vaishnavi diksha gurus did NOT exist in the past in any vaishnava sampradaya. It is egalitarian considerations only that is the cause of this being an issue in ISKCON. Instituting women diksha gurus wasn’t an issue at all during the lifetime of Srila Prabhupada, nor was it an issue before that during the time of Saraswati Thakur and Bhaktivinoda Thakur. If it was, they would have written in favor of it extensively, as they were in favor of those not born in a brahmin family being given the sacred thread!

This whole desire to change vedic tradition is akin to the ritvikists who independently introduced something that Prabhupada and the previous acharyas DID NOT TEACH. If Prabhupada had wanted women/female/vaishnavi diksha gurus, there would have been numerous statements of his to that effect. It would not be so ambiguous and contentious. Basu Ghosh Das is not a single man standing in opposition to this. All of ISKCON India, and numerous vaishnava scholars from the four vaishnava sampradayas have been queried here, and we all speak in one voice: this is a new concoction, with no basis in vaishnava tradition, and, bottom line, it is therefore “simply nonsense”!

According to Srila Prabhupada:

There are many instances in which a born brāhmaṇa took initiation from a person who was not born in a brāhmaṇa family. The brahminical symptoms are explained in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (7.11.35), wherein it is stated:

yasya yal-lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ puṁso varṇābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi dṛśyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet
If a person is born in a śūdra family but has all the qualities of a spiritual master, he should be accepted not only as a brāhmaṇa but as a qualified spiritual master also. This is also the instruction of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura therefore introduced the sacred thread ceremony for all Vaiṣṇavas according to the rules and regulations.

This is from Srila Prabhupada’s purport to Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya-lila 8.128.
The point is that Prabhupada, and his guru Bhaktisiddhanta did NOT give the sacred thread to women. This is a historical fact. When Prabhupada wrote, herein above, “all Vaishnavas”, why then did he NOT give the women the thread, despite giving them the mantras and “second initiation”?
More in depth comments on this were given by Prabhupada in the following lecture:

Woman, they are generally equipped with the qualities of passion and ignorance. And man also may be, but man can be elevated to the platform of goodness. Woman cannot be. Woman cannot be. Therefore if the husband is nice and the woman follows—woman becomes faithful and chaste to the husband—then their both life becomes successful. There are three qualities of nature = sattva, raja, tama. So rajas-tama, generally, that is the quality of woman. And man can become to the platform of goodness. Therefore initiation, brahminical symbolic representation, is given to the man, not to the woman. This is the theory.

This last sentence is key. Prabhupada said in his lecture: “this is the theory” – meaning it is a principle! “Not to the woman” is clear. Of course, those who don’t want to accept this have made a milion excuses why not to!
The above is from Prabhupada’s lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.17 given at Los Angeles on September 22, 1972 [A “must listen” lecture!]. The audio of the lecture and transcription can be accessed here:
https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/720922sbla/

“It is the duty of the śikṣā-guru or dīkṣā-guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to śāstric injunctions, there is no difference between śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru, and generally the śikṣā-guru later on becomes the dīkṣā-guru. Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru.”

Here, in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.32, Prabhupada clearly wrote that “being a woman” Suniti could not be Dhruva Maharaj’s diksha guru. “Specifically his mother” does not somehow cancel out “being a woman”. So our pro-FDG GBC members explain that “this was from the remote past”.

If we are to accept that logic, then the entire Bhagavatam and vedic system of initiation is from the remote past!
But we know that what Prabhupada taught in the purports he wrote in his books, his lectures, his letters, and his conversations were his instructions to his disciples.

Amongst these instructions, the instructions in his purports are of more importance, and then the other instructions. The pro-FDG group have no evidence to contradict the above instructions regarding initiation by women, but use speculations and a desire to explain away these quotations as unimportant to negate these clear teachings.

Sure, there is more… like the nonsense being spread about the “prescriptive and the descriptive”. Bir Krishna Maharaj, Kaunteya Das, and others are using this (il)logic to cloud the issue. It seems to have come from Hridayananda Maharaj and he gleaned it – apparently – from “modern academia”: his days at Harvard.

Is there anywhere, in any purport, lecture, conversation, or letter where Prabhupada or for that matter Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati – the six goswamis – Mahaprabhu in CC – employed this logic and reasoning?
It is interpretive logic meant to support modern egalitarian thought, that is based on the Marxist concept of the classless society! Think about it!