This is a refutation to Maharaja’s comment on Facebook, the comment of Maharaja can be seen below.
Basu Ghosh Das:
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
Maharaja Wrote:
Basu Ghosh Das:
Maharaj, you are a Swamiji now, and are due “all respect” as a member of the fourth-order. So, Yatibhyonamaha: I bow down to the Yati.
You see, the type of Guruship that Jahnava, Gangamata, and Hemlata assumed is highly exceptional, and not at all the system of “stridharma” as set down both in shastras, as well as vedic tradition.
First, consider this:
Śrimad Bhagavatam 10.23.28
तद् यात देवयजनं पतयो वो द्विजातय: ।
स्वसत्रं पारयिष्यन्ति युष्माभिर्गृहमेधिन: ॥ २८ ॥
tad yāta deva-yajanaṁ patayo vo dvijātayaḥ
sva-satraṁ pārayiṣyanti yuṣmābhir gṛha-medhinaḥ
tat — therefore; yāta — go; deva-yajanam — to the sacrificial arena; patayaḥ — the husbands; vaḥ — your; dvi-jātayaḥ — the brāhmaṇas; sva-satram — their own sacrifices; pārayiṣyanti — will be able to finish; yuṣmābhiḥ — together with you; gṛha-medhinaḥ — the householders.
Translation
You should thus return to the sacrificial arena, because your husbands, the learned brāhmaṇas, are householders and need your assistance to finish their respective sacrifices.
—————————
Lord Krishna could have instructed the “dvijapatnis” otherwise: “now you are better devotees than your husbands, so you go perform the Vedic sacrifices, and they will look after the home, take care of the children, clean and cook”.
No, He – the Lord Himself – did not. He created the varnasharam system – varnashram dharma – as per Bhagavad-gita 4.13.
Further:
Bhagavad-gita. 1.39
कुलक्षये प्रणश्यन्ति कुलधर्माः सनातनाः ।
धर्मे नष्टे कुलं कृत्स्नमधर्मोऽभिभवत्युत ॥ ३९ ॥
kula-kṣaye praṇaśyanti kula-dharmāḥ sanātanāḥ
dharme naṣṭe kulaṁ kṛtsnam adharmo ’bhibhavaty uta
kula-kṣaye — in destroying the family; praṇaśyanti — become vanquished; kula-dharmāḥ — the family traditions; sanātanāḥ — eternal; dharme — religion; naṣṭe — being destroyed; kulam — family; kṛtsnam — whole; adharmaḥ — irreligion; abhibhavati — transforms; uta — it is said.
Translation
With the destruction of the dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion.
Purport
In the system of the varṇāśrama institution there are many principles of religious traditions to help members of the family grow properly and attain spiritual values. The elder members are responsible for such purifying processes in the family, beginning from birth to death. But on the death of the elder members, such family traditions of purification may stop, and the remaining younger family members may develop irreligious habits and thereby lose their chance for spiritual salvation. Therefore, for no purpose should the elder members of the family be slain.
————————————-
So, the “eternal religion” – sanātanāḥ dharma – is just that – unchanging. The first sentence of Srila Prabhupada’s purport herein above – and so many other statements affirming that we are followers – and that he was teaching – sanātanāḥ vedic dharma – prove that women have their own duties and guruship is for the brahmanas and sannyasis.
Just as women cannot be sannyasis, they cannot be diksha gurus:
“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”. [Prabhupada’s purport to SB 3.24.40]
Prabhupada clearly stated that women cannot be initiated. If they cannot receive initiation, how can they give it? Diksha. Here is what he clearly said:
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. [From Prabhupada’s lecture on SB 1.3.17 at LA on Sept 22, 1972].
No, women are NOT meant to be diksha gurus. The conclusion is that Jahnava and the other exceptional women gurus were shiksha gurus, not diksha gurus. They did not wear, nor give, the sacred thread.
“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.” [From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Madhya 8.128 – the “kiba vipra kiba nyasi” verse].
This purport proves the point. The “historical record” is that both Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and Srila Saraswati Thakur did NOT give the sacred thread to women.
We are also known as “Saraswats”, because we are followers of Srila Saraswati Thakur. Yes, he introduced the sacred thread for sudras and us mlecchas and yavanas – but NOT for women!
Why? To uphold sanaatan vedic varnashram dharma!
Lastly in Śrimad Bhagavatam 1.9.27:
दानधर्मान् राजधर्मान् मोक्षधर्मान् विभागश: ।
स्त्रीधर्मान् भगवद्धर्मान् समासव्यासयोगत: ॥ २७ ॥
dāna-dharmān rāja-dharmān mokṣa-dharmān vibhāgaśaḥ
strī-dharmān bhagavad-dharmān samāsa-vyāsa-yogataḥ
dāna-dharmān — the acts of charity; rāja-dharmān — pragmatic activities of the kings; mokṣa-dharmān — the acts for salvation; vibhāgaśaḥ — by divisions; strī-dharmān — duties of women; bhagavat-dharmān — the acts of the devotees; samāsa — generally; vyāsa — explicitly; yogataḥ — by means of.
Translation
He [Bhishma] then explained, by divisions, acts of charity, the pragmatic activities of a king and activities for salvation. Then he described the duties of women and devotees, both briefly and extensively.
—————————-
The Bhagavat – Srimad Bhagavatam – clearly teaches that women have their own duties. Separate from those of men.
It is dangerous to change this by a “resolution by majority vote”. Doing so changes what shastras teach. Yes, there are some exceptions to the rule, but by the vote in the ISKCON GBC to authorize women diksha gurus, they violate shastras, they violate the shastric vision of the role of women in society as mothers, housewives, servants of their husbands, and the rule that they remain protected during every stage of their life. Men are not bound by those rules, and there is a good reason for that. Women are weaker, and as Prabhupada clearly spoke, mostly absorbed in the modes of passion and ignorance.
The present push for female diksha gurus in ISKCON is being driven by feminism and egalitarianism, and not by “universal acclamation” of the outstanding qualities of a particular female devotee, who would thus be “on the same platform” – “Lakshmi tattva” – as Jahnava Mata!