February 2021
Dear Swamiji,
Yatibhyonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Here is a link to a lecture — it can be heard fully at this link — that Srila Prabhupada gave at Los Angeles on September 22 1972:
https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/720922sbla/
Here is the “key passage” from the 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.
==========================
Maharaj, if you don’t mind, here is part of the purport to CC Madhya-lila, 8. 128 (the “kiba vipra, kiba nyasi verse), where Srila Prabhupada similar stressed the sacred thread as initiation:
“One who is actually advanced in spiritual knowledge of Kṛṣṇa is never a śūdra, even though he may have been born in a śūdra family. However, even if a vipra, or brāhmaṇa, is very expert in the six brahminical activities (paṭhana, pāṭhana, yajana, yājana, dāna, pratigraha) and is also well versed in the Vedic hymns, he cannot become a spiritual master unless he is a Vaiṣṇava. But if one is born in the family of caṇḍālas yet is well versed in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he can become a guru. These are the śāstric injunctions, and strictly following these injunctions, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, as a gṛhastha named Śrī Viśvambhara, was initiated by a sannyāsī-guru named Īśvara Purī. Similarly, Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu was initiated by Mādhavendra Purī, a sannyāsī. According to others, however, He was initiated by Lakṣmīpati Tīrtha. Advaita Ācārya, although a gṛhastha, was initiated by Mādhavendra Purī, and Śrī Rasikānanda, although born in a brāhmaṇa family, was initiated by Śrī Śyāmānanda Prabhu, who was not born in a caste brāhmaṇa family. 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.”
=================================
Maharaj, notice that in this quotation from the Chaitanya Charitamrita purport, that Srila Prabhupada used the word “he” and not “he or she”, or “they”, in “he cannot become a spiritual master unless he is a Vaiṣhṇava”, etc.
Srila Prabhupada could have clearly written — somewhere — that a woman, a “vaishnavi” — could be a diksha guru,.
However, the evidence in Srimad Bhagavatam 4.12.32, where he wrote “according to shastric injunction”, and wherein he used the purport to a verse that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of guru, to write a prohibition, “being a woman, Suniti could not be Dhruva’s diksha guru”, should be enough to convince us that Srila Prabhupada wrote this prohibition as he did feel that initition was the conference of the sacred thread, the “upanayana samskara”.
It is in that same purport that Srila Prabhupada wrote that Suniti was Dhruva’s shiksha and pathapradrashaka guru. So women can be gurus, but just not diksha gurus. This is the proper conclusion.
Comments in Prabhupada’s purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.2, corroborates this view:
“The institution of varṇa and āśrama prescribes many regulative duties to be observed by its followers. Such duties enjoin that a candidate willing to study the Vedas must approach a bona fide spiritual master and request acceptance as his disciple. The sacred thread is the sign of those who are competent to study the Vedas from the ācārya, or the bona fide spiritual master. Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī did not undergo such purificatory ceremonies because he was a liberated soul from his very birth.
Generally, a man is born as an ordinary being, and by the purificatory processes he is born for the second time. When he sees a new light and seeks direction for spiritual progress, he approaches a spiritual master for instruction in the Vedas. The spiritual master accepts only the sincere inquirer as his disciple and gives him the sacred thread. In this way a man becomes twice-born, or a dvija. After qualifying as a dvija one may study the Vedas, and after becoming well versed in the Vedas one becomes a vipra. A vipra, or a qualified brāhmaṇa, thus realizes the Absolute and makes further progress in spiritual life until he reaches the Vaiṣṇava stage. The Vaiṣṇava stage is the postgraduate status of a brāhmaṇa. A progressive brāhmaṇa must necessarily become a Vaiṣṇava, for a Vaiṣṇava is a self-realized, learned brāhmaṇa.
Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī was a Vaiṣṇava from the beginning; therefore, there was no need for him to undergo all the processes of the varṇāśrama institution. Ultimately the aim of varṇāśrama-dharma is to turn a crude man into a pure devotee of the Lord, or a Vaiṣṇava. Anyone, therefore, who becomes a Vaiṣṇava accepted by the first-class Vaiṣṇava, or uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava, is already considered a brāhmaṇa, regardless of his birth or past deeds. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu accepted this principle and recognized Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura as the ācārya of the holy name, although Ṭhākura Haridāsa appeared in a Mohammedan family. In conclusion, Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī was born a Vaiṣṇava, and, therefore, brahminism was included in him. He did not have to undergo any ceremonies. Any lowborn person—be he a Kirāta, Hūṇa, Āndhra, Pulinda, Pulkaśa, Ābhīra, Śumbha, Yavana, Khasa or even lower—can be delivered to the highest transcendental position by the mercy of Vaiṣṇavas. Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī was the spiritual master of Śrī Sūta Gosvāmī, who therefore offers his respectful obeisances unto Śrīla Śukadeva Gosvāmī before he begins his answers to the questions of the sages at Naimiṣāraṇya.”
=====================================
Notice again, in the above purport, Srila Prabhupada wrote “he” and not “he or she”, or “they”.
Maharaj, according to the varnashram system, women can only be in the grihasta ashram.
Therefore Srila Prabhupada prohibited women from taking sannyas. That taking sannyas for women is prohibited Srila Prabhupada clearly wrote in the purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 3.24.40, as well as in other statements that he made. In the purport to SB 3.24.40, he used the words “no sanction in vedic literatures for a woman to take sannyas”.
Here are other similar quotes:
Prabhupada: Regarding Swamis and “Swaminies,” you have been misinformed. Among my disciples there is only one Swami or Sannyasi, but there is no “Swaminie.” Woman is never offered Sannyasa in the Vedic culture. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Nevatiaji — Los Angeles 16 July, 1970
Prabhupada: A female is never awarded the order of Sannyasam. Because a female is never considered independent and Sannyasam was never awarded to any female in the past by the great Acaryas like Sankara, Ramanuja etc. The female Sannyasins are to be immediately understood as pretenders or prostitutes. >>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Brahmananda — San Francisco 14 March, 1967
Prabhupada: Anyone acting for Krishna, he is a sannyasi or sannyasini. So spiritually everyone is equal. But materially a woman cannot be given Sannyasa. But you should not be bothered because you are serving on the spiritual platform.>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Aditya — Mayapur 4 February, 1976
In his lecture during sannyas initiation at Mayapur on March 16,1976, Prabhupada stated this:
“So guru is the post given to the sannyasis, to the brahmaṇas. Without becoming a brahmaṇa, nobody can become a sannyasi, and sannyasi is supposed to be the guru of both all the ashramas and all the varnas. So the preaching work… We require so many sannyasis”.
From this was should understand that:
- generally men act as gurus, i.e. pathapradarshaka, shiksha, and diksha guru
- Srila Prabhupada on many occasions promoted varnashram, and the positions of sannyasi and guru are part of the varnashram system.
- In the varnashram system, women perform stridharmas, household duties, and while informally may be pathapradarshaka and shiksha gurus, do not confer brahminhood, are not eligible for the sacred thread, and thus cannot be diksha gurus.
Further, regarding the establishment of varnashram, Srila Prabhupada’s wrote in his purport to Srimad Bhagavatam 5.19.19:
“In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (3.8.9), the great sage Parāśara Muni has recommended:
varṇāśramācāravatā
puruṣeṇa paraḥ pumān
viṣṇur ārādhyate panthā
nānyat tat-toṣa-kāraṇam
“The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Viṣṇu, is worshiped by the proper execution of prescribed duties in the system of varṇa and āśrama. There is no other way to satisfy the Lord.” In the land of Bhārata-varṣa, the institution of varṇāśrama-dharma may be easily adopted. At the present moment, certain demoniac sections of the population of Bhārata-varṣa are disregarding the system of varṇāśrama-dharma. Because there is no institution to teach people how to become brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras or brahmacārīs, gṛhasthas, vānaprasthas and sannyāsīs, these demons want a classless society. This is resulting in chaotic conditions. In the name of secular government, unqualified people are taking the supreme governmental posts. No one is being trained to act according to the principles of varṇāśrama-dharma, and thus people are becoming increasingly degraded and are heading in the direction of animal life. The real aim of life is liberation, but unfortunately the opportunity for liberation is being denied to people in general, and therefore their human lives are being spoiled. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, however, is being propagated all over the world to reestablish the varṇāśrama-dharma system and thus save human society from gliding down to hellish life.”
===============================
Srila Prabhupada wrote clearly about the role of women in society and the position of women in demoniac society in his purport to Bhagavad-gita 16.7:
“As for behavior, there are many rules and regulations guiding human behavior, such as the Manu-saṁhitā, which is the law of the human race. Even up to today, those who are Hindu follow the Manu-saṁhitā. Laws of inheritance and other legalities are derived from this book. Now, in the Manu-saṁhitā it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men. However, this has not improved the social condition of the world. Actually, a woman should be given protection at every stage of life. She should be given protection by the father in her younger days, by the husband in her youth, and by the grownup sons in her old age. This is proper social behavior according to the Manu-saṁhitā. But modern education has artificially devised a puffed-up concept of womanly life, and therefore marriage is practically now an imagination in human society. The social condition of women is thus not very good now, although those who are married are in a better condition than those who are proclaiming their so-called freedom. The demons, therefore, do not accept any instruction which is good for society, and because they do not follow the experience of great sages and the rules and regulations laid down by the sages, the social condition of the demoniac people is very miserable.”
Maharaj, yes, Jahnava Mata was the “acharya” of “all the vaishnavas”. Gangamata Goswamini, and Hemlata were referred to by Srila Prabhupada as gurus. We accept that. But in doing so, Srila Prabhupada did NOT “throw open the door” to diksha guruship for women in general.
In his discussion with Prof. O’Connell, Prabhupada was asked by him about women becoming guru. Here is the passage:
Prof. O’Connell: Is it possible, Swāmījī, for a woman to be a guru in the line of disciplic succession?
Prabhupāda: Yes. Jāhnavā devī was—Nityānanda’s wife. She became. If she is able to go to the highest perfection of life, why it is not possible to become guru? But, not so many. Actually one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru. But man or woman, unless one has attained the perfection . . . yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā sei guru haya (CC Madhya 8.128). The qualification of guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Kṛṣṇa. Then he or she can become guru. Yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei guru haya. (break) In our material world, is it any prohibition that woman cannot become professor? If she is qualified, she can become professor. What is the wrong there? She must be qualified. That is the position. So similarly, if the woman understands Kṛṣṇa consciousness perfectly, she can become guru.
===============================
While agreeing that “woman can become guru”, Prabhupada also spoke: “But, not so many.”
He also did not specify that Jahnava was a diksha guru who conferred upanayanam to men.
The resolution of the GBC authorizing women to become diksha gurus violates this statement of Srila Prabhupada’s, because it allows for many! “Not so many” then becomes meaningless.
What is the “burning need” for female diksha gurus, when Srila Prabhupada clearly told Prof. O’Connell: “not so many”?
The GBC resolution authorizing female diksha gurus ignores the many instructions of Srila Prabhupada calling for the establishment and following of varnashram dharma within ISKCON itself and human society in general.
Srila Prabhupada’s references to women being gurus – as in the conversation with Prof. O’Connell – did not specify “diksha guru”. Just guru. So this statement (above to O’Connell) as well as the personal letter to Hansadutta in 1968/69 are references to women being gurus, but not compelling evidence that Prabhupada wanted/desired a regime of female diksha gurus that the GBC resolution opens the door for.
The GBC resolution authorizing female diksha gurus ignores the fact that there are many GBC men themselves who oppose female diksha gurus in ISKCON. It ignores the opinion of the leaders of ISKCON India, who appealed to the GBC for a dialogue BEFORE they passed their resolution authorizing female diksha gurus at Tirupati.
The GBC seems to be ignoring Sivaram Swami’s principled opposition, presented so nicely in a video that can be seen, here:
Maharaj, just as Prabhupada did not speak AT ALL on a “ritvik system of initiation”, similarly he did not clearly endorse the idea of female diksha gurus. If he did, there would not be this ambiguity and such a widespread opposition to female diksha gurus, despite the claims of those who cry out that the whole world supports the female diksha guru concept and the GBC resolution.
Thanks, Maharaj, very much for your kind consideration of the above.
Hope this meets you well.
dasabhas,
Basu Ghosh Das