Principle vs. Practice – Why Scriptural Eligibility for Female Gurus Does Not Imply Institutional Appointment

Dear Devotees, my Koti Koti Pranamas to All !

Srila Prabhupada-kirtir Vijayatetaram !

Regarding the interpretation and application of the “pratyakṣitātma-nāthānām” verse (Bharadvaja-samhita 1.44) in our current discussion on the “female-diksha-gurus” issue, I humbly wish to point out certain logical errors in some objections raised by our worshipable devotees. I am not here to offend anyone, but to submit my understanding and request a reconsideration of certain positions.

Let me clarify that we are not against the concept of female-diksha-gurus, but rather its potential misunderstanding and misapplication.

Let me first, present the original text and translation:

kim apy atrabhijayante yoginah sarva-yonisu 

pratyaksitatma-nathanam naisam cintyam kuladikam (44)

Translation: However, because perfect yogis—who have attained the stage of yoga-pratyakṣa (direct perception through yoga) and are self-realized, seeing the Lord of their soul face-to-face (pratyakṣitātma-nāthānām)—may appear in any lineage, the aforementioned restrictions regarding family tradition (kula), gender, and social status do not apply to them; they are fully qualified to act as acharyas.

To properly understand any text, one must first establish its context before drawing conclusions. For instance, we would not cite 'Sachin Tendulkar' while discussing political matters, for the obvious reason that his field of expertise is entirely different. Similarly, in a discussion on a Pancaratra text like the Bharadvaja-samhita—which is intended specifically for initiated Vaishnavas—we should not introduce names like Duryodhana or various demons to debate the concept of 'seeing the Lord face-to-face.' Neither Duryodhana nor the demons consider Lord Krishna to be their master (atma-natha), nor are they interested in bhagavat-sakshatkara (direct revelation) or bhagavat-prapti (attainment of the Lord) as aspired to by pure devotees like Narada, Dhruva, and Prahlada.

Furthermore, our analysis of Bharadvaja-samhita (1.44) must be framed within the context of yoga-shastra—or more specifically, bhakti-yoga-shastra. The context revolves around yoginah, or transcendental (bhakti) yogis, who have attained a divine vision of their master, Lord Krishna (Vishnu), through the process of bhakti-yoga. Sri Baladeva Vidyabhushana, in his Vaiṣṇavāndinī commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.13.15), cites these very verses from Bharadvaja-samhita (1.42-44) and offers the following remarks:

na vidurasya kaniṣṭhatvāc-chūdratvāc ca kathaṁ tad upadeṣṭṛtvam?… tathā ca viduraḥ kanisṭho'pi śūdro'pi sākṣād-dharma-rājatvena pratyakṣīkṛta-paresatvāt tasya tad upadesṭṛtvam iti / ata eva bharadvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ strī-sudrādināṁ tan-niṣidhya sākṣātkṛta- paratattvānāṁ teṣāṁ tad āha – na jātu mantra-dātāro na śudro nāntarodbhavaḥ nābhiśapto na patitaḥ kāma-kāmo'py akāmitaḥ || striyaḥ śūdradayaś caiva bodhayeyur hitāhitam yathārham mānaniyāś ca nārhanty ācaryatāṁ kvacit | kim apy atrābhijāyante yoginaḥ sarvayoniṣu pratyakṣitātmanāthānāṁ naiṣām cintyaṁ kulādikam || iti ||

Translation: “Since Vidura was the youngest and a Shudra, how could he be an instructing Guru? … Indeed, although Vidura was both the youngest and a Shudra, he was the direct incarnation of Dharma (Dharmaraja) and had directly realized the Supreme Truth (Lord Krsna); thus, he was qualified to be an instructing Guru. For this very reason, it is stated in the Bharadvaja-Samhita that while instructing or teaching is generally forbidden for women, Shudras, and others, it is permitted for those among them who have directly realized the Supreme Absolute Truth (Lord Krsna):

'Never should a giver of mantras be a Shudra, nor one born of a forbidden union, nor one who is cursed, nor one who has fallen, nor one who is full of worldly desires.

Women, Shudras, and others may indeed teach what is beneficial or harmful as appropriate, and they should be honored accordingly, but they should never hold the formal position of an Acharya (institutional preceptor).

However, Yogis are born into all kinds of wombs (social classes). Regarding those who have directly realized the Lord of the Self (Lord Krsna), one should never consider their lineage, caste or anything.'”

We must not overlook the specific context of the Bharadvaja-samhita, which explicitly makes exceptions for bhakti-yogis who have already attained the divine vision of their master, Lord Krishna, through the practice of bhakti-yoga. Examples of such realized souls found in the Srimad-Bhagavatam include Narada Muni in his previous birth, Dhruva Maharaja, and Prahlada Maharaja. Whether these devotees experienced that divine vision internally or externally is not the point of contention here.

Kindly note the following from the Brahma-samhita 5.38 purport by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura:

“The Śyāmasundara form of Kṛṣṇa is His inconceivable simultaneous personal and impersonal self-contradictory form. True devotees see that form in their purified hearts under the influence of devotional trance. The form Śyāma is not the blue color visible in the mundane world but is the transcendental variegated color affording eternal bliss, and is not visible to the mortal eye. On a consideration of the trance of Vyāsadeva as in the śloka, bhakti-yogena manasi etc. [SB 1.7.4], it will be clear that the form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the full Personality of Godhead and can only be visible in the heart of a true devotee, which is the only true seat in the state of trance under the influence of devotion. When Kṛṣṇa manifested Himself in Vraja, both the devotees and nondevotees saw Him with this very eye; but only the devotees cherished Him, eternally present in Vraja, as the priceless jewel of their heart. Nowadays also the devotees see Him in Vraja in their hearts, saturated with devotion although they do not see Him with their eyes. The eye of devotion is nothing but the eye of the pure unalloyed spiritual self of the jīva. The form of Kṛṣṇa is visible to that eye in proportion to its purification by the practice of devotion. When the devotion of the neophyte reaches the stage of bhāva-bhakti the pure eye of that devotee is tinged with the salve of love by the grace of Kṛṣṇa, which enables him to see Kṛṣṇa face to face. The phrase “in their hearts” means Kṛṣṇa is visible in proportion as their hearts are purified by the practice of devotion. The sum and substance of this śloka is that the form of Kṛṣṇa, who is Śyāmasundara, Naṭavara (Best Dancer), Muralīdhara (Holder of the Flute) and Tribhaṅga (Triple-bending), is not a mental concoction but is transcendental, and is visible with the eye of the soul of the devotee under trance.”

This point is further corroborated by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura’s explanation of sākṣātkāra (direct perception) in Jaiva-dharma, Chapter 29:

“In nirvikalpa-samadhi, one is completely free from all avidya, nescience and dualism. When the devotee sees the Supreme Lord face to face in this state of samadhi, he experiences ineffable bliss known as sandrananda, the hallmark of sandra-santa-rati.  Santa-rasa may also be divided into paroksya, indirect; and saksatkara, direct.”

Furthermore, according to standard Sanskrit koshas (dictionaries), the word pratyakṣa is defined as indriya-grāhyam, or 'that which is perceived by the senses.' Within the context of the Brahma-saṁhitā, this should be understood as being 'captured by the transcendental eyes (senses)' of a devotee. As Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati explains, this divine vision occurs, at the very least, at the stage of bhāva. Consequently, this transcendental vision should not be equated with the ordinary vision (such as observing the Deities) of a sādhaka devotee who is situated on a platform below bhāva.

Moreover, the terms pareśa and para-tattva refer specifically to the Supreme Personality of Godhead in numerous places throughout Vedic literature. We cannot interpret pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśatvāt or sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvāt as merely 'knowing' or 'realizing' devotional truths in an abstract sense, as that would contradict the direct meaning of bhakti-yoga-shastra. Even for the sake of argument, if we were to adopt such an interpretation, it would still contradict the texts of bhakti-yoga; even sādhakas at the stage of anartha-nivṛtti possess some realization of devotional truths. Therefore, citing such practitioners as 'exceptions' would be logically redundant.

Having established that, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to a subtle technical distinction between experiencing a divine vision of the Supreme Lord as a mere 'flash' (technically known as sphūrti) and attaining a sustained, direct vision (sākṣātkāra), whether internal or external. Notably, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā (1.44) specifically refers to this direct vision (sākṣātkāra) of the Supreme Lord. It should never be equated with the preliminary realizations or 'visions' of a sādhaka at the stage of anartha-nivṛtti. In this regard, please carefully consider Srila Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura’s commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.21:

hṛdayagranthiravidyā bhidyata iti karmmakarttari prayogeṇāvidyādhvaṃso bhaktānāmananusaṃhitaṃ phalam | evameva 'chidyante sarvvasaṃśayāḥ asambhāvānādirūpāḥ | ātmanīti īśvara ityasya viśeṣaṇam | yadvā ātmanyeva manasyeva dṛṣṭe kiṃ punaḥ sākṣād dṛṣṭe satīti sphūrttisākṣātkārāvuktau | “satāṃ kṛpā mahatsevā śraddhā gurupadāśrayaḥ | bhajaneṣu spṛhā bhaktiranarthāpagamastataḥ || rucirathāsaktī ratiḥ premātha darśanam | harermādhuryānubhava ityarthāḥ syucaturddaśa || 21 || 

Translation: 'The knot in the heart is ignorance (avidya). It is broken.' By using the verb in the reflexive sense (karmakartari), it implies that the destruction of ignorance is a result that comes to devotees without them specifically striving for it. Likewise, 'all doubts are cut asunder'—referring to doubts such as the perceived impossibility of spiritual truths.

'In the Self' (atmani) is an adjective for the Lord (Ishvara). Alternatively, it means that if realization occurs 'in the self' (within the mind), then what to speak of when He is seen 'directly' (sakshat)? This describes both the internal revelation (sphurti) and the direct vision (sakshatkara).

The fourteen stages are as follows:

1. The mercy of devotees (satam kripa)

2. Service to the great souls (mahat-seva)

3. Faith (shraddha)

4. Taking shelter at the feet of a Guru (guru-padasraya)

5. Eagerness for devotional practices (bhajaneshu spruha)

6. Devotional service (bhakti)

7. Disappearance of obstacles (anartha-apagamah)

8. Steadiness (nistha)

9. Taste (ruchi)

10. Attachment (asakti)

11. Emotional bhava (rati)

12. Pure love (prema)

13. Direct vision (darshanam)

14. The experience of Hari’s sweetness (hareh madhurya-anubhavah).”

Thus, at the very least, according to Bharadvāja-saṁhitā (1.44), only those transcendental bhakti-yogis who have attained the divine vision of their beloved master, Lord Krishna, are considered exceptions to the restrictions mentioned for practicing Vaishnavas. This implies that otherwise, those in the categories of women, shudras, and so on, should not accept the formal position of a diksha-guru or assume the role of an Acharya.

Now, some devotees object that because such a transcendental position is not institutionally verifiable, it would effectively mean that women could never become diksha-gurus. To this, we reply that many symptoms of elevated Vaishnavas simply cannot be identified through mundane vision. (See SB 7.4.39, SB 7.7.35, SB 11.2.40, and CC Adi 7.78). According to Madhvacharya (cited in the purport to SB 11.2.40), there are many elevated devotees: some display external symptoms, some conceal them, and some alternate between showing and hiding them. Their devotional status can be judged only by their steadfastness and the merciful vibrations emanating from their mouths—not by any other means.

Thus, it is beyond doubt that devotees on an elevated platform cannot be verified by institutional standards. Only those highly elevated Vaishnavas—like Srila Prabhupada—who are themselves experiencing the symptoms of bhāva or prema can truly identify other elevated Vaishnavas. Therefore, any attempt to institutionalise matters that are beyond the scope (adhikāra) of an institution is a clear violation of scripture. Consider this: Could anyone (save for realized souls like Bhaktivinoda Thakura or Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati) have identified Gaurakishora Dasa Babaji or Jagannatha Dasa Babaji using current ISKCON standards?

Why should we exceed our adhikāra? Perhaps, in the future, great Acharyas will appear and reveal such Vaishnavas to us (just as Srila Prabhupada revealed the elevated status of Sri Yamuna Devi and Sri Jayananda Thakura). Even if such elevated Vaishnavas were identified and requested to accept the role of Guru, they would naturally shy away from it—an attitude that stands in stark contrast to the approach of some pro-FDG advocates within the institution.

Moreover, Srila Prabhupada consistently advocated for the implementation of Varnasrama roles among his followers. He wrote extensively on this subject in his books—particularly Srimad-Bhagavatam, 7th Canto, Chapters 11 and 12—and discussed it frequently in his lectures and conversations. There exist comprehensive compilations of Srila Prabhupada’s vivid directions on implementing the specific details of Varnasrama, not merely its general principles. Advocates of FDG often seem to overlook these instructions or misinterpret them as being 'unnecessary' or 'contrary to preaching.' This is a very inauspicious trend.

In current times, many liberal and sinful ideologies—such as the relaxation of the fourth regulative principle, divorce, abortion, same-sex marriages, and transgender 'equality'—are permeating ISKCON, and the introduction of female diksha-gurus would only exacerbate this situation. We require more stable, happy, Krishna-conscious families rather than independent women travelling across the globe to preach. Some advocates seem to believe that upon reaching the age of 55, they become exempt from stri-dharma. However, womanly independence was heavily condemned by Srila Prabhupada throughout his teachings. While he initially engaged his female disciples in street preaching alongside men because Western society was not yet ready for the ideal separation of the sexes, his ultimate goal was the establishment of Varnasrama-dharma.

Neglecting Varnasrama ensures that we will never truly establish stri-dharma or any other dharma in our society, as social stability depends entirely on the chastity of women (BG 1.40). It is deeply ironic that while devotees are prepared to transcend all dharmas for the sake of Krishna consciousness, they simultaneously embrace various forms of adharma. Is this a correct understanding of the Bhagavad-gita? If Arjuna did not abandon his kshatriya-dharma even after the Battle of Kurukshetra, why should we abandon our own?

That said, in principle, Srila Prabhupada confirms in many places throughout his books that anyone who is truly acquainted with the transcendental science of Krishna consciousness can become a Guru or Acharya. This is in full alignment with the verse Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.33.6. Please consider the following:

“To say nothing of the spiritual advancement of persons who see the Supreme Person face to face, even a person born in a family of dog-eaters immediately becomes eligible to perform Vedic sacrifices if he once utters the holy name of the Supreme Personality of Godhead or chants about Him, hears about His pastimes, offers Him obeisances or even remembers Him.”

In his Sārārtha-darśinī Commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.33.6), Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura provides the following insight:

ata eva sa śvapaco garīyān atiśayena gurur bhavatīty anyān api nāmātmaka-mantram upadeṣṭuṁ yogyatāṁ dhatte iti bhāvaḥ |

Translation: Therefore, that dog-eater (śvapaca) is most glorious—he becomes a guru in the highest sense. The implication is that he possesses the eligibility even to instruct others in the mantra consisting of the Holy Name. (In other words, he can even become a dīkṣā-guru for others!)

Also, elsewhere in SB (1.13.15, purport):

“Vidura, born of the womb of a śūdra woman, was forbidden even to be a party of royal heritage along with his brothers Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu. Then how could he occupy the post of a preacher to instruct such learned kings and kṣatriyas as Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira? The first answer is that even though it is accepted that he was a śūdra by birth, because he renounced the world for spiritual enlightenment by such an authority as Ṛṣi Maitreya and was thoroughly educated by him in transcendental knowledge, he was quite competent to occupy the post of an ācārya, or spiritual preceptor. According to Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, anyone who is conversant in the transcendental knowledge, or the science of Godhead, be he a brāhmaṇa or a śūdra, a householder or a sannyāsī, is eligible to become a spiritual master. Even in the ordinary moral codes (as stated by Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, the great politician and moralist) there is no harm in taking lessons from a person who may be by birth less than a śūdra. This is one part of the answer. The other is that Vidura was not actually a śūdra. He was to play the part of a so-called śūdra for one hundred years, being cursed by Maṇḍūka Muni. He was the incarnation of Yamarāja, one of the twelve mahājanas, on the level with such exalted personalities as Brahmā, Nārada, Śiva, Kapila, Bhīṣma, Prahlāda, etc. Because Yamarāja is a mahājana, it is his duty to preach the cult of devotion to the people of the world, as Nārada, Brahmā, and other mahājanas do. But Yamarāja is always busy in his Plutonic kingdom punishing the doers of sinful acts. Yamarāja is deputed by the Lord to a particular planet, some hundreds of thousands of miles away from the planet of earth, to take away the corrupt souls after death and convict them in accordance with their respective sinful activities. Thus Yamarāja has very little time to take leave from his responsible office of punishing the wrongdoers. There are more wrongdoers than righteous men. Therefore Yamarāja has to do more work than other demigods, who are also authorized agents of the Supreme Lord. But he wanted to preach the glories of the Lord, and therefore by the will of the Lord he was cursed by Maṇḍūka Muni to come into the world in the incarnation of Vidura and work very hard as a great devotee. Such a devotee is neither a śūdra nor a brāhmaṇa. He is transcendental to such divisions of mundane society, just as the Personality of Godhead assumes His incarnation as a hog but is neither a hog nor a Brahmā. He is above all mundane creatures. The Lord and His different authorized devotees sometimes have to play the role of many lower creatures to claim the conditioned souls, but both the Lord and His pure devotees are always in the transcendental position. When Yamarāja thus incarnated himself as Vidura, his post was officiated by Aryamā, one of the many sons of Kaśyapa and Aditi. The Ādityas are sons of Aditi, and there are twelve Ādityas. Aryamā is one of the twelve Ādityas, and therefore it was quite possible for him to take charge of the office of Yamarāja during his one hundred years' absence in the form of Vidura. The conclusion is that Vidura was never a śūdra but was greater than the purest type of brāhmaṇa.”

Thus, in principle, any devotee—including women or those from any background—is eligible to act as an Acharya provided they have received transcendental knowledge of Krishna consciousness from a bona fide authority, just as Vidura received knowledge from the sage Maitreya (SB 1.13.15). However, for the purpose of establishing Varnasrama roles, it is desirable that both women and devotees of shudra-varna set an example for broader society by voluntarily declining such positions. In doing so, they uphold the principle of loka-saṅgraha—acting for the benefit and spiritual education of the general public (BG 3.20).

One may then argue that, according to this logic, many of our male devotees would also be barred from assuming the role of diksha-guru. Furthermore, if we strictly adhere to Bharadvaja-samhita 1.41, then—except in cases of emergency—even devotees of kshatriya or vaishya-varna should not initiate those of a higher varna than their own. To address this, we look to a specific order from our Founder-Acharya in his purport to Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 8.128:

“It is stated in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa that one should not accept initiation from a person who is not in the brahminical order if there is a fit person in the brahminical order present. This instruction is meant for those who are overly dependent on the mundane social order and is suitable for those who want to remain in mundane life. If one understands the truth of Kṛṣṇa consciousness and seriously desires to attain transcendental knowledge for the perfection of life, he can accept a spiritual master from any social status, provided the spiritual master is fully conversant with the science of Kṛṣṇa.”

Thus, devotees of shudra-varna can and should initiate those from any varna, even in the absence of an emergency; while considerations of social order are important, they remain secondary to the cultivation of Krishna consciousness.

As for female devotees, we answer that while there is, in principle, nothing wrong with them assuming the role of Acharya or diksha-guru, their essential role of stri-dharma—the very foundation of a civilized society—would be compromised by such a position. The reasons are self-evident: they would be required to become independent travelling preachers or rely on institutional support for their maintenance, both of which conflict with the injunctions of Manu-samhita 9.3 (na strī svātantryam arhati).

We find no examples of great female devotees acting in this manner within an institutional framework (setting aside examples from apa-sampradayas). While exceptions existed, they were never part of formal institutional laws. Furthermore, the presence of female diksha-gurus would, directly or indirectly, encourage women to mingle freely with men under the guise of preaching—a reality to which our own ISKCON history bears testimony. Let us not ignore the facts.

Although Srila Prabhupada admits in his books that, in principle, anyone can become an Acharya, he never personally appointed any of his female disciples to such leading positions in practice. He even intended to advise Mrs. Indira Gandhi (the then Prime Minister of India) to appoint her son, Sanjay, as King, while she assumed the role of Queen Mother (Rajamata). His initial engagement of female disciples in street preaching was a compromise to Western social conditions, which were not yet prepared to adapt to the Vedic standard of men and women's roles.

Concluding remarks: In principle, female devotees possess the spiritual eligibility to become Acharyas or diksha-gurus. However, in practice, we do not find Srila Prabhupada encouraging this for the future of his ISKCON, nor do we see such examples from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura. While Gaudiya sampradaya and Sri Vaishnava sampradaya – both adore exceptional figures like Sri Jahnavadevi, Sri Laksmidevi for diksha-guru role, neither Pāñcarātra scriptures, such as the Bharadvāja-saṃhitā, nor established traditions like the Śrī Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya typically endorse women devotees assuming the role of dīkṣā-guru. A primary theological justification for this could be the perceived incompatibility between stri-dharma—which emphasizes domesticity and social protection—and the independent ritual authority required of an initiating preceptor.

Moreover, Srila Prabhupada's ultimate vision was the gradual establishment of Varnasrama roles—a task he considered the 'second half' of his mission (one of the seven purposes of ISKCON). Therefore, considering the adhikāra (qualification) of society at large and the directions of our Founder-Acharya, we should humbly request our respected Vaishnavis to decline the role of diksha-guru (perhaps reserving such considerations only for extreme, war-like emergencies).

On the other hand, they should remain instrumental, as they have always been, in fulfilling the second half of Srila Prabhupada’s mission. I do not believe we can even conceive of a healthy, stable, and Krishna-conscious society without their vital support. Perhaps, once Varnasrama norms are firmly established in society, great Acharyas of the future may recognize empowered Vaishnavis and request them to accept the responsibility of diksha-gurus—solely to enhance the glories of Krishna consciousness.

I beg forgiveness from all Vaishnavas for any inappropriate or poorly chosen words.

Hoping this act of mine pleases Sri Hari, Guru, and the Vaishnavas,

dasabhasa,

Jay Nityananda Das.