Exclusive: Inside the GBC’s Private VDG Committee Chat – 712 Messages on Female Diksha Gurus, Published in Full

18 October 2026 0 comments

For five weeks this summer, the representatives the GBC gathered to settle whether women may serve as initiating gurus in ISKCON argued the question in a WhatsApp group between their Tuesday meetings. The group was closed to the public. Akincana Gocara has obtained its archive and, in an exclusive, publishes it here in full for the first time: 712 messages, from the group’s opening on 6 July to 10 August 2026.

The Global Vaishnavi Diksha Guru (VDG) Committee was set up by ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission to hold “dialogue and consultation on the subject of Vaishnavi Diksha Gurus” and to prepare a proposal for the GBC’s 2026 Midterm Meeting.^[1] Its members, nominated by ISKCON’s regional governing bodies, met on Zoom every Tuesday and used a WhatsApp group for notices, documents and debate. The record below shows the India Bureau’s representatives insisting that no scriptural evidence allows women to give diksha, other members, among them representatives from North America and Latin America, arguing that Srila Prabhupada’s own words and practice allow it, and the chair asking everyone to keep “the unity of ISKCON” in view.^[3]

The committee

According to GBC Communications, the committee held its inaugural meeting on 14 July 2026 under the chairmanship of Govardhana Dasa, First Vice-Chairman of the GBC Executive Committee. Its mandate is “to study the relevant GBC resolutions and supporting submissions, engage in respectful dialogue and consultation, and prepare a proposal for consideration by the GBC.” The members were nominated by the Africa RGB, the Euro RGB, the India Bureau, the Latin America RGB, the North American Council, Singapore and Far East, and the Middle East. GBC Communications said the Chinese Council and the Russian Governing Council had been invited but did not nominate representatives, and that the committee would keep meeting through October 2026.^[1] In the group, however, the secretary welcomed a representative “nominated by the Russian RGB to represent Russia” on 16 July, and GBC Communications listed Russia and Fiji among the zones present at the second meeting.^[2]^[3]

The resolutions the members were asked to study were posted in the group on 10 July: the GBC’s 2021 statement on resolutions and cultural sensitivity (206.02) and the Vaisnavi diksa-guru law (701.06, passed in 2019, put in abeyance, and amended on 22 December 2021 after more than two dozen mediated meetings between GBC and Bureau representatives). A schedule shared on 30 July lists presentations from the regions in July and August, an open discussion of a proposal on 15 September, a draft report on 29 September and a “Vote on Final proposal” on 8 October.^[3]

After the second meeting, GBC Communications reported that the members had discussed “cultural, geographical and practical considerations” and had flagged two matters for further study: “the appropriate voting threshold (e.g., 51% versus 75%) for significant doctrinal matters such as VDG” and “the framework for understanding Srila Prabhupada’s statements regarding ‘not so many’ women diksha gurus.”^[2] The group’s last message, on 10 August, is from the chair. He announced that the next call would be the last one for presentations, and that he would then present “a version 1.0 proposal” for three further meetings to conclude.^[3]

Who took part

Roles are given as the members described themselves in the group:^[3]

Govardhana Dasa, chair of the committee and First Vice-Chairman of the GBC Executive Committee.
Parijata Devi Dasi, the committee’s secretary, who opened the group “on behalf of the GBC EC and Govardhan Prabhu”.
Basu Ghosh Das, General Secretary of the ISKCON India Governing Council (Bureau), and Krishna Kirti Das, Convenor of the ISKCON India Scholars Board, for the India Bureau.
Madan Gopal Das and Bir Krishna Goswami, GBC member, for North America.
Prahladananda Swami, GBC member in Europe, and Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī, Head of the Law Department of the Euro RGB and ISKCON Justice Minister for Europe, for the Euro RGB.
Baladeva Das, Chairman of the Latin America RGB, and Lokasaksi Dasa, Management Overseer for ISKCON projects in southern Brazil and GBC Zonal Secretary for Brazil from 1989 to 1994, for Latin America.
Krsangi Radhe Dasi of Durban, for the African RGB, and Nara Narayana Dasa of Mauritius, Regional Deity Worship Minister for Africa.
Aniruddha, nominated by the Russian RGB, and Visvanath Das of Fiji, added as the representative for Australasia.

A note on the source

This record is the committee members’ own exchange, published as it stands. The opinions, quotations and factual claims in it belong to the members who posted them. Akincana Gocara has not checked them, and their publication here is not an endorsement of any side. Every member’s messages are included in full, so each position appears in its holders’ own words.

The exchange in full

Monday, 6 July 2026

Parijata · 21:45

Hare Krishna, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

On behalf of the GBC EC and Govardhan Prabhu, I would like to welcome the representatives from the various RGBs who have been invited to share their perspectives regarding the Vaishnava Diksha Guru matter. We look forward to your insights and contributions as we work together toward a more concrete decision on this important issue

Madan Gopal Das · 21:56

Hare Kṛṣṇa. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda. This is your servant, Madana-gopāla Dāsa from the North American RGB. If the esteemed members of this group could kindly drop a note with their name, title and location that would greatly help with the communications here. Thank you. 🙏🪷

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:05

Hare Krishna, please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda. This is Krishna Kirti das, on behalf of the India Bureau. Along with me will be Basu Ghosh Prabhu, the General Secretary of the Bureau, who will introduce himself. I am the Convenor for the ISKCON India Scholars Board (https://iisb.co.in), and I am based in New Delhi. Bhavataḥ sevakaḥ, Kr̥ṣṇa-kīrti Dāsaḥ

Baladeva das · 22:06

Esteemed Parijata, dear Vaisnavas

Baladeva das · 22:07

Please accept my humble obeisances

Baladeva das · 22:07

All glories to Srila Prabhupada

Baladeva das · 22:07

Here Baladeva das from Latín América RGB

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 22:46

Hare Krishna, dear Devotees.
Please accept my humble obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

I am based in Zurich, Switzerland, and serve as Head of the Law Department in the Euro RGB and as the ISKCON Justice Minister for Europe.

I am a disciple of His Holiness Bhakti Charu Swami Maharaja and His Holiness Krishna Kshetra Swami Maharaja. Born into a Krishna-conscious family, I have been engaged in devotional service since childhood, growing up in India before moving to Germany and now Switzerland.

By profession, I am a lawyer and currently pursuing a Ph.D. I have previously served as personal secretary to His Holiness Bhakti Charu Swami Maharaja, and briefly as a secretary to the GBC Sastric Advisory Council. As well as a member of the ISKCON Constitution Committee.

I hope this meets you well.
Your servant,
Devasri Radhika Devi Dasi
https://eurorgb.org/members/devasri-radhika-devi-dasi/

Bir Krishna Goswami · 23:49

Hare Krishna. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Please accept my obeisances.

This is Bir Krishna Goswami. I am a GBC member, and I am representing North America along with Madan Gopal.
Ys
BKG

Tuesday, 7 July 2026

Prahladananda Swami · 00:54

I’m Prahladananda Swami, a GBC member in Europe and representing the Euro RGB along with Devarsi Radhika dd.

Krsangi Radhe · 01:51

Hare Krishna dear devotees

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

This is Krsangi Radhe dasi, a disciple of His Holiness Indradyumna.

I live in Durban, South Africa and representing the African Regional Governing Body.

Basu Ghosh Das · 03:21

Sarvebhyonamaha. Jaya Srila Prabhupada!
Basu Ghosh Das here, General Secretary of the ISKCON India Governing Council (Bureau), registered at Bombay by Srila ACBS Prabhupada in 1971.
Recently voted by the Bureau as a representative from India for this dialogue along with @Krishna Kirti Das who is the convener of the ISKCON India Scholars Board, constituted in 2013 by the ISKCON Bharat Advisory Committee (to the Bureau).

Naranarayana Das · 11:11

Hare Krishna.
Dandavat pranam. Srila Prabhupada ki jay!
Nara Narayana Dasa here from Mauritius.
Serving as Regional Deity Worship Minister for Africa and as IDWM Representative for Mauritius. 🙏🏼

Parijata · 13:14

Hare Krishna Vaishnavas,
Thank you for the introductions.

Kindly take note of the following:

– The Terms of Reference for the Global VDG Committee will be shared by this weekend.

– The meetings will be held on consecutive Tuesdays from 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm IST, beginning with the inception meeting on Tuesday, 14 July. The Zoom link will be shared in this group.

• You should have received a welcome email from iskcongbcglobal@gmail.com inviting you to join the GVDG Committee Google Group. If you do not see it in your inbox, kindly check your spam or junk folder. Once received, please add this email address to your trusted contacts/safe senders list.

• The email address for the GVDG Committee Google Group is: globalvdgcommittee@googlegroups.com

With gratitude
Your servant,
Parijata devi dasi

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 13:58

Hare Kṛṣṇa! 🙏Please accept my humble obeisances!
All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Here is Lokasaksi Dasa ACBSP from Latin American RGB.
I am accting as the MO (Mannagement Overseer) for the ISKCON projects of the South of Brazil.
I was the Zonal Secretary of GBC for Brazil, from 1989 to 1994.

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 12:37

Did not receive this email. Please send it to eurorgb.legal@gmail.com. Thank you.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 16:12

I did not receive either. Please send to [email address removed]

Parijata · 16:30

Hare Krishna, I resent the Welcome email a while back. Kindly reply on the email if you have received it

Friday, 10 July 2026

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 06:19

@Parijata Devi Dasi
Re: Inception meeting: 14 July – 5-6.30 PM IST – Tuesday
Personally, this info is coming a bit last moment for me. I have an official commitment at that time (CET) which I cannot suddenly shift
Will it please be possible that we begin from 21 July onwards? Then I would be in a better position to add these meetings in my schedule
Wouldn’t want to miss the very first meeting
Please let me know

Parijata · 12:55

@Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī Thank you for letting me know & I understand your situation.
The meeting schedule was determined by GBC EC n forms part of the committee’s TOR (which will be shared here soon). The dates n expected deliverables for each stage of committee’s work have been planned leading up to the Mid Term Meetings where the committee is expected to present its proposal. For this reason, it would be difficult to postpone the commencement of the meetings
We will certainly miss your participation in the inaugural meeting if you’re unable to attend & we look forward to having you join us from the following meetings onwards

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 14:47

Will be happy to receive the minutes of the meeting or the recording to catch up. Thank you!

Parijata · 17:22

Hare Krishna members, Please find below the Terms of Reference for Global VDG Committee below :

Parijata · 17:25

Also, shared below are the GBC Resolutions regarding VDG. Kindly read and familiarise yourself with them

Parijata · 17:25

206.02: GBC proposals, resolutions, and voting: Resolutions and proposals

[Title] – GBC resolutions and cultural sensitivity — 2021

[Meeting] – GBC Virtual Meeting (passed on November 17, 2021)
[Category] – Statement

Whereas ISKCON is a growing international society, with communities on six continents;

Whereas ISKCON members and communities naturally interact, and exist within, many different cultures, languages and historical traditions;

Whereas ISKCON is composed of devotees from a wide variety of backgrounds, races, ethnicities, traditions, and cultures;

Whereas our Founder-Acarya Srila Prabhupada stressed the need to share Krishna Consciousness according to time, place, and circumstance;

Whereas Srila Prabhupada taught us the importance of unity in diversity, and the importance of cooperation;

Whereas, the Governing Body Commission acknowledges that the varieties of cultural expressions of Krishna consciousness are a strength, not a weakness, and a symbol of our global success and expansion.

RESOLVED:

1. The GBC Body may, on exceptional occasions, pass resolutions which may, due to differing cultural norms in certain parts of the world, require special attention, and thus the GBC may designate such a resolution as potentially a “culturally sensitive resolution.”

2. A Regional Governing Body (RGB), or where there is no RGB, an authorized national council with the support of their GBC, or where a national council has more than one GBC, a majority of their GBCs, may apply to the GBC Body with a request to modify a culturally sensitive resolution for their area/yatra. Such a request must include the details of the specific adjustment/s they propose to make, as well as the reasons for requesting such an adjustment/s.

3. The GBC Body will give guidelines and set out the parameters regarding what may or may not be adjusted within a culturally sensitive resolution. Any details, guidelines, parameters, timelines, etc., in regard to its exceptional status must be recorded within the resolution itself.

Parijata · 17:26

2021:

701.06: ISKCON spiritual masters: Vaisnavi Diksa-gurus

[Title] – Vaisnavi diksa-gurus — 2019: Amendment — 2021

[Meeting] – GBC Virtual Meeting (passed on December 22, 2021)
[Category] – Governing law

Whereas the GBC put in abeyance the 2019 Vaishnavi Diksa Guru resolution so
that the GBC and the Indian Bureau could discuss the topic in more detail,

Whereas representatives of the Bureau and representatives of the GBC met
jointly more than two dozen times over the period of a year,

Whereas those meetings were facilitated by professional mediators, including
a mediator chosen by the Bureau, and another mediator who is a senior member
of ISKCONResolve,

Whereas the GBC representatives made a sincere effort to hear and understand
the concerns and opinions of the Bureau representatives,

Whereas the GBC representatives noted that they valued the time spent with
the Bureau members, and that they now better understand the views of the
Bureau representatives after those meetings,

Whereas the GBC delegation concluded that further meetings, or additional
study of the matter, would not provide new insights,

Whereas the GBC delegation reported that, based on these discussions, some
clarifications of the 2019 Resolution on Vaishnavi Diksa Gurus are required,
701.6, “ISKCON Spiritual Masters, Vaisnavi Diksa-gurus—2019.

Whereas the GBC, in its November 17, 2021, meeting, determined that on rare
occasions a GBC Resolution may be certified as a Culturally Sensitive
Resolution, and thus, within specific GBC guidelines, that Resolution may be
applied differently across ISKCON regions,

Whereas in 2009 the GBC Resolved (Female Diksa Gurus):

The GBC accepts the philosophical conclusion presented in the SAC’s Female
Diksa Guru Paper that a mature, qualified, female devotee may accept the
role of an initiating spiritual master.

The GBC Body authorizes local area committees to put forward for approval as
initiating guru any devotee in their area, male or female, who is qualified
according to existing GBC Law.

Whereas, the GBC has worked to achieve consensus and implementation of this
resolution for many years, including the above mentioned extensive dialogues
with representatives of the India Bureau;

Therefore, the Resolution regarding Vaisnavi Diksa Gurus of 2019, 701.6,
“ISKCON Spiritual Masters, Vaisnavi Diksa-gurus—2019 is amended and replaced
by the following:

1. Vaisnavis are eligible to give diksa within ISKCON provided that

they:

a. Meet all the qualifications listed for ISKCON diksa-guru applicants;
b. Are at least 55 years of age.
c. Are in a stable family situation living under the protection of a
husband, elder son or son-in-law, qualified householder couple or
senior Vaisnava or Vaisnavi sanga;

1. After five years the GBC shall review this resolution to determine

if the number of Vaisnavis initiating in any region, or as a total for the
world, is in keeping with Srila Prabhupada’s indication of “not so many.”

Prof. O’Connell: Is it possible, Swamiji, for a woman to be a guru in the
line of disciplic succession?
Prabhupada: Yes. Jahnava devi was—Nityananda’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].

1. Furthermore, this resolution is designated as a “Culturally

Sensitive Resolution.” Per GBC law:

A Regional Governing Body (RGB), or where there is no RGB, an authorized
national council with the support of their GBC, or where a national council
has more than one GBC, a majority of their GBCs, may apply to the GBC Body
with a request to modify a culturally sensitive resolution for their
area/yatra. Such a request must include the details of the specific
adjustment/s they propose to make, as well as the reasons for requesting
such an adjustment/s.

The GBC Body will give guidelines and set out the parameters regarding what
may or may not be adjusted within a culturally sensitive resolution?. Any
details, guidelines, parameters, timelines, etc., in regard to its
exceptional status must be recorded within the resolution itself.

Thus, by designating this as a Culturally Sensitive Resolution, the GBC
hereby establishes that an RGB or other authorized ISKCON leadership body as
denoted in the above referenced law—may opt out of this mandate and choose
to not allow any Vaisnavis to initiate within their jurisdiction. Any given
RGB that does not opt out and proceeds to fully implement this resolution,
may, at their discretion, allow any given country within their region to opt
out of applying this resolution. Naturally that would only be done after
very careful consideration, as the default position is to always fully
implement GBC resolutions.
In those regions or countries that choose to opt out, if a particular
candidate for diksa guru is approved by a special 2/3 vote of that RGB, or
other authorized body, per above, then she shall be accepted as a diksa guru
in that region or country.
A decision to opt out must be reaffirmed by that RGB, or authorized body per
above, every five years. No other adjustments to this resolution are
authorized or will be permitted.

This resolution lifts the abeyance on this matter stated in resolution 310
of 2015.

Sunday, 12 July 2026

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 12:51

I managed to take the time off. I will be there. Hare Krishna.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:38

Hare Kṛṣṇa. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda.
For the inception meeting to be held on Tuesday what are the agenda, meeting structure, rules of order etc?

Baladeva das · 20:01

Dear Vaisnavas
Dandavats
All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
This is Baladeva Das,
Chairman of RGB Latin America.
My apologies, I will not be able to participate in the meeting as I will be on a flight from Guyana to Argentina. I don’t know if I will be able to connect from the plane.🙏🏼

Baladeva das · 20:03

Will the meeting be recorded?

Monday, 13 July 2026

Parijata · 07:46

Yes

Parijata · 07:47

Global VDG Committee Meeting

Date: 13 July
Time: 5:00 pm– 6:30 pm IST

Agenda:

Approval of the Terms of Reference
Confirmation of the Meeting Schedule
Review of the GBC Resolution

The meeting with be Chaired by Govardhan Prabhu.

He will brief the committee on the meeting rules, protocols, and expected outcomes.

We humbly request RGB members who have accepted the seva of representing their respective RGBs to kindly make these meetings a priority and ensure their attendance

Parijata · 07:52

Zoom Meeting Link:

[Zoom link removed]

Meeting ID: [removed]Passcode: [removed]

Madan Gopal Das · 07:55

13th or 14th? The prior communication said 14th.

Parijata · 08:56

My apologies it’s Tues, 14 July

Parijata · 08:58

All meetings are scheduled for consecutive Tuesdays at 5pm

Tuesday, 14 July 2026

Parijata · 13:37

Hare Krishna, a gentle reminder about the upcoming inception meeting in a few hours

Parijata · 13:38

Zoom Meeting Link:

[Zoom link removed]

Meeting ID: [removed]Passcode: [removed]

Krishna Kirti Das · 13:39

Are we supposed to have anything prepared to speak on before hand? If not, and if you are going to ask us to speak, what about?

Govardhana Dasa · 15:41

Todays call is about getting organised. We will go through the tors and the GBC resolution.

If we have time , we will ask for a 2 minute opening statement from each RGB.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:26

The spiritual master is also called ācārya, or a transcendental professor of spiritual science. The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa if he finds him perfectly qualified. In the Vāyu Purāṇa an ācārya is defined as one who knows the import of all the Vedic literatures, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 1.46

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:28

Note the “his disciples” and not “her disciples” in the last sentence….

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:28

Or not “his or her disciples”.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 18:31

@Parijata Devi Dasi
I would like to suggest
Mother Narayani Devi
Mother Rukmini Devi
as guest speakers invited to the Committee

Parijata · 18:32

Noted

Prahladananda Swami · 18:38

I would like to suggest a sub-committees which deals with:

1. To determine according to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions what the service and authority of a diksa guru in ISKCON is and what it is not.

2. What are the underlying issues which are obstacles for the successful conclusion the above are.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:41

One thought: why is there no representative from Bangladesh in these discussions?
We have 132 centers there. By comparison, how many do we have in Southeast Asia and Africa, etc.?

Govardhana Dasa · 18:45

Good point. We can add 2…and put it up for a vote, in line with the tors we just approved.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:01

This is off-topic, but on the Rathayatra dates issue, things are really blowing up here in India, and I know that some of you are also feeling the heat due to SJTA-aligned Odia diaspora. If you have some interest or felt-need for support on this matter, please get in touch with me privately.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 19:03

Apart from our discussion on the topic of dīkṣā-guru authority, since we are serving as a Global Committee, I feel it would be be beneficial to also spend some time discussing the broader principles that will shape how we serve together.

I think it would be valuable to brainstorm together and develop a shared understanding around principles such as keeping Śrīla Prabhupāda at the center, unity in diversity, a genuine spirit of cooperation, succession planning, and the current needs of the preaching mission.

Perhaps just one short meeting might even suffice..

These discussions would not be limited to the VDG topic alone, but could help together establish the foundational pillars of our mood and culture as a committee. My hope is that they would help us build our relationships with each other on a spirit of mutual respect, collaboration, and shared service, serving together for the pleasure of Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Sharing things we agree upon, before or while we enter discussions where we may vary.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:07

FYI, the IISB has a page dedicated to the topic of female diksa-gurus: https://iisb.co.in/fdg/

Basu Ghosh Das · 22:07

https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/720922sbla/ – link to the audio of the lecture. Transcript, below.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.17. Type: Srimad-Bhagavatam
Date: Sept. 22, 1972, Location: Los Angeles

From the lecture [note that the lecture was given in the USA – the West – not in India]:

“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.
Therefore the combination should be that the husband should be first-class devotee, Kṛṣṇa conscious, and woman should be…, woman should be devoted to the husband, faithful, so that she would help the husband to make progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then their both life is successful. Otherwise, if the husband simply becomes captivated by the charming beauty of woman and engages himself in the sex life, then his life is lost, and the woman, they are less intelligent, that unless they are guided by proper husband, her life is also lost.”

Basu Ghosh Das · 22:09

The above quote from Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 1.46, and this quote from him lecture is enough proof that there is no such thing as “vaishnavi diksha guru”.

The problem is that while it’s easy to say “Jaya Srila Prabhupada” and “Srila Prabhupada ki jaya”, it is not so easy to explain away what he has clearly said about what initiation is — the sacred thread — and who can and cannot have it! Dismiss both proofs at your own risk!

Baladeva das · 22:30

How interesting this excerpt is where Srila Prabhupada clarifies: ‘This is the theory’… Because if we think about it in practice, he himself didn’t apply that structure so rigidly, but was much more inclusive. In the end, he gave brahminical initiation to all of us equally, regardless of gender or birth. It’s amazing how his compassion and practical vision went beyond any theoretical limit.

Baladeva das · 22:33

Apologies if I can’t follow the thread of the discussion, but I’m traveling. Going from one airport to another.

Basu Ghosh Das · 22:42

Prabhupada was an “great acharya” who could “make adjustments” due to time and circumstance. We are not, and neither is the GBC.
“Sacred thread” is described in both quotations. Why didn’t Prabhupada give it to women, if he “gave brahmanical initiation to all of us equally”?

Baladeva das · 23:14

That raises an interesting point dear Basu Ghosh Prabhu. In addition to chanting personally in the ear of his disciples, women as well as men, the mantra Gayatri, we must remember that the sacred thread is an external social symbol, while the Gayatri mantra itself is the true spiritual sacrament.
Resulting incomprehensible that those who argue strictly against the principle of a ‘vaishnavi diksha guru,’ citing loyalty to Prabhupada and affirming that he is the only one who can make adjustments, are aligned with those who have introduced personal changes to the mantra Gayatri that we received originally from Srila Prabhupada.

Baladeva das · 23:17

I apologize, but I feel that the application of this principle is being used as a double standard.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 23:36

I had initially decided not to engage in textual discussions because of the limited time we all have and the high possibility of misinterpretation. However, I would like to share a perspective. I may not engage much in side discussions, although I recognize they can also be very productive.

Our ISKCON movement has a relatively short yet powerful history, marked by both remarkable victories and significant pitfalls. Personally, I try to shift the discussion away from the scope of equality and instead ask: What does Srila Prabhupada’s movement need right now to continue effectively for the next 10,000 years? We must do so without compromising principles while thoughtfully working out the practical details, just as Srila Prabhupada taught us. He gave us the roadmap for becoming independently thoughtful, and if we can cooperate and work together, we will strengthen Lord Caitanya’s movement rather than create factions.

Given the history of ISKCON’s growth and the need to preach to local populations—after all, Srila Prabhupada did not establish an Indian movement—we are faced with the challenge of finding solutions that can be applied universally while remaining culturally sensitive. I appreciated that the resolution we read today allows regions to act according to their cultural context, because these cultural realities and historical experiences genuinely exist. We can aspire to be fully transcendental and philosophical, but we are also an institution functioning within the material world, dealing with very practical challenges.

Considering the shortage of qualified gurus, together with the history of abuse and misuse of power in various forms of leadership, we have a responsibility to create an environment in which devotees can genuinely trust the spiritual family they are choosing. I can understand why many Vaisnavis may hesitate to take shelter of a Vaisnava guru—especially a younger guru—if they do not truly feel protected or safe. It is therefore our responsibility to navigate these issues in a way that responds not merely to our own personal convictions or preferences, but to the needs of the devotees at large, whose care is our foremost responsibility because they are Srila Prabhupada’s property.

These are simply some of the many thoughts that have been going through my mind. For me, this is ultimately not about equality, nor even about debating śāstra in isolation. It is about discerning what Srila Prabhupada’s movement needs in order to grow and flourish globally for generations to come.

I would rather establish thoughtful standards now, while Srila Prabhupada’s disciples are still with us to offer their guidance and wisdom, than wait until future generations are left to speculate about what should have been done.

Given the way our movement is expanding throughout the world, far beyond India, I believe this has become not just beneficial, but necessary.

Basu Ghosh Das · 23:56

Prabhu,

What I have copied are verbatim instructions from Srila Prabhupada. Particularly his purport to CC Adi 1.46 is echoed in other purports as well. The instructions in his purports were his instructions to his disciples and for “humanity” “for the next ten thousand years”. By writing “we must remember that the sacred thread is an external social symbol, while the Gayatri mantra itself is the true spiritual sacrament” do you want us to reject the direct meaning of what Prabhupada wrote in the purport?

You mean that what Prabhupada wrote has no validity? Prabhupada clearly wrote in the purport: “The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage.”

Prabhupada could have written to the effect that “the sacred thread is not so important, the gayatri mantra is more important”. But he did not!

What appears to be taking place here is an attempt to prove what Prabhupada wrote is somehow false. To support the “gender equality ideology” that Prabhupada did NOT support! Doing so in an injustice to what Prabhupada clearly wrote in this specific purport.

Here is what Prabhupada said about gender equality in one conversation:

Yogeśvara: So here’s a problem: The women today want the same rights as men. How can they be satisfied?
Prabhupāda: Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are working. They don’t want equal rights with the men. It is due to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They are cleansing the temple, they are cooking very nicely. They are satisfied. They never said that “I have to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupāda.” They never say. This is artificial. So Kṛṣṇa consciousness means work in his constitutional position. The women, men, when they remain in their constitutional position, there will be no artificial . . . (indistinct) . . . (loud traffic noises)

Srila Prabhupada’s Morning Walk @ Rome, Italy, on May 27, 1974

=============

It’s pretty clear that “it is due to Krishna Consciousness” that gender equality is not part of Prabhupada’s teachings!

Again: Prabhupāda: Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are working. They don’t want equal rights with the men. It is due to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They are cleansing the temple, they are cooking very nicely. They are satisfied. They never said that “I have to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupāda.” They never say. This is artificial. So Kṛṣṇa consciousness means work in his constitutional position.

Wednesday, 15 July 2026

Parijata · 19:26

📎 GVDG 14Jul26 Update Statement.pdf (PDF)

Bir Krishna Goswami · 19:52

what about the Australia/South Pacific area? We want a rep too.

Also Hridayananda Maharaj was one of the invitees but was not listed in the minutes

Parijata · 20:19

I will include Hridayananda Maharaja’s name correctly to the minutes.

Actually, the name is included but is misspelt due to a typo

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:52

Will there be any opportunity for the Bureau side to recommend any senior guests?

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:55

There is also concern from the India Bureau’s side that inviting senior women as guests will constitute a conflict of interest. Presumably, the senior vaishnavas will get an opportunity to speak and so influence the decision of the group members.

Basu Ghosh Das · 22:05

📎 Concerns for Prabhupada – ISKCON India Leaders.pdf (PDF)

Thursday, 16 July 2026

Krishna Kirti Das · 06:24

FYI, the document Basu Ghosh Prabhu forwarded are presentations made to the GBC body on 8th February 2026 on behalf of the India Bureau and the India Continental Committee, which is the largest group representation of the ISKCON India leadership. The presentations therein were read word-for-word before the respected GBC members that day. So, what you read here is what we spoke word-for-word.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 10:52

Dear Devasri Radhika Mata,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda.

The ongoing deliberations within the VDG 2026 Committee are certainly valuable. At the same time, the ISKCON India Bureau feels that an in-person discussion on this matter would be especially beneficial. Accordingly, the Bureau has requested me to reach out to you and your RGB colleagues to explore whether you would be interested in convening such a meeting regarding the topic of Vaishnavi Diksha Gurus.

I would serve as the representative of the Bureau and would be accompanied by my wife. We are prepared to travel to your location at a time convenient for your RGB members. Kindly let me know at your earliest convenience whether this proposal is something your RGB members would like to pursue further.

Bhavataḥ sevakaḥ,
Kṛṣṇa-kīrti dāsa
Convenor, ISKCON India Scholars Board
https://iisb.co.in
convenor@iisb.co.in

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 10:52

Just out of curiosity:
I was aware of lobbyist culture in my professional life with parliamentarians. I am wondering if GBC Committees have any sort of Code of Vaisnava sadacara/ethics to follow. Or is lobbying now entertained as an acceptable practice?

I am personally in favour of legitimate advocacy done in a transparent manner through group discussions but not so much in favour of political lobbying 🙏🏼

Parijata · 15:46

We welcome Aniruddha prabhu @Aniruddha, to the group. He is nominated by the Russian RGB to represent Russia

Aniruddha · 15:50

Hare Krishna! Dear devotees, please accept my humble obeisances.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 17:03

What about the South Pacific zone. We want to send a representative

Parijata · 21:51

Russia was accepted as they were on the list
For a new member, it has to put to a vote, according to the TOR approved

Parijata · 21:52

Also, Australia was invited, they did not respond

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:33

I am a GBC in Fiji which is in Australasia. I will send a rep

Prahladananda Swami · 23:43

Before Bir Krishna Maharaja sends a rep for Australasia shouldn’t he first consult the other authorities (GBC etc) in that area?

Friday, 17 July 2026

Bir Krishna Goswami · 01:22

I am going to consult Rama Swami

Sunday, 19 July 2026

Bir Krishna Goswami · 02:57

Please add Visvanatha from Fiji as a representative from Australasia. I worked this out with Ramai Swami who approved. [phone number removed] is his whatsapp contact. I will send his email later

Bir Krishna Goswami · 05:06

[email address removed] is his email

Basu Ghosh Das · 12:12

Poster asking devotees to pray for Bhakti Anugraha Janardana Swami after a stroke in Montreal

Monday, 20 July 2026

Parijata · 10:42

Hare Krishna Members,

As per the Committee’s TOR, the appointment of a new committee member requires the approval of the Committee.
Kindly cast your vote regarding the nomination of Visvanatha Das (Fiji) as the Australasia representative on the GVDG Committee by completing the form below:

[voting form link removed]

Kindly complete your voting by 21 July, 9pm IST. Thank you

Tuesday, 21 July 2026

Parijata · 08:27

Requesting members who have not voted yet to please vote asap

Parijata · 08:27

[voting form link removed]

Thursday, 23 July 2026

Parijata · 22:01

Voting on the Appointment of Visvanatha Das as a Member of the GVDC

Total voting members: 15
Votes in favour: 11
Votes against: 1
Abstentions: 3

Result: The appointment of Visvanatha Das as a member of the GVDC, representing Australasia, was approved by a majority vote.

Parijata · 22:12

Kindly find below the Agenda for the Upcoming GVDG Meeting on 28 July

Representatives and presenters from the India Bureau, North America (NA) RGB, and Latin America RGB are requested to be prepared with their presentations.

The presentations must be focused on the GBC Resolution on VDG within a cultural context. (Agree, disagree, moderate, amend, etc.)

Also, please ensure that each presentation is limited to 20 minutes to help us stay on schedule

Parijata · 22:12

GVDG Committee
Agenda – 28 July

India Bureau Presentation – 20 mins
North American RGB Presentation- 20 mins
Latin America RGB Presentation- 20 mins
Discussion – 30 mins

Friday, 24 July 2026

Visvanath Das · 00:05

Hare Krishna. PAMHO. AGTSP.

Saturday, 25 July 2026

Govardhana Dasa · 22:01

Dear prabhus

Note:

Just to reiterate Parijatas message to the presenters. You are being asked to reflect on the GBC Resolution. This is the crux. So keep your presentation within this boundary.

State whether you support or not, what informs your position, what edits or amendments you would suggest to make the resolution workable, or if the view is a total rejection then state how the GBC should deal with the opposing side to maintain harmony in our Movement.

Keep in mind the unity of ISKCON. This is sacrosanct.

When dealing with a polarised issue, a measure of introspection is needed, how to solve delimma in a way that does not lead to schisms and disunity.

Your presentations will be shared with the ISKCON world. It must reflect the decorum expected in vaishnava dealings.

Ys
Govardhana dasa

Monday, 27 July 2026

Parijata · 10:07

Kindly find the agenda and Zoom link for the upcoming Global VDG Committee Meeting.

Date: Tuesday, 28 July
Time: 5:00 pm– 6:30 pm IST

Agenda:

India Bureau Presentation – 20 mins
North American RGB Presentation- 20 mins
Latin America RGB Presentation- 20 mins
Discussion – 30 mins

Note to the Presenters:

The presentations must be focused on the GBC Resolution on VDG within a cultural context. (Agree, disagree, moderate, amend, etc.)
Please ensure that each presentation is limited to 20 minutes to help us stay on schedule.

Meeting Zoom link:
[Zoom link removed]

Meeting ID: [removed]Passcode: [removed]

We look forward to your participation. If you are unable to attend, please let us know in advance.

Basu Ghosh Das · 10:11

@Govardhana Dasa Prabhu, there is an MEB meeting that was suddenly scheduled for tomorrow at 6 PM IST. So I may have to leave this meeting at that time.
Hare Krishna! By the way, I am at Mayapur now, for three days.

Govardhana Dasa · 11:45

IB can make its presentation first up
5pm.

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Parijata · 14:44

🎗️Just a gentle reminder that the GVDG Meeting is just a few hours away.

🕔 Time: 5:00 pm– 6:30 pm IST

Presenters, kindly ensure that your presentation is limited to 20 minutes to help us stay on schedule and allow sufficient time for discussions.

We look forward to seeing you all at the meeting!

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:13

📎 presentation_gbc_rgb_india_20260728.docx (Word document)

So, here is my essay, which I just read in our meeting just now. It seems to me that most of the responses to it were not about what I actually spoke about. I did not speak about FDG at all, yet several of the responses ascribed certain positions on FDG to my essay. If you are interested in discussing further, here is my essay.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:20

My essay makes two points: 1) the provision about the scope of pramanas being limited to SP’s books and teachings is unacceptable because Prabhupada and acharyas give us more than that; and 2) the GBC resolution on cultural sensitivity applied to FDGs allowing regions to opt out is against Rupa Goswami, because qualified means “all over the world.” sarvam apimam prithvim sa shishyat. Again, note that none of these points takes a position on FDG at all.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:27

Thank you, Krishna-kirti Prabhu, for sharing your paper. I agree that your presentation was primarily about methodology rather than directly arguing for or against VDGs. However, I think many of the responses addressed what we saw as the methodological assumptions underlying your paper.

For example, when the paper argues that limiting the committee’s scope to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings is “unacceptable,” compares that approach to the “Buddhification of Prabhupāda,” and proposes that later interpreters must independently re-weigh the hierarchy of pramāṇas, those are significant claims that naturally invite discussion about the practical authority of the Founder-Ācārya within ISKCON.

Similarly, regarding cultural sensitivity, I don’t think anyone is arguing that culture overrides śāstra. The question is whether applying deśa-kāla-pātra in implementation is itself a bona fide Vaiṣṇava principle, as Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly demonstrated in his preaching and institutional decisions.

I would also add that the regional implementation provision has been misunderstood. Allowing Vaiṣṇavī dīkṣā-gurus with regional and cultural sensitivity does not mean a qualified Vaiṣṇavī is somehow no longer qualified to make disciples “all over the world.” Her qualification remains unchanged. The resolution simply gives individual regions the administrative discretion to determine whether or when that practice will be implemented within their own jurisdiction, taking into account local circumstances. That is an administrative accommodation, not a theological declaration that her qualification has become geographically limited.

So I don’t think the responses were off-topic. They were engaging what many of us see as the foundational premises from which the later conclusions would naturally follow. I appreciate the opportunity to continue that discussion in a thoughtful and respectful spirit.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:33

Madan Gopal Prabhu wrote,

The resolution simply gives individual regions the administrative discretion to determine whether or when that practice will be implemented within their own jurisdiction, taking into account local circumstances. That is an *administrative accommodation, not a theological declaration that her qualification has become geographically limited.*
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 28 July, 19:27

Yes, that “administrative discretion” is not allowed, because bona fide guru means bona fide everywhere. The administrative decisions are also controlled by shastra. A bona fide guru should be considered bona fide everywhere. Just like Bhagavad-gita is bona fide everywhere.

Again, that is not a position on FDG itself. It just means you have to honor it. Just like Lord Vishnu wouldn’t just use his unlimited power to take back heaven from Bali and give to the demigods. He still had to honor the authority of Shukracharya, his guru. And so Lord Vishnu appeared as Vamanadev to get Shukracharya to reject Bali. When that happened, then he would be bereft of the protection of his guru and could give heaven back to Indra.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:50

With all due respect, a bona fide Vaishnava guru does not automatically have the administrative right to initiate in every temple or jurisdiction without regard for the local authorities or GBC policies. His qualification is not in question, but the institution still regulates how that service is exercised.
Srila Prabhupada exercised such an administrative right when he refused to allow his Godbrothers to give lectures in ISKCON temples (what to speak of giving initiation in his temples). Does that mean that all non-ISKCON gurus are categorically unqualified to initiate?
Did Srila Prabhupada “just have to honor it”?

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:56

A bona fide Vaishnava guru does not automatically have the administrative right to initiate in every temple or jurisdiction without regard for the local authorities or GBC policies. His qualification is not in question, but the institution still regulates how that service is exercised.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 28 July, 19:50

That policy may also up for review, too. As I said, there are other policies that have been created that are questionable. What is the need for shastra? It is because the statements of shastra are without the four defects.

Srila Prabhupada exercised such an administrative right when he refused to allow his Godbrothers to give lectures in ISKCON temples (what to speak of give initiation in his temples). Does that mean that all non-ISKCON gurus are categorically unqualified to initiate?
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 28 July, 19:50

Etiquette. Etiquette is one of the sources of knowledge of dharma mentioned by Yajnavalkya, 1.1.7 – shruti-smriti-sadacharah svasya ca priyam atmanah. It’s a pretty strong source of Vedic authority, actually.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:59

One of the objectives of this conference, as I understand it, is to somehow back away from a disunity. If we are serious about that, then I think we will have to discuss–extensively–the reason for a real one that happened, namely ritvikism. That actually happened. Why did it happen? That’s what my essay is about.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:00

What’s your explanation for why the ritvik heresy grew into a schism?

Madan Gopal Das · 20:11

I actually think the ritvik issue illustrates the opposite of the point you’re making. The problem was not that ritviks followed Prabhupāda too closely. The problem was that they didn’t.

They relied heavily on one or two documents and layers of inference while discounting the totality of Prabhupāda’s direct, repeated, and vision-setting instructions. Prabhupāda repeatedly spoke of disciples becoming gurus, initiating disciples, continuing the paramparā, and training future spiritual masters. Those explicit teachings had to be explained away through increasingly elaborate reinterpretations.

In other words, ritvikism was not born from taking Prabhupāda as the authority; it was born from selectively reading Prabhupāda and allowing inference to override his repeated direct instructions.

That is precisely why I place such emphasis on the Founder-Ācārya’s expressed conclusions. When there is a clear pattern of direct instruction , our starting point should be to faithfully accept and implement those conclusions, not to reconstruct them through inference to dilute them. The antidote to ritvikism is not to move away from Prabhupāda as the normative authority for ISKCON, but to embrace the totality of what he taught rather than isolated statements interpreted in abstraction.
Ironically, the ritviks are the ones who did exactly what your paper warns against, they allowed their own interpretation to become the controlling authority over Prabhupāda’s overall intent. They did not submit to the clear trajectory of his teachings; they reconstructed them. That is why I believe the lesson of ritvikism is to become more faithful to the Founder-Ācārya’s comprehensive instructions, not less.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:16

In other words, ritvikism was not born from taking Prabhupāda as the authority; it was born from selectively reading Prabhupāda and allowing inference to override his repeated direct instructions.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 28 July, 20:11

But you are also doing the same thing. They have their favorite SP statements, and you have yours. Your method is subject to the four defects.

When there is *a clear pattern of direct instruction*
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 28 July, 20:11

Yes, clear pattern of direct instruction, but clear to whom? If you are detecting a pattern, that is your inference. And that is subject to the four defects. It’s not evidence.

Your process is not inherently different from how the ritviks reached their own conclusions.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:17

I think the statement from Thomas J Hopkins that I quoted nicely sums up the problem. If you just stick with Prabhuapda, then you can find a statement to support almost any position. Hence, shastra is required.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:19

I think this is simply a reflection of human cognitive bias. We’re all naturally prone to confirmation bias and cherry-picking evidence that reinforces what we already believe. Whether it’s quoting Śrīla Prabhupāda, other śāstra, or any other authority, none of us is completely immune to that tendency. That’s why it’s so important to approach these discussions with humility and to consider the broader context rather than relying on isolated quotations.

Madan Gopal Das · 20:19

I agree that personal inference is subject to the four defects. But that is not what the pro-VDG methodology is doing.

Our conclusion is not based on “favorite quotations.” It is based on the traditional tatparya-liṅga principles accepted in our sampradāya for determining an author’s intended meaning. One of the primary indicators is abhyāsa, repeated emphasis. Others include the beginning and conclusion, the overall purpose, the promised result, and the supporting reasoning.

So the question is not, “Which quotations do I prefer?” The question is, “What did Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly, clearly, and intentionally teach as his vision for ISKCON?”

That is precisely where I see a difference with the ritvik methodology. Ritvikism takes one administrative letter and asks the rest of Prabhupāda’s teachings to conform to it. Our approach begins with the repeated, direct, vision-setting instructions and interprets isolated or context-specific statements in harmony with that larger body of teaching. That is exactly how the traditional rules of determining tātparya are meant to function.

If we abandon those objective principles and conclude that every discernment of an author’s central teaching is merely subjective inference, then it becomes impossible to determine the intended meaning of any ācārya’s teachings, including Jīva Gosvāmī’s own writings.

Ironically, your own essay relies on these same objective principles. You argue that certain GBC resolutions conflict with Rūpa Gosvāmī because you believe Rūpa’s intended meaning is clear. That conclusion itself is based on determining tātparya. The real question, then, is not whether we may determine an author’s intended meaning, we all must, but which body of evidence best establishes Śrīla Prabhupāda’s intended institutional conclusion. That is where our disagreement lies, not on whether objective hermeneutical principles exist.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:20

The shastra is not subject to the four defects. That’s why quoting shastra is necessary.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:20

Yes, but I think there is also cherry picking going on there…

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:20

For example:

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:21

The pro-FDG faction out and out ignore so many statements of Prabhupada that initiation is the sacred thread, and that women CANNOT have it!

The spiritual master is also called ācārya, or a transcendental professor of spiritual science. The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa if he finds him perfectly qualified. In the Vāyu Purāṇa an ācārya is defined as one who knows the import of all the Vedic literatures, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 1.46

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:21

Absolutely true.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:22

As well as ignoring the clear instruction that women CANNOT take initiation.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:22

On this point, one can also state:

According to Yājñavalkya, sadācāra arises from the conduct of śiṣṭas – those learned and virtuous persons who faithfully embody scriptural principles. For us as followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda, he is our śiṣṭācārya, and his teachings and example serve as a guiding standard for understanding and applying the principles of bhakti and dharma. His authority is respected because he faithfully represents the tradition of guru, sādhu, and śāstra…

Madan Gopal Das · 20:22

Then why did Prabhupada express his vision to see his daughters become initiating guru?

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:23

https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/720922sbla/ – link to the audio of the lecture. Transcript, below.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.17. Type: Srimad-Bhagavatam
Date: Sept. 22, 1972, Location: Los Angeles

From the lecture [note that the lecture was given in the USA – the West – not in India]:

“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.

Therefore the combination should be that the husband should be first-class devotee, Kṛṣṇa conscious, and woman should be…, woman should be devoted to the husband, faithful, so that she would help the husband to make progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then their both life is successful. Otherwise, if the husband simply becomes captivated by the charming beauty of woman and engages himself in the sex life, then his life is lost, and the woman, they are less intelligent, that unless they are guided by proper husband, her life is also lost.”

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:23

“Therefore initiation, brahminical symbolic representation, is given to the man, not to the woman. This is the theory.”

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:23

What does this mean?

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:26

I think these kind of statements very well embody the „Srila Prabhupada said“ snowball that different devotees throw at each other. Like Krishna Kirti Prabhu mentioned in his presentation. It can be endless. Tarka and Vitarka…on and on…

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:27

📎 Concerns for Prabhupada – ISKCON India Leaders.pdf (PDF)

Yes, so, on the topic of the shishtas, it is they who have the authority to make TPC (time, place and circumstance adjustments), as per Manu 12.108. So, in this regard, my presentation to the GBC in their plenary meeting on Februrary 8, I explained this point, and why attempts by brahmanas who are not shisthas results in mistakes in attempts to make judgments on points of dharma not explicitly covered in the shastras (i.e. TPC adjustments). Yes, so having people sufficiently learned and pure are required. It’s a common-sense point. See the second essay for my presentation.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:27

Further, Jīva Gosvāmī explains dīkṣā in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283):

“Even though born in a brāhmaṇa family, one cannot engage in Vedic rituals without being initiated and having a sacred thread. Although born in a brāhmaṇa family, one becomes a brāhmaṇa only after initiation and the sacred thread ceremony. Unless one is initiated as a brāhmaṇa, one cannot worship the holy name properly.”

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:29

Yes, exactly, then it makes sense to conclude that Srila Prabhupada has determined the shishtas and we given our limitations may be flawed if we think we can directly interpret or reconcile the sastra 🙂

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:31

Its part of a group of equivocal statements on women’s social roles. Why wasn’t there a single female TP, GBC, trustee or Ritvik acharya in Prabhupada’s time? And why did he say repeatedly that women should not be in positions of authority? There is that sadachar. Here is the thing, if SP was against women taking up executive roles, then how will guru be allowed? The fact that it did occasionally happen means that we have to consider not whether it was allowed but at what level? Is it good enough just to be a regular devotee, or do you have to be very extraordinarily advanced? That’s the question.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:32

“Therefore, according to Vedic system, a boy born in a brāhmaṇa family, he is allowed all the saṁskāras, reformatory, purificatory process, but the girl is not… so therefore even born in a brāhmaṇa family, a woman is taken as woman, not as brāhmaṇa.”
From Prabhupada’s lecture on July 16, 1969, at Los Angeles.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:33

Why is this being ignored by the pro-FDG faction?

Srila Prabhupada’s Morning Walk @ Rome, Italy, on May 27, 1974

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:34

Actually, none of us would even be considered as worthy of interpreting or even reading sastra if Srila Prabhupada had not redefined the „so called norm“ and made Vedic accessibility possible for all his disciples. Many scholars in India wouldn’t consider our devotees to be even part of varnasrama, truth be told. We are aware of that.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:36

That’s why shastra is going to grow more and more in importance. In India, the Shree Jagannatha Temple Administration is attacking us in the media every day over the issue of ISKCON centers OUTSIDE of India performing Rathayatra. They are using these instances to incite the general public against us and delegitimize us in the eyes of the public as an authentic Sanatana Dharma institution– something that Prabhupada worked very hard to establish in his lifetime. All the good will and support of these organizations that Prabhupada had formerly won is now in danger of being erased. In order to prevail we have no choice but to defend Prabhupada’s several orders to us to choose Rathayatra dates that would maximize attendance. Yet it is not in the shastra explicitly. But we nonetheless must base our argument on shastra. There is no alternative. And it has actually become an existential struggle. You really, do not want us to lose this one.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:39

That is my point is that selective quoting is not a solution. Before ritvikism, everyone was selectively quoting SP. It’s what everyone did. That culture was a necessary condition (but not a sufficient condition) for ritvikism to arise. But it was a necessary condition. And that condition is also there for the FDG issues, too, and many others as well. It might help to look at some other issues that this is a problem that are not about FDG, because devotees will not have as high a temperature about those.

Madan Gopal Das · 20:43

Yes. As Srila Prabhupada explained in your quote “that is the theory”
And what was the actual practice that he himself engaged in? Did he refuse to give Gayatri initiation to single women?
There is theory and there is practice.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:43

Hmm. Selective quoting I agree is not the solution.
Yet, there are definitive statements by Prabhupada on initiation, that are being ignored by the pro-FDG devotees.
In his purport to CC Adi 1.46, Prabhupada cites Manu Samhita for being the source shastra on the sacred thread being initiation.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:44

theory | ˈTHirē |
noun (plural theories)

• a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: a theory of education | music theory.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:45

He did not give women the thread, did he?
And he clearly said that cannot take initiation, didn’t he?

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:45

https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/720922sbla/ – link to the audio of the lecture. Transcript, below.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.17. Type: Srimad-Bhagavatam
Date: Sept. 22, 1972, Location: Los Angeles

From the lecture [note that the lecture was given in the USA – the West – not in India]:

“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.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:45

Why do you ignore these quotes?

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:46

Srila Prabhupada didn’t redefine anything. On the Rathayatra issue, the IISB has debated the scholars of the Shree Jagannatha Temple Administration – and the difference is in India, there are a lot of pundits right here who are willing to debate with us. We are on the front lines debating with these pandits who are questioning our very legitimacy. And we have to establish our legitimacy on the basis of shastra. That is what Prabhupada did in his books. He repeatedly said he didn’t invent anything.

Here is the press release of our meeting with the Gajapati Maharaja of Puri and SJTA scholars, and here are our papers we presented in that debate. Yes, we held a shastrartha before the King, and we did well. It took them 6 months to write a reply.

https://iisb.co.in/2025/03/20/iisb-scholars-meet-sjta-scholars-with-the-king-of-puri/

Here are the papers we presented to them, including our 5-minute oral presentations.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:48

There is a difference between inventing and redefining. He certainly didn’t claim to invent anything. But he evidently did redefine aspects of the traditionally accepted practices of Bhakti. Just clarifying so that my words are not misconstrued.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:50

I think you are going to have to give a reference from shastra or some authority that says what is redefining. Because I don’t see any redefinition, anywhere in SP’s teachings. Just like Devahuti Maharani in 3.33.6 says that even those born as dog eaters are qualified to perform Vedic sacrifices by being purified by the Lord’s Holy Name. That is to be taken in its mukhya-vritti, it’s direct meaning. No interpretation, no redefinition.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:51

Yes, the Puri temple management has also been vehemently opposed to Srila Prabhupada’s non-Indian devotees entering to take darshan. And then Srila Prabhupada and His predecessors brought SSJBS all over the globe. It can be a long-held grudge.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:51

These people really know the dharma shastras. But we’re into them, too. So, we’re a good match.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:53

The SJTA is posing a very serious threat to us. I don’t think those outside India fully appreciate how grave the threat they pose is.

Madan Gopal Das · 20:54

If the SJTA demand that we implement the same rules in our temples where there are Jagannatha Deities are we okay with barring non-Hindus?

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:54

That’s the argument we’ve made. And it does get some traction in the both the Hindi and English press.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:55

Thank you for your eloquence and scholarship. It is much appreciated. Srila Prabhupada’s movement and His devotees have to be protected. Much gratitude to all your endeavours. Krishna consciousness is the natural and original shelter for every living being – regardless of the external body. I hope those having such prejudice to ISKCON and its non-Indian devotees just based on the body will not be able to break us apart.

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:55

Basically, we say that the SJTA will not end their harassment, because they will insist that non-Indians initiated as brahmanas are illegitimate brahmanas. It’s the next thing.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:57

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.
From Prabhupada’s purport to SB 3.24.40

Notice Prabhupada wrote: “Kardama Muni followed the Vedic injunction”.

Where is the “Vedic injunction” that women can have the sacred thread (and why is it “sacred” after all?) and thus give it?

Just as women are forbidden to take sannyas, they are forbidden to be brahmanas. It’s just a mental concoction to believe that women can be diksha gurus, in view of varnashram considerations, that are indeed “vedic injunctions”!

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 20:57

There are some very stark parts in the Manu-samhita and other literatures. I could compile them and share, depicting how Srila Prabhupada did infact redefine who could study sastra and broadened the availability and inclusion of many others into the varnasrama, all based on „acara.“

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:58

One of our chief talking points in response to the SJTA is that Prabhupada’s choice of dates on days other than those given in the Skanda Purana is based on Bhagavat principle of fixing the mind on Krishna. And we specifically use Prabhupada’s justification for keeping women in his temples, despite criticism he faced in his day. The same principle that justified this is the same principle that justifies Rathayatra on other days. Here is a talking point we are circulating in the media.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:58

“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.”

You and all other supporters of FDG in ISKCON want to turn ISKCON into a ““So-called spiritual society” by introducing something that Prabhupada, Saraswati Thakur and our previous acharyas DID NOT DO!

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:59

5A. Question: Why does ISKCON treat Rathayātrā dates as flexible rather than mandatory?

5B. Answer: Bringing the Lord in procession is sampradāya-specific, and different Vaiṣṇava traditions take out their Deities at different times. In terms of Rathayātrā, ISKCON follows the Bhāgavata principle of fixing the mind on Kṛṣṇa by any suitable means, adjusting dates according to local circumstances so that the maximum number of people can participate in His service and remembrance.

5C. Discussion:

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.1.32 instructs:

kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet — “Therefore, by any means, one should fix the mind on Kṛṣṇa.”

The Padma Purāṇa elaborates:

smartavyaḥ satataṁ viṣṇur vismartavyo na jātu cit | sarve vidhi-niṣedhāḥ syur etayor eva kiṅkarāḥ — “One should always remember Viṣṇu and never forget Him. All rules and prohibitions are mere servants of these two principles.”

This is not a minor concession but a foundational hermeneutic principle in Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism. Prabhupāda applied it consistently when guiding Western audiences, where strict adherence to certain injunctions would have severely limited participation and thus obstructed the primary goal of śravaṇaṁ, kīrtanaṁ, smaraṇaṁ (the most important among the nine processes of devotional service).

Śrīla Prabhupāda himself considered the success of his entire mission as resting on this principle. As with the SJTA’s criticism against ISKCON for observing Rathayātrā on dates other than those given in śāstra, Prabhupāda in his own time was also criticized for allowing women to reside in his own temples.

In one lecture, he explained that this criticism was based on śāstra. Quoting Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 9.19.17, which is also found word-for-word in Manu-smṛti, Prabhupāda points out that even a greatly learned man in a solitary place with his own mother, sister or daughter–mātrā svasrā duhitrā vā–can become overwhelmed by sex attraction–vidvāṁsam api karṣati.

Then, he says,

“So sometimes in India I am criticized that I keep women and men in the same temple. In India, that is not allowed. No women can live at night. They can come and go. But I defend myself that this is the system of the country, the women and men, they intermingle. How can I check it? Then the women, shall I not give them any chance for chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa? No. I shall do this chance. I shall give this chance to woman even at the risk. That is my reply.” (Lecture, Bhagavad-Gita 1.40, 28 July 1973, London)

So, even against established regulations found in śāstra, Prabhupāda instituted such a policy.

In his commentary to the Sri Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Adi-līlā, 7.37, he explains the śāstric basis of this policy of first fixing the mind on Kṛṣṇa as necessary condition for later introducing all rules and regulations of the śāstras that should be followed. We quote his commentary here in full:

“Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was an ideal ācārya. An ācārya is an ideal teacher who knows the purport of the revealed scriptures, behaves exactly according to their injunctions and teaches his students to adopt these principles also. As an ideal ācārya, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu devised ways to capture all kinds of atheists and materialists. Every ācārya has a specific means of propagating his spiritual movement with the aim of bringing men to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, the method of one ācārya may be different from that of another, but the ultimate goal is never neglected. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī recommends:”

tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet
sarve vidhi-niṣedhāḥ syur etayor eva kiṅkarāḥ

“An ācārya should devise a means by which people may somehow or other come to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. First they should become Kṛṣṇa conscious, and all the prescribed rules and regulations may later gradually be introduced. In our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement we follow this policy of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. For example, since boys and girls in the Western countries freely intermingle, special concessions regarding their customs and habits are necessary to bring them to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The ācārya must devise a means to bring them to devotional service. Therefore, although I am a sannyāsī I sometimes take part in getting boys and girls married, although in the history of sannyāsa no sannyāsī has personally taken part in marrying his disciples.”

The reference to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī is from his work Bhakti-rasāmṛita-sindhu, 1.2.4, in which he quotes Bhāgavatam verse 7.1.32. In the Bhāgavatam, this was spoken by Nārada Muni to explain how even Śiśupāla attained liberation. Despite blaspheming Kṛṣṇa, Śiśupāla obtained mukti because his mind was ultimately fixed on the Lord. Conversely, Nārada Muni also explains that Mahārāja Vena went to hell for his sins because he could not fix his mind on the Lord. The emphasis is on the result (phala)—absorption in Kṛṣṇa—rather than rigid ritualism.

Therefore, on the basis of first fixing the mind on Kṛṣṇa — the same principle Prabhupāda applied when he was criticized for allowing women to reside in his temples — he directed his disciples to select dates for Jagannātha’s Rathayātrā that would maximize attendance in each locality. These instructions are found in letters he personally signed.

– “You may plan for any suitable date between 20 and 31 July — even if it does not correspond, we have to arrange conveniently, that is allowed.” (Letter to Madhudviṣa, 14 February 1970)

– “Regarding Ratha-yātrā, we shall choose the most favorable time to hold our celebration. If for our preaching, it is going to be more beneficial to hold it in September, then you may do so.” (Letter to Madhudviṣa, 17 June 1975)

– “Concerning the Rathayātrā festival, you can hold it in the warm months, just like in Melbourne, the festival is held in January.” (Letter to Riddha, 15 June 1976)

– “You can change the date according to a suitable time.” (Letter to Bhagavān, 7 November 1976)

– “Why not hold the Rathayātrā on Janmāṣṭamī? It comes at about the same time. . .” (Letter to Rameśvara, 17 April 1977)

Although some are concerned that no benefit will be obtained by observing the Rathayātrā on other dates, the Skanda Purāṇa itself acknowledges that those who cannot attend the Gundicā Festival in Purī in person must perform the difficult Samvatsara-vrata to obtain equivalent results. Moreover, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (1.1.2) describes the four puruṣārthas (dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa) as kaitava-dharma — “cheating religion” — because they are temporary and do not lead to pure devotional service. The ultimate benefit to be derived from the Jagannātha Rathayātrā is therefore the remembrance of Lord Jagannātha Himself — His transcendental name, fame, qualities, and pastimes. Thus, fixing the mind on Kṛṣṇa is the essential aspect of the festival. Date, like place, is an advisory detail (niyama) subject to adjustment according to time, place, and circumstance. That is why Prabhupāda directed his disciples to select dates that would maximize the number of people who could come and fix their minds on Kṛṣṇa, especially in countries outside India.

Baladeva das · 20:59

About Ratha Yatra
In many parts of South America, it would be practically impossible to hold Lord Jagannātha’s Ratha-yātrā on the same dates observed in Purī. During that season, temperatures may be below freezing, weather conditions are often prohibitive, and, if the festival falls on a weekday, obtaining government permits for public processions may be impossible.

Should we then discontinue Ratha-yātrā and deprive conditioned souls of Lord Jagannātha’s mercy?

Madan Gopal Das · 20:59

Two simple questions that I have not received a clear answer on:

If Gayatri initiation is forbidden for women why did Prabhupada give it to so many? (he could have clearly just said no, like he said for women sannyasa)
If women guru are categorically apasiddhantic, why did Prabhupada insist one mentioning them with regards to his disciples becoming guru in the future? Not once, but in several places.

All I’ve heard are variations of:

“I don’t know, but look here is how we can make an inference that he really did not want to do it….”

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:00

All glories to Srila Prabhupada! All glories to His devotees!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:00

Here are Prabhupada’s words in his Purport to Bhagavad-gita 16.7 about Manu Samhita, and women:

“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.”

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:01

Very nicely framed! Sadhu Sadhu!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:01

And further just after the above:

“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.”

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:02

I will share some others that refer to a broader range, including, stri, sudras, mlecchas, candalas —
There is a broad range that Manu Samhita offers!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:03

Yes, but there is also the Bhagavatam, about those who chant the holy names….

Śrimad Bhagavatam 3.33.7

अहो बत श्वपचोऽतो गरीयान् यज्जिह्वाग्रे वर्तते नाम तुभ्यम् ।
तेपुस्तपस्ते जुहुवु: सस्‍नुरार्या ब्रह्मानूचुर्नाम गृणन्ति ये ते ॥ ७ ॥

aho bata śva-paco ’to garīyān
yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam
tepus tapas te juhuvuḥ sasnur āryā
brahmānūcur nāma gṛṇanti ye te

Padapaathaha

aho bata — oh, how glorious; śva-pacaḥ — a dog-eater; ataḥ — hence; garīyān — worshipable; yat — of whom; jihvā-agre — on the tip of the tongue; vartate — is; nāma — the holy name; tubhyam — unto You; tepuḥ tapaḥ — practiced austerities; te — they; juhuvuḥ — executed fire sacrifices; sasnuḥ — took bath in the sacred rivers; āryāḥ — Āryans; brahma anūcuḥ — studied the Vedas; nāma — the holy name; gṛṇanti — accept; ye — they who; te — Your.

Translation
Oh, how glorious are they whose tongues are chanting Your holy name! Even if born in the families of dog-eaters, such persons are worshipable. Persons who chant the holy name of Your Lordship must have executed all kinds of austerities and fire sacrifices and achieved all the good manners of the Āryans. To be chanting the holy name of Your Lordship, they must have bathed at holy places of pilgrimage, studied the Vedas and fulfilled everything required.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:04

So those who chant the names of the Lord are NOT “mlecchas, or candalas”.
But there is no verse that women are equal to men!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:05

But there is THIS:

In the Antya-līlā of Caitanya-caritāmṛta, chapter two, verses 104-106, there is a description of Mādhavīdevī. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu considered her one of the maidservants of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī. Within this world, Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half very confidential devotees. The three were Svarūpa Gosāñi, Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Śikhi Māhiti, and Śikhi Māhiti’s sister, Mādhavīdevī, being a woman, was considered the half.Thus it is known that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 10. 137

Madhavi devi was “the topmost vaishnavi” and yet she is considered a half, being a woman.

Why?

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:06

This is interesting. I would like to argue that in ISKCON, we strictly disallow shudras from becoming diksha-guru, too. The basic idea is that if male get first initiation but not second, then he is never going to be considered a candidate for diksha-guru in ISKCON.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:08

This rubbishes all the talk of “gender equality”! For sure!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:08

As does Prabhupada’s purport to Bhagavad-gita 16.7.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:08

Why are these quotes being ignored?

Madan Gopal Das · 21:10

They are not being ignored at all. They are being taken in full context of Prabhupada’s total teachings. Vaishnavis are a special category altogether. For example, Arjuna talked about how women need that special protection. But when she becomes Krishna conscious she takes care of herself. Arjuna is talking about ordinary women.

Baladeva das · 21:10

the 701.6, “ISKCON Spiritual Masters, Vaisnavi Diksa-gurus—2019. is considering this point on Woman should be protected:

“Vaisnavis are eligible to give diksa within ISKCON provided that they:
a. Meet all the qualifications listed for ISKCON diksa-guru applicants;
Quoted from Parijata’s message of 10 July, 17:26

b. Are at least 55 years of age.

c. Are in a stable family situation living under the protection of a husband, elder son or son-in-law, qualified householder couple or senior Vaisnava or Vaisnavi sanga;“
Quoted from Parijata’s message of 10 July, 17:26

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:11

Oh, a very interesting thing on mlecchas and yavanas. Why the Puri Mandir disallows devotees from entrance. There is a shastra named Neeladri Mahodaya, which the SJTA scholars have quoted from to show that the tithi for Rathayatra can never be violated. But in the same chapter in the same place in the chapter are also found shlokas that forbid the entrance of mlechchas and yavanas in the temple. If by chance they enter, the entire temple must be reconsecrated and the Deities given a mahasnan before regular worship can resume. However, the most interesting thing about the Neeladri Mahodaya is that it is spoken by Suta Goswami to Shaunaka Rishi and the sages of Naimisharanya. That means that this shastra, the Neeladri Mahodaya must be governed by the Srimad Bhagavatam and cannot be understood in a way that offends the Bhagavatam’s principles. Hence, the Puri Mandir’s policy against ISKCON’s foreign members is unacceptable.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:12

You can’t just say they are being taken “in full context”. There are rules that have to be followed. And typically, they are ad hoc in these debates. Kind of like making up the rules of the game as you go along.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:14

Yes, that’s a rule that is against shastra. You see, it creates women who are no longer under the protection of a father, husband or son, as per Manu-samhita 9.2. Basically, it makes independent women.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:16

Are these things supported by vedic shastras? Vedic injunction?
If so, please provide the evidence!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:17

Therefore we understand that the GBC is the managing authority for ISKCON, but the GBC in and of itself is NOT “the acharya for ISKCON”.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:18

The Gaudiya Math broke up because one disciple of Saraswati Thakur was elected the acharya, against the orders of Saraswati Thakur. You may not know the history?!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:18

Prabhupada DID NOT APPOINT THE GBC TO PONTIFICATE ON OUR PHILOSOPHY.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:18

They have no right to change what Prabhupada has taught.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:19

This is a reasonable request. I mentioned the SAC briefly in my essay. At the end of their 2005 paper on FDGs, they put forward something called “relative prerequisites.” They just say you need to do it to make women able to take up diksha-guru. Where is this supported in shastra, by acharyas, in tradition? That lack of support is . . well, that’s the problem.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:20

I have presented the quotes above that clearly show that the sacred thread is initiation. Prabhupada wrote this clearly, and cited shastras, i.e. Manu Samhita, as the evidence for this. That he gave gayatri mantra and had women perform Deity worship and cook for Deities was his time and circumstance adjustment, but DOES NOT CHANGE shastra!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:22

I have also provided the quotes from Prabhupada that women:

Cannot take sannyas. Sannyas is the position of guru for society.
⁠Cannot take initiation – the sacred thread.

So there is no question of women – Vaishnavi or not – becoming diksha guru. Even if yes, in rare cases, they can be shiksha guru, and that too, for women, as outlined by Bhaktivinoda Thakur in his Jaiva Dharma.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:23

Do you think that when Prabhupada wrote in his purport to Bhagavad-gita 16.7, that “women are like children” that he intended for women to lead society?
If so, think again!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:25

So guru is the post given to the sannyāsīs, to the brāhmaṇas. Without becoming a brāhmaṇa, nobody can become a sannyāsī, and sannyāsī is supposed to be the guru of both all the āśramas and all the varṇas.
From Srila Prabhupada’s sannyas initiation lecture at Mayapur on March 16, 1976.

Madan Gopal Das · 21:26

Prabhupāda’s Order is More Important than the Vedic Injunctions
Prabhuji, the question, “Where is the śāstric evidence?” starts from the wrong premise.

Our primary evidence is Śrīla Prabhupāda himself. As the Founder Ācārya, he would never have repeatedly introduced, explained, defended, and institutionalized something that he understood to be contrary to guru, sādhu, and śāstra. If we begin with the premise that “the highest authority for ISKCON is not Prabhupāda,” then naturally no amount of his direct instruction will ever be sufficient.

But that is not the method taught by śāstra. Śāstra itself instructs us to understand its meaning through the ācārya.

Prabhupāda writes in BG 18.57:

“The order of Kṛṣṇa comes through disciplic succession from the bona fide spiritual master. Therefore the spiritual master’s order should be taken as the prime duty of life. “

And in Caitanya-caritāmṛta Ādi 1.35 he writes:
“The order of the spiritual master is the active principle in spiritual life.”

Prabhupāda also writes in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi-līlā 1.45:
“The spiritual master’s order is more important than the Vedic injunctions. “

This does not mean the guru is above śāstra. It means that the bona fide guru gives the correct understanding and application of śāstra for the disciple.

So listening to Prabhupāda’s direct conclusions is not an alternative to śāstra. It is the very śāstric process for understanding and applying śāstra.

Ultimately, I think the burden of proof is the other way around. Since we all accept Śrīla Prabhupāda as a bona fide ācārya, the burden is not on us to prove that his repeated institutional directions are śāstric. The burden is on anyone claiming that the Founder Ācārya repeatedly and explicitly taught an institutional principle that was actually contrary to śāstra. That is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. And it requires one to also explain how the Founder Acharya was wrong in this important application.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:26

Reading these quotes, how can anyone imagine that Prabhupada desired women to be diksha gurus?

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:26

I don’t think men and women can ever be equal. That’s the western idea of equality. To focus on your weakness and compete with others. Vedas on the other hand actually teach how to focus on our individual strength and make this life an offering to the Lord

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:28

Here is what the Bhagavatam says about women — and directly the instruction of the Bhagavatam, and not from Prabhupada’s purport:

Śrimad Bhagavatam 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

Padapaathaha
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.

English 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.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:29

Prabhu, on spritual master, yes, we learn from the spritual master. We not only learn shastra, but we learn sadachar, etc. — things that are not in shastra but nevertheless come through the parampara. But when there is some need of reconciling conflicting statements in shastra or doubts, then you have this “hermeneutic” moment in which rules of authority apply. To say that spirtual master is more important is true, because we depend so much on the spiritual master for learning. But when we have to resolve conflcits of statements, perceptions, etc., then those rules apply. Just like I showed in my essay. Madhvacharya’s commentary as compared to Vishnu Purana was the weaker source and had to be understood in a way with the direct meaning of the shastra, not the other way around.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:30

That’s because Lord Sri Caitanya was a sanyasi and he must not closely associate with a woman. So the Lord symbolically knew her only half. I was quite intrigued when I read this as a teenager and discussed this with some Gaudiya Vaisnava scholars over many years. Now I feel satisfied to have understood the underlying principle. There was no reason to mention a Vaishnavi at all. But the mention was made! Lord Caitanya was quite proper in His acara but also very merciful in His intent!

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:30

No, Prabhu, you are wrong. Here is the proof:

“If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the center for all. Unfortunately, at the present moment, people do not refer to the sastras…”
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Madhya 20.352.

Madan Gopal Das · 21:31

This is the criteria to reject a guru. Is that what we are trying to do?

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:31

It’s much broader than sannyasi. Prabhuapda was criticized in his own time for keeping women in his temples. He is still being criticized for that, BTW. It’s based on SB 9.19.17 matra svasra duhitra va. Famous shloka, also word-for-word in the Manu-samhita.

Madan Gopal Das · 21:32

“he is not to be accepted” do we want to say that about Prabhupada?

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:32

We should popularise this point! A sound argument!

Baladeva das · 21:32

Prabhupada also taught us to apply principles according to Kala, desha, and patra with the idea of expanding preaching in a practical way. In my area, more than 50% of the temples are led by Vishnavis; they are temple presidents, treasurers, heads of pujaris, and leaders of preaching programs. According to your view, should I suspend them from their successful service?

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:32

Yes, I mentioned “vaishnavi” as this word is being used as a smokescreen to hide the clear instructions that women cannot be brahmanas, even if men born in mleccha, yavana, and do eating families can!

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:32

I’ll share the shlokas with you later.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:33

Are any of you facing any issues with hostile Odiyas regarding Rathayatra?

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:33

Otherwise, Prabhupada would have given the sacred thread and sannyas to women, no?

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:34

What does this have to do with a vaisnavis individual relationship with Krishna? If you mean it’s non-existent – then I am sorry to humbly point out you‘re wrong.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:34

This is an instruction that we must base our philosophy on shastra. That’s what this is.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:35

As an FYI, there is some diversity of opinion on this point from our side. In the same statement in which SP said he could not give thread, he said he could give brahma gayatri to women. So, I’m personally not against this.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:35

Prabhupada made it clear that women were to “cook, clean, and work in their constitutional position”.

Baladeva das · 21:35

So, according to your statement, Prabhupada made a mistake in giving Brahminical initiation to the female devotees?

Baladeva das · 21:36

Perhaps I don’t fully understand your statement due to my limited English

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:36

I am instructing our GBC’s that “Let our little girls be educated to become faithful and chaste.” That is their qualification. No education required.
From SP’s lecture on SB 6.1.31, San Francisco, on July 16, 1975

Baladeva das · 21:37

Many of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s female disciples personally received the Gāyatrī Mantra from the lotus mouth of their spiritual master, through the traditional process of dīkṣā.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:37

A vaisnava is naturally brahminical. Although I see your personal eagerness to assert your opinion. I think many of head Pujaris of our movement that happen to be vaisnavis will be happy to be labelled as vaisnavi and not just brahmani. We are not smartas, anyway.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:38

You did not read what I wrote. Prabhupada gave them gayatri mantra in order that Deity worship in the West where there were not brahmanas, continue.
But he did NOT give women the sacred thread. And he did say that they “cannot take initiation”.
So put 2 + 2 together.
Of course, there are SO MANY other quotes that I provided that prove the point that women were NEVER intended by Prabhupada to become diksha gurus.
The purport to SB 4.12.32 proves this point!

Baladeva das · 21:38

even Srila Prabhupada states many times Vaishnava is superior to brahmana

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:38

Do you actually know what a “smarta” is?

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:39

Oh yes, very well.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:39

But when he instructed about initiation, as seen in the quotes I’ve provided by SB and CC purports, he clearly wrote there that the sacred thread is initiation, and he said that women cannot have it! Can you change his words?

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:40

So what is a Smarta? Enlighten us!

Baladeva das · 21:40

Smarta are those who consider who deserve the mercy and who not by born and not for qualification, Lord Caitanya give the mercy to everyone

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:40

Just to clarify, the pancharatrika 2nd inititation is eligible for everyone, including women and shudras, and even lower. Those lower than shudras must give up their bad habits and be situated in shudras varna.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:41

Smarta Brahmana refers to a group of Brahmins who follow the Smarta tradition of Hinduism, traditionally associated with the teachings of Sankaracarya and the Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:41

Women and shudras also are eligible to worship the shaligram.

Baladeva das · 21:41

If a man is born brāhmaṇa, then why there is necessity of sacred thread ceremony? No. That is the saṁskāra. Saṁskāra means the sacred thread is the symbol. It is offered by the ācārya. It is the certificate that “This boy has been trained up as a brāhmaṇa.”
Therefore the sacred thread is a symbolic presentation. Not that to purchase one two-paise worth sacred thread and one becomes brāhmaṇa

Baladeva das · 21:41

Lecture on BG 4.15 — Bombay, April 4, 1974

Baladeva das · 21:42

Possession Precedes Transmission: No one can give what they do not possess.
Having received the Gayatri Mantra from a bona fide ācārya, these Vaiṣṇavis carry the seed (bīja) and the living substance of the Gayatri Mantra in their hearts.
Therefore, they possess the spiritual capacity to bestow the Gāyatrī Mantra.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:42

So guru is the post given to the sannyāsīs, to the brāhmaṇas. Without becoming a brāhmaṇa, nobody can become a sannyāsī, and sannyāsī is supposed to be the guru of both all the āśramas and all the varṇas.
From Srila Prabhupada’s sannyas initiation lecture at Mayapur on March 16, 1976.

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.
From Prabhupada’s purport to SB 3.24.40

Notice Prabhupada wrote:

“Kardama Muni followed the Vedic injunction”.

Where is the “Vedic injunction” that women can have the sacred thread (and why is it “sacred” after all?) and thus give it?

https://prabhupadavani.org/transcriptions/720922sbla/ – link to the audio of the lecture. Transcript, below.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.17. Type: Srimad-Bhagavatam
Date: Sept. 22, 1972, Location: Los Angeles

From the lecture [note that the lecture was given in the USA – the West – not in India]:

“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.

Why is this being ignored by the pro-FDG faction?

Srila Prabhupada’s Morning Walk @ Rome, Italy, on May 27, 1974

Further, Jīva Gosvāmī explains dīkṣā in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283):

“Even though born in a brāhmaṇa family, one cannot engage in Vedic rituals without being initiated and having a sacred thread. Although born in a brāhmaṇa family, one becomes a brāhmaṇa only after initiation and the sacred thread ceremony. Unless one is initiated as a brāhmaṇa, one cannot worship the holy name properly.”

The spiritual master is also called ācārya, or a transcendental professor of spiritual science. The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa if he finds him perfectly qualified. In the Vāyu Purāṇa an ācārya is defined as one who knows the import of all the Vedic literatures, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 1.46

Why did Prabhupada write and say all of the above?

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:43

and:

Purport
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains dīkṣā in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283):
divyaṁ jñānaṁ yato dadyāt kuryāt pāpasya saṅkṣayam
tasmāt dīkṣeti sā proktā deśikais tattva-kovidaiḥ
“Dīkṣā is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as dīkṣā.” The regulative principles of dīkṣā are explained in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (2.3-4) and the Bhakti-sandarbha (283). As stated:
dvijānām anupetānāṁ svakarmādhyayanādiṣu
yathādhikāro nāstīha syāc copanayanād anu
tathātrādīkṣitānāṁ tu mantra-devārcanādiṣu
nādhikāro ’sty ataḥ kuryād ātmānaṁ śiva-saṁstutam

“Even though born in a brāhmaṇa family, one cannot engage in Vedic rituals without being initiated and having a sacred thread. Although born in a brāhmaṇa family, one becomes a brāhmaṇa only after initiation and the sacred thread ceremony. Unless one is initiated as a brāhmaṇa, one cannot worship the holy name properly.”
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Madhya 15.108

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:44

and:

The brāhmaṇas continued: “According to Vedic injunction, women are not allowed to undergo the purificatory process of initiation by the sacred thread, nor are they allowed to live as brahmacāriṇīs in the āśrama of the spiritual master, nor are they advised to undergo the strict disciplinary procedures, nor are they very expert in discussing the philosophy of self-realization. And by nature they are not very pure, nor are they very much attached to auspicious activities.

Krsna Book 23

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:44

वैवाहिको विधिः स्त्रीणां संस्कारो वैदिकः स्मृतः
पतिसेवा गुरौ वासो गृहार्थोऽग्निपरिक्रिया

vaivāhiko vidhiḥ strīṇāṃ saṃskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ
patisevā gurau vāso gṛhārtho’gniparikriyā

”For females the rites of marriage have been ordained to be their ‘Vedic Sacrament’ (initiation), the serving of the husbands their ‘residence with the Teacher’ (Guru), and the household-duties their ‘tending of fire.’ (Spiritual activities)” [Maanu-saṁhitā 2.67].

Baladeva das · 21:44

You already posted this before, it’s difficult to follow the thread of a discussion that way, maybe you could paste the relevant parts of what you want to point out

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:45

From padma purana, this definition is given:

janmanā brāhamaṇo jñeyaḥ saṁskarair dvija ucyate / vidyayā yāti vipratvaṁ tribhiḥ śrotriyaḥ ucyate

“One is known as a brahmana by birth, a dvija by samskar, a vipra by learning, and a shrotriya by all three.”

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:46

Lecture on SB 2.1.2-5 — Montreal, October 23, 1968:
Haṁsadūta: Swamiji, did you say that householders should not associate with brahmacārīs?
Prabhupāda: Who said?
Haṁsadūta: Did you say that? Did you ever say that?
Prabhupāda: No. No.
Haṁsadūta: A brahmacārī should not associate with brahmacāriṇīs. But you did say that brahmacārīs should not associate with brahmacāriṇīs.
Prabhupāda: Actually, there is no… Brahmacāriṇī is not allowed in the śāstra. Where is the question of brahmacāriṇī? Because according to Vedic system, as soon as a girl is fourteen years old or sixteen years old, she is at once married. According to Vedic system, no girl should be allowed remaining unmarried. So there is no question of brahmacāriṇī. Every girl is supposed to be married. That is the Vedic system. A father’s duty is that as soon as the girl is grown up, she must be married. She must be given in charge of a suitable boy. That is Vedic system.
Striyaḥ śūdrās tathā vaiśyāḥ. A woman is meant for being protected. So long she is not young, she is under the protection of the father. And as soon as she is young, she is given in charge, in charity. Kanyā-dāna. Dāna means charity. He should find out some suitable boys and give in charity: “My dear boy, take charge of this girl. So long she was under my charge. Now it is under your charge.” So where is the brahmacāriṇī? There is no question of brahmacāriṇī.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 21:46

Thank you for the insightful discussion and association, dear devotees. I will drop off now and attend to other matters. Looking forward to our next meeting and another set of insights. Hare Krishna.

Basu Ghosh Das · 21:47

And I too – it’s time here in Sridham Mayapur to take rest as it’s almost 10 PM here.
Hari hari!

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:48

I also have to drop off now, too. Thank you also for your contributions.

Baladeva das · 22:01

Dear Devotees
I want to share with all of you a document prepared with the sincere desire to serve our movement at a crucial moment. In the debate on Vaishnavi Diksha Guru (VDG), we find ourselves facing two profound sensibilities that seek to protect ISKCON: one safeguarding the purity of the received tradition and the other ensuring the effectiveness of our mission in the world.
This document proposes a framework for moving from polarized debate to spiritual discernment, distinguishing between eternal and unchanging principles (siddhānta) and organizational applications according to time, place, and circumstances (kāla-deśa-pātra). But its most crucial contribution lies in reminding us what happens at the end of the process. Whatever the final resolution adopted by our governing bodies, endorsing and supporting that decision—even if it does not fully align with our individual judgment—is not a defeat or a renunciation of our convictions; it is a supreme act of surrender and cooperation for the common good…
History demonstrates that institutions do not fall because of debates about their applications, but because of internal fragmentation. I invite you to view this writing as a tool to safeguard the unity of ISKCON and demonstrate that our love for Srila Prabhupada should transcend any differences of opinion. Hare Krishna!

Baladeva das · 22:02

📎 VDG Issues – Unity, Siddhanta, and Discernment in Times of Change.docx (Word document)

Baladeva das · 22:03

Please consider this document as a tool that may be useful to us.🙏🏻

Baladeva das · 22:10

Also consider reading this additional text, which is an extract from the introduction to the Krishna Samhita by Bhaktivinoda Thakur

Baladeva das · 22:10

📎 Krishna Samhita Introduction Bhaktivinoda Thakur on Secartanism .docx (Word document)

Baladeva das · 22:11

It is a clear essay on the application of time, place, and circumstance.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:23

Great essay and analysis Baladev. Thank you for taking the time to put it together

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

Madan Gopal Das · 00:17

This is a logical fallacy to insert the word ONLY where it doesn’t exist.

“So guru is the post given to the sannyāsīs, to the brāhmaṇas. Without becoming a brāhmaṇa, nobody can become a sannyāsī, and sannyāsī is supposed to be the guru of both all the āśramas and all the varṇas.”

The guru post is not ONLY for sannyasis and brahamans otherwise the most quoted verse on this topic would have no meaning: kiba vipra kiba nyasi…
Clearly the guru post can be held by others who are not brahmanas or sannyasis
How would you explain this verse? How many times did Prabhupada quote it?

Madan Gopal Das · 00:22

Still waiting to hear a proper response to these questions I placed earlier:

Two simple questions that I have not received a clear answer on:

If Gayatri initiation is forbidden for women why did Prabhupada give it to so many? Was is a faux initiation tha has no real validity? (he could have clearly just said no, like he said for women sannyasa)
If women guru are categorically apasiddhantic, why did Prabhupada insist one mentioning them with regards to his disciples becoming guru in the future? Not once, but in several places.

All I’ve heard are variations of:

“I don’t know, but look here is how we can make an inference that he really did not want to do it….”

Madan Gopal Das · 08:20

Actually there is no real conflict. It is a totally manufactured confusion masquerading as “conflict”. The founder says that there should be women gurus in his movement. A loyal disciple will take it on face value – As It Is. But a person who decides that they do not agree with that vision will manufacture a “conflict” and try to “screw out some meaning” and downplay this order of the guru. An order, by the way, was not a one-off but one that was repeated in a number of occasions addressing this question directly.
Why do you think the mahajano verse was quoted so many times by Prabhupada? Because the scripture is prone to be misused to satisfy our whims. Our application of scripture has to necessarily come from the founder acarya, and not with an attitude that “we know better than Prabhupada and we will show you where Prabhupada was wrong in writing his vision of his daughters initiating. We will show you with definitive sastric evidence that Prabhupada was incorrect. And that he is not really the highest authority for ISKCON.”

I am still waiting to hear from you why you think Prabhupada repeatedly urged his daughters to take up the seva of becoming gurus in ISKCON. Correct me if I’m wrong on this point but what I am hearing is that you think he was wrong in saying so.

Madan Gopal Das · 08:37

Prabhu, I think this is where we fundamentally differ.

You wrote:

“Madhvācārya’s commentary as compared to Viṣṇu Purāṇa was the weaker source and had to be understood in a way consistent with the direct meaning of śāstra.”

I have no disagreement with that principle.

My question is different.

Who determines that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s repeated institutional directives should now be treated as the “weaker statement” requiring reinterpretation?

And based on whose authority?

Because once we accept that methodology, where does it stop?

What instructions of the Founder Ācārya are safe from later reinterpretation if all it takes is someone else’s hermeneutical conclusion that “I think this śāstra is stronger”?

To me, there is a very instructive historical precedent.

Gaurasundara Prabhu became convinced from his study of śāstra that Yamunā-devī’s recorded singing should not be played in the temples because brahmacārīs should not hear a woman’s voice. He had what he believed were strong śāstric arguments.

Did Śrīla Prabhupāda respond,

“Thank you for helping me harmonize my previous instruction with śāstra. I had overlooked those passages. I shall now withdraw my earlier directive.”

No.

His response was immediate and emphatic:

“No! You have made some discovery? All along you have been hearing the recording of Yamuna-devi and now you want to change. It is not ordinary singing.”

To me, the most significant part is not even the conclusion. It is Prabhupāda’s response to the disciple’s mentality.

The disciple believed he had discovered a superior scriptural argument that justified revising his guru’s established instruction.

Prabhupāda did not enter into a hermeneutical discussion.

He rejected the very premise.

Why?

Because there is an important principle of Vaiṣṇava etiquette involved.

A disciple does not assume that he has now discovered a scriptural understanding that corrects the Founder Ācārya’s application of śāstra.

That, in my opinion, is the issue before us.

I fully agree that there are hermeneutical principles for reconciling śāstra.

But I do not believe those principles authorize later disciples to revisit and substantially reinterpret the repeated institutional applications of the Founder Ācārya whenever they believe they have found a stronger reading.

Otherwise, every future generation can sincerely claim,

“We are not correcting Prabhupāda. We are simply harmonizing him.”

At that point, the practical authority of the Founder Ācārya becomes increasingly fragile, because his clear directives remain binding only until someone proposes a different hermeneutical reconstruction.

I don’t think that is how Śrīla Prabhupāda expected his disciples to relate to his repeated, deliberate, vision-setting instructions.

Does a disciple have the standing to treat his guru’s repeated institutional conclusions as “weaker statements” that now require reinterpretation through his own hermeneutical analysis?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:55

Prabhu, another thought that may be relevant to this discussion.

You have emphasized that we should understand Prabhupāda through the previous ācāryas. I completely agree. But when we actually examine Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, we find him making exactly the kind of practical application that I’m referring to.

In Godruma Kalpatāvi, Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura explicitly authorizes pure devotee women to become traveling distributors of the Holy Name, and then says:

“According to time, place and circumstance, and with great care and caution, mature women can distribute the Name to men.”

That is a remarkable statement. He is not simply quoting śāstra. He is applying śāstra to a practical preaching situation. Jayapatākā Mahārāja’s commentary notes that this was “truly visionary” for the time and explains that Bhaktivinoda was showing that preaching may take precedence over prevailing social customs when handled properly.

He also explicitly invokes deśa-kāla-pātra (time, place and circumstance) as part of that application.

That is exactly my point. The previous ācāryas did not merely repeat verses. They authoritatively applied eternal siddhānta to practical preaching situations.

Then Śrīla Prabhupāda comes and expands this even further by repeatedly empowering women to preach throughout the world and by speaking of qualified sons and daughters becoming spiritual masters.

So I don’t see this as “our interpretation” versus “śāstra.” Rather, I see a consistent missionary trajectory running from Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura to Śrīla Prabhupāda, where the ācārya authoritatively applies eternal principles according to time, place, and circumstance while never changing siddhānta.

That is why I hesitate to conclude that these repeated applications by two successive ācāryas should now be reinterpreted through a different hermeneutical lens. I think the burden of proof for doing so is very high.

Krishna Kirti Das · 09:24

Dear Madan Gopal Prabhu, my obeisances to you. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

You wrote:

Actually there is no real conflict. It is a totally manufactured confusion masquerading as “conflict”. The founder says that there should be women gurus in his movement. A loyal disciple will take it on face value – As It Is. But a person who decides that they do not agree with that vision will manufacture a “conflict” and try to “screw out some meaning” and downplay this order of the guru. An order, by the way, was not a one-off but one that was repeated in a number of occasions addressing this question directly.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 29 July, 08:20

First of all, I think we should all keep in mind that despite being situated in sadhana-bhakti, we are still conditioned souls. And as conditioned souls, we are liable to the four defects, which means you are just as liable to, as you say, manufacture a “conflict” and try to “screw out some meaning” and downplay this order of the guru as any of the rest of us. Is that not a fact? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Shivarama Maharaja is against the proposal for FDG. Do you think that he, too, is trying to “manufacture a conflict to try to screw out some meaning to downplay the order of his guru”? According to you, he is. Here is his presentation on the matter.

https://iisb.co.in/2026/01/11/on-vaisnavi-diksa-gurus-part-2/

And there are others besides him who are as venerable as him and who also share his conviction. Are they all insincere?

Just like yesterday, I did not touch at all on any argument either for or against FDG. Yet many of the responses to my presentation yesterday assumed I had and addressed points on FDG that my presentation had never made! I only spoke about methods, or authorized procedures for approaching the shastras and words of the acharyas. That’s it. As I said in my presentation, we should be having a discussion about methods before we can have a fruitful discussion about FDG. Do you really think that is unreasonable? It is, or it is not.

Just like if you have a ball game, the losers can feel cheerful if the rules of the game are well understood, accepted by all, and everyone played by them fairly. But if raising questions about the rules themselves is automatically considered to be “screwing out some meaning to downplay the order of his guru”, then that’s a dictatorial attitude, and it can be enforced only by coercion.

To be honest, after hearing responses to my presentation, I felt as if I had been made out as a figure like “Goldstein”, the object of the daily, mandatory “two minutes of hate” in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. I had a feeling that my colleagues, who are all respectable, didn’t really want to discuss or contemplate the substance of anything I said. A schism is just a more advanced version of that. And your recent message that I am replying to seems to reinforce that impression.

But please consider this statement about rules of interpretation from a scholarly book on the matter.

Rules of interpretation possess an importance in respect of the Hindu Law, greater than in regard to the law of any other country.[2] It is for this simple reason, viz. that the Hindu Law has always been more or less independent of the State, A well-known Anglo-Indian writer speaking of the Mahomedan Law observes that the Mahomedan Law has always been independent of the sovereign power, being under the control of, the Doctors of the Islam religion. If this is true with regard to the Mahomedan Law, it is no less so as regards the Hindu Law. A brief history of the vicissitudes through which the Hindu Law had to pass from the dawn of society down to the present time, will at once show, that the Hindu Law is not a State-made law and that the administration of it was never at the absolute control of the sovereign authority. When the state takes the absolute charge not only of administering the law, but also of making it, questions of interpretation hardly possess any great importance; for, in such a case, whenever any doubt or difficulty arises, it is capable of being easily cut short by the supreme authority of the state either in the shape of legislation or by the fiat of the Judges having ultimate jurisdiction as constituted by the sovereign authority. But when the law is carved out of written religious works, to the authority of which people implicitly submit, and when the administration of- such law,is left more or less, as it must be, in the hands of men learned in religious books or supposed to be so, the necessity of fixed rules of interpretation arises as a matter of course and has naturally a greater importance than in the other case; for, in this case, the decisions of the persons entrusted with the administration of, the law are open to discussion on the part of the brothers of the same profession, even if not on the part of the mass of people. [Kisori Lal Sarkar, The Mimansa Rules of Interpretation as applied to Hindu Law (1909) p. 10]

If there are two possible versions of a future ISKCON, the one in which I would like to live is the second version described by Kisori Lal Sarkar, one in which the edicts of the most powerful in our society are open for review. That’s the ISKCON I want to live in.

And that is why I think we should have a discussion first, and foremost, about the methods and rules by which we draw our conclusions about these matters. Clearly, we are not on the same page on this matter. And until we are, discussion about FDG or any other controversial matter that comes up will be unsatisfactory and ultimately settled by coercion rather than persuasion.

Bhavataḥ dāsaḥ

Krishna Kirti Das

Basu Ghosh Das · 12:37

Please read what the Bhagavatam says. Why do you want to speculate on what you think I am saying?
The Bhagavatam is the spotless Purana and the instructions therein are considered by our previous acharyas as transcendental and pristine. So you reject this verse? Do so at your own risk!

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 12:42

No, I just want to avoid falling into the trap of cherry picking. I will not be available for discussion online today, dear devotees. Sorry about that. Hare Krishna.

Thursday, 30 July 2026

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 13:46

Table of the Global VDG Committee meeting schedule from 14 July to 8 October 2026

Which RGB is set to present on 4 Aug? @Parijata Devi Dasi
PS I would be on the road then

Parijata · 19:41

For our next meeting, we invite representatives from the African RGB, Euro RGB, Russia, and any other interested regions to give a 10-minute presentation. If you would like to present, please confirm your interest at your earliest convenience.

Prahladananda Swami · 20:23

Can the Guru Services Committee give a 20 minute presentation on August 18th?

Parijata · 21:25

@Prahladananda Swami Guru Services Committee has been allocated 20 mins. The balance of time is for other presentation

Parijata · 21:25

📎 GVDG 28Jul26 Update Statement.pdf (PDF)

Aniruddha · 23:25

Hare Krishna, Russian RGB would like to make a presentation.

Aniruddha · 23:48

Also, could the correction be made in the minutes etc, to mention ‘Russian RGB’ instead of ‘Russia’? Thank you.

Friday, 31 July 2026

Basu Ghosh Das · 07:38

Good. Glad you looked up the meaning from the wikpedia or found it on the internet.

So we are NOT “smartas”. This word is being used by unscrupulous so-called ISKCON devotees – particularly by a so-called devotee who the GBC had resign from ALL of GBC appointed posts because he wrote a book criticizing Srila Prabhupada — to slander and defame his ideological opponents. He is a rascal.

Basu Ghosh Das · 07:40

Satsvarūpa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, is this school for women also, or just for men?
Prabhupāda: For men. Women should automatically learn how to cook, how to cleanse home.
Satsvarūpa: So they don’t attend varṇāśrama college?
Prabhupāda: No, no. Varṇāśrama college especially meant for the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya and vaiśya. Those who are not fit for education, they are śūdras. That’s all. Or those who are reluctant to take education—śūdra must. That’s all. They should assist the higher class.

[From Srila Prabhupada’s morning walk at Vrindavan on March 14, 1974. Seen at:
https://vanisource.org/wiki/740314_-_Morning_Walk_-_Vrndavana?hl=college]

Madan Gopal Das · 08:29

“To become spiritual master is not very difficult thing. You’ll have to become spiritual master. You, all my disciples, everyone should become spiritual master … So I hope that all of you, men, women, boys, and girls, become spiritual master.” (Śrī Vyāsa-pūjā lecture, London, 22 August 1973)

Krishna Kirti Das · 08:54

I agree with this, but it is not the only thing that Prabhupada said about the matter. Prabhupada also said that women could not become diksha-guru:

“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. Still, he was not less obliged to Sunīti.” (SB 4.12.32)

Furthermore, because this is coming in a book–specifically his Bhagavatam commentary–its authority is stronger than that of any letter or other spoken remark, such as in conversations.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 13:28

Hare Krishna, @Basu Ghosh Das. It’s actually the second or third instance that you made a remark or assumption about me not knowing things, not having read or understood SB etc. Given your prejudices, I can understand that it may be difficult for you to accept that a woman has knowledge or understanding enough, for you to deal respectfully. These kind of personal attacks are not appropriate and I did not sign up on the Committee to be subjected to this. Please base your discussion on principles, like everyone else without adding side personal comments about me. Please check your conduct, otherwise as a representative of the Euro RGB, I would submit a request before the Chair and Secretary (@Govardhana Dasa, @Parijata Devi Dasi) for reconsideration of your participation and replacement by another member of the IB who could be a bit more balanced in how they deal with others. Thank you very much.

I will not entertain personal remarks and or argue with anyone further on this here.

Krishna Kirti Das · 13:41

https://iisb.co.in/2026/07/31/iskcon-on-a-mission-drift-further-thoughts/ by Bhakti Raghava Maharaja

Excerpt: During Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence with us, not only did he not appoint women to leadership positions like Temple Presidents, BBT Trustees, Property Trustees, Regional Secretaries, GBCs, and at the end Ritviks whom he expected to become regular Gurus after his physical departure, but he also quoted from sastra against such leadership appointments and reiterated again and again the subordinate and dependent role and position of women within society. Forget about black, white, pink or yellow, India, America or the North Pole.

Krishna Kirti Das · 14:00

Just some thoughts on @[unidentified participant] Prabhu’s presentation on Tuesday. He noted that 50% of their temple presidents are female. It seems he feels that is proof that women should be diksha-gurus, too. But what does this statistic really prove? For example, the Brahma Kumaris are a worldwide mission that is managed only by women. 100%, not 50%. So, what have you really proved? Should we be more like the Brahma Kumaris?

From their website:

Brahma Kumaris is a worldwide spiritual movement led by women, dedicated to personal transformation and world renewal through Rajyoga Meditation. Founded in India in 1937, Brahma Kumaris has spread to over 110 countries on all continents and has had an extensive impact in many sectors as an international NGO.

https://www.brahmakumaris.com/

Madan Gopal Das · 16:25

Srila Prabhupada also repeatedly emphasized that Vedic limitations ascribed to women apply to ordinary women. Once they come to Krishna consciousness many of these did not apply – especially in the arena of Krishna conscious preaching and service. This is a much more respectful way to reconcile than to categorically deny his direct order.

Madan Gopal Das · 16:34

There were critics of Prabhupāda who used similar sastric arguments against him when he engaged equally men and women in Krishna conscious outreach and preaching.
He had some really choice words for such critics. See if you can sense his exasperation here.

“Sometimes jealous persons criticize the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement because it engages equally both boys and girls in distributing love of Godhead. Not knowing that boys and girls in countries like Europe and America mix very freely, these fools and rascals criticize the boys and girls in Kṛṣṇa consciousness for intermingling. But these rascals should consider that one cannot suddenly change a community’s social customs. However, since both the boys and the girls are being trained to become preachers, those girls are not ordinary girls but are as good as their brothers who are preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, to engage both boys and girls in fully transcendental activities is a policy intended to spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. These jealous fools who criticize the intermingling of boys and girls will simply have to be satisfied with their own foolishness because they cannot think of how to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness by adopting ways and means that are favorable for this purpose. Their stereotyped methods will never help spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness.” (CC Adi 7.31-32)
————
Note “those are not ordinary girls but as good as their brothers”
But today it seems some critics are bent on recategorizing these into the category of “ordinary girls” and apply the same preaching seva limitations on them.

Krishna Kirti Das · 16:36

Outside of proforma, obligatory formalities in greetings, I think the atmosphere in this forum has been somewhat hostile towards Basu Ghosh Prabhu and me. The innuendos against us have been flying thick and fast.

For example, in a recent message, Madan Gopal Prabhu wrote:

A loyal disciple will take it on face value – As It Is. But a person who decides that they do not agree with that vision will manufacture a “conflict” and try to “screw out some meaning” and downplay this order of the guru.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 29 July, 08:20

Well, OK. Who is is a member of that group? Obviously me, because he is responding to my essay and my further attempt to explain it. According to him, I am just a “disloyal” person (“person”, not a vaishnava, right?) who is trying to “screw out some meaning” and “downplay the order of the guru.” And just as obviously, Basu Ghosh Prabhu.

Less obviously but nonetheless true, the leadership of ISKCON India, in particular, the Bureau Members, who voted us to represent them. In fact, I had my presentation prepared enough ahead of time that our leaders could review it, before I went in the meeting. From those who responded, it received nothing but appreciation.

Moreover, Madan Gopal’s innuendo also catches some of the most venerable people in our society. Like Shivaram Maharaja, who is also against the FDG proposal. I mentioned that already in response to him. There are more, too.

So, that was one of several innuendos from Madan Gopal. I was not going to say anything about it, because in heated arguments these things are expected, and tolerance is a virtue, in any case. I’m only pointing this out now, because I think Madan Gopal Prabhu’s remarks have something important in common with Devarshi Radhika Mata Ji’s remarks.

But after seeing Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī Mata Ji’s rebuke of Basu Ghosh Prabhu, I had to go back and read the entire thread between them for the first time to see what upset her. My first impression of it was that I also took her mention of “smarta” as an innuendo. It seemed to be a veiled accusation that Basu Ghosh Prabhu was acting like or had some attitude that would earn that epithet. Otherwise, why make a remark like that at all if none of us are smartas, or “smarta-like”? And as Basu Ghosh pointed out, there are devotees who are indeed publicly calling us smartas, on account of our views about women, and some of them well-known devotees. So, I do sympathize with Basu Ghosh Prabhu.

Now, what I think Devarshi Radhika Mata Ji’s remark has in common with Madan Gopala’s remarks is that I don’t see them as entirely deliberate. They are acts of speech, which by definition are deliberate acts. But in their circles, among friends and like-minded colleagues, and I’m sure the communities that have formed around them, this is just how they talk. And when the subject of people who hold views they disagree with comes up, such utterances, though derogatory, are not considered inappropriate. And, so I think that Mata Ji’s remarks about smartas, was a second-nature kind of thing, and Madan Gopal Prabhu’s too, but perhaps to a lesser extent. Consequently, from our side, we can be more forgiving of the verbal barbs that have come our way.

At the same time, Mata Ji’s rebuke surprised me. First, why by so harsh and in public? A private message would have been better.

There is a consideration of his age. Basu Ghosh Prabhu is probably old enough to be her grandfather.

Moreover, there are his own devotional qualities to consider. He is among the most learned and accomplished members of this assembly.

Many years ago, in Ahmedabad, there was a public function at which Gopal Krishna Maharaja, Jashomatinandana Prabhu, and Basu Ghosh Prabhu were at. They each made speeches. When Basu Ghosh Prabhu’s turn came, he made a speech not only in fluent Hindi and Gujarati but also in fluent Sanskrit. And Gopal Krishna Maharaja, being very proud of him, said to the audience “Just see how he has taken to Indian culture!”

He has many other devotional accomplishments, which should be considered. Basically, he is one of ISKCON India’s A-list preachers. He is someone you would want in the same room with the Prime Minister or any learned Pundit from any tradition. And he has been serving in this way in India since Prabhupada’s time. He is also the General Secretary of the Governing Council of ISKCON, otherwise known as the Bureau, as well as the Temple President of ISKCON Baroda, Gujarat.

He has also taken care of four generations of women in his own house. He has been a devoted and dutiful son-in-law, husband, father, and grandfather. All the women in his household have been taken care of very nicely and have been happy under him. He would be an exemplary man in any culture or milieu.

I could go on about his devotional career and character, but I would suggest that perhaps Mata Ji could reconsider her rebuke in light of Basu Ghosh Prabhu’s qualities and history of service.

As Prabhupada said, “It is general etiquette that superiors are not to be offered even a verbal fight. Even if they are sometimes harsh in behavior, they should not be harshly treated.” (BG 2.4)

So, I think it will be helpful if both sides can be a little more mindful and a little more tolerant. We don’t usually find ourselves in the same space, but here we are.

Bhavatāṁ dāsaḥ,

Krishna Kirti Das

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 16:53

“Please read what the Bhagavatam says. Why do you want to speculate on what you think I am saying?”

“So you reject this verse? Do so at your own risk!”
Quoted from Basu Ghosh Das’s message of 29 July, 12:37

“Do you actually know what a “smarta” is?”

“Good. Glad you looked up the meaning from the wikpedia or found it on the internet.”
Quoted from Basu Ghosh Das’s message of 31 July, 07:38

After receiving personalised comments from him towards me particularly, he is requested that being a “senior”, he also respects and reciprocates the decorum that I have been dealing with, in this Committee, that is discussion on philosophical points etc rather than making subtle personal judgment and “you” remarks.

I was also disappointed and rather surprised seeing that behaviour. The request is very simple, please don’t personally attack and adhere to the TOR (of mutual respect) that we consciously adopted unanimously at the start. Disagreements during a discussion are natural and needed – just personal insinuations are inappropriate.

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 16:58

I have immense respect and adoration for each devotee on this Committee. Despite differences, my respect shall remain unshaken. But as we know, respect and affection are two way channels. No one else here has been making such insinuations towards me. Therefore, as a sign of my respect towards this Committee and its members, I pointed it out. It is a reminder, not a criticism. Thank you.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:13

Sunīti in the Bhagavatam also did not have these bad qualities. Her name after all is su + nīti, or good conduct. The rule was that because she was a woman, she could not become diksha-guru of Dhruva.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:16

I do not recall mentioning “bad qualities”

Madan Gopal Das · 17:18

The question stands: was Srila Prabhupada possibly unaware of this rule when he laid out his program for women to initiate in his own ISKCON? Clearly not.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:23

The key issue is what counts as a directive vs. a description . The Suniti purport describes a specific historical situation, a mother in a different yuga, under a different initiation system. It does not issue a universal instruction for ISKCON. In contrast, Prabhupāda’s Hamsaduta letter is a direct, future-facing directive: “my spiritual sons and daughters… will be allowed to initiate”. That’s explicit policy, not narrative. This is not a personal letter to a disciple to help him navigate a personal private issue. It is a vision for the future of ISKCON being sent to one of his ISKCON leaders at the time.

If we were answering this on an SAT, it’s obvious:

One passage = descriptive (what happened once)
The other = prescriptive (what should happen going forward)

You don’t override a clear instruction with an inferred restriction.

Also, if women initiating were truly prohibited, why would Prabhupāda repeatedly affirm it, in letters, lectures, and conversations, and even outline a generational vision including daughters? The idea that he “didn’t really mean it” reduces his instructions to optional encouragements, which undermines the entire guru principle.

The real hermeneutic is simple:
Direct instructions > contextual anecdotes.

So the question isn’t “Can we reinterpret the letter?”
On what basis can we dismiss it?

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:28

Prabhu, regarding critics of Prabhupada using similar arguments, we (meaning I specifically) are on the front lines arguing with the same group of people who were criticizing Prabhupada in his day. We are debating with members of the Shree Jagannatha Temple Administration, who will not let us into their temple and who are now trying to destroy ISKCON’s reputation around the world, not just in India. And yes, we use Prabhuapada’s comments here, in this very place, and also in CC Adi 7.37 as well, because in that purport he says the same thing but also supplies the shastra pramanas to back it up. These evidences are the backbone of our defense of Prabhupada’s seemingly ashastriya direction to us to choose Rathayatra dates on days other than those in shastra.

Now, regarding Prabhupada’s statement, I don’t think it should be taken as meaning that as soon as you walk in the door, you put on tilak and start following the regulative principles that you are not prone to falldown. There was also a lot of struggle with following the principle of refraining from illicit sex in Prabhupada’s time. It’s always been a problem. We’re just a little bit better now among some sections in dealing with it.

To me, it appears to be a matter of faith. I joined in Ireland in the mid-80s, and I remember one time during a Harinam, I think in Londonderry, someone in the crowd asked Prithu Prabhu why we shave our heads. He was a mildly annoyed with the question and said, “Because our scripture tells us. If our scripture said the men should wear their hair down to their knees and shave their legs, then we would do that.” That’s always stuck with me, and that’s basically what is expected of us.

There are two kinds of people for whom the ordinary shastric rules do not apply – those who are always thinking of Krishna in samadhi, and those who are not yet competent to follow them strictly. Concessions are made for both, but they are not on the same level. The nature of Prabhupada’s concessions in the CC Adi Lila you mentioned are the latter kind, not the former kind, and therefore on the question of eligibility for diksha-guru, they are not applicable. We expect a guru to be strict, and yes, if those rules and regulations would in fact prevent some women at some intermediate stage of development from assuming the role of diksha-guru, then so be it. One should not be sorry for that, because there is no fault in such injunctions.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:33

Basically, without insinuating the Prabhupada did not know what he was talking about, how can a disciple completely disregard his direct, multiple, visionary instructions to see his daughters initiate?

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:36

MG Prabhu wrote

The question stands: was Srila Prabhupada possibly unaware of this rule when he laid out his program for women to initiate in his own ISKCON? Clearly not.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 31 July, 17:18

That’s begging the question as to whether women should be allowed to initiate. There are only four statements made by Prabhupada in which he has explicitly spoken about the eligibility of women to become diksha-guru. You might find one or two more elsewhere, but not more than that. And Prabhupada’s remark in SB 4.12.32 puts into doubt the very notion that he wanted it, at least not as something regular but as an exceptional case. As regards to his instructions, among them all, his statements in his books have the strongest authority. Hence, it is improper to subordinate his words in his books to any other source, like the Jan 3rd 1969 letter to Hamsaduta. The ritviks also do that. They subordinate all of SP’s teachings and shastra to the July 9th letter. That results in an unauthorized interpretation.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:37

To use the word “concession” when talking about devotees who have been dedicated and preaching for, say 50 years or more, seems inappropriate. How is someone of such seniority and proven time-tested capability in preaching and transforming lives, less qualified than a male devotee who has only been preaching 12 or 15 years or so, just because of the bodily designation?

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:38

There is, theoretically, a difference between what we think Prabhupada meant by something he said, and what he actually meant by what he said. Ritviks are so convinced, but what justifies it? And how is it different from your approach?

Madan Gopal Das · 17:38

There is a huge difference between inferring indirect meaning and following direct, repeated, clear orders that are clear as the sun and require no commentary.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:39

Probably most devotees are still chanting 16 rounds after 50 years, why not 64? That was a concession.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:40

Prabhu, I beg you, look at the Ritviks. They say the exact, same thing you are saying about their beliefs. The same thing. Can you not apprehend that?

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:40

Is it really impossible for you to be wrong about your convictions in a similar way, as the Ritviks are?

Madan Gopal Das · 17:51

I am convinced based on following those disciples who spent maximum personal time with Prabhupada, who served longest under his direct guidance and who wrote the most books about Prabhupada and his teachings. Senior devotees such as HH Jayapataka Swami, HH Bhakti Caru Swami, HH Gopal Krishna Goswami and numerous others have gone on the record that women should be allowed to initiate based on their understanding of Prabhupada teachings, mood and mission.
I am not alone in making this assertion and in my conviction.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:51

“Clear and Unambiguous Orders”: Referring to the July 9, 1977 Directive signed by Tamal Krishna Goswami under Prabhupada’s instruction. He repeatedly states that Prabhupada made it “crystal clear” that future disciples would belong to Prabhupada, initiated via ritviks (officiating priests) https://www.iskcon-truth.com/ritvik-letter-july9th.html

Madan Gopal Das · 17:51

The comparison with ritvikism is a false analogy because the two positions use evidence in opposite ways.

VDG rests on multiple direct affirmations, not one isolated letter. Prabhupāda said “Yes” when directly asked whether a woman could be guru; said “he or she can become guru”; declared that a woman can be ācārya; addressed his “sons and daughters” and “men, women, boys and girls”; and described qualified disciples initiating future generations. Ritvikism depends upon extending the July 9 letter beyond its stated function, initiations performed by representatives on Prabhupāda’s behalf, into a permanent post-samādhi system it never explicitly announces.

VDG takes explicit language at face value. Ritvikism adds an unstated conclusion. “He or she can become guru” directly establishes eligibility. The July 9 letter does not explicitly say, “No disciple may ever initiate after my departure.”

VDG harmonizes the total evidence. Sunīti could not initiate Dhruva in that particular ancient context, while qualified women may initiate under Prabhupāda’s future ISKCON program. Ritvikism must explain away Prabhupāda’s repeated instructions that his disciples would themselves become spiritual masters.

The conclusions are fundamentally different in scope. VDG is conditional and permissive: a qualified woman may initiate. Ritvikism is exclusive and revolutionary: all successor dīkṣā-gurus are prohibited indefinitely.

“They say the same thing” proves nothing. True and false positions can both claim to follow Prabhupāda. What matters is whose conclusion actually follows from the evidence.

Ironically, the closer ritvik-style method is taking one context-specific passage, the Sunīti purport, and using it to override Prabhupāda’s wider, repeated, direct instructions. The Hamsadūta letter explicitly speaks of his sons and daughters, initiation, future generations, and concludes, “That is my program.”

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:54

VDG rests on multiple direct affirmations, not one isolated letter. Prabhupāda said “Yes” when directly asked whether a woman could be guru; said “he or she can become guru”; declared that a woman can be ācārya;
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 31 July, 17:51

These two references are not unqualified. In one he says,

“but not so man” and in another he says “very special case”. You are only quoting part. As I said there are only four references, total. That’s not “repeated” and “clear”

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:55

VDG rests on multiple direct affirmations, not one isolated letter.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 31 July, 17:51

Neither do the ritviks. They will tell you that, too.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:57

What exactly does “not so many” mean? How many is “too many”? Was he implying “you won’t find many examples in the past”, or “there should never be so many in the future as a matter of principle”? Who make that determination?

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:57

VDG takes explicit language at face value. Ritvikism adds an unstated conclusion. “He or she can become guru” directly establishes eligibility. The July 9 letter does not explicitly say, “No disciple may ever initiate after my departure.”
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 31 July, 17:51

Just like you add unstated inferences to the Suniti purport. All those things you add to Prabhuapda’s words.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:58

But he did qualify those statements. BTW, @Prahladananda Swami Maharaja mentioned this in his remarks Tuesday. That on the “pro” side, they make only partial quotes.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:58

They are not unqualified.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:59

This is what I mean, there is a lot of mental adjustment to produce “clear” statements that, when taken as they are, are unclear.

Krishna Kirti Das · 17:59

Or, at least not unqualified.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:59

What is more clear than “This is my program.” ?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:00

How about “Suniti, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksha-guru”? Why is that unclear? Seems direct to me.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:02

Which one is about what to implement in modern-day ISKCON?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:03

Where did you get that rule from?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:04

See, you are just making up the rules as you go along to reach a conclusion you have already settled on.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:04

When he says he wants to see his sons and daughters initiate, he is not talking about Satya Yuga – he is talking about modern-day ISKCON.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:06

Is there any direct statement from Prabhupada that he does not wish to have his daughters become guru? OR is it just a collection of inferences?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:07

OK, so Prabhupada’s remark about Suniti is also for the modern day. If you look at the very next shloka and Prabhupada’s purport, there is no question that Prabhupada is talking about the present day.

This incident proves that the śikṣā- or dīkṣā-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Mahārāja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced. Although Sunīti was an instructor to Dhruva Mahārāja, she could not go to the forest because she was a woman, nor could she execute austerities and penances as Dhruva Mahārāja did. Still, Dhruva Mahārāja was able to take his mother with him.

Now, is this also for some past time and not applicable to ISKCON at present? And if it is, then how can you say Prabhupada’s remarks in his previous statement are not applicable to the present? You can’t. It’s for the modern day.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:07

There are “only four” statements which clearly envisions women gurus in ISKCON. But there are zero statements which clearly say there should be no women gurus in ISKCON.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:08

No, there are only four statements where Prabhupada talks about women as diksha-guru, period.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:10

Also you may be aware that Prabhupada stated that in the old days women stayed at home. But he has started a new thing, that is backed up by sastra, to empower women to go out and preach. This is something worth analyzing.

Srila Prabhupada writes in a letter to Himavati:

“Personally I am so much engladdened that the pairs of young boys and girls whom I have placed in householder life are doing so nicely in the Western world. When Lord Caitanya delivered Jagai and Madhai He was also a householder, but when Jagai and Madhai were actually reclaimed, His wife, Visnupriya, was not there. But in this case and in many other cases also, I find that my disciples combined together, husband and wife, are doing this preaching work so nicely. So I am especially proud how my householder disciples are preaching Lord Caitanya’s Mission. This is a new thing in the history of the Sankirtana Movement. In India all the acaryas and their descendants later on acted only from the man’s side. Their wives were at home because that is the system from old times that women are not required to go out. But in Bhagavad-gita we find that women are also equally competent like the men in the matter of Krishna Consciousness Movement. Please therefore carry on these missionary activities, and prove it by practical example that there is no bar for anyone in the matter of preaching work for Krishna Consciousness.”

========
The following points are very clear:

Even great female devotees did not traditionally take leading preaching roles because “that is the system from old times”. It is a historical and cultural reality that he describes here. However, we cannot take that to be what he wants to implement as is evident in the rest of his letter.
By empowering women to take on these outgoing preaching services Srila Prabhupada has boldly introduced “a new thing in the history of the Sankirtana movement”.
He is not embarassed about having implemented this but rather he is “engladdened” and “especially proud”.
He further makes the point that this new implementation is not something he has done whimsically but with the backing of scripture, specifically the Bhagavad-gita.
He asserts here (and in many other places) that “women are also equally competent like the men in the matter of Krishna Consciousness Movement.”

Of course, he also encouraged women devotees who were inclined to remain in traditional roles of staying at home, cooking, cleaning, raising children etc. He found that very pleasing as well. But that does not preclude his sense of accomplishment and pride to see bold women preachers leading the way in pushing forward the movement and delivering the Jagais and Madhais of the world. He was engladdened, proud and fearless in overturning “stereotyped methods will never help spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness”.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:11

Women are also equally competent like the men in the matter of Krishna Consciousness Movement.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:13

Here are the four statements:

SB 4.12.32 purport
Interview with Prof. O’Connell, June 18, 1976
Room Conversation (Atreya Rishi) June 29, 1972
Letter to Hamsadutta, Jan 3, 1969.

Only in these four sources does Prabhupada talk at all about FDG. The first one says “no”, the 2nd and 3rd say yes, but qualify it (not so man, very special case), and the 4th is the one where he says Yes.

So, the total evidence from Prabhupada himself is not unequivocal. That is why this has not been an easy issue to settle. Therefore, looking to the tradition, shastra, and acharyas statements is necessary to settle the matter.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:16

Therefore they are equally eligible to follow the rules and regulations prescribed for them.

Baladeva das · 18:18

Dear @Krishna Kirti Prabhu,

Thank you sincerely for taking the time to read and analyze my recent post. In it, I highlighted that in our region, over 50% of Vaishnavis hold prominent leadership positions and fulfill their responsibilities with excellence.
My post was a direct response to those who claim that women should strictly be limited to household duties. While that stance may be defended theoretically, in practice it contradicts the core principle Srila Prabhupada taught us: «Utility is the principle.»
I also want to express my appreciation for your shastric presentation before the pandits of the Jagannath Puri temple. In that context, you mentioned the importance of defending the prestige Srila Prabhupada achieved (even though some fanatics went so far as to burn his murti).
Reflecting on this, I see a direct parallel between your concern and ours:
The same concern on two fronts: The apprehension you feel regarding a loss of prestige before the pandits of Jagannath Puri is equivalent to the concern felt in the West when women are disqualified from serving as gurus or leaders. Insisting that women should only perform household chores seriously damages the prestige Srila Prabhupada established in the West by granting both men and women an equal and elevated position in our society.
Influencers, not influenced: Despite these pressures from both sides, we must remember Srila Prabhupada’s central teaching: our mission is to influence society, not to be influenced by it. He himself never yielded to pressure from traditional orthodoxy form India or secular norms; he acted with transcendental vision, even braving criticism from his Godbrothers by giving initiation and preaching responsibilities to women.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:18

What is your understanding of what Prabhupāda’s vision was when he said he wants to see his daughters initiate?
Why would he even say that if it was so clearly against sastra?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:19

But then here is one of the last things he said on the matter of women taking up such positions:

Devakī first adopted the policy of repression by directly attacking Kaṁsa for having cruelly, atrociously killed her babies. Then she compromised by saying that this was not his fault, and then she begged for a gift. As we learn from the history of the Mahābhārata, or “Greater India,” the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the kṣatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-saṁhitā, but unfortunately Manu-saṁhitā is now being insulted, and the Āryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga. (SB 10.4.5)

You see, for every quote you can come up with, a counter-quote can be found. Thus proving Dr. Hopkins’s point that this kind of reasoning, or debate, settles nothing.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:20

This is a logical conflation. There’s a difference between being a chief executive and a spiritual guide.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:22

It’s not a trivial point. Women, even women as exalted as Devaki, are considered unfit for those positions. How, then, will she become a globe-trotting FDG?

I think the real problem is that Prabhupada quotes Manu-samhita liberally, throughout his teachings and especially his books. And he meant it to be followed in the present, by his own disciples.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:22

I don’t think the evidence is as ambiguous as you’re presenting it.

The key issue is that you’re treating four very different kinds of statements as though they carry the same weight.

The Sunīti purport is descriptive, not prescriptive. It explains why Sunīti did not initiate Dhruva. It never states the universal rule, “Therefore no qualified woman may ever become a dīkṣā-guru.”
The O’Connell interview is the opposite. Prabhupāda was asked the general question, “Can a woman be guru?” His answer was simply, “Yes.” “Not so many” qualifies the frequency, not the eligibility.
The Atreya Ṛṣi conversation explicitly concludes, “It is not that woman cannot be ācārya.” Again, that’s a denial of a universal prohibition.
The Hamsadūta letter is not a historical narrative at all. It is a direct, future-facing implementation statement for ISKCON: “my spiritual sons and daughters… will be allowed to initiate disciples… That is my program.”

So I don’t see “one no and three qualified yeses.”

I see one contextual historical description and three direct affirmations, culminating in an explicit institutional program.

That’s why I don’t think the ritvik comparison works. Ritviks derive a sweeping prohibition from silence. Here, we are simply taking Prabhupāda’s explicit affirmations at face value and refusing to let an inferred prohibition override them.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:23

The Sunīti purport is descriptive, not prescriptive. Where did you get that terminology from? Prabhupada never, ever used that phrase.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:25

The Hamsadūta letter is not a historical narrative at all. It is a direct, future-facing implementation statement for ISKCON He didn’t let any men start initiating in 1975, either. Which he also mentioned in that letter. So, calling it his future, facing all clear instuction for the rest of time. It’s no less an ambitious claim for a single letter that, unlike the July 9th letter, was not a mandate to be sent to all centers.

Baladeva das · 18:25

Dear Krishna Kirti prabhu Thank you for laying out these four references so clearly.

I think your analysis actually brings us to a very important common ground: you are acknowledging that Srila Prabhupada explicitly said “YES” to women serving as gurus.

Even if three of those statements are qualified as “not so many,” “a very special case,” or conditional, a conditional “YES” is still fundamentally a YES—it is not a prohibition (no). It confirms that the principle is valid, authentic, and sanctioned by Prabhupada himself.

When Prabhupada gives a directive—even if it applies to qualified or special cases—as his followers, our task is not to override his explicit instruction by seeking external tradition to say “NO”, but rather to understand how to properly apply his “YES” in a way that honors his vision and requirements.

If Prabhupada himself opened that door, we cannot close it in his name.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:27

and in that same conversation Prabhupada further explains that the standard of qualification to be guru for men and women are not different.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:28

When asked by the professor, why did Prabhupada not simply quote the sastric prohibition and say “No, women cannot be guru”? This was a conversation about women’s place in his movement, by the way.

Also interesting to note that just a few months earlier when he was asked if women can be sannyasis he categorically said no. Clear. Decisive. Why did he not do the same for the guru service?

Baladeva das · 18:30

Therefore, the task ahead of us is not to debate whether the principle exists—since Prabhupada himself validated it—but to find, with proper responsibility and shastric rigor, the right way to apply it. We recognize that this requires extreme care, clear qualifications, and mature guidance to ensure that the transcendental standard set by Srila Prabhupada is preserved. True fidelity to his teachings lies in carefully safeguarding and regulating the principle he opened, not in canceling it out of fear of its complexity.

Baladeva das · 18:35

@Krishna Kirti On another note, regarding the shift of focus toward personal matters, I believe our duty is to keep our discussion under the principle of Vāda rather than Jalpa, even if the heat of debate sometimes tempts us into that trap. In my case, I chose not to respond to certain personal accusations made by Vasu Ghosh Prabhu, where words I never said and intentions I do not hold were attributed to me. I appreciate our ongoing efforts to stay on the right track, focusing purely on Vāda.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:41

Dear Baladev Prabhu, thank you for your kind words of appreciation. And I appreciate the even-handedness of your approach to discussing this. I want to say that in India especially, our credibility depends on showing our fidelity to shastra. In the IYF, ISKCON Youth Forum, we first convince Hindu young men that what we are following conforms to shastra. After they are convinced we are following shastra, then we can introduce things like the four regulative principles and other ISKCON conventions. But only after they are convinced we are shastric.

Now, the SJTA (Shree Jagannatha Temple Administration) has challenged us on our legitimacy, for non-conformance with shastra. They have no commitment to following our traditions or our founder acharya Prabhupada. We cannot say Prabhupada Said. The ONLY thing we can do is defend Prabhupada on the basis of shastra.

Now, the thing is that Prabhupada has told us to do the same in our own affairs. In his purport to Gita 17.15, he says that the process of speaking in spiritual circles to to at once cite shastra to uphold whatever one is saying. And the reason for that he explain in innumerable places is because it is only the shastra that is without the four defects of conditioned life. Prabhupada makes this point very nicely in his introduction to Sri Ishopanishad. Moreover, from the very beginning, Prabhupada has us chant the Sanskrit shlokas in Bhagavatam, even though hardly no one knows Sanskrit, and it was the custom that we learned the shlokas in Sanskrit itself. The reason is simple, this is shastra, it’s exactly what Krishna said. And it’s perfect, no defects.

So, in the case of Prabhupada, as I have pointed out, you can find a Prabhupada quote to justify almost any notion. That’s why shastra and acharyas are indispensible. They are a check against our own potential to misunderstand something Prabhupada said. It is not going beyond Prabhupada to quote shastra.

Just consider the punishment of Ashvattama, and Arjuna’s choice. Bhima and Krishna wanted Ashvattama killed, and Draupadi and Yudhsithira wanted his life spared. And Arjuna himself had also promised Draupadi to behead him. So, Krishna reminded him that he had to honor all the shastric injunctions, satisfy both sides and also his promise. And the solution was indeed a shastric injunction that satisfied all the sides. The commentaries to this section of Bhagavatam make it clear that the matter was settled by shastra.

Hence, a solution has to settle all sides. In my humble opinion, in this case, however, devotees have much faith in Prabhupada but not in shastra. It is said in the shrutis, yasya deve parabhakti yatha deve tatha gurau, only to those who have faith in both the Lord (i.e. shastra) and the spiritual master, are all the purports of the Vedas revealed. It explains the ritvik issue on both sides (one fell into belieiving it, and the other side could not offer effective arguments to counter it, since they also relied only on Prabhupada’s statements. And a similar thing is happening with the FDG issue as well.

This is why I say that the Terms of Reference provision of only Prabhuapda’s books is simply history repeating itself. It cannot be settled by such measures.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:41

Two questions. Two very clear answers. And the contrast between them deserves our attention.
On a morning walk in Nairobi on 2 November 1975, the discussion turned to women, brahminical initiation, and spiritual equality. A devotee then said:
“Śrīla Prabhupāda, it’s not possible for a woman to become a sannyāsī.”
Śrīla Prabhupāda answered simply: “No.”
There was no hesitation, no diplomatic softening, and no suggestion that the answer might change if a particular woman were exceptionally qualified. Regarding admission into the formal sannyāsa āśrama, his answer was categorical.
A few months later, in Toronto, Professor O’Connell asked an equally direct question:

“Is it possible, Swamiji, for a woman to be a guru in the line of disciplic succession?”
Quoted from Parijata’s message of 10 July, 17:26

Śrīla Prabhupāda replied:
“Yes.”
He then named Jāhnavā Devī, the wife of Lord Nityānanda, as a precedent. He observed, “But, not so many,” and continued:

“The qualification of guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Kṛṣṇa. Then he or she can become guru.”

He then gave the ordinary example of a qualified woman becoming a professor and concluded that a woman who understands Kṛṣṇa consciousness perfectly can become guru.
This distinction is important because sannyāsa and guruship are not the same category.
Therefore, the reasoning that “women cannot take sannyāsa, so women cannot become guru” joins two separate questions as though they were one. Śrīla Prabhupāda himself did not join them. When asked about sannyāsa, he said no. When asked about guruship, he said yes.
Could the Toronto answer have been mere appeasement? We cannot read anyone’s inner motive, but the recorded exchange does not resemble a courtesy answer. Śrīla Prabhupāda did not simply say yes and move on.
He did several things to bolster his case that women can be gurus in his movement. He:

supplied a historical precedent,
a scriptural principle,
a spiritual qualification,
and a logical analogy.

Two Indian professors were also present, and Śrīla Prabhupāda continued the philosophical discussion without withdrawing or restricting his answer.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:45

That’s why Prabhupada’s books have more authority than any of his other statements. In conversations, letters, etc. things that are not his books, there is a greater degree of uncertainty there. Books have the most authority. Hence, the Suniti statement should be understood directly, without interpretation, and other statements he made in other sources should be understood in light of the stronger source. Not the other way around. In my presentation, cited the rule for this given by Jiva Goswami.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:47

I am challenging you to justify your ad hoc rules of interpretation by supporting them with some infallible praman. Repeating them greater rhetorical force does not make them any more valid.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:48

You keep avoiding the core question I have been asking. Why would Prabhupada say or write these things if they were so clearly apasiddhantic?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:48

So, you said, The Sunīti purport is descriptive, not prescriptive I am going to hold your feet to the fire on this. Prabhupada never once mentioned this rule. Where did you get it from? What justifies it?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:50

Prabhupada said those things, but he also said other things that puts the meaning you ascribed to them in doubt.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:50

This does not answer the question, though.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:51

Why would he even say it or write it?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:53

But why would he say the other things, too? You cannot say that the only four statements Prabhupada made on the topic of FDG unequivcally indicate that women without any restriction or other condition can become diksha-guru, just like the men. You cannot say that.

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:53

Prabhupada never says about the men, “but not so many” or “very special case” Why not?

Krishna Kirti Das · 18:56

I’m going to break off with Madan Gopal Prabhu on this. It has been shown that for every quote from Prabhupada, practically you can come up with a counter quote. The late Thomas J Hopkins said this nicely almost 20 years ago. His comment has aged well.

Purpose-driven hermeneutics are the last thing we need. We need to come together on the same page for rules for resolving such conflcts.

Baladeva das · 18:58

That’s an excellent point! It is key to emphasize that the heart and key to this wise decision were in the hands of a Vaishnavi: Draupadi.

While the men and warriors were analyzing the situation from the perspective of duty, strict justice, or righteous anger, it was Draupadi’s deep compassion and spiritual vision that set the tone. Having lost her own sons in that massacre, she was experiencing firsthand the devastating pain of a grieving mother. Yet, her reaction was not revenge, but empathy: she did not want Kripi, Asvatthama’s mother and the wife of their preceptor Dronacharya, to suffer the exact same torment and inconsolable grief that she was enduring.

In this moment, Draupadi acted as a true guru—instructing and guiding everyone present toward the highest understanding of dharma. While it is essential to act strictly according to sastra, the proper application of scriptural principles according to time, place, and circumstance (kala, desa, patra) is ITSELF a core instruction of sastra. Draupadi provided that exact realized vision.

Upon hearing Krishna and assessing the situation, Arjuna simply sought the scriptural formula that would honor the mercy and wisdom Draupadi imparted without violating the principles of justice. This pastime is a prime example of how sastra must be applied through kala, desa, patra, guided by the realization and spiritual leadership of a guru.

Madan Gopal Das · 18:59

He has never said, in writing or spoken word that he does not intend to see women disciples becoming initiating guru in ISKCON. He has expressed clearly that he introducing a new thing in the history of the sankirtan movement by equally empowering men and women in Krishna conscious preaching activity.
What “other things” are you referring to? Other than what was done in the old days (which he clearly said he is changing as part of the “new thing” in the sankirtan movement)
I have given all the answers to why he said these things and all the other things as well.

From what I am gathering in your position (and please correct me if I’m wrong):

Prabhupada did not really intend to implement “his program”.
He was either mistaken, or unaware or forgetful of the sastric siddhanta around this when he laid out his program. Or he was trying to appease someone.

Other than these are there other possibilities? If there are, kindly share.

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 19:02

“We should consider the triad of guru, sādhu, and śāstra as the source of authority—not just śāstra alone. After all, what is śāstra if not the compilation of the sādhus’ realizations, literally organized into written form?

Likewise, what Śrīla Prabhupāda spoke has the same divine inspiration as what he wrote in his purports, conversations and letters.

Therefore, we cannot divide Prabhupāda into less authorized and more authorized, since his spoken words and written commentaries are equally empowered, both flowing from the same transcendental source.

What is important is not to present the apparent contraditions of his sayings out of context and desconected of his mission of giving the mercy of Sri Sri Gauranga and Nityananda. “

Madan Gopal Das · 19:04

Fair challenge. Let me make the wording more precise.

I am not claiming that Prabhupāda announced a formal hermeneutical rule called “descriptive versus prescriptive.” I am identifying the scope of the sentence itself.

The purport says that Sunīti could not become Dhruva’s dīkṣā-guru. That is a particular statement about one woman, one son, and one historical situation. It does not say:

“No woman, at any time, may initiate any person.”

To derive that universal prohibition, you must add a premise that Prabhupāda never stated.

The original dictation makes the contextual nature even clearer:

“Suniti, however, being in family relationship with Dhruva, his mother, and also woman, could not become the diksa guru of Dhruva Maharaja.”

The subject is Sunīti, the prospective disciple is Dhruva, and the explanation includes their family relationship. It is therefore a context-specific explanation, not an explicit ISKCON-wide policy directive.

What justifies this reading? Ordinary grammar, logical scope, and Prabhupāda’s own answer when the general question was actually asked. Professor O’Connell asked whether a woman could become guru in the disciplic succession. Prabhupāda answered:

“Yes.”

And then:

“He or she can become guru.”

Thus, his general statement interprets the particular Sunīti case, not the other way around.

If you claim the purport establishes a universal ban, the burden is to show where Prabhupāda universalized it. Where does he say “no woman,” “at any time,” “in all circumstances,” or “in ISKCON”? He does not.

So the universal prohibition is itself the rule, not my contextual reading.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:08

I have never said shastra alone. I have only said that we should understand Prabhupada in a way that is not contrary to shastra.

BTW, I got the summary notes of the meeting from Mata Ji Parijata, and the AI summary notes said this about my presentation.

Krishna delivered a presentation on the process for deciding on female diksha gurus, arguing that the current approach misguides ISKCON and risks further fracturing the organization. He contended that limiting decision-making to Srila Prabhupada’s words alone contradicts both Shastra and Prabhupada’s instructions to consult previous acharyas. Krishna proposed that Shastra should be the central authority in all decisions, *emphasizing the need to understand Prabhupada’s teachings in alignment with Shastra rather than treating his words as above Shastra.*

That’s all I said. Making sure our understanding of Prabhupada’s words aligns with shastra and acharyas is a check on our own speculation. I have never said or implied that shastra should be understood without reference to Prabhupada. I never said anything like that.

On the other hand, I have cautioned at great length not to repeat the mistake of the Ritviks, who quote Prabhupada’s authority but in a way against shastra and acharyas. I therefore call them anti-Rupanuga-Prabhupadanugas.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:11

I will talk about this tomorrow. There is a formal hermeneutic rule for which this is a crude translation. It’s called vidhi and arthavad. Vidhi everyone knows is a prescription, and arthavad is a description related to a vidhi.

I will talk more about this tomorrow.

Bhavataḥ dāsaḥ, KKdas

Baladeva das · 19:13

A great analogy can be drawn here regarding Srila Prabhupada’s statement: when faced with seemingly contradictory instructions, the solution lies in applying higher spiritual intelligence to harmonize principles without violating the core intent of shastra.

Just as Arjuna used his sharp intelligence to execute a solution that satisfied both the duty to punish the offender and the duty to protect the guru’s family—by removing Asvatthama’s crown jewel instead of taking his physical life—the same principle applies to recognizing qualified women as gurus.

It is not a matter of fabricating new rules or acting out of mere sentiment. The shastra explicitly establishes that any qualified soul who knows the science of Krishna can act as a spiritual master. Concurrently, sastric traditions also emphasize social care, protection, and sensitivity to context (kala, desa, patra).

Furthermore, in that pastime, Draupadi herself acted as a true guru by instructing and guiding the entire assembly toward the highest understanding of dharma. Therefore, allowing fully qualified Vaishnavis to serve as gurus in appropriate places and circumstances, with due care, is ITSELF an application of shastra through kala, desa, patra. Just as cutting off the jewel served as execution without physical death, properly situated leadership honors both the eternal principle of qualification and the practical need for social harmony and care.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:16

One last thing I would like to say before signing off tonight is that it’s important we get our reasoning right, because the reasoning we use on this matter will be used on other matters, too. If it comes down to ad-hoc hermeneutics and brass-knuckle politics, then that’s how things will be for everything else, and then you can’t expect unity in any sense.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:31

I fully agree that ISKCON must demonstrate fidelity to śāstra. But the issue is being framed as though we must choose between Śrīla Prabhupāda and śāstra. That is a false choice. The actual question is:

Who gives us the authoritative understanding, hierarchy, context, and application of śāstra for ISKCON?

Bhagavad-gītā 17.15 certainly says that spiritual statements should be supported by scripture. But it does not say that every śāstric passage is self-interpreting, equally applicable in every circumstance, or that our personal reading of śāstra may override the Founder-Ācārya’s direct instructions.

Perfect śāstra does not make every reader perfect . The reader still possesses the four defects. That is precisely why Mahābhārata says:

tarko ’pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā
nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ
mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ

Logic is inconclusive, the Vedas contain different departments and injunctions, and the truth of dharma is understood by following the realized mahājanas.

Prabhupāda states this even more pointedly in ŚB 3.16.23:

“If we simply depend on the scriptures, we are sometimes misled… The best path is to follow the authorities.”

So Prabhupāda himself rejects the idea that possessing a śāstric quotation automatically settles its application.

And who decides which śāstric passages are primary, contextual, advanced, inapplicable, or meant for another time and place? The ācārya.

Prabhupāda himself exercised this authority repeatedly:

He wrote that Bhagavad-gītā alone can suffice and that one need not read all other Vedic literature.
He called Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the essence of śāstra and asked, “What is the use of other śāstras?… That is final.”
He said Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi is “not for general study,” but only for highly advanced devotees.
He recounted Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura allowing only one copy of Govinda-līlāmṛta to be printed, “not for distribution,” because readers must progress gradually.
He explained that Hari-bhakti-vilāsa was specifically compiled for India in a particular historical setting, and that the ācārya must consider country, time, and candidate, accepting the essence rather than mechanically imposing outward details.

There are also direct examples of isolated śāstric injunctions not being applied literally. Brahma-vaivarta Purāṇa says sannyāsa is forbidden in Kali-yuga, yet Lord Caitanya, Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, and Śrīla Prabhupāda accepted sannyāsa. Why? Because the ācāryas know the intended scope and application of the injunction.

Similarly, Prabhupāda writes that according to one pañcarātra injunction, only a householder brāhmaṇa can initiate. But he immediately explains that Mahāprabhu rejected that social restriction and established that anyone conversant with Kṛṣṇa-tattva may become guru. The same exact quote, by the way, Prabhupāda used to support his assertion that women can become guru.

Therefore, “ śāstra says ” is only the beginning of the discussion. We must still ask:

Which śāstra? Which context? Which system? Which audience? Which application? And according to which ācārya?

The citation of yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau also needs correction. The word deve means the Supreme Lord, not “śāstra.” The verse says that the meanings of the Vedas are revealed to one who has equal faith in the Lord and guru. It does not authorize us to replace “the Lord” with “my independent reading of śāstra” and then use that reading to correct the guru. In fact, the verse teaches that śāstra is revealed through faith in guru.

The Aśvatthāmā example also does not support independent śāstric interpretation over the ācārya. Arjuna did not search texts independently and overrule Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa Himself gave him the clue for reconciling the competing principles. The living authority supplied the synthesis. In our case, Prabhupāda has already supplied the interpretive clue by saying that a qualified woman can become guru, that “he or she can become guru,” and that his sons and daughters would initiate future generations.

The ritvik analogy is therefore reversed. Ritviks take one procedural letter and extend it into a permanent post-samādhi doctrine that the letter never states, while explaining away repeated instructions that Prabhupāda’s disciples would become gurus. The VDG position does the opposite. It accepts Prabhupāda’s direct affirmative statements at face value and asks where the supposed universal prohibition is actually stated.

And yes, someone can selectively quote Prabhupāda. But someone can even more easily selectively quote the vast, varied body of śāstra. The solution is not to jump over Prabhupāda into a larger library. The solution is samanvaya under the Founder-Ācārya.

Therefore, a Terms of Reference beginning with Prabhupāda’s books is not anti-śāstric. His books are ISKCON’s authorized presentation and application of śāstra. It simply prevents us from importing an isolated smṛti injunction or our preferred traditional interpretation and using it to subordinate his clearly stated program.

The central challenge remains:

What explicit śāstric verse categorically prohibits a qualified Vaiṣṇavī from giving dīkṣā, and who authorized us to interpret that verse in a way that cancels Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct “yes”?

Until that is answered, it is not the pro-VDG side that lacks faith in śāstra. The danger is allowing our own reading of śāstra to become more authoritative for ISKCON than the Founder-Ācārya who taught us how to understand it.

Baladeva das · 19:36

Yes I agree with you dear prabhu, we need to do our best in terms of Vada not vitanda nor jalpa…

Baladeva das · 19:36

Have a good rest

Baladeva das · 19:50

“Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person . Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate.’
So basically, Prabhupada is our Mahajan and has the solid truth of religious principles hidden in his heart because he is a pure and self-realized person.
He created a new spiritual revolution unprecedented in the history of this world… and applied the fundamental principle of the Vedas (whose true purpose is to know the One behind their flowery language) without adulterating the dasa mula tattwa…

Madan Gopal Das · 20:45

Sastric pramana:
kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei ‘guru’ haya

Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that anyone who knows the science of Krishna, that person should be accepted as Spiritual Master, regardless of any material so-called qualifications; such as rich or poor, man or woman, or brahmana or sudra.

Yes, we can confidently say that this list can be extended to women as well.

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 20:45

Therefore, it is very naive to equate the position of Śrīla Prabhupāda in ISKCON with that of Buddha. The proper analogy should be with the Mahājanas, because they provide us with the proper standard that should be followed.

Baladeva das · 21:08

Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya 8.128
kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei ‘guru’ haya
Padma Purāṇa
ṣaṭ-karma-nipuṇo vipro mantra-tantra-viśāradaḥ / avaiṣṇavo gurur na syād vaiṣṇavaḥ śva-paco guruḥ
The Common Idea
Both verses teach the same principle:
Spiritual authority is not based on a material designation, but on spiritual qualification.

One expresses it positively:

“One who knows the science of Krishna can be a guru.”

The other expresses it comparatively:

“A learned Brahmin without be a vaisnava cannot be a guru, while a Vaishnava can be one, even if born into a family considered inferior. (dog eater… svapaco”

Bir Krishna Goswami · 21:40

I would like to remind everyone on this conference of our remit:
In line with Srila Prabhupada’s desire that the GBC meet and discuss how to have unity in diversity in our society-we should be coming up with a strategy to apply the issue of VDGs in different locales.

In other words, how we can be part of a unified society, following the same principles given to us by Srila Prabhupada, and at the same time strategically adjusting the details

Madan Gopal Das · 21:40

Prabhupada quoted this verse more than 150 times. That’s a lot of times. It shows the importance of this liberal point. How many times does he quote verses that restrict allowing women to become guru? Initially I did not think this to be a numbers game, but I’m hearing that Prabhupada affirmed VDG “only four times” as if somehow the number of quotes is what establishes tattva. Yes, it may carry some weight in an overall sense, but just see how much he wanted to show the liberality of this verse.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 21:40

That is really the question at hand

Bir Krishna Goswami · 21:42

Whether it is permissible or not can be argued till the cows come home. Everyone has the favorite quote. However we should respect the different opinions and the person expressing these opinion. This is the only way our society will remain unified.

Baladeva das · 21:45

I agree maharaja thank you

Bir Krishna Goswami · 21:51

Practically: How to allow the devotees in the locales who deem it essential to allow Vaisnavis to take up the service, and at the same time meet the needs of those who do not want that in their areas or feel it is not proper sastrically. That is the question.

We don’t want to pin labels on advocates of either side. In other words we don’t want to say: “You are wrong. This is a deviation”

Unity in diversity

Baladeva das · 21:56

I agree that this is an appropriate way to reframe the discussion, provided we accept that the VDG principle applies in certain parts of the world. However, progress stalls when one side refuses to accept this practical application.
How can we provide reassurance regarding the application of this principle, taking into account the specific concerns that party has?

Madan Gopal Das · 21:57

This does seem to be the sticking point. One line of though insists that regional variance and diversity of opinion may not be allowed in this instance.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:08

And the other side insists that it must be allowed!

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:08

What practical adjustments need to be made to meet the needs of both sides

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:09

Keeping in mind the needs behind the positions-standard mediation

Baladeva das · 22:10

yes of course it is my point too.

Prahladananda Swami · 22:11

Sastra has defined diksa and even siksa guru as completely self-realized souls, who actually have fully realized the science of Krishna. They have realized that there is no difference between Lord Krishna and His name, they have realized their spiritual identity and are 100% engaged 24/7 in pure unalloyed devotional service.

There are others who are not on that level, who can also give initiation, but they should not imitate a mahabhagavata devotee and independently control ISKCON’s finances and manpower, otherwise they are sure to become degraded as we can see in almost 1/2 of those who have taken up the service.

“Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him, for it is enjoined that one should deliver whatever he has to the spiritual master. The brahmacārī in particular is supposed to beg alms from others and offer them to the spiritual master. However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or mahā-bhāgavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will eventually become degraded.

In this verse Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaiṣṇavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikārī. A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikārī as a spiritual master.”
(NOI 5 purport)

We have already seen the results of the first 11, proved to be less than fully self-realized souls, who tried to imitate a mahabhagavata like Srila Prabhupada and the horrible fall downs that happened to most of them.

In the absence of true uttama-adhikari Vaisnavas, others on lower levels of devotional attainment may have to take up the service of initiating disciples, but their duties and abilities are different from a Mahabhagavata devotee doing the same service.

Srila Prabhupada stated in his last will and testament that the management system shall continue as he created it without change and that the GBC will be the ultimate managerial authority. Anyone, diksa or siksa gurus included, who independently control their followers and the resources that should be controlled by the managers that Srila Prabhupada appointed are undermining the instructions of Srila Prabhupada either in a gross or even subtle way.

Of course, the temple president have to take up the leadership of the ISKCON, but can do so more easily when there are not other parallel lines of authority under minding their authority. The GBC should find a path to empower the temple presidents and engage and protect the gurus in ISKCON so they do not become entangled in creating their own separate institutions within ISKCON.

The main service of the guru (diksa or siksa) within ISKCON is to train their disciples in the six loving exchanges and how to apply them appropriately. So that those who are more strictly following Srila Prabhupada’s example and instructions are seen as natural siksa gurus and desire in the hearts of the devotees should arise under their guidance to help those on a lower platform of devotional service. Spiritual friends to cooperate with should not be seen from a smaller group of devotees, but all devotees in ISKCON should be seen equally according to their desire to serve our acaryas in disciplic succession no matter who they have taken initiation from. If a diksa guru trains his disciple in these way, then the siksa gurus will recognize that the diksa guru is a true follower of the acaryas and encourage their followers to strengthen their faith in the diksa guru. When the diksa gurus sees this then they will encourage their disciples to take more shelter of their siksa guru. Then we will seen the love for Srila Prabhupada manifest to keep this movement together after his departure.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:12

If we wish to resolve conflicts we need to go beyond the positions to the needs.

One sides wants to remain faithful to the tradition and their understanding of sastra.
The other side wants to be able to present Krishna consciousness in their areas in a way that they can expand the movement, and empower and encourage 50 percent of the devotees.

Both are admirable needs

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:13

Lets talk about strategy.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:15

to meet everyone’s needs

Baladeva das · 22:19

Okay, I agree, but at the same time, are we sure both sides want to refocus on this framework? That’s my point. If both sides agree to refocus the resolution strategy, we have a light at the end of the tunnel.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:21

We agreed on the remit at the beginning. If we continue stress our positions rather that talking about how we can work together, I don’t see the value.

Baladeva das · 22:23

But I understand that we have to start from a basic premise, and that would be the application or non-application of the VDG principle. If we don’t apply it, there’s nothing to discuss. If we do apply it, we must consider the needs, interests, and concerns of both parties.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:23

none of us are going to change our opinions. Whats the value of a quote war? It divides us. We will have to face many more contentious issues in the future. We must be determined to work together. If we don’t work together, i can assure you we will incur the displeasure of Srila Prabhupada and the Parampara

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:24

So, we are discussing how to apply it and at the same time address the needs, interests, and concerns. That’s our remit

Baladeva das · 22:28

That’s why I said that one of the parties doesn’t want its application implemented, not even in other parts of the world where its practical application, with appropriate pastoral sensitivity, is necessary. If the application of the principle is accepted, then we can discuss how to ensure that the underlying fears and interests can be addressed and safeguarded through effective control mechanisms.

Baladeva das · 22:32

In my personal case (not in my collective representation), I accept any decision the GBC makes and fully support it because I have faith that the responsible devotees of the GBC are doing their best and seeing what is best for the movement, both to protect the sidddhanta and to be visionaries of the best way to apply it for the expansion of preaching.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 22:33

I spent over one year in a previous mediation conference with professional mediators talking about the same issues with the same quotes and we got nowhere.

Baladeva das · 22:34

yes maharaja I understand… Because we’re debating positions and not the concerns underlying those positions.

Baladeva das · 22:35

An agreement is usually reached when the parties begin to suggest possible solutions to the problem.

Baladeva das · 22:44

One question would be, “Why am I afraid of this principle being applied?” I think that’s where we can start to find a solution.

Sunday, 2 August 2026

Visvanath Das · 02:12

Hare Krishna Vaisnavas. PAMHO. AGTSP.

I am new to this forum, however please forgive me for my simplicity in these matters.

Just some thoughts running through:

I do appreciate some profound discussions and research on methodologies of approaching the issue.
Sastras are definitely correct being sabda pramana. However the expected results from the Sastras has never been seen until Srila Prabhupada applied it in the context of the world.
Prabhupada’s way of application is what has achieved the impact Lord Chaitanya desired as His mission.
Thus, we have already agreed and established the position of Srila Prabhupada as pre-iminent sikhsha guru and founder Acarya.
So we need to now move forward from agreed position.
I personally believe that, if Srila Prabhupada followers wish to study other sastras to derive teachings, that is fine, however using that to change the course/direction Srila Prabhupada has set for ISKCON and proven it’s effectiveness by delivering many fallen souls and making Krishna consciousness accessible for souls like me.
I note from the discussion thread that sastras did not award brahmin initiations to women but Prabhupada did. Result – it did bring the expected effect to the sincere, with some exceptions who did not comply to practices as given by Srila Prabhupada.
We are all aware of many things that are or were not acceptable within Gaudiya traditions, but Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada did it differently – and the results proved that the changes worked.
So in essence, we deal with the issue before us from the point of Srila Prabhupada onwards.
Taking reference thereafter, we have seen for sure Srila Prabhupada always gave a chance to all souls. It was not that there were no failures/ casualties in the chances Prabhupada gave
However, given the gains and losses from the chances given or opportunities created by Srila Prabhupada, overall truth is that gains outweigh the small losses.
Despite the ISKCON history, we have a bigger ISKCON than what Prabhupada left to this world.
BG confirms that there is no loss on this path even for a little progress – I am considering whatever positive contributions VDG can do despite the risks we may be seeing.
Certainly, cultural sensitivity maybe taken into account and principle can be applied without losing the essence of Srila Prabhupada and Sriman Mahaprabhu’s program of saving fallen souls.
Our vaisnavis within ISKCON are serving in great and meaningful ways in every arena of service – not in material sense but spiritually Srila Prabhupada engaged them equally.

Dear Vaisnavas, I submit that let’s not over think… Over analysis is causing a paralysis… We have greater task ahead of us… We need all hands on deck.

Certainly, we need to think out the implementation properly which could also means enhancing existing process or even incumbents can benefit from.

Hare Krishna. Please forgive me if my words above disturbs feelings of anyone. I have just tried to share some of my thoughts in this matter and for sure my contribution is insignificant, but do this as a spider service for the Lord and Srila Prabhupada.

I beg to remain in the service of Srila Prabhupada positively.

Krishna Kirti Das · 11:40

Dear Visvanath Prabhu (from Fiji), please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Prabhupāda.

Thank you for your frank remarks. In this message, I would like to address them one-by-one. Your remarks in in italics, mine are in plain text.

1. I do appreciate some profound discussions and research on methodologies of approaching the issue.
Quoted from Visvanath Das’s message of 2 August, 02:12

Thank you.

2. Śāstras are definitely correct being śabda pramāṇa. However the expected results from the Śāstras has never been seen until Śrīla Prabhupāda applied it in the context of the world.

It’s not like that. The śāstras have always worked and have been applied, but from time-to-time adharma becomes prominent. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati Bhārata. So, the cycle goes on. And then dharma has to be reestablished, unsurprisingly, in the face of opposition.

For example, not everyone welcomed Rāmānujācārya’s own reforms or preaching. In his own time, rival religious groups also tried to kill him. There is a famous pastime of Rāmānuja’s disciple Kureśa (Kūrattāḻvār) who persuaded him to exchange his clothes with his so he could escape. Kureśa along with another godbrother was captured, tortured and blinded.

So, Prabhupāda is by no means the first.

3. Prabhupāda’s way of application is what has achieved the impact Lord Caitanya desired as His mission.

Yes, no question of it.

4. Thus, we have already agreed and established the position of Śrīla Prabhupāda as pre-eminent śikṣā guru and Founder Ācārya.

Yes, no question of it. And as in other Sampradāyas, that has also been how their Founder-Ācārya has been perceived. I mentioned Rāmānuja, for example. Many others. And the followers of those lines have absolute reverence for them. For example, in both Rāmānuja and Madhva sampradāyas, it is understood that these ācāryas are considered above the four defects of conditioned life. They will provide śāstric references foretelling their appearance. So, they are shown a reverence similar to how we show reverence to Prabhupāda.

5. So we need to now move forward from agreed position.
Quoted from Visvanath Das’s message of 2 August, 02:12

No comment here.

6. I personally believe that, if Śrīla Prabhupāda followers wish to study other śāstras to derive teachings, that is fine, however using that to change the course/direction Śrīla Prabhupāda has set for ISKCON and proven it’s effectiveness by delivering many fallen souls and making Kṛṣṇa consciousness accessible for souls like me.

There is an unwarranted and unstated presumption in this point. The presumption is that we, as individuals or collectively, can understand Prabhupāda without error without the help of śāstra or ācāryas. I have mentioned at length the emergence and expansion of Ṛtvikism as a counter-example.

7. I note from the discussion thread that śāstras did not award brāhmaṇa initiations to women but Prabhupāda did. Result – it did bring the expected effect to the sincere, with some exceptions who did not comply to practices as given by Śrīla Prabhupāda.

This is a point that is liable to be misunderstood without the help of previous ācāryas commentaries, śāstras about the topic and the tradition itself (i.e. sadācāra, the practices honored by many sādhus), because, as with some other topics, there are certain points about the matter that are essential to this topic and that Prabhupāda himself did not say much about.

The issue on this point is that it is since the time of Sarasvatī Ṭhākura that our Gauḍīya line has standardized our initiations on Pāñcarātrika vidhi, specifically Nārada pāñcarātra. Moreover, there is a difference between upanayanam (Vedic dīkṣā) and Pāñcarātrika pañca-saṁskāra (Śrī Vaiṣṇavas call it bara-nyāsa). They are not the same thing.

In Śrī sampradāya, everyone gets pañcasaṁskāra, women śūdras, and even lower animals like elephants, who are well-known for their temple services. And it is through pañcasaṁskāra that one is eligible to worship the Śālagrāma-śilā and Deities. But upanayanam, only men get that, because it requires Vedic mantras, for which women, śūdras and others lower than them are not permitted to utter. The Bhāgavatam (1.4.25) itself confirms this. strī-śūdra-dvijabandhūnāṁ trayī na śruti-gocarā. That is why Vyāsadeva compiled the Purāṇas and Mahābhārata, so that this class of people could get instruction in spiritual life.

So, as recorded in the Prabhupāda Lilāmṛta, that although Prabhupāda permitted Brahma-gāyatrī to be given to female disciples, at the time he gave second initiation for the first time to his female disciples, he also ruled “they could not receive the sacred thread.”

Yes, the thread is a very inexpensive thing, but it is not unessential, either. Otherwise, Prabhupāda could have also given that. And if it unimportant, why even call it “sacred”? So, while it is without doubt that Prabhupāda gave pañcasaṁskāra to women, the same as he did with men, there are unsettled questions in our sampradāya about women and their identity and prescribed duties as brāhmaṇas. And these become important when considering their eligibility to give mantra-dīkṣā. Otherwise, these differences are not significant in terms of daily service like arcana.

For more details about śāstric injunctions concerning sacred thread, please see this article at the IISB website: https://iisb.co.in/2025/12/29/is-not-receiving-the-brahma-gayatri-the-higher-standard-for-women

8. We are all aware of many things that are or were not acceptable within Gauḍīya traditions, but Bhaktisiddhānta and Śrīla Prabhupāda did it differently – and the results proved that the changes worked.

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was in some ways more liberal than the jāta-gosāis (hereditary gurus) but in other ways also more conservative. On the one hand, he initiated persons not born as brāhmaṇas and made them brāhmaṇas, giving them the sacred thread. Sarasvatī Ṭhākura was reviled and criticized throughout India for giving upanayanam and the upavīta to persons not born as brāhmaṇas.

On the other hand, including upanayanam with Vaiṣṇava initiation was something new in the Gauḍīya lineage, and definitely more conservative than before. Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gave upanayanam so that the Vaiṣṇavas would be respected as brāhmaṇas. He further expected that those who got this initiation should also conduct themselves as brāhmaṇas and should be considered eligible to perform all the prescribed duties of brāhmaṇas (see SB 3.33.6-7, etc.) and be given the same privileges as hereditary brāhmaṇas who are also worthy of their status. So, from the perspective of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava history and practice, this was a new and decidedly more conservative thing.

Prabhupāda was similarly very liberal and very conservative. As many have already pointed out, Prabhupāda gave them much opportunity to perform in roles they had not previously played—especially in terms of missionary work. However, Prabhupāda was at least as concerned about the ability of his new, Western disciples to follow basic moral principles, especially with regard to observing the restrictions on illicit sex.

Prabhupāda said,

Vaiṣṇava is not so easy. The varṇāśrama-dharma should be established to become a Vaiṣṇava. It is not so easy to become Vaiṣṇava. (Room Conversation, 14 February 1977)

The context of this remark is his observation about how one of his sannyāsis was keeping five women for sex. In Prabhupāda’s time, the men and women working together was wonderful, but there was also a tremendous amount of illicit sex. There has been no other problem in ISKCON that has rivalled the problem of illicit sex—even today.

The need for varṇāśrama is to cut down illicit sex. Prabhupāda said,

So these regulative principles are there. So what is…, what is the big plan behind these regulative principle? The big plan is: here is the attraction, puṁsaḥ striyā mithunī-bhāvam—to cut down this attraction between male and female. This is the big plan. Otherwise, there is no need of the varṇāśrama. Varṇāśrama means to train the candidates gradually to become free from this entanglement of man and woman. This is the basic principle. (Lecture, SB 5.5.8, Oct. 30, 1976, Calcutta)

So, on cutting down the illicit sex front, ISKCON has not been doing very well. And there are some reasons for which we consider that FDG will make that problem worse, considerably worse. I have not yet talked about this, mostly because I have been focused on the need for us to adopt the same rules for reasoning about the matter. That is the conversation we should be having now, not on FDG specifically. Nevertheless, aside from reasons of conformity with śāstra and ācāryas teachings, there are non-trivial, sociological reasons to be opposed to it as well. That I have not touched on yet.

9. So in essence, we deal with the issue before us from the point of Śrīla Prabhupāda onwards.

That assumes that you can understand Prabhupāda perfectly, without error, unmediated. But what you think Śrīla Prabhupāda meant by something he said is not necessarily what he actually meant. As individuals and as a group—even if that group is the GBC—they can be wrong about something they think Prabhupāda meant by something he said. And because this affects everything else we do, having this conversation first is a prerequisite. Otherwise, we will just waste time in useless quote wars, with “SP said this” versus “SP said that.”

10. Taking reference thereafter, we have seen for sure Śrīla Prabhupāda always gave a chance to all souls. It was not that there were no failures/ casualties in the chances Prabhupāda gave

Yes, but we should also learn from it, too.

11. However, given the gains and losses from the chances given or opportunities created by Śrīla Prabhupāda, overall truth is that gains outweigh the small losses.

That’s not the way things work. That’s called “consequentialism”, and that should not be the guiding principle. It is anumāna (inference), and it is contaminated by the four defects of conditional existence.

That is why I posted a previous reference to the Brahma Kumārīs. That is a spiritual organization in India started in 1937 and which is 100% managed by women. There are no male leaders. They have a presence in 110 countries in the world and are active in all kinds of spiritual and social welfare projects. And it works. So, why not become more like the Brahma Kumārīs? What would be the harm?

12. Despite the ISKCON history, we have a bigger ISKCON than what Prabhupāda left to this world.

Yes, we do, but bigger is not necessarily better, and success in expanding the organization does not necessarily indicate that we have been faithful to our principles and founder’s desires.

13. BG confirms that there is no loss on this path even for a little progress – I am considering whatever positive contributions VDG can do despite the risks we may be seeing.
Quoted from Visvanath Das’s message of 2 August, 02:12

It depends on what we are measuring as progress. If it’s bean-counting, it presumes that the temples and people are authentic. What if in some significant way that is not true?

14. Certainly, cultural sensitivity maybe taken into account and principle can be applied without losing the essence of Śrīla Prabhupāda and Śrīman Mahāprabhu’s program of saving fallen souls.

Not the way the GBC has decided to do it. As I have pointed out, it contradicts Rūpa Gosvāmī’s dictum that a qualified guru—male OR female—is qualified to make disciples all over the world. That takes no position whatsoever on the female dīkṣā-guru question itself. It just says that you cannot apply FDG on a regional or geographical basis. That takes the “cultural sensitivity” off the table.

15. Our vaiṣṇavīs within ISKCON are serving in great and meaningful ways in every arena of service – not in material sense but spiritually Śrīla Prabhupāda engaged them equally.

Everyone is engaged in devotional service, but not the same way. As Bhakti Rāghava Mahārāja has observed,

During Śrīla Prabhupāda’s physical presence with us, not only did he not appoint women to leadership positions like Temple Presidents, BBT Trustees, Property Trustees, Regional Secretaries, GBCs, and at the end Ṛtviks whom he expected to become regular Gurus after his physical departure, but he also quoted from śāstra against such leadership appointments and reiterated again and again the subordinate and dependent role and position of women within society. Forget about black, white, pink or yellow, India, America or the North Pole. https://iisb.co.in/2026/07/31/iskcon-on-a-mission-drift-further-thoughts/

Bhavataḥ dāsaḥ, Kṛṣṇa Kīrti Dāsa

Baladeva das · 22:36

Krishna Kirti prabhu wrote:

” But upanayanam, only men get that, because it requires Vedic mantras, for which women, śūdras and others lower than them are not permitted to utter. “
Quoted from Krishna Kirti Das’s message of 2 August, 11:40

If we were to follow this rule rigidly and exclusively, the very foundation of ISKCON would lack support. As the scriptures state, kalau sudra-sambhavah: in the Kali Yuga, everyone is born with the status of sudra by birth, since practically no one is born under a true garbhadhana-samskara or into a family of traditional brahmanas.

Should we all in ISKCON then return our initiation and halt the movement?
all our movement is based in a fake?

Baladeva das · 22:39

Forgive me, dear Prabhu, but these kinds of questions and others like them come to mind, and I find no support in your statements to answer them…

Basu Ghosh Das · 22:42

Because you don’t want to see or understand the support, that’s why!

Here’s the support.

Letter to: Acyutananda

Dated: November 14th 1970
Location: Bombay
Letter to: Acyutananda

70-11-14

My Dear Acyutananda Maharaja,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 29th, 1970, and noted the contents. Regarding taking introduction from some persons to their friends for making life members, don’t depend on others’ introduction—do your own work.

Regarding your feeling of disruption to your preaching program since others have come in, when I was in Los Angeles you repeatedly asked me to send at least ten men. Now the men have come and you say something else—you want to have kirtana alone. So which point shall I accept?

Regarding the validity of the brahminical status as we accept it, because in the present age there is no observance of the Garbhadhana ceremony, even a person born in brahmana family is not considered a brahmana, he is called dvijabandhu or unqualified son of a brahmana. Under the circumstances, the conclusion is that the whole population is now sudra, as it is stated kalau sudra sambhava. So for sudras there is no initiation according to the Vedic system, but according to the Pancaratrika system initiation is offered to a person who is inclined to take Krsna consciousness.

During my Guru Maharaja’s time, even a person was coming from a brahmana family, he was initiated according to the pancaratrika system taking him to be a sudra. So the birthright brahmanism is not applicable at the present moment. The sacred thread inaugurated by my Guru Maharaja according to pancaratrika system and Hari-bhakti-vilasa by Srila Sanatana Goswami must continue. It does not matter whether the priestly class accepts it or not. When my Guru Maharaja Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Goswami Prabhupada introduced this system, it was protested even by His inner circle of Godbrothers or friends. Of course He had actually no Godbrothers, but there were many disciples of Bhaktivinode Thakura who were considered as Godbrothers who protested against this action of my Guru Maharaja, but He didn’t care for it.

Actually one who takes to chanting Hare Krsna Mantra offenselessly immediately becomes situated transcendentally and therefore he has no need of being initiated with sacred thread, but Guru Maharaja introduced this sacred thread because a Vaisnava was being mistaken as belonging to the material caste. To accept a Vaisnava in material caste system is hellish consideration (naraki buddhi). Therefore, to save the general populace from being offender to a Vaisnava, He persistently introduced this sacred thread ceremony and we must follow His footsteps.

Regarding Dr. Sen’s grandson’s theory of species, if they are species—the species horse is a kind of species; it draws a cart. The ass is another kind of species; he carries load. So ass is never engaged for drawing a cart. If brahmanas are a species and vaisya and sudra are other species, why do we see that sometimes a “brahmana” does a sudra’s work? We have got many negro disciples and they are worshiping the Deity; so why they should not worship the Deity? Krsna says He accepts the service even from the papayoni, those who have taken impious births.

Actually Krsna does not say that caste is determined according to species, but according to the quality of work the divisions of society are made. Narada says one must be judged according to his qualification, even if he is in a different class or species, still he should be accepted according to the qualities which he exhibits i.e., brahmana, etc. Sridhara Swami says birth is not so much important as quality. (You have very wrongly remembered something about Sridhara Swami’s view.) In Srimad-Bhagavatam it is said that if one is Vaisnava, immediately he becomes qualified for executing Vedic rites. About this verse, Srila Jiva Goswami remarks that the brahmana awaits the sacred thread ceremony, but a Vaisnava is qualified to execute the Vedic rites without waiting for the sacred ceremony.

The real fact is that because of non-observance of the garbhādhāna-saṁskāra in this age, there are no real brahmanas by birth at all and even they cannot be called as dvijabandhus properly because there has been no such observance for long time. Kalau sudra sambhava. The claim of brahmanism by birthright is a false display of material situation only. It is our duty therefore to train all kinds of men up to the standard of qualified brahmanas, initiating them as such by qualification in accordance with the above authorities, so that they may go on progressively unhindered in their march back to home, back to Godhead. This system introduced by my Guru Maharaja is a chance for all the members of the society, scientifically based and applied, apart from the exploitative sentiment of birthright “caste” system, to become actually situated on the transcendental platform.

The literal meaning of the term “brahmana” is one who is “brahmabhuta” or on the theoretical stage of brahmajnana. Since it is that one progresses from the stage of brahmajnana to the stage of knowledge of Paramatma and then to knowledge of Bhagavan, one who has come to the first stage, brahmajnana, is automatically a brahmana fully qualified as such. So for a Vaisnava, who has come to the highest stage of knowing Bhagavan, naturally he has already established his qualification as a brahmana.

Hope this will meet you in good health.

Your ever well-wisher,
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

ACBS:ds

Baladeva das · 23:39

Thank you Vasu Gosh prabhu, in this letter it is truly established that the spiritual qualification and platform of transcendental Vaishnava (brahma-bhūta / Bhagavan knowledge) completely transcend the barriers of body, gender, and birth.

Baladeva das · 23:41

Narada says one must be judged according to his qualification, even if he is in a different class or species
Quoted from Basu Ghosh Das’s message of 2 August, 22:42

Monday, 3 August 2026

Basu Ghosh Das · 05:39

Prabhu, we must ask the question: “if initiation is the sacred thread, then why is it that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and before him Srila BS Saraswati Thakur did not give it to women?
As you have rightly pointed out in the past, Srila BS Prabhupada gave gayatri mantra to women as a part of second initiation. Yet he never gave them the thread. He could have, no? In fact, there is the example of the Arya Samaj, that gives the thread to women and others who don’t have initiation, to facilitate their sitting and performing fire sacrifices. Afterwards, they take it off.
Prabhupada’s purports to CC Adi 1.46 and CC Madhya 15.108 confirm what he wrote to Achyutananda. Initiation is the sacred thread. It may be cheap – two paisa – but it is “sacred”. In the purport of CC Adi 1.46, Prabhupada cites Manu Samhita as the shastric authority to support that giving the sacred thread is initiation.
He further instructed in his lecture at LA on Sept 22, 1972, that woman cannot be initiated with the sacred thread ceremony.
And in his purport to SB 3.24.40 he wrote that women cannot take sannyas as “there is no sanction in vedic literature for a woman’s accepting sannyas” (verbatim quote).
So:

Women cannot have the sacred thread.
⁠Initiation is the sacred thread.
⁠There is no sanction in vedic literature for women to take initiation, the sacred thread.
⁠Therefore, if a woman cannot have the sacred thread, initiation, how can they give it?

Prabhu, ISKCON India will not accept female diksha gurus without you or any other proponent of this idea providing evidence from vedic literature, i.e. shastra(s).

As @Krishna Kirti Das has pointed out again and again, the idea that women can be diksha gurus is as much a concoction as is the idea that a guru can continue to give initiation after he disappears. Because there is no sanction for women taking initiation — the sacred thread (“upaniti”) — in vedic literature/shastras.

The one letter to Hansadutta from early 1967, wherein Prabhupada wrote that “I want all of my sons and daughters to initiate in the future”, ought not to be taken as his only instruction on the matter of the issue of women becoming diksha gurus.

Of course, a woman can be a guru, but not a diksha guru. Prabhupada’s purport to SB 4.12.32 makes it clear that Suniti was Dhruva’s pathapradarshaka and shiksha guru, but could not be his diksha guru. Why? Because diksha as propagated by our acharyas, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and his guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, as pointed out by ACBS Prabhupada in the above cited letter to Achyutananda, is the sacred thread ceremony. There are other quotes — a number of them from BS Prabhupada — that support what he wrote to Achyutananda.

Basu Ghosh Das · 05:43

Taking Prabhupada’s letter to Hansadutta from January 1967 as the whole and sole authority for authorizing women to be diksha gurus is akin to the ritvikists citing the July 9, 1977 letter as the evidence that overturns “the law of disciplic succession”, and the idea of the guru parampara. These issues are dealt with by Srila ACB Prabhupada in many places, and the evidence on initiation being the sacred thread ceremony is overwhelming.

Baladeva das · 18:41

Dear Vasu Ghosh prabhu
Some points I want to note
Letter to Acyutananda

Date: November 14, 1970
Location: Bombay (Mumbai), India
Author: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Recipient: Acyutananda Dasa

The relevant passages are these:

“Actually, one who takes to chanting the Hare Krishna Mantra offenselessly immediately becomes situated transcendentally and therefore has no need of being initiated with a sacred thread…”

And then he explains why the sacred thread was introduced:

“…but Guru Maharaja introduced this sacred thread because a Vaisnava was being mistaken as belonging to the material caste. To accept a Vaisnava in the material caste system is hellish consideration (naraki buddhi). Therefore, to save the general population from being offended to a Vaisnava, He persistently introduced this sacred thread ceremony…”

From these two paragraphs, the argument emerges:

The Vaisnava is already spiritually Qualified by its realization and practice.

The sacred thread does not create that qualification. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī introduced the thread as an external recognition so that society would not judge the Vaiṣṇava by birth and thus avoid committing offenses.

Therefore, many authors explain that, according to this letter, the yajñopavīta functions as a symbol or visible recognition of a pre-existing spiritual qualification, and not as the source of that qualification. This is precisely the reasoning that Prabhupāda develops in this letter.

Baladeva das · 18:43

Also you wrote: Because in Vedic literature/shastras there is no authorization for women to receive initiation—the sacred thread (“upaniti”).

Thank you for pointing out that Prabhupada and Bhakti Siddhanta did impart the Gayatri to their female disciples, perhaps they were mistaken?

This is further proof that a woman can be a Diksha, but I believe the debate should focus on whether a woman can be a Guru, rather than how to authorize this in ISKCON. The evidence provided by Prabhupada, along with the historical record of Vaishnavis who fulfilled that role, undoubtedly demonstrates that it is possible for a woman to be a Guru; the point is clear.

We shouldn’t be debating whether she can be a Guru or not, but rather how to apply this in our society.

Regarding your last sentence, “and the evidence that the initiation is the sacred thread ceremony is overwhelming,” of course it isn’t. Otherwise, there would be no Vaishnavi women who were disciples of Prabhupada with a second initiation. In fact, Prabhupada often explains that the sacred cord is the symbol of Brahmanic initiation.

Does this lead us to understand that a Gayatri chant sung into the ear of a disciple without a cotton cord loses its potency?

brahmanda brahmite kona bhagyavan jiva guru krishna prasade paya bhakti lata bija

In this famous verse, we see that what the guru plants in the heart of his disciple (bija) is the transcendent Gayatri chant, which is no different from Krishna.

Finally, logic tells us that on the Vaishnava platform, whoever receives the seed in their heart can pass it on to someone else, provided they have the proper qualifications to do so.

Baladeva das · 18:46

Finally and on the other hand, the Ritvik issue should be evaluated on its own merits, and the discussion about VDG should also be evaluated on its own merits. Each position should be supported or refuted based on its scriptural evidence, its hermeneutics, and its consistency with the guru, the sadhu, and the shastra, not by its association with another controversy.

Otherwise, we run the risk of replacing careful philosophical analysis with an emotional association: “This reminds us of the Ritvik issue, therefore, it must be wrong.” That is not a valid way to evaluate the siddhānta.

Baladeva das · 19:24

Vasu Gosh prabhu wrote:

“Prabhu, ISKCON India will not accept female diksha gurus without you or any other proponent of this idea providing evidence from vedic literature, i.e. shastra(s).”
Quoted from Basu Ghosh Das’s message of 3 August, 05:39

I would like to comment on this statement:
I don’t think it is accurate to say that there is no śāstric evidence. There are several scriptural statements that establish the principle that spiritual qualification transcends material designation and that qualification—not birth or social status—is the basis for being a guru.
For example:

“kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya, yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā sei ‘guru’ haya.”
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 31 July, 20:45

“sad-karma-nipuṇo vipro…”
“kirāta-hūṇāndhra-pulinda-pulkaśā…”
Bhagavad-gītā 9.32: māṁ hi pārtha vyapāśritya…
The question, therefore, is not whether there is śāstric evidence, but how these verses should be understood and applied in relation to dīkṣā-guru. That is a matter of interpretation and hermeneutics, and I believe it deserves an open discussion rather than saying there is simply “no śāstric evidence.”

Baladeva das · 19:27

I would also respectfully suggest that saying “ISKCON India will not accept…” is too broad a statement. ISKCON India is not monolithic. There are many senior devotees, scholars, and even respected gurus in India who have expressed support for VDG or are at least open to discussing it. It would therefore be more accurate to say that some leaders or some devotees within ISKCON India hold this position, rather than speaking on behalf of all of ISKCON India.

Aniruddha · 20:07

Hare Krishna, dear devotees. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Do we have a meeting tomorrow?

Madan Gopal Das · 20:10

A simple question for thoughtful consideration:

Do we accept Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta as valid śāstric pramāṇa?

If yes, then we must also accept Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translations and purports as authoritative.

One of the verses he quoted more than 150 times is “kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī…” (Cc. Madhya 8.128).

Śrīla Prabhupāda explicitly explained its meaning to include women:

“Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that anyone who knows the science of Krishna, that person should be accepted as Spiritual Master, regardless of any material so-called qualifications; such as rich or poor, man or woman, or brahmana or sudra.” (1969)

This is not a modern reinterpretation, it is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own explanation of Lord Caitanya’s instruction.

If we are sincerely asking, “Where is the śāstric pramāṇa for VDG?”, then here we have Lord Caitanya’s instruction as understood and repeatedly taught by Śrīla Prabhupāda himself. That is both śāstra and ācārya speaking with one voice.

Krishna Kirti Das · 21:57

Quote wars are useless, because for every Prabhupada quote, you can find another Prabhupada quote to counteract or nullify it.

Regarding CC Madhya 8.128. There is this statement in CC Madhya 18.120 – 122:

Text 120: “Indeed, Your characteristics are uncommon and beyond the imagination of an ordinary living being. Simply by seeing You, the entire universe becomes mad with ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa.

Texts 121-122: “If they see You just once, even women, children, old men, meat-eaters and members of the lowest caste immediately chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, dance like madmen and become spiritual masters capable of delivering the whole world.

It is admitted on the basis of Shri Bharadvaja-samhita that women, sudras, and the other above-mentioned lower-status persons can become mantra-guru (diksha-guru) by having attained the level of prema. Otherwise, there is a restriction. Implicit in the above shlokas, the above-mentioned persons are ineligible to become guru. Having achieved Krishna prema exempts them from the typical restrictions.

Quote wars, therefore, are futile. You can always find a Prabhupada quote to support almost any idea.

Madan Gopal Das · 21:59

How does one know whether a particular person has achieved Prema? How is this workable in an institutional setting?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:07

Prabhupada writes “Unless one is a resident of Krishna Loka, one cannot be a Spiritual Master.”
How is this workable in our current setting of ISKCON?

At first glance, that seems to establish an almost impossible standard. How could an institution identify someone presently living among us as a resident of Kṛṣṇa-loka?

But Prabhupāda immediately explains his own statement. A person who knows Kṛṣṇa in truth is liberated, and because that person is certain to attain Kṛṣṇa’s abode after leaving the body, Prabhupāda already counts that person as a resident of Kṛṣṇa-loka. He then identifies three categories of liberated persons: sādhana-siddha, kṛpā-siddha, and nitya-siddha. Most importantly, he says that we distinguish them by their symptoms, and that it does not matter whether the spiritual master descended from Kṛṣṇa-loka or became liberated here.

This is crucial. Prabhupāda does not dilute the requirement that the guru be liberated. Rather, he explains:

What “resident of Kṛṣṇa-loka” means spiritually.
That a guru need not be proven to be a nitya-siddha who visibly descended from Goloka.
That a sādhana-siddha or kṛpā-siddha may also qualify.
That qualification is discerned through spiritual symptoms, not through an impossible demand for access to someone’s eternal identity.

The related language about strictly following appears in complementary sources. In his letter to Janārdana, Prabhupāda says that even persons who are less qualified may act as guru and ācārya by strictly following the disciplic succession. In ŚB 4.18.5, he explains that although a follower may not independently be liberated, the follower’s actions are naturally liberated when he faithfully follows the instructions of the liberated Supreme Lord.

These statements do not mean that every obedient devotee should automatically become a dīkṣā-guru. Prabhupāda still requires knowledge, maturity, realization, fidelity, and the capacity to guide others. The point is that representative purity is real purity. A faithful representative does not need to manufacture an independent spiritual status.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:11

If you are 100% Krishna conscious, there is no prohibition against you acting as diksha-guru. But what if you are 99% Krishna conscious? Then what?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:11

Who certifies the purity percentage in this institution?

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:13

So, what is the difference between someone who is 100% KC and someone who is 99% KC?

Baladeva das · 22:18

What Krishna kirti prabhu says, and the sastra you provide to support this, reaffirms that qualification does not depend on gender, but rather on how to create mechanisms that determine one’s qualification to fulfill the role of Diksha. While it may sound somewhat utopian to know what percentage of pure devotion or prema a person possesses, this confirms that the debate is about how to apply the principle of diksha to a Vaishnavi, not whether or not they can be a diksha.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:20

Yes. That’s my point exactly Prabhu. We are trying to work this into an institutional setting hence my question. Who will determine if the devotee (man or woman) meets the threshold? What practical methods and metrics can be applied in modern day ISKCON to make this determination? Those are the answers we seek.

Baladeva das · 22:21

Even we can to achieve the conclusion that there is no qualified Vaishnavies to do the service but it should be for qualification not for gender.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:21

Baladev Prabhu wrote, “reaffirms that qualification does not depend on gender”, it just notes that level of advancement qualifies you differently. If you are 99% KC or less, then there are rules in which gender and varna are considered.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:22

Prabhupada said that man or woman the standard of purity is the same. So we should have a way to determine this across the board for all approvals.

Baladeva das · 22:22

I think if we are going in this path maybe there is a light in the final of tunnel

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:24

If it were the same, then why would SP say, “very special case”? As he did in his discussion with Aitreya Rishi? You see, you can take any SP statement and run with it.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:24

Scripture says that the power of the holy name can elevate even a candala to become eligible to be guru.
But some interpretations insist that the power of the holy name is not sufficient to elevate women. It stops short at candala.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:26

The reason the TOR for this conference are unacceptable is that the pramana selected guarantees that you necessarily must settle the matter by vote, in effect politicizing the truth. That means the real criterion is who gets the most votes for their side gets to determine the truth.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:28

John Stuart Mill called this “the tyranny of the majority.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:28

Very special case can reasonably apply to women professors. He gave the same example in that conversation with OConnell. Back then very few women were professors. But there was no bar against it. Special case can be used to reflect the general statistics. Only very exceptional ones would even bother to come forward given the socio-cultural backdrop at that time.
This is not an unreasonable understanding of “very special cases”

Prahladananda Swami · 22:28

There is the GBC to determine who is authorized to ascertain and decide on the qualifications devotees to assume different services according to Srila Prabhupada’s and Lord Krishna’s explanation of different levels of spiritual attainment. Srila Prabhupada’s books are full of knowledge of the qualifications of different levels of spiritual attainment and what their symptoms are. If no one in the movement can judge the level of spiritual attainment, either no one is obviously and indisputable on the highest level of Krsna consciousness or the most advanced devotees in the movement have no power to understand how to apply Srila Prabhupada’s and Lord Krishna teaching on a practical level.

However, it is not that only a mahabhagavata can give initiation. A liberated devotees are also qualified to give initiation if they strictly follows a mahabhagavata devotee. In the absence of higher qualified devotees even a neophyte devotee can give initiation if authorized to do so, but the neophyte has to especially be protected by the institution.

Nectar of Devotion Eligibility to accept pure devotional service (first class means liberated devotee on the madhyama-adhikari platform not a mahabhagavata)

Devotees may be divided into three classes. The devotee in the first or uppermost class is described as follows: he is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures. He can very nicely present conclusions with perfect discretion and can consider the ways of devotional service in a decisive way. He understands perfectly that the ultimate goal of life is to attain to the transcendental loving service of Kṛṣṇa, and he knows that Kṛṣṇa is the only object of worship and love. This first-class devotee is one who has strictly followed the rules and regulations under the training of a bona fide spiritual master and has sincerely obeyed him in accord with revealed scriptures. Thus, being fully trained to preach and become a spiritual master himself, he is considered first class.
(NOD chapter 2)

A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance.
(NOI verse 5 purport)

Baladeva das · 22:30

I understand that the majority vote has to do with the application of the yes or no principle, but more than anything, it has to do with designing the means of control, verification, and approval of the candidates, in order to minimize the risks or fears that the party that does not want the application of this principle might have.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:30

This is not an unreasonable understanding of “very special cases” But it is nevertheless a speculative one, because it comes from anumaan (inference). Anumaan is subject to the four defects of conditioned life.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:30

Speculative interpretations of sastra have that same defect.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:31

Prabhupada literally asked disciples to avoid reading certain scriptures, did he not?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:33

When I’ve asked about what Prabhupada meant when he wrote “this is my program” about his daughters initiating, I receive a string of whatboutisms (which are just another way of avoiding the question itself). We are in Prabhupada’s movement. He is the founder acarya. His written programs have meaning and importance.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:34

Is it unreasonable for me to expect an answer to this most vital and direct written vision on this exact topic?

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:34

Respected Maharaja wrote,

Nectar of Devotion Eligibility to accept pure devotional service (first class means liberated devotee on the madhyama-adhikari platform not a mahabhagavata)
Quoted from Prahladananda Swami’s message of 3 August, 22:28

The terms kanishtha, madhyama and uttama are used all over Vedic literature, so what they refer to exactly is determined much by context. In Brahmana O Vaishnava, SBSST says that the uttama-adhikari in the pancharatrika system is mostly equivalent to the kanistha-adhikari in the bhagavat system, with some important differences.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:36

They do. SP says this in his purport to CC Madhya 6.136. He says,

“Apart from the direct presentation, there is a chance that an interpretation may not be perfect. Therefore the conclusion is that only a direct presentation can be considered evidence.”

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:36

Which ones?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:39

“According to the Manu-samhita you are all mlecchas and yavanas. You cannot touch the Manu-samhita, what to speak of translating it. So if you try to follow the Manu-samhita then you become a mleccha and yavana and your career is finished.”

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:42

It’s a letter. That’s the problem. As compared to other things that Prabhupada said, and which are in more authoritative source, like books, you can’t just say, “Prabhupada said it, I believe it, that settles it.” It settles it only if you dismiss other things Prabhupada said. The ONLY evidence you have where Prabhupada says directly women can initiate is the 1969 letter to Hamsaduta. In the only other instances (there are only four), Prabhupada either qualifies his statement, or says women cannot become diksha-guru (SB 4.12.32). That is the same thing with the Ritviks. They have their July 9th letter, which unlike the letter to Hamsaduta, was actually an institutional directive sent to all temple presidents. So, it’s the same thing all over again. Finding a Prabhupada quote that supports the idea that one wants.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:45

It’s not “just a letter” It is not a private matter about a personal issue with Hamsaduta. It is a vision outlined with practical steps, milestones and controls written to one of his institutional leaders. It is not nothing. Just because it is in the form of a letter does not mean it was not his idea. What do you think he means by the content of the letter? Should it not be taken at face value? I want to know what your take is on his various plans on that letter. Ws he uaware of the sastric prohibitions when he wrote the letter?

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:46

Again, you can find a Prabhupada quote to support almost any idea you want. So, the stateent you found is supposed to override this statement:

SB 7.11.7

The smṛti, the scriptures following the principles of Vedic knowledge, are considered the evidence of Vedic principles. There are twenty different types of scripture for following religious principles, and among them the scriptures of Manu and Yājñavalkya are considered to be all-pervading authorities. In the Yājñavalkya-smṛti it is said:

śruti-smṛti-sadācāraḥ
svasya ca priyam ātmanaḥ
samyak saṅkalpajaḥ kāmo
dharma-mūlam idaṁ smṛtam

One should learn human behavior from śruti, the Vedas, and from smṛti, the scriptures following the Vedic principles. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī in his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu says:

śruti-smṛti-purāṇādi-
pañcarātra-vidhiṁ vinā
aikāntikī harer bhaktir
utpātāyaiva kalpate

The purport is that to become a devotee one must follow the principles laid down in śruti and smṛti. One must follow the codes of the Purāṇas and the pāñcarātrikī-vidhi. One cannot be a pure devotee without following the śruti and smṛti, and the śruti and smṛti without devotional service cannot lead one to the perfection of life.

Again, you can find a Prabhupada quote to support almost any idea you want. By why should we accept the authority of your favorite Prabhupada statement over the authority of our favorite Prabhupada statement?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:48

My question you are avoiding :What do you think Prabhupada was trying to say in that letter when he spelt out his vision? I want to understand what any reasnable person would make of this letter.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:48

Compared to Prabhupada’s books, the books have more authority, and the letters have less authority. The statements in the two do not have the same level of authority. That was the gist of Sivarama Maharaja’s presentation on VDG five years ago. It’s available at his YouTube channel. Have you heard it?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:53

The responses I’m seeing: 1. Whataboutsims “what about all other things he said to the opposite effect?” 2. Letters are basically meaningless since books have more weight.

Neither is a response to my question about what the letter means.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:53

I think he was expressing a desire that his disciples would be so qualified that yes, they would be initiating. And yes, women, too. And he also mentioned in that same letter that perhaps by 1975 they would be initiating. Sivarama Maharaja’s point in his presentation was that by 1975, no one but Prabhupada was initiating. What to speak of women, no men were initiating, either. So, you can’t say that was his grand plan. Moreover, Prabhupada did not want women taking up administrative roles. It was the policy during his presence, and he repeatedly spoke against it across his books, lectures, letters, and conversations. So, if women are not fit for important posts, then how will they be fit for diksha-guru, except as an extraordinary exceptional case?

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:55

The late Dr. Thomas Hopkins raised the issue about “Prabhupada said this” versus “Prabhupada said that.” He was a respectable and thoughtful man. He did not dismiss the problem by giving it a derogatory label.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:55

This has a serious logical flaw. The idea that administrative position is analogous to guruship. It muddies the waters, and even today many people think that they are somewhat connected. How is being a guru an “administrative role”?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:56

Please let me know if I used derogatory language.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:57

It’s a responsible position, and at the very least it requires that someone be fit for independence. Women are not fit for independence. Therefore women and shudras are generally considered unfit to become diksha-guru.

Krishna Kirti Das · 22:57

You labeled it a “whataboutism”, that’s derogatory.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:58

Whataboutism is a technique used in arguments that has logical fallacy. It is not a derogatory term.

Madan Gopal Das · 22:59

Previously when I asked you about it, you avoided the direct questions and asked “What about this… etc” That is called a whataboutism.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:02

Calling an argument a “whataboutism” is not derogatory; it identifies a logical diversion, responding to one issue by pointing to another instead of addressing the original question. It critiques the method of argument, not the person’s character. It would only become derogatory if accompanied by personal insults or used merely to dismiss a legitimate comparison without explanation.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:04

It’s an imprecise, and derogatory, way of saying something is irrelevant. It’s like if you are caught speeding, and you say, “Whatabout everyone else.” The appropriate response is, “you were still speeding.” But here, the point of bringing up differing statements is that you cannot come to a conclusion simply by quoting Prabhupada. That’s what Dr. Hopkins is talking about, and I am merely highlighting that it’s this SP said this versus SP said that that was an underlying problem with ritvikism , too. You could not defeat the ritvik position merely with SP’s quotes. My point is that in the same way, you cannot establish your position on FDG, either for or against merely by quoting Prabhupada. That is why the TOR for this endeavor is unacceptable. it just reduces the discussion and and endeavor to find the truth to political action.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:04

Becoming a foster mother, for example, is also a responsible position. That is a weak analogy, that all positions of responsibility should preclude women because Prabhupada did not appoint women presidents.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:05

As for the ritvik comparison please see my response below:

Madan Gopal Das · 23:06

The ritvik comparison is a false analogy. The superficial similarity is that both sides cite a letter. But evidence is not assessed merely by asking, “Is it a letter?” We examine what the statement says, its scope, its context, its intended duration, and how it fits Śrīla Prabhupāda’s complete body of instructions.

First, the claim that the Haṁsadūta letter is our only direct evidence is simply factually incorrect.

In the January 1969 Haṁsadūta letter, Śrīla Prabhupāda explicitly says that his “spiritual sons and daughters” would inherit the Bhaktivedanta title, that those possessing it would be permitted to initiate, and that the disciplic family would continue through future generations. This is not an incidental remark. It is a stated program for examinations, qualifications, initiation, and continuation of the paramparā.

In June 1969 he wrote to Śīlāvatī that anyone who knows the science of Kṛṣṇa should be accepted as spiritual master regardless of being “man or woman.”

Most decisively, in 1976 Professor O’Connell asked the exact question:

“Can a woman be a guru in the disciplic succession?”

Śrīla Prabhupāda answered, “Yes,” cited Jāhnavā Devī, and concluded that when qualified, “he or she can become guru.” That is not an ambiguous inference. It is a direct question followed by a direct answer.

To say that Prabhupāda “qualified” the answer does not weaken it. A qualified yes is still a yes. It is not a no. No one is proposing that an unqualified woman should become guru. Prabhupāda applies the qualification equally to men and women. One must know the science of Kṛṣṇa and attain the required spiritual standard. His own analogy was that a woman may become a professor if she is qualified. The qualification establishes the standard. It does not create a gender prohibition.

Second, the two claims are logically very different.

The VDG position is:

A qualified Vaiṣṇavī is not categorically disqualified from giving dīkṣā merely because she has a female body.

To disprove the categorical claim that no woman can ever initiate, even one authorized example or one explicit affirmative statement is sufficient. Jāhnavā Devī alone defeats an absolute prohibition, and Prabhupāda gives both her example and the explicit principle.

The ritvik claim, however, is vastly broader:

After Śrīla Prabhupāda’s departure, all future initiates in ISKCON, indefinitely, are to remain his directly initiated disciples through officiating priests.

That is a perpetual, universal, post-samādhi institutional system. Such a claim requires an explicit instruction saying that this arrangement would continue after his departure and indefinitely. The July 9 letter never says that.

Third, the temporal scope of the two letters is almost opposite.

The Haṁsadūta letter is explicitly generational. It speaks of sons and daughters initiating disciples and continuing through future generations. Its whole subject is the future continuation of guru-paramparā.

The July 9 letter, by contrast, describes an administrative procedure then being implemented while Prabhupāda was still personally accepting disciples. It appoints eleven representatives, says that the newly initiated devotees are Prabhupāda’s disciples, and directs that their names be sent back to Prabhupāda for entry in his initiated disciples book. It does not say “after my departure,” “for all future generations,” or “permanently.”

Sending it to every temple president establishes the breadth of its immediate implementation. It does not establish unlimited duration. A publicly circulated administrative directive can still be temporary, while a personal letter can contain an enduring doctrinal or institutional vision.

Fourth, the July 9 arrangement must be read with the May 28 conversation that preceded it. In the discussion specifically concerning initiation when Prabhupāda would no longer be present, Prabhupāda distinguishes officiating on his behalf from becoming a “regular guru.” He says that the person initiated by his disciple becomes the disciple of that initiator and Prabhupāda’s granddisciple.

Long before that, Prabhupāda had also written:

“I wish that in my absence all my disciples become the bona fide spiritual master.”

That is a direct statement about what he desired in his absence.

Therefore, the permanent ritvik theory must add words to the July 9 letter: “after my departure, permanently, for all future generations.” Those words are simply not there. At the same time, it must minimize or explain away Prabhupāda’s statements about regular gurus, disciples of his disciples, granddisciples, and his disciples becoming spiritual masters in his absence.

VDG requires no such addition. It accepts Prabhupāda’s straightforward statements that qualified sons and daughters may initiate, that a woman can become guru in the disciplic succession, and that the operative qualification is knowledge and realization of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

As for ŚB 4.12.32, we certainly accept it. The purport explains why Sunīti did not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru and includes both her being a woman and, specifically, his mother. But whatever precise scope one assigns to that statement, it cannot legitimately be expanded into:

“No qualified woman in any circumstance or generation can ever become dīkṣā-guru.”

That would make Prabhupāda contradict his later direct answer about women becoming gurus, his explicit citation of Jāhnavā Devī, and his statement that “he or she can become guru.”

The honest hermeneutical task is to harmonize all of Prabhupāda’s statements, not to turn one contextual statement into an absolute prohibition while dismissing every explicit affirmative statement as “just a letter” or “qualified.”

Finally, the argument that books are authoritative but letters are merely “quotes one wants” is self-defeating. If letters are inherently too weak to establish Prabhupāda’s intention, then the July 9 letter cannot establish a permanent ritvik system either. But if letters can be authoritative according to their content, as they obviously can, then the Haṁsadūta letter must be evaluated on what it actually says rather than dismissed because of its format.

So no, this is not “the same thing all over again.”

The ritvik theory extends a time bound representative arrangement beyond Prabhupāda’s departure without explicit textual authorization and against his statements about regular gurus and granddisciples. VDG recognizes a qualification based eligibility that Prabhupāda stated repeatedly, applied specifically to women, and grounded in Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s instruction.

One theory must insert a permanent post-samādhi system that the July 9 letter never states. The other simply refuses to insert a categorical gender prohibition that Śrīla Prabhupāda explicitly denied.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:07

Not just temple president. As Bhakti Raghava Maharaja said,

During Srila Prabhupada’s physical presence with us, not only did he not appoint women to leadership positions like Temple Presidents, BBT Trustees, Property Trustees, Regional Secretaries, GBCs, and at the end Ritviks whom he expected to become regular Gurus after his physical departure, but he also quoted from sastra against such leadership appointments and reiterated again and again the subordinate and dependent role and position of women within society. Forget about black, white, pink or yellow, India, America or the North Pole.

https://iisb.co.in/2026/07/31/iskcon-on-a-mission-drift-further-thoughts/

Madan Gopal Das · 23:08

My assertion is that guru is not the same category as all these administrative positions. If a woman can be an adoptive mother (a position that require a high degree of responsibility) she can become guru.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:09

Inference based on what he did not do is a very weak position. Better to stick with what he stated and explained.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:12

You wrote,

To say that Prabhupāda “qualified” the answer does not weaken it.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 3 August, 23:06

Yes, that does weaken it, because the very fact that he is qualifying it raises the question as to why he might say that at all. He never says for men, “not so many”. How come?

Now, because Prabhuapda never said why specifically, if you want to settle that, then you have to find some direct evidence for it. That is where Bharadvaja-samhita comes in. It is shastra, and it’s accepted by our acharyas, including Prabhupada, and the statements are clear. As with shudras, women who can see Krishna face-to-face are considered at the level of Krishna prema and are therefore exceptional.

And yes, in ISKCON, by ISKCON law, Shurdras can never become diksha-guru. So, we are being even-handed here.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:13

Woman cannot be an adoptive mother independent of father, husband or grown sons. They would have to grant that request. A woman is not allowed to independently adopt a child. Manu 9.2 does not permit it.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:26

I believe I have now presented the main logical, historical, scriptural and hermeneutical points that the VDG side has been making for many years.

My expectation was never that those firmly opposed to VDG would suddenly change their minds. My purpose was primarily for the benefit of sincere devotees who may still be undecided, so that they could see more clearly what this disagreement is actually about.

The readers of this exchange are intelligent and reasonable devotees. They can examine the evidence and decide for themselves what Śrīla Prabhupāda truly wanted to see happen in ISKCON.

The evidence includes:

1. Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mood and mission, as understood and described by disciples who spent extensive time with him and directly witnessed how he empowered women.

2. His multiple direct statements, not merely one isolated letter. He spoke of his spiritual sons and daughters initiating, said that a qualified man or woman could become spiritual master, and cited Jāhnavā Devī when directly asked whether a woman could become guru in the disciplic succession.

3. His practical empowerment of his female disciples. Śrīla Prabhupāda proudly stated that he had started “a new thing.” He engaged women in preaching, Deity worship, management (“Saktimata..must be given an important position as a manager.”), public speaking, book distribution and spiritual leadership on a scale rarely seen previously in the modern saṅkīrtana movement.

4. Clear scriptural support, especially Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya 8.128, “kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī,” which Śrīla Prabhupāda quoted repeatedly and sometimes explicitly explained as applying regardless of whether one is a man or woman. Qualification in the science of Kṛṣṇa is the essential principle.

5. Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura’s instructions, which practically describe qualified women giving the Holy Name. Whatever terminology one prefers, this demonstrates that women functioning as spiritual teachers who give harināma was certainly not considered apasiddhānta within our own Gauḍīya tradition.

6. Historical precedent, including Jāhnavā Devī and other respected Vaiṣṇavīs who exercised genuine spiritual authority.

7. The need to harmonize all of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements. A contextual statement about Sunīti cannot reasonably be converted into a universal prohibition while his direct affirmative statements are dismissed as “just letters,” “qualified,” or somehow less authoritative.

8. The absence of any explicit categorical prohibition. Where does Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly state that no qualified woman may ever give dīkṣā? That statement does not exist. The prohibition has to be constructed through interpretation, while the affirmative evidence is direct.

9. The proper role of the Founder-Ācārya. We do not approach smṛti and other texts independently and then use our reading to overrule Śrīla Prabhupāda’s expressed intentions. We understand śāstra through him.

The real disagreement is therefore not whether qualifications are required. Everyone agrees they are. The question is whether a female body creates an absolute and permanent disqualification, even when the devotee is spiritually qualified.

I find no convincing evidence that Śrīla Prabhupāda taught such a categorical prohibition. I find substantial evidence that he did not.

Others may reach a different conclusion. That is their right. But after laying out these points as clearly as I can, I am content to allow thoughtful devotees to read the exchange, weigh the evidence, and make up their own minds.

I rest my case.

Visvanath Das · 23:42

Thank you so so much Prabhu. I could not have said it better that this.

Ultimate goal is reawakening Krishna consciousness in the conditioned souls by the means of chanting Hare Krishna Mahamantra – I get reminded of the 24 gurus detailed in the SB – time, place, circumstances be take in to consideration and whatever works best.

I don’t think I need to repeat – all of you have well quoted and argued your versions.

Let’s remain in service and with Srila Prabhupada.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:42

This is untrue:

*The absence of any explicit categorical prohibition.* Where does Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly state that no qualified woman may ever give dīkṣā?
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 3 August, 23:26

SB 4.12.32, SP says,

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.*

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:43

Prabhupada says it is because she was a woman that she was not allowed to.

Tuesday, 4 August 2026

Baladeva das · 02:13

With all due respect, while that point is mentioned, Prabhupada also says ‘ and specifically her mother .’ It is interesting to note how that word nuances the statement. If the sole impediment were simply being a woman, that added clarification would be redundant. By emphasizing her status as his mother, the text seems to point toward a functional incompatibility of roles: the natural affection and protective bond of a mother toward her child differs from the formal framework of a diksha-guru. Indeed, her role as siksha-guru makes it clear that her capacity for spiritual instruction was fully intact, but the role of diksha required avoiding that overlap of family dynamics.

Madan Gopal Das · 03:10

This is precisely why we don’t see a prohibition for a woman to initiate unless she is specifically the mother.

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 03:27

This is very obvious. The adverb “specifically” make it very clear the restriction of the mother of Dhruva not being able to de his diksa guru. It obviate the adjective “woman”.

Parijata · 05:48

GVDG Meeting
Tuesday, 5 August
5pm IST

Join Zoom Meeting
[Zoom link removed]

Meeting ID: [removed]Passcode: [removed]

Krishna Kirti Das · 06:14

But shastra says woman, Baladev Vidyabhushana in his Vaishnavanandini cimmentary on SB 1.13.15, quoting shastra says ^woman*. Therefore, we have to unnderstand Prabhupada’s statement as intending woman. That is guru-sadhu–shastra all in agreement. Link is given below with the source.

tathā ca viduraḥ kaniṣṭho ‘pi. śūdro ‘pi sākṣād-dharma-rājatvena pratyakṣī-kṛta-pareśāt tasya tad-upadeṣṭṛtvam iti. ata eva bhāradvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ strī-śūdrādīnāṁ tan niṣidhya sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ teṣāṁ tad āha: “na jātu mantra-dātāro na śūdro nāntarodbhavaḥ, nābhiśapto na patitaḥ kāma-kāmo ‘py akāmitaḥ; striyaḥ śūdrādayaś caiva bodhayeyur hitāhitam, yathārhaṁ mānanīyāś ca nārhanty ācāryatāṁ kvacit; kim apy atrābhijāyante yoginaḥ sarva-yoniṣu; pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ naiṣāṁ cintyaṁ kulādikam” iti.

And so, though Vidura was younger [to Dhṛtarāṣṭra and] though he was a śūdra [by birth], because he was Dharmarāja himself, he had directly realized the Supreme Lord; therefore, he instructed Dhṛtarāṣṭra.

It is for this reason that the Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā forbids women, śūdras and the like [from becoming gurus] and allows women, śūdras and the like who have directly realized the Supreme Truth [to become gurus]:

“Even then, a woman, a śūdra and an antyaja can never act as initiating gurus, nor can anyone who is accused of a great sin or is fallen. And an aspiring disciple who is already accomplished in detachment (akāmī) should never accept a guru who is infected with material desires.” (1.42)

“Women, śūdras, etc., can give ethical and moral instructions and are also worthy of respect as per their qualifications and conditions but are not entitled to get the position of ācārya.” (1.43)

“But, because perfect yogis who are on the stage of yoga-pratyakṣa (i.e. are self-realized – seeing God face-to-face), pratyakṣitātma-nāthānām, may take birth in any family tradition, in such cases no consideration of kula, gender, etc. as mentioned earlier apply (they can become ācāryas).” (1.44)

https://iisb.co.in/2021/11/29/baladeva-vidyabhusana-on-sb-1-13-15/

Krishna Kirti Das · 06:47

I might also add that this reconciles all of Prabhupada’s statements everywhere on the topic, without the need to interpret any of them.

O’Connell conversation, yes, “but not so many” because pratyakṣa-kṛta-pareśāt (from being able to directly see the Lord), those persons are “not so many.” Nectar of Devotion says one of the six attributes of pure devotional service is that it is very rare. This also explains Śrīla Prabhupāda’s remark to Atreya Ṛṣi, “very special case,” and then his statement in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 4.12.32 regarding Sunīti’s ineligibility.

It also covers the kibā vipra śloka of Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya 8.128: anyone who is Kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā — one who actually knows Kṛṣṇa. In the Bhagavad-gītā 7.3, it is said that out of many thousands among men, one endeavors for perfection, and out of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Kṛṣṇa in truth. These are the 100% realized persons who are actually residents of Goloka, who can see Kṛṣṇa face-to-face. That is rare. For these people there is no question of falling down.

Hence, Bharadvāja Saṁhitā resolves all the different statements Prabhupāda made in different contexts.

Basu Ghosh Das · 07:36

Dear Baladeva Prabhu,

Namonamaha. Jaya Śrīla Prabhupāda!

I find myself unable to reciprocate the gratitude you so kindly expressed, as I must respectfully but firmly disagree with your premises. Your assertions regarding Vedic culture and religion appear to be highly speculative constructs, shaped more by personal idealization than historical or scriptural precedent.

What you offer is not scriptural argument but speculation — your own conception of Vedic culture and religion dressed up as doctrine. There is no such office as a “VDG” [“Vaishnavi Diksha Guru”]. A handful of women were, on occasion, acknowledged by Śrīla Prabhupāda as “gurus.” In none of those references, however, does the word dīkṣā appear — only guru. The distinction is not incidental; it is the crux of the matter.

The O’Connell Conversation
Consider the exchange with Professor O’Connell:

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.

From this passage, two points may be conceded without controversy:

A woman may become a guru — though “not so many.”
She may attain the highest perfection of life, as the gopīs themselves exemplify.

Aligning with this instruction, we readily concede that a woman may achieve the loftiest heights of spiritual perfection—exemplified sublimely by the vraja gopīs—and that, in exceptional and rare instances (“not so many”), she may function as a spiritual guide. However, this capacity does not extend to the specific, role of a dīkṣā-guru.

The Distinction Between Śikṣā-Guru and Dīkṣā-Guru

The case of Dhruva Mahārāja illustrates the point precisely. His mother, Sunīti, served as his patha-pradarśaka-guru — “the guru who shows the way,” that is also known as śikṣā-guru. Nārada Muni, by contrast, was his dīkṣā-guru, the one who formally initiated him. Both the śikṣā-guru and the dīkṣā-guru share the duty of instructing the disciple correctly; the disciple’s task is simply to execute what is taught. Śāstric injunction holds, moreover, that no essential difference exists between the two — indeed, the śikṣā-guru commonly becomes the dīkṣā-guru in time. And yet Sunīti, precisely because she was a woman and his mother, never became Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru.

The precedent could hardly be clearer.

Initiation as Saṁskāra

One may argue, as you have, that the sacred thread is a matter of secondary importance. This was not Śrīla Prabhupāda’s position. In his purport to Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Ādi 1.46, he writes:

“The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra.”

“The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa…”

Three conclusions follow directly from this purport:

Initiation is defined here as the sacred-thread ceremony, or saṁskāra, called upanīti — a rite not conferred upon women.
A śūdra may receive this initiation with the guru’s approval; a woman, notably, is nowhere granted this same provision.
Śrīla Prabhupāda grounds this teaching in scriptural authority, citing Manu-saṁhitā 2.140.

Just as Śrīla Prabhupāda held that “there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman’s accepting sannyāsa” (purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.24.40), the same absence of sanction applies to the awarding of the sacred thread to women. That certain heterodox voices now advocate otherwise does not alter the historical record: neither Śrīla Prabhupāda nor Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī ever initiated a woman with the sacred thread.
It would therefore serve you well to substantiate your thesis — that women may serve as dīkṣā-gurus — with actual evidence from Vedic śāstra, rather than inference or sentiment. As it is written:

“One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the śāstra. The actual center is the śāstra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the śāstra, he is not a saintly person. The śāstra is the center for all.”

Where, then, is the śāstric support for the claim that women may become dīkṣā-gurus? Even in the more modest role of śikṣā-guru, Śrīla Prabhupāda qualified his acknowledgment with “not so many” — a qualification that sits uneasily beside any proposal to formally sanction female dīkṣā-gurus.

Prabhupāda’s Own Testimony

There is, in fact, no sanction anywhere in Vedic literature for women to serve as dīkṣā-gurus. Śrīla Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda addressed this directly in a lecture delivered in Los Angeles on 22 September 1972:

“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.”

“Not to the woman” admits of no ambiguity. No degree of rhetorical ingenuity can transform this statement into its opposite, and any attempt to argue that Śrīla Prabhupāda “meant something else” strains credulity past the point of honest interpretation.
Nor did Śrīla Prabhupāda subscribe to a doctrine of gender equality. He told Satsvarūpa dāsa Gosvāmī [during his morning walk at Vrindavan on March 14, 1974] that women occupy a status comparable to śūdras and need not attend the varṇāśrama college — a point he underscored, in the manner traditional to Vedic emphasis, by repeating the negation: “No, no — women don’t attend the varṇāśrama college.” In a lecture given in Los Angeles on 16 July 1969, he elaborated:

“Therefore, according to Vedic system, a boy born in a brāhmaṇa family, he is allowed all the saṁskāras, reformatory, purificatory process, but the girl is not. Why? Now, because a girl has to follow her husband. So if her husband is brāhmaṇa, automatically she becomes brāhmaṇa. There is no need of separate reformation. And by chance she may be married with a person who is not a brāhmaṇa, then what is the use of making her a brāhmaṇa? That is the general method. So therefore the…, even born in a brāhmaṇa family, a woman is taken as woman, not as brāhmaṇa.”

That women were not regarded as equal to men within this framework is confirmed unmistakably in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s characterization of one of Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s most confidential devotees:

“Within this world, Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half very confidential devotees. The three were Svarūpa Gosāñi, Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Śikhi Māhiti, and Śikhi Māhiti’s sister, Mādhavīdevī, being a woman, was considered the half. Thus it is known that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees.”

Śrīla Prabhupāda offered no alternative gloss on this statement. A woman “is taken as woman” — even one who stands among the topmost devotees!
None of this, I hasten to add, implies that a woman is barred from the highest spiritual destination. It means only that within the material sphere, those who follow Vedic principles recognize distinct constitutional positions for men and women, entailing distinct duties — and that the duty of dīkṣā-guru belongs to the latter, not the former. Śrīla Prabhupāda held that this recognition of difference is itself an expression of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, as his exchange with Yogeśvara dāsa shows:

Yogeśvara: So here’s a problem: The women today want the same rights as men. How can they be satisfied?
Prabhupāda: Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are working. They don’t want equal rights with the men. It is due to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They are cleansing the temple, they are cooking very nicely. They are satisfied. They never said that “I have to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupāda.” They never say. This is artificial. So Kṛṣṇa consciousness means work in his constitutional position. The women, men, when they remain in their constitutional position, there will be no artificial…
[Morning Walk, Rome, 27 May 1974]

Varṇāśrama as the Foundation

This body of evidence should be sufficient for any honest inquirer seeking to understand what Śrīla Prabhupāda and the Vedic śāstras teach regarding the position of women — and that position does not include the office of dīkṣā-guru.
The Vedic scriptures, including Bhagavad-gītā 4.13 itself, teach that society ought to rest upon the varṇāśrama system. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes:

“As indicated here by the words sva-dharma-niratā varṇāśrama-guṇān-vitāḥ, the people were good citizens because they accepted the institution of varṇa and āśrama, which arranges society in the varṇa divisions of brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya and śūdra and the āśrama divisions of brahmacarya, gṛhastha, vānaprastha and sannyāsa. This is actual human civilization. People must be trained according to the different varṇāśrama occupational duties. As confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (4.13), cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ: the four varṇas must be established according to varying qualities and work. The first principle for good government is that it must institute this varṇāśrama system. The purpose of varṇāśrama is to enable people to become God conscious… Thus people should be trained to become Vaiṣṇavas through the system of varṇa and āśrama, as they were during the reign of Lord Rāmacandra, when everyone was fully trained to follow the varṇāśrama principles.”

By this account, training within varṇāśrama-dharma is a prerequisite to becoming a Vaiṣṇava. I ask you plainly, Prabhu: where in Vedic literature is it taught that a woman may become a dīkṣā-guru while remaining outside this framework? You cannot answer, because no such teaching exists.

A Closing Word

Those who set themselves against these teachings of the Vedic śāstras and the Vaiṣṇava ācāryas place themselves outside orthodoxy. Such voices are not absent from our own community — some have gone so far as to publish accusations that Śrīla Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda was “racist, sexist, and homophobic.” What such efforts amount to is an attempt to revise the teachings of śāstra and ācārya to conform with contemporary liberal ideology — an ideology that, in its insistence on an undifferentiated equality and its implicit denial of īśvara, shares more with atheistic materialism than with Vaiṣṇava theology. I offer this observation as a caution, not an accusation.
Hare Kṛṣṇa.
—
P.S. I maintain that we are obliged to cite Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words faithfully, without alteration or euphemism. I therefore do not agree that his statements should go unquoted for the sake of comfort. But I agree fully that the final court of appeal, in determining what is true and what is false by the Vedic standard, is the evidence of śāstra itself — as Śrīla Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda and all the ācāryas before him consistently taught.

Aniruddha · 08:14

Tuesday is 4 August. So when the meeting will take place? Today or tomorrow?

Parijata · 08:37

My apologies, it is Tuesday, 4 Aug

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 10:20

Could we please have the agenda? Thank you

Parijata · 10:20

Kindly find the agenda and Zoom link for the upcoming Global VDG Committee Meeting.

Date: Tuesday, 4 August
Time: 5:00 pm– 6:30 pm IST

Agenda

Presentation by Bhakti Vikas Swami – 15 mins
Presentation by Hridayananda Das Goswami – 15 minutes
Euro RGB Presentation – 20 mins
Russian RGB Presentation – 10 mins
Discussion – 30 mins

Meeting Zoom link:
[Zoom link removed]

Meeting ID: [removed]Passcode: [removed]

We look forward to your participation. If you are unable to attend, please let us know in advance.

Prahladananda Swami · 10:21

Could we please have 20 minutes for the Euro RGB presentation?

Govardhana Dasa · 10:22

Hare Krishna,

Following todays presentations, we will have other presentations at the next meeting.

Thereafter, we end the consultations and debate and move to the crux of the GBC Resolution.

Again, its the GBC EC intention that a proposal serves at the GBC Midterm meetings in Mid October, for a final conclusion on this matter.

Ys
Govardhana dasa

Devasrī Rādhikā Devī Dāsī · 10:25

Dear Devotees,

HH Prahladananda Maharaja and I just concluded our meeting and we have a joint presentation formed. I wasn’t aware about being scheduled at such short notice. However, we have accepted the request and shall present today.

Therefore, Maharaja will be presenting on our behalf. As I had mentioned earlier, I will be on the road and will probably join without video.

Sri Krishna willing.

Govardhana Dasa · 10:25

Parijata

We nees to reduce HDG presentation to 15 mins or increase other to 20 mins, for better parity

Parijata · 10:27

Yes, this reflects in the agenda now

Parijata · 10:28

Have adjusted it in the agenda.. Both the Maharajs shall present for 15 mins

Krishna Kirti Das · 10:49

“HDG presentation”? What is this?

Baladeva das · 18:34

@Prahladananda Swami can you share the paper you shared on the meeting please?

Prahladananda Swami · 18:34

Yes I will sometime today

Bir Krishna Goswami · 18:43

Gaura Kesava Prabhu (ACBSP) on the deviant opposition to Vaisnavi diksa-gurus that we are witnessing today:

“Again I say it is a CANCER which is being allowed to spread.
CUT IT OUT SOON, or loose the whole body.
…
The longer it [the anti-Vaisnavi diksa-guru propaganda] is allowed to be openly preached the greater the effect of convincing innocent lay members of ISKCON.
These casteist and sexist arguments are not going away.
Those who think so have not studied the history of these things in India.
…
The problem is that ISKCON management are reactionary and they only do something then the danger looms close to them.
Instead of seeing the threat for what it really is and cutting it out by the root before it can fester and become cancerous, they think that they can discuss their way out of such an emotional problem.
The AVDGs [Anti Vaisnavi diksa-guru] make this an emotional problem, they over blow the effect that VDGs would have on an Institution that already has Mleccha born male gurus.
Because everyone in ISKCON rejects caste by birth they think they can preach caste by gender instead. But the real problem is that they fail to see that entrenching caste by gender eventually leads back to acceptance of caste by birth as well.
It has taken less than 50 years for ISKCON to come to the point of caste by gender. How long does anyone think it will take to come back to caste by birth? Think about it.
ISKCON needs strong forward looking leadership which can stamp out heretical ideas that challenge Vaishnava doctrines in favor of Smarta ones.
This has to be done quickly before those Smarta doctrines get a chance to gain prominence amongst devotees.
AVDGs have thrown serious doubt amongst all ISKCON members on the position of VDG. This has been going on now for decades.
Many devotees have not known an ISKCON that was not arguing this question. Have we ever seen an argument that has gone on for decades unresolved before?
…
Anyone who thinks that the caste system is dead in India needs to come visit me in Srirangam. The Vatican of Sri Vaishnavism.
I will introduce you to the most socially orthodox Vaishnavas you could want to meet.
Even Smartas in South India are less caste conscious than some of the Sri Vaishnava I have met.
Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya split in two based on some of these social issues.
There are some who will never accept a woman (or sudra) can chant omkara.
Some who say women (and sudras) cannot study any scriptures not just the Vedas and Upanisads but Puranas and others as well.
Those Sri Vaishnavas have different diksha mantras for women (and sudras)
Much like we are finding amongst AVDGs today in ISKCON.
Then of course there are also more progressive and openminded Sri Vaishnavas who do not harbor such casteist and sexist ideas.
So generally there is a division into two sects.
If ISKCON Leaders think they can escape this social conflict, they are fooling themselves.
It is coming, mark my words. I have studied the history of the division.
Those Acharyas against caste discrimination were accused of subverting Varnashrama.
Pillai Lokacharya (one of the main ones against caste discrimination) was sent for by the pujaris of Lord Ranganatha to come and explain his “heretical” views which were considered against Varnashrama in front of the deity Himself.
His younger brother went in his place and the words he narrated in front of the Lord were compiled in a book and put forth the case for giving up social discrimination between Vaishnavas. The Lord is said to have accepted this version.
But yet 500 years later the socially repressive sect still exists and thrives.
Alongside the socially progressive sect which of course has far more followers and temples it
controls.
Yet the socially repressive sect preaches widely and has many followers today also.
Sometimes the rival sects come to physical blows in temples over disagreements on some detail
They have different tilaka markings. Court cases over where these markings can be displayed.
Even which sect’s marking adorns the temple Elephant.
There are arguments about any and every detail. From how the women of the different sects tie their saris to whether to serve rice or vegetables on a plate first.
All accept Ramanuja, all accept Visistadvaita Vedanta. Yet theologically and socially there are many big and small differences.
Just like Orthodox and Reformed Jews, Sunni and Shia Muslims, Catholic and Protestant Christians.
Anyone thinking that there will be no Conservative/Progressive split in ISKCON doesn’t know history.
The time for compromise was over long ago, both sides are playing for control of the whole institution.
ISKCON India has a grip on India. But ISKCON Worldwide now depends greatly on the Indian Diaspora for support.
How long will it take the ISKCON India folks to influence the rest of the Indian Diaspora followers of ISKCON worldwide?
Of course many of the Indian Diaspora outside of India and even Indians in India today are against casteism etc. But with the recent upsurge in Hindutva-ism in India orthodox repressive voices are growing louder.
Naturally more progressive devotees from whatever background will eventually leave ISKCON or never join it.
And that will just mean the concentration of conservative Smarta ideas in ISKCON.
Change is coming, no doubt about it. Whether it will be regressive or progressive depends on the action or inaction taken now.”

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:03

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1G7j8HVvGm/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:05

A very confused devotee wrote elsewhere here on Facebook, that the opposition to female diksha gurus in ISKCON is “a cancer”.

It’s sad that this supposedly scholarly devotee ignores what Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada taught about what initiation actually is, and that Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada himself practiced the system he taught. That system is that initiation is the “sacred thread ceremony” that Prabhupada taught is referred to in vedic shastras as “upaniti”, and that I’ve pointed out below this, from Prabhupada’s purport in Chaitanya Chaitamrita.

We must ask the question: “if initiation is the sacred thread, then why is it that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and before him Srila BS Saraswati Thakur did not give it to women?

As has been pointed out, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada gave gayatri mantra to women as a part of second initiation. Yet he never gave them the sacread thread. He could have, but he did not.

There is the example of the Arya Samaj, that gives the thread to women and others who don’t have initiation, to facilitate their sitting and performing fire sacrifices. Afterwards, they take it off.

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s purports to CC Adi 1.46 and CC Madhya 15.108 confirm what he wrote to Achyutananda in his letter dated November 14, 1970: initiation is the sacred thread. In the purport of CC Adi 1.46, Prabhupada cites Manu Samhita as the shastric authority to support that the sacred thread ceremony is initiation.

He further instructed in his lecture at LA on Sept 22, 1972, that woman cannot be initiated with the sacred thread ceremony.
And in his purport to SB 3.24.40 he wrote that women cannot take sannyas as “there is no sanction in vedic literature for a woman’s accepting sannyas” (verbatim quote).
So:

Women cannot have the sacred thread.
⁠Initiation is the sacred thread.
⁠There is no sanction in vedic literature for women to take initiation, the sacred thread.
⁠Therefore, if a woman cannot have the sacred thread, initiation, how can they give it?.

Thus women cannot be diksha gurus.

Taking Prabhupada’s letter to Hansadutta from January 1967 as the whole and sole authority for authorizing women to be diksha gurus is akin to the ritvikists citing the July 9, 1977 letter as the evidence that overturns “the law of disciplic succession”, and the idea of the guru parampara (Bhagavad-gita 4.2). These issues are dealt with by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in a number of places in his purports and lectures, and thus the evidence that initiation is the sacred thread ceremony is overwhelming.

Of course, a woman can be a guru, but not a diksha guru.

Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s purport to SB 4.12.32 makes it clear that Suniti was Dhruva’s pathapradarshaka and shiksha guru, but could not be his diksha guru. Why? Because diksha as propagated by our acharyas, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and his guru, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, as pointed out by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in the letter to Achyutananda (dated November 14, 1970), is the sacred thread ceremony. There are other quotes — a number of them from Srila Prabhupada — that support what he wrote to Achyutananda.

Thus the so-called learned devotee who says that opposition to women becoming diksha gurus is a “cancer”, is hereby exposed as being guilty of intellectual hubris, while employing sophistry to prove that women acting as diksha gurus is somehow bona fide, when in fact it is a false concept with no evidence of support from any vedic injunction!

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 20:05

There is a Chinese saying: “The wise man points to the moon, but the fool sees only the finger.”

Certainly, during the mantra diksha initiation process, one receives the sacred thread as a sign of one’s second birth. However, it is a mistake to consider a cotton thread—even one sanctified by what it represents—to be on the same level as the mantra and the samskara that actually initiate and qualify the individual.

I believe a little common sense would help.

Baladeva das · 20:25

As Vaishnavas, I understand that intellectual honesty begins when we stop asking ourselves only how to defend our position and start asking ourselves what factor might legitimately lead us to reconsider it in order to please Prabhupada and Krishna. As in the famous verse of Bhagavatam 4-30-8, where the Lord addresses the Pracetas, offering them a blessing for their spirit of cooperation in pursuit of a higher good:

sauhardenaprthag-dharmās
tuṣṭo ’haṁ sauhṛdena vaḥ

“I am most pleased with the affection and brotherly friendship that exists among you, as you are all performing the same duty with the same purpose.”

Srila Prabhupada deepens the vision by saying:
Since the sons of King Prācīnabarhiṣat were all united in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, the Lord was very pleased with them. Each and every one of the sons of King Prācīnabarhiṣat was an individual soul, but they were united in offering transcendental service to the Lord. The unity of the individual souls attempting to satisfy the Supreme Lord or rendering service to the Lord is real unity. In the material world such unity is not possible. Even though people may officially unite, they all have different interests. In the United Nations, for instance, all the nations have their particular national ambitions, and consequently they cannot be united. Disunity between individual souls is so strong within this material world that even in a society of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, members sometimes appear disunited due to their having different opinions and leaning toward material things. Actually, in Kṛṣṇa consciousness there cannot be two opinions. There is only one goal: to serve Kṛṣṇa to one’s best ability. If there is some disagreement over service, such disagreement is to be taken as spiritual. Those who are actually engaged in the service of the Supreme Personality of Godhead cannot be disunited in any circumstances. This makes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very happy and willing to award all kinds of blessings to His devotees, as indicated in this verse. We can see that the Lord is immediately prepared to award all benedictions to the sons of King Prācīnabarhiṣat.

I believe we are all called to reflect on how we can cultivate greater trust in those Vaiṣṇavas whom Śrīla Prabhupāda has entrusted with preaching in very different cultural contexts. If we recognize that preaching according to time, place, and circumstance is a genuine principle of our tradition, then mutual confidence becomes an essential expression of our unity.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:35

And by “common sense” you mean rejecting what Prabhupāda wrote?
“Common sense” means your speculations are more efficacious than what has been quoted from what Prabhupāda wrote in his purports and spoke in his lectures?

You too have fallen into the trap, as have the majority of participants in this dialogue, of presenting your speculations and NOT referring to shastras! Prove your “common sense” ideas with evidence from Vedic shastras! Doing so is what Prabhupāda and the Vaishnava acharyas taught.
Bhakti Rasamrita Sindu 1.2.101 (Nectar of Devotion) says that bhakti without reference to Vedic shastras causes disturbance in society! That is exactly what is happening here. Those of you supporting the female diksha guru concoction show no proof from shastras, to prove your contentions, and therefore hey are rejected!
In fact, in order to prove this bogus idea, that Prabhupada clearly wrote is un bona fide in his purport to SB 4.12.32, the supporters of this indulge in character assasination, slander, and defamation of their ideological opponents.
Today we heard a “red herring” argument, patently false, that the opponents of female diksha gurus are calling for a schism in ISKCON.
And the accuser himself has given up following the instructions of Prabhupada’s that his faithful followers have been adhering to for all these fifty plus years, i.e., wearing the (he says “external”) symbols of vaishnavism, tilak, kanthi mala and sannyas dress. He wouldn’t dare violate these instructions of his guru in the presence of his guru!

The Chinese are “svapachas”, by the way. Why not adhere to the teachings of Prabhupada, the previous acharyas, and Vedic shastras?

Baladeva das · 20:41

I’m not a HDG folower but this principle about what is external simbol is mentioned too for Bhaktivnoda in his Krishna samhita intro 1:

” Ālocakagata is when sectarianists accept some external signs. Examples of ālocakagata are tilaka, neck-beads, saffron robes, as well as the baptism practiced abroad “

Baladeva das · 20:42

he is explaining it from the verse he is quoting as follow:
Sectarianism is a natural byproduct of the Absolute Truth. When ācāryas first ascertain and instruct the Truth, it is not polluted with sectarianism. But the rules and regulations received through disciplic succession regarding the goal and the method of achieving it are changed in due course of time according to the mentality and locale of the people

yathā-prakṛti sarveṣāṁ citrā vācaḥ sravanti hi
evaṁ prakṛti-vaicitryād bhidyante matayo nṛṇām
pāramparyeṇa keṣāñcit pāṣaṇḍa-matayo ‘pare

“Therefore, because of the different characteristics of the living entities within the universe, there are a great many Vedic rituals, mantras, and rewards. Due to the great variety of desires and natures among human beings, there are many different theistic philosophies of life, which are handed down through tradition, custom, and disciplic succession. There are other teachers who directly support atheistic viewpoints.” (Bhāg. 11.14.7-8)

Baladeva das · 20:44

BT follow enlighting us:

“A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. This is prominent amongst neophytes and found to some extent amongst madhyama-adhikārīs. Amongst uttama-adhikārīs, however, there is no trace of sectarianism. Adherence to a particular standard is the prominent symptom of a society. There are three types of standards ālocakagata, ālocanāgata, and ālocyagata.”

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:44

No evidence from shastras to prove that females can be diksha gurus! Why is this so difficult to comprehend? You must show that Vedic injunction approves of females are allowed to be diksha gurus. In Prabhupāda’s purport to SB 3.24.40 he wrote that a woman cannot take sannyas because there is no sanction for it in Vedic shastras! Likewise there is no sanction for women to be diksha gurus. That’s why Prabhupada wrote in his purport to SB 4.12.32 that “being a woman, Suniti could NOT be Dhruva’s diksha guru”.
You have a million reasons for not accepting what Prabhupāda wrote “as is is”! Continue to deny the clear facts at your own risk!

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:51

Prabhupāda instructed during his manifest presence that we adhere to the symbols of vaishnavism. The proof is seen in innumerable photos taken with Prabhupada with his disciples. The person who took sannyas from Prabhupada who addressed us today adhered to our guru’s instructions back in those days. Prabhupāda was not happy that any of his disciples eschewed these things.
Now you want to rationalize giving up those instructions in the name of Bhaktivinod Thakur, who is the one who inspired the revival of vaishnavism! Wow! “Wonders never cease”!

Madan Gopal Das · 20:51

With all due respect, there is clear śāstric pramāṇa if we accept Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta as śāstra.

Cc. Madhya 8.128
kibā vipra, kibā nyāsī, śūdra kene naya
yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei ‘guru’ haya

Śrīla Prabhupāda himself explained this in 1969:

“Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that anyone who knows the science of Krishna, that person should be accepted as Spiritual Master, regardless of any material so-called qualifications; such as rich or poor, man or woman , or brahmana or sudra.”

So if we accept Caitanya-caritāmṛta as śāstra and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own authoritative explanation of that śāstra, then there is indeed direct śāstric support for qualification, not gender, being the determining principle.

BUT if we decide to reject Prabhupada’s explanation of the verse then there is no recourse.

Madan Gopal Das · 20:53

So the claim that there is no śāstric support for VDG is simply not accurate. Both Caitanya-caritāmṛta and Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā, as understood by Śrīla Prabhupāda, establish qualification, not gender, as the governing principle.

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:57

You reject that Prabhupada made the clear distinction between types of gurus in the purport to SB 4.12.32 and the fact that he wrote in that very purport that “being a woman, Suniti could NOT be Dhruva’s Diksha guru”!

And you ignore that Prabhupada cited Manu samhita 2.140, as evidence—pramana— that the sacred thread ceremony is Diksha in his purport to the very same CC Adi 1.46!
Why?

Baladeva das · 20:58

I agree that a Sannyas should wear Sannyas clothing according to Srila Prabhupada’s instruction, which does not mean that the Sannyasi’s attire is not just an external symbol, as Bhaktivinoda Thakur is mentioning. Is it so difficult to simply understand that?

Baladeva das · 20:59

Bhaktivinoda says that the Kanhists reach the point of wanting to kill others just for these external symbols

Baladeva das · 21:01

This isn’t something I’m saying based on my own speculation… (which you’ve accused me of several times). Did you read what BT stated?

Baladeva das · 21:03

My question is, can you simply respond to what Bhaktivinoda says, or are you going to continue to derail the conversation with accusations against me?

Baladeva das · 21:08

“being a woman, Suniti could NOT be Dhruva’s Diksha guru” the sentence is not complete… Prabhupada say:Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru.

Madan Gopal Das · 21:09

I”m not rejecting anything from Prabhupada – all I’m saying is that there IS sastric pramana to support that idea the women can be guru. Since you were saying there is none.

Madan Gopal Das · 21:17

With all due respect, may I ask a sincere question?

You often speak about not rejecting Śrīla Prabhupāda’s words. So why reject his clearly expressed vision of having his spiritual daughters initiate in his modern-day ISKCON, while giving overriding weight to a highly contextual explanation concerning Sunīti in Satya-yuga?

Why is the Haṁsadūta letter treated as though it is automatically inadmissible simply because it is a letter? On what principle is that based? Śrīla Prabhupāda communicated countless important instructions through letters. Their authority depends on their content, not their format.

Do we no longer recognize the principle of time, place and circumstance? Do we not apply context when understanding the Founder-Ācārya’s instructions?

Which statement is actually speaking directly about the future implementation of ISKCON? The letter describing his vision that his spiritual sons and daughters would initiate future generations, or a historical purport explaining the social norm in the case of Sunīti?

Most importantly, can we not acknowledge that Śrīla Prabhupāda genuinely desired to see qualified women serve as initiating gurus in ISKCON? Even if one personally struggles with that conclusion, why should that expressed vision be set aside in favor of our own interpretation of other texts?

Shouldn’t our first effort be to harmonize all of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements in a way that preserves his clearly stated intention, rather than explaining that intention away?

Madan Gopal Das · 21:18

Can we honestly say that the thought of women initiating in ISKCON never crossed Prabhupada’s mind?

Madan Gopal Das · 22:43

Srila Prabhupada explains in simple terms

“Unless one is a resident of Krishna Loka , one cannot be a Spiritual Master. That is the first proposition. A layman cannot be a Spiritual Master, and if he becomes so then he will simply create disturbance. And who is a liberated person? One who knows Krishna. It is stated in BG, fourth chapter, anyone who knows Krishna in truth is immediately liberated , and after quitting the present body, he immediately goes to Krishna. That means he becomes a resident of Krishna Loka. As soon as one is liberated he is immediately a resident of Krishna Loka, and anyone who knows the truth of Krishna can become Spiritual Master. That is the version of Lord Caitanya. So to summarize the whole thing, it is to be understood that a bona fide Spiritual Master is a resident of Krishna Loka.”

And Bharadvaja samhita says that even women who are at that level of liberation (residents of Krishna loka) can initiate disciples. There is your sastric pramana. And above is your pramana that shows that women devotees who “know the truth of Krishna” can become spiritual master.

Everything is reconciled and harmonized. And we don’t have to throw Prabhupada’s letters aways or his lectures away either. Neither do we need to throw away the Suniti purport.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:06

Regarding Gaura Keshava and his tirade on FDGs. In Sri Vaishnava sampraday, either Vatakalai or Tenkalai, there are no FDGs. Or VDGs. Period. They don’t have them in their tradition. Remember, in the CC, it is recounted that Caitanya Mahaprabhu when he stayed in Sri Rangam, He was very pleased with the devotion of Shree Venkatabhatta and the other devotees there. And yes, women were so-called “discriminated against there, too” in that they also did not become diksha-guru. The women in the brahmana families were considered brahmana, as in belonging to the same community, as per the definition given in Padma Purana, janmanā brahmano jñeyaḥ–one is known as a brahmana by birth. But saṁskarair dvija ucyate–they do not however become dvija, as they do not get the upanayanam samskara. Hence, women’s eligibility to become diksha-guru in the Sri Vaishnava context had nothing to do with caste.

In Sri Vaishnava sampradaya, the prohibition is not one of caste, but of gender. And this FDG was never an issue among them. It is certainly not why the Vatakalais and Tenkalais had their schism. FDG is just not on the Shri Vaishnava radar, except that they know about it in ISKCON, and they don’t want it in their society. We have letters from them to this on this matter.

https://akincana.net/2019/02/21/three-leading-sri-vaisnava-scholars-comment-on-iskcons-pending-female-diksa-guru-decision/

So, I am sorry to say, but Gaura Keshava is misinforming you by trying to make out FDG as a caste issue by his experience with Shree Vaishnavas on an issue that was never about caste nor an issue with them in the first place. So, please stop raising the “caste” flag. Caste has nothing to do with this.

And, who should you trust about what is the Sri Vaisnava view of FDG, Gaura Keshava, or the three scholars mentioned in the above-published letters?

Basu Ghosh Das · 23:32

I wrote “cannot be a diksha guru”! Not “cannot be a guru”. Another “red herring”.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:37

The Bharadvaja Samhita is explicitly talking about mantra guru (diksa guru) and it mentions that women can become diksa guru. Is this not sastric pramana?

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:46

Madan Gopal Pr. wrote,

“BUT if we decide to reject Prabhupada’s explanation of the verse then there is no recourse.”
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 4 August, 20:51

We are not rejecting Prabhupada’s explanation, we are rejecting what you think is Prabhupada’s explanation. The two are not necessarily the same.

As I had quoted earlier, CC Madhya 18.120 – 122, there are the following statements which show that generally, the mentioned categories of persons are ordinarily not permitted to become diksha-guru.

Quote wars, therefore, are futile. You can always find a Prabhupada quote to support almost any idea.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:48

I want to correct the false assertion that there is no sastric pramana that supports women becoming diksa guru. Here we find sastric pramana. Can we at least agree on this simple point?

Madan Gopal Das · 23:50

If we can all agree that women devotees who have attained prema can initiate then the discussion shifts to the institutional policy of how to determine who has attained this level. And is the institution equipped or even qualified to make this determination?

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:55

CC Madhya 8.128 says one who knows Krishna in truth can become spiritual master. Yes, that includes women. If you are a Jahnava or a Gangamata Goswamini, yes, they know Krishna in truth. Hence, Prabhuapda said, “Very special case.”

Baladev Vidyabhushana, quoting Bharadvaj-samhita, says pratyaksha-krita-pareshaat. From being able to directly see Krishna, women and shudras become eligible to become mantra-guru.

CC 18.120 – 122 establishes that even women, shudras and others chanting Hare Krishna in ecstatic love (prema, that’s the world in the shloka) can become spiritual masters who can deliver the world. Again, this statement could not be true unless these mentioned categories are not permitted to become diksha-guru.

The only direct evidence presented in all of this (i.e. not subjected to an interpretation) is the Bharadvaja-samhita. And also Baladeva Vidyabhushana’s commentary quoting it confirms further that it is woman that is the prohibited category in Prabhupada’s statement in SB 4.12.32.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:55

No one except you made that assertion.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:56

Have at it.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:57

But in the end, if you are not accepting the Bharadvaja-samhita is an authoritative shastra, then there is no point in discussing this.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:58

Screenshot of a WhatsApp message by Basu Ghosh Das replying to Baladeva Dasa

Madan Gopal Das · 23:58

Please note that Basu Ghosh Prabhu just made this assertion earlier today. With an exclamation point for emphasis, might I add.

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

Krishna Kirti Das · 00:01

He is just talking about the general case. Like stool is impure, that’s the shruti injunction. And then if another injunction says cow stool is pure, that’s another injunction. Both are true. Also, note that Baladev Vidyabhshana talks in that way when also talking about the simultaneous ineligibility and eligibility of women and shudras to give initiation. https://iisb.co.in/2021/11/29/baladeva-vidyabhusana-on-sb-1-13-15/

Madan Gopal Das · 00:07

Why are we talking about “the general case” here? We are not talking of regular, ordinary women for the purposes of this VDG discussion. We are talking pf Prabhupada’s spiritual daughters. See the following statements by Prabhupada himself about these extraordinary women:

“These women are not ordinary women. They are preachers. They are preachers. They are Vaiṣṇavas. By their association one becomes a Vaiṣṇava.”

“In Caitanya Mahaprabhu’s movement, everyone is preacher, whether man or woman it doesn’t matter.”

When Prabhupāda speaks about ordinary women, he is generally referring to conditioned social norms.
When he speaks about his women disciples, he repeatedly says they are not ordinary women, but preachers, Vaiṣṇavas, and devotees whose association makes others Vaiṣṇavas.
Therefore, it is hermeneutically unsound to take general statements about materialistic women and automatically apply them to the exceptional Vaiṣṇavīs whom Prabhupāda personally empowered.

This dovetails perfectly with his statements:

“If a woman is perfect in Kṛṣṇa consciousness… she can become guru.”
“He or she can become guru.”
His repeated references to Jāhnavā Devī as an ācāryā.
His expressed vision that his spiritual sons and daughters would continue the disciplic succession.

Taken together, these sources strongly support the argument that Prabhupāda himself viewed spiritually qualified Vaiṣṇavīs as belonging to a different category than the “ordinary women” discussed in many general social instructions.

Krishna Kirti Das · 00:08

Maybe it’s OK to just to not sweat the small stuff. I am also saying you have no evidence, in terms of CC Madhya 6.135. Even quoting CC Madhya 8.128 hundreds of times, there is no “woman” mentioned in it. In the purport Prabhupada mentions “woman”, but as per SP in 6.135, even that doesn’t count as direct evidence, it counts as proof that the evidence exists somewhere, but it still does not qualify as direct evidence. That is why you don’t take SP’s words literally for SB 4.12.32. You don’t take that as evidence in the same way you quote Prabhupada’s letter to Hamsaduta. Why you take one letter so literally and an entry from his book you refuse to take literally? It’s ad hoc and purpose-driven. You cannot point to any rules that support applying an indirect meaning to one statement and a direct meaning to another statement. Hence, ad hoc, and purpose-driven. In all this, I am merely saying we should get away from that and seriously talk about rules.

Madan Gopal Das · 00:10

I didn’t just make up the explanation Prabhupada gave on this verse. I quoted his words verbatim from 1969:

“Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that anyone who knows the science of Krishna, that person should be accepted as Spiritual Master, regardless of any material so-called qualifications; such as rich or poor, man or woman , or brahmana or sudra.”

Madan Gopal Das · 00:11

He understood that verse to also include women. Why can’t we?

Krishna Kirti Das · 00:12

But you can’t explain why you interpret that literally and why you don’t interpret SB 4.12.32 literally. You can’t point to any rule from shastra that guides the application of literal understanding versus an interpretation. Hence, that is not right.

Madan Gopal Das · 00:14

I fully accept the Sunīti purport exactly as Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote it. I do not reject a single word of it.

The difference is that I do not treat it as a universal, timeless prohibition that overrides his later direct instructions regarding qualified women in ISKCON.

The Sunīti purport explains a specific historical situation involving Dhruva Mahārāja, his own mother, and the prevailing social norms of Satya-yuga. I accept all of that literally.

But I also accept, equally literally, Śrīla Prabhupāda’s later statements that a qualified woman can become guru, that “he or she can become guru,” that his spiritual sons and daughters would initiate, and his own explanation of kibā vipra kibā nyāsī as applying regardless of “man or woman.”

There is no contradiction if we allow for time, place and circumstance. One passage describes the norm in a particular historical context. The others express Śrīla Prabhupāda’s vision for his modern-day ISKCON.

That is harmonization, not rejection.

Krishna Kirti Das · 00:29

The Sunīti purport explains a specific historical situation involving Dhruva Mahārāja, his own mother, and the prevailing social norms of Satya-yuga. I accept all of that literally.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 5 August, 00:14

That’s not in the text. You are inferring that. That is an assumption on your part. Now, if you say “that’s a specific historical situation involving Dhruva Maharaja, his own mother, and hte prevailing social norms of Satya yuga” (but not for this age), then how to explain Prabhuapda’s statement in his purport to the next shloka?

This incident proves that the śikṣā- or dīkṣā-guru who has a disciple who strongly executes devotional service like Dhruva Mahārāja can be carried by the disciple even though the instructor is not as advanced.

Was that also for Satya Yuga? It’s the same incident. The way you are interpreting things produces an inconsistent explanation. This is called kalpana gaurav, or heavy speculation. And it is sure to produce mistakes.

The authorized way is to observe an established hierarchy of authorities. There is shastra praman for this. Books written by qualifed brahmanas and Vaishnavas are considered smriti. See SB 7.11.7 for this. This is the understanding across all branches of Vedantists, both Vaishnava and non-Vaishnava.

Smṛti means if you are learned scholar in the Vedic injunction, if you have heard from the bona fide source, and if you are convinced, then if you write something, that is smṛti.

You cannot write nonsense. You have to write something which corroborates with the Vedic injunction. That is called smṛti. You cannot manufacture anything. You should always remember that “I am a teeny brain here, so I have to receive knowledge from superior sources.” Then whatever knowledge you have received, if you can expand that in your…, by your, I mean to say, capacity, that is called smṛti.

So there are two different kinds of Vedic literature. One section is called śruti, originally coming. Just like this Caitanya-caritāmṛta: this is a book written by Kṛṣṇa dāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī, a great devotee of Lord Caitanya. It is called smṛti. Why? Everything written here is corroborating the Vedic literature. There is nothing suggestion, “I am a philosopher. I am a speculator. I think this will be like this.” Here you’ll see in every step he is quoting from Vedas. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is quoting. This is the topics between Sanātana Gosvāmī… This is the Vedic way.
(Lecture, CC Madhya 22.5, 7 Jan. 1967, New York.)

And similar statements are found by commentators on the dharma-shastra, such as Medhatithi in his discussion on Manu 2.6. If some who is sober and learned writes something intended to be a shastra, and that work is accepted has his by other persons, then in time that book is to be considered smriti.

Just like Perfect Questions Perfect Answers. SP told his disciples to publish it. That elevates it above all the other conversations he did not say to publish. That book is considered smriti. That automatically has stronger authority than his other statements that are not made into books.

Hence, the rule, as stated by Jiva Goswami in his Sarvasamvadini commentary to Tattva Sandarbha, anuccheda 11, is that the stronger source be understood in its most direct way, which means no interpretation – literally – and and weaker source must be understood in light of the stronger source. That is, some inference will have to be applied in order to understand it in line with the stronger source.

That is how it has to be done. You don’t put any conditions or interpretations on the stronger source, but you may have make some interpretation of the weaker source in order to understand it properly.

Madan Gopal Das · 00:29

In summary:

Sastra allows for exceptional devotee women to be diksa guru
Prabhupada declared several times that his women disciples were not ordinary women and were exceptional.
Prabhupada also, multiple times, stated his proposition to see his women disciples become guru.

Krishna Kirti Das · 00:40

Letters do not have higher authority than SP’s books. SP’s books have higher authority than his letters. Just like the July 9th letter of the Ritviks. The authority of their approach relies on considering the July 9th letter to be more authoritative than his books. They say it was his last instruction. Hence, most authoritative. That’s wrong.

So, when the SAC in their 2005 paper on FDGs say, commenting on the Suniti purport, say

his other statements dealing with the present time (conversations with Professor O’Connell or with Atreya Rsi Dasa), and specifically within ISKCON, are more valuable as pramanas in this discussion.

No, that’s wrong. Books are supposed to have more authority than his other statements. The SAC has it backwards. They are speculating here.

Madan Gopal Das · 00:43

How do you explain the following?

The thought of seeing female diksa gurus in ISKCON in the future crossed Prabhupada’s mind.
Not only did it cross his mind, he wrote it down.
Not only did he write it down, but architected it as a full fledged plan with milestones and possible timelines.
Not only did he do that but he “pulled the trigger” and sent that plan to one of his institutional leaders and called it “my program”.

Was it just a fleeting thought that should be utterly disregarded? If the Suniti purport clearly applies to Prabhupada’s modern day ISKCON why did he go through all of the above?

Krishna Kirti Das · 01:16

You know, it’s not been very long that women have had as much political, economic and social freedom as they have now. In 1893, New Zealand was the first country to grant universal suffrage to women, giving the the right to vote. Soon followed by Australia. Then a mere 20 our so years later, followed by England, the United States and some other countries. The United States gave women national suffrage in 1920. Japan, Italy and India in the 1940s. And Switzerland in 1971. (Can you believe that?) So, not long before that time, up to the 19th century, the common wisdom was that women in general are not fit for such privileges. And of course, it’s not that throughout history, in India or without, that there have been powerful, talented women who have occupied positions of authority and who have had control over other men. But these have always been exceptional. And in our case, it’s directly built into our scriptures. As per Manu Samhita, women are considered unfit for independence.

So, Prabhupada said, in a lecture dated July 7, 1973, London, although he appreciated the service of his female disciples, his desire was that they eventually embrace traditional roles. That was his vision. https://youtu.be/sRME25VDp0w?si=ORspIRj3kR4KKYpW

The eldest child… In your country, even the eldest child is a girl, she also occupies the throne. Just like present Queen Elizabeth. Formerly there was Queen Victoria; before that, another Elizabeth. But in India woman has no such right. The woman is never given any responsible post. That is the opinion of the greatest politician in the history of the world, Cāṇakya Paṇḍita. According to his opinion, viśvāso naiva kartavyaḥ strīṣu rāja-kuleṣu ca. He has given his explicit opinion that “You cannot trust with any responsible post or any responsibility with a woman and politician.” Those who are diplomat, politician, you cannot trust them.
So the general regulation is that woman should remain under the protection of husband, er, father, husband and children. Just like these Pāṇḍus, their mother, Kuntī, she was very, very qualified lady. But still, after the death of her husband, she always remained with the sons. The sons are going to the forest; the mother is also going. Also the wife is also going, Draupadī.

And he told Yamuna and Dinatarine that they should not attempt cow protection, because larger scale requires men and interaction with them. And also live like a Hindu widow, keeping themselves aloof rom men.

The thing is cow protection is not possible for women. You can keep two or three cows, but on larger scale it is not possible. You should not try to take care of more. It is not women’s business. Women’s business is getting milk and making milk preparations. On the whole larger scale is not to be attempted by women. Manage a small asram, but don’t try bigger scale, then you require the help of men.
Don’t try manual exertion, then again there is mixture and that is not desired. Simply keep yourself aloof from men—chanting, many more times as possible, read books, worship the deity. I am very much pleased with this girl Svati—she has adopted this white dress. She must not be attractive at all. A widow is forbidden to use ornaments, nice sari, decoration, combing the hair nicely. These are forbidden for the woman who is not with husband. (letter 21 Feb 1976)

If that is how Prabhupada wanted his female disciples to live, then how can it not also be a part of whatever future he had in mind. Even if you make them diksha-guru, they are not supposed to be making manual exertion, keeping large organization. Otherwise, brings them in contact with men. That is, they won’t be significant in terms of making disciples and preaching, like the men, because that’s not for them.

These letters and many other statements from Prabhupada’s books also outline Prabhupada’s vision. The Hansaduta letter should not be elevated above all these other evidences. The Hamsaduta letter especially should not be elevated above his books.

Madan Gopal Das · 01:21

Tha Hamsaduta letter should indeed be elevated above the ones you quoted for a simple reason. The Hamsaduta letter is addressed to one of his ISKCON leaders on a plan to roll out for the whole movement, not for specific recipients in their very specific situations. Those are the ones that should not be assumed to be his “program” for the whole organization but rather the instruction for those specific women in their specific situations.
The context is clear.

Krishna Kirti Das · 01:22

Ritvik 2.0. They have their July 9th letter, you have your January 3rd letter. Nothing more to say.

Madan Gopal Das · 01:24

The anti-VDG stance is definitely in the ritvik category. The anti-VDG say no woman can be guru, the ritviks say no man or woman can be guru. Both aim to restrict qualified initiators that Prabhupada repeatedly expressed should initiate in the future. Nothing more to say.

Basu Ghosh Das · 12:25

Well, because your position is that of a motivated reasoner, dogmatically rejecting the clear evidence that women are not equal to men, whether “vaiṣṇavī” or not, you continue to ignore the clear evidence that initiation is the “upanayana samskara”, the sacred thread ceremony!
Your motivation, apparently, is not fidelity to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructions on this subject. Rather, yours — and that of those who share this outlook — is to establish an egalitarian ISKCON in which gender equality stands as the foremost principle, even at the cost of disregarding Prabhupāda’s repeated teaching that initiation is, in fact, the sacred-thread ceremony.
Why do you continue to ignore the clear evidence? Here it is again — ignore it at your own risk:

“The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master…” [From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purport to CC Ādi 1.46]
Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī explains dīkṣā in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283):

divyaṁ jñānaṁ yato dadyāt kuryāt pāpasya saṅkṣayam tasmāt dīkṣeti sā proktā deśikais tattva-kovidaiḥ

“Dīkṣā is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as dīkṣā.” The regulative principles of dīkṣā are explained in the Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (2.3–4) and the Bhakti-sandarbha (283), as stated:

dvijānām anupetānāṁ svakarmādhyayanādiṣu yathādhikāro nāstīha syāc copanayanād anu tathātrādīkṣitānāṁ tu mantra-devārcanādiṣu nādhikāro ‘sty ataḥ kuryād ātmānaṁ śiva-saṁstutam
“Even though born in a brāhmaṇa family, one cannot engage in Vedic rituals without being initiated and having a sacred thread. Although born in a brāhmaṇa family, one becomes a brāhmaṇa only after initiation and the sacred thread ceremony. Unless one is initiated as a brāhmaṇa, one cannot worship the holy name properly.” According to the Vaiṣṇava regulative principles, one must be initiated as a brāhmaṇa. [From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purport to CC Madhya 15.108]

3. “The sacred thread inaugurated by my Guru Mahārāja according to pāñcarātrika system and Hari-bhakti-vilāsa by Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī must continue. It does not matter whether the priestly class accepts it or not…”

“…Guru Mahārāja introduced this sacred thread because a Vaiṣṇava was being mistaken as belonging to the material caste. To accept a Vaiṣṇava in material caste system is hellish consideration (naraki buddhi). Therefore, to save the general populace from being offender to a Vaiṣṇava, He persistently introduced this sacred thread ceremony and we must follow His footsteps.” [From Prabhupāda’s letter to Achyutānanda, November 14, 1970]

“Even a man who is born in the family of a Brahmin cannot take part in the ceremonial sacrifices until he gets the authority of sacred thread ceremony. The sacred thread of a man is a sort of certificate for him declaring thereby that the man has properly been initiated by an Acharya who has taught him the Vedas with paraphernalia and has given him the right to perform the religious rites.” [From: 1960 Back to Godhead vol. 3, part 21 — Bhakti Rasāmṛta Sindhu text 22]
“Therefore the brahmins, the kṣatriyas, and the vaiśyas, this thread, this thread is the sign that ‘My second birth has been done.’ This is the emblem. This upavīta, upanayan, this is the sign. There in . . . in India higher caste you will find this sacred thread. Sacred thread means when he is accepted, when he is given the second birth, this thread ceremony, there is a thread ceremony. So second birth means saṁskāra, saṁskāra, reformation, reformation. It doesn’t matter where and how he is born. It doesn’t matter.” [From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture on BG 2.48–49, New York, April 1, 1966]
“So similarly, if one has to . . . the acceptance of a spiritual master is necessary. According to Vedic injunction, one . . . everyone should have a spiritual master. Perhaps you have seen a sacred thread. We have got sacred thread. Mr. Cohen, you have . . . this kind of . . . sacred thread. That sacred thread is the sign that this person has his spiritual master, has a spiritual master…” “…So similarly, this thread, sacred thread, is a sign that this person has accepted somebody as his spiritual master.” [From Prabhupāda’s lecture on BG 2.7–11, New York, March 2, 1966]
“The spiritual master is called Acharya or the transcendental professor. Such professors of spiritual science initiate the disciple in the studies of spiritual science and the ceremony observed in this connection is called Upanayan or to bring one nearer the spiritual master. One who cannot be so brought nearer to the spiritual master is indicated as sudra who remains without any sacred thread. The sacred thread hanging on the body of a Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya is the symbol of such initiation by the spiritual master and the thread is not worth even a pie if the same is put on as a matter of boasting a high parentage. It is the duty of the spiritual master to initiate the disciple by thread ceremony and after such Samaskara or purificatory process, the spiritual master begins to teach the disciple Vedas. A Sudra born man is not debarred from such spiritual initiation but he must be approved by a spiritual master who is authorised to award the right of becoming a Brahmin, if he at all finds the disciple to be perfectly in order. Such a spiritual master can be bonafide only if he has himself a perfect knowledge of the Vedic shastras and he himself is accustomed to abide by the injunctions of the Shastras. Specific description of this spiritual mastership as well as the sign of bonafide disciple are described both in the Manu Samheeta (2.140) as also in the Vayu Puranam.” [From the article “Identity of Lord Chaitanya,” Back to Godhead vol. 3, part 16 — 1960].
The brāhmaṇas continued: “According to Vedic injunction, women are not allowed to undergo the purificatory process of initiation by the sacred thread, nor are they allowed to live as brahmacāriṇīs in the āśrama of the spiritual master, nor are they advised to undergo the strict disciplinary procedures, nor are they very expert in discussing the philosophy of self-realization. And by nature they are not very pure, nor are they very much attached to auspicious activities. [From “Kṛṣṇa Book” Chapter 23]

These are but a handful of the 538 records wherein Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the phrase “sacred thread.” The seventh reference, cited above, is one of the places where he explicitly cites Vedic scriptural evidence — the Manu-saṁhitā and the Vāyu Purāṇa — in support of the traditional vedic and pāñcarātrika systems of initiation – the sacred thread ceremony, “upanayana samskara”.
Nowhere does Prabhupāda write that the Gāyatrī mantra alone constitutes initiation. And we have it directly from him that women cannot receive initiation — a fact you refuse to accept, not because you lack access to it, but because it seems your reasoning is driven not by a genuine desire to understand what Srila Prabhupāda taught on this subject, but by a prior commitment to gender equality that requires the willful dismissal of hundreds of proofs that Prabhupāda unequivocally taught that initiation is the sacred thread ceremony.
Prabhupāda stated plainly that women cannot take initiation, in his lecture on SB 1.3.17, given in Los Angeles on September 22, 1972:

“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.”

Why do you willfully set this aside? Such an omission betrays a serious lack of sincerity in wishing to understand this subject from Srila Prabhupāda himself, who supported his position with evidence drawn from Vedic śāstra.
You likewise disregard this teaching:

“Therefore, according to Vedic system, a boy born in a brāhmaṇa family, he is allowed all the saṁskāras, reformatory, purificatory process, but the girl is not. Why? Now, because a girl has to follow her husband. So if her husband is brāhmaṇa, automatically she becomes brāhmaṇa. There is no need of separate reformation. And by chance she may be married with a person who is not a brāhmaṇa, then what is the use of making her a brāhmaṇa? That is the general method. So therefore the…, even born in a brāhmaṇa family, a woman is taken as woman, not as brāhmaṇa.” [From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture on July 16, 1969, Los Angeles]

And you also disregard Prabhupāda’s instruction that men and women — devotees — occupy different constitutional positions, and that to work within one’s constitutional position is itself Kṛṣṇa consciousness:
“Yogeśvara: So here’s a problem: The women today want the same rights as men. How can they be satisfied? Prabhupāda: Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are working. They don’t want equal rights with the men. It is due to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They are cleansing the temple, they are cooking very nicely. They are satisfied. They never said that ‘I have to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupāda.’ They never say. This is artificial. So Kṛṣṇa consciousness means work in his constitutional position. The women, men, when they remain in their constitutional position, there will be no artificial . . . (indistinct) . . . (loud traffic noises)” [From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Morning Walk, Rome, Italy, May 27, 1974]Nothing you have written, and none of the quotations you have supplied, alters any of the evidence set forth above. Please abandon this posture of denial. Accept these instructions from Srila Prabhupāda — that are “as clear as the sky is blue” — that the sacred-thread ceremony constitutes initiation, and accept the historical fact of our Gaudiya vaiṣṇava tradition, established by Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī and followed faithfully by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, as presented above.
Neither of them sanctioned the initiation of women with the sacred thread. This means neither approved of women actually becoming brāhmaṇas. As Prabhupāda wrote, women are regarded as śūdras — and are thus “by constitution” unsuited to brahminical training and activity.
Yes, due to the demands of time and circumstance, Prabhupāda engaged women in Deity worship and in cooking for the Deities. However, in the ancient Vaiṣṇava traditions preserved in the principal temples of Lord Kṛṣṇa throughout Bhārata, no woman performs Deity worship or cooks for the Deities. This holds true at Dvārakā, Purī, Badrīnāth, Śrīnāthjī, Tirupati, Śrīraṅgam, Uḍupī, Paṇḍharpur, and elsewhere. We would do well to use our intelligence and recognize that Srila Prabhupāda’s arrangement in this regard was a temporary accommodation, not a permanent revision of principle. He gave numerous instructions that we must follow varṇāśrama-dharma in order to become Vaiṣṇavas — and within varṇāśrama-dharma, the duties of women are confined to the home, as gṛhiṇī (housewife). Prabhupāda offered the examples of Kuntī and Draupadī, who did not enter politics or assume positions of rule, even though they were well versed in the political affairs of their time. Consider this relevant instruction:
“Female means…. In India we have got little experience. The female is always controlled. Female is never given the position of controller. Nowadays it is going on. Just like Indira Gandhi, she has (been) given the position of controller. This is artificial. In the history of India, greater India, Mahābhārata, you will never find that a woman has been given a position of controller. No. It is not possible.” [SP lecture on Bhagavad-gītā 1.21–22, London, July 18, 1973]

Thus, Śrīla Prabhupāda did not endorse the equality of women with men. He was not an egalitarian. He did not give women the sacred thread — in fact, he forbade it. Why not, then, awaken to the truth? Abandon this heterodox notion that women may become dīkṣā-gurus, even granting that a rare few — “but very few, not so many” — may serve as patha-pradarśaka or śikṣā-gurus.
Hare Kṛṣṇa!

Basu Ghosh Das · 14:18

The context is SO CLEAR that the entire ISKCON India rejects it!
Think about that…

Madan Gopal Das · 14:32

Who exactly is “the entire ISKCON India”?
Does the “entire ISKCON India” not include HH Jayapataka Swami? Or HH Bhakti Caru Swami? Or HH Gopala Krishna Goswami?
If these stalwarts (who spent far more time being trained personally by Srila Prabhupāda and who have had massive success in preaching globally) have gone on the record in favor of VDG, how can you honestly declare “the entire ISKCON India”?

Madan Gopal Das · 14:50

With all due respect, it is not very convincing when one makes a declaration claiming to represent “the entire ISKCON India” when some of the most prominent leaders of ISKCON India have very openly and publicly supported VDG. And then further inviting us to “think about that…”

Basu Ghosh Das · 16:29

Believe it or not, Gopal Krishna Maharaj, quietly, told me (and he told others too), “I’ve changed, I don’t accept this anymore”.
Bhakti Charu Maharaj voted for FDG at Tirupati. Then the next month at Ahmedabad he voted for the Bureau resolution opposing FDG.

Basu Ghosh Das · 16:31

All the evidence in the world won’t convince you, because you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that diksha – initiation – is upanayana samskara – the sacred thread ceremony. All 538 references to Prabhupada — several of them that I provided, you cannot refute. So OK, be in denial. That’s your choice. It is not a good one, nor the correct one!

Basu Ghosh Das · 16:33

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cf0PjAqS2QgKxLOwFylIP41BJOSCxJaqKwCxjCcpaBc/edit?usp=sharing

From Jaya Nityananda Das, one of the Scholars of the IISB on the topic of FDGs.

Madan Gopal Das · 16:57

It is important to engage EQUALLY both men and women in distributing love of Godhead. People who criticize this policy are basically jealous of Prabhupāda’s success.
The old stereotyped method of restricting women in the preaching arena will never help spreading Krishna consciousness which is the highest priority and urgency.

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:14

No one is restricting women from “distributing love of Godhead”.
Srila Prabhupada is the one who wrote that women cannot take initiation, “yajnopavit/upanayanam samskara”, the sacred thread ceremony.
Do you deny this? Yes you do!

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:16

This is a “red herring”. You are avoiding this topic knowingly. You must address this issue.
Prabhupada taught in hundreds of places that initiation is the “sacred thread ceremony”, and he did NOT give it to women. Why?

Madan Gopal Das · 17:17

Srila Prabhupada seated beside a woman at a ceremony

Difference between theory and practice.

Cc Adi 7.31 Purport

“An ācārya who comes for the service of the Lord cannot be expected to conform to a stereotype, for he must find the ways and means by which Kṛṣṇa consciousness may be spread. Sometimes jealous persons criticize the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement because it engages equally both boys and girls in distributing love of Godhead. Not knowing that boys and girls in countries like Europe and America mix very freely, these fools and rascals criticize the boys and girls in Kṛṣṇa consciousness for intermingling. But these rascals should consider that one cannot suddenly change a community’s social customs. However, since both the boys and girls are being trained to become preachers, those girls are not ordinary girls but are as good as their brothers who are preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, to engage both boys and girls in fully transcendental activities is a policy intended to spread the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. These jealous fools who criticize the intermingling of boys and girls will simply have to be satisfied with their own foolishness because they cannot think of how to spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness by adopting ways and means that are favorable for this purpose. Their stereotyped methods will never help spread Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, what we are doing is perfect by the grace of Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu, for it is He who proposed to invent a way to capture those who strayed from Kṛṣṇa consciousness.”

Baladeva das · 17:23

Dear Vasu Gosh prabhu.
Based on your statements, two obvious questions arise: first, what kind of second initiation did Prabhupada give his female disciples when he gave them the Gayatri? Second, were Prabhupada and Bhakti Siddhanta wrong and acting against the scriptures by giving the second initiation to women?
Could You clearly and in a simple way explain my two questions?

Baladeva das · 17:30

On the other hand, in a previous message you said that understanding things that way is at our own risk. What does that risk mean? What should we be afraid of? From my point of view, we are trying to decipher a complex situation according to our ability (despite your constant belittling of our ability). What should we be afraid of, then?

Madan Gopal Das · 17:34

Great point. We had a Vaishnavi give initiation a few years ago in ISKCON. What was the practical impact?
Did droves of Brahmacaris leave the movement? Were there street protests from the other Sampradayas?
What was the fallout?

On the positive side, there were hundreds and hundreds of positive and encouraging comments from people all over the world, even from India. And many people felt that they could feel the intended mood and mission of Prabhupada is finally becoming a reality.

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:43

Another “red herring”.
This does not cancel the fact that Prabhupada has instructed 538 times that “the sacred thread ceremony” is initiation.

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:44

I have replied, but you are not understanding that it was a temporary adjustment that only a great acharya — not you and I — can make.
If he really wanted women to be “full fledged brahmanas”, he would have said as much and would have given them the sacred thread.
He did not.
The Arya Samaj gives women the thread. Prabhupada called them “rascals”.

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:45

A woman cannot give the sacred thread if she is ineligible to receive it. Harinam: all of us are giving it everyday!

Madan Gopal Das · 17:46

Which sastra says a woman cannot give the sacred thread if she did not receive it?

Madan Gopal Das · 17:47

Prabhupada literally told a woman to put the thread on a man. Today hundreds of women pujari a put the thread on the Deity. It’s not that hard to do.

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:47

It is basic logic.
Prabhupada quoted Manu Samhita 2.140 and Vayu Purana, to teach that the sacred thread ceremony” – upanayana samskara – is initiation.
Prabhupada did NOT give it to women. It’s that simple.

Baladeva das · 17:47

Ok So now we should go back to the temporary adjustment they made?

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:51

Prabhu, eternal time is extremely long, isn’t it?
Prabhupada established Deity worship in far flung areas of the world.
But we all know that in Bhaarata – Mayapur, in Bhaarata is the Center of our world (hope it might be your’s as well?), no women worship Deities or cook in major temples that are thousands of years old. So in order that the Deity worship he established continue where brahmanas did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s, he gave women the gayatri mantra.
But by instructing in 538 places that the sacred thread ceremony is diksha/initiation, and by saying that women CANNOT take initiation, it is clear that he did NOT intend for women to actually be brahmanas.

Madan Gopal Das · 17:53

Where did he say that this adjustment was “temporary”?

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:54

You cannot refute that Prabhupada said this:

“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 at Los Angeles on September 22, 1972 on SB 1.3.17.

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:55

It is temporary because it isn’t standard. This is the standard:

Therefore, according to Vedic system, a boy born in a brāhmaṇa family, he is allowed all the saṁskāras, reformatory, purificatory process, but the girl is not. Why? Now, because a girl has to follow her husband. So if her husband is brāhmaṇa, automatically she becomes brāhmaṇa. There is no need of separate reformation. And by chance she may be married with a person who is not a brāhmaṇa, then what is the use of making her a brāhmaṇa? That is the general method.
So therefore the…, even born in a brāhmaṇa family, a woman is taken as woman, not as brāhmaṇa.
From Śrīla Prabhupāda’s lecture on July 16, 1969, Los Angeles

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:55

Why do you NOT NOT NOT accept what Prabhupada Prabhupada Prabhupada taught here?

Madan Gopal Das · 17:56

Why do you deny that for iskcon Prabhupada wrote out a plan for his daughters to initiate?

Baladeva das · 17:57

thank you for explanation prabhu, but you don’t answer my question I will do it again in a more simple way, according you said, Do we stop to give second initiation? yes or not

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:58

You have shown NO PROOF of this concocted idea!
But I have given proof again and again and again, and you refuse to accept it.
Why?

Basu Ghosh Das · 17:59

As long as there is a paucity of brahmanas, to worship Deities and cook for the Deities, yes, this was Prabhupada’s adjustment. The above quotes prove it is NOT NOT NOT the standard.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:00

“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-guruAccording 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”.
From Prabhupada’s purport to SB 4.12.32

Baladeva das · 18:00

Thank you at the same time, Wouldn’t that be acting in accordance with place, time, and circumstance by changing what Prabhupada established?

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:01

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that women cannot be diksha gurus, according to Prabhupada!

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:01

We are not asking it be wound up.
We are asking you recognize the clear as the sky is blue teachings of Prabhupada.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:01

That the sacred thread ceremony is diksha.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:02

The spiritual master is also called ācārya, or a transcendental professor of spiritual science. The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa if he finds him perfectly qualified. In the Vāyu Purāṇa an ācārya is defined as one who knows the import of all the Vedic literatures, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 1.46

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:02

Why do both of you not accept this?

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:02

Why, why why?

Baladeva das · 18:03

Im trying to understad prabhu

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:03

“One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra.”

This describes women.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:03

Thank you! Gracias!

Baladeva das · 18:04

You say, “We are not asking it to be wound up. We are asking you to recognize the clear as the sky is blue teachings of Prabhupada.” Can you explain what this means in practical terms? What should be done?

Baladeva das · 18:05

Should we stop giving women a second initiation or not?

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:05

“Actually one who takes to chanting Hare Krsna Mantra offenselessly immediately becomes situated transcendentally and therefore he has no need of being initiated with sacred thread, but Guru Maharaja introduced this sacred thread because a Vaisnava was being mistaken as belonging to the material caste. To accept a Vaisnava in material caste system is hellish consideration (naraki buddhi). Therefore, to save the general populace from being offender to a Vaisnava, He persistently introduced this sacred thread ceremony and we must follow His footsteps.”
From Prabhupada’s letter to Achyutananda dated November 14, 1970

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:08

Prabhu, I answered this question just above this. Besides, this is not the question we face. The question is “should women be diksha gurus”?
The answer is a resounding “no”, because of these and the other 500 plus references to Prabhupada teaching that the sacred thread ceremony is initiation, diksha.
That’s why Suniti could NOT be Dhruva’s diksha guru.
Why NO WOMEN — in varnashram dharma — can be a diksha guru. Even if a woman is on the highest platform, she would NOT take up the service of diksha guru since the sacred thread is NOT given to women!

Baladeva das · 18:08

Therefore, to save the general populace from being offender to a Vaisnava, Should we understand that this refers only to Vaishnavas with male bodies, not female ones?

Baladeva das · 18:09

If you would be so kind, you can answer this with yes or no?

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:09

Even a woman as exalted as Madhavi Devi is counted as “a half”. Isn’t it?

Within this world, Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half very confidential devotees. The three were Svarūpa Gosāñi, Śrī Rāmānanda Rāya and Śikhi Māhiti, and Śikhi Māhiti’s sister, Mādhavīdevī, being a woman, was considered the half. Thus it is known that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 10.137

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:10

Read what I wrote, above.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:10

Go over all of my comments. It is one of the shortest.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:10

Why was Madhavi Devi counted as a woman, and a half?

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:10

Mādhavīdevī, being a woman, was considered the half. Thus it is known that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees.

Can you change this?

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:11

Should you change this?

Baladeva das · 18:11

you don’t answer with a simply yes or not according you understanding of the quoting you are providing

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:11

The answer is “no”!

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:12

I wrote that as long as there is a need for brahmanas, where there are a paucity of them, it may continue.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:12

But it has NOTHING TO DO with the proposal that women become diksha gurus.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:15

“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”

Prabhupada wrote“according to śāstric injunctions” “being a woman… Suniti could not be Dhruva’s diksha guru”.

So now the onus is on those who support women becoming diksha gurus to support the concept “according to śāstric injunctions”.

Where are those “śāstric injunctions”?? You DO NOT HAVE THEM, because they DO NOT EXIST!!

Baladeva das · 18:23

There are historical examples of great Vaishnavis fulfilling the role of Diksha, and we should understand why, if, according to your view, there is no Vedic precept.
I would like to know if those great Vaishnavis acted against siddhanta.
In some cases (Jahnava), it is explained that she is a Shakti Tattva (and we should understand that she is above Vedic precepts), but in other cases, they fall into the category of Jiva Tattvas.

Although it is obvious that a woman can be a Dikshna, I believe the discussion should focus on what qualifications should be required for institutional authorization.

Baladeva das · 18:25

We might even conclude that there is no one in that position in ISKCON to assume that role, but historical fact proves that a woman can indeed be a Diksha

Madan Gopal Das · 18:55

The specific reason she could not initiate him was that she was his mother. “Specifically his mother”

Madan Gopal Das · 18:56

According to sastra a woman can be diksa guru if she has reached the level of prema. You know the verses from Bharadvaja samhita.

Basu Ghosh Das · 18:57

Prabhu,

show the “śāstric injunctions”.
⁠Prove that what Prabhupada wrote in that a woman can be a pathapradarshaka guru and shiksha guru, but not a diksha guru, is wrong.
⁠Know that Jahnava, etc., did not give the sacred thread, but only harinam. They observed varnashram principles, that were already being followed in Hindu society at that time.
⁠Prabhupada and before him Srila Siddhanta Saraswati did NOT give women the sacred thread. You have to explain why this contradicts “śāstric injunctions”, because ONLY by śāstric injunctions can we accept something as bona fide. In other words, you have to oppose what both of our gurus/acharyas did! I don’t think that’s very wise!

Madan Gopal Das · 18:58

So Srila Prabhupada was clearly cognizant of the sastric allowance for women to be diksa gurus for exceptional, extraordinary women when he wrote out his vision for ISKCON. He had a whole plan laid out with prerequisites in a practical, standardized process. How is it that this is being ignored?

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:00

“Srila Prabhupada was clearly cognizant of the sastric allowance for women to be diksa gurus for exceptional, extraordinary women when he wrote out his vision for ISKCON.”
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 5 August, 18:58

Where is this? Seems to be only “in your head”, since you present NO PROOF of it at all. Only that we should accept what you write.
Wah!

Madan Gopal Das · 19:00

You ask for sastric injunction. They have been provided. Bharadvaja samhita 1.44 is the reference.

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:00

You are the one ignoring what Prabhupada taught and laying out your own plan for gender equality in ISKCON.

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:01

Yes, for one who can see Krishna “face to face”. You and I cannot certify that there is even ONE such person in ISKCON.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:01

How can you say that this particular mataji is NOT at that level?

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:03

How can you say ANYONE is? You and I cannot! We are NOT uttama adhikaris.
But maybe you are?!

Madan Gopal Das · 19:03

In the entire history of the Vaishnava lineage, the determination of whether someone can give diksa or not was never done by an institution. Hence this problem of “certifying”.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:03

How was it done in history?

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:05

Why did Prabhupada:

Not use the word “diksha” when he said women could be gurus to Prof. O’Connell?
⁠Why in the same conversation, Prabhupada told O’Connell, “not so many”?

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:06

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that Prabhupada taught — in 538 places, not one or two — that “initiation is the sacred thread”?!

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:06

I have provided the quotes – many, many, to this effect, but you are not moved?

Madan Gopal Das · 19:06

He DID use the word “initiate disciples” when he wrote the Hamsduta letter where he talked about his daughters initiating in the future. So there you have it. The evidence.
Hemalatā Ṭhākurāṇī (also known as Hemalatā Devī) is widely recognized within the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition as an initiating (dīkṣā) guru, not merely a śikṣā-guru.
Ultimately it has always been the disciple who has to decide whether the person they choose is authorized to initiate. And if they have been ordered by their own guru before them, then they should be able to go ahead.

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:06

Hence it’s hard to understand that you call yourself a follower of Prabhupada!

Madan Gopal Das · 19:07

In modern day ISKCON the root of the problem is that the institution has taken upon itself to “certify” who can initiate and who cannot. This was never done in the entire history of Vaishnavism.

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:07

One letter — a private communication — does not someone overrule the 538 references to the sacred thread ceremony — upanayana samskara — is initiation.
What is SO SO difficult to understand this? I am shocked!

Madan Gopal Das · 19:08

It was not a “private communication” – it was a written program to be implemented in ISKCON sent to his institutional leader – not something to help Hamsaduta’s personal issues. This is clear as day to me. It was not about Hamsaduta – it was about ISKCON.

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:08

Another “red herring”. Change the subject and you don’t have to answer the actual subject of this discussion. That is can women be diksha gurus.
They CANNOT because they CANNOT undergo the sacred thread ceremony. Simple.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:10

And yet we have them in history, and we have sastric allowance from Bharadvaja Samhita, but you insist that no one in ISKCON can possible reach that level of advancement. On what basis can you be so confident that no woman is on that level?

Madan Gopal Das · 19:11

Someone told Prabhupada “No one has seen God” and we all know what Prabhupada replied. It’s in that famous video. Let is not fall into that category.

Basu Ghosh Das · 19:11

Sorry, but this is a false pretense. Hansadutta was NOT the “head of ISKCON”, but just one of hundreds, admittedly, early disciples, who basically had VERY LITTLE knowledge of vedic shastras and injunctions.
I have to go now.
But, your arguments are illogical and not supported by “vedic injunction”. Prabhupada provided the support for the sacred thread ceremony and you wish to deny it.
Kindly consider the facts and change your heterodox outlook for your own benefit!

Madan Gopal Das · 19:11

Let us follow sastra. Let us implement sastra. Let there be a system to determine if someone is at prema level and let us be loyal to both sastra and Prabhupada’s written program.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:12

and we have sastric allowance from Bharadvaja Samhita Allowed as an apavad (excption) to the general rule (utsarga) that women along with shudras cannot become diksha-guru.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:14

So why not have the allowance for exceptional women?

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:14

let us be loyal to both sastra and Prabhupada’s written program.
Quoted from Madan Gopal Das’s message of 5 August, 19:11

Yes, that is the point. One must have faith not only in guru but also in shastra. yasya deve parabhaktir yatha deve tatha gurau. Then all the purports of the Vedic literature will be revealed. Not just one or the other.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:15

Why deny the exception as if it doesn’t exist? Why translate “not so many” as “zero”?

Madan Gopal Das · 19:15

Only very exceptional women should be allowed to initiate.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:15

Let the GBC debate on what the criteria can be. But at this point it is anti-sastric to say that we should categorically close the door for even exceptional women.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:16

It’s rare, not zero, but as per Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu, pure devotional service is very rare. You are looking at a Haridas Thakur or a Ramananda Raya. Ramananda Raya could massage the bodies of young girls without becoming attracted by lust. That’s what Pradyumna Mishra could perceive that he was not ordinary. Just being a good sadhaka does not cut it.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:17

But how can you assert there there is no Ramananda Raya level devotee in our midst is my question.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:17

Let the application come through and the committee can decide if the person is at the level of Ramananda Raya.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:19

If you can at least agree that we cannot have a policy of categorically blocking out all women applications then that is what is sastric.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:23

But you don’t agree to that standard, do you? You think sadhaka should also be allowed.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:25

I never said that regular, or ordinary level women should be allowed.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:25

The approval should meet the sastric criteria.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:26

But what I’m hearing so far is that women should be categorically blocked. “Women need not apply” is the message I’m seeing so far, unless I’m mistaken. We need to be loyal to sastra.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:27

That is the position of the SAC’s 2005 paper. That sadhaka should also be allowed. You did declare your support for that conclusion.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:29

Perfection needs to be attained – that’s the bottom line.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:30

Let’s look at this from a somewhat different point of view. What about shudras in ISKCON? Those who get first initiation but not second. Every man in ISKCON who does not get second initiation is a shudra. That is his varna. Such men, by ISKCON law, will never be considered for diksha-guru. Is that wrong?

Madan Gopal Das · 19:31

What does Mahaprabhu say about sudras when it comes to being guru?

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:31

They can become guru. But in ISKCON they never will be.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:31

They can become shiksha, but not diksha.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:32

That is another aspect that could be revisited and discussed.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:32

but the topic at hand is VDG.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:32

If there is an exceptional sudra who has attained prema then why not?

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:32

The prohibition in shastra against women also names shudra. So, it’s relevant.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:32

it is the same group as per the bharadvaja samhita

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:33

That is right.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:33

yes, they should also be permitted. Which is why I say that could be revisited. It could be clubbed in with this discussion as well. But that is not the remit of this committee.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:35

So, consider the issue of the first initiate male, who does not get second initiation. Now, why would they be passed up for becoming guru? Because if you didn’t make second initiation, your guru likely thought you were not fit for it. Not fit to engage in archana-vidhi. That is why. And that is why ISKCON laws only consider twice-initiated devotees, not first initiated, as candidates for diksha-guru.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:36

So, in ISKCON, shudra will not be considered for diksha-guru, ever.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:36

If there are exceptional sudras who have attained prema, they should also be allowed to initiate as per sastra.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:38

Let the committee be formed that evaluates application criteria. Let the criteria to determine exceptional advancement be established and let each application be judged on that. Today women is ISKCON can received second initiation – a practice that was established by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, and so can sudras. That is not very difficult.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:38

Just consider Advaitacharya giving Haridas Thakur the first mahaprasadam from the shrāddh ceremomy that he performed for His own father? Why Haridas Thakur before so many other qualified brahmanas? Because he was exceptional. Right? So, if a shudra is to be qualified for diksha-guru in ISKCON, he had better be an exceptional case, not just a very good sadhaka. Otherwise, if he had been a very good sadhaka, then he should have gotten the second initiation, right?

Madan Gopal Das · 19:39

The holy name has the power to elevate even candalas to the level beyond brahmana, this is vaisnava level.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:40

So coming to the core point, women may not be barred from applying in ISKCON. The criteria can be decided for whether they have “attained perfection” as Srila Prabhupada put it.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:42

Attaining perfection is the key qualification – man or woman.

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:45

So, here is an essay I wrote on the topic of shudras as MDG (male diksha-gurus). https://iisb.co.in/2025/12/02/can-sudras-become-diksa-gurus-in-iskcon/

Abstract: This article examines whether śūdras can serve as dīkṣā-gurus in ISKCON, contrasting Mahāprabhu’s inclusive teaching (CC Madhya 8.128) with the GBC’s requirement of second initiation and ten years’ maturity. Within ISKCON’s pañcarātrika system, second initiation grants dvijatvam (twice-born status), making one eligible for guru service, while first-initiated devotees remain śūdras. Exceptional figures like Rāmānanda Rāya and Haridāsa Ṭhākura transcended such restrictions through spiritual realization. Drawing on Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, the article concludes that ordinary śūdras are barred, but those attaining bhāva or prema may act as gurus, harmonizing Mahāprabhu’s teaching with śāstric injunctions.

Madan Gopal Das · 19:46

So are we in agreement that exceptional women who have attained perfection should be free to apply to be ISKCON diksa guru?

Krishna Kirti Das · 19:53

Thumbnail of the IISB article Can sudras become diksa gurus in ISKCON?

https://iisb.co.in/2025/12/02/can-sudras-become-diksa-gurus-in-iskcon/

Madan Gopal Das · 20:00

Let there be a separate line for applying – women and sudras apply here. Note that the criteria will be special.

Baladeva das · 20:08

I find it difficult to imagine Ramananda Raya dressed like that. Mahāprabhu recognized him as the expositor of the highest truths of rasa-tattva, and yet this image substitutes him with a modern stereotype. Furthermore, there is a clear visual message: it doesn’t simply ask whether a śūdra can be a dīkṣā-guru, but rather associates the idea of ”śūdra” with the image of a construction worker wearing a hard hat and holding a wrench. This predisposes the viewer to a certain conclusion before considering the philosophical or scriptural evidence. I believe a more neutral representation would greatly facilitate an objective analysis of the issue.

Baladeva das · 20:11

However, if the idea is to try to inject some humor to lighten the mood of the debate… I appreciate it.

Prahladananda Swami · 20:16

As I mentioned in the presentation by the Euro RGB, unless the role of the guru is actually defined and implemented according to Srila Prabhupada’s instructions, it is difficult for anyone to properly perform that service now and certainly into the future.

Prahladananda Swami · 20:19

It doesn’t matter whether that be a soul in a man’s or woman’s body. None of which now are recognized or to my vision on the level of a mahabhagavata devotees or perhaps even a liberated soul from all material identification. As Srila Prabhupada said, the four Kumaras are examples of the top-most kanistha devotees by faith and madhyama devotees by eligibility to accept pure devotional service. When they met Lord Narayana in Vaikuntha they were elevated to the platform of pure devotees (mahabhagavata devotees)

Krishna Kirti Das · 20:27

Yes, and why not the man with the hard-hat and the pipe-wrench can become guru? Why not?

Basu Ghosh Das · 20:27

Maharaj, yatibhyonamaha. Jaya Prabhupada.
I’m more than a bit surprised that you have not commented on the plethora of evidence that the upanyana samskara — the sacred thread ceremony — is initiation, and that any brahmana may perform it! The evidence from Prabhupada is overwhelming and he referred to shastra, providing evidence from Manu Samhita/Smriti and Vayu Purana. He wrote that there is “no sanction in Vedic literature” for a woman to take sannyas.
Similarly the sacred thread is not allowed for women.
So why should there be any confusion? In his purport to SB 4.12.32, Prabhupāda mentions “according to Shastric injunction” a woman cannot be a diksha guru. The obvious logic is that there is nowhere in shastras supporting giving women the sacred thread. It’s a varnashram principle as well.
But despite all this overwhelming evidence the social pressure of western liberal leftist ideology is more important to some of the participants here, than what Prabhupāda clearly taught — that initiation is the sacred thread ceremony. It is what he practiced during his lifetime and he never instructed that women could have or give the thread

Madan Gopal Das · 20:42

At this point the GBC should stop making philosophical reconciliation the precondition for a decision. It should now adopt a constitutional and administrative settlement: one global ISKCON standard of recognition, combined with carefully bounded regional discretion over implementation.

Madan Gopal Das · 20:42

After more than twenty years, the unresolved issue is no longer a shortage of quotations or research. The parties are applying fundamentally different interpretive frameworks:

One side gives controlling weight to Śrīla Prabhupāda’s direct statements about women becoming spiritual masters and initiating.
The other side reads those statements through its understanding of broader śāstra, historical norms, source hierarchy, and exceptional qualification.
One side understands regional variation as legitimate application according to time, place, and circumstance.
The other worries that regional variation concedes that something can be spiritually valid in one country and invalid in another.
One side sees continued postponement as an injustice and an obstruction of preaching.
The other sees implementation as a threat to fidelity, tradition, and institutional unity.

Those differences are real. They should be accurately recorded, but there is little reason to believe another round of papers, quotations, debates, or mediation will make them disappear.

Baladeva das · 22:44

yathā-prakṛti sarveṣāṁ citrā vācaḥ sravanti hi
evaṁ prakṛti-vaicitryād bhidyante matayo nṛṇām
pāramparyeṇa keṣāñcit pāṣaṇḍa-matayo ‘pare

“Therefore, because of the different characteristics of the living entities within the universe, there are a great many Vedic rituals, mantras, and rewards. Due to the great variety of desires and natures among human beings, there are many different theistic philosophies of life, which are handed down through tradition, custom, and disciplic succession. There are other teachers who directly support atheistic viewpoints.” (Bhāg. 11.14.7-8)

A rule that is followed by one society is not necessarily accepted in another society. That is why one community is different from another. As a community gradually develops more respect for its own standards, it develops hatred towards other communities and considers their standards inferior. These sectarian symptoms are seen in all countries since time immemorial. (Bhaktivinoda Thakur Krishna Samhita intro 1)

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:24

This is a refreshingly frank admission. The parties are applying fundamentally different interpretive frameworks. This is the point I have been trying to make, by participating in a quote war in this forum that from the start, and throughout, I warned was futile.

Yes, both sides weigh the evidence quite differently, and consequently they come to different conclusions. The call for the GBC to stop making philosophical reconciliation the precondition for a decision and make a constitutional and administrative settlement is a tacit admission of being incapable of settling the matter of the authority of the different interpretive frameworks.

Prabhupada’s approach to maintaining unity was grounded in resolving the big-ticket philosophical issues underlying social or spiritual conflicts. He thus advised that discussions on “unity in diversity” were the solution.

Material nature means dissension and disagreement, especially in this Kali yuga. But, for this Krsna consciousness movement its success will depend on agreement, even though there are varieties of engagements. In the material world there are varieties, but there is no agreement. In the spiritual world there are varieties, but there is agreement. That is the difference. The materialist without being able to adjust the varieties and the disagreements makes everything zero. They cannot come into agreement with varieties, but if we keep Krsna in the center, then there will be agreement in varieties. This is called unity in diversity. I am therefore suggesting that all our men meet in Mayapur every year during the birth anniversary of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. With all GBC and senior men present we should discuss how to make unity in diversity. But, if we fight on account of diversity, then it is simply the material platform. Please try to maintain the philosophy of unity in diversity. That will make our movement successful. One section of men have already gone out, therefore we must be very careful to maintain unity in diversity, and remember the story in Aesop’s Fables of the father of many children with the bundle of sticks. When the father asked his children to break the bundle of sticks wrapped in a bag, none of them could do it. But, when they removed the sticks from the bag, and tried one by one, the sticks were easily broken. So this is the strength in unity. If we are bunched up, we can never be broken, but when divided, then we can become broken very easily. (Letter to Kirtanananda, 18 Oct 1973, Bombay)

Many of the conditions that are present before us in ISKCON resemble conditions seen in the Shree Vaishnava Sampradaya, before they had their own major schism 350 years ago. In this regard, I recommend this article titled Schism in the Śrī Vaiṣṇava Sampradāya by my friend and colleague Sridhar Srinivas Prabhu: https://iisb.co.in/2022/01/18/schism-in-the-sri-vaisnava-sampradaya/

Some of the salient features of their schism:

There were eighteen differences on the topic of moksha-dharma that centered on questions such as whether the jiva had to make some effort on his own to achieve mukti (the Vaishnava kind) or whether the jiva was fully dependent on the Lord’s mercy. Does Lord Narayana alone award mukti, or can Lakshmi Ji, who is at the head of their Parampara, also award mukti.
Differences in scripture, the two groups tended to rely on different scriptures, the Sanskrit Vedas and the Dravida Veda, otherwise known as the Divya Prabandhams, or devotional utterances and songs by the Alvars.
The acharyas of the different lineages cleaving to one side or another also instituted different customs, so as to keep their own people with each other and away from the rest. It is something like the “mataji versus prabhu” that we have in ISKCON today.
Naive attempts by Kings to settle the differences by administrative fiat. That was the spark that triggered the historic, hard schism in the group.

So, we have similar kinds of differences. One group considers only Prabhupada’s books as allowable authority whereas another considers the entire gamut of scriptures mentioned by Prabhupada and other acharyas as allowable. That is not a small difference.

Differences in culture, such as Mataji versus Prabhu. It’s not non-trivial. There is a GBC resolution in years past that directed that this should be investigated. Another difference. ISKCON India has no women’s ashramas. And ISKCON India only has male temple presidents, trustees, zonal supervisors, etc. That’s how it was in Prabhupada’s time, and we are fine with that. But outside of India, devotees seem to feel differently.

These are just some of the differences. There are others, too. However, I believe that due to these differences, and the lack of interest in or ability to resolve them at a fundamental philosophical level has brought ISKCON to the point of schism.

If you really want to avoid a schism, I think we should be talking about how we got here. But I don’t see any interest in that. It is that lack of interest in the why of it that makes me think that a discussion on unity in diversity is off the table. And if unity in diversity is off the table, then some splintering of ISKCON if not a major schism is gathering force.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:26

The regional proposition reconciles unity in diversity. The calls to separate are disunity in diversity. Let the various regions apply their understanding, as per the latest resolution.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:39

You believe it does, but that’s just wishful thinking. Rupa Goswami says bona fide guru can make disciples all over the world. Your regional application goes against it.

Moreover, what you propose is something not unlike how gay marriage was legalized in America. Some gay couple married in a state that allowed it. Then they moved to a state that disallowed it and then sued for withheld benefits. There were a plethora of such lawsuits, until there was a substantial measure of popular support for them (not just gays) and just the case went to the supreme court and won.

A similar thing would be done with FDG on a regional basis. Gurus would come from their country to India, and then both show themselves as gurus and try to force a problem in our own region. Disciples of such gurus would come to India for service, especially Deity worship. I think this is the political calculus behind the move. Nothing about philosophy. Just hard-knuckle social engineering and politics. This is exactly what Prabhupada didn’t want. He wanted matters to be settled via discussion on unity in diversity.

And you think you can pull it off without the need for any philosophical compliance, which explains why you think an administrative decision should be taken despite the fact that there are deep philosophical differences.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:41

How many more years of philosophical arguing will it take? Both sides have their scholars and their conviction that they are philosophically compliant.

Madan Gopal Das · 23:41

Both sides feel that their paradigm of philosophical approach is superior and more loyal to sastra.

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:49

Your question is rhetorical. You have already intimated your lack of interest in the philosophical matter and are more interested to solve the matter through administrative fiat. Probably most of you are here for the vote, not really to discuss beyond creating solidarity within your group. Prabhupada called this “party spirit”.

Also, this is just a reminder, that demographically, ISKCON in India is still most of ISKCON. Some of you may want to rethink your determination to skip the unity-in-diversity philosophical discussions and get on with politics. Philosophical agreement is still the better way, and the one Prabhupada recommended above all.

Thursday, 6 August 2026

Madan Gopal Das · 01:25

Prabhu, I think you have misunderstood my question. It was not an expression of disinterest in philosophy, nor was it a call for administrative fiat. I have invested considerable time in studying and discussing the philosophical evidence, and I continue to take it seriously.

My question is whether, after more than twenty years of learned devotees examining substantially the same pramāṇas and still reaching opposite conclusions, we are willing to acknowledge that complete philosophical unanimity may not be attainable.

A governing body cannot postpone governance indefinitely until every scholar is persuaded. A decision reached after decades of study, SAC papers, presentations, debate, consultation, and regional input is not “administrative fiat” merely because one side remains unconvinced. Philosophy must inform policy, but responsible leadership must eventually determine how devotees holding sincere and internally coherent interpretations can coexist within one society.

Madan Gopal Das · 01:26

I would also prefer that we not speculate about motives by suggesting that most of us are present only for a vote or to create group solidarity. That itself risks the very “party spirit” you are cautioning against.

India’s size, importance, cultural circumstances, and concerns deserve the greatest respect and should be carefully protected in implementation. But demographic strength cannot by itself determine siddhānta, nor should any one region possess a permanent veto over how every other region applies a matter on which qualified devotees remain genuinely divided.

Unity in diversity may therefore mean a common institutional framework with regional latitude in implementation. That is not abandoning philosophy for politics. It is recognizing the difference between philosophical eligibility and culturally sensitive implementation.

So my question remains entirely genuine: if philosophical agreement is still the proposed solution, what new hermeneutical method, agreed rules of evidence, or process do you propose that has a realistic chance of producing agreement where twenty years of debate have not? And within what reasonable framework would we know whether that effort has succeeded?

Moving from prolonged philosophical discussion to responsible governance is not “skipping philosophy.” It is what leadership must eventually do after philosophy has been thoroughly heard.

Madan Gopal Das · 20:32

@Basu Ghosh Das Prabhu, you kindly brought up the importance of common sense which inspired me to summarize my thoughts on the thread topic here.

Common Sense: The Key Ingredient in the VDG Debate

In many discussions on guru, sādhu and śāstra, we unintentionally create false dilemmas by isolating one quotation from another. This essay argues that the key to harmonizing Śrīla Prabhupāda’s teachings is neither speculation nor selective quotation, but common sense.

Prabhupāda never acted irrationally. He repeatedly demonstrated how general principles must be applied to specific circumstances. He gave Gāyatrī mantra and brahminical status to hundreds of women while deliberately not giving them the sacred thread. He appointed qualified women to important leadership roles despite also making general cautionary statements about women and positions of authority. He repeatedly emphasized that his women disciples were not ordinary women, and therefore many general scriptural statements about materially conditioned women could not simply be applied to spiritually advanced Vaiṣṇavīs.

The essay explores these and many other examples, showing how symbols must never eclipse substance, how specific applications qualify general statements, and how Prabhupāda himself consistently reconciled apparent tensions through practical intelligence rather than rigid literalism.

Ultimately, the essay argues that common sense is not a fourth authority competing with guru, sādhu and śāstra. It is the faculty by which we faithfully understand and harmonize them. Without it, we risk making Śrīla Prabhupāda appear to contradict himself. With it, his teachings reveal a coherent, consistent and deeply practical philosophy.

Read the full essay here:
(https://docs.google.com/document/d/18whPsPUkKozs8UNNWzVyCkQLI_c5uRCZMVV2o0ougVg/edit?usp=sharing&utm_source=chatgpt.com)

Krishna Kirti Das · 23:07

A Unified Hierarchy of Pramāṇas: A Traditional Hermeneutic for ISKCON

Madan Gopal Prabhu wrote: “So my question remains entirely genuine: if philosophical agreement is still the proposed solution, what new hermeneutical method, agreed rules of evidence, or process do you propose that has a realistic chance of producing agreement where twenty years of debate have not?”

The method proposed here is not new, though it may be unfamiliar to some. It is a unified hierarchy of pramāṇas in which śāstra—śruti, smṛti, purāṇas, pañcarātras, etc., including Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books as Vaiṣṇava smṛti—stands at the apex. This is followed by Prabhupāda’s authority in his other utterances (lectures, correspondence, conversations, etc.) and his own personal preferences, all of which are legitimate sources of knowledge of dharma. The decisive difference from other approaches current in ISKCON is that this is an explicit, unified hierarchy in which the relative authority of śāstra, the ācāryas, Prabhupāda, the GBC body, subordinate bodies, ISKCON gurus, sannyāsīs, temple presidents, etc., is identifiable and well understood in relation to the others. Although śāstra is the topmost authority as a source of knowledge of dharma, the other sources remain legitimate.

This differs from two hermeneutical methods that have held considerable sway in ISKCON.

One is the system developed by the Śāstric Advisory Council (SAC) and officially adopted by the GBC. Its overarching principle is stated as follows:

“Understanding tradition through Śrīla Prabhupāda, accepting Śrīla Prabhupāda as the representative and conveyer of the essence of the tradition and paramparā, in the most appropriate way for our understanding and application.”

In practice this places Prabhupāda above śāstra as the decisive hermeneutical lens. To substantiate this, the same materials list seventeen pramāṇas, among them:

ācāryavān puruṣo veda (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.14.2)
yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau / tasyaite kathitā hy arthāḥ prakāśante mahātmanaḥ (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.23)

and various statements of Prabhupāda himself on approaching the ācārya and following predecessors. These texts legitimately establish the necessity of a bona-fide guru; they do not, however, single out one particular ācārya as the overarching principle in a way that overrides śāstra as the topmost pramāṇa. Every other Vedāntic śākhā begins from śāstra-yonitvāt (Brahma-sūtra 1.1.3), not from the ācārya. Moreover, the cited pramāṇas apply equally to any bona-fide guru, not uniquely to Prabhupāda. No historical precedent from other sampradāyas or organisations is offered for making a modern founder-ācārya the topmost hermeneutical principle. In other places, the SAC Supplementary Materials Manual further subordinates both tradition and Prabhupāda’s example to pragmatic institutional needs (“time, place and circumstance”), effectively elevating the requirements of the governing body above both.

The second approach is advocated by Hṛdayānanda Dāsa Goswāmī in his paper “Understanding Prabhupāda” (2020). The paper cites Drutakarma Prabhu, stating:

“Śrīla Prabhupāda’s followers accept his translations of śāstra and direct quoting of shastra as śāstra. But in purports, letters, lectures and conversations, Prabhupāda made other statements…on worldly topics with no reference to śāstra. If Prabhupāda’s followers find direct sastric support for these words, Prabhupāda’s words are taken as authoritative.”

And then Hṛdayānanda Mahārāja spends much of the rest of the paper trying to substantiate this claim. In Mahārāja’s system, Prabhupāda is subordinate to śāstra, and any statement of his not directly backed by śāstra is treated as non-infallible—even in Prabhupāda’s purports.

Though not accepted by the GBC, Mahārāja’s system has inspired many.

One difficulty with the SAC system is that when Prabhupāda is treated as the topmost pramāṇa to which all others are subordinate, a quotation or action of his can be found to justify almost any idea. The ṛtvik system is a clear illustration: it is unlikely that it would ever have arisen under a śāstra-centred hermeneutic, yet it did arise under a Prabhupāda-centred one. As the late Dr. Thomas J. Hopkins noted in his 2007 essay “ISKCON’s Search for Self-Identity,” the volume of Prabhupāda’s recorded statements is so great that a careful search can usually turn up something to support almost any position. The official GBC-SAC framework retains this vulnerability.

A further difficulty is that the elevation of the ācārya above śāstra is not traditional. All major branches, Vaiṣṇava and non-Vaiṣṇava, make śāstra their central pramāṇa; the teachings of their respective ācāryas are definitive for their own sampradāyas, yet they still regard śāstra, not the ācāryas themselves, as topmost. Hṛdayānanda Mahārāja, in his paper “Understanding Prabhupāda,” illustrates a related problem with any hermeneutic that effectively makes one ācārya the sole or overarching lens: if the same principle is applied by an impersonalist to his own guru, it leads to absurd conclusions. A genuine principle of spiritual science must be universally applicable; one that works only inside ISKCON and collapses outside it cannot serve as a reliable overarching rule.

One difficulty with Hṛdayānanda Mahārāja’s system is that an apparent absence of śāstric support for a statement of Prabhupāda may simply reflect the reader’s incomplete knowledge. Prabhupāda himself occasionally complained of disciples who, after acquiring some advanced knowledge of śāstras, challenged him. In his 2005 paper “Vaiṣṇava Moral Theology and Homosexuality,” in which he introduces and applies the same principles also discussed in his more recent paper “Understanding Prabhupada,” Mahārāja argued that because neither the Bhagavad-gītā nor the Bhāgavatam contains an explicit, unambiguous reference to mutually consensual homosexuality, ISKCON is free to apply consequentialist reasoning and should offer formal recognition of “gay monogamy.” In this regard, he quotes only part of the purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 3.20.26. The full sentence reads:

“It appears here that the homosexual appetite of males for each other is created in this episode of the creation of the demons by Brahmā. In other words, the homosexual appetite of a man for another man is demoniac and is not for any sane male in the ordinary course of life.”

Vallabhācārya’s commentary on the same episode supplies supporting traditional language:

rajasā sṛṣṭim āha deva iti | pūrvaṃ tat-tad-bhāvāpannaḥ tat-tat-sṛṣṭiṃ karoti, daitya-sṛṣṭiṃ tu deva-bhāvāpannaḥ karotīty āha – deva iti | bha-devān deva-pratipakṣān | jaghanata iti guhya-sthānāt kaṭi-sthānād vā; kaṭim ārabhya jānu-paryantād vā; yatraiva kāma-sambandhaḥ | bha-atilolupān iti utkaṭa-kāmān | kāmas tu strī-sambhogātmako mukhyaḥ | maithunaṃ puruṣe ’pi bhavatīti asurāḥ, enaṃ prajāpatim, maithunārtham abhipedire | yathā mātuḥ saṅgo niṣiddhaḥ, tathā pitṛ-saṅgo ’pi tathāpi lolupatayā tathā kṛtavantaḥ | kāmenā ’sthiratvaṃ lolupatā, kāmo vivekādīnāṃ nāśakaḥ || 23 ||

In essence: the Asuras, born from the seat of passion, were excessively lustful; the primary form of lust is union with women, yet lust also occurs toward males; just as union with the mother is forbidden, so is union with the father, yet out of greed they attempted it; lust destroys discrimination. Prabhupāda’s purport is thus continuous with at least one major traditional commentary. More fundamentally, once an ācārya’s own commentary on śāstra is treated as mere opinion, even if in part, the authority of the entire commentary is placed in doubt. That is an unacceptable result.

The hierarchy proposed here retains śāstra as the topmost pramāṇa while recognising that Prabhupāda’s books, lectures, letters, conversations and personal preferences are also pramāṇa, with his books as the topmost pramāṇa among all his other statements. Āpastamba-dharma-sūtra 1.1.2–3 states dharmajña-samayaḥ pramāṇaṃ vedaś ca—“the consensus of those who know dharma, as well as the Veda, is pramāṇa.” Bhagavad-gītā 3.21 declares:

_yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhas tat tad evetaro janaḥ
sa yat pramāṇaṃ kurute lokas tad anuvartate_

“Whatever a great man does, common men follow; whatever standard he sets by his example, the world pursues.” Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.11.7 and its purport, quoting Yājñavalkya-smṛti, list śruti, smṛti, sadācāra, ātmanaḥ priyam (the preferences of a cultured brāhmaṇa) and saṅkalpa as bona-fide sources. These sources are ranked in decreasing strength of authority, yet all of them are considered to be ultimately grounded in the Vedas. When apparent conflict arises, the weaker source is interpreted in the light of the stronger, not the other way around. The principles for determining relative strength and for reconciling statements are set out by Jīva Gosvāmī in the Sarva-saṁvādinī commentary on Tattva-sandarbha (anuccheda 11): śruti-smṛti-virodhe tu śrutir eva balīyasī, and analogous rules for other pairs and for competing interpretations.

Institutional bodies such as the GBC function as dharma-pariṣads. The different kinds of dharma-pariṣads and their authority relative to one another is discussed throughout the dharma-śāstras. In practice, adjudication of the hierarchy belongs to qualified persons—śiṣṭa-brāhmaṇas (cultured brāhmaṇas) as described in Manu-smṛti 12.108–113. In terms of qualification, the śiṣṭa-brāhmaṇa corresponds closely to the uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava, who is śāstra-yukti-sunipuṇa and of firm faith (see Nectar of Devotion, chapter 3, and Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya-līlā 22.65, etc). Where the present leadership remains largely at levels below uttama, the long-term remedy is the deliberate cultivation of such qualified Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇas. That is a generations-long development effort, which, if taken up should temper expectations along the way to its fulfilment. Should that development lag, tradition itself supplies a fallback: Yājñavalkya (Vyavahāra-kāṇḍa) directs that the ruler examines matters together with learned brāhmaṇas, free from anger and greed, in accordance with dharma-śāstra–in our case, also pañcarātra- and bhakti-śāstras. In that case the GBC would function more as an administrative oligarchy while final spiritual-legal authority rests with qualified brāhmaṇa councils—an outcome already visible in the emergence of parallel scholarly communities.

This hierarchy combines the strengths of the two current approaches: it treats Prabhupāda’s words as genuine pramāṇa, not mere opinion when not quoting śāstra, while keeping śāstra central. It is the system accepted across traditional Vaiṣṇava and non-Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas. Consequently it can address both internal ISKCON controversies and external ones (for example, the long-running dispute with the Śrī Jagannātha Temple Administration over Ratha-yātrā dates) with the same hermeneutic principles. Consistency across contexts is a mark of a bona-fide system. ISKCON is itself a Vedāntic śākhā; authenticity—freedom from the four defects of conditioned life in our reasoning—is a precondition of effective preaching, not an optional extra. Without the constraint of śāstra as centre, the institution risks becoming simply another religious body operating under the modes of nature.

The detailed rules are extensive; only an outline has been given. Nevertheless, the system rests on śāstra and on the great ācāryas of our own paramparā. Productive discussion of issues such as female dīkṣā-gurus—discussion in which all sides can accept the result even when it contradicts personal preference—requires prior agreement on the hermeneutic itself. We should adopt a śāstra-centred hermeneutic in which Prabhupāda remains a Vedic authority in proper relation to śāstra and the previous ācāryas.

Bhavatāṁ dāsaḥ,

Kṛṣṇa-kīrti dāsaḥ
Convenor, IISB
https://iisb.co.in/fdg

Friday, 7 August 2026

Madan Gopal Das · 20:17

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura:

“Devotees of the Supreme Lord are not controlled by scriptures, because their activities are harmonious with divine wisdom. Therefore when realized devotees ordain any new arrangement, it should be accepted as a religious code even if not found in the scriptural directions of previous sages. ”

Madan Gopal Das · 20:17

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati: “An ācārya is not under śāstra. He can make śāstra. ”

Baladeva das · 21:09

A famous verse supporting that:

tarko ‘pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā
nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ
mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ

Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person . Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate.’

Prabhupada is our mahajan..

Bir Krishna Goswami · 23:06

Some interesting evidence which shows that allowing Vaisnavi’s to initiate will enhance our outreach in India as well as in the west:

Last Sunday I let a large session with approximately 80 persons, of which 93 percent were Indians. Half were men and have were ladies. I posed a question to the men and women the room. I asked the men to try and see things from the ladies perspective.

The question was: What is your response to being told that even if you were qualified you could not be a guru in ISKCON but had to take a more “traditional role.” Only men could be gurus and have leadership positions.

Some responded with: I would not want to be in ISKCON. Others responded in a fighting spirit, saying that they would rebel, and others said that they would be extremely discouraged and not feel like participating.

Not a single person told me that it would be proper to limit the types of services a Vaisnavi could do.

Remember these were 93 percent Indian bodied persons.

The opposition to Vaisnavi diksa gurus does not come from the Indian people in general, nor the political leaders in India, but rather from a small group of conservative followers of Ramanujacarya, and other acaryas.

Having Vaisnavi gurus in fact would be important strategic step for us to take in India.

Saturday, 8 August 2026

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:25

So what Prabhupāda wrote is his purport to CC Madhya 20.352, that “shastra is the center for all” is wrong?
Why do you proponents of this concocted ideology that women can be diksha gurus take such pleasure in contradicting what Prabhupāda taught?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:26

Whose reading of sastra should we trust? Prabhupada or others?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:27

If I went around saying that my understanding of sastra is better than Prabhupada’s application of it, how does that look?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:28

Do we now need to rescue Prabhupada from his own words because we now know some sanskrit?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:29

“That is the system. You cannot overrule ācārya. Ācārya… Ācāryopāsanam. Ācārya should be always worshiped. Even if you, by ABCD, you have become more learned than the ācārya… That is not possible, but if you foolishly think like that, still, you should not exhibit your foolishness, that you know more than the ācārya. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s… By His life example, He has taught us that the more we remain ignorant, foolish before the ācārya, or before the guru, that is more we advance. Real success is how one is faithful to his guru. That is real success. Yasya deve parā bhaktir yathā deve tathā gurau. It is not by education or grammatical knowledge you can learn anything. No. It is by the grace of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. And that grace comes down through the grace of guru. That grace also does not come directly. We should not be neglecting this point.” Srila Prabhupada’s Lecture Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.44 — Vrndavana, October 4, 1976

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:30

So now we decide our siddhanta based on vox populi and not on Prabhupada’s and shastras teachings? Wow! We don’t need shastras anymore so we can get rid of guru and sadhu as well! Whatever a room full of Indian bodied humans decide is the new standard for proper understanding?! I see….

Madan Gopal Das · 08:31

The point Maharaj was making was not that we use vox populi to determine the siddhanta. He was dispelling the notion that most Indians will naturally oppose VDG, which is really not true at all.

Krishna Kirti Das · 08:32

You are asuming your own, or your own clique’s, reading of Prabhupada is without error. How do you know that your readiing of Prabhupada is the right one? Our answer is shastra. The understanding of SP that is in line with shastra is correct, whereas the others are iincorrect.

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:32

Yes. Prabhupāda, not you!

The spiritual master is also called ācārya, or a transcendental professor of spiritual science. The Manu-saṁhitā (2.140) explains the duties of an ācārya, describing that a bona fide spiritual master accepts charge of disciples, teaches them the Vedic knowledge with all its intricacies, and gives them their second birth. The ceremony performed to initiate a disciple into the study of spiritual science is called upanīti, or the function that brings one nearer to the spiritual master. One who cannot be brought nearer to a spiritual master cannot have a sacred thread, and thus he is indicated to be a śūdra. The sacred thread on the body of a brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya is a symbol of initiation by the spiritual master; it is worth nothing if worn merely to boast of high parentage. The duty of the spiritual master is to initiate a disciple with the sacred thread ceremony, and after this saṁskāra, or purificatory process, the spiritual master actually begins to teach the disciple about the Vedas. A person born a śūdra is not barred from such spiritual initiation, provided he is approved by the spiritual master, who is duly authorized to award a disciple the right to be a brāhmaṇa if he finds him perfectly qualified. In the Vāyu Purāṇa an ācārya is defined as one who knows the import of all the Vedic literatures, abides by their rules and regulations, and teaches his disciples to act in the same way.
From Prabhupada’s purport to CC Adi 1.46

Madan Gopal Das · 08:33

And yet some say “the highest authority for ISKCON devotees is Vedic literature, NOT Prabhupada.”

Madan Gopal Das · 08:34

Prabhupada’s direct message does not require any interpretation. Where is the ambiguity in his statement that women can be guru? None. We only need interpretation if there is ambiguity or lack of clarity.
What is happening here is that of I am unable to swallow what he said directly I feel the need to hunt for sastric quotes to negate his order. And then cloud the discussion by bringing in ritviks… who use a letter that is full of ambiguity, by the way.

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:35

Our “comrades” here are “hell bent” on contradicting Prabhupāda to establish a “gender equality” ISKCON.
A concept rubbished by Prabhupāda!

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:36

Why is this being ignored by the pro-FDG faction?

Srila Prabhupada’s Morning Walk @ Rome, Italy, on May 27, 1974

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:38

Gender equality is nonsense. Why? Prabhupāda said “it is due to Krishna Consciousness“!

Madan Gopal Das · 08:38

Once again, we are not at all pushing for western feminism or bodily equality. Not sure why you keep bring that up. Some have accused the anti-VDG camp or being misogynistic bigots, but we don’t go that route.

Madan Gopal Das · 08:39

Better to debate on the essence of the matter rather than clouding the conversation with second-guessing of intentions or ill motivations.

Krishna Kirti Das · 08:39

And yet you interpret his statements, like you do with SP’s statement about Suniti’s ineligibility. You even apply terminilogy that Prabhupada never once used–prescriprive and descriptive–to intterpret it. You do not take the direct meaning of his statement in that instance.

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:40

I keep bringing up the fact that Prabhupada taught that the sacred thread ceremony is diksha, and women can’t have it! You won’t admit the truth and that is dishonesty!

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:41

If a woman can’t have the sacred thread she can’t give it: simple!

Madan Gopal Das · 08:42

But you never answered the question on whether this negates the brahmana initiation of women that Prabhupada gave. Does the thread requirement nullify those initiations? If no, then you have proven that the thread, for practical purposes is not necessary – it is just a symbol. IF yes, then you’re saying that all those gayatris that the women chant are not really actually valid. So which is it?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:43

Even if it was an emergency case (which he never said it was, by the way, that is just your conjecture) does it still negate the validity for those women?

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:44

If the purport to SB 4.12.32 is “descriptive”, why dii in d Prabhupāda write “according to shastric injunctions”? Writing that is an obvious prescription!

Madan Gopal Das · 08:44

Should we now have a policy in ISKCON to no longer give brahmana initiation to women going forward?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:44

There are many sastric injunctions that vary with time. At that time that was the injunction. Certainly some injunctions were meant to be disregarded. For example the injunction that sannyasis can never cross the ocean.

Madan Gopal Das · 08:45

But your insistence on the thread leaves more questions than answers as to why Prabhupada gave gayatri to so many women and whether that is a valid initiation.

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:45

Has anyone said/written as such, oh time and again employer of red herring argumentation?!

Madan Gopal Das · 08:46

I’m asking for a yes/no response. You are still avoiding the question.

Madan Gopal Das · 08:47

I’m trying to understand your “thread is super-important” argument.

Madan Gopal Das · 08:47

What is the practical implementation of that understanding?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:48

I’m not making a statement. I’m asking for clarification of your position. How is that a red herring?

Krishna Kirti Das · 08:48

I don’t think the GBC is in principle against discontinuing things Prabhupada established, like the Temple Presidents’ meeting. That’s a big change. TPs no longer act in an advisory capacity to the GBC.

Basu Ghosh Das · 08:48

Why did Prabhupada mention sacred thread 538 times?
Why do you cast doubt on his clear instructions in CC Adi 1.46 and CC Madhya 15.108 that the sacred thread is initiation?

Madan Gopal Das · 08:48

That’s not the answer to my question, that you keep avoiding. Are those initiations of those women valid? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Krishna Kirti Das · 09:00

Prabhupada doesn’t say that it was at that time that was the injunction. That is your inference, without evidence, I might add.

Madan Gopal Das · 09:09

Was the Suniti episode in Kali Yuga?

Madan Gopal Das · 09:10

It was in Satya Yuga. That is a stated contextual fact. Not an inference.

Krishna Kirti Das · 11:41

It’s a pratyaksha from which you make an anuman. It’s not evidence. In fact, Prabhupada and the acharyas say otherwise. In SB 4.8.22, Prabhupada says,

“Queen Sunīti also indicated by her instruction that Dhruva Mahārāja was only a small child, five years old, and it was not possible for him to purify himself by the way of karma-kāṇḍa. But by the process of bhakti-yoga, even a child less than five years old, or anyone of any age, can be purified.”

Śrīvaṁśīdhara in his Bhāvārthadīpikā Prakāśa commentary also says similarly, that because Dhruva was five years old, he could not take up the karma marg.

pañca‑vāriṣikasya te karmāntarānadhikārād bhaktir eva kāryety āha

“Because you are only five years old, you have no qualification for other ritualistic duties (karma); therefore, it is stated that devotional service (bhakti) alone ought to be performed.”

As a point of information, the minimum age a brahmana can be initiated in the karma marga is 8 years old. For a Kshatriya it is 11. Hence, there was no question of getting initiation in the karma marga. It was the pancharatrika marga through which Dhruva got initiation.

Hence, the argument that Dhruva was initiated under another system valid in that time but not today is incorrect.

Krishna Kirti Das · 11:55

What is shown here is that by Prabhupada’s words alone, you can go off the rails. You can misunderstand him. Hence, acharyas commentaries and shastra are also there to guide us. That is why we object to the terms of reference to this endeavor.

Krishna Kirti Das · 11:57

And that is why we think that much of the disagreement that we have seen in ISKCON over the decades is due to a wrong conception of hermeneutics practiced by the status quo in in ISKCON.

Basu Ghosh Das · 14:26

Shastras are of central importance. Who says? Oh yeah, Lord Krishna says, that’s who!

Bhagavad-gita 16.23

य: शास्त्रविधिमुत्सृज्य वर्तते कामकारत: ।
न स सिद्धिमवाप्‍नोति न सुखं न परां गतिम् ॥ २३ ॥

yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya
vartate kāma-kārataḥ
na sa siddhim avāpnoti
na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatim

Synonyms
yaḥ — anyone who; śāstra-vidhim — the regulations of the scriptures; utsṛjya — giving up; vartate — remains; kāma-kārataḥ — acting whimsically in lust; na — never; saḥ — he; siddhim — perfection; avāpnoti — achieves; na — never; sukham — happiness; na — never; parām — the supreme; gatim — perfectional stage.

Translation
He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.

—————————

Bhagavad-gita 16.24

तस्माच्छास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते कार्याकार्यव्यवस्थितौ ।
ज्ञात्वा शास्त्रविधानोक्तं कर्म कर्तुमिहार्हसि ॥ २४ ॥

tasmāc chāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te
kāryākārya-vyavasthitau
jñātvā śāstra-vidhānoktaṁ
karma kartum ihārhasi

Synonyms
tasmāt — therefore; śāstram — the scriptures; pramāṇam — evidence; te — your; kārya — duty; akārya — and forbidden activities; vyavasthitau — in determining; jñātvā — knowing; śāstra — of scripture; vidhāna — the regulations; uktam — as declared; karma — work; kartum — do; iha — in this world; arhasi — you should.

Translation
One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated.

Basu Ghosh Das · 14:29

Sad that several of our compatriots here feel that their views are somehow more important than the clear teachings of Bhagavad-gita!
If we accept the principles stated in these verses the confusion on the issue in front of us, would be settled in a moment!

Madan Gopal Das · 15:25

How would you explain this much quoted verse spoken by Mahaprabhu Himself?

tarko ’pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā
nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ
mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued, “ ‘Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate.’ ”

Madan Gopal Das · 15:42

The question about the sacred thread still needs a direct answer, because it goes to the heart of our disagreement.

Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly spoke about the importance of the sacred thread. I accept those statements. The question is not whether he said them. The question is how Śrīla Prabhupāda himself understood and applied them.

So I would again ask a very simple question:

Were the hundreds of second initiations Śrīla Prabhupāda gave to his female disciples valid brāhmaṇa initiations or not?

Baladeva Prabhu asked essentially the same question earlier, but I have still not seen a clear answer.

This is not a peripheral question. It exposes the central hermeneutical issue before us.

If the answer is yes, those initiations were valid, then we have already established something extremely important: Śrīla Prabhupāda did not understand the traditional restrictions concerning women, upanayana, and the physical sacred thread in such a way that they prevented women from actually receiving brāhmaṇa initiation.

And this was not merely theoretical.

He actually initiated women as brāhmaṇas.

He actually gave them Gāyatrī mantra.

He actually expected them to perform duties requiring that qualification.

And he did this whether they were married or unmarried.

Therefore, simply producing additional quotations about the importance of the physical thread does not resolve the question. Those quotations must themselves be harmonized with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own repeated institutional practice.

Otherwise we arrive at the extraordinary position that Śrīla Prabhupāda taught one thing but systematically violated it himself.

Surely none of us wants to argue that.

So the real question becomes:

What did the sacred thread signify for Śrīla Prabhupāda, and which aspects of the traditional upanayana system did he regard as essential versus circumstantial in his application of Kṛṣṇa consciousness?

That distinction matters enormously.

If someone argues that the physical thread itself is indispensable to genuine brāhmaṇa status, while simultaneously maintaining that women cannot wear that thread, then he must explain how Śrīla Prabhupāda’s female disciples became genuine brāhmaṇas.

There are really only two possibilities:

1. Their brāhmaṇa initiations were somehow deficient or invalid because they did not receive the physical thread.

2. Śrīla Prabhupāda understood that the spiritual substance of brāhmaṇa initiation is not dependent upon the female initiate wearing the physical thread.

I believe the second conclusion is unavoidable if we accept Śrīla Prabhupāda’s actions as authoritative.

And this illustrates the larger principle relevant to the VDG discussion.

Śrīla Prabhupāda inherited a śāstric and social tradition containing many restrictive statements regarding women, varṇa, upanayana, and social eligibility. Yet, like Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu empowering Śrīla Haridāsa Ṭhākura despite conventional social restrictions, Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly demonstrated that spiritual qualification created through bhakti can transcend conventional social disqualification.

That does not mean he rejected śāstra.

It means he showed us how śāstra is to be applied.

And that is precisely where I think our two approaches diverge.

You appear to begin with restrictive statements and then ask how far Śrīla Prabhupāda’s actions can be accommodated within them.

I begin with both: Śrīla Prabhupāda’s statements and Śrīla Prabhupāda’s actual application of those statements. When an apparent tension exists, I believe his own application is indispensable evidence for understanding what he meant.

That is why this question cannot simply be bypassed:

Were Śrīla Prabhupāda’s female brāhmaṇa initiations fully valid?

If yes, then please explain how they were valid despite the very śāstric restrictions concerning women and sacred thread that you are now invoking.

Once we understand the principle by which Śrīla Prabhupāda reconciled those two realities, we will have discovered something extremely important about how he expected us to understand qualification, gender, tradition, and spiritual empowerment in ISKCON.

That is precisely why the question matters so much.

Krishna Kirti Das · 15:44

Is this in response to something I have written?

Krishna Kirti Das · 15:51

@[unidentified participant] Do you find this reasonable?

Madan Gopal Das · 15:55

This was in response to Basu Ghosh Prabhus most recent messages.

Madan Gopal Das · 15:56

Also please feel free to respond to the sacred thread question I just posed. Although that is a question for Basu Ghosh Prabhu’s many thread quotes.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 17:02

Looks Saksi were you calling the conference

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 17:03

Sorry it was by mistake

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 17:03

🙏Hare Kṛṣṇa

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 17:18

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

This is the point I mentioned earlier when citing the svapaca reference. In any case, my point was about common sense—using our intelligence, as Srila Prabhupada desired. He asked us to surrender through our intelligence, not to surrender our intelligence.
Following this line of reasoning, the true and relevant meaning of the shastras—in their multiplicity of meanings—must be obtained from the mahajanas, as is the case with Srila Prabhupada.

vedesu durlabham adurlabham atma-bhaktau

That would be the difference between jnana and *vijnana

Bir Krishna Goswami · 17:40

The sacred thread is a “symbol” that one has accepted the spiritual master. It is a symbol and is spiritual, like a danda is spiritual and is also a symbol of a sannyasi. Many Acaryas in the past who were not born in Brahmin families did not have a thread. In the past Vaisvavas who took sannyasa oftentimes got rid of their thread as the sannyasa order means to reject ordinary society>

if we think the thread is the initiation, what would happen if I ran up to Basu Ghosa Prabhu and cut off his thread and burnt it? Would that mean he is no longer a brahmin?

What about Hrdayananda Maharaj who is not using a thread due to some physical issues. Has he relinquished his status?

What if I go swimming and lose my thread. Do I have to seek out another guru to take initiation from so I can get a thread

This reminds me of the yogi that Bhaktivinode Thakur brought to justice. When this yogi was being incarcerated his hair was cut and he lost all of his power. Is the thread like the hair on head of a mystic yogi? The brahmin draws his power from the thread?

The empowerment is in the mantra and the quality which we chant the mantra

Madan Gopal Das · 17:59

Was Śrīla Prabhupāda giving Gāyatrī to women merely as a temporary emergency measure?

Basu Ghosh Prabhu stated above

” As long as there is a paucity of brahmanas, to worship Deities and cook for the Deities, yes, this was Prabhupada’s adjustment. “
Quoted from Basu Ghosh Das’s message of 5 August, 17:59

This claim is often repeated, but where is the evidence?
Not only is there no evidence for it, there is no logical basis for it in light of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own words and consistent practice.

If Prabhupāda intended female Gāyatrī initiation to be only a temporary concession until “things settled down,” we would reasonably expect him to have said something like:

“This is only for now.”
“When varṇāśrama is established, discontinue this nonsense of giving Gayatri to women.”
“Future ācāryas should not continue this practice.”

He never said anything of the sort.

Instead, we find nearly nine years of uninterrupted evidence supporting exactly the opposite.

In 1968, Prabhupāda consciously decided to begin giving Brahma-Gāyatrī to women, personally initiating Govinda dāsī and Jadurāṇī after concluding there was no objection to doing so.

In 1971, when giving second initiation to a husband and wife, he enclosed two copies of the Gāyatrī mantra but only ONE sacred thread.

That single letter demolishes the argument that receiving the sacred thread is identical with receiving second initiation.

The message was unmistakable:

Two second initiates.
Two recipients of Gāyatrī.
One sacred thread.

The distinction was deliberate.

In another 1971 letter, Prabhupāda instructed that Śāradīyā, a twice-initiated woman, could conduct the Gāyatrī initiation ceremony on his behalf.

In Nairobi (1975), Brahmānanda directly challenged him:
“But you give brahminical initiation to unmarried women.”

Prabhupāda simply replied:

“Yes.”

He then explained:
“On the spiritual platform there is no such distinction.”

No embarrassment.
No apology.
No hint that it was temporary.

In Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya 24.331, Prabhupāda explains that although women are not eligible for Vedic upanayana, they are qualified for Pāñcarātrika initiation, and concludes:

“In any case, the result is the same.”

This is the theological foundation of his practice.

Even in April 1977, only months before his disappearance, Prabhupāda was still accepting women for second initiation, sending Gāyatrī to them while sending the sacred thread only to the male candidate, exactly as he had done for years.

This was not an early experiment that quietly disappeared.

It remained his established system until the very end.

Even more telling, published initiation records document at least 213 women receiving second initiation from Śrīla Prabhupāda, and the actual number was almost certainly several hundred more.

So the burden of proof is not on those who accept what Prabhupāda consistently practiced.

The burden is on those who claim that he secretly intended all of this to be discontinued.

Where did Śrīla Prabhupāda ever say that?

No letter.
No lecture.
No conversation.
No instruction.
No final directive.

None has ever been produced.

General statements glorifying the sacred thread cannot be used to cancel Prabhupāda’s repeated, explicit instructions giving Gāyatrī and second initiation to qualified women.

The proper harmonization is simple:

Men received second initiation, Gāyatrī and the sacred thread.

Women received second initiation and Gāyatrī without wearing the sacred thread.

That was Śrīla Prabhupāda’s own system.

To claim that this was merely a temporary emergency arrangement is not supported by the historical record, by his written instructions, by his conversations, or by his theological explanations.

Bir Krishna Goswami · 18:29

If someone said the following he should apologise to the Vaisnavas and Prabhupada for using the word nonsense for something SrilaPrabupada did.

“This is only for now.”

• “When varṇāśrama is established, discontinue this nonsense of giving Gayatri to women.”

Madan Gopal Das · 19:11

Basu Ghosh Prabhu stated above

” As long as there is a paucity of brahmanas, to worship Deities and cook for the Deities, yes, this was Prabhupada’s adjustment. “
Quoted from Basu Ghosh Das’s message of 5 August, 17:59

In one sense, yes. Prabhupada did make adjustments because there are not enough brahmanas in this world. It is a fact. And this is even more true today than ever. We need millions of brahmanas to lead billions of common people to the platform of Krishna consciousness. And so we need to absolutely continue this adjustment for at least another few centuries.
The same adjustment logic applies to him writing about women becoming gurus. He thought about it and wrote out his detailed plan of implementation to have his daughters initiate (not just be siksa gurus but diksa gurus). No ambiguity. In the coming decade there will be at least 1 to 2 million people needing initiation and we only have about 120 diksa gurus. We need many many more. Otherwise each guru will have to initiate on average 10,000 or more disciples.
This adjustment, that Prabhupada spelt out, which you recognized the urgency and importance of, needs to be implemented forthwith.

Lokasaksi Dasa (ACBSP) · 19:13

Faith in Srila Prabhupada inteligency and good sense goes very well together.

Also, philosophical discrimination based in guru, sastra and sadhu, in not the same as mental speculation.

Srila Prabhupada espected that we had our own realization (vijnana), and it so no to go against sastras, but to have realization of its purpose by the grace of Antaryami (artha prakasanti).

Meanwhile we do not have it, we should accept it from the Mahajana.

Baladeva das · 19:13

It’s interesting to see how Prabhupada defines Diksha (without using a thread) in this meaning from the Bhagavatam, in the story of Krishna’s birth.

I understand that this supports the transmission of the Gayatri without the sacred thread but heart-to-heart.

“Thereafter, accompanied by plenary expansions, the fully opulent Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-auspicious for the entire universe, was transferred from the mind of Vasudeva to the mind of Devakī. Devakī, having thus been initiated by Vasudeva, became beautiful by carrying Lord Kṛṣṇa, the original consciousness for everyone, the cause of all causes, within the core of her heart, just as the east becomes beautiful by carrying the rising moon.

Purport
As indicated here by the word manastaḥ, the Supreme Personality of Godhead was transferred from the core of Vasudeva’s mind or heart to the core of the heart of Devakī. We should note carefully that the Lord was transferred to Devakī not by the ordinary way for a human being, but by dīkṣā, initiation. Thus the importance of initiation is mentioned here. Unless one is initiated by the right person, who always carries within his heart the Supreme Personality of Godhead, one cannot acquire the power to carry the Supreme Godhead within the core of one’s own heart.

Baladeva das · 19:15

plus “Commenting upon this verse, Śrī Vīrarāghava Ācārya writes: vasudeva-devakī jaṭharayor hṛdayayor bhagavataḥ sambandhaḥ. The Supreme Lord’s entrance into the womb of Devakī from the heart of Vasudeva was a heart-to-heart relationship.”

Baladeva das · 19:16

SB 10-2-18

Sunday, 9 August 2026

Prahladananda Swami · 19:59

There were many ways that initiation was carried out in the past. However, we follow the method that our Founder Acarya, Srila Prabhupada gave us and try to understand what the principles he is applying rather than brining up past examples that may seemingly contradict the processes that he gave us.

Monday, 10 August 2026

Govardhana Dasa · 21:49

Dear Devotees

PAMHO. AGSTP.

Please note the next steps:

Our next call will be the last for presentations.

Thereafter, in line with the approved terms of reference, we need to begin work on the proposal.

I will present a version 1.0 proposal and we will then have 3 meetings to conclude it.

Thats 4.5 hours of discussion, for a final proposal.

This has the ffg implication:

1. We need a vote to move to 3 weekly meetings of 90 minute each (Consecutive Tuesdays or Thursday)

Parijata, please do a round robin vote, on whatsapp, for (1). Hopefully we can convene from this thursday

Ys
Govardhana dasa

Read Also:

Statement from the Executive Committee of the ISKCON Governing Body Commission on Vaisnavi Diksa Guru – GBC AGM 2026

IISB Comment on Official VDG Statement by GBC EC

Concerns for Prabhupada’s Movement – Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Cultural Framework

Sources

ISKCON GBC Communications, “Update on Global Vaishnavi Diksha Guru Committee”, 15 July 2026 (PDF, as shared in the committee’s WhatsApp group). akincana.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/gvdg-committee-update-statement…
ISKCON GBC Communications, “Update on the Second Meeting of the Global Vaishnavi Diksha Guru Committee”, 30 July 2026 (PDF, as shared in the committee’s WhatsApp group). akincana.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/gvdg-committee-second-meeting…
Global VDG Committee WhatsApp group, chat archive, 6 July – 10 August 2026 (712 messages, exported 11 August 2026), reproduced in full above.

Discover more from Akincana Gocara

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Exclusive: Inside the GBC’s Private VDG Committee Chat – 712 Messages on Female Diksha Gurus, Published in Full

The committee

Who took part

A note on the source

The exchange in full

Monday, 6 July 2026

Tuesday, 7 July 2026

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

Friday, 10 July 2026

Sunday, 12 July 2026

Monday, 13 July 2026

Tuesday, 14 July 2026

Wednesday, 15 July 2026

Thursday, 16 July 2026

Friday, 17 July 2026

Sunday, 19 July 2026

Monday, 20 July 2026

Tuesday, 21 July 2026

Thursday, 23 July 2026

Friday, 24 July 2026

Saturday, 25 July 2026

Monday, 27 July 2026

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

Thursday, 30 July 2026

Friday, 31 July 2026

Sunday, 2 August 2026

Monday, 3 August 2026

Tuesday, 4 August 2026

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

Thursday, 6 August 2026

Friday, 7 August 2026

Saturday, 8 August 2026

Sunday, 9 August 2026

Monday, 10 August 2026

Read Also:

Sources

Follow us

Discover more from Akincana Gocara

Leave a comment Cancel reply

The committee

Who took part

A note on the source

The exchange in full

Monday, 6 July 2026

Tuesday, 7 July 2026

Wednesday, 8 July 2026

Friday, 10 July 2026

Sunday, 12 July 2026

Monday, 13 July 2026

Tuesday, 14 July 2026

Wednesday, 15 July 2026

Thursday, 16 July 2026

Friday, 17 July 2026

Sunday, 19 July 2026

Monday, 20 July 2026

Tuesday, 21 July 2026

Thursday, 23 July 2026

Friday, 24 July 2026

Saturday, 25 July 2026

Monday, 27 July 2026

Tuesday, 28 July 2026

Wednesday, 29 July 2026

Thursday, 30 July 2026

Friday, 31 July 2026

Sunday, 2 August 2026

Monday, 3 August 2026

Tuesday, 4 August 2026

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

Thursday, 6 August 2026

Friday, 7 August 2026

Saturday, 8 August 2026

Sunday, 9 August 2026

Monday, 10 August 2026

Read Also:

Sources

Follow us

Discover more from Akincana Gocara

More in Female Diksa Gurus

The book meant to bust the “Jahnava myth” about women gurus may have confirmed it, IISB scholar argues

Bhakti Raghava Swami’s Message on Female Diksha Gurus

What is Madhu-sevita Prabhu’s Janmashtami Message About?

Qualified Female Diksa Gurus Do Not Contend

Leave a comment Cancel reply