Subject: Re: My response to your comments Abhiram Prabhu's article ------------------------------------------------------------
Basu Ghosh: Dandavat pranams. Srila Prabhupada kijaya.
First, I thank you for your lengthy response, and I apologize that I cannot elaborate as much as you have. I also thank you for considering me your friend even though we disagree. I believe that, somehow or other we have to learn to argue and debate while maintaining respect and friendship as one family by the grace of Srila Prabhupada. I'm going to respond only to some of what you said due to a lack of time on my part. To make it easier, I am extracting those sections that I'm responding to and leaving the others.
Why has the word "vaishnavi" has been introduced, changing it from "female"?
My contention is that the terminology has been changed to sanitize the issue, to make ISKCON females seem somehow equal to men. My choice is based on honoring the frequent distinction that Srila Prabhupada made between his female disciples and women in general: *“These women are not ordinary women. They are preachers. They are Vaishnavas. By their association one becomes a Vaishnava.” (Srila Prabhupada, morning walk, March 27, 1974)
Pancaratna das: * I believe that the term Vaishnavi honors both the spiritual equality and the difference between men and women devotees. On the other hand, Srila Prabhupada used the term Vaishnava to indicate devotees of both genders, so I can also see the value of simply saying female diksa guru.
And, I do believe that there is fundamental spiritual equality between ISKCON men and women and that ISKCON women can be and often are just as spiritually advanced as ISKCON men. In his purport in Chaitanya Charitamrita, Adi-lila, Chapter 17, verse 137, Prabhupada refers to Madhavi Devi, one of "the three and half" most confidential, and thus most exalted devotees, of Mahaprabhu, as "a woman".
Here is what Prabhupada wrote in the purport: "In the Antya-lila of Caitanya-caritamrta, chapter two, verses 104-106, there is a description of Madhavidevi. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu considered her one of the maidservants of Srimati Radharani. Within this world, Caitanya Mahaprabhu had three and a half very confidential devotees. The three were Svarupa Gosasi, Sri Ramananda Raya and Sikhi Mahiti, and Sikhi Mahiti’s sister, Madhavidevi, being a woman, was considered the half.
Thus it is known that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu had three and a half confidential devotees."
This and the quotation you have offered regarding Suniti and Dhruva can be interpreted in various ways. Personally, I always seek to find a way to understand things holistically so that it all comes together. Thus, this particular quotation can be interpreted that Madhavi devi, being a woman, could only half associate with Mahaprabhu, whereas the others could be with Him 24 hours a day.
So, if your point is that there must be some gender discrimination when it comes to male-female interaction than I agree. Just as in the purport to SB 4.12.32 - that you so kindly did not neglect to mention in your comments - Prabhupada refers to Suniti as "being a woman".
So I contend that the language of the original proposition, "female diksha guru" used back during 2005 and 2009 by the GBC and its SAC, is just fine! My point is that using the words "female", and "woman", does not diminish the position of the above mentioned vaishnavis one iota!
In fact, using the word vaishnavi itself indicates gender discrimination, and not gender equality, since it is a feminine word. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I believe most devotees in favor of female devotees (Vaishnavis) initiating agree that some gender discrimination is required in a healthy society. In particular, there is the special right of women to be protected.
And, as I believe you've pointed out later, as a general rule, women should ideally be supported as dependents and not, by force or by choice, have to compete with men in material society. Unfortunately, achieving this ideal remains a challenge on account of so many factors.
[PADA: Right, most of the original rank and file female devotees of ISKCON left the society and often have had to fend for themselves in the material world.
Some had to live in a car with their babies, some died without getting medical help, and so on and so forth.
In sum, ISKCON has had a terrible track record of caring for its women and children dependents. Making women into gurus without clearing up this record sounds like another disaster waiting to happen.
And! Making female diksha gurus -- with the provision that their support will come primarily from their families -- is already a bogus proposal since the men gurus simply exploit the society with their "guru daksine" process.
That the women gurus will not be allowed to have that facility, and the women gurus will have to fend for themselves to get financial support from their children or ex-husbands, is not giving them equal financial status at all.
Its giving them a token, hoping to appease them for all the other injustices the women had to endure. None of the men gurus have had to get support from their families. So, you get the same job as the men, but with none of the perks and benefits the men get. And this is equality? Maybe not. Its really another cheating process. Will they fool a few women into being their gurus with this less than equal bargain? Well maybe, but don't count on a lot of women signing up if they have to prove they can finance themselves.]
Now, your argument, and I quote: "my personal opinion that these statements should be given the most weight", appears to me to be a feeble attempt to deny many, many other statements of both vedic shastras and Srila Prabhupada on the role of women in society, and the question of whether a woman can be a diksha guru."
I don't deny any other statements. I simply have a different interpretation than you do. You referred to SB 4.12.32, but did not present the actual words in Prabhupada purport: "Actually, Dhruva Maharaja’s mother, Suniti, was his patha-pradarsaka-guru. Patha-pradarsaka-guru means “the guru, or the spiritual master, who shows the way.” Such a guru is sometimes called siksa-guru. Although Narada Muni was his diksa-guru (initiating spiritual master), Suniti, his mother, was the first who gave him instruction on how to achieve the favor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
It is the duty of the siksa-guru or diksa-guru to instruct the disciple in the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru. Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru."
In this purport, Srila Prabhupada deals directly with the various types of gurus, and then specifically instructs "being a woman, Suniti could NOT be Dhurva's diksha guru". Kindly consider Srila Prabhupada's use of the words, "according to sastric injunctions", which prove he was instructing his disciples and readers in "the here and now", and wasn't explaining this as "something from a remote era in the past", one of the misleading pro-FDG arguments.
I cannot agree that the term "sastric injunctions" necessarily means for all time. There are many examples of sastric injunctions which are only applicable according to certain ages. But in this case, I agree that the statement "According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru." is applicable now.
However, there are numerous ways to interpret Suniti's disqualification: 1) mothers do not initiate their children 2) women do not initiate ksatriyas 3) women in the satya yuga do not initiate 4) it is a general statement not an absolute one etc.
Since we know that Jahnava devi and other Vaishnavis have initiated disciples, then we have the problem of reconciling this statement with that fact. This is where different interpretations come into play. It's very sad, I feel, that this direct instruction on this very topic by Srila Prabhupada is pooh-poohed, and that Srila Prabhupada's discussion with Prof. O'Connell, is given more weight, more importance than what Srila Prabhupada wrote in this purport. "Books are the basis", and "according to shastric injunction" refers directly to the higher authority of books - shastras!
Here we get to what I believe is the essence of our problem - hermeneutics "the theory and methodology of interpretation,". When I wrote that the conversations with Prof O'Connell and Atreya Rsi prabhu should be given the most weight I mean that I believe we should take these very explicitly direct responses to a direct question as the guideline for interpreting other statements that are relevant but are not direct responses to a question.
Also, taking guidance from Yudhisthira's statement: dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam mahajano yena gatah sa panthah I believe that Srila Prabhupada's direct response should be given the most weight. This type of convoluted logic makes me - and many others - feel that the non-vedic concepts of feminism and the popular liberal leftist struggle in Western society for gender equality is more important in the minds of the majority of GBC members, and the pro-FDG devotees, than what Srila Prabhupada taught!
Of course you have a right to your opinion. But how to interpret "what Srila Prabhupada taught" is exactly what is in contention. I have quoted two explicit responses to the question of whether women devotees can initiate. And there are others, quoted in the SAC paper that support the principle that women devotees can initiate, But , there is this one statement regarding Suniti that appears to say that her being a women disqualified her to initiate. So we need some way to reconcile these two statements.
I have offered some possible interpretations of the Suniti statement that do this. What are your interpretations of Srila Prabhupada's answer to Atreya Rsi and Prof O'Connell on the topic? Here is what Prabhupada taught about the role of women in society, from his purport in Srimad Bhagavatam 4.18.3 (a very similarly written purport appears in Bhagavad-gita 16.7):
Vedic civilization takes advantage of the perfect knowledge presented in the Vedas and presented by great sages and brahmanas for the benefit of human society. Vedic injunctions are known as shruti, and the additional supplementary presentations of these principles, as given by the great sages, are known as smriti. They follow the principles of Vedic instruction.
Human society should take advantage of the instructions from both shruti and smriti. If one wants to advance in spiritual life, he must take these instructions and follow the principles. In Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, Srila Rupa Gosvami says that if one poses himself as advanced in spiritual life but does not refer to the shrutis and smritis he is simply a disturbance in society.
[PADA: OK but the whole GBC process of making acharyas by "2/3 show of hands votes" is not found anywhere in shastra?]
One should follow the principles laid down in shrutis and smritis not only in one’s spiritual life but in material life as well. As far as human society is concerned, it should follow the Manu-smriti as well, for these laws are given by Manu, the father of mankind.
In the Manu-smriti it is stated that a woman should NOT be given independence, but should be given protection by her father, husband and elderly sons. In all circumstances a woman should remain dependent upon some guardian.
[PADA: That is a good question, we find that recently a woman was cheated out of her life savings to buy a bogus Mayapura apartment. And she has not got much relief from the GBC leaders and she says she has been sleeping in her vehicle being financially destitute, and its getting colder and colder in her vehicle with winter approaching. The cops are harassing her etc. She asks PADA, "Who do we write to in this GBC group anyway, no one seems to care"?]
Prabhupada: If one can remain without marriage, that is the first class.
Rupanuga: Women also?
Prabhupada: Women also. What is the use of this material husband? Make Krishna husband. Krishna’s prepared to become everything – love Him as husband, love Him as son, love Him as friend. (Room conversation, July 6, 1976, Washington, DC) --end-- and -quote--
If one becomes Krishna conscious, then he [she] doesn’t require husband. He [she] does not require. He ... She knows that ‘Krishna is my protector. Why shall I artificially seek after father or ...?’ And what protection for a few days either the father or the son or the husband may give? Real protection is Krishna. (Room conversation, January 7, 1977, Bombay)
--end--
BASU GHOSH: And there are many instances of how he engaged his female disciples that indicate that being under the shelter of one's guru meets the criteria for not being independent. I believe that Srila Prabhupada is giving us a nuanced view of what it means for a Vaishnavi not to be independent.
Pancharatna Prabhu, with all due respect, and I count you as a friend - and I am by no means "the perfect person": you and the pro-FDG faction devotees have chosen to ignore the importance of the injuctions of vedic shastras as the final authority on matters of dharma, as Srila Prabhupada taught herein above, and in so many other places.
I am not ignoring them. I'm trying to understand them through the lens of all of Srila Prabhupada's instructions both written, verbal and by practical example. Just consider how he used this purport to describe the vedic concept of the role of women - and he strongly endorsed it - and how authorizing female diksha gurus contradicts the concept that he endorsed!
Srila Prabhupada taught that women are to be dependent on men. Some pro-FDG devotees, obviously influenced by feminism argue that in modern ISKCON society men have been abusive, and so these instructions do not apply.
[PADA: Wow, so the ISKCON men gurus have been abusive to women, which begs the question, how are they gurus? And why do they keep saying gurus are deviants, gurus are abusive, gurus are fallen etc.?]
This argument is quite popular among a section of our devotees, who invoke it when these instructions of Srila Prabhupada are pointed out. Its being used as an excuse to reject what Prabhupada taught, and what vedic shastras teach.
Pancaratna das: The authority to instruct someone on the science of Krishna is not limited to men. Also, women are natural authorities in the family, particularly for their children. So, I question whether this is a blanket statement. It needs elucidation by looking at its context and other dimensions, IMO And in the Narada Pancharatra it is written: (Bharadvaja Samhita, Narada Pancaratra, 1.42)
"Even then, a woman, a shudra, 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 (akami) should never accept a guru who is infected with material desires."
[PADA: OK so their men gurus are falling into illicit sex with men, women and children and that is proof -- their gurus are not infected with material desires? Why are they promoting people with material desires as gurus?]
Also, whichever way we interpret it, even to the extent that it indicates only the most advanced maha-bhagavata devotee then there is the question who is the judge? Our system of guru-disciple relationship is that there is mutual testing between the two. So, is it not up to the disciple to judge if their guru is on this platform?
[PADA: The disciples are told that the local guru is the diksha guru and if they disagree they are not allowed to participate. For example Jayapataka is the zonal guru of Mayapura, anyone who does not accept that he is a pure devotee guru is banished from the community. There is no mutual test, you have to accept the local diksha guru voted in by the GBC for the most part. Wow, so we are going to make a pile of gurus, without checking their qualifications, because "who is the judge"? Well apparently, its not the GBC!]
Srila Prabhupada, and our acharyas would have taught us, time and again, that the role of women in society was to be diksha guru, if they had intended it to be.
[PADA: And he would also have said he wanted persons prone to illicit sex with men, women and children to be acharyas if he had wanted that to be?]
But no, there no extensive record of any such instructions, and thus there is a great difference of opinion on this issue amongst ISKCON devotees.
> > One can just as easily say that if Srila Prabhupada and our acharyas did NOT want women to be guru they would have taught us "time and again". The vast majority of statements regarding who can be guru are gender neutral. Similarly, Srila Prabhupada, and our previous acharyas would have taught us - but did not - that a guru (in our case Srila Prabhupada) could continue to give initiation after his disappearance. They did not.
> > Here is the underlying issue. We have failed to go deeply into the topic of stri-dharma and establish a comprehensive understanding of where men and women in ISKCON should have equal rights and where they should be different. I believe that Srila Prabhupada taught and encouraged both equal rights and roles on the basis of spiritual equality and different rights and roles on the basis of material inequality.
However, in my opinion, there is much work to be done to understand where to apply spiritual equality and where and how to adjust roles for women in our society according to their material inequality. I believe that the role of initiating guru is a spiritual role that should not be absolutely constrained by one's material situation. But, I also understand that there could be many material situations for both men and women that must be considered when establishing a guru disciple relationship.
For example, perhaps sannyasis or brahmacaris should not accept young, unmarried women as their disciples. This might be a better engagement for mature grihasthas or vanaprasthas, male or female. At the same time, in the absence of any direct instructions on this, I believe the best we can do is to come up with good guidelines and leave it up to the individuals to decide for themselves what is appropriate.
I'm going to skip ahead, as I don't have time to go point by point on what you have written. suffice it to say that I agree with you that we have not found deep understanding in our Society of the roles of women and we should be giving this much more attention.
> > And, generally the siksa guru becomes the diksa guru. So, what does the siksa disciple of a Vaishnavi do having developed the siksa relationship? Does she or he simply take diksa from someone else as a formality? What is your opinion on this? Your next section deals with the societal roles: Women are, according to vedic shastras, to be the servants of their husbands, and to engage in household affairs, as we see from the lives of the "great women" mentioned in the vedic literatures such as Kunti, Draupadi, Gandhari, Sita, Anasuya, the dvijapatnis, the vrajagopis, the wife of Sandipani Muni, etc., etc.
"Thus it is most regrettable when a woman becomes the executive head instead of a lion like king. In such a situation the people are considered very unfortunate."
> > "Most regrettable", Srila Prabhupada remarked, and yet these words will be labelled as "sexist" by feminists and egalitarians.
>> You include leadership services in ISKCON the same category as those in general society. I'm not convinced that this is correct. But I believe we should go deeper on this issue.
> > There are SO MANY other quotes from Srila Prabhupada about the role of women in society that the pro-FDG devotees ignore for the reason that doing so will easily defeat the egalitarian / feminist and thus revisionist purposes that they champion.
> > And there are many quotes and examples from Srila Prabhupada's interactions with his female disciples that indicate a different perspective for Vaishnavis than a simple feminist / anti-feminist dichotomy. I disagree with your labels of "egalitarian / feminist" . First I question why we should not be egalitarian in the spiritual sphere. And, in respect of feminism, what's at issue here is not equal rights for men and women across the board as in contemporary feminism.
It is a question of which rights are equal and which are different. I believe that, though you are certainly anti-feminist, you are not a misogynist and in favor of disrespect and oppression of women. Rather I accept that you sincerely want what is best for both men and women to advance spiritually and promote a healthy, happy society for everyone.
I hope that you can see that those who disagree with your particular interpretation of how to do this are also sincere.
> Anuttama Prabhu, our communications minister, can organize interfaith dialogues at Tirupati and Chennai, but the GBC - till today - has ignored the request of the ISKCON India Governing Bureau [a resolution to that effect was passed at Pune, during February 2019, and sent to the GBC EC] for a dialogue on this FDG subject! Why has this been ignored? Because such a dialogue would most probably not serve the purpose of establishing gender equality - feminism and egalitarianism - in ISKCON. So just avoid it...
> > I won't speculate why it has not happened. I too wish it would. But will all concerned be willing to give it the time needed to go deeply into every angle, starting with women's roles in general? In the late 60's the Catholic church was faced with many divisive issues. Pope John called for an ecumenical council, which became known as Vatican II. Practically the entire Catholic leadership (over 2500 people) worked for 3 years and produced defining documents or constitutions addressing all these issues and more. Is it time for an "ISKCON Council"?
> > I find it very disturbing that this issue could actually create a schism in ISKCON. In our history we have had two major schisms so far: 1) devotees breaking off to form their own maths on account of their allegiance to B.R. Sridhar Maharaj. 2) devotees breaking off on the rtvik issue.
I'm trying to understand how the GBC's decision on this issue is of the same quality as these situations to the extent that it could force devotees to leave ISKCON on this account. Or, even worse for ISKCON centers to break away from the GBC. However, if there are such strong feelings about this, then could we somehow allow for two different policies and maintain unity?
> This is not just "little old eccentric" Basu Ghosh Das. Seventy six TPs
> voted in the ICC meeting to request the Bureau to petition the GBC to
> rescind authorizing FDGs. The vote was taken after Anuttama Prabhu was
> given all the time he wanted to present the pro-FDG arguments to the
> assembled devotees.
> > The pro-FDG arguments were thereafter rejected by the IIAC, and the Bureau as well!
> > My hope is that "better sense will prevail" at the upcoming GBC AGM at
> Mayapur next month, and hopefully the GBC will rescind the resolution
> authorizing FDGs.
> > I'm not in favor of rescinding the resolution. But, I would support another hold on its implementation if there was a really serious commitment to more work on the issue, going deeper into both women's roles in general, and the validity of the GBC authorizing anyone, man or women to initiate.
[PADA: WE ARE MAKING A PILE OF GURUS, without first finding out if we have the authority to authorize gurus, male or female?]
But, if that doesn't happen, then what? I continue to hope that we can find unity in diversity. I continue to pray to Srila Prabhupada for his guidance on how to bridge the gap between the understandings of senior devotees. I pray that any elements of conditioning from our past or present, such as an attraction to liberal or conservative views not cloud our ability to appreciate and understand others points of view.
Where do we go from here? Is it possible that both views can be right? Or must one be right and one wrong? Or is there a third way yet to be articulated? We all want to serve Srila Prabhupada and his mission, but we differ on how. Must one view prevail or can we accommodate more than one and how? I believe this was the spirit of the GBC resolution, to try to accommodate both views.
But it hasn't worked. I pray for our GBC to find the best way forward. Thanks for your kind consideration of the above.
> > And I thank you for your deep commitment to the service of Srila Prabhupada even if we disagree on how to execute that service.
> Hope this meets you well.
> > Thank you and I too hope you are well. Your servant, Pancharatna dasa dasanudas,
> > Basu Ghosh Das > > Facebook: Basu Ghosh Das > Skype: Basu Ghosh Das > WhatsApp: +91-94260-54308 > > > Hare Krishna
> > > > I'm also in dialog with Abhiram prabhu and I agree with his premise of > > fidelity to Srila Prabhupada.
> > > > I'm particularly concerned as to the basis in Srila Prabhupada's
> > instructions or anywhere in guru, sadhu and shastra that supports the
> > policy of GBC requiring members to get their no-objection before
> > initiating others. Thus I fully agree when he says : "I am questioning if
> > the GBC have the right to appoint anyone as Guru." However, this is a
> > deep discussion, and I am hoping the GBC can address this issue and
> dispel our doubts.
[PADA: That is the root of all the doubts people have about the GBC, "I am questioning if the GBC has the right to appoint anyone as guru." Well yup! ys pd]
