[PADA: Bhakti Vikas swami discusses how the ISKCON guru is also a manager. And that is why BVKS and his GBC guru / managers have been "managing" since 1978 -- to force the ISKCON little children to worship their illicit sex with men, women and children messiahs, and assorted porno swamis, Vodka swamis, offering LSD to the shalagram swamis, and other BVKS messiahs -- some of whom are evidently -- trying to have sex with cats.
As soon as BVKS finds a group of people promoting gurus who are having illicit sex with men, women, children and -- maybe cats, he falls off his chair and offers them his respectful obeisances. And more importantly, worship of BVKS pals such as his list of messiahs: homosexuals, pedophiles, porno swamis, LSD taking fools, etc. is considered by BVKS as "managing ISKCON"? Yes, it is "managing" -- to make ISKCON into a hell-scape of banning, beating, molesting, suing and assassinating the Lord's Vaishnavas.
They "managed" to have thousands of children abused and / or molested, managed to kick out most of the devotees, managed to have dissenters assassinated, and managed to make most of the temples into ghost towns etc. And they are managing to keep pedophiles in the post of acharya even today.
In sum, as soon as BVKS finds a nice homosexual pedophile samadhi worship promoting fool, like Jayapataka swami, BVKS falls down and worships that person as his sannyasa guru. Wow, we got the ISKCON children to worship our homosexuals, pedophiles and sex with cats messiahs program -- forever -- in samadhi no less, wonderful work!
Of course, BVKS is an ally of the India Bureau ICC and Basu Ghosh, a program which "manages" to promote other pedophile messiahs like Lokanath -- as the gurus of ISKCON -- simultaneous as they bury deviants in samadhi in the holy dham. And that is how BVKS considers that gurus are also managers, because they are forcing little children to worship BVKS and his sinful deviants if not pedophile messiahs.
However, as soon as a Srila Prabhupada disciple (like us) says that it is very sinful to force children to worship the GBC's illicit sex with men, women, and children, and cats -- messiahs -- then BVKS says that worship of pure devotees is "the bogus Christian idea." Which is why BVKS lives in Salem, India, a city that is full of Christians. So he condemns the Christians as bogus, because they are not worshiping BVKS, and his pedophile and assorted illicit sex, drugs, porno swamis, and -- sex with cats -- messiahs process.
And therefore evidently, forcing ISKCON to worship homosexuals and pedophiles as its messiahs is what BVKS considers as "managing." And someone just asked me about Kavicandra swami, who is the guru of Japan. He says he hides out away from the USA, telling my friend, "I cannot go to the USA to face the angry hordes of people who hate us GBC's gurus."
No kidding. Now ICC / BVKS / Kavicandra are saying that men who have anarthas can be gurus, but a woman has to be a pure devotee to be a guru. So therefore, it is fine to worship illicit sex deviants, as long as they have men's bodies. Hee hee. ys pd
Woman PADA Reader Writes:
If this is not a Satanic Child Sacrificing
Demon Worshiping
Voodoo - Like Cult: Then What Else Is It?
Good Question!
Ask BVKS!
==============================================
ISKCON India's ICC STATEMENT ON WOMEN DIKSHA GURUS
Preamble and Proposal
to the ICC from a group of senior devotees.
Preamble :-
The only question members of this legislative body need to answer is whether the GBC ’s proposal to create female diksa-gurus from Vaisnavis still at the level of sadhana-bhakti is dharma, or adharma. If it is dharma, then no further discussion or legislative action is needed, and the matter is closed. But if it is adharma, then any further discussion is needed only to convince those who still have doubts about the matter.
[PADA: However if an ISKCON man wants to become an ISKCON guru, he can become one, even if he has remaining anarthas such as -- the desire for illicit sex with men, women and children. In other words, a person in the body of a man is not even required to be a bona fide sadhaka (layman) to become worshiped as an ISKCON messiah, as long as he has a man's body.]
In either case, knowing for certain whether the GBC ’s proposal is dharma or adharma will unite us in purpose and action, just as once Arjuna ’s doubts were dispelled, he too could continue with his duty of fighting in unity of purpose with the will of Lord Krishna. Therefore, before attempting to make any kind of resolution, it is necessary that this legislative assembly first dispel any doubts among themselves as to whether the GBC ’s proposal is dharma or adharma.
In this matter, we have prepared a short paper titled “Pramāṇa and Samanvaya of Guru - Sādhu - Śāstra on the Female Dīkṣā Guru Issue, ”and it first presents Śrīla Prabhupāda’s system of pramāṇa and then shows how it can be applied in two ways to the female dīkṣā-guru issue: one way utilizes only Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s statements, and the other utilizes the full range of statements from the śāstras and ācāryas in addition to Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s own statements. We urge all members of this assembly to read this paper carefully.
The conclusion of the paper is that pāñcarātrika-vidhi generally prohibits women from becoming dīkṣā-guru unless she is at the level of bhāva-bhakti. Women still on the level of sādhana-bhakti are ineligible to become dīkṣā-guru.
[PADA: But a man, even a man who still has desires for illicit sex with men, women and children, is qualified to be worshiped as an acharya. And no, a sadhaka can NOT absorb the sins of another sadhaka, male or female.]
This is confirmed by the Bhāradvāja-samhitā 1.42 – 44, which is part of a collection of works called Nārada Pañcarātra. And these same ślokas are also quoted by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his Vaiṣṇavānandinī commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavata 1.13.15. Bh āradvāja-samhit ā 1.42 states najātu mantra-dānārī, a woman can never become mantra-dā (dīkṣā-guru) but in 1.44 states that if she is pratyak ṣitātma-nātha (self-realized, able to see God face-to-face), then she can become ācārya, dīkṣā-guru.
In either case, knowing for certain whether the GBC ’s proposal is dharma or adharma will unite us in purpose and action, just as once Arjuna ’s doubts were dispelled, he too could continue with his duty of fighting in unity of purpose with the will of Lord Krishna. Therefore, before attempting to make any kind of resolution, it is necessary that this legislative assembly first dispel any doubts among themselves as to whether the GBC ’s proposal is dharma or adharma.
In this matter, we have prepared a short paper titled “Pramāṇa and Samanvaya of Guru - Sādhu - Śāstra on the Female Dīkṣā Guru Issue, ”and it first presents Śrīla Prabhupāda’s system of pramāṇa and then shows how it can be applied in two ways to the female dīkṣā-guru issue: one way utilizes only Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s statements, and the other utilizes the full range of statements from the śāstras and ācāryas in addition to Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s own statements. We urge all members of this assembly to read this paper carefully.
The conclusion of the paper is that pāñcarātrika-vidhi generally prohibits women from becoming dīkṣā-guru unless she is at the level of bhāva-bhakti. Women still on the level of sādhana-bhakti are ineligible to become dīkṣā-guru.
[PADA: But a man, even a man who still has desires for illicit sex with men, women and children, is qualified to be worshiped as an acharya. And no, a sadhaka can NOT absorb the sins of another sadhaka, male or female.]
This is confirmed by the Bhāradvāja-samhitā 1.42 – 44, which is part of a collection of works called Nārada Pañcarātra. And these same ślokas are also quoted by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa in his Vaiṣṇavānandinī commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavata 1.13.15. Bh āradvāja-samhit ā 1.42 states najātu mantra-dānārī, a woman can never become mantra-dā (dīkṣā-guru) but in 1.44 states that if she is pratyak ṣitātma-nātha (self-realized, able to see God face-to-face), then she can become ācārya, dīkṣā-guru.
[PADA: OK so if a man wants to be guru -- even if he still has desires for illicit sex with men, women and children, he is qualified and he is voted in as guru. Whereas! A woman, OK she has to be a self realized soul to become a guru.]
Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa further says, ataeva bhāradv āja-samhitāyām strī-
śūdrād īnāmtan ni ṣidhya sāk ṣātkṛta-para-tattv ānām tesam tad āha, “It is for this reason that the Bhāradv āja-samhitā forbids women, śūdras and the like [from becoming gurus] and allows women, śūdras and the like who have directly realized the Supreme Truth [to
Page 2 -----------------------------------------------------
become gurus]. ”
And Śrīla Bhaktisiddānta Sarasvatī Ṭhakura in his commentary to Śrī Brahma-samhitā 5.38 (prem āñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena. . .), says “When the devotion of the neophyte reaches the stage of bhāva-bhakti the pure eye of that devotee is tinged with the salve of love by the grace of Kṛṣṇa, which enables him to see Kṛṣṇa face to face. ” So, bhāva-bhakti is the stage at which one can directly perceive Kṛṣṇa face-to-face.
Therefore, when Śrīla Prabhupāda says in his purport to ŚB 4.12.32 that Sunīti, “being a woman ” could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru, it is to be understood that Śrīla Prabhupāda is referring to women who are below the stage of bhāva-bhakti.
śūdrād īnāmtan ni ṣidhya sāk ṣātkṛta-para-tattv ānām tesam tad āha, “It is for this reason that the Bhāradv āja-samhitā forbids women, śūdras and the like [from becoming gurus] and allows women, śūdras and the like who have directly realized the Supreme Truth [to
Page 2 -----------------------------------------------------
become gurus]. ”
And Śrīla Bhaktisiddānta Sarasvatī Ṭhakura in his commentary to Śrī Brahma-samhitā 5.38 (prem āñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena. . .), says “When the devotion of the neophyte reaches the stage of bhāva-bhakti the pure eye of that devotee is tinged with the salve of love by the grace of Kṛṣṇa, which enables him to see Kṛṣṇa face to face. ” So, bhāva-bhakti is the stage at which one can directly perceive Kṛṣṇa face-to-face.
Therefore, when Śrīla Prabhupāda says in his purport to ŚB 4.12.32 that Sunīti, “being a woman ” could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru, it is to be understood that Śrīla Prabhupāda is referring to women who are below the stage of bhāva-bhakti.
[PADA: OK so the ICC promotes a pedophile like Lokanath as their guru, saying a guru has to be in bhava bhakti. How is a pedophile in bhava?]
And in his January 3, 1969, letter to Hansadutta, Śrīla Prabhupāda is considering them (and men, too) as having attained the stage of bhāva-bhakti.
And for his conversations with Atreya Ṛṣi (1972) and Professor O ’Connell (1976), he is also speaking of women at the level of bhāva-bhakti. This is further corroborated by his selecting Śrīmatī Jāhnavā Devī (a nitya-siddha) as an example, as well as his repeated use of phrases such as “highest perfection of life ” “attained the perfection ”, “fully cognizant of the science of Kṛṣṇa ”, “very special case ”, “above the bodily concept of life ”, etc. Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s true intent in these conversations is that he is referring to eternally liberated women like Jāhnav ā Devī or those who have attained at least the stage of bh āva, not women below that stage.
=======================
The last consideration in the conclusion is about the men. How can mleccha men become guru when they are also excluded along with women? The answer is that by pāñcarātrika-dīkṣā such men may become recognized as bona fide brāhmaṇas and therefore eligible to become dīkṣā-guru despite still being s ādhakas.
=======================
The last consideration in the conclusion is about the men. How can mleccha men become guru when they are also excluded along with women? The answer is that by pāñcarātrika-dīkṣā such men may become recognized as bona fide brāhmaṇas and therefore eligible to become dīkṣā-guru despite still being s ādhakas.
[PADA: How is an illicit sex with men, women and children guru process -- bona fide sadhakas? And no, Srila Prabupada says the guru must be an uttama, a resident of Krishna loka etc., and not a mere sadhaka. Of course, illicit sex deviants are also not sadhakas.]
But even after dīkṣā women still remain women, and thus the prohibition is still in force. The big difference is that whether one is a brāhmaṇa or a śūdra or less is always judged by qualities, but gender (whether one is male or female) is always judged by bodily features.
As to the question of whether the GBC ’s resolution seen in light of these conclusions is dharma or adharma, we provide a table below that assesses the GBC ’s resolution and provide a worked example as to what compliance with the GBC ’s rule that a female d īk ṣ ā-guru must be under someone ’s protection.
Is the GBC ’s resolution adharma?
This is a table of the statements in the GBC ’s 2019 Midyear resolution and the problems with them.
No.
GBC Statement
Page 3 -----------------------------------------------------
Assessment
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 paper has many procedural flaws and inaccuracies. For example, the SAC in their paper states, “Under the more recent pañcar ātrika system, however, qualified women can accept and offer initiation. ”
* the pañcarātrika system is not “more recent ” because it is eternal.
* the pañcarātrika system generally prohibits women from becoming dīkṣā-guru and allows them only when they are at the level of bh āva-bhakti.
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.
This is against Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s dictum in NOI 1, that one who can control the six urges is qualified to make disciples all over the world. sarvām apīmām pṛthivīm sa śiṣyāt.
=====================
Qualifications for Vaisnavi Diksa Gurus
1. Meet all the qualifications listed for ISKCON diksa-guru applicants;
2. Ś āstras require different qualifications for women, as per above pram ā ṇas – especially from Bhāradv āja-sa ṁhit ā.
3. Are at least 55 years of age
4. No time limit on eligibility in the ś āstras. Why can ’t a 54-year old who is
completely conversant with the science of K ṛ ṣ ṇa become a d īk ṣ ā-guru?
5. and 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;
6. The GBC has created new categories of protectors for women: son-in-law, householder couple with no blood-relation to woman, Vaisnava sanga (no blood relation and no specific ashrama), and Vaisnavi sanga (women now are protecting women).
This is especially adharma because it goes against the principle of dharmaṃ to sākṣād bhagavat pranītam, only the Lord can create dharma. What the GBC is doing here is making the mistake of thinking that the specified protectors are a
Page 4 -----------------------------------------------------
detail, and that the real principle is protecting women.
7. Receive written permission from the appropriate regional body or its equivalent, or national council, to give diksa in that particular part of the world.
Again, violates the principle that one who is qualified as guru is qualified to make disciples all over the world.
Compliance :-
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 ”.
This statement is unenforceable and for show only. Nowhere do they define what is “not so many ” or “too many. ” So, who is to say what is “not so many ”? And who will say how many is “so many ”? Who will decide? If you can ’t measure it, you can ’t enforce it. So, it appears that the intention of this resolution is to make a show of complying with Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s statements but actually has no intention of complying with them.
Dependent Dīkṣā Gurus
People from cultures that believe in gender equity may feel that that it is repugnant to allow women to be dīkṣā-guru only as rare exceptions. However, the GBC ’s own resolution from 2019 approving women with the caveat that they must remain dependent on either a male relative or some other sanga creates a strong incentive for behavior that would be considered hypocritical and scandalous in any society.
[PADA: Yep, the men gurus can suck off the society and bankrupt it, but the women need to be financially independent. Sign me up!]
As to the question of whether the GBC ’s resolution seen in light of these conclusions is dharma or adharma, we provide a table below that assesses the GBC ’s resolution and provide a worked example as to what compliance with the GBC ’s rule that a female d īk ṣ ā-guru must be under someone ’s protection.
Is the GBC ’s resolution adharma?
This is a table of the statements in the GBC ’s 2019 Midyear resolution and the problems with them.
No.
GBC Statement
Page 3 -----------------------------------------------------
Assessment
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 paper has many procedural flaws and inaccuracies. For example, the SAC in their paper states, “Under the more recent pañcar ātrika system, however, qualified women can accept and offer initiation. ”
* the pañcarātrika system is not “more recent ” because it is eternal.
* the pañcarātrika system generally prohibits women from becoming dīkṣā-guru and allows them only when they are at the level of bh āva-bhakti.
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.
This is against Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s dictum in NOI 1, that one who can control the six urges is qualified to make disciples all over the world. sarvām apīmām pṛthivīm sa śiṣyāt.
=====================
Qualifications for Vaisnavi Diksa Gurus
1. Meet all the qualifications listed for ISKCON diksa-guru applicants;
2. Ś āstras require different qualifications for women, as per above pram ā ṇas – especially from Bhāradv āja-sa ṁhit ā.
3. Are at least 55 years of age
4. No time limit on eligibility in the ś āstras. Why can ’t a 54-year old who is
completely conversant with the science of K ṛ ṣ ṇa become a d īk ṣ ā-guru?
5. and 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;
6. The GBC has created new categories of protectors for women: son-in-law, householder couple with no blood-relation to woman, Vaisnava sanga (no blood relation and no specific ashrama), and Vaisnavi sanga (women now are protecting women).
This is especially adharma because it goes against the principle of dharmaṃ to sākṣād bhagavat pranītam, only the Lord can create dharma. What the GBC is doing here is making the mistake of thinking that the specified protectors are a
Page 4 -----------------------------------------------------
detail, and that the real principle is protecting women.
7. Receive written permission from the appropriate regional body or its equivalent, or national council, to give diksa in that particular part of the world.
Again, violates the principle that one who is qualified as guru is qualified to make disciples all over the world.
Compliance :-
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 ”.
This statement is unenforceable and for show only. Nowhere do they define what is “not so many ” or “too many. ” So, who is to say what is “not so many ”? And who will say how many is “so many ”? Who will decide? If you can ’t measure it, you can ’t enforce it. So, it appears that the intention of this resolution is to make a show of complying with Śrīla Prabhupāda ’s statements but actually has no intention of complying with them.
Dependent Dīkṣā Gurus
People from cultures that believe in gender equity may feel that that it is repugnant to allow women to be dīkṣā-guru only as rare exceptions. However, the GBC ’s own resolution from 2019 approving women with the caveat that they must remain dependent on either a male relative or some other sanga creates a strong incentive for behavior that would be considered hypocritical and scandalous in any society.
[PADA: Yep, the men gurus can suck off the society and bankrupt it, but the women need to be financially independent. Sign me up!]
GBC 2019 (Midyear): “[FDG candidates] are at least 55 years of age and 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; ”
How would this work out in real life? The husband of a female dīkṣā-guru could tell her that she has to give half of all the guru-dakṣinā she collects to him. Since he is giving her shelter, why would it be unreasonable for him to require it? (And what would her disciples think of this?) And if she rejects his demand, she then goes “protector- shopping ” —looking for someone else or some other group of people willing to take her in but who has fewer demands on her, if any. On its face, the GBC ’s rule is a strong incentive for women to divorce their husbands and abandon the shelter of sons. How is this not adharma?
Page 5 -----------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The GBC ’s resolution to make Vaiṣṇavis at the stage of sādhana-bhakti into dīkṣā-gurus is based on a flawed report with factual inaccuracies created by the SAC. Moreover, the GBC ’s resolution to implement female dīkṣā-gurus on a regional basis is not only highly divisive but is against Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s statement that a one who is qualified to accept disciples is qualified to do so all over the world, sarvām apīm āmpṛthivīm saśiṣy āt. On the recommendation of the SAC, the GBC ’s resolution further creates new vidhis that stipulate new protectors for women, and these new vidhis even stipulate that other women can protect women. This is against the established Vedic vidhis that stipulate who those protectors are. The GBC ’s resolution is adharma, not dharma, and therefore must be opposed.
Proposal:-
Whereas, the ICC had given a strong proposal to the Bureau regarding rescinding of the GBC FDG resolution or else they would call for a vote of non-co-operation with the GBC body.
Whereas, the Bureau had revised the proposal to dealing with the broader topic of Guru Tattva and requested the GBC to follow their lead and also impose a moratorium on the appointment of any new guru, male or female, until the issue is resolved.
Whereas, the ICC apprehends that the Bureau is not fully united on its opposition to the FDG issue and that therefore they did not present a strong unified message of continuing strong opposition to the GBC in their resolution adopted last month.
Whereas, although our group sees that in our sampradaya ’s history there have been examples of women guru ’s, our group feels that these have been exceptions and therefore does not support institutionalising FDG ’s.
Whereas, our group considers that, the GBC resolution is, institutionalising FDG, by making the exception the rule and thereby negating the principle of exceptionality.
Whereas, the GBC does not provide their own definition of what exception means, hence their statement “after five years the GBC shall review the 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 ’ is subjective and unverifiable, and therefore cannot be reliably enforced.
Whereas, our group considers that the GBC underemphasizes the rarity of women guru ’s by using the quote “not so many, ” but Srila Prabhupada also uses the words ``very special case ” in his conversation with Atrey Risi Prabhu, and that he means the same thing by both phrases, but the different wordings may create confusion as to what Srila Prabhupada actually meant.
Page 6 -----------------------------------------------------
Whereas, in order to clarify what “not so many ” means, we refer to Bharadvaj Samhita 1.42-44 and to Baladeva Vidhyabhusan commentary on SB 1.13.15, in which he also quotes the same slokas of Bharadvaj Samhita that gives the criteria of those who qualify as exceptions.
(See translations at: https://iisb.co.in/2021/11/29/baladeva-vidyabhusana-on-sb-1-13-
15/ )
Whereas, Bharadvaj Samhita uses the word pratyaksitama-natha which means one who has direct perception of the absolute truth, and this is confirmed by Baladeva Vidhyabhusana who uses the word saksatkrta-para-tattvanam which means who, have direct perception of the supreme truth, and that according to Brahma Samhita, direct perception of the absolute truth, Krishna, begins only at the stage of bhava.
Whereas, the members of the group feel that the GBC resolution is adharma, in as much as the GBC have not followed standard procedure in coming to their conclusion and have not understood Srila Prabhupada's intent properly, because they have avoided Sastric evidence from Narada Pancaratra, which gives direct evidence of the qualification of females to become diksha guru.
Whereas, the GBC resolution is adharma, because it creates new protectors for women, including women as protectors, and is against the protectors specified in shastra, and has therefore transgressed the principle dharmam tu saksad bhagavat pranitam, only God can give religion.
Whereas, our group recognizes that this issue has the potential to split our society, as it is highly divisive. Indeed, the GBC resolution has already divided ISKCON worldwide, into those that agree to follow FDG and those that do not accept FDG. Such division is opposed to Srila Rupa Goswami's dictum from NOI 1 that says one who is qualified to be a guru can make disciples all over the world whether they are male or female.
Whereas, we realise some devotees are expecting a compromise on the standards to accommodate female diksha gurus, just like Srila Prabhupada made so many adjustments to accommodate Western thinking people. However, the post of guru should not be awarded based on compromises and the candidate should accept the highest standard. Therefore the kind of adjustments Srila Prabhupada made to bring westerners to Krishna Consciousness are inappropriate in the matter of setting standards of who may become a diksha guru.
Resolution : - Therefore our group resolves the following.
That the ICC call ’s on the Bureau for a report on their response to the ICC ’s proposal on the FDG issue (28th Dec 2021) and also asks for a report on the GBC response to the Bureau proposal (January 2022, on the FDG and MDG issues) if any.
That the ICC supports the Bureaus' call to the GBC for a moratorium on appointments
How would this work out in real life? The husband of a female dīkṣā-guru could tell her that she has to give half of all the guru-dakṣinā she collects to him. Since he is giving her shelter, why would it be unreasonable for him to require it? (And what would her disciples think of this?) And if she rejects his demand, she then goes “protector- shopping ” —looking for someone else or some other group of people willing to take her in but who has fewer demands on her, if any. On its face, the GBC ’s rule is a strong incentive for women to divorce their husbands and abandon the shelter of sons. How is this not adharma?
Page 5 -----------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The GBC ’s resolution to make Vaiṣṇavis at the stage of sādhana-bhakti into dīkṣā-gurus is based on a flawed report with factual inaccuracies created by the SAC. Moreover, the GBC ’s resolution to implement female dīkṣā-gurus on a regional basis is not only highly divisive but is against Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī’s statement that a one who is qualified to accept disciples is qualified to do so all over the world, sarvām apīm āmpṛthivīm saśiṣy āt. On the recommendation of the SAC, the GBC ’s resolution further creates new vidhis that stipulate new protectors for women, and these new vidhis even stipulate that other women can protect women. This is against the established Vedic vidhis that stipulate who those protectors are. The GBC ’s resolution is adharma, not dharma, and therefore must be opposed.
Proposal:-
Whereas, the ICC had given a strong proposal to the Bureau regarding rescinding of the GBC FDG resolution or else they would call for a vote of non-co-operation with the GBC body.
Whereas, the Bureau had revised the proposal to dealing with the broader topic of Guru Tattva and requested the GBC to follow their lead and also impose a moratorium on the appointment of any new guru, male or female, until the issue is resolved.
Whereas, the ICC apprehends that the Bureau is not fully united on its opposition to the FDG issue and that therefore they did not present a strong unified message of continuing strong opposition to the GBC in their resolution adopted last month.
Whereas, although our group sees that in our sampradaya ’s history there have been examples of women guru ’s, our group feels that these have been exceptions and therefore does not support institutionalising FDG ’s.
Whereas, our group considers that, the GBC resolution is, institutionalising FDG, by making the exception the rule and thereby negating the principle of exceptionality.
Whereas, the GBC does not provide their own definition of what exception means, hence their statement “after five years the GBC shall review the 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 ’ is subjective and unverifiable, and therefore cannot be reliably enforced.
Whereas, our group considers that the GBC underemphasizes the rarity of women guru ’s by using the quote “not so many, ” but Srila Prabhupada also uses the words ``very special case ” in his conversation with Atrey Risi Prabhu, and that he means the same thing by both phrases, but the different wordings may create confusion as to what Srila Prabhupada actually meant.
Page 6 -----------------------------------------------------
Whereas, in order to clarify what “not so many ” means, we refer to Bharadvaj Samhita 1.42-44 and to Baladeva Vidhyabhusan commentary on SB 1.13.15, in which he also quotes the same slokas of Bharadvaj Samhita that gives the criteria of those who qualify as exceptions.
(See translations at: https://iisb.co.in/2021/11/29/baladeva-vidyabhusana-on-sb-1-13-
15/ )
Whereas, Bharadvaj Samhita uses the word pratyaksitama-natha which means one who has direct perception of the absolute truth, and this is confirmed by Baladeva Vidhyabhusana who uses the word saksatkrta-para-tattvanam which means who, have direct perception of the supreme truth, and that according to Brahma Samhita, direct perception of the absolute truth, Krishna, begins only at the stage of bhava.
Whereas, the members of the group feel that the GBC resolution is adharma, in as much as the GBC have not followed standard procedure in coming to their conclusion and have not understood Srila Prabhupada's intent properly, because they have avoided Sastric evidence from Narada Pancaratra, which gives direct evidence of the qualification of females to become diksha guru.
Whereas, the GBC resolution is adharma, because it creates new protectors for women, including women as protectors, and is against the protectors specified in shastra, and has therefore transgressed the principle dharmam tu saksad bhagavat pranitam, only God can give religion.
Whereas, our group recognizes that this issue has the potential to split our society, as it is highly divisive. Indeed, the GBC resolution has already divided ISKCON worldwide, into those that agree to follow FDG and those that do not accept FDG. Such division is opposed to Srila Rupa Goswami's dictum from NOI 1 that says one who is qualified to be a guru can make disciples all over the world whether they are male or female.
Whereas, we realise some devotees are expecting a compromise on the standards to accommodate female diksha gurus, just like Srila Prabhupada made so many adjustments to accommodate Western thinking people. However, the post of guru should not be awarded based on compromises and the candidate should accept the highest standard. Therefore the kind of adjustments Srila Prabhupada made to bring westerners to Krishna Consciousness are inappropriate in the matter of setting standards of who may become a diksha guru.
Resolution : - Therefore our group resolves the following.
That the ICC call ’s on the Bureau for a report on their response to the ICC ’s proposal on the FDG issue (28th Dec 2021) and also asks for a report on the GBC response to the Bureau proposal (January 2022, on the FDG and MDG issues) if any.
That the ICC supports the Bureaus' call to the GBC for a moratorium on appointments
Page 7 -----------------------------------------------------
on any new gurus until this matter is settled.
That as Srila Prabhupada has stated in the case of women gurus, “not so many ”, and “very special case ” and “one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru ” that the criteria for a woman to become a Diksha Guru is to be on the level of bhava and the criteria for men is that they must be qualified as brahmana.
That someone may question having different standards for women and men, we therefore support the Bureau ’s resolve to investigate the male aspect of qualification for becoming diksha guru.
That the ICC supports the Bureau resolution calling for a dialogue between scholars representing both sides. Our recommendation is that the SAC and the ISKCON India Scholars Board should jointly discuss the topic and come to a consensus based on Guru, Sadhu and Sastra.
That the ICC recognises the Bureau as the legal authority for ISKCON India, as per the design of Srila Prabhupada.
The ICC also wishes that it be understood, if the GBC decides to not follow the Bureau ’s lead and place a moratorium on appointment on all new gurus until this situation resolves, then the ICC strongly requests the Bureau that ISKCON India will no longer support the present GBC body.
on any new gurus until this matter is settled.
That as Srila Prabhupada has stated in the case of women gurus, “not so many ”, and “very special case ” and “one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru ” that the criteria for a woman to become a Diksha Guru is to be on the level of bhava and the criteria for men is that they must be qualified as brahmana.
That someone may question having different standards for women and men, we therefore support the Bureau ’s resolve to investigate the male aspect of qualification for becoming diksha guru.
That the ICC supports the Bureau resolution calling for a dialogue between scholars representing both sides. Our recommendation is that the SAC and the ISKCON India Scholars Board should jointly discuss the topic and come to a consensus based on Guru, Sadhu and Sastra.
That the ICC recognises the Bureau as the legal authority for ISKCON India, as per the design of Srila Prabhupada.
The ICC also wishes that it be understood, if the GBC decides to not follow the Bureau ’s lead and place a moratorium on appointment on all new gurus until this situation resolves, then the ICC strongly requests the Bureau that ISKCON India will no longer support the present GBC body.
[PADA: Right, the BVKS / Basu Ghosh / ICC wants us to worship homosexuals and pedophiles in samadhi, and worship their pedophile guru Lokanath.]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.