Stop ISKCON from Becoming an Apasampradaya – Part 2

By: Acyuta Kesava Das Posted on November 9, 2019

Introduction

Part 1

Part 2

This is the second part in a series of articles showing how the SAC’s FDG 2005 paper, on which the GBC’s FDG resolution of 15th October 2019 had been based on, was refuted by another paper commissioned by the erstwhile IRGB in 2010. In this way the paper (SAC FDG 2005 ) was shown to be not according to guru, sadhu and sastra and we therefore raise the question; how could such a paper be used to base a GBC resolution?

In part 2 we begin to analyze the philosophical points of the SAC’s 2005 paper. The following extract from the IRGB 2010 paper puts things in perspective;

 

 

———- Extract Begins ———-

Women cannot be diksa-gurus

We now consider the philosophical aspect of the matter at hand. In his purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam 4.12.32, Srila Prabhupada stated in very clear, explicit, unambiguous, and conclusive terms that a woman cannot be a diksa-guru:

“Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja’s diksa-guru.”

The SAC wrote sixteen pages in attempt to undermine Srila Prabhupada’s categorical statement. Therefore, now we shall concisely adumbrate the line of thought and the salient points in our argument against the purvapakshin (respected opponent). The dilated version (100+ pages), with a detailed exegesis explaining all points, citations, references, dialectics, and responses to objections, etc., is available from the IRGB’s secretary, Basu Ghosh dasa Adhikari.

———- Extract Ends ———-

 

The recently passed 2019 FDG Resolution opens thus;

Whereas in 2009 the GBC Resolved:

1. 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.

Again here the GBC is referring to the SAC 2009 paper whose philosophical conclusions they accepted to make those points. However, the IRGB 2010 paper clearly cited references from sastra showing, among other things, how;

1. Women must not be given authority

2. In Krsna’s Vedic culture Women must be socially restricted.

The relevant parts of the IRGB paper are presented below;

———- Extract Begins ———-

Women must not be given authority

The position of diksa-guru is obviously one of authority. The sastra clearly states that one should not give authority (secular or spiritual) to women. The SAC trivialized and dismissed these sastric directives by stating: “After all, being a mother is also a role of authority.” We find this statement to be lacking in intelligent discrimination— similar to the argument given by meat-eaters that eating vegetables also requires killing. Whereas to be a mother is an aspect of women’s sva-dharma, to be a diksa-guru is not. In Hari-bhakti-vilasa 11.708, the Visnu Purana 3.12.30 is quoted, regarding how a grhastha should work in this world:

yosito navamanyetana casam visvased budhaù
na caiversur bhavet tasu nadhikuryat kadacana

“A wise man should never insult women, nor should he trust them. He should never become jealous of women, nor should he ever appoint them. ”

Srila Sanatana Gosvami comments, nadhikuryat adhikaram na kuryat; yad va stribhyo ‘dhikaram na dadhyat ity arthaù. Nadhikuryat means one should not appoint women; in other words, one should not give authority to women.

There is a similar statement in the Mahabharata (Sabha Parva, Lokapala Sabhakhyana Parva, section 5; Ganguli edition, PDF version, p. 654), wherein Narada says to Yudhisthira:

“Consolest thou women and are they protected in thy realm? I hope thou placest not any confidence in them, nor divulgest any secret before any of them?”

And in the Ramayana 2.100.49, Lord Rama asks Bharata:

“Do you keep your womenfolk pacified? Are they duly protected by you? I hope you do not repose excessive faith in them and do not confide your secrets to them.”

In Krsna’s Vedic culture Women must be socially restricted.

Manu said that a woman must never be independent, not even in her own home:

“By a girl, a young woman, or even an aged one, nothing must be done independently, not even in her own house. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons. A woman must never be independent. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or sons. By leaving them she would make both (her own and her husband’s) families contemptible.” Manu-samhita 5.147–9

This certainly places many restrictions on her and excludes her from many social functions, what to speak of her being a diksa-guru. A diksa-guru must be able to make independent decisions, be fearless in traveling, in going into the public, etc.— all of which are restricted for women. Who would be protecting a female diksa-guru when, in the course of executing her guru-ship, she had to travel away from home? Would her male guardian (father, husband, son) always accompany her? If not, then she would be separating herself from her family, thereby making her family “contemptible.”

“The ruler who moves about is venerated, as also the brahmana and the yogi who travels, but a woman who wanders gets destroyed.” Canakya Pandita

We now consider the arguments presented by the SAC regarding why women should be diksa-gurus. Please note that in none of the “positive” evidence it presented was the SAC able to controvert Srila Prabhupada’s categorical statement (in reference to Suniti) that women cannot become a diksa-guru. In their attempt to contradict Srila Prabhupada, the SAC depend heavily on inference, secondary and tertiary levels of evidence, and extrapolation. The question arises: Is the SAC forcing the evidence to meet a predetermined goal?

———- Extract Ends ———-

Therefore it is nothing short of amazing how through sastric ‘research’ the SAC could come to the conclusion that “a mature, qualified, female devotee may accept the role of an initiating spiritual master” and also how the GBC could accept such points. Sastra is very clear about the role of women in society. There may have been some exceptions to this rule, but, THE EXCEPTION IS NOT THE RULE. In other words we can’t make the exceptions of any rule into rules or laws to be followed by mainstream.

Thus we see how the very opening statement of the GBC’s FDG 2019 paper is apasiddhantic, not based on sastric principles.

In the upcoming third part of this series we continue a line by line philosophical analysis of the SAC’s FDG 2005 resolution.