Comments Posted By Govindacarandasi BTS
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
AkruranÄtha Prabhu’s latest argument: “With respect to 4.12.32, Srila Prabhupada writes that Suniti could not initiate Dhruva because she was a woman, and specifically his mother. This raises the question, âWhat if she was not his mother?â
The problem with using this statement from the Purport of 4.12.32 as evidence that women can never give diksa is that it is not directly answering the question of whether women can give diksa. It refers indirectly to the issue, in passing, in the course of explaining why Suniti did not become diksa guru of Dhruva (although she was his siksa guru).
Our answer: Womanhood of SunÄ«ti is the first and general reason given by SP as to why she is not able to initiate her son i.e. Dhruva. Motherhood of SunÄ«ti is, however a more specific reason given. In this case, the general and specific reasons harmoniously complement each other and do not possess mutual contradiction; hence, womanhood of SunÄ«ti was also considered to be an obstacle for her being dÄ«ksÄ-guru of Dhruva. When SP says that because she was a woman, it means that womanhood is also an obstacle in giving initiation; however, her being his mother adds on to the previous disqualification. They don’t contradict each other. Neither is former overriden by the later. We don’t get any sense of such while reading SP’s original statements. This puts to rest all of AkruranÄtha Prabhu’s arguments.
Regarding AkruranÄtha Prabhu’s other argument as to the availability of numerous instructions on the allowance of women gurus given by SP, our answer is that in those pro-women guruship instructions, SP never specifically clarifies as to whether those women can be dÄ«ksÄ-gurus or not, since in our sampradÄya, there are four categories of gurus according to JÄ«va GosvÄmÄ«’s Bhakti Sandarbha. They are: 1) Vartma-pradarÅaka-guru, 2) DÄ«ká¹£Ä-guru, 3) Siká¹£Ä-guru, and 4) Bhajana or Åravaá¹a-Guru. SP very clearly and specifically states that Suniti’s womanhood and motherhood was not an obstacle in her becoming Dhruva’s Åiká¹£Ä-guru and vartma-pradarÅaka-guru. This clarification by SP puts to rest all inconsistencies appearing in pro-woman-guruship and anti-woman-guruship statements found in SP’s overall teachings of various hierarchical categories. So, whenever and wherever SP indicates a possibility for a woman guru, he means only the roles of Åiká¹£a and vartma-pradarÅaka-gurus. Hare Ká¹á¹£á¹a.
Comment Posted By Govindacarandasi BTS On 07.12.2012 @ 08:32