By Kaunteya Das
I wish to publicly commend Devaki Mataji for clarifying her position and for formally aligning with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on the issue of women diksa-gurus.
On 27 November 2013 she wrote:
“I am not categorically against women serving as Diksa Gurus. How can one, if Prabhupada says that ‘there will not be many’, and if in our line there has been women in that role of Diksa Gurus?! It is almost absurd to me to be categorically against it. But obviously the qualification has to be there.”
Yes; “the qualification has to be there” (which is a principle for both men and women), who could disagree on this?
[By the way, Srila Prabhupada never said that “there will not be many.” Srila Prabhupada, when he said “not so many,” was referring to the past, not to the future.]I feel relieved for Devaki Mataji because there has been an attempt to show that she supported the “anti-FDG” views. By formally subscribing to the GBC position (“a mature, qualified, female devotee may accept the role of initiating spiritual master.”) Devaki Mataji has silenced that misrepresentation.
I am glad that she has put to rest the speculation and cleared all the mistaken interpretations; I am relieved – for her – that she clarified her position:
Devaki Mataji accepts the principle that women can become diksa-gurus (when qualified, obviously).
So, thank you very much Devaki Mataji for clearing up your name
Drutakarma dasa, member of the SAC in 2006 stated:
“Two years ago, the GBC asked its Sastra Advisory Committee, of which I’m a member, to do some research on this topic. And we produced a statement which was later accepted by the Governing Body Commission. And basically we found that there are other places where Srila Prabhupada is directly asked: “Can women devotees become initiating spiritual masters in our society.” And on one occasion, in particular, a professor asked him this question specifically and he said, “Yes” and he gave the example of Jahnava Devi, the wife of Lord Nityananda.”
Srila Prabhupada was not actually asked the question, “Can women devotees become initiating spiritual masters in our society.” The question was:
“Is it possible, Swamiji, for a woman to be a guru in the line of disciplic succession?”
“A guru” does not necessarily mean “diksa guru” and Prabhupada nowhere directly presents Jahnava Devi as an initiating spiritual master.
Srila Prabhupada – Lecture on BG 13.3 — Hyderabad, April 19, 1974:
“So this is going on. What you do not know exactly—simply theoretically you put some theories and speculate—that is not knowledge.
But our process, we are getting knowledge from the perfect personality. That is Vedic system. You acquire knowledge from a person who is perfect in knowledge.
Perfect in knowledge and imperfect in knowledge.
So long we are imperfect, we cannot give perfect knowledge.
Therefore we must find out knowledge from the perfect person. That is Vedic injunction. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum eva abhigacchet (MU 1.2.12).
Guru. Guru means one who has got perfect knowledge.
One who hasn’t got perfect knowledge, he cannot become guru. How he can? Guru means heavy. So if I am light and I take knowledge from another light person, then what is the use of such knowledge?”
Kaunteya states
Does this mean that women in the past didn’t rise to the high standards of devotional service like our ISKCON women? That women like Pishima what to speak of Kunti, Draupadi, and Devahuti were only kanisthas and not on the level of our ISKCON women and hence were not qualified to be FDG. Or, were there some other reasons that mahabhagavatas in female bodies didn’t take up the service of being a diksha guru?
Hare Krsna, dandavats to all! AGTSP!
Thank you very much for Sugriva prabhu for his very nice point.
I read Bhakti Ratnakara and Prema Vilasa book, in these books there is a lot of things about the amazing character of Sri Jahnava mata. Please note that not in any of these books she is called ‘prabhu’, although very respected even by the goswamis of Vrindavana and quoted in the song ‘Jay Radha, Jay Krsna’ and have her eternal place in Radha Kunda with so many great souls. In these books she is called “Sri”, “Sri Isvari”, “Srimati”, and when she was in the very first famous festivals she was cooking for all the devotees and Srinivas Acarya was giving class. in the Prema Vilasa book it said that she was also Viracandra prabhu’s spiritual master (he was son of the another wife of Nityananda prabhu).
So, coming back to the point I’d like to say that I loved Devaki Mataji’s article and she was very brave to say the truth and I was very proud of all the devotees that very soberly support her, it is so nice to see how the prabhus and matajis are in line with Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and not afraid of any politics.
I’m in ISKCON for 24 years and I’m also engage in preaching activities, and I just want to share with you that we don’t need any title for doing preaching, we just need commitment with the order of the spiritual master, that’s all, like Srila Prabhupada said “I have no personal qualification”.
If a woman will be a diksha guru, if she is qualified to do so, we don’t need any petition, she will be recognized!
There are so many condition souls in need of this Maha Mantra, in need of Srila Prabhupada’s books, and we can feel completely ecstatic doing service in that way without any title, position, nothing, actually you feel so connected to Krsna and guru that you feel completely satisfied to be a servant of the servant.
I hope that my 2 cents contribution doesn’t irritate anyone.
your servant at Srila Prabhupada’s mission
Nitya Kishora dd
From the WDG book (p.20):
“But, one might ask, how to apply unity in diversity in connection with women dīkṣā-gurus? … One way to have unity could be to prevent women from becoming dīkṣā-gurus but allow them to become śikṣā-gurus; this could be considered as fulfilling both the need for unity (throughout the whole world, only men can initiate) and diversity different roles for different genders). Another attempt at unity in diversity could be to accept the tenet that women can become dīkṣā-gurus but allow them to initiate only in some places and not in others. Both options, however – as this book explains – present serious theological and logistical problems. Another way – we believe a better way – to fulfill the need for unity is embracing the fundamental, overarching principle that women, if qualified, can become dīkṣā-gurus. ”
Official position expressed in SAC paper uses the word “rare” several times which indicates that FDG is an exceptional, not “overarching” principle.
I wish Kaunteya Prabhu clarified his stance on the issue. It appears that he is seeking parity between male and female gurus and it’s not what SAC paper recommends.
Also, “unity in diversity”, in which name Kaunteya Prabhu’s book recommends to widely introduce FDG, is not important enough to start modifying guru-disciple relationships that are governed strictly by Krishna. Our compliance with “unity in diversity” will not legitimize dīkṣā, only Krishna can do that.
“Unity in diversity is ISKCON’s underlying worldview and theological doctrine – its theory of everything” (WDG, p 19) – it is, but Srila Prabhupada used this phrase as a descriptive term when explaining concepts like acintya-bhedābheda-tattva, not in the modern, post-Prabhupada sense of society building, ie overcoming apartheid in South Africa or EU motto.
Modern sense of the phrase is important and is in line with Krishna consciousness, too, but in this sense it’s the “unity in diversity” that should accommodate receiving proper dīkṣā, not the other way around.
Like Nitya Kishori dasi I also appreciated the very perceptive point that Sugriva Prabhu made in #3
I am waiting for a response from Kaunteya Prabhu, or even Her Grace Mother Urmila, but preferably from Kaunteya Prabhu. It is a simple question, but till now it has been left unanswered.
“Does this mean that women in the past didn’t rise to the high standards of devotional service like our ISKCON women? That women like Pishima what to speak of Kunti, Draupadi, and Devahuti were only kanisthas and not on the level of our ISKCON women and hence were not qualified to be FDG. Or, were there some other reasons that mahabhagavatas in female bodies didn’t take up the service of being a diksha guru?” A very good question.
infact in the whole episode between draupadi and ashvattama, draupadi was right in letting ashvattama go without killing him. this is since he was born in a high class family. Krishna tests arjuna by provoking him to kill ashvattama saying abhimanyu being an aggressor should be killed. The final teaching is that a brahmana should not be punished even if he is an aggressor(greatest sin).
Thus Srimati Draupadi was right in respecting ashwattama. However Srila Prabhupada makes the following note in http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/42/en ” Women as a class are no better than boys, and therefore they have no discriminatory power like that of a man.” One must be really open to note why Srila Prabhupada made such a statement which looks out of context. He hada all chances to praise a women who was right while her husband arjuna was wrong . Infact SP refers to draupadi as “good lady” all through the remaining purports.
Though there may be many incidents within gaudiya history, the intent is to know what is Srila Prabhupadas opinion in FDG matter. Srila Prabhupada was on a fast track in preaching. He indeed used his female disciples to preach. But why not including atleast one women in the 13 members list . Along with what srila prabhupada said, we must also see what he did. Did he create a system to have his female disciples chant on beads and distribute on His behalf like the way he did through his Temple presidents? A honest look at his books , lectures and morning walks will reveal His desire for woman to be in household.
“As a man must follow great personalities like Brahmā and Nārada, a woman must follow the path of such ideal women as Sītā, Mandodarī and Draupadī. By staying chaste and faithful to her husband, a woman enriches herself with supernatural power. ” SB 9.10.27
Consider that not giving diksa was part of the traditional understanding/constitutional position of womanhood which these great chaste women followed (SB 1:8:19), having faith it pleases the Supreme Lord. Women not giving diksa is a long-standing traditional principle which Prabhupada touches upon in his 4.12.32 purport about Suniti not initiating Dhruva. Eye of the Storm questions the relevance of this tradition in our current time; however, nowhere does Prabhupada say, write, or demonstrate that the vaisnava tradition of women not being diksa gurus, is an irrelevant principle today.
Narada, the founder of pancaratrika, states sudras (men) perform sacrifices “without uttering mantras” (amantra-yajnah) SB 7.11.24. Prabhupada writes in the purport:
“A śūdra may attend sacrifices and Vedic ritualistic ceremonies along with his master, but he should not utter the mantras, for these may be uttered only by the members of the higher sections of society. Unless one is completely pure and has been raised to the standard of a brāhmaṇa,kṣatriya or vaiśya—in other words, unless one is dvija, twice-born—the chanting of mantras will not be fruitful.”
In the case of Prabhupada’s letter of April 4, 1971 where Prabhupada encloses Vaikunthanatha’s brahmana’s thread and requests Saradiya, or another twice-initiated devotee, perform the fire ceremony, we have to ask ourselves,WHO WAS THE INITIATOR?? Even if Saradiya had repeated the gayatri mantra to her husband, which Prabhupada had enclosed in the letter, given him his brahmana thread from Prabhupada, and performed the fire ceremony, she still would not have been the one giving diksa.