While I have not found much taste in following and participating in heated FDG (Female Diksha Guru) debates amongst devotees, recently again something on this topic came up on a friend’s FB timeline, discussing a frequently quoted letter of Śrīla Prabhupāda:
“I want that all of my spiritual sons and daughters will inherit this title of Bhaktivedanta, so that the family transcendental diploma will continue through the generations. Those possessing the title of Bhaktivedanta will be allowed to initiate disciples.” (Letter to Hansadutta, Los Angeles, Jan 3 1969) [1]
I have had some thoughts on this letter of Śrīla Prabhupāda in the past few years – from the point of view of education and educational qualifications, and will share them below.
So, the letter quoted above seems to imply that Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted his spiritual daughters to also inherit the title of Bhaktivedānta and be allowed to initiate disciples. But here I would like to talk about what does it actually mean to inherit the title of Bhaktivedānta? In the same letter Śrīla Prabhupāda explains (this part is rarely included in the quotes for FDG debates):
“Another examination will be held sometimes in 1971 on the four books, Bhagavad-gita, Srimad-Bhagavatam, Teachings of Lord Caitanya, and Nectar of Devotion. One who will pass this examination will be awarded with the title of Bhaktivedanta. (..) So we should not simply publish these books for reading by outsiders, but our students must be well versed in all of our books so that we can be prepared to defeat all opposing parties in the matter of self-realization.” (Letter to Hansadutta, Los Angeles, Jan 3 1969) [1]
Further details as to what the knowledge level of Bhaktivedānta degree would be are given by Śrīla Prabhupāda in a letter written on his behalf by HH Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Gosvāmī, his personal secretary, to ‘All Governing Body Commissioners’ on Jan 6, 1976 from Nellore, South India:
“His Divine Grace therefore wishes to institute examinations to be given to all prospective candidates for sannyasa and brahmana initiation. In addition he wishes that all present sannyasis and brahmanas also pass the examination. Awarding of these titles will be based upon the following books:
Bhakti-sastri – Bhagavad-gita, Nectar of Devotion, Nectar of Instruction, Isopanisad, Easy Journey To Other Planets, and all other small paperbacks, as well as Arcana-paddhati (a book to be compiled by Nitai Prabhu based on Hari-bhakti-vilasa on Deity worship)
Bhakti-vaibhava – All of the above plus the first six cantos of Srimad-Bhagavatam
Bhaktivedanta – All of the above plus cantos 7 through 12 of Srimad-Bhagavatam
Bhakti-sarvabhauma – All the above plus the entire Caitanya-caritamrta.”
(Letter to All Governing Body Commissioners, Jan 6, 1976, Nellore) [2]
So, Śrīla Prabhupāda wanted that official educational courses and examinations be established, and that all brāhmana-initiates, sannyāsīs and Gurus in our movement should prove a certain level of knowlegde of śāstra by passing the examinations. The Bhaktivedānta level of knowledge requires one to have a thorough knowledge of all the 12 cantos of Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, along with deep practical knowledge about Deity worship (Arcana-paddhati), and all the other books of Śrīla Prabhupāda, with the exception of Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta, which is an even higher level of study (Bhakti-sarvabhauma).
There is no widespread education and examinations for these higher-level degrees in our movement even today. It has been 50 years since Śrīla Prabhupāda’s instructed to have them. Where are those hordes of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s sons and daughters inheriting the title of Bhaktivedānta on a mass scale, and thus becoming qualified to contest their right to initiate on the basis of that 1969 letter? While Bhakti-śāstri courses are quite popular, and there are also a several places to get a Bhakti-vaibhava degree, how many Bhaktivedānta study courses are there, and how many devotees in our movement hold the degree? Without the proper qualification of actually having Bhaktivedānta degree/title, or even solid programs to provide it, this FDG argument on the basis of 1969 letter is more like children fighting over who will be a king or a queen in their game – they have no idea what the qualification is.
We heard that last year (March 2024) H.H. Jayapataka Mahārāja completed his Bhaktivedānta degree from Mayapur Academy [3] – the course was simply not available officially in our movement much earlier. (Bhaktivedānta Academy Mayapur has actually been developing and teaching these courses some years before, but sometimes they are dismissed in the mainstream ISKCON). All right, jaya, now we have one person in our movement officially holding the title of Bhaktivedānta! (I am not saying, of course, that HH JPS Mahārāja didn’t have this Bhaktivedānta level of knowledge and realization before receiving the diploma; I understand that he is setting the example for others by getting the degree. But here the discussion is about receiving the title as per Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letter.) And after H.H. Jayapataka Mahārāja received this degree, do we now see hundreds of devotees (male and female) rushing to the Mayapur Academy in great eagerness to inherit the Bhaktivedānta title? I do believe, of course, there are also other senior devotees (male and female) in our movement who have achieved that level of śāstric knowledge through their own personal study, service and realization, even without passing the examinations, but it seems that Śrīla Prabhupāda expected that for claiming official positions, such as an initiating guru, one should also get a degree/title.
From my experience as a woman who has been interested in deep śāstric study since my first days in Kṛṣṇa consciousness (being materially somewhat academically conditioned), and attempting such study through my own efforts and through several ISKCON study courses, I can personally assert that deeply studying śāstras and imbibing their message in such a way that one would be able to live and share it for others’ benefit, is a challenging effort on all levels – intellectual, emotional and spiritual. It requires a lot of work on one’s previous conditioning, completely overturning various erroneous ideas that we carry, especially from former material “education.” Deep study is also quite time-consuming, and thus difficult to manage for the busy life a of a woman who tries to also follow a śāstric lifestyle in gṛhastha-āśrama. (When we study śāstras, we are also supposed to live them, isn’t it?) And for those who might be celibate and serving full-time in ISKCON projects, how often are they given sufficient time to seriously study by their authorities? (When I was full-time temple inhabitant, it was a great struggle.) Personally, despite much interest and endeavor, but bound by various services, I have not gotten very close to the Bhaktivedānta degree yet. (Currently slowly nearing my Śāstra-cakṣus (Bachelor’s of Theology) degree from Bhaktivedanta Academy. Perhaps, it will get a little quicker as my youngest child is getting older.)
However, to whatever level my present śāstric knowledge and realization may be, I can at least claim to have made a sincere attempt at a serious study, and thus I can’t help to sometimes wonder how someone on the level of Bhaktivedānta (Doctor’s of Theology) would bring up 90% of the doubts and misgivings commonly found in FDG debates. In my humble observation, often these debates are even far below the Bhakti-śāstri level of understanding. Even on the Bhakti-śāstri level we are supposed to learn some basic tools of śāstric logic and debate, and have some understanding of the hierarchy of the various statements of śāstras and Śrīla Prabhupāda (e.g. what is the rule and what is exception). We should be somewhat familiar with how śāstric arguments are made and how they are refuted. E.g. most arguments “in favor” of the FDG have already multiple times been refuted by learned devotees, and the opposition has not given any proper answers to them, but still they do not accept their defeat, most likely either because they simply don’t understand that they have actually been defeated, or their character doesn’t allow them to accept defeat. With deep, sincere study of śāstras our character is supposed to improve and the mode of ignorance, which doesn’t allow us to tell right from wrong, is supposed to get less and less.
Even when studying the 1st chapter of Bhagavad-gītā we hear from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s purports about the different roles of men and women in the society, and further in Bhagavad-gītā we learn about acting in our position in varṇāśrama while offering the results of our work to Kṛṣṇa while thinking of Him. We learn how even a person who has transcended their body will continue to act according to their body in a vast majority of cases. Śrī Īśopaniṣad, another book for Bhakti-śāstri level study, instructs that we should learn knowledge and ignorance side by side. So we should know what a male and a female body is and how they work, instead of carelessly dismissing their differences and only [supposedly] looking at the soul. One who thoroughly studies the śāstras up to the 12th canto of Bhāgavatam would be expected to have an exceedingly deep understanding of how spiritual life is efficiently practiced in various bodies and social settings. One would be well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of both male and female gross and subtle bodies and how they affect the spiritual life of the practitioners inhabiting them. One would be aware of the utmost importance to maintain a pious lifestyle for the materially conditioned spiritual aspirants and to establish a social setting where the chance for illicit connections between men and women would be minimized. A woman actually possessing the level of education and realization worthy to be awarded the title of Bhaktivedānta, would not try to act in irreligious ways by claiming social equality with men. They would understand that a few exceptional cases do not make a rule. Such women might indeed be qualified or “allowed to” initiate, as per Śrīla Prabhupāda’s letter, but in the absence of an emergency they would most likely not accept such a role, due to their deep realizations and appreciation of traditional culture. Haridāsa Ṭhākura never claimed to be qualified to enter the temple of Lord Jagannātha, although he was most qualified, and Śrī Jagannātha as Lord Caitanya would come to visit him every day.
I strongly believe that once there are more male and female Bhaktivedāntas in our movement, by educational degree/title and by actual qualifications of character and understanding, and once it is such Bhaktivedāntas that lead the discussions on these matters (not someone who has very little idea of what a śāstric debate is), there would not be so many doubts, misgivings and confusion amongst devotees. So, the solution for FDG issues is education – which includes both deep śāstric study and the improvement of character. Before fighting over the right to initiate as per 1969 letter, let more and more of Śrīla Prabupāda’s sons, daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren actually inherit the title of Bhaktivedānta to properly understand and represent the desires of Śrīla Prabhupāda. Then FDG and many other issues will not cause so much disturbance in our movement. Hare Kṛṣṇa 🙏🙏🙏
References:
[1] Letter to Hansadutta: https://vedabase.io/en/library/letters/letter-to-hansadutta-22/
[2] Letter to All Governing Body Commissioners: https://vedabase.io/en/library/letters/letter-to-all-governing-body-commissioners/
Comments