In 2019 the GBC approved a resolution opening the doors to Vaishnavas in female bodies to also start acting as diksa gurus, just as their male counterparts. In one sense, this question seems to be easy enough: the relationship between guru and disciple is spiritual and not material, therefore it is a relationship between two souls and not between two bodies. The soul in a female body is not different from a soul in a male body, therefore it should not be a big question.
It may look simple in theory, but the implementation revealed much more polemical and divisive than perhaps originally thought. Although the resolution was passed almost five years ago, the topic is far from settled. There is a lot of opposition to it, especially in India, and there are even groups that want to separate from ISKCON due to it.
What makes this question so difficult, it that it mixes actually three separate factors:
The first is the philosophical discussion, if it is correct or not according to the sastras and the instructions of our acaryas. This discussion is not so simple, because the sastras deal with different principles that are applicable to different circumstances and such principles are often very difficult to reconcile. The fact that many tend to debate based on isolated quotes also does not help.
The second is the practical and cultural applications. Just because something is allowed, or even recommended in the sastras, does not mean it should be immediately implemented. In fact, there are many components of our philosophy (starting from Varnasrama) that although important are not being implemented yet because of different obstacles and difficulties. In most countries, the idea of ladies accepting disciples is usually welcomed, but in India and a few other places, there is fierce opposition from sectors of the society. The GBC tried to reconcile this with a resolution that gave the local leaders the choice of allowing or not female diksa gurus in their regions, but it seems that it was not sufficient to solve the question.
The third point is emotional responses. This is a polemical topic that makes many object not on a conscious level, but on an unconscious, emotional level. When there is an emotional response, no amount of philosophical arguments will solve the question. It seems that this is also a factor that needs to be addressed since even many of our acaryas would avoid secondary points that were not well accepted in the societies of their time to focus on more essential changes.
There is also another question, that is perhaps higher, which is the need for maintaining the unity of our movement. In the past, there were cases when whole groups of devotees who had different points of view to be just expelled from our movement, but in recent times this gave place to the concept of “unity in diversity”, which is more in line with instructions from Srila Prabhupada. The idea is that different groups may have different opinions on different philosophical matters or different cultural characteristics, and still be accepted as part of our society. One group may like rasagulas more, and another may prefer cupcakes, but this is not a reason to separate and become enemies.
It makes sense, right? To go forward we need to be united, and therefore unity is more important than minor differences in opinions and practices.
Considering this point, we need to find some way out of this question, that allows us to continue united as a society, even if the implementation of decisions must be reversed or postponed.
Another point that I would like to raise today is the famous passage from Srimad Bhagavatam where Prabhupada mentions that the mother of Druva Maharaja could not become his guru because she was a woman. This passage took a very central part of the discussion, with many taking it as irrefutable proof that Prabhupada was not in favor of any woman becoming an initiating guru.
“Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru. Still, he was not less obliged to Sunīti.” (SB 4.12.32)
It looks like a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada stating that ladies should never, at any time perform this service. Personally, I always had a problem with this interpretation, since it conflicts with other statements of Srila Prabhupada where he states that qualified ladies could initiate, although “not so many” ladies would be able to attain such level of qualification. One of the main characteristics of any bonafide acarya is consistency. If Srila Prabhupada would speak one thing at one point and the diametric opposite at another, it could very well shake one’s faith. Was Srila Prabhupada admitting his mistake? Did he change his mind?
One point about this verse is that what is printed in the pages of Srimad Bhagavatam is that almost all the books from Srila Prabhupada are actually a combination of the work of Srila Prabhupada himself dictating his purports, the typists, who had the service of transcribing it and the editors, who had the service of adjusting the text for the grammatical rules of modern English and adjusting it for clarity.
In the beginning, the manuscripts were going back and forth between Srila Prabhupada and the editors, but as his disciples became more experienced, Srila Prabhupada started to just record the tapes and just trust in the discretion of the editors, since it would just not be possible for him to be proofreading all the manuscripts before they were published.
This allowed Srila Prabhupada to perform his mission of writing and publishing his books, but also led to problems in a few passages, due to the lack of his personal supervision in all the phases of the process. Some are just small grammatical mistakes that passed the revision process, but others are a little bit more serious.
It seems that this particular passage may be one of these.
The transcription of the original tape (image attached, with the markings with the editor) says:
“Suniti, the mother of Druva Maharaja was the first who gave him instruction how to achieve the favor of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is the duty of the siksa guru or diksa guru to instruct the disciple the right way, and it depends on the disciple to execute the process. According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between siksa guru and diksa guru and generally the siksa guru becomes later on diksa guru. Suniti, however, being in family relationship with Druva, his mother, and also woman, could not become the diksa guru of Druva Maharaja. Still, he was not less obliged to Suniti.”
We can see that the words Srila Prabhupada recorded on tape convey a different idea than the final sentence printed in the book, emphasizing the familial relationship of Suniti and Druva. How the sentence ended up becoming so different could be the subject of another discussion, but the fact remains. We are left thus with the need to properly understand it.
Not only is uncommon for a father or mother to become the diksa guru for their children but at the time (Satya-yuga) people were following the vaidika system of initiation, instead of the pancaratric system that is current. The vaidika system is much more strict (appropriated for the time), barring ladies from even being initiated, what to say about giving initiation. The pancaratric system is much more liberal (more appropriate for our time), allowing people of lower birth or who had done sinful things in the past to accept initiation, or even give initiations, provided they become first qualified by following the appropriate process. If we take all these factors into consideration, it becomes clear what Srila Prabhupada is explaining here: Suniti, being Druva Maharaja’s mother, being a woman living in Satya-yuga, subjected to the rules of the vaidika system in use at the time, having not being initiated nor having received spiritual education, could not become diksa guru of Druva Maharaja. This passage doesn’t at all apply to the situation we have now, it is just irrelevant to the discussion of female diksa gurus being or not accepted in our current society.
Another point is the idea about the lack of distinction between the siksa and diksa gurus that Srila Prabhupada mentions. If one is qualified to act as siksa, he could also very well initiate, and vice versa. This also dismisses this artificial difference between siksa and diksa we frequently impose today, which is also at the center of this fratricidal discussion about ladies being allowed to initiate or not.