A Reply to the GBC Action Order 305 (2009)
BY: KRISHNA DEVI DASI
Oct 20, 2012 — INDIA (SUN) — This is the first part in a series of articles regarding Female Diksa Gurus in ISKCON. These papers comprise various texts that were commissioned by the Indian Regional Governing Body (IRGB) who strongly protested the whole idea, and felt that this was being imposed on them by the feminist controlled North American GBC. It should be noted that the GBC allegedly ordered the IRGB disbanded.
Before reading the response it would be wise to read the paper by the Sastra Adisory Council that it is responding to, which can be downloaded here.
A Reply to the GBC Action Order 305 (2009)
and the Sastra Advisory Committee's paper
"Female Diksa-gurus in ISKCON"
"Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Maharaja's diksa-guru." SB 4.12.32 purport
Dear members of the GBC,
Please accept our humble obiesances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
This is a response to the GBC Action Order 305 (2009), which authorized female diksa-gurus. We very strongly believe that for females to function as diksa-gurus is completely against sastra and the traditions and standards of Lord Krsna's Vedic civilization. We agree with Srila Rüpa Gosvami, who stated that the kind of so-called bhakti which is not based on sastra simply creates a disturbance in society:
sruti-smrti-puranadi-pancaratra-vidhià vina
aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
"Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upanisads, Puranas, and Narada-pancaratra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society." Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.2.101
The very fact that we, the IRGB, feel impelled to respond to GBC Action Order 305 indicates the potential polarizing effect likely to ensue if this Action Order is not rescinded. The following statements from that resolution raise some troubling thoughts:
"Whereas there is a factual need for more diksa-gurus in ISCKON to accommodate the worldwide preaching;
"Whereas there are mature female preachers qualified to take on diksa-guru responsibilities"
Certainly it is true that in a few geographical locations in the world (particularly India) ISKCON's preaching is booming. But in many other parts of the world (particularly North America and other Western zones), preaching has declined to the extent that it is commonly said, "Most temples have more Deities than devotees at mangal artika." While we do not wish to discourage the many sincere, hard-working preachers in the West, unfortunately that is the current scenario.
We also note that the desire to have female diksa-gurus is being pushed by leaders of zones wherein the state of ISCKON is in decline, where prospective initiates are not exactly waiting patiently in queue for female diksa-gurus to be created so that they can become initiated. In India, where persons are actually waiting for initiation, we do not see any need to contravene the sastra and create female diksa-gurus. We also note that in those zones where ISCKON is in decline, academics have observed the rise of feminism, and also have noted that, for obvious reasons, the feminists are loath to be called feminists. [1] So the question arises: What is the actual motive for pushing this agenda? Is it for "pushing on the preaching," or perhaps for pushing something else?
Canakya Pandita stated:
"A brahmana sees through the sastra, a king through his spies, a cow through her nose, and ordinary people with their eyes."
And, Lord Krsna gave His opinion:
"He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination. One should therefore understand what is duty and what is not duty by the regulations of the scriptures. Knowing such rules and regulations, one should act so that he may gradually be elevated." Gita 16.23–24
Since the GBC is the ultimate executive body of ISCKON, an organization whose aim is to reestablish Krsna's Vedic civilization, it is therefore incumbent upon the GBC to base all of its policy decisions firmly on the bedrock of sastra, rather than to conform with modern social trends. For indeed, to be "modern" is not actually modern at all, since even in ancient times Manu deprecated modernism as just another form of maya:
"All those (doctrines), differing from the (Veda), which spring up and (soon) perish, are worthless and false, because they are of modern date." Manu-smrti 12.95–96
To be "modern" is to exist in the ephemeral present, which has no duration. This is the definition of asat—nonexistent, unreal.
"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [asat] there is no endurance and of the eternal there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." Gita 2.16
Moreover, we should be careful not to allow our (Western influenced) materially conditioned nature to—by introducing secular, egalitarian values—undermine the sacred mission that we are pledged to fulfill.
"The great danger of conversion in all ages has been that when the religion of the high mind is offered to the lower mind, the lower mind, feeling its fascination without understanding it, and being incapable of rising to it, drags it down to its level by degrading it." George Bernard Shaw
We in ISCKON have two choices: either to affect society or be affected by society. The former will fulfill our mission; the latter will destroy it. In the following quote from former U.S. Attorney General and Federal Judge Robert H. Bork, please simply substitute "ISCKON" for "Roman Catholic Church" and contemplate the situation:
"Radical egalitarianism and individualism have altered much in American life. The question of just how irresistible they are, the test case of whether any institution can maintain its integrity in the face of the deforming pressures of a modern liberal culture is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. What is to be seen is whether the church can maintain its doctrines and its institutional structure in the face of pressure both from without and from within.
"The Roman Catholic Church is the test case because, as Hitchcock put it, ‘few religions in the history of the world have placed more emphasis on doctrinal purity, liturgical correctness, and moral authenticity than has the Catholic Church. . . . If at almost all times in the history of the church, a concern for orthodoxy has been paramount, the contemporary Church has an eerie feel about it precisely because of the absence of that concern.' If, despite powerful and orthodox American bishops, orthodoxy is no longer a major concern in the American church, that is surely a sign that the church is giving way to the culture. The church's opposition to abortion, homosexual conduct, and the ordination of women is under attack and appears to be a minority position among the Catholic laity, perhaps even among the American bishops. If the church gives way on any of those issues, the culture will have effectively destroyed it. The other reason the church arouses hostility is that its structure is hierarchical and authoritative, in addition to the fact that its priesthood is male. It has clear lines of authority of the pope. These are matters that create no small outrage in the egalitarians of our time, and one sees even within the church demands that it be democratized, that it accept beliefs and behavior it has always condemned, and that it accept radical alterations of its ancient structure. Columnists pronounce the church out of touch with the people in the pews and find that reason for the church to change."
"That is not reason for the church to change. The protestant mainline denominations are out of touch with the people in the pews because the churches' leadership changed, moving well to the left of their membership. That is a different situation than a church that is trying to remain unchanged while the culture changes its members. If the church changes doctrine and structure to follow its members' views, it is difficult to see the value of that church and its religion. Religions must claim to be true and, in their essentials, to uphold principles that are universal and eternal. No church that panders to the zeitgeist deserves respect, except from those who find it politically useful, and that is less respect than disguised contempt." [2]
As a basis for making its decision, the GBC has used the conclusions of the SAC paper, as evidenced by the statement:
"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."
Therefore we shall respond to that paper and demonstrate how it is wrong and does not prove its thesis, and that consequently the GBC should rescind Action Order 305 (2009) and thereby avoid creating a disturbance to society.
(To be continued…)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Rochford, E. Burke, Hare Krishna Transformed. New York: New York University Press, 2007 (ch. 5).
[2] Bork, Robert, H., Slouching Towards Gomorrah, New York: Regan Books, 1997.
